GOD ? or Evolution?

[winston Smiths Diary]

OK!

I have already debated the existence of the moon, George Bush and JFK!

But what about GOD?

Do you believe in GOD? as a scientist I have in my time came across the theory of Evolution etc, it seems a very good theory and has lots of good things going for it, it is most likely that this theory is true as there is some evidence pointing to this fact.

But if we indeed did evolve, what happens to the GOD making everyone theory? its gone out of the window, and no matter how many people I ask I can never seem to find any PHYSICAL PROOF that GOD exists.

All I get is people quoting the bible to me, which is no good to me at all as this would not hold up in court as physical proof,

So can any one here actually give me the physical proof I am looking for without quoting the bible?

Thank you please.

[TrippinBTM]

GOD ? or Evolution?

Why not both? Why must people keep going on with this false duality? As if the existance of a god would negate evolution, or that evolution negates God... At most, evolution only disagrees with a small part of Hebrew scripture (the first few parts of genesis).

I really doubt anyone can give you any proof of God that you would accept (nor any I would accept). But though God may not be provable like evolution, that doesn't preclude his existance. It may be that we are thinking of God in the wrong way, and so our search is stymied.

[winston Smiths Diary]

In order to believe in something I would prefer to see some physical proof, rathere that just belive a fairy tale-like story, like santa claus!

[astralgoldfish]

ok well, my personal opinion is that god (a omniscient, omnipotent spiritual energy, non biblical) created a variety of creatures that adapted and changed into the species we have today. My reason for believing in a creator is that a complex chemical like DNA cannot just be formed by chance from chemicals in the sea. Even if the individual component chemicals miraculously managed to float into each other, surely this is not sufficient to spawn an incredibly complex (despite being one-celled) phenominon such as the (alledged) first life on earth.

So I think it probable that life must have been created by design at some point. If it was so easy to create life from scratch that it happened by fluke in the sea, how come we can only manipulate already existing life or DNA. I have never heard of DNA being created completely artificially and with the result of a new life form.

I think a variety of creatures were created because I do not believe evolution has sufficient evidence to prove that we all came from amoebas. It is obvious to see that animals adapt over the generations to suit their environments. Strong genetic traits flourishing and breeding more etc. But the whole survival of the fittest evolution theory doesn't explain how new DNA can be formed in order to create new species.

For example- Exact beak shape is a natural variable in bird DNA, just as eye colour in humans. A bird hatched with a beaked shaped to give it a superior ability to eat nuts (or whatever) has many offspring due to it's sucess, many of which are likely to carry it's beak shape advantage, and wil also flourish, gradually dispersing that genetic strength down the generations. The shape of that beak was already present in their parents DNA.

For any previously aquatic animal to begin the process of developing in order to become the first amphibious life there has to be one parent (exclusively aquatic DNA, no adaptations for processing air in its genetic history) that has an offspring with the beginnings of lung tissue as an adaptation. This new lung tissue gene cannot have come from the DNA of either parent. It is entirely new, and except for genetic mutations (which are almost always undesirable deformaties, not original, useful organs) , that is not possible through natural breeding. Strong traits survive, but new ones are not spontaneously formed.

There are many examples along the amoeba to man chain where new DNA would have to be formed. I think most likely there was some form of mammal, reptile, fish, amphibian, bird in the first place to adapt into the current species. I believe that this if anything supports (but doesn't prove) the existance of a higher power at work as a guiding force in the process. It doesn't even really disprove the christian creation story, as the link from man-monkey is still so ridden with giant gaps that it is uncertain.

[winston Smiths Diary]

Your opinion is duly noted young man!


although I like the whole evolution thing better I must admit.

If You can answer this please do,

God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever.

what happend when the dinosours came?

Man and dinosaurs dont mix well as we have seen on Jurassic Park, so what Happened?

Did man just hide for a few years?

Also why did God, out of all the many planets in the universe, which he made only make life on one planet and why did he name it Earth?

[TrippinBTM]

In order to believe in something I would prefer to see some physical proof, rathere that just belive a fairy tale-like story, like santa claus!
I agree, but then, I also think it's foolish to take such a fairy tale at face value (that is, literally). Most are metaphorical, you have to read into them for the message. And anyways, spiritual beliefs are never going to be proved in the way evolution is proved (scientific inquiry). It is an inward, personal route, not empirical in nature, rather, it is experiential; known through the experience. It's like a whole different way of knowing, a seperate but parallel branch from science.

[peacefulwind14]

And anyways, spiritual beliefs are never going to be proved in the way evolution is proved (scientific inquiry).

Exactly. We will never (dis)prove the existence of God through logical reasoning.

And Winston, it seems that you are more trying to disprove the Jewish/Catholic scriptures, or their beliefs in God. And, although I don't particularly disagree with you when it comes to that, it wouldn't disprove the existence of a God not revealed through "holy texts."

[the dauer]

I'm not trying to defend genesis (which is exactly what I am about to do), but you still seem to have some information mixed up so I'm going to respond.


God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever.

what happend when the dinosours came?

The animals were created first. We have no idea how much took place before man was created because it's not relevant to the story of mankind and then the Jews.

Also why did God, out of all the many planets in the universe, which he made only make life on one planet and why did he name it Earth?

How do you know God only made life on this planet? All that can be ascertained from Genesis is that God created life on this planet. It would not be relevant to the story of mankind and then the Jews (I would suggest that even this is only part of the story of the Jews) to go into a long talk about how God created life on another planet. It's not teaching scientific truth. If it were it would get much more specific on all the little intricacies of creation. It's more interested in the spiritual truths that arise through the telling of creation.

Further, nowhere in the masoretic text does the word Earth appear. Of course you were addressing somebody else and I happened to check in on this thread.

Dauer

edit: It's funny because I'm having a related conversation from something closer to your position somewhere else.

[juggla]

why not believe in both? do you think god could explain to the ancients how he created life if he started talking about genetics and evolution, he'd use language theyd understand at the time.

[TrippinBTM]

For example- Exact beak shape is a natural variable in bird DNA, just as eye colour in humans. A bird hatched with a beaked shaped to give it a superior ability to eat nuts (or whatever) has many offspring due to it's sucess, many of which are likely to carry it's beak shape advantage, and wil also flourish, gradually dispersing that genetic strength down the generations. The shape of that beak was already present in their parents DNA.

For any previously aquatic animal to begin the process of developing in order to become the first amphibious life there has to be one parent (exclusively aquatic DNA, no adaptations for processing air in its genetic history) that has an offspring with the beginnings of lung tissue as an adaptation. This new lung tissue gene cannot have come from the DNA of either parent. It is entirely new, and except for genetic mutations (which are almost always undesirable deformaties, not original, useful organs) , that is not possible through natural breeding. Strong traits survive, but new ones are not spontaneously formed
I don't want to tell you what to believe, but your understanding of evolution seems somewhat limited. New DNA formed through mutations is indeed often harmful, usually the young are never even born. A good deal more of the mutations are neutral, so they serve no immediate advantage. A small amount are adventageous. However, both neutral and adventageous mutations are copied and passed down. Neutral now might end up serving a useful function later. Also, most new features evolve from old features that serve a different purpose. Evolution builds on existing hardware, but small changes in DNA can effect significant changes in usage patterns. I don't have the space here to explain it, nor would I do a great job, check out your library if you're interested.

As far as beak shapes as an example...there is always a variety of features in an existing population due to slightly varying forms of that gene (called an allele, these variations are the result of simple genetic variability, caused by mutation and/or genetic recombination during reproduction). The beaks aren't all the same exact shape but vary slightly in the population. So some birds may be better at cracking this nut than others, but it doesn't matter because there's plenty of other types of nuts. But then say a drought hits, and the food is limited mainly to one type of nut...birds that already have that variety of the beak that helps them eat that nut will survive (and thus reproduce) more effectively. Yes, the shape was already in the population, but it's not hard for such new shapes to form. All it takes is a tiny change in, say, a gene that codes for timing of how long another gene that controls the beak growth is expressed. If these cells grow for a bit longer or shorter, the shape of the beak is changed.

Small changes in complex systems can have large effects, given enough time. The adaptive power of life is amazing, and over billions of years of evolution, I see it as no difficulty for life to evolve from single cells to the amazingly complex life we have now. The time scales are so vast, and life reproduces very quickly in most species (hours, days, weeks, or months for most species). This means DNA is copied very very often, giving ample opprotunity for change.

[shaba]

First, you must take alook at our planet we call Earth. In the vastness of the Universe, the Infinity that we cannot possibly comprehend when we look among the stars, you have to ask yourself (possibly zoning of a joint:H) are we alone? I believe strongly in the distance of our planet from our mother star, has to do with everything that we know and feel and smell and touch and taste and see in this spacetime. Our planet formed because of the gravitational force of our sun, bringing together parts of floating, highly radiating metallic-rock, in the early infant universe, to form and give birth to a complex weather system, which formed the clouds to give us WATER. This my friends can be argued as an act of a GOD, or totally by chance. But, as I asked you before if this happened by chance why could this not have happened elsewhere. The odds might be alot higher than we assume, because when you have a infinite number, then the chances are possibly infinite as well. There is absolutely no way in knowing, all we can do as humans is sit and wonder. Evolving and adapting go hand in hand. That is why we stand on two feet. The earth changed dramatically over billions of years, we came down from the trees in search for food, and the rest is history. But the crazy thing is, that I always wonder, is the NEXT EVOLUTION of the HOMO SAPIEN. Imagine that!? because when you take a look at evolution you see it telescoping if you look at the time scales that are involved here, "two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it, And then when you get to agriculture, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you're looking at 10,0000 years, 400 years, 150 years, What this means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's going to telescope to the point we should be able to manifest it within our lifetime, within a generation." So, are you prepared to Evolve?

