Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 01:19 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
April 17, 2025, 01:22 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 16, 2025, 11:54 PM

New Britain
April 08, 2025, 05:35 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
April 08, 2025, 09:37 AM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
March 29, 2025, 01:09 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
March 29, 2025, 08:40 AM

Ramadan
by akay
March 29, 2025, 08:39 AM

Turkish mafia reliance
March 24, 2025, 06:00 PM

افضل الايام
by akay
March 21, 2025, 10:57 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
March 21, 2025, 07:07 AM

Gaza assault
March 19, 2025, 09:04 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: 24:45, water or sperm?

 (Read 16613 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #60 - October 26, 2010, 06:43 AM

    I believe God created the world and all things in it, as well as the universe and all things beyond it. It is my stand that evolution was not God's method of creation and this can be estabished using the Bible.


    So why did this god give adam nipples?

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #61 - October 26, 2010, 09:18 AM

    Do you believe we were created by Adam & Eve 10,000 years ago, & God wanted you to be a product of incest between their kids?

    Also can you explain why we have the DNA for tails in our bodies which occasionally switches on?
     

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #62 - October 29, 2010, 01:29 PM

    ^ not only that , but a lot of evidence stack up against god , and of course the holy books have no answer for that ... and believers had to improvise to come up with answers
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #63 - October 31, 2010, 03:38 AM

    irritating background noise that wont go away and spoils a good song, like you get on a badly recorded CD


    Okay. Thanks Islame. A little unsure about the context it was used here on this thread. Also I was having a little trouble keeping up to many people were talking to me at once. 

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #64 - October 31, 2010, 04:07 AM

    Well then, please show us the verses that you think contradict evolution. And while we're at it, do you know of any verse in the Bible that mentions the age of the earth? Particularly, that it is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, or is that just something that Young-Earthers made up?

    And fine, I'll simply bookmark the thread and respond to your arguments when you present them.


    Hi Zebedee,
    Seems like a nice way to cover the subject , just bookmark the tread and respond as we each have time.

    I had some seizures and headaches, so on my time off I didn't really look anything up for today. My days off I just took it easy and I am not staying overlong tonight.

    I don't think there is any way to prove the age of the earth, as in the planet, it is possible it is very, very old. I would say way older then 10,000 years. Human history from a Biblical point of view is different because that is what the Bible is dealing with. So, I'll work on that for next time.  As well as evolution not being the means that God used to create life on earth.

    until next time.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #65 - October 31, 2010, 09:34 AM

    I don't think there is any way to prove the age of the earth, as in the planet, it is possible it is very, very old. I would say way older then 10,000 years.


    Yes, it is, and it is not difficult either.  Being medically qualified you are probably aware of some of these facts, but I will outline them anyway.

    1: Chemical elements radioactively decay at different (but predictable) rates.
    2: Rock from volcanos etc (igneous rock) produces these isotopes in their initial form.
    3: If we look at the chemical elements in an igneous rock we can therefore determine how long ago it was produced, because the multiple chemicals within it will have decayed each at their own predictable rate which will collaborate the other elements' decay levels within the same rock.
    4: At one end of tectonic plates new igneous rock is produced as the hot lava is pushed up and cooled by the sea.
    5: This new rock then slides along on its tectonic plate, like a conveyor belt (at the opposite end it is pushed back into the Earth and melted)

    So if we sample rock from the sea bed starting at one end of a tectonic plate and then continue to sample as we move along the direction of the plate's movement we should see an ever increasing age of rocks, and that is exactly what we see.  Using radiometric dating of rocks on Earth we have discovered rocks aged over 3.5 billion years, this gives us a minimum age of 3.5 billion years.

    As a matter of interest this is also how we know that the North/South poles swap every now and again.  As the rock is still in liquid form the iron atoms within them align to the magnetic poles.  This tells us 2 things.

    1: The quick flipping of alignment of these iron atoms shows that the poles of Earth sometimes reverse (and we can date those reversals.)
    2: We can see determine the original alignment of the rocks at certain places, and therefore see how much countries have rotated since they started to move.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #66 - October 31, 2010, 08:14 PM

    Hi Zebedee,
    Seems like a nice way to cover the subject , just bookmark the tread and respond as we each have time.

