Click for Article
Any thoughts or comments???
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
A follow up which I think gives the problem for the evolutionists. So much for Eve of Africa.
Science News
Discovery may push back age of modern man
Published: Dec. 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM
TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- Scientists say they've found the world's earliest evidence of modern man, Homo sapiens, living in what is now Israel twice as long ago as previously thought.
Researchers from Tel Aviv University found eight human teeth at least 400,000 years old at the prehistoric Qesem Cave site near Rosh Ha'ayin, The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday.
The researchers say the discovery in the Qesem Cave may change the widely held perception that modern man originated on the continent of Africa.
The Qesem find, along with archaeological evidence and human skeletons found in Spain and China, may cause scientists to reconsider current thinking that homo sapiens came out of Africa just 200,000 years ago, the researchers say.
The culture of the Qesem Cave dwellers, including the production of flint blades, the use of fire, evidence of hunting and cutting animal meat, mining raw materials to produce flint tools and much more suggest this was behavior that corresponds with the appearance of modern man, the Tel Aviv scientists say.
Science News
Discovery may push back age of modern man
Published: Dec. 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM
TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- Scientists say they've found the world's earliest evidence of modern man, Homo sapiens, living in what is now Israel twice as long ago as previously thought.
Researchers from Tel Aviv University found eight human teeth at least 400,000 years old at the prehistoric Qesem Cave site near Rosh Ha'ayin, The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday.
The researchers say the discovery in the Qesem Cave may change the widely held perception that modern man originated on the continent of Africa.
The Qesem find, along with archaeological evidence and human skeletons found in Spain and China, may cause scientists to reconsider current thinking that homo sapiens came out of Africa just 200,000 years ago, the researchers say.
The culture of the Qesem Cave dwellers, including the production of flint blades, the use of fire, evidence of hunting and cutting animal meat, mining raw materials to produce flint tools and much more suggest this was behavior that corresponds with the appearance of modern man, the Tel Aviv scientists say.
Hi GB,
The article tells us, A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.
"'It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," said archaeologist Avi Gopher, whose team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.
What they are not taking into account is Noah's Flood. The flood, being a worldwide flood, would have rearranged many layers and aspects of the earth's surface.
This is why dating based upon geographical strata is not reliable.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
The article tells us, A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.
"'It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," said archaeologist Avi Gopher, whose team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.
What they are not taking into account is Noah's Flood. The flood, being a worldwide flood, would have rearranged many layers and aspects of the earth's surface.
This is why dating based upon geographical strata is not reliable.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
*sigh* Well SOME of us have evolved...
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
A follow up which I think gives the problem for the evolutionists. So much for Eve of Africa.
Science News
Discovery may push back age of modern man
Published: Dec. 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM
TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- Scientists say they've found the world's earliest evidence of modern man, Homo sapiens, living in what is now Israel twice as long ago as previously thought.
Researchers from Tel Aviv University found eight human teeth at least 400,000 years old at the prehistoric Qesem Cave site near Rosh Ha'ayin, The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday.
The researchers say the discovery in the Qesem Cave may change the widely held perception that modern man originated on the continent of Africa.
The Qesem find, along with archaeological evidence and human skeletons found in Spain and China, may cause scientists to reconsider current thinking that homo sapiens came out of Africa just 200,000 years ago, the researchers say.
The culture of the Qesem Cave dwellers, including the production of flint blades, the use of fire, evidence of hunting and cutting animal meat, mining raw materials to produce flint tools and much more suggest this was behavior that corresponds with the appearance of modern man, the Tel Aviv scientists say.
Hi B,
There is very good reason to believe that the Garden of Eden was actually in North Eastern Africa; which would mean that Adam and Eve were created in the land which would become Africa.
Not sure I would give a lot of credence to the 200,000 or 400,000 year dating -- since the flood happened about 4500 years ago and this event totally changed all earth geophysical strata.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Interesting article. I'm skeptical. This one find, if it's legit, pushes back the evolution of homo sapiens 2-4 times as long as all the other evidence suggests.
Keep an eye open.
nsns
Keep an eye open.
nsns
GB,
this is a very preliminary discovery. more testing is needed. however, i think that, once the data is verified, it is one of the most exciting finds in recent history. the scientific community (unlike the religious community) absolutely loves it when "everything we know" is turned upside-downards.
that does not happen very often.
this is a very preliminary discovery. more testing is needed. however, i think that, once the data is verified, it is one of the most exciting finds in recent history. the scientific community (unlike the religious community) absolutely loves it when "everything we know" is turned upside-downards.
that does not happen very often.
Bill,
How would you explain a flood of only 4500 years ago affecting strata layers from 400,000 years ago?
Here is an interesting view of Flood Geology.
http://www.atlantaapologist.or...ers/floodgeology.htm
How would you explain a flood of only 4500 years ago affecting strata layers from 400,000 years ago?
Here is an interesting view of Flood Geology.
http://www.atlantaapologist.or...ers/floodgeology.htm
Interesting article, b. Mr. Roberts doesn't go far enough, however. He claims to believe in a Great Flood, but if there was one, surely there would be evidence for it.
There's not.
Still, I admire his honesty, as far as it went.
nsns
There's not.
Still, I admire his honesty, as far as it went.
nsns
I thought he did quite well. He proved that the actual effect of a great flood is not evident on the earth. So for one to have wiped mankind off the earth, it had to be a supernatural event.
Now of course, that works for religious folks except those like Bill who tried to say there is evidence of a flood by geographical means. There is not.
More of that faith stuff.
Now of course, that works for religious folks except those like Bill who tried to say there is evidence of a flood by geographical means. There is not.
More of that faith stuff.
On the "Post a Comment" - earbob said - If we would all just give up religion,
the world would be a much kinder and gentler place.
I'm thinking more religious people would be better.
Inv.
.
the world would be a much kinder and gentler place.
I'm thinking more religious people would be better.
Inv.
.
I'd have to agree with earbob. I'm finding atheists are much kinder and gentler than believers. At least on this forum that is. I wonder about the difference in some of the "christians" here and in "real life." Makes me think religion must be a refuge, or last resort, for some.
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
I thought he did quite well. He proved that the actual effect of a great flood is not evident on the earth. So for one to have wiped mankind off the earth, it had to be a supernatural event.
Now of course, that works for religious folks except those like Bill who tried to say there is evidence of a flood by geographical means. There is not.
More of that faith stuff.
He did quite well, I compliment him. I still insist, however, that he complete his examination of the alleged Great Flood and show us what should be obvious and profound evidence for it. You must admit that a flood that washed the top of Mt. Everest would leave traces of its existence.
nsns
quote:quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
I thought he did quite well. He proved that the actual effect of a great flood is not evident on the earth. So for one to have wiped mankind off the earth, it had to be a supernatural event.
Now of course, that works for religious folks except those like Bill who tried to say there is evidence of a flood by geographical means. There is not.
More of that faith stuff.
quote:Sez Slim:
He did quite well, I compliment him. I still insist, however, that he complete his examination of the alleged Great Flood and show us what should be obvious and profound evidence for it. You must admit that a flood that washed the top of Mt. Everest would leave traces of its existence.
nsns
I agree. Evidence, say...so obvious and profound as we have for dinosaurs evolving into ...birds?
Cagey,
There's lots of perfectly good evidence for that! You see dinosaurs every day.
You could look it up.
Happy New Year!
nsns
There's lots of perfectly good evidence for that! You see dinosaurs every day.
You could look it up.
Happy New Year!
nsns
quote:Cagey,
There's lots of perfectly good evidence for that! You see dinosaurs every day.
You could look it up.
Happy New Year!
nsns
I have. There isn't. Just speculation.
It IS almost New Year...I almost forgot...
Nappy Hew Hear!...That's how it will sound at that moment.
the most cursory googling yielded this: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/index.html
birds are dinosaurs.
nsns
birds are dinosaurs.
nsns
A dinosaur was a specific animal. A bird is a specific animal. Where are the gradual ancestoral examples?
Where is the consistency of that evolution?
We have fossils of dinos. We have birds.
With the randomness of evolution, and even given the "rejecting" of the mutations that weren't "bird friendly" there should be mountains of transitions.
(Unless, of course, the "Great Flood" washed them all away...4500 years ago!)
Where is the consistency of that evolution?
We have fossils of dinos. We have birds.
With the randomness of evolution, and even given the "rejecting" of the mutations that weren't "bird friendly" there should be mountains of transitions.
(Unless, of course, the "Great Flood" washed them all away...4500 years ago!)
LOL, cage.
This should be good.
This should be good.
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
Bill,
How would you explain a flood of only 4500 years ago affecting strata layers from 400,000 years ago?
Here is an interesting view of Flood Geology.
http://www.atlantaapologist.or...ers/floodgeology.htm
Hi B,
We are not sure who this writer is nor his credentials. However, he does have some good points.
Yet, he keeps referring to known flood results and all known flood results which man has gathered information -- have been localized, or regional, floods.
Only one time in history has there been a world wide flood -- which covered the entire earth so that the water level was above the mountain peaks. That is pretty deep water.
No one knows what a flood of this nature could do -- for, none of our scientists have seen such a flood.
So, yes, Noah's flood, which lasted for one year, was deeper than the mountain tops -- could have rearranged all the sediment, all the soil, all the rocks -- on earth.
You ask how that could have affected what could have been done 400,000 years ago (if that were possible) -- when Noah's flood was only 4500 years ago. Just like a flood today; whatever has been laying around for many years -- will get rearranged when a flood occurs. And, this is what happened, world wide, with the flood of Noah.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Only one time in history has there been a world wide flood -- which covered the entire earth so that the water level was above the mountain peaks. That is pretty deep water
If the entire world was covered in water, where did the flood waters recede too? Where did it go?
If the entire world was covered in water, where did the flood waters recede too? Where did it go?
Well, I am, for one pleased by the article as the Urantia Book says that humanity first evolved in Asia about 1 million years ago. Getting closer!
quote:Originally posted by bluetick:
Only one time in history has there been a world wide flood -- which covered the entire earth so that the water level was above the mountain peaks. That is pretty deep water
If the entire world was covered in water, where did the flood waters recede too? Where did it go?
That there is a darn good point, blue.
'God' musta had one HELLUVA Krazy Straw....
The whole notion of Noah’s flood came from the period of Babylonian captivity, where, as a moral building measure, the Jewish scholars of the time re-wrote, basically, their entire history. They had, as historical facts (though greatly distorted) the life of David, the life of Abraham, the onetime life of Adam, and even further back the hazy traditions of Daliamatia (spelling?) which lingered even to those times, mainly thru the Sumerians. After failing to be able to place the lineage of David into direct correlation with Adam, one of these scholars decided that it would be easier to create a onetime flood, which would allow the world to drown in its own wickedness, and thus to create a direct line for David through one of Noah’s sons. And the other scholars agreed to this.