[mati]

from a house, a builder is inferred. from Nature, nothing so certain is evident but nor is the negative provable. considering that the question is unanswerable, maybe it would be better to concentrate our energy on subjects that will tend to increase our knowledge about that which concerns us.

[juggla]

argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat, a century from now people will be laughing about there being creationists. again evolution doesnt give us the moral of why, it gives us the how, people who ask why man is what he is turn to god, if you wanna know about how we came to be enroll in a biology class.

[quotient]

Winston


when you look at the world around you does it lead you to believe intelligent design or random chaos?

the universe is finely tuned, axial tilt etc...etc
the flagella motor in bacteria,
your eye,...irreducible complexity
heat death

Naturalism neccessarily ends in Existentialism and Nihilism, and they have a problem with the logic of their belief system from morals. That is "whatever is truth to you is truth for you", this is prevalent on this site. However once you find that they care for something you have them in a corner. For example, why did Nietzsche write crybaby letters home to mama?
out of time sorry.

[thumontico]

The point was that it was possible for someone to become a reformed nihilist. Revaluating values and such.

[quotient]

thumontico,

I love the dancing men but it is very distracting as I am simple minded and we are discussing important and complex issues. :) just kidding,....about the importance.

I didn't complete earlier post, had to run.

As the soft spot of existentialism is from morals, so the soft spot for theology has been from evil as your quote above shows. I do not suppose to be able to answer the questions that have perplexed the greatest minds of history as it seems many on this site are able to do with arrogance.

However I do suppose to be able to properly form the questions and the arguments and it is rather nice to be able to do it in such a relaxed atmosphere, though I have seen some tempers on here.

Belief claims are very difficult to defend, whatever they may be. Truth is almost impossible to prove, whatever it may be. Thus I prefer not to make belief claims, I'm a wimp. I would add, in the category of some of the greatest minds, socrates professed to know nothing, Newton had the honesty to admit he did not know the why of gravity and refused to postulate a hypotheses. Enough.

Theology is currently taken to defending the argument from evil by means other than "greater good" and they have admitted the circuitousness of "greater good". That is, if every evil either brings about a greater good or prevents a greater evil" then to prevent evil would be to prevent a greater good or the stopping of a greater evil.

example "if Tom had not died in that car wreck then Suzy would have never joined the church and accepted Christ" Logic says christians should want more people to die in car wrecks so that more people can accept Christ. Surely this is not the case and you can think of an example of preventing a greater evil....etc...etc.

The more recent writings on the topic present a "best of all worlds scenario". My apologies to the men working on this as I will surely butcher it. Basically this world, as bad as it is with evil and all, is the best possible world out of all possible worlds God could have created. For God to have a meaningful relationship with man it was neccessary for man to be able to make moral choices (free will). Evil then exist because of mans moral (or not moral) choices. God has never promised to stop all evil in this world(this could be a whole other subject, admitted) so the existence of evil does not count against him being all good and all powerful. Also you must accept that all powerful does not mean that he can do the non doable, ie create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift.

I must run out again, I have a young son with places to be.

[Alsharad]

argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat, a century from now people will be laughing about there being creationists. again evolution doesnt give us the moral of why, it gives us the how, people who ask why man is what he is turn to god, if you wanna know about how we came to be enroll in a biology class.
Even evolutionists vigorously debate the nature of evolutionary theory. The thinking that evolution is without reasonable challenge is to ascribe to scientific dogma surrounding the theory. Even evolutionists disagree as to the mechanism, so saying that "argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat" does little more than demonstrate ignorance regarding the arguments being thrown around by the disunified factions within the scientific community.

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]

[shaba]

I came across this extremely intresting article about God & Evolution. Take A Look - http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1423450,00.html

Its titled Test of Faith - Religion may be a survival mechanism. So are we born to believe?

[Kopojokoingo]

Evolution...definantley, But why is it that evolution in it's self cannot be spiritual....

There was a Nebula (gas and dust) some forces caused a great swirling in the nebula, and our solar system was created, and in our solar system our plantes, and in our planets bacetria, and from the bascteria fish, then from fish reptiles and so forth up to humans....Essentially we were created from dust....and eventually thats where our organic containers (bodies) will return....but the more amazing thing (to me) is not where we evolved from ect it is life it's self, All these organs and cells working in perfect unison (most of the time0 to create one living thinking breathing peice of matter, that utilizes all of the resources about it (not just humans all living things)

Forget where we came from, And just stand in awe of the mind boggling-ness of Life it's self.

[gonjbob]

there is two kinds Evolution and evolution the first means the theoy of Evolution the latter means things change over time to adaped. there is no solid proof the theoy is true the guy who came up with it said we would find it in the fossels. but we have not. insted animals are just there. yes they found changes in animals but they have yet to find animals changing into othere animals. why is there still crocodiles shouldn't they have evoled.

if you look at all things space, earth, life they all have intelegent disign.

don't think of god in the context of the bible or any othere religen becuase man knows nothing.

think of the big bang theoy. one thing they don't adress much is what was befor it. nothing . so what caused it?

[spooner]

And if you're looking for physical proof of good, the best advice I can give you is to examine St. Thomas Aquinas... He was a pre-renaissance religious philosopher who came up with the 5 proofs of god.

[spooner]

On a different note, it's possible to recreate the early atmosphere in a laboratory and when electricity is added (ie. lightening) simple proteins arrange, the precursor to life. It's a pretty big jump from there to the first cell tho.

[Zion]

Are your a creation? If so how, could you not have a creator? Do you exist? If so, How could you exist, from nothingness? How could something be produced from nothing? One could ask:Tehn what created GOD. If something created GOD, and somthing created that GOD, and so forth and so on are you not speaking of infinicy? Deducing that God is infinte, due the interconnection of these GODs. So really There is only one GOD regardlessly.
But I like us all am just a human, meiraculaslly existing.

[ryupower]

There's this thing called creationism,-look it up! ;)

It's got some disproof of evolution, and also proof of its own.

[Mr MiGu]

Are your a creation? If so how, could you not have a creator? Do you exist? If so, How could you exist, from nothingness? How could something be produced from nothing? One could ask:Tehn what created GOD. If something created GOD, and somthing created that GOD, and so forth and so on are you not speaking of infinicy? Deducing that God is infinte, due the interconnection of these GODs. So really There is only one GOD regardlessly.
But I like us all am just a human, meiraculaslly existing.

could we not extend this logic further, saying god0 created material existence, god1 created god0, etc to infinity. Instead of deducing that god is infinite and hence there is 1 infinite god which created material existence, could it not be possible that material existence is infinite, ie that 'god' is everything around us.

[mati]

In what part of the impression does the idea of a creator exist? Simply saying that a creation must have a creator is not saying anything much and reducing the question to a mere verbal dispute, a circular argument that doesn't go anywhere.

[TrippinBTM]

In what part of the impression does the idea of a creator exist? Simply saying that a creation must have a creator is not saying anything much and reducing the question to a mere verbal dispute, a circular argument that doesn't go anywhere.
Exactly. It starts with the assumption that we are creations. That is not a fact, just an opinion. We may alternatively just be here. Not created, just existing.

[Zion]

Regardless of weather we exist or not, Something is or is not happening. I see now that the question is irrelavent wholistically, but I still enjoy offering thanks to the universe. For my owne appreciation and for being grateful to and for such an experience.

[Zion]

In many ways you two( mati and trippen) are saying the exact same things as we are
could we not extend this logic further, saying god0 created material existence, god1 created god0, etc to infinity. Instead of deducing that god is infinite and hence there is 1 infinite god which created material existence, could it not be possible that material existence is infinite, ie that 'god' is everything around us. (Exactly what I was getting at)
Thus if all is one, than even if we dont exist we still dont exist within GOD

[Esty]

although I like the whole evolution thing better I must admit.

If You can answer this please do,

God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever.

what happend when the dinosours came?

Man and dinosaurs dont mix well as we have seen on Jurassic Park, so what Happened?

Did man just hide for a few years?

Also why did God, out of all the many planets in the universe, which he made only make life on one planet and why did he name it Earth?i'm with you more than any other that's commented here....except for one thing you said...." God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever".....you said it with such certainty....how do you know they were the 1st ones?...the fables you read, written by monks, centuries after the alleged incident supposedly occurred...

i mean....what qualified these guys to be god's biographers?

scopes theory's objective...it's traceable, plausible ....god is subjective, based on belief and desire to be true...

personally it is what it is to us all because of how we were groom'd as kids....we want to believe something, regardless of which side of the fence it's on, so that's our truth.....just maybe not the factual truth

[The Chemical Comrade]

See for me I choose to ignore both major theories accepted by the main audience and instead opt out on trying to figure out how we got here. Instead I figure isn't the more important question where are we going from here?

[ryupower]

Evidence against evolution (have fun! :) ):


http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html
http://www.ghg.net/hollaway/isevolut.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
http://www.serve.com/revev/revev5.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
http://www.designeduniverse.com/articles/Evidence_Disproving_Evolution/evidence_disproving_evolution.html
http://www.projecttruth.org/Project%20Truth/PTCreation/SciencePapers/darwinerupts.htm
http://www.branchministry.net/bibleteachings/evolutionfoolishness.htm
http://heresies.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/Entropy.html


Darwin HIMSELF even said that his theory was wrong,- in his book!

I used to believe in evolution.However, Some stuff...just doesn't make sense.

I don't think dinosaurs could evolve FEATHERY wings by jumping off trees.

And how could you get ORGANS (like the brain) from amoibas??

Most of all, how does a creature 'evolve' scales,skin,hair,etc.. if the ONE CELLED creature doesn't even contain this DNA?