    I had some seizures and headaches, so on my time off I didn't really look anything up for today. My days off I just took it easy and I am not staying overlong tonight.

    I don't think there is any way to prove the age of the earth, as in the planet, it is possible it is very, very old. I would say way older then 10,000 years. Human history from a Biblical point of view is different because that is what the Bible is dealing with. So, I'll work on that for next time.  As well as evolution not being the means that God used to create life on earth.

    until next time.


    No problem.

    And I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you get better soon.  Smiley
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #67 - November 13, 2010, 09:43 AM

    Hi Zebedee,
    Sorry that it has been so long since I've been back. I've been off on some sidetracks, some related to this some not. Actually I was here Tuesday wrote a nice post then accidently deleted it. Oh well.
    I hope you have been well.

    And while we're at it, do you know of any verse in the Bible that mentions the age of the earth? Particularly, that it is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, or is that just something that Young-Earthers made up?


    I'll start with the age of the earth because it is easier.

    AGE OF THE EARTH

    There is no Bible verse that states the age of the earth nor one that suggest that the earth is 6 t0 10 thousand years old.

    Let us take a look at what is said.

    Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Many Bible scholars will agree that Genesis 1:1 refers to a period of time before and seperate from the creative days. During the undefined time refered to in Genesis 1:1 God and the Masterworker created the physical universe and all things there in, including the earth.
    So, from a Biblical point of view the earth was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began. Some Geologist estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old. Does this calculation-or any future refinement-contradict Genesis 1:1? Not at all. The Bible does not specify the age of the earth. Neither does the Bible specify an age of the universe.

    What about the length of the creative days?

    There is no reason to think that the creative day were literal 24 hour days. Consider the use of the word "day". The Hebrew word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Moses, when summarizing God's creative work, refers to the time before and the six creative days as one day.

    Genesis 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

    Another example is during the first creative day part of a 24-hour day is called day and part is called night.

    Genesis1:5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.

    This is not a strange idea to use the word "day" to mean various lengths of time. It is in fact very commonly done in English. The context of the word helps us know the meaning this is the same with in this case with this word.

    By looking at what happened during the creative days, or periods of time, it is easy to discern that they could have been very long.
    (I'll go ahead and cut and paste some info here)

    A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*

    On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

    The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.

    Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”
    (part of the article The Bible's Viewpoint Does Science Contradict The Genesis Account)

    I don't normally like to just cut and paste however I couldn't see any better way of explaining briefly how the some of the creative things happened gradually and would have taken some time. I think (but I may be wrong) most notably seperating the water and making the atmosphere.

    Well then, please show us the verses that you think contradict evolution.


    There are so many way to go about this topic.

    -This is part of what had me delayed for awhile.

    speciation (spē'shē-ā'shən)   Pronunciation Key
    The formation of new biological species by the development or branching of one species into two or more genetically distinct ones. The divergence of species is thought to result primarily from the geographic isolation of a population, especially when confronted with environmental conditions that vary from those experienced by the rest of the species, and from the random change in the frequency of certain alleles (known as genetic drift ). According to the theory of evolution, all life on Earth has resulted from the speciation of earlier organisms. See also adaptive radiation.

    Does it really happen? Or have some "new" species actually been mislabled? There is a lot of information both ways. Darwin's finches are suppose to be an example of speciation. However it doesn't prove out. It's alot of information that I'd have to type in. If this this proves to be a good conversation I'd do it.

    The salamander article that TheRationalizer posted falls in to the same category. On that same site there is some other information as well. Actually there is quite a controversy about the classification of some species.

    Anyhow the Bible text would be:

    Genesis 1:11 And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 12 And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good.

    Genesis 1:20 And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day.

    24 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.

    This is what we see each kind of animal and plant reproducing according to it's kind. Yes, we could talk about all kinds of things here. I'm totally fascinated by tigon and liger but they just don't happen in nature and I have never found any information that they are able to reproduce.  So even if some animals seem very much the same they are not.  However there are others like dogs who have a very wide genetic potential.