What is interesting is that the Jewish people of that day saw these things for what they were, a moral building exercise for an enslaved race. It fell to later day generations to assemble these and other texts into the “inerrant word of God”.
But Noah really lived!
He was a Sumerian winemaker in Erich (spelling?), and he was greatly interested in the current (back then) rising of the local rivers, caused by geological shifts in the world climate. Every year he would warn his neighbors about the rising rivers, and eventually counseled that the families should build homes in the form of a houseboat, herding their animals on board each night for protection. Eventually there came a year where the sudden rise of the river washed away all his neighbors. Only Noah and his family were saved, along with their animals, in their houseboat.
So, you see, there is a grain of truth in every myth!
Al
What is interesting is that the Jewish people of that day saw these things for what they were, a moral building exercise for an enslaved race. It fell to later day generations to assemble these and other texts into the “inerrant word of God”.
But Noah really lived!
He was a Sumerian winemaker in Erich (spelling?), and he was greatly interested in the current (back then) rising of the local rivers, caused by geological shifts in the world climate. Every year he would warn his neighbors about the rising rivers, and eventually counseled that the families should build homes in the form of a houseboat, herding their animals on board each night for protection. Eventually there came a year where the sudden rise of the river washed away all his neighbors. Only Noah and his family were saved, along with their animals, in their houseboat.
So, you see, there is a grain of truth in every myth!
Al
quote:Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
A dinosaur was a specific animal. A bird is a specific animal. Where are the gradual ancestoral examples?
Where is the consistency of that evolution?
We have fossils of dinos. We have birds.
With the randomness of evolution, and even given the "rejecting" of the mutations that weren't "bird friendly" there should be mountains of transitions.
(Unless, of course, the "Great Flood" washed them all away...4500 years ago!)
cage, cage, cage.
there is insurmountable evidence that all large animals (and plants) on the face of the earth were wiped out by a asteroid/comet 65 million years ago. the only things left alive were those animals and plants that could live on the decaying detritus. this happened, cage. we are even "reptty sure" we know where the crater is located (off the yucatan pennensula). the only "dinosaurs" that survived were very small creatures hat looked like miniature t-rex. it is those dinosaurs that speciated into the animals we call "birds" today. when you see a bird, you are actually seeing a living dinosaur.
and, of course, the event allowed small furry mammals (who were able to reaming warm while the earth was went through a long cold spell because of all the crap stirred up by the cosmic event in the atmosphere blocking out the sun) to take over the earth and eventually result in you and me.
inside of every bird is a dinosaur. true story. there is a scientist that recently sequences the genome of a chicken and found the genese that "turn on" scales, long tails and teeth. he plans to stoek a chicken embryo inot developing into a (LINK) pint sized dinosaur. this isn't much of a leap as one might imagine because chickens (and all birds) actually meet all the anatomical definitions we use to define "dinosaur."
quote:Originally posted by alwilliams767:
The whole notion of Noah’s flood came from the period of Babylonian captivity,
al, please cite a reference for this claim?
it is pretty well established that the story is a plagiarization of earlier stories such as the sumarian "epic of Gilgamesh" mixed with some elements of a few other ancient flood stories from other civilizations.
just as the jesus myth was a re-telling of other very similar stories.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
So, yes, Noah's flood, which lasted for one year, was deeper than the mountain tops -- could have rearranged all the sediment, all the soil, all the rocks -- on earth.
god must really be a showman. with infinite power, he could have simply stopped the hearts of every man, woman and child except for his chosen few. that would be a humane way to go. instead, he created a spectacle that hollywood could never top and sat up there and watch (with a big grin on His face) as millions of women, children and babies and gods and cats and giraffes and lemurs died in a horrible panic. i guess he made this show just to show a few family members and friends that he has the powah. then he admits to his mistake by erecting a rainbow.
yeah that makes perfect sense. jesus christ you people actually worship such a "infinitely loving" being? WAKE UP!
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
Bill,
How would you explain a flood of only 4500 years ago affecting strata layers from 400,000 years ago?
Here is an interesting view of Flood Geology.
http://www.atlantaapologist.or...ers/floodgeology.htm
You must have forgotten. Bill does not answer questions.
quote:Originally posted by alwilliams767:
The whole notion of Noah’s flood came from the period of Babylonian captivity, where, as a moral building measure, the Jewish scholars of the time re-wrote, basically, their entire history. They had, as historical facts (though greatly distorted) the life of David, the life of Abraham, the onetime life of Adam, and even further back the hazy traditions of Daliamatia (spelling?) which lingered even to those times, mainly thru the Sumerians. After failing to be able to place the lineage of David into direct correlation with Adam, one of these scholars decided that it would be easier to create a onetime flood, which would allow the world to drown in its own wickedness, and thus to create a direct line for David through one of Noah’s sons. And the other scholars agreed to this.
What is interesting is that the Jewish people of that day saw these things for what they were, a moral building exercise for an enslaved race. It fell to later day generations to assemble these and other texts into the “inerrant word of God”.
But Noah really lived!
He was a Sumerian winemaker in Erich (spelling?), and he was greatly interested in the current (back then) rising of the local rivers, caused by geological shifts in the world climate. Every year he would warn his neighbors about the rising rivers, and eventually counseled that the families should build homes in the form of a houseboat, herding their animals on board each night for protection. Eventually there came a year where the sudden rise of the river washed away all his neighbors. Only Noah and his family were saved, along with their animals, in their houseboat.
So, you see, there is a grain of truth in every myth!
Al
quote:Beyond this place of wrath and tears, Is a better place.
Keep dreamin if that makes you feel better. Me? I'll live in reality where no magical beings exist and no mansions of gold in the sky.
quote:inside of every bird is a dinosaur. true story. there is a scientist that recently sequences the genome of a chicken and found the genese that "turn on" scales, long tails and teeth. he plans to stoek a chicken embryo inot developing into a (LINK) pint sized dinosaur. this isn't much of a leap as one might imagine because chickens (and all birds) actually meet all the anatomical definitions we use to define "dinosaur."
LOL! Unob, I saw "Jurassic Park" a long time ago
It is a movie. It is not reality.
Try again.
quote:yeah that makes perfect sense. jesus christ you people actually worship such a "infinitely loving" being? WAKE UP!
Worship, and call him loving and merciful, and can't wait to go see him. Yikes!
The surprising truth
Of course the fatal flaw in the idea that giant dinosaurs still lurk in remote jungles or cold, deep lakes is that all the evidence suggests they died out about 65 million years ago. Many of the lakes said to hide dinosaurs were created only about 10,000 years ago.
If dinosaurs had existed up until much more recently — say, the Nixon administration or even Shakespeare's time — the likelihood of a few remaining, lonely huge dinosaurs might be plausible. But 65 million years is a long time for giant dinosaurs to live and die without leaving any recent fossils.
Yet scientifically speaking, not all dinosaurs died out. Most of us see dinosaurs every day, and some people even have them in their homes. Birds are the modern version of dinosaurs, though seeing Will Ferrell or Jeff Goldblum running terrified from an approaching pigeon just isn't very dramatic.
http://www.livescience.com/str...world-dinosaurs.html
Of course the fatal flaw in the idea that giant dinosaurs still lurk in remote jungles or cold, deep lakes is that all the evidence suggests they died out about 65 million years ago. Many of the lakes said to hide dinosaurs were created only about 10,000 years ago.
If dinosaurs had existed up until much more recently — say, the Nixon administration or even Shakespeare's time — the likelihood of a few remaining, lonely huge dinosaurs might be plausible. But 65 million years is a long time for giant dinosaurs to live and die without leaving any recent fossils.
Yet scientifically speaking, not all dinosaurs died out. Most of us see dinosaurs every day, and some people even have them in their homes. Birds are the modern version of dinosaurs, though seeing Will Ferrell or Jeff Goldblum running terrified from an approaching pigeon just isn't very dramatic.
http://www.livescience.com/str...world-dinosaurs.html
quote:Sez Jennifer:
The surprising truth
Of course the fatal flaw in the idea that giant dinosaurs still lurk in remote jungles or cold, deep lakes is that all the evidence suggests they died out about 65 million years ago. Many of the lakes said to hide dinosaurs were created only about 10,000 years ago.
If dinosaurs had existed up until much more recently — say, the Nixon administration or even Shakespeare's time — the likelihood of a few remaining, lonely huge dinosaurs might be plausible. But 65 million years is a long time for giant dinosaurs to live and die without leaving any recent fossils.
Yet scientifically speaking, not all dinosaurs died out. Most of us see dinosaurs every day, and some people even have them in their homes. Birds are the modern version of dinosaurs, though seeing Will Ferrell or Jeff Goldblum running terrified from an approaching pigeon just isn't very dramatic.
http://www.livescience.com/str...world-dinosaurs.html
Are you sure you want to get involved in this?
It will be more than just "opinion".
Always wondered about these things too. Hard to believe they're only "cousins".
Prehistoric Crocodiles - The Ancient Cousins of the Dinosaurs
Everything You Ever Needed to Know About Crocodile Evolution
Of all the reptiles alive today, crocodiles and alligators may be the least changed from their prehistoric ancestors of the late Cretaceous period, over 65 million years ago--although the even earlier crocodiles of the Triassic and Jurassic periods sported some distinctly un-crocodile-like features, such as bipedal postures and vegetarian diets. (See a gallery of prehistoric crocodile pictures.)
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/...s/a/crocodilians.htm
Prehistoric Crocodiles - The Ancient Cousins of the Dinosaurs
Everything You Ever Needed to Know About Crocodile Evolution
Of all the reptiles alive today, crocodiles and alligators may be the least changed from their prehistoric ancestors of the late Cretaceous period, over 65 million years ago--although the even earlier crocodiles of the Triassic and Jurassic periods sported some distinctly un-crocodile-like features, such as bipedal postures and vegetarian diets. (See a gallery of prehistoric crocodile pictures.)
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/...s/a/crocodilians.htm
quote:Originally posted by CageTheElephant:quote:inside of every bird is a dinosaur. true story. there is a scientist that recently sequences the genome of a chicken and found the genese that "turn on" scales, long tails and teeth. he plans to stoek a chicken embryo inot developing into a (LINK) pint sized dinosaur. this isn't much of a leap as one might imagine because chickens (and all birds) actually meet all the anatomical definitions we use to define "dinosaur."
LOL! Unob, I saw "Jurassic Park" a long time ago
It is a movie. It is not reality.
Try again.
It SCIENCE cage.
quote:It SCIENCE cage.