[PhantomOpus]

Ryu, here is where I show you that everything you believe in is wrong.

A one-celled creature might have the DNA for scales. But it's not going to be expressed, because it's useless to a one-celled creature and would probably be maladaptive.

You should pay more attention in English class. Darwin's quote, taken directly from your link, was "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin did not say that his theory is wrong. What he said is that the Earth does not contain a perfect nor even complete catalogue of all the species to which it has ever played host - he said that we _will not_ find examples of every infinitesimal graduation between species, because not every animal has been preserved. He is saying that those who reject the science of geology will reject his theory as a valid (though untrue) logical conclusion.

And now to refute your "proofs." Not that you're going to take the time to read any of this, because you'd prefer to remain willfully ignorant. Some of these (1-4, for example) actually agree with some things you've pointed to, so I strongly suggest that you read all of these articles and take them to heart.

Site 1:
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
4) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html
5) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
7) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
8) I don't even need to link for this one; if we could make oil in a laboratory we wouldn't be drilling Alaska and invading the Middle East for this commodity.
9) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
10) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
11) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
12) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712_1.html
13) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html
14) I can handle this one myself, too: That is based on a fallacious assumption that the Nile has always flowed at its current vector (volume, velocity, and direction).
15) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
16) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH134.html
17) "Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created." The Silmarillion says that Iluvatar created Ea, so it must be true. Get a grip.

Site 2:
The author of this site is an idiot. He uses the famous peppered moth example ( http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm ) and says, "Now, why was there an apparent change in the moth's color? Did it change color to adapt to its environment? No, the light moths were very simply eaten by the birds." This man demonstrates the thickheadedness of most fundamentalist Creationists - the moth DID adapt, in fact that is an absolutely perfect example of adaptation. "The moth" does not refer to individuals, but to the species as a whole. Individuals do not evolve, they merely serve as stepping stones in the process of evolution.
Do not listen to what morons say.

Site 3:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

Site 4:
This site is discredited as easily as Site 2. "The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features:

? It is a fur-bearing mammal."

One need go no farther to realize that these people do not know what they are talking about. Fur, or hair, is one of the defining features of mammals.

Site 5:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/momevol.html

Site 6:
www.talkorigins.org

Site 7:
Another moron. Attempts to prove that the Earth is much younger than science has shown by appealing to the amount of volcanic product deposited on the surface of the Earth each year, while completely ignoring erosion, island chain formations, and the destructive properties of lava.

Site 8:
www.talkorigins.org
Nothing but another site full of lies and misconceptions. They even say that Nebraska man was included in textbooks, which is false.

Site 9:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Disprove entropy! Play this game: http://gprime.net/game.php/chainreaction

[PhantomOpus]

Something else you all need to keep in mind: Our organs are /functional/, NOT perfect. Yes, the eye and ear are amazing...but even we lowly humans could, can, and have designed much better models. Surely God could have made them more perfect.

The fact that things simply work, as opposed to being as ultimately efficient as possible, is further support for development rather than design.

[ryupower]

I looked at some of those sites, but I have not found an explenation for the questions I've asked, nor have I found anything explaining how the giraffe got such a long neck.

I guess you didn't understand my last question. How did one-celled organisms develop these things? The reason I said 'without DNA' is because sperms are one-celled, and with an egg produced a living creature, BUT that's because it has DNA.

[PhantomOpus]

Each of those sites refutes (backed up by solid, researched evidence) each of the points made by the sites you linked us to. I figured my post was long enough without delving into the questions you tacked on at the end.

[QUOTE=ryupower]Most of all, how does a creature 'evolve' scales,skin,hair,etc.. if the ONE CELLED creature doesn't even contain this DNA?

How did one-celled organisms develop these things? The reason I said 'without DNA' is because sperms are one-celled, and with an egg produced a living creature, BUT that's because it has DNA. [QUOTE=ryupower]

I'm not familiar with the gene sequences of all living things, but I can give you two scenarios based upon what I know:

1) All creatures contain the right DNA for any trait, but only the traits useful to that creature are expressed. This is the view I was getting at before, which I thought you might find more acceptable since it clearly implies creation (or alien implantation, if you're into that kind of thing). This is rather unlikely though, given that a) there's no reason to expect that simple one-celled creatures would simply sprout thousands of recessive, even inert genes, and b) more highly developed life-forms have more chromosomes. They simply have more information to deal with.

2) The more likely view is that groups of early cells were more likely to survive when they banded together. The group was more likely to survive when the ones on the outside were tougher, perhaps by secreting keratin (or by keeping themselves covered with the husks of their deceased ilk). There you have skin. Hair didn't come until mammals developed, so that's a long way down the line. Everything follows logically at some point along the path.

The giraffe's neck (as well as its black, tough tongue, and incredibly versatile lips) are explained by the easily observable inter-evolution between its species and that of its main prey, the acacia tree. As the short proto-giraffes ate the acacia trees, those that were taller stood a better chance of surviving. As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving. Acacia trees with thorns were more likely to repel the giraffe's attacks and were more likely to survive; giraffes who could withstand the thorns and the alkalinity of the tree were able to find food much easier and were more likely to survive.

It's all about the interplay between species. Everything is there in the natural world for you to see.

Look around you: there are many things to see that some would say could never be. These things I know, they're true and I will tell you so; they are there to see, if you believe.

[ryupower]

I'm not familiar with the gene sequences of all living things, but I can give you two scenarios based upon what I know:

1) All creatures contain the right DNA for any trait, but only the traits useful to that creature are expressed. This is the view I was getting at before, which I thought you might find more acceptable since it clearly implies creation (or alien implantation, if you're into that kind of thing). This is rather unlikely though, given that a) there's no reason to expect that simple one-celled creatures would simply sprout thousands of recessive, even inert genes, and b) more highly developed life-forms have more chromosomes. They simply have more information to deal with.

2) The more likely view is that groups of early cells were more likely to survive when they banded together. The group was more likely to survive when the ones on the outside were tougher, perhaps by secreting keratin (or by keeping themselves covered with the husks of their deceased ilk). There you have skin. Hair didn't come until mammals developed, so that's a long way down the line. Everything follows logically at some point along the path.
How, then, did these creatures develop brains,hearts,etc...
also, you're implying that one-celled organisms can think? How did it happen that they knew exactly how to bind, if they couldn't think?


The giraffe's neck (as well as its black, tough tongue, and incredibly versatile lips) are explained by the easily observable inter-evolution between its species and that of its main prey, the acacia tree. As the short proto-giraffes ate the acacia trees, those that were taller stood a better chance of surviving. As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving. Acacia trees with thorns were more likely to repel the giraffe's attacks and were more likely to survive; giraffes who could withstand the thorns and the alkalinity of the tree were able to find food much easier and were more likely to survive.
That doesn't really answer my question. How did the creatures develop a long neck in the first place?
"As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving."

[PhantomOpus]

How, then, did these creatures develop brains,hearts,etc...
also, you're implying that one-celled organisms can think? How did it happen that they knew exactly how to bind, if they couldn't think?
No, I'm not implying that they can think. Just because they may have happened to clump together doesn't mean it was premeditated. Unicellular organisms sometimes display activity that looks like thinking - Amoebas hunting down other unicellular organisms, for example - but it's doubtful that they think as we do.

That doesn't really answer my question. How did the creatures develop a long neck in the first place?
"As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving."
It's a good thing you're only 15, or I'd be concerned that you suffer from a learning disability.
I'm sure you've seen humans who are 5 feet tall or shorter, and humans who are over 6 feet tall. Now imagine that we ate green maple leaves by reaching up with our arms to grab them. Now imagine that we end up systematically killing all the trees that are reachable by all of us, because we keep eating their means of producing food. Now the only maple trees left are not reachable by those under 6 feet. Tall people are much more able to survive, and subsequently will reproduce more, spreading their tall information among the population and causing the species' overall height to increase.

[ryupower]

No, I'm not implying that they can think. Just because they may have happened to clump together doesn't mean it was premeditated. Unicellular organisms sometimes display activity that looks like thinking - Amoebas hunting down other unicellular organisms, for example - but it's doubtful that they think as we do. So all these amoebas clumped together, and for some strange reason the clump had organs, and for some strange reason it worked as one Unit? right.



It's a good thing you're only 15, or I'd be concerned that you suffer from a learning disability.
I'm sure you've seen humans who are 5 feet tall or shorter, and humans who are over 6 feet tall. Now imagine that we ate green maple leaves by reaching up with our arms to grab them. Now imagine that we end up systematically killing all the trees that are reachable by all of us, because we keep eating their means of producing food. Now the only maple trees left are not reachable by those under 6 feet. Tall people are much more able to survive, and subsequently will reproduce more, spreading their tall information among the population and causing the species' overall height to increase. That still didn't answer my question, how did the tall Giraffe get so tall in the first place. What I mean is, in the most simple way, 'so how did the first tall giraffe get taller than the others?'

[PhantomOpus]

Did I say the 'clumps' suddenly had organs? No. Not to mention it wouldn't have been amoebas, because amoebas are cannibalistic.

And why not ask me why some of your friends are taller than you? It just happens. There is phenotypical diversity in every species on the planet.

[Bikshu]

See for me I choose to ignore both major theories accepted by the main audience and instead opt out on trying to figure out how we got here. Instead I figure isn't the more important question where are we going from here?
So . . . you ignore both because you think they contadict each other, but they dont even necesarrily do that.

[ryupower]

Did I say the 'clumps' suddenly had organs? No. Not to mention it wouldn't have been amoebas, because amoebas are cannibalistic.
Than how did creatures develop organs (especially the Brain)?