    I was going to do another point but I tired.

    Until next time. Keep safe.
    Lynna.





    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #68 - November 13, 2010, 10:49 AM

    I'll choose the water thank you.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #69 - November 13, 2010, 12:54 PM

    Quote
    Many Bible scholars will agree that Genesis 1:1 refers to a period of time before and seperate from the creative days. During the undefined time refered to in Genesis 1:1 God and the Masterworker created the physical universe and all things there in, including the earth.


    Blah blah blah blah....

    Bible and Quran says 6 days, so it is six days!! End of story. It just prove that Bible is NOT from God, so is Quran... If it is what those idiot scholars think that number of days consist of millions of years, then they are stupid fools. Allah/God have a lot of explaining to do why he mentioned 6 days.

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #70 - November 13, 2010, 01:09 PM

    Blah blah blah blah....

    Bible and Quran says 6 days, so it is six days!! End of story. It just prove that Bible is NOT from God, so is Quran... If it is what those idiot scholars think that number of days consist of millions of years, then they are stupid fools. Allah/God have a lot of explaining to do why he mentioned 6 days.

    While he's explaining that perhaps he could also explain why he contradicted it & said it took 8 days too. Quran 41:9-12 tells us that it took God 8 days to complete his creation, while Quran 7:54, 10:003 and 11:007 say it took 6 days  Cheesy

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #71 - November 13, 2010, 01:31 PM

     Cheesy

    By the way, that 8 days were divided into 4 and 4 days. So 2 days must be overlapped.. Tongue

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #72 - November 13, 2010, 03:54 PM

    @Lynna

    Hi Zebedee,
    Sorry that it has been so long since I've been back. I've been off on some sidetracks, some related to this some not. Actually I was here Tuesday wrote a nice post then accidently deleted it. Oh well.
    I hope you have been well.

    I'll start with the age of the earth because it is easier...


    Hello, Lynna, thanks for taking the time to reply.

    I've read your post and I understand, as I had suspected, that the Bible really doesn't mention anything about the age of the earth. As for your belief that the Bible contradicts evolution, however, I think this is far from certain from the Biblical text.

    I think that a lot of Christians prior to Darwin were probably already believing in a kind of special creation, rather than believing that animal life came about by abiogenesis and evolution. Therefore, I think people with this belief have imposed it upon the text of the Bible, rather than it being derived from an unbiased look at the story of creation.

    You seem to base your argument on the Bible's words:

    Quote
    And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.


    One objection I see is that nowhere does it mention exactly how Yahovah created the animals. For all anyone knows from the text, he, being God, could have easily created all animal life by way of evolution, as the exact method by which he created animal life is not mentioned or described.

    As for 'creating things according to their kind,' evolution itself says that one species comes directly from another, e.g., you don't get an ape that suddenly gives birth to a human. Evolution is very gradual, and each generation is the same species as its parents (except things like hybrid species, of course). So, in evolution, each animal comes from its own kind. The large-scale change of evolution takes place over many. many generations.

    Of course, I'm no Biblcal exegete, but I personally believe that those words are quite vague and open to interpretation, and so, they do not by any means necessarily contradict evolution. I think the belief that they do probably results from a common creationist misunderstanding of evolution, which asserts that radically different animals can emerge from a parent, like the above-mentioned example of an ape being able to give birth to a member of Homo sapiens. Obviously, evolution asserts no such thing.

    I'll look into examples of speciation, as I'm out of time right now. But I remember reading recently about a species of North American ren which had in fact separated from another North American species, constituting a rather interesting example of modern, observed speciation. I'll see if I can find some info on it.

    Anyhow, until next time, be well.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #73 - November 13, 2010, 04:02 PM



    I'll look into examples of speciation, as I'm out of time right now. But I remember reading recently about a species of North American ren which had in fact separated from another North American species, constituting a rather interesting example of modern, observed speciation. I'll see if I can find some info on it.

    please do

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #74 - November 13, 2010, 04:44 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJYLT9TbRew
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlsqkAyxqY

    part 1=
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcWR9sjBy3A
    part 2=
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRGnPIlclps&feature=channel


    SERIOUSLY ^.