I'm open. Roll out the sequence, Ubob.
quote:I'm open. Roll out the sequence, Ubob.
Sorry UNOB...they shouldn't ah put tha' damm B buy the N on this moving keyboard!
Moving keyboard? You have one of those, too?
Cagey, this issue is settled. Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. You could say they are dinosaurs.
http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfis...current_theories.htm
That's just one reference. There are thousands more. Just look them up.
As surely as the Earth orbits the Sun, evolution is a fact, and avian evolution from dinosaurs is part of that fact.
You've seen a chicken's foot. It's covered with scales. The feathers are mutated scales, and the development of feathers is well documented. The scales are one of the physiological similarities between the dinosaurs and modern birds.
It's an interesting speculation that dinosaurs had feathers. Imagine if T Rex had peac0ck plumage!
Cagey, if you doubt evolution, you're fighting for a lost cause.
nsns
Cagey, this issue is settled. Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. You could say they are dinosaurs.
http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfis...current_theories.htm
That's just one reference. There are thousands more. Just look them up.
As surely as the Earth orbits the Sun, evolution is a fact, and avian evolution from dinosaurs is part of that fact.
You've seen a chicken's foot. It's covered with scales. The feathers are mutated scales, and the development of feathers is well documented. The scales are one of the physiological similarities between the dinosaurs and modern birds.
It's an interesting speculation that dinosaurs had feathers. Imagine if T Rex had peac0ck plumage!
Cagey, if you doubt evolution, you're fighting for a lost cause.
nsns
quote:It's an interesting speculation that dinosaurs had feathers. Imagine if T Rex had peac0ck plumage!
Sure would have helped his looks.
Ahhh...I have been waiting on this one...
The link...
Archaeopteryx...the "answer".
As many "refutes" as "answers". Now, we go to scales...feathers...and SCIENCE.
The link...
Archaeopteryx...the "answer".
As many "refutes" as "answers". Now, we go to scales...feathers...and SCIENCE.
quote:Archaeopteryx
is one example, not the only one, and is a valid "transitional" fossil.
As if they all aren't.
Good call, Cagey!
nsns
quote:is one example, not the only one, and is a valid "transitional" fossil.
As if they all aren't.
Good call, Cagey!
Next up? "Validation"...
All this, and free parking too??
My dreams have come true.
nsns
My dreams have come true.
nsns
Hi NSNS and other proponents of the dinosaur/bird theory:
As an (very) armature paleontologist, I respectfully declare that all of the writing here saying that without a doubt:
1. Dinosaurs are direct descendants of birds
2. An asteroid in the Gulf of Mexico finished off the dinosaurs
Are premature. While I wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions, the amount of proof, while sufficient for a layman, is in no way settled or complete.
I prefer to still call these ideas theories. To do otherwise puts a person into the camp of the blind follower and hinders the ability to find new and better discoveries.
That being said:
Another great example furthering the theory that birds are the distant descendants of at least one species of dinosaur (the theropods) is a couple years back, a tyrannosaurs thigh bone was broken (dropped from a helicopter during transit I believe). However, instead of being a catastrophe, upon examining the fragments scientists discovered, after 65 million years (plus or minus) actual SPRINGY TISSUE still within the bone. Well, at least it was tissue which became springy after some careful chemical manipulation. So what did they do? Run DNA of course! And guess what? The DAN was much closer to that of an Ostrich than it was to a reptile!!!
How cool is that!
Al
As an (very) armature paleontologist, I respectfully declare that all of the writing here saying that without a doubt:
1. Dinosaurs are direct descendants of birds
2. An asteroid in the Gulf of Mexico finished off the dinosaurs
Are premature. While I wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions, the amount of proof, while sufficient for a layman, is in no way settled or complete.
I prefer to still call these ideas theories. To do otherwise puts a person into the camp of the blind follower and hinders the ability to find new and better discoveries.
That being said:
Another great example furthering the theory that birds are the distant descendants of at least one species of dinosaur (the theropods) is a couple years back, a tyrannosaurs thigh bone was broken (dropped from a helicopter during transit I believe). However, instead of being a catastrophe, upon examining the fragments scientists discovered, after 65 million years (plus or minus) actual SPRINGY TISSUE still within the bone. Well, at least it was tissue which became springy after some careful chemical manipulation. So what did they do? Run DNA of course! And guess what? The DAN was much closer to that of an Ostrich than it was to a reptile!!!
How cool is that!
Al
quote:Sez Al:
Hi NSNS and other proponents of the dinosaur/bird theory:
As an (very) armature paleontologist, I respectfully declare that all of the writing here saying that without a doubt:
1. Dinosaurs are direct descendants of birds
2. An asteroid in the Gulf of Mexico finished off the dinosaurs
Are premature. While I wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions, the amount of proof, while sufficient for a layman, is in no way settled or complete.
I prefer to still call these ideas theories. To do otherwise puts a person into the camp of the blind follower and hinders the ability to find new and better discoveries.
That being said:
Another great example furthering the theory that birds are the distant descendants of at least one species of dinosaur (the theropods) is a couple years back, a tyrannosaurs thigh bone was broken (dropped from a helicopter during transit I believe). However, instead of being a catastrophe, upon examining the fragments scientists discovered, after 65 million years (plus or minus) actual SPRINGY TISSUE still within the bone. Well, at least it was tissue which became springy after some careful chemical manipulation. So what did they do? Run DNA of course! And guess what? The DAN was much closer to that of an Ostrich than it was to a reptile!!!
How cool is that!
Al
65...MILLION year old "springy tissue"???
Maybe a ..."Twinky" I could believe!
I know, it is pretty amazing. And extreemly cool! 
Here is one link to the story. I actually had a video at one point.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
AMAZING!
Science is just so cool.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
AMAZING!
Science is just so cool.
Al,
There's been a lot of misunderstandings about Dr. Schweitzer's work. The preserved soft tissue was mineralized... completely fossilized. Dr. S had to demineralize the specimen and only then was soft tissue, after some fashion, left over.
See: http://animals.howstuffworks.c...fossil.htm/printable
It's not like they broke open a fossil and soft tissue was present right then and there.
Fossilized soft tissue, like skin and feathers, is extraordinarily rare, but there are examples.
Dr. Schweitzer recognizes the accepted age of the Earth and the age of dinosaurs. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/t...php?storyId=89942780
By the way, she's a Christian.
nsns
There's been a lot of misunderstandings about Dr. Schweitzer's work. The preserved soft tissue was mineralized... completely fossilized. Dr. S had to demineralize the specimen and only then was soft tissue, after some fashion, left over.
See: http://animals.howstuffworks.c...fossil.htm/printable
It's not like they broke open a fossil and soft tissue was present right then and there.
Fossilized soft tissue, like skin and feathers, is extraordinarily rare, but there are examples.
Dr. Schweitzer recognizes the accepted age of the Earth and the age of dinosaurs. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/t...php?storyId=89942780
By the way, she's a Christian.
nsns
Hi NSNS:
True enough the tissue was heavily mineralized, but not completely fossilized. If it had been fossilized it could have not been made "springy".
At least that is how I see it.
Either way, the DNA extracted from the tissue resembled that of an Ostrich, not a croc, and that was my point.
Al
The article I read said they "rehydrated" it but didn't go into details on how they did it.quote:Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Hi NSNS:
True enough the tissue was heavily mineralized, but not completely fossilized. If it had been fossilized it could have not been made "springy".
At least that is how I see it.
Either way, the DNA extracted from the tissue resembled that of an Ostrich, not a croc, and that was my point.
Al
Basically, the scientist used some acids and some other organic solvents to "re-hydrate" the tissue. Like you, I am not sure of the exact mixture.
But is it not amazing that after over 65 million years, tissue could be salvaged from one of these magnificant creatures?
It is quite heartening to note that the scientist is a Christian. Just goes to show you that you can love Jesus and still understand evolution!
Al
But is it not amazing that after over 65 million years, tissue could be salvaged from one of these magnificant creatures?
It is quite heartening to note that the scientist is a Christian. Just goes to show you that you can love Jesus and still understand evolution!
Al
quote:Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Hi NSNS:
True enough the tissue was heavily mineralized, but not completely fossilized. If it had been fossilized it could have not been made "springy".
At least that is how I see it.
Either way, the DNA extracted from the tissue resembled that of an Ostrich, not a croc, and that was my point.
Al
Al,
Please show me where anyone found dinosaur DNA from Dr. Schweitzer's fossils. You have the internet at your disposal.
nsns
It's always interesting to see discussions where those who take opposite sites interact with each other thankfully in a reasonable and considerate way. It's certainly no secret that I believe in "God Created" and that I don't believe Evolution was the process that He used in doing so even though if that's the way He wished to do it that he could have done so.
I also understand how taking the position I do appears ludicrous and insane to a person that had no belief in a deity or God and therefore I believe that in order to argue against Evolution, as the process or vehicle by which all life got here, the stronger argument is not one which is to promote my own opinion or belief which also cannot be substantiated or proven beyond anyone's doubts. It is for that reason that I have attempted to rather show, in past post, some non-religious reasons that I have problems with Evolutionary theory.
Another of those, non-religious, problems, I have with Evolution, comes from the probability of chance alone. If, as Evolution teaches, life came from one primordial soup, the most basic one cell being and then divided and "evolved" or developed over time then how is it that man, and man alone, developed such intelligence as to invent, create, develop common languages and multi-lingual abilities and no other species has? How is it that the vast diversity of life can be explained and yet such a vast chasm of diversity of species exist? Diversity such as plant life, insects, mammals, reptiles and bacterial life. All this time and yet man seems to be the only one that can and does alter his/her environment and develop such high levels of reasoning, education, and manipulation of that which he/she touches and encounters.
It seems that science accepted Darwin's evolution of the species as the sole, indisputable, truth and the only possible method or vehicle for our existence. I feel that Scientist do a great injustice, to Science and themselves, to ceremonially dismiss the possibility of a realm outside the physical and thereby limiting Science, in general, to requiring to find some physical explanation for that which I believe is intellectually unattainable, at least at this point in time. Maybe by nature Science necessitates a physical or definable quantity be observed before it can be recognized to exist. Still, without verifiable proof Science projects itself and it's views regarding many other things such as our Universe and the "Big Bang" or Black Holes. Why would it be so difficult to project the same with regard to a Spiritual Realm or some other than physical Realm existing simultaneously with our own. A parallel Universe is hypothetically existing just through a Black Hole so why not the overlapping of a Spiritual existence with a physical one? The merging of the two being, not through some black hole but, the birth of a new soul/baby and the passing of a human soul from a physical body into a Spiritual realm. A better example would be the Human Being our self. The acceptance or recognition of a soul/spirit alive, existing, living, within a physical body yet independent of the physical body in that after death of the physical the soul/spirit continues to live on. Is it too far fetched to Scientifically consider such exist without tying it to God or a Deity? It seemingly seems that Science cannot conceive of such out of fear of recognition of God or a Deity or Religion.