And why not ask me why some of your friends are taller than you? It just happens. There is phenotypical diversity in every species on the planet. Because God created them taller, according to their genes. Simple as that.

You still didn't give me an evolutionary explenation for it though, how DID the first giraffe become taller if it didn't have the genes to be? Most of all, a giraffe's design is way to perfect to have evolved, IMO. One evolutionary flaw and it'd be dead.

[gnrm23]

the real leap is from procaryotic organisms (bacteria & their allies) & the eucaryotes (everything else - protists (amoebae, paramecia, volvox...), fungi, plants, & animals...)

& remember, the total biomass of the prokaryota is greater than that of all eukaryota combined!

now, as for the evolution of giraffes & eyeballs & hummingbirds & blue whales & duckbilled platypi... & the primate & great ape family (including the crown of creation, Homo sapiens sapiens)...
please do some basic science reading (or watch dr carl sagan's totally excellent video series "cosmos" for a li'l intro, dearie...()

[cabdirazzaq]

Point taken to consideration...
We have left these talks about the giraffe long time ago(even though some arguments are still valid, its still possible for evolutionsts to offer what I call CE -conjecture evidence-)

If we would instead reach the level of molecule machines and irreducibly complex systems then the theory of evolution is as dead as its founder! According to whom, one may ask? Darwin him self said this:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Behe was right when he wrote that people are afraid of this subject, otherwise we would have found some evolutionsts trying to explain these extrodinary systems within us such as blodclotting and our immunsystem, but no...
Its either publish or PERISH! They havent published so now they are compelled to perish...

And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."[Quran 17.81]

[ryupower]

the real leap is from procaryotic organisms (bacteria & their allies) & the eucaryotes (everything else - protists (amoebae, paramecia, volvox...), fungi, plants, & animals...)

& remember, the total biomass of the prokaryota is greater than that of all eukaryota combined!

now, as for the evolution of giraffes & eyeballs & hummingbirds & blue whales & duckbilled platypi... & the primate & great ape family (including the crown of creation, Homo sapiens sapiens)...
please do some basic science reading (or watch dr carl sagan's totally excellent video series "cosmos" for a li'l intro, dearie...() I know about apes and humans and all that.

But everyone so far has not been able to tell me how this happened with the giraffe. And noone could explain how your brain just so *happened* to develop.

Now there's another thing: how can bumble bees fly if it would actually be physicly impossible for them?
A bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly. For it has a very 'heavy' body for those small and short wings.

I bet I could list quite a few creatures that defy evolution.

[PhantomOpus]

We've only been seriously working at this problem for a short 100 years. Scientists can't be expected to concentrate on every bit of minutiae in their field; or perhaps you would prefer that all scientists become evolutionary biologists, rather than physicists or cancer researchers?

[PhantomOpus]

Than how did creatures develop organs (especially the Brain)?
Because God created them taller, according to their genes. Simple as that.

You still didn't give me an evolutionary explenation for it though, how DID the first giraffe become taller if it didn't have the genes to be? Most of all, a giraffe's design is way to perfect to have evolved, IMO. One evolutionary flaw and it'd be dead.

Fine, you want to believe that God directs evolution, I have no problem with that. Just don't willfully deny the fact that it happens.

And no animal is perfect.

[cabdirazzaq]

We've only been seriously working at this problem for a short 100 years. Scientists can't be expected to concentrate on every bit of minutiae in their field; or perhaps you would prefer that all scientists become evolutionary biologists, rather than physicists or cancer researchers?Your blaming it on time, as did Darwin. You know what, it has almost passed 150 years and we still havent found all these fossils Darwin was so sure we would find. Interesting...

ryu, considering the fact that this animal slaps its wings hundreds of times per sec it should be able to fly, then again I'm no biologist. In which way isn't it supposed to be able to fly, you probably know more than me on this subject?
The fact it does fly is a clear sig for creation, indeed this little working machine is amazing!

[ryupower]

Fine, you want to believe that God directs evolution, I have no problem with that. Just don't willfully deny the fact that it happens.

And no animal is perfect.
True, but what I meant with that statement is that Giraffes are among the animals that confuse evolutionist.

[ryupower]

Your blaming it on time, as did Darwin. You know what, it has almost passed 150 years and we still havent found all these fossils Darwin was so sure we would find. Interesting...

ryu, considering the fact that this animal slaps its wings hundreds of times per sec it should be able to fly, then again I'm no biologist. In which way isn't it supposed to be able to fly, you probably know more than me on this subject?
The fact it does fly is a clear sig for creation, indeed this little working machine is amazing! I'll get back to you on that one. I'm not quite sure. Bees truely are fascinating, though. I agree with you on that! :D. They defy evolution in some ways :)

To evolutionists:
While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Which came first?

[cabdirazzaq]

Good question, try this one:
DNA is composed of protein. In DNA lies the information about which protein to be built, which came first. DNA or proteins?
Do not give me the fake "RNA world", rna is like the blueprint. How can a blueprint come about if there is nothing to print it?

[PhantomOpus]

Good question, try this one:
DNA is composed of protein. In DNA lies the information about which protein to be built, which came first. DNA or proteins?
Do not give me the fake "RNA world", rna is like the blueprint. How can a blueprint come about if there is nothing to print it?

First of all, DNA isn't protein.

DNA stands for deoxyribose nucleic acid.

Ribose is a sugar.

That's why DNA is its own category.

And whether you like it or not, RNA most likely came first. You're asking how the first printing press came about when there were no printing presses to print the instructions for it.

[PhantomOpus]

I'll get back to you on that one. I'm not quite sure. Bees truely are fascinating, though. I agree with you on that! :D. They defy evolution in some ways :)

To evolutionists:
While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Which came first?

I'm only posting this so that I won't be accused of ignoring your question; I would be entering a world of conjecture in order to answer this, as I have little to no background in entymology. The best I can do at this time (hopefully someone with more knowledge will pick up on this thread) is offer you an excerpt from Chatper 4 of The Origin of Species, in which Darwin discusses the bee/flower relationship.

"Let us now take a more complex case. Certain plants excrete a sweet juice, apparently for the sake of eliminating something injurious from their sap: this is effected by glands at the base of the stipules in some Leguminosae, and at the back of the leaf of the common laurel. This juice, though small in quantity, is greedily sought by insects. Let us now suppose a little sweet juice or nectar to be excreted by the inner bases of the petals of a flower. In this case insects in seeking the nectar would get dusted with pollen, and would certainly often transport the pollen from one flower to the stigma of another flower. The flowers of two distinct individuals of the same species would thus get crossed; and the act of crossing, we have good reason to believe (as will hereafter be more fully alluded to), would produce very vigorous seedlings, which consequently would have the best chance of flourishing and surviving. Some of these seedlings would probably inherit the nectar-excreting power. Those in individual flowers which had the largest glands or nectaries, and which excreted most nectar, would be oftenest visited by insects, and would be oftenest crossed; and so in the long-run would gain the upper hand. Those flowers, also, which had their stamens and pistils placed, in relation to the size and habits of the particular insects which visited them, so as to favour in any degree the transportal of their pollen from flower to flower, would likewise be favoured or selected. We might have taken the case of insects visiting flowers for the sake of collecting pollen instead of nectar; and as pollen is formed for the sole object of fertilisation, its destruction appears a simple loss to the plant; yet if a little pollen were carried, at first occasionally and then habitually, by the pollen-devouring insects from flower to flower, and a cross thus effected, although nine-tenths of the pollen were destroyed, it might still be a great gain to the plant; and those individuals which produced more and more pollen, and had larger and larger anthers, would be selected.

When our plant, by this process of the continued preservation or natural selection of more and more attractive flowers, had been rendered highly attractive to insects, they would, unintentionally on their part, regularly carry pollen from flower to flower; and that they can most effectually do this, I could easily show by many striking instances. I will give only one not as a very striking case, but as likewise illustrating one step in the separation of the sexes of plants, presently to be alluded to. Some holly-trees bear only male flowers, which have four stamens producing rather a small quantity of pollen, and a rudimentary pistil; other holly-trees bear only female flowers; these have a full-sized pistil, and four stamens with shrivelled anthers, in which not a grain of pollen can be detected. Having found a female tree exactly sixty yards from a male tree, I put the stigmas of twenty flowers, taken from different branches, under the microscope, and on all, without exception, there were pollen-grains, and on some a profusion of pollen. As the wind had set for several days from the female to the male tree, the pollen could not thus have been carried. The weather had been cold and boisterous, and therefore not favourable to bees, nevertheless every female flower which I examined had been effectually fertilised by the bees, accidentally dusted with pollen, having flown from tree to tree in search of nectar. But to return to our imaginary case: as soon as the plant had been rendered so highly attractive to insects that pollen was regularly carried from flower to flower, another process might commence. No naturalist doubts the advantage of what has been called the 'physiological division of labour;' hence we may believe that it would be advantageous to a plant to produce stamens alone in one flower or on one whole plant, and pistils alone in another flower or on another plant. In plants under culture and placed under new conditions of life, sometimes the male organs and sometimes the female organs become more or less impotent; now if we suppose this to occur in ever so slight a degree under nature, then as pollen is already carried regularly from flower to flower, and as a more complete separation of the sexes of our plant would be advantageous on the principle of the division of labour, individuals with this tendency more and more increased, would be continually favoured or selected, until at last a complete separation of the sexes would be effected.