    Confucius:
    "What you do not like done to yourself, do not unto others."
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #75 - November 13, 2010, 05:42 PM


    brilliant - sums up the ignorant creationist sentiment perfectly

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #76 - November 14, 2010, 03:33 PM

    lol I am watching the whole series of messed up bible stories.. I have posted it on my facebook, lets seed how much my relatives throw stones back at me or my family.

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #77 - November 14, 2010, 06:54 PM

    They'll probably like them if they are anti-Christian

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #78 - November 14, 2010, 07:00 PM

    lol.. true..

    There is complete silence for now..

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #79 - November 18, 2010, 05:15 AM

    ...as I had suspected, that the Bible really doesn't mention anything about the age of the earth. As for your belief that the Bible contradicts evolution, however, I think this is far from certain from the Biblical text.

    I think that a lot of Christians prior to Darwin were probably already believing in a kind of special creation, rather than believing that animal life came about by abiogenesis and evolution. Therefore, I think people with this belief have imposed it upon the text of the Bible, rather than it being derived from an unbiased look at the story of creation.

    You seem to base your argument on the Bible's words: according to their kinds

    One objection... nowhere does it mention exactly how Yahovah created the animals. For all anyone knows from the text, he, being God, could have easily created all animal life by way of evolution, as the exact method by which he created animal life is not mentioned or described.

    As for 'creating things according to their kind,' evolution itself says that one species comes directly from another, e.g., you don't get an ape that suddenly gives birth to a human. Evolution is very gradual, and each generation is the same species as its parents (except things like hybrid species, of course). So, in evolution, each animal comes from its own kind. The large-scale change of evolution takes place over many. many generations.

    Of course, I'm no Biblcal exegete, but I personally believe that those words are quite vague and open to interpretation, and so, they do not by any means necessarily contradict evolution. I think the belief that they do probably results from a common creationist misunderstanding of evolution, which asserts that radically different animals can emerge from a parent, like the above-mentioned example of an ape being able to give birth to a member of Homo sapiens. Obviously, evolution asserts no such thing.

    I'll look into examples of speciation, as I'm out of time right now. But I remember reading recently about a species of North American ren which had in fact separated from another North American species, constituting a rather interesting example of modern, observed speciation.


    Thank you for your reply Zebedee.

    Then your suspicion is correct, an exact age of the earth can not be obtained from the Bible. I hope the information I provided will  prove helpful as reasoning points with any future discussion you may have regarding the age of the earth from a Biblical point of view.

    -Interesting point what Christians many have thought prior to Darwin. Actually Darwin was not the first promoter of evolution or a creation idea without the divine. Depending what period of history you want to talk about the Catholic Church many have had some of the most God defaming ideas about the natural world that every graced the written page because of their love affair with the traditions of men.  Perhaps even before Aristotle. I don't know. But what I do have some understanding of is that the Catholic Church embraced Aristotles idea of spontaneous generation, turning it's back on Jehovah's Biblical explanation, which put science in the suposed position of setting things right by disproving that wrong idea of religion. I say suposed position because science only corrected Aristotle wrong idea that mislead religionist had embraced.

    Which beginning of evolution do you ascribe to?
    How do you think living things started?
    When there was not physical living things what made them come into being?
    How did life start?

    I'm very interested in knowing if there is an evolution account that does not rely on some form of spontaneous generation to start off it's process.

    -You say: evolution itself says that one species comes directly from another,
    QUESTION Directly from another what? There are some evolution accounts where in all life starts in the water. Then goes some thing like this, fish> lung fish> amphibians> reptile> avian. Of course this all takes millions of years and happened very gradually.

    Does the fossil record actually support a gradualism of change?

    Consider this: Niles Eldredge, a stauch evolutionist, (ever heard of punctuated equilbrium?) states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, "little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species."
    To date , scientist worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many reseachers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged with many species disappearing as suddenly as they had arrived.
    Evoulutionary paleontologist David M. Raup says, "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record: that is, species appear in the squence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record".
     