If this discovery does necessitate the rewriting of evolutionary theories then when will the next revision come and what would prompt it? Aside for a moment to say Creation by a Deity or God is it, for a atheist, too hard to conceive that some intelligent source has to be behind or is reasonable to assume to be behind the creation of Man and other life? Would it be inconceivable to assume that if an Intelligent being or life created life that they would use similar sources for various species or in a word "of it's own kind". In other words some common points of reference between say apes and man without, by necessity, having to have one come from the other though this process we call evolution and yes common ties between say birds and Dinosaurs?
The other question, I'd also pose is ... Is it too difficult to accept that quite possibly the actual answers and process, by which we got here, is totally beyond the ability of man/woman to understand or conceive even with our own limited abilities and understandings? Even Creationist cannot explain or conceive of the process that God used in Creation, that is for those that believe in God and creation.
What I'm trying to say is it seems that we, as intelligent, thinking, life creatures, are too fast to limit and restrict our understanding to such a simple physical explanation for life in order to avoid confrontation of other, what I believe are more, probable possibilities? I will repeat, once again, that I believe that Evolution, apart from Religion or religious sources, presents us with far more questions than it answers and leaves far too many discrepancies.
Does the disregarding, or disbelief, of Evolution as a life creation process necessitate the belief in God? It is this assumption that I feel too often traps Scientist into blindly accepting Evolution as incontrovertible. My argument then is not for Creation, which I do believe in as far as myself is concerned, but rather against evolution based solely on that which evolution cannot answer and duplicate
Happy New Year to all ... at least you know, by this post, that one of my successful resolutions wasn't to write shorter forum post.
I also understand how taking the position I do appears ludicrous and insane to a person that had no belief in a deity or God and therefore I believe that in order to argue against Evolution, as the process or vehicle by which all life got here, the stronger argument is not one which is to promote my own opinion or belief which also cannot be substantiated or proven beyond anyone's doubts. It is for that reason that I have attempted to rather show, in past post, some non-religious reasons that I have problems with Evolutionary theory.
Another of those, non-religious, problems, I have with Evolution, comes from the probability of chance alone. If, as Evolution teaches, life came from one primordial soup, the most basic one cell being and then divided and "evolved" or developed over time then how is it that man, and man alone, developed such intelligence as to invent, create, develop common languages and multi-lingual abilities and no other species has? How is it that the vast diversity of life can be explained and yet such a vast chasm of diversity of species exist? Diversity such as plant life, insects, mammals, reptiles and bacterial life. All this time and yet man seems to be the only one that can and does alter his/her environment and develop such high levels of reasoning, education, and manipulation of that which he/she touches and encounters.
It seems that science accepted Darwin's evolution of the species as the sole, indisputable, truth and the only possible method or vehicle for our existence. I feel that Scientist do a great injustice, to Science and themselves, to ceremonially dismiss the possibility of a realm outside the physical and thereby limiting Science, in general, to requiring to find some physical explanation for that which I believe is intellectually unattainable, at least at this point in time. Maybe by nature Science necessitates a physical or definable quantity be observed before it can be recognized to exist. Still, without verifiable proof Science projects itself and it's views regarding many other things such as our Universe and the "Big Bang" or Black Holes. Why would it be so difficult to project the same with regard to a Spiritual Realm or some other than physical Realm existing simultaneously with our own. A parallel Universe is hypothetically existing just through a Black Hole so why not the overlapping of a Spiritual existence with a physical one? The merging of the two being, not through some black hole but, the birth of a new soul/baby and the passing of a human soul from a physical body into a Spiritual realm. A better example would be the Human Being our self. The acceptance or recognition of a soul/spirit alive, existing, living, within a physical body yet independent of the physical body in that after death of the physical the soul/spirit continues to live on. Is it too far fetched to Scientifically consider such exist without tying it to God or a Deity? It seemingly seems that Science cannot conceive of such out of fear of recognition of God or a Deity or Religion.
If this discovery does necessitate the rewriting of evolutionary theories then when will the next revision come and what would prompt it? Aside for a moment to say Creation by a Deity or God is it, for a atheist, too hard to conceive that some intelligent source has to be behind or is reasonable to assume to be behind the creation of Man and other life? Would it be inconceivable to assume that if an Intelligent being or life created life that they would use similar sources for various species or in a word "of it's own kind". In other words some common points of reference between say apes and man without, by necessity, having to have one come from the other though this process we call evolution and yes common ties between say birds and Dinosaurs?
The other question, I'd also pose is ... Is it too difficult to accept that quite possibly the actual answers and process, by which we got here, is totally beyond the ability of man/woman to understand or conceive even with our own limited abilities and understandings? Even Creationist cannot explain or conceive of the process that God used in Creation, that is for those that believe in God and creation.
What I'm trying to say is it seems that we, as intelligent, thinking, life creatures, are too fast to limit and restrict our understanding to such a simple physical explanation for life in order to avoid confrontation of other, what I believe are more, probable possibilities? I will repeat, once again, that I believe that Evolution, apart from Religion or religious sources, presents us with far more questions than it answers and leaves far too many discrepancies.
Does the disregarding, or disbelief, of Evolution as a life creation process necessitate the belief in God? It is this assumption that I feel too often traps Scientist into blindly accepting Evolution as incontrovertible. My argument then is not for Creation, which I do believe in as far as myself is concerned, but rather against evolution based solely on that which evolution cannot answer and duplicate
Happy New Year to all ... at least you know, by this post, that one of my successful resolutions wasn't to write shorter forum post.
gb,
You may disregard evolution on the grounds of incredulity, but that is an insufficient and uncompelling argument.
The DNA record is a compelling argument for evolution. We have DNA similarities not only to animals, but plants. Some DNA does the same thing for both animals and plants, e.g. metabolizing glucosates, if I remember rightly.
Evolution is not a random process. Far from it. If you will take the time to understand it, you'll find it makes perfect sense, and fits the observed data perfectly.
If you're fighting evolution, you're waging a battle for a lost cause. Evolution is a fact. It's as solid knowledge as the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Tilt against this windmill all you want, the windmill will win every time.
nsns
You may disregard evolution on the grounds of incredulity, but that is an insufficient and uncompelling argument.
The DNA record is a compelling argument for evolution. We have DNA similarities not only to animals, but plants. Some DNA does the same thing for both animals and plants, e.g. metabolizing glucosates, if I remember rightly.
Evolution is not a random process. Far from it. If you will take the time to understand it, you'll find it makes perfect sense, and fits the observed data perfectly.
If you're fighting evolution, you're waging a battle for a lost cause. Evolution is a fact. It's as solid knowledge as the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Tilt against this windmill all you want, the windmill will win every time.
nsns
quote:Originally posted by gbrk:
how is it that man, and man alone, developed such intelligence as to invent, create, develop common languages and multi-lingual abilities and no other species has? How is it that the vast diversity of life can be explained and yet such a vast chasm of diversity of species exist?
gbrk, there ISN'T a "vast chasm." our DNA is 98% identical to our closest relative, the chimpanzee. we share 90% commonality with the common house cat. 80% with cows. 75% with mice. in fact, we can fairly accurately predict how long ago were split off from common ancestors according to the differences in our DNA. your assumption that we humans are so far advanced than "the animals" is built purely in ignorance and prejudice. it is not based on scientific fact.
we ARE animals, gbrk. we are currently the most successful animal (not counting insects) but that may or may not be temporary. mankind needs to get off his loft pedestal, realize and understand his place in this universe. insisting that the opinions and myths of bronze aged sheepherders hold more merit that a modern scientist is just so grossly offensive to modern intellect!
quote:
It seems that science accepted Darwin's evolution of the species as the sole, indisputable, truth and the only possible method or vehicle for our existence.
wrong. true, darwin's theory was mostly accepted by the scientific community when origin of species was first published but there were still a few detractors. since that time 150 years ago, it has been overwhelmingly supported by countless converging lines of evidence. you simply do not (and likely cannot) understand the evidence until you remove the blinders your primitive religion has placed upon you.
quote:The other question, I'd also pose is ... Is it too difficult to accept that quite possibly the actual answers and process, by which we got here, is totally beyond the ability of man/woman to understand or conceive even with our own limited abilities and understandings?
gbrk, we have a VAST understanding of how life came to be! no, we do not know exactly how it first appeared on earth (and won't know until time travel is invented and we travel back to witness the event(s)) but we do understand the numerous processes by which it could have happened. no, we cannot yet duplicate the processes but we understand it so well that scientists are on the very verge of creating "life from non-life" in the laboratory as we speak.
by your logic, when science creates "life from non-life" we will become gods.
HI NSNS:
I STAND CORRECTED !
It turns out that what was found was Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone, NOT DNA!
Thanks Al
But I just KNOW I read it was DNA... However, I guess it was not. Thanks for pointing that out to me!
Here is an except from National Geo online:
Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone—has been extracted from the remains of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, according to two new reports.
The new studies provide strong support for the hotly debated claims that organic material previously extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that somehow escaped fossilization. Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005]).
In a related study, a team led by Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University conducted tests that also revealed the presence of collagen in the T. rex remains.
In one experiment, antibodies that normally react in the presence of chicken collagen reacted strongly to the dinosaur protein, suggesting a similar molecular identity.
I STAND CORRECTED !
It turns out that what was found was Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone, NOT DNA!
Thanks Al
But I just KNOW I read it was DNA... However, I guess it was not. Thanks for pointing that out to me!
Here is an except from National Geo online:
Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone—has been extracted from the remains of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, according to two new reports.
The new studies provide strong support for the hotly debated claims that organic material previously extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that somehow escaped fossilization. Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005]).
In a related study, a team led by Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University conducted tests that also revealed the presence of collagen in the T. rex remains.
In one experiment, antibodies that normally react in the presence of chicken collagen reacted strongly to the dinosaur protein, suggesting a similar molecular identity.
Hi gbrk:
Thanks for starting this amazing thread.
I agree with your argument against evolution as far as this is concerned: I do not believe that evolution continues back to ever simpler and simpler origins. Well, let me rephrase that… I believe that on this world life evolved from those simple forms promoted by the many materialists who post here… I just also believe that there is a plan and a purpose to evolution in the universe.