Let us now turn to the nectar-feeding insects in our imaginary case: we may suppose the plant of which we have been slowly increasing the nectar by continued selection, to be a common plant; and that certain insects depended in main part on its nectar for food. I could give many facts, showing how anxious bees are to save time; for instance, their habit of cutting holes and sucking the nectar at the bases of certain flowers, which they can, with a very little more trouble, enter by the mouth. Bearing such facts in mind, I can see no reason to doubt that an accidental deviation in the size and form of the body, or in the curvature and length of the proboscis, &c., far too slight to be appreciated by us, might profit a bee or other insect, so that an individual so characterised would be able to obtain its food more quickly, and so have a better chance of living and leaving descendants. Its descendants would probably inherit a tendency to a similar slight deviation of structure. The tubes of the corollas of the common red and incarnate clovers (Trifolium pratense and incarnatum) do not on a hasty glance appear to differ in length; yet the hive-bee can easily suck the nectar out of the incarnate clover, but not out of the common red clover, which is visited by humble-bees alone; so that whole fields of the red clover offer in vain an abundant supply of precious nectar to the hive-bee. Thus it might be a great advantage to the hive-bee to have a slightly longer or differently constructed proboscis. On the other hand, I have found by experiment that the fertility of clover greatly depends on bees visiting and moving parts of the corolla, so as to push the pollen on to the stigmatic surface. Hence, again, if humble-bees were to become rare in any country, it might be a great advantage to the red clover to have a shorter or more deeply divided tube to its corolla, so that the hive-bee could visit its flowers. Thus I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted in the most perfect manner to each other, by the continued preservation of individuals presenting mutual and slightly favourable deviations of structure."

-The Origin of Species (Chapter 4), Charles Darwin.

[amiera]

GOD ? or Evolution?

I heard of religiosity being in our genes.

Speaking of God’s existence, it depends on your definition of God. Do we speak of the God like Spinoza described? In an other definition of God he could be too big to understand him. In got some puzzle: We are in a kidney. Kidney is our God. Everything is of kidney. The kidney cells are discussing the existence of God. Some say: “Kidney is everywhere, therefore he exists.” Others say: “Where can we find kidney? We can’t see him.”

Some pen pal of me thought that there are various levels of existence. These could be experienced by people who are into paranormal stuff, Christians, suffis, atheists, etc.

[Occam]

What if evolution..
Is how god creates?

You all seem to be making the assumption that god exists
'In our time frame'.

Yes.The period over which man evolved might be several million
human years.
But who says 'a' god counts our seconds as it's?
If the 'speed of thought' is wildly variable on earth itself.
Why not everywhere?

Thus what looks like a long process full of holes [evolution]
Is in fact a short process of manipulation. [to a god]

Occam

[TrippinBTM]

Even evolutionists vigorously debate the nature of evolutionary theory. The thinking that evolution is without reasonable challenge is to ascribe to scientific dogma surrounding the theory. Even evolutionists disagree as to the mechanism, so saying that "argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat" does little more than demonstrate ignorance regarding the arguments being thrown around by the disunified factions within the scientific community. Not really. Biologists do certainly argue about the details and the mechanisms, but the idea of evolution in the broad sense: "life changes over time via heritable changes" is not in question among them. Thus, evolution is a fact, but also a Theory (or really, several competing theories).

I'll get back to you on that one. I'm not quite sure. Bees truely are fascinating, though. I agree with you on that! :D. They defy evolution in some ways :)

To evolutionists:
While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Which came first?First, bees and flies shouldn't be able to fly based on airfoil flight dynamics. That is to say, their bodies are too heavy and wings too small for an airfoil to give them flight. HOWEVER, they have evolved to make use of the properties of moving air, namely vortexes of air currents, with bouy them up. Thus, it is simply a different form of flight than birds, bats, and airplanes make use of, and only works because of their small size.

Second, you guys in saying "which came first, the bee or the nectar" or "protein or DNA" assumes that life can only exist as it is. If life in the past were different, maybe that nectar had a different purpose originally (like the quoted Darwin text says, perhaps an excretory function). And maybe the bee was eating pollen (they do that). Like the quoted text says, in the long run, certain plants will survive better and reproduce more, eventually coming to dominate the gene pool thanks to the use of insect polination (the same is true for the bees, in the long run).

DNA is harder and I'm less familiar with it, but you throw out RNA as if it's just a blueprint, but it is likely it was the percursor to DNA. It is simpler for sure, and maybe it wasn't always a "middleman" between DNA and protein formation. Maybe DNA evolved because it is more stable and gave a survival advantage to organisms. I think the problem with you and Cab's thinking is that you think about space, but leave out time.

Third, giraffes are not very perfect at all (they are very vulnerable when drinking because their necks are too short and legs too long. Also they can pass out if they keep their head down too long). And I don't see what about them would confound evolutionists, as they are just another species.

Info on RNA origins of life:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html

[ryupower]

Not really. Biologists do certainly argue about the details and the mechanisms, but the idea of evolution in the broad sense: "life changes over time via heritable changes" is not in question among them. Thus, evolution is a fact, but also a Theory (or really, several competing theories).

First, bees and flies shouldn't be able to fly based on airfoil flight dynamics. That is to say, their bodies are too heavy and wings too small for an airfoil to give them flight. HOWEVER, they have evolved to make use of the properties of moving air, namely vortexes of air currents, with bouy them up. Thus, it is simply a different form of flight than birds, bats, and airplanes make use of, and only works because of their small size.

Second, you guys in saying "which came first, the bee or the nectar" or "protein or DNA" assumes that life can only exist as it is. If life in the past were different, maybe that nectar had a different purpose originally (like the quoted Darwin text says, perhaps an excretory function). And maybe the bee was eating pollen (they do that). Like the quoted text says, in the long run, certain plants will survive better and reproduce more, eventually coming to dominate the gene pool thanks to the use of insect polination (the same is true for the bees, in the long run).

DNA is harder and I'm less familiar with it, but you throw out RNA as if it's just a blueprint, but it is likely it was the percursor to DNA. It is simpler for sure, and maybe it wasn't always a "middleman" between DNA and protein formation. Maybe DNA evolved because it is more stable and gave a survival advantage to organisms. I think the problem with you and Cab's thinking is that you think about space, but leave out time.

Third, giraffes are not very perfect at all (they are very vulnerable when drinking because their necks are too short and legs too long. Also they can pass out if they keep their head down too long). And I don't see what about them would confound evolutionists, as they are just another species.

Info on RNA origins of life:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html (http://www.postmodern.com/%7Ejka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html) Thanks ;)
And about the Giraffe:


Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.

However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.

However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.

The Giraffe by itself utterly disproves Evolution.

[TrippinBTM]

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.

The Giraffe by itself utterly disproves Evolution.
First, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post in your response. I hope you at least read it.

Second, it doesn't disprove anything. We humans have similar adaptations, not all of them, but some. First, all hearts are pumps, and the longer the neck, the stronger the pump will need to be. All of the features you find so singular and unlikely would have slowly formed, together, so a semi-long-necked giraffe would have had a smaller capilary net in it's head, a smaller heart, partial "spigots" to slow the blood rush. For every inch of neck growth, these features (and whatever other features we've not named) would have changed in tandem, enough to keep the giraffe alive and well. Since no one says giraffes got long necks overnight, it's misleading and downright false to say these features had to come together "at once" in the giraffe.

Besides even we humans have little valves in our veins in our legs to keep blood from pooling in our feet. Valves and other blood-flow controlling features in veins and arteries are not unique to giraffes.

Third, next time, try writing your own posts, rather than copy and paste from websites without providing links, acting as if it was you who wrote it: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1653.cfm

[ryupower]

First, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post in your response. I hope you at least read it.

Second, it doesn't disprove anything. We humans have similar adaptations, not all of them, but some. First, all hearts are pumps, and the longer the neck, the stronger the pump will need to be. All of the features you find so singular and unlikely would have slowly formed, together, so a semi-long-necked giraffe would have had a smaller capilary net in it's head, a smaller heart, partial "spigots" to slow the blood rush. For every inch of neck growth, these features (and whatever other features we've not named) would have changed in tandem, enough to keep the giraffe alive and well. Since no one says giraffes got long necks overnight, it's misleading and downright false to say these features had to come together "at once" in the giraffe.

Besides even we humans have little valves in our veins in our legs to keep blood from pooling in our feet. Valves and other blood-flow controlling features in veins and arteries are not unique to giraffes.

Third, next time, try writing your own posts, rather than copy and paste from websites without providing links, acting as if it was you who wrote it: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1653.cfm
Fine. I was just to lazy to write it up.

Now how did the giraffe develop that spongy part of the brain?

[TrippinBTM]

Fine. I was just to lazy to write it up.

Now how did the giraffe develop that spongy part of the brain?
I don't know enough about it to comment further on the subject. I'm not a giraffe specialist, nor for that matter an evolution specialist.

[DrFeelGood]

Sorry

[DrFeelGood]

Peace

[PhantomOpus]

You want us to study? How about you study first.

For the umpteenth time, how evolution and entropy fit together (or don't): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

Please elaborate on how mitochondrial DNA in any way supports creation over evolution? Seems to me it's more plausible that mitochondria were originally their own little prokaryotic "wee beasties" that became embroiled in what is now an integral plus-plus symbiotic relationship.

Your claim that "every missing link has been proven to be a fraud" is patently false. Yes, Nebraska man was proven to be a fraud. It was not, as you may claim, generally accepted by the scientific community even before it was proven to be false. Yes, Archaeorapter was a hoax.

But Archaeopteryx, homo habilis, homo erectus, the australopithecines, hippocampus, and countless other branches on the tree of evolution are (or rather, 'were') real, and far outweigh the faux fossils created by individuals trying to cheat their way into the history books. Go on a dig sometime.