    Think about how paleontologist divide earth's history into periods of time. Similiar to how the Bible does into creative days. Not one continuously gradually ever changing event.  Something to think about.

        By the way I'm not a Creationist nor a Fundamentalist Christian. That bit of information might save us some time.

    I hope you are and your's are safe and well.
    Lynna
    PS I look forward to hearing about the wrens. I think it will turn out to genetic possiblity within the species like Darwin's finch.  mysmilie_977 I didn't post that.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #80 - November 18, 2010, 05:56 AM

    brilliant - sums up the ignorant creationist sentiment perfectly


    I thought the best way to tell how ingnorant some one is was by the limitation of their vocabulary.
    Do you think that maybe the guy who made that video doesn't really speak English?
    I know English is a hard language. So I always give people the benefit of the doubt on that account because I frequently need it for that reason.
    He was using so much cusing I couldn't figure out his point.
    You make video don't you? Why don't you make one that is actually informative?

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #81 - November 18, 2010, 09:59 AM

    I thought the best way to tell how ingnorant some one is was by the limitation of their vocabulary.

    not really - for me ignorance is summed up by those willing to speak out with a lack of knowledge.  Limitation of vocobluary could simply be excused by it being a foreign language, or a lack of interest in English.  This

    Quote
    Do you think that maybe the guy who made that video doesn't really speak English?

     
    No I think he was American

    Quote
    He was using so much cusing I couldn't figure out his point.

    Before you criticise others English, I suggest using a critical eye on your own
    Quote
    You make video don't you? Why don't you make one that is actually informative?

    There are lots of videos out there explaining evolution and critically evaluating religion.

    This video was done in a different style, and was done to empathise with the frustration  & annoyance that non-believers feel when discussing with theists. 

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #82 - November 18, 2010, 04:20 PM

    Quote
    I thought the best way to tell how ingnorant some one is was by the limitation of their vocabulary


     Afro

    Confucius:
    "What you do not like done to yourself, do not unto others."
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #83 - November 18, 2010, 10:47 PM

    @Lynna

    Hello, Lynna. I hope you're well.

    Quote
    Then your suspicion is correct, an exact age of the earth can not be obtained from the Bible. I hope the information I provided will  prove helpful as reasoning points with any future discussion you may have regarding the age of the earth from a Biblical point of view.


    Yeah, I thought as much but I only asked because I wondered where young-earthers got the idea that the earth was 6,000 years old.  wacko

    Quote
    -Interesting point what Christians many have thought prior to Darwin...


    Yeah, I'd heard about some Greek philosophers talking about the evolution of species. As for the Catholic church adopting this idea, that's the first time I've heard about it. Interesting, though, that they were willing to accept evolution even during the medieval period.

    Quote
    Which beginning of evolution do you ascribe to?
    How do you think living things started?
    When there was not physical living things what made them come into being?
    How did life start?


    Haha, I don't subscribe to any theory of 'abiogenesis.' Neither I, nor any human, really has any solid information on how life started. There has been work done recently in the field though, which apparently showed that abiogenesis is possible. It involved naturally-occurring nucleotides merging and self-replicating and being incorporated into, I believe, lipids, which formed the first crude cells.

    But here's a pretty interesting video on abiogenesis:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

    Watch from around 3:45 and you might wanna turn the volume down a little.

    In any case, we'll probably never know exactly how life came to be. All that can really be done, as far as I know, is to show that it is possible, and that there is a way in which it might have happened. I personally don't feel the need to know, and I stopped looking into this stuff a while ago, I can hardly even remember the terminology anymore.  Cry

    Quote
    -You say: evolution itself says that one species comes directly from another,
    QUESTION Directly from another what? There are some evolution accounts where in all life starts in the water. Then goes some thing like this, fish> lung fish> amphibians> reptile> avian. Of course this all takes millions of years and happened very gradually.


    Another one of the same species.

    Yeah, those changes you mention would have loads of intermediate stages, taking millions of years, but each generation still comes from the same species. Speciation only occurs when certain species separate from each other, and the flow of genetic information between them is prevented. They evolve in their own directions, resulting in both species becoming quite different.