I see the universe as being a creation of eventual experiential perfection, not a random and chance juxtaposition of moving galaxies. And as such, I see it as imperfect, yet perfecting, the whole universe, not just this one planet. When a person looks at the deep field (not the deep fat field) view taken by the Hubble telescope, the idea that we are alone seems almost absurd. I mean there are millions of galaxies out there, each with million of suns, and each of those suns has the possiblilty of being orbited by worlds which could sustain life.
To me, knowing this, it is the supreme of hubris to think that we are somehow alone in the universe. To believe that we are somehow so all important that the God of the Universe would be so interested that anything we could do could actually anger him. God is God of a million worlds, a billion worlds. A few individuals who are planning to opt out of the eternal adventure could hardly be of such a great consequence to him. I am sure it happens all the time, on every evolutionary sphere.
In the end, I think, we will all get what we want. God gives to each of us all we will receive. If we are trapped in the mindset that all we can conceive of God is that he is somehow like us, vengeful, wrathful, a stern judge of men, well, that is OK… for now. It is all that these individuals can conceive. God is ever ready to respond to even the faintest flicker of faith. And even these individuals will someday truly find God, and find him to their complete satisfaction.
And if some would rather reject the eternal adventure, then this too, is their right. If this short life is all they wish, then they too will be granted their desire, again to their complete satisfaction. The goodness and love which they experienced, those things of lasting value, they will be returned to the over-control of experiential potential as a drop of water returns to the sea. Man can not stop the continuing experiential perfecting of the universe, but each of us has complete control in whether of not we are personal participants in that evolving perfection.
So, really, it is all good.
Take care
Al
Thanks for starting this amazing thread.
I agree with your argument against evolution as far as this is concerned: I do not believe that evolution continues back to ever simpler and simpler origins. Well, let me rephrase that… I believe that on this world life evolved from those simple forms promoted by the many materialists who post here… I just also believe that there is a plan and a purpose to evolution in the universe.
I see the universe as being a creation of eventual experiential perfection, not a random and chance juxtaposition of moving galaxies. And as such, I see it as imperfect, yet perfecting, the whole universe, not just this one planet. When a person looks at the deep field (not the deep fat field) view taken by the Hubble telescope, the idea that we are alone seems almost absurd. I mean there are millions of galaxies out there, each with million of suns, and each of those suns has the possiblilty of being orbited by worlds which could sustain life.
To me, knowing this, it is the supreme of hubris to think that we are somehow alone in the universe. To believe that we are somehow so all important that the God of the Universe would be so interested that anything we could do could actually anger him. God is God of a million worlds, a billion worlds. A few individuals who are planning to opt out of the eternal adventure could hardly be of such a great consequence to him. I am sure it happens all the time, on every evolutionary sphere.
In the end, I think, we will all get what we want. God gives to each of us all we will receive. If we are trapped in the mindset that all we can conceive of God is that he is somehow like us, vengeful, wrathful, a stern judge of men, well, that is OK… for now. It is all that these individuals can conceive. God is ever ready to respond to even the faintest flicker of faith. And even these individuals will someday truly find God, and find him to their complete satisfaction.
And if some would rather reject the eternal adventure, then this too, is their right. If this short life is all they wish, then they too will be granted their desire, again to their complete satisfaction. The goodness and love which they experienced, those things of lasting value, they will be returned to the over-control of experiential potential as a drop of water returns to the sea. Man can not stop the continuing experiential perfecting of the universe, but each of us has complete control in whether of not we are personal participants in that evolving perfection.
So, really, it is all good.
Take care
Al
i realize this doens't have a lot of bearing on the topic.. not really...
but the other day i was discussing creation and evoloution etc etc with a friend of mine. (i know.. i have friends.. shock, right?)
and at one point he said "evolve up from monkies hell... some people i know are still monkies."
it amused me, and i thought i'd share in case someone else who needed a chuckle got one from it.
but the other day i was discussing creation and evoloution etc etc with a friend of mine. (i know.. i have friends.. shock, right?)
and at one point he said "evolve up from monkies hell... some people i know are still monkies."
it amused me, and i thought i'd share in case someone else who needed a chuckle got one from it.
quote:Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Hi gbrk:
Thanks for starting this amazing thread.
I agree with your argument against evolution as far as this is concerned: I do not believe that evolution continues back to ever simpler and simpler origins. Well, let me rephrase that… I believe that on this world life evolved from those simple forms promoted by the many materialists who post here… I just also believe that there is a plan and a purpose to evolution in the universe.
I see the universe as being a creation of eventual experiential perfection, not a random and chance juxtaposition of moving galaxies. And as such, I see it as imperfect, yet perfecting, the whole universe, not just this one planet. When a person looks at the deep field (not the deep fat field) view taken by the Hubble telescope, the idea that we are alone seems almost absurd. I mean there are millions of galaxies out there, each with million of suns, and each of those suns has the possiblilty of being orbited by worlds which could sustain life.
To me, knowing this, it is the supreme of hubris to think that we are somehow alone in the universe. To believe that we are somehow so all important that the God of the Universe would be so interested that anything we could do could actually anger him. God is God of a million worlds, a billion worlds. A few individuals who are planning to opt out of the eternal adventure could hardly be of such a great consequence to him. I am sure it happens all the time, on every evolutionary sphere.
In the end, I think, we will all get what we want. God gives to each of us all we will receive. If we are trapped in the mindset that all we can conceive of God is that he is somehow like us, vengeful, wrathful, a stern judge of men, well, that is OK… for now. It is all that these individuals can conceive. God is ever ready to respond to even the faintest flicker of faith. And even these individuals will someday truly find God, and find him to their complete satisfaction.
And if some would rather reject the eternal adventure, then this too, is their right. If this short life is all they wish, then they too will be granted their desire, again to their complete satisfaction. The goodness and love which they experienced, those things of lasting value, they will be returned to the over-control of experiential potential as a drop of water returns to the sea. Man can not stop the continuing experiential perfecting of the universe, but each of us has complete control in whether of not we are personal participants in that evolving perfection.
So, really, it is all good.
Take care
Al
I enjoyed your comment. I tend to think of God as the ultimate scientist. His methods of creation are definitely more complex than anything we could ever understand. Our scientists may try to comprehend it all, but we're definitely limited in our human intellect. I know this world is flawed and has it's problems, but things are just too well organized and too skillfully crafted for there not to have been some sort of grand director managing it all. Things just work too perfectly. From the way a tree grows, makes seeds, soaks in water and nutrients, makes leaves, and has just enough sunlight to survive, to the gestation and birth of a new born baby. Things are just too well planned out and thought through for it all just to be one big long evolutionary path from one celled organisms to complicated ecosystems. I just can't believe things just happened to turn out just right.
God created a magnificent world, and I'm smart enough to recognize that the version of the story we have in Genesis is the really, really simplified version of it all.
quote:enjoyed your comment. I tend to think of God as the ultimate scientist. His methods of creation are definitely more complex than anything we could ever understand.
WE DO "UNDERSTAND" THE METHODS!
this is the crux of this entire evolution/creation debate. you guys simply have not taken the time to education yourself on a topic that seems to be so important to you. no, we don't understand all the processes 100% but we have some pretty darn good ideas of how life could have (and still does) evolve.
you creationists are like elementary school kids passing yourselves off as supreme court judges. your ignorance can be fixed simply by opening a book. until you do that, you are commuting intellectual fraud by pretending to know something you don't.
.... and i didn't mean to disparage elementary school kids in my remark. after all, even they have grasped the simple concept of small changes over vast periods of time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMn4KsRXgGA
!
Attachments
Images (1)
Sorry if something in my comments made you feel the need to get all defensive. I understand the theories of evolution probably just as well as you. Your assumption that I've not taken the time to understand them is just that... an assumption. I don't think you got the jist of what I was saying. I don't rule out the need of evolution, physics, and natural biological processes... I just happen to believe these are God's way of creating. To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant. God uses scientific means to get things done... probably one day we'll find out that many miracles and amazing things talked about in the Bible can all be explained in a scientific way from the molecular level, and yet were all orchestrated by God.
Wow Triforce, Great Post!
Al
Al
In other words: "When in doubt-Blame it on the invisible guy."
Hi UNO:
Thanks for your insightful post. I fully sympathize with your viewpoint that mankind is making tremendous strides in conquering the material universe around him. I trust you can agree with me that we still have a long way to go.
If you choose to lump me into that nebulous mass of humanity which you have decided to call “creationists”, that’s fine. Sticks and stones and all that. Just please remember that I do agree with most everything you have said as far as hard science is concerned. Where we seem to differ is that I see a spiritual ying alongside the material yang.
But I think we can agree enough to be friends, don’t you?
And again, I must agree with Triforce that your assumptions are just that, assumptions, correct? After all, every good scientist knows that our understanding of the universe is base upon an ever enlarging and slowly proofing out of a series of assumption, right?
Al
Thanks for your insightful post. I fully sympathize with your viewpoint that mankind is making tremendous strides in conquering the material universe around him. I trust you can agree with me that we still have a long way to go.
If you choose to lump me into that nebulous mass of humanity which you have decided to call “creationists”, that’s fine. Sticks and stones and all that. Just please remember that I do agree with most everything you have said as far as hard science is concerned. Where we seem to differ is that I see a spiritual ying alongside the material yang.
But I think we can agree enough to be friends, don’t you?
And again, I must agree with Triforce that your assumptions are just that, assumptions, correct? After all, every good scientist knows that our understanding of the universe is base upon an ever enlarging and slowly proofing out of a series of assumption, right?
Al
Hi Pup:
What an amusing comment! I like that.
So what do you think about all this? Do you share my understand that mankind is evolved from the primordial slime? Can we agree on this?
And could we agree further that there is a possibility that there is a spiritual side to the universe?
Just wondering.
Al
What an amusing comment! I like that.
So what do you think about all this? Do you share my understand that mankind is evolved from the primordial slime? Can we agree on this?
And could we agree further that there is a possibility that there is a spiritual side to the universe?
Just wondering.
Al
quote:To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant. God uses scientific means to get things done
Then why not just straight forward "instructions"? Why all the "thou shalts" and all that stuff? Why not just plain english such as, "don't kill people", don't do this don't do that. In plain english. The reason is, the bible was written by people who spoke like that. No god told them anything. A god would have known we would "evolve" and would have used plain words to speak to us. The ones writing the bible couldn't imagine the way we live now, and there was no god to tell them. All they did was decide how they thought mankind should live, and wrote "scary stories" telling people what would happen if they didn't live that way. The bible is an old instruction manual for them. I imagine they wrote parts of it to "explain" the things around them they didn't understand. Ask a child to explain something and we laugh when they do. But until that child grows up and learns how that something works all they have is their imagination to explain it.