And, once MORE, we did not come from monkeys. The primary fallacy in your statement is that humans and monkeys (and apes, which are not to be confused with monkeys) are most closely related, meaning that our common ancestor existed much more recently than, say, the common ancestor of humans and cats. The other fallacy of your statement is lumping all primates into the category of monkey and excluding only humans. Why not ask, if there are orangutans, why are there still howler monkeys? As has been pointed out before, members of a species do not all instantly evolve at the same time. That would be a sign of divine intervention. Take, for example, the famous case of Darwin's finches (or the Canadian geese that got stranded on a volcanic island) - they adapted to their new circumstances and eventually became so differentiated from their mainland counterparts that they were, in fact, a new species. But the type of finch which lived on the mainland, and from which the island finches originally came, had no need to adapt to eat harder seeds and find water from new sources, and so remained essentially the same. Thus you have the 'original' finch and the new 'island' finch coexisting. If every member of a species suddenly changed in a generation, there would only be one type of organism on this planet.

Furthermore, if you had taken a simple high school biology class, you ought to be aware that we have made significant strides toward creating life in a lab. We have created amino acids and cell membranes from nothing - in labs on earth as well as in space. The fact that amino acids have been found in meteorites would only serve to have sped up the process of the initial creation of life here, and fully supports evolution.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319

And yes, Scopes "lost" - Darrow asked the jury to return a verdict of guilty in order that the case might be appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Read your law history before you make a further fool of yourself.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

The presence of a world-wide flood would not discount evolution. As I have said before, it is entirely possible that God exists, and initiated life or even still today directs the process, but evolution does occur.

Show me these scientific studies that you claim prove that evolution could not have happened. You can't, can you? Because they don't exist. What a shame. It would have been such a crushing blow for you and your Bible-thumping cohorts.

[TrippinBTM]

The presence of a world-wide flood would not discount evolution. As I have said before, it is entirely possible that God exists, and initiated life or even still today directs the process, but evolution does occur.
This is an important point. Evolutionists are not out to destroy religion, or to disprove God (same goes for all scientists in their respective fields). There is no automatic competition between science and religion. It CAN be interpreted or seen that way, but they are not inherently opposed, and can work together.

I suppose there is an opposition between science and literalist religion. But scripture was never intended as literal, these are metaphorical and alegorical writings written to make points about morals. That, or they were "guesses". No one expects bronze age shepherds to have the definitive explanation on the origins of the universe (most of which they didn't even know existed), it's asking to much of them to think they must have known. To reject the scientific understanding we have today (by no means complete, but pretty impressive nonetheless) based on spiritual writings of ignorant shepherds is bordering on insanity. Why can't people understand this?

[Occam]

This is an important point. Evolutionists are not out to destroy religion, or to disprove God (same goes for all scientists in their respective fields). There is no automatic competition between science and religion. It CAN be interpreted or seen that way, but they are not inherently opposed, and can work together.

I suppose there is an opposition between science and literalist religion. But scripture was never intended as literal, these are metaphorical and alegorical writings written to make points about morals. That, or they were "guesses". No one expects bronze age shepherds to have the definitive explanation on the origins of the universe (most of which they didn't even know existed), it's asking to much of them to think they must have known. To reject the scientific understanding we have today (by no means complete, but pretty impressive nonetheless) based on spiritual writings of ignorant shepherds is bordering on insanity. Why can't people understand this? Trippin

Well said.

Evolution and science is in no way opposed to religion.
BECAUSE IT IS OPPOSED TO NOTHING.
It is INDIFFERENT.
Thats the differernce;)
[that makes ALL the difference]
----------------------------------
Because the ignorant shepherds are still trying to tell everyone that
they know the origin of everything.
And they have no idea what metaphor and alegory is.
Or that they are ignorant.
----------------------------------
Your comments on the 'book' as metaphor and alegory are
cool.
But occam has found far greater wisdom in other books.
How do you explain this.?
WHo wrote the bible. man or god.?

Cause if it was god...he's not the sharpest tool in the shed..

Occam

[SpliffVortex]

Man came from germany the rest from a cesspool of bacteria.

[DrFeelGood]

De rekening

[Occam]

Man came from germany the rest from a cesspool of bacteria.
Nyet Tovarich...

Superior man is a product of the political dialectic..
All hail soviet communism.....

What...waht do you mean ' its dead'...
How could it......
The ussr turned balkan/gangsta?

You kiddin....

Oh well..

It was a good idea at the time.

Occam

[SpliffVortex]

Nyet Tovarich...



It was a good idea at the time.

Occam is still a good idea.

[Occam]

is still a good idea. SpliffVortex

Fundamentally yes.
If human beings acted rationally...it's an excellent idea.

But the human world as it exists now...
is 95% Ego/emotion.
That weilds the 5%, human reason, to it's own ends.

Thus..Stalin.

Occam

PS.. And stalin is an example of amoral existentialism.
[quote "1 death is a tragedy, a million a statistic"]

[MollyBloom]

God or evolution?

I believe in both.

And yes..it is possible.

[SpliffVortex]

and maybe is neither.

[Occam]

God or evolution?

I believe in both.

And yes..it is possible.
Molly

It certainly is.

Occam has asked hundreds the question.

"Why do so many hold this preconception that evolution
[of both the universe and life]
is NOT exactly what was 'intended'.

Occam

[shevek]

One problem with "proving" (or "disproving") God is that you first have to apply a definition to God...and there are as many definitions as there are people. I prefer my own (evolving) definition to someone else's, and I also think that everyone has to work that one out for themselves.

As for Physical Reality, I'm all for being on the hard-headed and skeptical side, but I'm also aware that many people regard Physical Reality as being itself an illusion of sorts. This isn't just the mystical mumbo-jumbo types either; a recent article in Scientific American (!) postulated that our three-dimensional Universe is possibly a hologram projection from a two-dimensional Reality.

Mind blowing, isn't it? We really opened up a can of worms on this whole topic.

[Art Delfo]

animals evolve

humans dont

no animal will ever become smarter than a human


even if they do they would not try to find out about a god because humans have a need to know "the spirtual things"

thats what makes us speical

K who made the universe?How can somthing non living allways exsit?

You cant disprove god You cant prove god


But god makes sense to me.

[SpliffVortex]

animals evolve

humans dont

no animal will ever become smarter than a human


even if they do they would not try to find out about a god because humans have a need to know "the spirtual things"

thats what makes us speical

K who made the universe?How can somthing non living allways exsit?

You cant disprove god You cant prove god


But god makes sense to me. A VIRUS BY THE NAME OF "HIV" seems to be smarter than we are.

[Art Delfo]

even so I dont beleve we were once monkeys or apes or whatever.

[Meeshka Chaukinov]

something has been mentioned over and over: where did DNA come from?

As someone pointed out earlier, simulating an early earth atmosphere and shooting electricity through it created proteins.

From there, it's two steps.

Proteins, when combined together, make amino acids.

Amino Acids, when combined, make DNA

there you go

[Meeshka Chaukinov]

even so I dont beleve we were once monkeys or apes or whatever.We never were monkeys. We still are primates .Over a few million years and thousands of generations, we gradually evolved and became more advanced.

[TrippinBTM]

something has been mentioned over and over: where did DNA come from?

As someone pointed out earlier, simulating an early earth atmosphere and shooting electricity through it created proteins.

From there, it's two steps.

Proteins, when combined together, make amino acids.

Amino Acids, when combined, make DNA

there you go
Close, but not quite. amino acids combine to form proteins, and I think they (amino acids) combine with other stuff to form DNA. It might be proteins that combine with other stuff to form DNA, I can't remember. But I know amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, not the other way around.

[Occam]

Oh Man...

Occam is so frustrated...

So many acute minds....
So many splitting hairs...

WE KNOW reality evolves...
Well after all it was all a cloud of hydrogen to start. NO?

How did we end up with 3rd generation stars spitting out the heavy elements?
NATURAL EVOLUTION.

That EVERY ELEMENT in you body heavier than helium was born in side a star.

Yet you say the same set of natural laws that allows this.
Does not allow the evolution of life.

Yet life is obviously EMBEDDED in the structure of reality as we observe it.

There IS a methodology.
There IS is structure established by the OBJECTIVE LAWS OF REALITY
and LONG history to life.
The complexity of it requires that.

Unless. of course...

You simply say..god made it in 4004 bc
What a sad refusal to join the adventure that is.

Occam

[TrippinBTM]

^^ hear hear!

but i still have room for spirituality in my universe.

[Libertine]

Spirituality is really nothingness so there is plenty of room for it. Too bad so many people waste so much time on nothingness. :)

[Occam]

Spirituality is really nothingness so there is plenty of room for it. Too bad so many people waste so much time on nothingness. :) Libertine..

And thus, technically... hope, love, art, beauty, justice, democracy,
humour, wonder, belief, faith, truth...........exct exct...
Are also nothingness.
For they do not exist as real things in the world.
Only as interpretations/synaptic activity. As concepts within our heads.

Do we waste too much time on these?

Spirituallity has 6 billion definitions.
And like occams, most of them are complex and hard to turn into
words.
There is also a great divide between the external and internal spiritual
position..

Occams position on the evolution of reality has ZERO to do with
his position on spirituality. And there is plenty of room in occams
reality for spirituallity as there is in trippin BTM's.

It's the ones that get god and spirits and religious dogma confused
in there heads that come up with the idea that if you believe in a direction
behind reality you must be talking hell/heaven/spirits..exct......

That may be so for the religious..

But occam is not religious.

Occam

[TechnoSpider]

As far as God vs. Evolution goes, I'd say that the two could easily go hand-in-hand, depending on what you believe.

Spirituality = nothingness and a waste of time? I disagree.

Each person should find the belief system that works for them. That isn't a waste of time, especially when so many people claim that their spirituality or religion adds meaning and purpose to their lives. And like Occam said, it may not be a real, tangible thing, but that doesn't detract from its potential value.

