Page 4 of 5

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 2:36 pm
by looks-too-far
You could use more of an arguement to back up what you are saying than "yep, the ark is impossible", or "no way creation is true" "we evolved", etc... Back up what you are saying with clear concise scientific or otherwise proof of what you are saying. Aphephilia and I are the only ones giving scriptural and other types of reference for you. And I'm not saying we're better than you, so please don't read more into that statement than necessary. We have done our homework and can provide you with scriptural evidence to back up what we say. It just would be nice if you could do the same.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 3:09 pm
by humbug
L2F - If you want scriptural "evidence" I could send you an anthropology text book. :D

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 3:09 pm
by clementine
I was just agreeing with things already said by other people, not making any kind of statement. I think I've been very concise in the posts where I've made my points. And like I said before, scripture cannot be used to prove the truth of itself. You can't tell me that Noah had an ark because the bible says so.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 4:05 pm
by looks-too-far
Clementine, I'm just curious, do you believe what the bible says, or just parts of it?

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 5:21 pm
by clementine
I basically don't hold anything in the bible as true. I'm not a Christian.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:29 pm
by aphephilia
Nope, no fear here. I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school through the 6th grade. I was never taught to fear God because He was some mean and cruel God, only to fear in the same way as a child would fear disappointing his/her parents. It's because of the love that we feel that causes us to be afraid of disappointing the ones we love. God loves me, I have no reason to fear Him. He shows me how much He loves me each and everyday.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:35 pm
by aphephilia
"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 9:42 pm
by aphephilia
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- An expedition is being planned for this summer to the upper reaches of Turkey's Mount Ararat where organizers hope to prove an object nestled amid the snow and ice is Noah's Ark."

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 8:11 pm
by Marty
Baby, I think the flood was worldwide, because the Lord opened the fountains of the earth and the firmament in the skies. This would be alot of water. I think when God tells us in His Word that there was a flood that covered the earth, He kind of meant that. The best thing is though, that jcg and clementine didn't live back then and still have an opportunity to have their eyes opened.
I guess I was fortunate to come into my faith in Christ as one of love and not fear. I know of His promise for me, but I love Him now for the Grace He shows me in my relationship with Him. For me, I guess, it's not a thing of Heaven or Sheol - but of a daily walk with God that supercedes all else.
Why I'm interested in the Carbon Dating, is it has proven to be the best resource against evolution. I just love when scientists do this kind of stuff!!
I also found out that the bat wing doors being lower in the ghost towns, it was because of all the dust, couldn't see in as well, and stray bullets flying around that they were made shorter. Much like the doors in the older sections of England being shorter because of the dampness and colder climate. But, I think it was the doors that made the ghost towns anyway!! Who wants to keep hitting their head on a door frame all the time!?!

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 10:17 am
by humbug
Yikes! The religious propaganda is so thick in here I can hardly see. Trying to have factual discourse with religious people is a tad like repeatedly smacking oneself in the forehead with a ballpeen hammer. I can't imagine how many hours people have toiled in order to warp good science into a religious mold.

Yesterday, a coworker of mine told me the world is only 25,000 years old! Who knew!! He says the bible proves it too. I was so flabbergasted I couldn't even respond.

BTW baby, Pangea predates our species by approx 250 million years, unless of course you believe the earth is only 25000 years old.

<small>[ May 05, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: humbug ]</small>

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 2:25 pm
by anthrochick
Originally posted by looks-too-far:
If the "theory" of evolution is true, are we still evolving? If so, where are in-between-lizard-alligator-horse-monkey-ape-man-creatures roving around scraping their knuckles on the ground? And don't tell me we have stopped evolving because now it's all perfect! :roll:

Everything "according to it's kind" makes more sense. But that takes faith, and there is a sad lack of that in the world, unfortunately.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 2:44 pm
by anthrochick
Originally posted by looks-too-far:
If the "theory" of evolution is true, are we still evolving? If so, where are in-between-lizard-alligator-horse-monkey-ape-man-creatures roving around scraping their knuckles on the ground? And don't tell me we have stopped evolving because now it's all perfect! :roll:

Everything "according to it's kind" makes more sense. But that takes faith, and there is a sad lack of that in the world, unfortunately.
My previous post didn't get on here. Sorry about that! In response to the question/statement "are we still evolving?" the answer is yes. It takes thousands of years in order to see the result of genetic mutation or drift and this is for a single trait.
I have another response in regards to a statement posted earlier. Egypt may have been the first "civilization" but keep in mind that by definition civilization is “an advanced state of development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of writing, and complex political and social institutions.” It goes without saying that there existed (and still exist) populations that do not qualify as a "civilizations". This presupposes that the population is sedentary (fixed in one location). In opposition to this you have familial groups of people who are pastoralists, hunter-gatherers, or nomadic. Many of these bands and tribes relied on oral traditions rather than a written form of communication.
I don't wish to get into everyone's religion vs. science debate. I am merely pointing out that neither side is "the truth" (to assume something as the truth, its principles would have to be proven as fact), both side have their inconsistencies and are fallible, and individuals accept either on faith.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:21 pm
by clementine
well said, anthrochick

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 5:37 pm
by anthrochick
thanks. i find the dichotomy between christianity and science.....interesting.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 6:52 pm
by Kerry Tobin
Just a note:

Unlike the westerns you see on tv, there wouldn't exactly have been that many "straigh bullets" flying around in the old ghost towns...