Road, there are even better examples.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
Then why not just straight forward "instructions"? Why all the "thou shalts" and all that stuff? Why not just plain english such as, "don't kill people", don't do this don't do that. In plain english. The reason is, the bible was written by people who spoke like that. No god told them anything. A god would have known we would "evolve" and would have used plain words to speak to us. The ones writing the bible couldn't imagine the way we live now, and there was no god to tell them. All they did was decide how they thought mankind should live, and wrote "scary stories" telling people what would happen if they didn't live that way. The bible is an old instruction manual for them. I imagine they wrote parts of it to "explain" the things around them they didn't understand. Ask a child to explain something and we laugh when they do. But until that child grows up and learns how that something works all they have is their imagination to explain it.
Excellent! I agree 100%.
Here we go with the "fact" of evolution again. Evolution as to what? That all things on Earth "evolved" from a single life form that just invented itself? That we are all related?
Oh, but we're talking "evolution", not "origin of life"? Sorry, even though evolutionists like to try keep these separate they are interwoven.
DNA. The blueprint of all living things. Common ancestor...or a common design?
Take the scientific fact chimpanzees DNA is a 98% match to human DNA. If you “educate” yourself, as has been suggested, you will find this to be a far more complex statement. To those that simply take it as face value, by simply looking at a monkey, then a human, it would appear to pan out. Many of the assumptions, for and against, are based on this simple thinking. However, once someone begins to “educate” themselves on the subject you will find that, when other factors are taken, this percentage begins to drop.
Still, you will say, if it drops to 95% that is still a “fact” of common ancestry! Nope, not so fast. Within the 2 to 5% that does not match, there are literally THOUSANDS of factors that would argue against any “match” or common ancestor. Some that with a simple change, or “mutation” in as little as 1% would kill the monkey. Look it up.
DNA sequencing and common proteins. Proteins essential for common function no matter what the species. Chimps and humans can pretty well digest the same thing, so you would expect to find similar DNA for this function. Common ancestor? Common design? Google it.
Chimps...98% human, yet we use many less educated, more “distant relatives” for service to humans. Seen many “seeing-eye monkeys” lately?
You really should think about the next banana you eat. You are eating a “relative” that has 50% DNA commonality with you.
Then we are wowed with chromosomes. Chimps have 24 pair (48) humans have 23 (46). We are told, by science, that probably, maybe, to the best of theories, that somewhere in the evolution, 2 of the human chromes linked up. Somewhere. Weren’t needed. But you won’t hear much of the rest of the chromosome story. Why, because science will tell you that it’s not related to phylogenetic progression. The reason? Because the data would simply rebuff what evolution calls “facts”. We evolved from the simplest form. Right? Simple to complex. By chromosome “count” we humans progressed as first penicillin (2), then a fruit fly (8) lettuce (18) marijuana / carrot (20) Kidney bean / opossum (22) cat (38) soybean (40) bat (44) then arrived where we are today , human, at (46). Our closest “relatives” would be the chimp (48) and the tobacco plant (48). Should we continue to evolve, we can look forward to someday being cotton (52) a sweet potato (90) and eventually reach the top, to become a fern! (480) Google it.
Again, this all points to the “fact” of evolution, because it seems reasonable. We have to be reasonable, within what we know to be natural. There is no ‘fact” of evolution. Again, we are talking “all life sprang from a single, “naturally” invented life.
Evolution likes to point to anatomical similarities to show “common ancestry”. Then, when the gaps can’t be factually filled, we have theories. “We believe it happened this way...given what we know so far”? Scientific “faith“...having a firm belief in something not “proved”. The same thing evolution frowns upon when faced with “creationism”...ID...etc.
As to the “we are close to creating life from non-life”? That is about as an illogical a statement as can be made. It has never been seen to be naturally done. With all of sciences great accomplishments. All of the knowledge learned. All of the advance equipment. There has not been ONE living thing produced from non. Not even a human hair, but the complex “human” is just a series of progressions? By natural selection?
But we are asked to believe the “fact” that it happened naturally...and everything else just fell into place...
Don’t take my research for “fact”, though, do a search for yourself.
Oh, but we're talking "evolution", not "origin of life"? Sorry, even though evolutionists like to try keep these separate they are interwoven.
DNA. The blueprint of all living things. Common ancestor...or a common design?
Take the scientific fact chimpanzees DNA is a 98% match to human DNA. If you “educate” yourself, as has been suggested, you will find this to be a far more complex statement. To those that simply take it as face value, by simply looking at a monkey, then a human, it would appear to pan out. Many of the assumptions, for and against, are based on this simple thinking. However, once someone begins to “educate” themselves on the subject you will find that, when other factors are taken, this percentage begins to drop.
Still, you will say, if it drops to 95% that is still a “fact” of common ancestry! Nope, not so fast. Within the 2 to 5% that does not match, there are literally THOUSANDS of factors that would argue against any “match” or common ancestor. Some that with a simple change, or “mutation” in as little as 1% would kill the monkey. Look it up.
DNA sequencing and common proteins. Proteins essential for common function no matter what the species. Chimps and humans can pretty well digest the same thing, so you would expect to find similar DNA for this function. Common ancestor? Common design? Google it.
Chimps...98% human, yet we use many less educated, more “distant relatives” for service to humans. Seen many “seeing-eye monkeys” lately?
You really should think about the next banana you eat. You are eating a “relative” that has 50% DNA commonality with you.
Then we are wowed with chromosomes. Chimps have 24 pair (48) humans have 23 (46). We are told, by science, that probably, maybe, to the best of theories, that somewhere in the evolution, 2 of the human chromes linked up. Somewhere. Weren’t needed. But you won’t hear much of the rest of the chromosome story. Why, because science will tell you that it’s not related to phylogenetic progression. The reason? Because the data would simply rebuff what evolution calls “facts”. We evolved from the simplest form. Right? Simple to complex. By chromosome “count” we humans progressed as first penicillin (2), then a fruit fly (8) lettuce (18) marijuana / carrot (20) Kidney bean / opossum (22) cat (38) soybean (40) bat (44) then arrived where we are today , human, at (46). Our closest “relatives” would be the chimp (48) and the tobacco plant (48). Should we continue to evolve, we can look forward to someday being cotton (52) a sweet potato (90) and eventually reach the top, to become a fern! (480) Google it.
Again, this all points to the “fact” of evolution, because it seems reasonable. We have to be reasonable, within what we know to be natural. There is no ‘fact” of evolution. Again, we are talking “all life sprang from a single, “naturally” invented life.
Evolution likes to point to anatomical similarities to show “common ancestry”. Then, when the gaps can’t be factually filled, we have theories. “We believe it happened this way...given what we know so far”? Scientific “faith“...having a firm belief in something not “proved”. The same thing evolution frowns upon when faced with “creationism”...ID...etc.
As to the “we are close to creating life from non-life”? That is about as an illogical a statement as can be made. It has never been seen to be naturally done. With all of sciences great accomplishments. All of the knowledge learned. All of the advance equipment. There has not been ONE living thing produced from non. Not even a human hair, but the complex “human” is just a series of progressions? By natural selection?
But we are asked to believe the “fact” that it happened naturally...and everything else just fell into place...
Don’t take my research for “fact”, though, do a search for yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:quote:To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant. God uses scientific means to get things done
Then why not just straight forward "instructions"? Why all the "thou shalts" and all that stuff? Why not just plain english such as, "don't kill people", don't do this don't do that. In plain english. The reason is, the bible was written by people who spoke like that. No god told them anything. A god would have known we would "evolve" and would have used plain words to speak to us. The ones writing the bible couldn't imagine the way we live now, and there was no god to tell them. All they did was decide how they thought mankind should live, and wrote "scary stories" telling people what would happen if they didn't live that way. The bible is an old instruction manual for them. I imagine they wrote parts of it to "explain" the things around them they didn't understand. Ask a child to explain something and we laugh when they do. But until that child grows up and learns how that something works all they have is their imagination to explain it.
Actually Jennifer the actual instructions, from God, are more to that very form. The scriptures were brought forth, unto man, mainly in Greek and Hebrew text and form because that is the language of those who, we believe, God gave the information to and they then transcribed it using their own language.
The thou's and thou shalt's comes from a directive of King James to translate the original writings into "modern understandable language". Well the language of King James and of that day was with the thou shalt not and so forth. Today we have additional translations that have done exactly the same thing that the translators, for King James, did. We have those that have taken the original manuscripts and words and brought them into "today's" language and understanding using words in vogue today.
The New American Standard translation is most likely the closest and best translation to what the original wording of the text of the old manuscripts said. Versions like the New International Version (NIV) also translate the old manuscripts but concentrate more on translating the thoughts of the old text rather than a word by word translation. In other words to be accurate to the overall thought that was being expressed rather than getting every single word exact.
Originally, in Christ day, they had neither. The actual manuscripts or scrolls that were copied from the originals were kept up and opened infrequently and read from only at certain times. The translation came from those that did the reading, during those times. People would gather around, the priest would read from the scrolls and that is how people got the "Word of God". There wasn't Bibles as we have today. Word of mouth and second hand is how people were taught.
Today more people have access to God's Word than at any time before.
quote:Originally posted by Triforce of Courage:
I understand the theories of evolution probably just as well as you.
i am skeptical of that claim.
quote:Your assumption that I've not taken the time to understand them is just that... an assumption.
no, it is a conclusion based on evidence. the main body of evidence being this quote from you, "I know this world is flawed and has it's problems, but things are just too well organized and too skillfully crafted for there not to have been some sort of grand director managing it all."
that is the basis "watchmaker argument." or "argument from design" which is a commitance of the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" which is what the entire creationist movement is based upon.
just because you cannot fathom how something should not cause a logical mind to conclude that "god did it." If one of the foundations of your faith is based upon that fallacy, it is in grave danger as science discovers more and more of what makes this world tick and how it was ACTUALLY created.
quote:To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant.
then, in your world, astrology and astronomy, alchemy and chemistry, a psychiatry and phrenology can coexist. in the rational world, all of those are utterly diametrically opposed. the difference between all of those "disciplines" is a basic understanding of a few core principals. you have not taken the time to educate yourself if you believe they all can coexist. i can recommend a few good books the aid in your enlightenment if you wish.
quote:Originally posted by alwilliams767:
If you choose to lump me into that nebulous mass of humanity which you have decided to call “creationists”, that’s fine.
i do not, al. it seems to me that your understanding of science is more along the lines of (evolutionist) stephen j. gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria" concept as opposed to the fundamentalist's outright denial and self-imposed ignorance of scientific achievement.
you are simply inserting your concept of god in the areas that science has yet to illuminate. he may, in fact, be there but, historically, that is a very scary place for god to hide as science continues to point the light of reason at those shadows.