[Art Delfo]

The big BANG!!!!!!! Ok so how did it start?Stuff from leftover universe reacts in some kind of cemical reation(I cant rember I learned this at a museum) which starts every thing off with stars and bunches of rock.It becomes the universe we know and love.But we were not here....All reality is thoughts....What we see hear smell and touch are all parts of the brian.Not "us". so all this who's thoughts are the big bang that gives it shape a name and ego and phisical senseation who starts off the cycle of the universe evoluving and destroying itself for all "time"?Who made us as the self(Or no self same thing)? God the ulimate reality one with everything and everyone.We and everythings else are his thoughts...but can you comprhend him?No...I can not and you can not....hes that big/small

[pop_terror]

There you go. Enjoy.

[Occam]

The big BANG!!!!!!! Ok so how did it start?Stuff from leftover universe reacts in some kind of cemical reation(I cant rember I learned this at a museum) which starts every thing off with stars and bunches of rock.It becomes the universe we know and love.But we were not here....All reality is thoughts....What we see hear smell and touch are all parts of the brian.Not "us". so all this who's thoughts are the big bang that gives it shape a name and ego and phisical senseation who starts off the cycle of the universe evoluving and destroying itself for all "time"?Who made us as the self(Or no self same thing)? God the ulimate reality one with everything and everyone.We and everythings else are his thoughts...but can you comprhend him?No...I can not and you can not....hes that big/small Art Delfo

Thats an interesting opinion..

And as a mater of interest...
*Human beings have no idea what existed before the
'bang' Or what the 'singularity' actually was.
I'ts all speculation based on 'reverse engineering' the
physical evolution of the universe.

*How can we exist as nothing but thought when
you yourself say that touch , sight, exct are 'part of the brain'
Is the brain nothing but thought?

No..Occam reasons therefore he exists.
And thus 'a' reality exists for occam to be a part of.
One cannot 'exist' without a reality of laws to 'exist' in.

God would have to say the same thing.
And cannot exist before a reality existed to allow him to be.

Thus reality existed first. not god.
So how can it be a thought in the mind of god?

Occam

[Occam]

PS

And if a reality existed first..
Where did it come from.?

[opinion]
It has always existed and always will.
Reality is not dependent on time.
Time [motion] is a result of a processing reality.

There is no logic or evidence that requires reality to have been created.
Thats just human preconception.

We dont have the smarts to fully comprehend the idea of something
always existing...
Of 'infinite'
Thus we conjure up gods so we can say something made it.
And call the god infinite because that sounds mysterious.

Occam

[thumontico]

Reality exists. Lets call it the Universe and assume its been there for a while. Lets pressume the Big Bang, and say it very well may have happened 23 different times already in a similar way. The first time, like the other times it started with a massive Speck.

So the question is not only of the origins of the Speck, but also this fabric in and around the Speck we will call the Space.

The question is quite simple, although the answer is impossible. One possibility is that a 'Creator' created the Speck along with the Space and pressumably Himself: this option allows me to at least feel like my existence, although existent through complete randomness, has some meaning, but then I realize what I really wanted was Real meaning, for me, right now. So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals.

Without the 'Creator' the creation of the Speck and the Space would be absurd and meaningless and most importantly happenstance. (So my existence is meaningless and I feel a pit in my stomach. Then I realize what made me assume in the first place that there was external meaning, my Ego. My name is Thumontico and I exist, others are like me and We are superior to other Beings that make noise and move around... I thought I must be special and created a 'Creator' to facillitate the fiction, that facillitated living my life. But then I realized my Ego was the same as the Ego of generations of thinking people that created a 'Creator'.) So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals.

[Occam]

Reality exists. Lets call it the Universe and assume its been there for a while. Lets pressume the Big Bang, and say it very well may have happened 23 different times already in a similar way. The first time, like the other times it started with a massive Speck.

So the question is not only of the origins of the Speck, but also this fabric in and around the Speck we will call the Space.

The question is quite simple, although the answer is impossible. One possibility is that a 'Creator' created the Speck along with the Space and pressumably Himself: this option allows me to at least feel like my existence, although existent through complete randomness, has some meaning, but then I realize what I really wanted was Real meaning, for me, right now. So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals.

Without the 'Creator' the creation of the Speck and the Space would be absurd and meaningless and most importantly happenstance. (So my existence is meaningless and I feel a pit in my stomach. Then I realize what made me assume in the first place that there was external meaning, my Ego. My name is Thumontico and I exist, others are like me and We are superior to other Beings that make noise and move around... I thought I must be special and created a 'Creator' to facillitate the fiction, that facillitated living my life. But then I realized my Ego was the same as the Ego of generations of thinking people that created a 'Creator'.) So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals. Thumontico

You say that without a creator. the creation of the speck would be absurd and meaningless. This assumes it was created.

Occam finds it far more reasonable to assume it has allways existed.
For while we see STRUCTURES created in this universe. From what exists
already. And we 'are' such, and create such.
We dont see mater/energy/space created from nothing or vanishing from reality.

If Humanity has NEVER seen any mater/space/energy so created or uncreated.
Why do we assume it can be?
Why do we assume ALL of it was?

Occam can see just as much 'meaning' to life in a universe that has allways existed in on form or another. And has been directed to result in life and US
by a being that came from within the universe.

As universe created by a god that created itself first.

In both cases a being beyond our imaginings has desired/directed us to be.

The principle of parsimony[occams razor] asks why unnecessary factors need be introduced.

A god that created itself is such a factor. And exists only because humans cannot accept the concept that reality was not created. But has allways been.

Occam

[Colours]

i just had an dicussion about this with my friends a day ago. I explained to them how the universe could have been forever always, but they just kept telling me that someone had to have created it. One said "what about Newtons law every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and i explained that the universe's expansion and collapsing would provide a "force" (this may or may not be correct its just how i understand what ive read about cosmology). Then they would ask "well where did this initial energy come from?" and i reply it has always been there; i guess thats what you mean when you say humans can't comprehend the idea of reality always existing, because they didnt buy it. Is this a valid response when questioned about a "force" needed to set off the big bang?

[thumontico]

you are right occam

[Occam]

i just had an dicussion about this with my friends a day ago. I explained to them how the universe could have been forever always, but they just kept telling me that someone had to have created it. One said "what about Newtons law every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and i explained that the universe's expansion and collapsing would provide a "force" (this may or may not be correct its just how i understand what ive read about cosmology). Then they would ask "well where did this initial energy come from?" and i reply it has always been there; i guess thats what you mean when you say humans can't comprehend the idea of reality always existing, because they didnt buy it. Is this a valid response when questioned about a "force" needed to set off the big bang? Colours

Newtons law or any other revealed law of reality
Controls our reality...yes
But has NOTHING to do with the laws that allow REALITY
ITSELF
to exist.

THOSE laws.
Are something we know exist
That science knows exists
But we average people and the human scientific method
has NO understanding of.

Ask your friends
"provide an example of mater/space/energy being created
or
uncreated"
There are no such examples in human history or knowing

Thus..it is reasonable to posit that...
ALL mater/space/energy HAS ALWAYS BEEN
AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

Your friends will have a fine problem with thiis
For there are NO examples of 'acausal creation/uncreation'

Occam

[Occam]

you are right occam
Thumontico

Possibly

Occam

[mati]

coming into being and being are two different things and one cannot argue from a being that there was a coming into being

[Colours]

"Ask your friends
"provide an example of mater/space/energy being created
or
uncreated"
There are no such examples in human history or knowing"

I would assume they would jsut respond with something like, "exactly, no human examples, 'cause God did it." I dont think they would quite understand the question.

[MattInVegas]

I think EVERYBODY has the theory wrong. But only by a little. Here's what I mean. I believe, God planted the seeds of life on EVERY planet that they could grow on.
Would it Dis-Prove the Christian Bible if life WERE discovered out in Space?
No. I think it would only PROVE the existance of God.

The Other side of this is simple. Mankind evolved from the primorial ooze.
(God's Seeds of Life)
Just my two cents.

[thumontico]

Still though God isn't necessary. Assuming the given suspected conditions of primordial Earth and that the planet could not naturally produce life (which is arguable), the possiblities of a 'divinely' seeded planet is no more likely than a planet seeded by happenstance (meteorite w/ base organisms on board hitting the planet, any other naturalistic explaination) because we simply do not know.

Both of your hypotheses require God, but I don't understand why. I see the two phenomenon of creation of Reality and creation of Humanity quite different and seperate. I can imagine the creation of Humanity 100 different ways, but I cannot imagine the creation of the Universe or the Eternal existence of the universe once.

It is easier for me to imagine a Supreme being creating the universe because I don't have to imagine anything, maybe some flashing lights and smoke, but I am completely relieved from thinking about the logistics of the matter and digress to admit my human inferiority and then fall asleep or go to church... Either way this is not a sufficient way of looking at it.

However, the issue has never been about mine or your ability to imagine. Imagination is wonderful in what it is, but it is finite. We have the option to deal with speculation or probability, I believe that second is the more reliable.

I cannot imagine a universe that has always existed, it is counter intuitive. But as occam says, it is reasonable to assume since no one has ever seen matter/energy created nor destroyed that it hasn't. This reasoning allows me to imagine this possible truth.

In ANY case the means by which we came into existence is of no non-self-inflicted consequence. I have been presented with evidence and do not see a necessity or reason for God. Perhaps there was a creator, but according to my perception of reality he has no bearing on my consciousness/life. God is moot.
-
We need some fucking golf shoes... or we'll never get out of this place alive.

[Art Delfo]

Art Delfo

Thats an interesting opinion..