    Two groups of a species divide, then evolve different phenotypes and genotypes. One species doesn't randomly produce a completely different species as its offspring.

    Quote
    Does the fossil record actually support a gradualism of change?

    Consider this: Niles Eldredge, a stauch evolutionist, (ever heard of punctuated equilbrium?) ...


    Yes, Stephen Jay Gould famously advocated punctuated equilibrium. I personally have no preference as to the exact mechanisms of evolution. I simply don't know enough about it, nor really the time to study it.

    Sorry if you wanted an in depth debate on this subject, but my days of arguing about it and studying it in detail are pretty much over.  Tongue

    But if you want to say that the Biblical account is somehow vindicated by this gradual mechanism of evolution, I'd simply say (with my extremely limited knowledge) that the fossil record isn't complete enough to know whether it is gradual, small-scale change or large, periodic change (as in punctuated equilibrium). It could simply be that so many remains of species that lived then just haven't survived and so, we don't really know how life evolved exactly, so we don't know if it was in large stages or small, gradual development.

    As to the order it gives to the creation of the sea creatures, and 'winged creatures' and then the land animals. I'm not sure about the accuracy of this order. But even if it was, it was about 50/50 that it got it right so, hardly impressive, as far as I'm concerned.

    And as for the wrens, it turns out I read it on Wiki (Yeah, I know whistling2 )

    Anyhoo, it does cite some external sources, so it's not just something that someone at wiki has just made up. Here's the extract and article:

    By studying the songs and genetics  of individuals in an overlap zone between Troglodytes hiemalis and Troglodytes pacificus, Toews and Irwin (2008)[2]  found strong evidence of reproductive isolation between the two. It was suggested that the pacificus subspecies be promoted to the species level designation of Troglodytes pacificus with the common name of ‘Pacific Wren’. By applying a molecular clock to the amount of mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence between the two,[3]  it was estimated that Troglodytes pacificus and Troglodytes troglodytes last shared a common ancestor approximately 4.3 million years ago, long before the glacial cycles of the Pleistocene, thought to have promoted speciation  in many avian systems inhabiting the boreal forest of North America.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Wren

    Maybe it'll look like just another case of 'Darwin's finches' but, I thought it was interesting.  Tongue

    Anyway, until next time, be well.  Smiley
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #84 - November 21, 2010, 02:11 AM

    @Zebedee

    I hope you have been doing well.

    I think the video may turn out to be interesting. I wont be able to watch it for maybe a month. I started  a medication increased about a week ago.  Strange how that works the first several weeks of the increase, side effect increase and seizure control is unstable then it is like my body catches up and things are better then before. A year ago at best I would have been a tearful mess trying to watch that video at worst I would have seized. Today it was just so hard to follow I couldn't bother with it right now.

    As for now I am confident that I know Jehovah God created life on the earth (as well as the earth and universe). I do not know exactly how anymore then I know exactly how Albert Einstein E=mc2 works. The Bible says of God:

    Isaiah 40: 25 “But to whom can YOU people liken me so that I should be made his equal?” says the Holy One. 26 “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

    This is talking about Jehovah as Creator of the stars. It was written in 732 B.C.E. and accurately speaks of the use of energy in their being brought forth. As well as I am able to understand energy can be used to make matter. Something to think about that such an old text that doesn't even claim to be sceintific would have such an accurate, though be it a simple explanation of how the star were made. Not like the myths the so many on this forum like to point to.

    So you say > And as for the wrens, it turns out I read it on Wiki (Yeah, I know  whistling2 )

    --Uhh yeah... bunny It does sound alot like Darwin's Finch.

    I think at this point speciation will not work as a touch stone for either side of the discussion. For as many articles as I see from reputable science that speciation occurs I can find as many article from reputable sceince that is does not.