EXCELLENT!
Thanks UNO! Let us toast to the further illumination of science. I am with you all the way, as far as that goes. Drive back the darkness of ignorance and superstition, let in the light!
Al
Thanks UNO! Let us toast to the further illumination of science. I am with you all the way, as far as that goes. Drive back the darkness of ignorance and superstition, let in the light!
Al
Hi Al,
You are with anyone who is anti-God, anti-Christian. So, what is new?
Some times you preach New Age; sometimes it is Cult Universalism -- and now atheism. Seems you have tried to cover all bases -- except true Christianity.
Al, my Friend, you really should try Jesus Christ, the real LIGHT.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You are with anyone who is anti-God, anti-Christian. So, what is new?
Some times you preach New Age; sometimes it is Cult Universalism -- and now atheism. Seems you have tried to cover all bases -- except true Christianity.
Al, my Friend, you really should try Jesus Christ, the real LIGHT.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Actually Jennifer the actual instructions, from God, are more to that very form. The scriptures were brought forth, unto man, mainly in Greek and Hebrew text and form because that is the language of those who, we believe, God gave the information to and they then transcribed it using their own language.
Still not buying it. Why such limited laws by an all knowing god? So god thought that in the year 2011 we would still own oxen and slaves? How about all that other "stuff"? Are women still supposed to be opressed and under their husbands thumbs? So it's ok for a parent to show their love for your god by sacrificing their children? Are you supposed to still be killing animals as a sacrifice? Why the change? Don't you believe the bible is the truth?
quote:And again, I must agree with Triforce that your assumptions are just that, assumptions, correct? After all, every good scientist knows that our understanding of the universe is base upon an ever enlarging and slowly proofing out of a series of assumption, right?
Al,
Thanks for admitting you were wrong about the DNA thing. That admission is thoroughly respectable, and reflects a curious and honest mind. We could use some more of that around here.
Your quote above, however, is not accurate. Science is not a set of assumptions, it is a body of data from which theories arise. One may assume a hypothesis which will, or will not, stand to testing.
Astronomers do not assume that the Earth orbits the Sun, it's observable fact. Chemists do not assume that compounds are made of elements, it's demonstrable. Biologists do not assume the DNA map of living organisms, they can actually count the genetic similarities and locate genes that account for specific physiological developments.
Theoretical, better described as hypothetical, speculations such as abiogenesis and quantum cosmology, are always qualified as hypothetical. These speculations are not out of the blue, nor derived from ancient collections of mystical writings, but are educated guesses.
Evolution is a fact. The best hypotheses for abiogenesis and the Big Bang are speculations, and they say so. But speculation is an essential part of curiosity. Some are right, some are wrong, but all are necessary for the advancement of human knowledge.
Best for the new year!
nsns
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:quote:Actually Jennifer the actual instructions, from God, are more to that very form. The scriptures were brought forth, unto man, mainly in Greek and Hebrew text and form because that is the language of those who, we believe, God gave the information to and they then transcribed it using their own language.
Still not buying it. Why such limited laws by an all knowing god? So god thought that in the year 2011 we would still own oxen and slaves? How about all that other "stuff"? Are women still supposed to be opressed and under their husbands thumbs? So it's ok for a parent to show their love for your god by sacrificing their children? Are you supposed to still be killing animals as a sacrifice? Why the change? Don't you believe the bible is the truth?
Fair and reasonable assessment. The great difference in time and God's relation to man/woman is in Jesus Christ. Before Christ God related to man through His Words a brought to His people through priest who would then interpret and administer God's requirements to His people. After Jesus, by Jesus own instructions, as recorded in John, God's Holy Spirit is given unto the believer, all believers, and this Holy Spirit that God uses to minister and relate to each believer. No longer is God's wishes and will interpreted by a priest unto the believer but God deals with each person directly. Additionally, God reveals Himself through God's Word, the Bible and this is open ended not closed and restricted. Before Christ man/woman was under the law and the laws you refer to and bound and restricted by them. Today we do not find justification in obedience to the law and in Sacrifices for transgression of those laws, that we did. Today our justification is found in Faith in Christ and Christ is the only Sacrifice that is required as His sacrifice, Being God in Man's flesh, is the only Sacrifice required doing away with the need for annual sacrifices and priest going into the holy of holies and making prayers for our trespasses. Yes I do believe the Bible and likewise I believe God's Holy Spirit, given to each believer, reveals the truth through the Bible unto each believer. I also believe that Christ did away with the requirements of justification by obedience to the law and necessitating the sacrifices you are talking about. Within the Bible you also find historical recordings of the nation of Israel as well as instructions of running the government which was actually run by the Priest.
Babble.
gb, if god wanted to "minister to each believer" himself, of what use is the Bible? Never mind, don't answer.
I suppose there's no need for priests now, as well? Forget I asked.
Babble.
nsns
gb, if god wanted to "minister to each believer" himself, of what use is the Bible? Never mind, don't answer.
I suppose there's no need for priests now, as well? Forget I asked.
Babble.
nsns
Hi NSNS:
OK, I’ll buy that, most of it at least. Science is indeed a body of ever expanding knowledge. However, to me at least, the more of science I know, the more I know that I don’t know! Every new fact in science overturns the quest for even further knowledge! That is why it is so exciting and fun.
At least that is how I see it.
Hi Bill:
Thanks for noticing. I was hoping you might comment.
I can see both sides Bill. I live the religion which Jesus taught. I love all mankind. To me there is no “us” and “them”. There is just “us”, the human race. The children of the Heavenly Father. All of us on this world, past present and future. I see the big picture Bill.
And yes, I do so enjoy the materialists here at the forum. I admit to paying less attention to the religionists, because, to me, they are not a challenge. They have found their path, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, whatever. To me these are all acceptable roads to God.
The materialists, on the other hand, are really interesting. They seem, for the most part to be really intelligent and good people. I enjoy our banter, and I hope to impress upon them a more favorable light of the existence of religion in our lives. As to if they suddenly want to convert to “Al-ism”, of that I am not so much interested. If I can get across the concept that people can love God, follow the teachings of Jesus and still be honest and hardworking scientists, then to me, I have succeeded.
We are, all of us, on a long road to eventual spirit perfection. God is not hiding from us, as so many here have complained… we are just too spiritually immature to comprehend the reality which is God. Amazingly, this is the same message which Jesus taught his followers, and, as gbrk so correctly pointed out, a long time ago, they did not have the advantages which we now enjoy, and so much of his message has become confused and misinterpreted. But no worries! It will all sort itself out in time.
Al
OK, I’ll buy that, most of it at least. Science is indeed a body of ever expanding knowledge. However, to me at least, the more of science I know, the more I know that I don’t know! Every new fact in science overturns the quest for even further knowledge! That is why it is so exciting and fun.
At least that is how I see it.
Hi Bill:
Thanks for noticing. I was hoping you might comment.
I can see both sides Bill. I live the religion which Jesus taught. I love all mankind. To me there is no “us” and “them”. There is just “us”, the human race. The children of the Heavenly Father. All of us on this world, past present and future. I see the big picture Bill.
And yes, I do so enjoy the materialists here at the forum. I admit to paying less attention to the religionists, because, to me, they are not a challenge. They have found their path, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, whatever. To me these are all acceptable roads to God.
The materialists, on the other hand, are really interesting. They seem, for the most part to be really intelligent and good people. I enjoy our banter, and I hope to impress upon them a more favorable light of the existence of religion in our lives. As to if they suddenly want to convert to “Al-ism”, of that I am not so much interested. If I can get across the concept that people can love God, follow the teachings of Jesus and still be honest and hardworking scientists, then to me, I have succeeded.
We are, all of us, on a long road to eventual spirit perfection. God is not hiding from us, as so many here have complained… we are just too spiritually immature to comprehend the reality which is God. Amazingly, this is the same message which Jesus taught his followers, and, as gbrk so correctly pointed out, a long time ago, they did not have the advantages which we now enjoy, and so much of his message has become confused and misinterpreted. But no worries! It will all sort itself out in time.
Al
quote:the more of science I know, the more I know that I don’t know!
Welcome to the club.
nsns
quote:Thanks for admitting you were wrong about the DNA thing. That admission is thoroughly respectable, and reflects a curious and honest mind. We could use some more of that around here.
slim, i would have sworn the dino thing was all about DNA, too. it took the mention of "collagen" to remind me that it was not. butm, yeah, a public admission of being wrong is certain;y a mark of good character.
anyway, Al, you are vindicated.
quote:If I can get across the concept that people can love God, follow the teachings of Jesus and still be honest and hardworking scientists, then to me, I have succeeded.
you succeeded before you started. we all know science and religion can exist in very bright minds. unfortunately, that appears not to be the case with most people here. you and vp and a select few are exceptions to the rule here.
Awesome!
I am a legend in my own mind...
I am a legend in my own mind...
NSNS said:
Acknowledged.
quote:Babble.
gb, if god wanted to "minister to each believer" himself, of what use is the Bible? Never mind, don't answer.
Acknowledged.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Al,
You are with anyone who is anti-God, anti-Christian. So, what is new?
Some times you preach New Age; sometimes it is Cult Universalism -- and now atheism. Seems you have tried to cover all bases -- except true Christianity.
Al, my Friend, you really should try Jesus Christ, the real LIGHT.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
"True Christianity" is an oxymoron.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:quote:Actually Jennifer the actual instructions, from God, are more to that very form. The scriptures were brought forth, unto man, mainly in Greek and Hebrew text and form because that is the language of those who, we believe, God gave the information to and they then transcribed it using their own language.
Still not buying it. Why such limited laws by an all knowing god? So god thought that in the year 2011 we would still own oxen and slaves? How about all that other "stuff"? Are women still supposed to be opressed and under their husbands thumbs? So it's ok for a parent to show their love for your god by sacrificing their children? Are you supposed to still be killing animals as a sacrifice? Why the change? Don't you believe the bible is the truth?
There are no "instructions from God" except in the imaginations of foolish people.
quote:Originally posted by JimiHendrix:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:quote:Actually Jennifer the actual instructions, from God, are more to that very form. The scriptures were brought forth, unto man, mainly in Greek and Hebrew text and form because that is the language of those who, we believe, God gave the information to and they then transcribed it using their own language.
Still not buying it. Why such limited laws by an all knowing god? So god thought that in the year 2011 we would still own oxen and slaves? How about all that other "stuff"? Are women still supposed to be opressed and under their husbands thumbs? So it's ok for a parent to show their love for your god by sacrificing their children? Are you supposed to still be killing animals as a sacrifice? Why the change? Don't you believe the bible is the truth?
There are no "instructions from God" except in the imaginations of foolish people.