And as a mater of interest...
*Human beings have no idea what existed before the
'bang' Or what the 'singularity' actually was.
I'ts all speculation based on 'reverse engineering' the
physical evolution of the universe.

*How can we exist as nothing but thought when
you yourself say that touch , sight, exct are 'part of the brain'
Is the brain nothing but thought?

No..Occam reasons therefore he exists.
And thus 'a' reality exists for occam to be a part of.
One cannot 'exist' without a reality of laws to 'exist' in.

God would have to say the same thing.
And cannot exist before a reality existed to allow him to be.

Thus reality existed first. not god.
So how can it be a thought in the mind of god?

Occam
I dont really talk of a "Creator"

More of a "Ulimate reality" thats what god is to me but you just cant reduce himm to just one thing or defition.

[SpliffVortex]

SAINTS CROSS THE RED SEA TO THE KINGDOM BY HEAVEN'S FLYING SAUCERS--U.F.O.

To the world at large, the sight of a flying saucer fills them with uncertainty, consternation, and fearfulness as to what the future holds for mankind. And many are afraid of them because of the reports they hear of people who have been burned or temporary blinded by them, and animals mutilated; also of bizarre abductions where experiments were conducted upon their captives. This caused many to think that all flying saucers are evil. The scientific mind could think they are strange be-ings from outer space, while the religious mind could think they are evil angels. And why not? After all, Satan and his angels travel in earth's atmosphere today in their flying saucers, just as he travelled through the starry space in his celestial chariot to heaven in Job's day:

"In the days of Job Satan still had access to heaven, for we are told that '...there was a day when the sons of God came {from other planets by celestial travel} to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came {from earth by a flying saucer} also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, From going to and fro in the earth {in his flying saucer} and from walking up and down in it.' Job 1:6, 7."--15 Tract, pg. 81:2 (bold emphasis, braces added).

As for the reports of some people being hurt by grotesque looking beings in flying saucers, and that they are the devil's evil angels, may be true. But this does not discount the fact that God's angels also travel in similar chariots, and that they have come to earth to slay the wicked in God's church (1SR36:0), as well as to help the saints finish the gospel. Obviously the general public would think that the unexplainable mysticism of the flying saucers is an omen of catastophic events soon to occur; while the faithful David-ians know what these events portend (the slaughter of Ezekiel 9 and the Loud Cry). Therefore, to the Davidian saints these mysterious flying saucer sightings can only be a sign post that indicates the nearness of their fulfillment!

Ever since the sealing angel (SRod) arrived in 1929 (2A34:0), the sightings of the flying saucers (UFO) increased. It was after Bro. Houteff moved to old Mt. Carmel Center near Waco, Texas in 1935 that he began to write about them; the last time was in the White House Recruiter in 1951 before he died in 1955. Fours years later his wife brought the "knockout blow" (WHR33:2) in 1959 by her false teachings, after which she dissolved new Mt. Carmel Center. But in 1961 the Davidians reorganized in Los Angeles, California and set up God's Headquarters in Riverside. Later, God directed them to move His Headquarters eastward to Salem, So. Carolina in 1970. And still the UFO sightings continued, in some places on a much larger scale, because the angels are still working to seal those "of" the 144,000 and those "with" them (1TG4:27:1). All of which proves that the angels are indeed "hurrying to and fro" from heaven to earth in flying saucers (UFO) preparing for that "important event"--"the fulfillment of Ezekiel 9" (1SR36)--the slaughter!

And the fact that God's Davidian Headquarters has moved "eastward" where a large company will be raised up in the east" (1T414:1), proves that the sealing is nearing completion; and that the angels in flying saucers will soon come to slay the wicked in God's church, and take those left alive ("of" the 144,000 and those "with" them) to the kingdom.

"For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with His chariots {angels in flying saucers_celestrial travel} like a whirlwind {traveling in the air}, to render His anger {slay the wicked in God's church) with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire."--Isaiah 66:15 (bold emphasis, braces added).

The SRod message has given abundant proof that this coming is not Christ's second advent, but His coming in judgment to the S.D.A. church by the slaughter of Ezek. 9.

"Those who are sealed from 1929 to the fulfillment of Ezekiel 9 (close of probation for the church), are living saints, 144,000 in number, who shall never die--translated without tasting death. The class which neglected their opportunity were left without the seal to perish under the ruin of Ezekiel 9 {slaughter}; Isaiah 63; and Isaiah 66: 15-17."--2 Shepherd's Rod, pg. 162:3 (bold emphasis, braces added).

Note in Isa. 66:15 that the Lord comes with His chariots like a "whirlwind, to render His anger." And what could these chariots be but angels in flying saucers? For that is what the Bible says they are!

"The chariots of God {which move as flying saucers} are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels {in these UFO chariots}: The Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place."--Psalms 68:17 (bold emphasis, braces added).

"The work of separation {slaughter of Ezek. 9} is given to the angels of God {who come to the earth in flying saucers--UFO}, and not committed into the hands of any man."--Testimonies To Ministers, pg. 47:2 (bold emphasis, braces added).

Therefore, when the angels in their "chariots" (flying saucers) come to slay the wicked in God's church, then those left (144,000), according to their type--Elijah (1SRtr22:4), will be taken first by the flying saucers to the king-dom to stand on the Mt. Zion with the Lamb in the Holy Land, and finally be translated to heaven in a flying saucer as was ancient Elijah (2 Ki. 2:11).

"There was yet a great work for Elijah to do; and when his work was done, he was not to perish {suffer death} in discouragement and solitude in the wilderness. Not for him the descent into the dust of the earth, but the as-cention in glory, with the convoy of celestial chariots {angels in their flying saucers}, to the throne on high."--Desire of Ages, pg. 301:1; see P.K. 228:1 (boldings, braces added).

"Moreover, he {Elisha} faithfully ministered to Elijah night and day, and kept an eye on him until the 'flying saucer' {chariot of angels--Ps. 68:17} alighted to pick him up, and until he disappeared from sight (2 Kings 2:9 15)."--2 Timely Greetings, No. 45, pg. 15:5 (bold emphasis, braces added).

"One may be incredulous, another startled, at the thought of Heaven's {angels} having flying saucers. But why? If God has given man knowledge to develop aerial mechanisms, no one can reasonably suppose that Heaven does not have incomparably superior ones. Let us not forget what covered a whole mountain in Elisha's day. (2 Kings 6:17). To be sure, Elisha called them chariots, but if they were not flying saucers of some type, how did they come to earth? It matters not what one calls them, it is what they are, and what they do, that counts....And if the flying saucers are indeed the Lord's, then what else are they come for but to deliver every one {144,000 and those 'with' them--2SC5:8:1} whose names is found written in the book (Dan. 12:1), and to slay those {wicked} who oppress them (Isa. 66:16)?"--White House Recruiter, pgs. 10, 11 (bolds, braces added).

Thus, the flying saucers of today are angelsin their char-iots who are "hurrying to and fro," preparing for the "fulfillment of Ezekiel 9" slaughterwhen God comes "with His chariots like a whirlwind to slaythe wicked in His church without the mark! This mark will protects the saints from the slaughtering angels. So what is this protective mark?

[Colours]

whats this got to do with anything

[Occam]

Revelation...1:18:26

And the lord said.."let their be mind"
and 14 billion years latter..there was.

For what point letting there be light.
If theres no one to see it. And know it.
And seek it.

Occam

[misterrain]

I don`t think that evolution disproves the Bible. God created Eden for Adam and Eve... the rest of the world is what Adam and Eve were sent into after they were expelled from paradise.

I don`t think we`ve officially made it back in yet. So maybe the world is something totally different?

[SpliffVortex]

Galileo created the Earth. not God,

[Moshe]

Science and religion should serve different purposes

Science is just about imposing falsifiable theories on our perceptions - and then judging those in relation to our perceptions. It's just trying to get as much out of our perception as possible, in the most truth preserving way.

[tropisms]

So can any one here actually give me the physical proof I am looking for without quoting the bible?

Thank you please.
Nobody can prove or disprove God, if they could they would be famous.

[SurfhipE]

Why not both? Why must people keep going on with this false duality? As if the existance of a god would negate evolution, or that evolution negates God... At most, evolution only disagrees with a small part of Hebrew scripture (the first few parts of genesis).

I really doubt anyone can give you any proof of God that you would accept (nor any I would accept). But though God may not be provable like evolution, that doesn't preclude his existance. It may be that we are thinking of God in the wrong way, and so our search is stymied.

I just love you..

[Colours]

how do we know that "god made" means evolution took place? Humans evolved, came into being, thus God created humans with their evolution. I mean, Christians cant really ebleive God literally made man from clay or dirt or w/e. So how do we know evolution isnt Gods method of creation?

[citrus_seas]

i think that believing in god is like believing that we are ruled by one person and we have to follow his orders or be punished...it's kinda like a cult isn't it? And to believe in evolution is knowing that we actullay have a fucking purpose on the earth and that we humans are not completely worthless... This is just my opinion, though. I don't care if you don't agree...you can rag on me if you want...i really don't care

[Occam]

And to believe in evolution is knowing that we actullay have a fucking purpose on the earth and that we humans are not completely worthless... Citrus_Seas

What fool says we are worthless?

Who will stand and proclaim the purpose of humanity?
No-one here..and you all know it.


Occam

[FreakerSoup]

Close, but not quite. amino acids combine to form proteins, and I think they (amino acids) combine with other stuff to form DNA. It might be proteins that combine with other stuff to form DNA, I can't remember. But I know amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, not the other way around.
Actually, amino acids are only in proteins. Nucleic acids are in DNA. Each little letter in the genetic code is a nucleic acid, a sugar (deoxyribose) and a phosphate. Sometimes protein is used to pack the DNA into bundles, but it's not a part of it.