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 06, 2004 8:30 am
by looks-too-far
Originally posted by anthrochick:
It takes thousands of years in order to see the result of genetic mutation or drift and this is for a single trait.
There STILL should be some fossil record of it somewhere.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 06, 2004 1:56 pm
by cmoo
There STILL should be some fossil record of it somewhere. - looks-too-far
Are you refering to fossil evidence of our species evolution? If so, the fossil evidence is extensive.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 06, 2004 3:24 pm
by clementine
I didn't reference any man, I was speaking from looking at slides of embryos myself. I don't know if all the rest of that in between my name and Kerry's was pointed at me, but I hope not, because I didn't say half that stuff you're referring to. I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with the Hitler comment-- is that supposed to be implying that since Hitler thought highly of Darwin and Nietzche that it is wrong to think highly of them? Maybe that's not what you meant, but, if so, that's crazy. I think highly of Darwin and Nietzche and I can assure you, despite my fondness of arguing about science/religion/politics, I am peaceful.

<small>[ May 06, 2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: clementine ]</small>

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 06, 2004 6:44 pm
by looks-too-far
I know the fossil evidence is extensive, what is lacking in the fossil evidence is proof of evolution, and I don't care how many "thousands" of years it takes to mutate, there HAS to be evidence of it in the fossil record in order to support the claim that we evolved, and there isn't.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 06, 2004 6:46 pm
by looks-too-far
Clementine is perhaps one of the nicest persons to debate religion/evolution with, I must admit! :)

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 10:11 am
by humbug
The fossil record IS the "proof". The fossil record is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Once you collect enough pieces you can see the picture. Since our anscestors lived MUCH more recently than say dinosaurs, we Homo Sapiens have gathered many skeletal remains (and tools, food, forensic data, geological data, etc) of our ancestors.

If by "proof" you mean, "show me a Neanderthal", then you are just being silly. It would be cool, but by definition, all of our evolutionary ancestors are dead.

Still curious looks-too-far, do you believe dinosaurs ever really existed here on Earth?

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 11:35 am
by looks-too-far
I am certainly not silly, Humbug and I have done my research as well. I am not looking for an intact skeleton of a neanderthal. Life only comes from previous life. There is no evidence in the fossil record that SHOWS the evolutionary process. Where, for example, do you find any type of mutations or any type of TRANSITIONAL forms. There aren't any I am asking you to prove it. There are many gaps in the record. Darwin is even quoted as saying, "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept,...imperfect to an extreme degree." Of course there were dinosaurs, complete skeletons and other evidences of them are everywhere. There extinction is a matter of debate.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 2:27 pm
by humbug
Ah yes, I've heard this argument before. No transitional forms huh? I'll say this for ya, you sure have bought in to the religious propaganda.

Lets take a trait like bipedalism. The advantages of bipedalism are huge (hunting, gathering, building, etc) which points to natural selection. A GREAT deal of research has been done tracing the development of bidedal locomotion in our species. Turns out bipedalism requires many (too numerous to enumerate here) anatomical changes versus say a quadraped. A larger brain, smaller upturned pelvis, larger birth canal, completely different feet and leg structure. Scientists can trace OUR bipedalism back to our quadrapedal ancestors including all of the "transitional" forms. Try a Google search on Ramapethicus.

Or if you're more interested in the evolution of birds try this link for starters.

Im not saying the fossil record is complete, in fact far from it. To say there are no transitional forms in the record is just plain not true. One could argue that the ENTIRE fossil record is a documentation of transitional forms.

The reason I asked about dinosaurs is that their fossils are much older (150+ million years) than hominid fossils (100,000+). Given this, religious people normally trust the fossil record as it applies to dinos but completely discount the record as it applies to humans. Fascinating don't you think?

I know Im probably boring you since you've already done so much research.

Re:

Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 8:57 am
by Dopey Dwarf
.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 2:06 pm
by anthrochick
Originally posted by humbug:
Ah yes, I've heard this argument before. No transitional forms huh? I'll say this for ya, you sure have bought in to the religious propaganda.

Lets take a trait like bipedalism. The advantages of bipedalism are huge (hunting, gathering, building, etc) which points to natural selection. A GREAT deal of research has been done tracing the development of bidedal locomotion in our species. Turns out bipedalism requires many (too numerous to enumerate here) anatomical changes versus say a quadraped. A larger brain, smaller upturned pelvis, larger birth canal, completely different feet and leg structure. Scientists can trace OUR bipedalism back to our quadrapedal ancestors including all of the "transitional" forms. Try a Google search on Ramapethicus.

Or if you're more interested in the evolution of birds try this link for starters.

Im not saying the fossil record is complete, in fact far from it. To say there are no transitional forms in the record is just plain not true. One could argue that the ENTIRE fossil record is a documentation of transitional forms.

The reason I asked about dinosaurs is that their fossils are much older (150+ million years) than hominid fossils (100,000+). Given this, religious people normally trust the fossil record as it applies to dinos but completely discount the record as it applies to humans. Fascinating don't you think?

I know Im probably boring you since you've already done so much research.