So what qualifications gives you the patient on indisputable truth?
It's interesting how many people are not satisfied or confident in their own beliefs or opinions that they can rest upon them alone or simply the stating of their own opinions. Instead they find it necessary to demean and try and pass some form of judgment upon those who happen to disagree with them and hold some belief of something greater than themselves?
Speaking of "Instructions from God" ... There is something that has been around far longer than you or anyone alive on this forum and lets see what it says.
Psalm 53:1-2 (CEV) 1 Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless! They are heartless and cruel and never do right . 2 From heaven God looks down to see if anyone is wise enough to search for him.
Foolish People ... And it's the very same people that criticize and cry about Christians or people of religion judging or condemning them.
quote:So what qualifications gives you the patient on indisputable truth?
It's interesting how many people are not satisfied or confident in their own beliefs or opinions that they can rest upon them alone or simply the stating of their own opinions. Instead they find it necessary to demean and try and pass some form of judgment upon those who happen to disagree with them and hold some belief of something greater than themselves?
Patent? Is that what you meant? Ok, first of all it is my opinion, and I am very confident in that. If you feel offering my opinion and asking you questions which you can't answer is demeaning to you, then I'd say it's you that isn't very confident in their belief. Christians pretend to want to know what an atheist thinks but once you give them your opinion or ask them a question they retreat to the bible. You don't even have the nerve to use your own words to try to insult me. You can shove your little bible passage "where the sun don't shine."
Yes Patent is what I meant to use but my spell checker or application apparently inserted the word I did not mean to use so you correctly caught that but the post, you last responded to, was not directed to you or at you yet your response indicates as if it was and you get all defensive as if I was attacking you. Read again and you will see my statement was directed at Jimi's response, not yours .
With regards to my comment about demeaning or what I was referring to was the statement where he ( Jimi and not you ) indicated that the only "instructions from God" were in the imaginations of foolish people. It was his categorization of all believers as "foolish people" that was demeaning. A definite opinionated statement but one which is derogatory and and demeaning of believers and a common tactic and practice of many atheist and non-believers who have a hatred of Christians because of our beliefs.
As for not being able to answer a question I recall no question that I was unable or not willing to answer, that was ask of me. On the contrary I posed questions throughout this forum, with regards to Evolution, that I consider have never sufficiently been answered to this point and none of them, contrary to your assertion, was religiously based (at least with regard to Evolution, the forum topic of this thread). If you are referring to comments regarding God's Laws or Commandments then yes I feel it appropriate to use Scripture to form my answer as it was a question regarding something contained within those Scriptures.
I challenge you to find, with regards to any of my comments, on Evolution and not the law or commands, and my statements as to why I do not believe Evolution, any place that my argument was from the Bible or any scripture references. I've made my objections to Evolution in the form of statements, with regard to Evolution itself and totally nonreligious in nature so I don't know if it is Evolution you are referring to or the comments about the Commands and Laws of God?
Again you state "You don't even have the nerve to use your own words to try to insult me. You can shove your little bible passage "where the sun don't shine."
The only Bible passage I cited was one from Psalms using the word Fool which was essentially what he was saying believers were. It was used to essentially to point out that long before any of us existed the term fool was used to refer to anyone who denies God. It was also with regard to Jimi's statement and not any post you made. I was not using Scripture to attempt to make any statement for myself. Scripture can speak for itself and I can speak for myself.
In addition to the above I challenge you to cite any post I have made on this forum where I have insulted you or anyone else because of their or your personal beliefs or opinions, as you seem to indicate I have. It was Jimi, who used the word foolish insinuating that believers were fools for believing in the Commandments of God, yet when I cite a reference to a long ago written Scripture text which made a general statement regarding people of that time you tried to turn it around into some attempt at a personal or specific attempt to insult you. I made no association nor was the reply even targeted at you.
Interesting how sensitive you, and many other atheist, are when nothing was directed at you and yet you have no problem at all with believers in general, believers in this forum are being directly alluded to as Foolish for happening to believe that God actually provided Commandments and Laws to abide by and live by. But then I suppose you might agree with Jimi's assessment on that?
With regards to the questions you mention. What questions is it that you are asking of me that I can't answer or haven't answered and yet feel is demeaning to me? When you say I have "retreated" to my Bible to attempt to answer something are you referring to Evolution, the topic of this thread?
Again my reply wasn't even directed to you yet you set off telling me to "shove your little bible passage". Again it is a Religion forum and a very appropriate place to cite or use a Bible passage. If seeing Bible references somehow bothers or offends you maybe you should consider the Miscellaneous, news, or politics forum where it might be inappropriate or unexpected to see quotes from the Bible.
With regards to attempts to insult you or anyone else, account of your beliefs. I haven't done that this time nor any place before. If you feel I have then please be specific as to what topic, thread, date and time of post.
With regards to my comment about demeaning or what I was referring to was the statement where he ( Jimi and not you ) indicated that the only "instructions from God" were in the imaginations of foolish people. It was his categorization of all believers as "foolish people" that was demeaning. A definite opinionated statement but one which is derogatory and and demeaning of believers and a common tactic and practice of many atheist and non-believers who have a hatred of Christians because of our beliefs.
As for not being able to answer a question I recall no question that I was unable or not willing to answer, that was ask of me. On the contrary I posed questions throughout this forum, with regards to Evolution, that I consider have never sufficiently been answered to this point and none of them, contrary to your assertion, was religiously based (at least with regard to Evolution, the forum topic of this thread). If you are referring to comments regarding God's Laws or Commandments then yes I feel it appropriate to use Scripture to form my answer as it was a question regarding something contained within those Scriptures.
I challenge you to find, with regards to any of my comments, on Evolution and not the law or commands, and my statements as to why I do not believe Evolution, any place that my argument was from the Bible or any scripture references. I've made my objections to Evolution in the form of statements, with regard to Evolution itself and totally nonreligious in nature so I don't know if it is Evolution you are referring to or the comments about the Commands and Laws of God?
Again you state "You don't even have the nerve to use your own words to try to insult me. You can shove your little bible passage "where the sun don't shine."
The only Bible passage I cited was one from Psalms using the word Fool which was essentially what he was saying believers were. It was used to essentially to point out that long before any of us existed the term fool was used to refer to anyone who denies God. It was also with regard to Jimi's statement and not any post you made. I was not using Scripture to attempt to make any statement for myself. Scripture can speak for itself and I can speak for myself.
In addition to the above I challenge you to cite any post I have made on this forum where I have insulted you or anyone else because of their or your personal beliefs or opinions, as you seem to indicate I have. It was Jimi, who used the word foolish insinuating that believers were fools for believing in the Commandments of God, yet when I cite a reference to a long ago written Scripture text which made a general statement regarding people of that time you tried to turn it around into some attempt at a personal or specific attempt to insult you. I made no association nor was the reply even targeted at you.
Interesting how sensitive you, and many other atheist, are when nothing was directed at you and yet you have no problem at all with believers in general, believers in this forum are being directly alluded to as Foolish for happening to believe that God actually provided Commandments and Laws to abide by and live by. But then I suppose you might agree with Jimi's assessment on that?
With regards to the questions you mention. What questions is it that you are asking of me that I can't answer or haven't answered and yet feel is demeaning to me? When you say I have "retreated" to my Bible to attempt to answer something are you referring to Evolution, the topic of this thread?
Again my reply wasn't even directed to you yet you set off telling me to "shove your little bible passage". Again it is a Religion forum and a very appropriate place to cite or use a Bible passage. If seeing Bible references somehow bothers or offends you maybe you should consider the Miscellaneous, news, or politics forum where it might be inappropriate or unexpected to see quotes from the Bible.
With regards to attempts to insult you or anyone else, account of your beliefs. I haven't done that this time nor any place before. If you feel I have then please be specific as to what topic, thread, date and time of post.
quote:Interesting how sensitive you, and many other atheist, are when nothing was directed at you and yet you have no problem at all with believers in general, believers in this forum are being directly alluded to as Foolish for happening to believe that God actually provided Commandments and Laws to abide by and live by. But then I suppose you might agree with Jimi's assessment on that?
With regards to the questions you mention. What questions is it that you are asking of me that I can't answer or haven't answered and yet feel is demeaning to me? When you say I have "retreated" to my Bible to attempt to answer something are you referring to Evolution, the topic of this thread?
Then stop including my posts in your answers.
TimesDaily.com Religion Forum
Talk about today's religion news, as well as your beliefs and practices here in our religion forum.
*************************************************
See the part that says "as well as"?
Talk about today's religion news, as well as your beliefs and practices here in our religion forum.
*************************************************
See the part that says "as well as"?
Stop including your post in my answers? Funny that you did the very thing you ask me not to do in yours. I obliged, will you?
As for your answer appearing it did so not because I chose to copy your reply but because Jimi copied your response and when I copied his yours came along for the ride so I didn't copy your response. The confusion could have easily been avoided if you had of read properly though.
As for your post about the Religion Forum, true it does say as well as and that's not a problem. The problem, as I saw it, was that you seemed irritated that we were posting scripture and my point is that if there is any forum where Scripture is appropriate and expected it would be a Religious forum. If you were that offended by seeing it then my suggestion was you might want to choose another forum where it would not be as likely to appear. Maybe it's not an issue at all but it sure seemed you were upset by something.
As for your answer appearing it did so not because I chose to copy your reply but because Jimi copied your response and when I copied his yours came along for the ride so I didn't copy your response. The confusion could have easily been avoided if you had of read properly though.
As for your post about the Religion Forum, true it does say as well as and that's not a problem. The problem, as I saw it, was that you seemed irritated that we were posting scripture and my point is that if there is any forum where Scripture is appropriate and expected it would be a Religious forum. If you were that offended by seeing it then my suggestion was you might want to choose another forum where it would not be as likely to appear. Maybe it's not an issue at all but it sure seemed you were upset by something.
quote:As for your post about the Religion Forum, true it does say as well as and that's not a problem. The problem, as I saw it, was that you seemed irritated that we were posting scripture and my point is that if there is any forum where Scripture is appropriate and expected it would be a Religious forum. If you were that offended by seeing it then my suggestion was you might want to choose another forum where it would not be as likely to appear. Maybe it's not an issue at all but it sure seemed you were upset by something.
To avoid confusion stop including MY posts when you are replying to others. Bible quotes don't offend me. You can post all the bible passages you want, I don't care, but when I ask for YOUR opinion and all I get are bible passages it shows me you have no answer or thoughts of your own. You never answered my question, you only retreated to the bible. I've read the bible, I wasn't interested in what was written in the bible, I ask what you thought. There are only few christians on this forum that will give their opinions. The rest of you just post bible quotes.