    YOU SAY> Yes, Stephen Jay Gould famously advocated punctuated equilibrium. I personally have no preference as to the exact mechanisms of evolution.... 
    .....
    But if you want to say that the Biblical account is somehow vindicated by this gradual mechanism of evolution, I'd simply say (with my extremely limited knowledge) that the fossil record isn't complete enough to know whether it is gradual, small-scale change or large, periodic change (as in punctuated equilibrium). It could simply be that so many remains of species that lived then just haven't survived and so, we don't really know how life evolved exactly, so we don't know if it was in large stages or small, gradual development.
    As to the order it gives to the creation of the sea creatures, and 'winged creatures' and then the land animals. I'm not sure about the accuracy of this order. But even if it was, it was about 50/50 that it got it right so, hardly impressive, as far as I'm concerned.

    --No that wasn't the way I was going. I suppose I could have... Maybe... Okay sort of. I was mostly fishing for information to keep this conversation going on a science line of thought because I was having this over whelming thought to just go another way. 

     yes Wanting to keep an open mind on the matter I'm more then willing to admit that I also am not an expert on the fossil record. However I think that neither of us need to be experts to look into the subject briefly.

    My thought is that the fossil record such as it is comes more closely to supporting the Bible's creative days. I maybe wrong I just thought of this right now. However, from my recall of my college days, some 30 years ago, I don't think it supports the idea of numerous gradual sequenced changes. Odds of even less then perhaps 50/50 for the gradual.

    until next time may you be safe and well.
    Lynna

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #85 - November 21, 2010, 02:18 AM

    @Islame

    Interesting how you left out the partt that I did criticise my own limit and difficulty with English.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #86 - November 21, 2010, 09:43 PM

    @Lynna

    Quote
    I think the video may turn out to be interesting. I wont be able to watch it for maybe a month...


    Don't worry about it, but it basically just shows how abiogenesis could have happened.

    Quote
    Isaiah 40: 25 “But to whom can YOU people liken me so that I should be made his equal?” says the Holy One. 26 “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.


    Do you really think that the ancient Hebrews had a scientific word for 'energy' like we do today? The verse obviously refers to God's creative power. Nothing to do with the subject-matter of modern physics.

    Quote
    I think at this point speciation will not work as a touch stone for either side of the discussion. For as many articles as I see from reputable science that speciation occurs I can find as many article from reputable sceince that is does not.


    I'd doubt that. Evolution, and therefore speciation, is certainly the mainstream position among scientists that work in the field of biology.

    Quote
    My thought is that the fossil record such as it is comes more closely to supporting the Bible's creative days. I maybe wrong I just thought of this right now. However, from my recall of my college days, some 30 years ago, I don't think it supports the idea of numerous gradual sequenced changes. Odds of even less then perhaps 50/50 for the gradual.


    Well, I'm not the most knowledgeable person with regards to evolution either, and to be honest, I don't really have the interest to study it any more. The natural sciences aren't my thing. Not that I find them boring, not by any means, but my days of looking into these questions in depth are over.

    I'm sorry if my responses seem curt, but as I've said, I really have little interest in debating this subject nowadays. Sure, I pretty much accept evolution as the means by which life came into being as it is now, but I have really no firm knowledge of the exact mechanisms, time scales, or such things that are involved in the process. I can stand not knowing about such things.

    And I understand and accept your own suspicions about evolution. I myself can't fully understand how random, unplanned changes and mutations could create something that showed signs of such apparent teleology and sophistication. But like I said, I don't have to know these things, and my rejection of religion is not, by any means, predicated upon evolution.

    Anyway, I wish you all the best with your convalescence.  Smiley

    Be well.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #87 - November 22, 2010, 04:32 AM

    @Zebedee

    Hi

    Don't worry about it, but it basically just shows how abiogenesis could have happened


    I wont worry to much about the video. I never worry to much about stuff like that. If I am going to worry it is going to be about something that really matters. However thank you for that video it must of taken at least some time to locate and it makes at least some attempt to explain how things may have started by accident. One thing I have gained from my conversation with you is that I need more information easily available to me on a computer file. Since I don't own a computer I think I'll find out how to put stuff on a CD (?) or something like that.  From first glance that video seems as if it might be worth having easily available, of course closer examination is needed.

    Do you really think that the ancient Hebrews had a scientific word for 'energy' like we do today? The verse obviously refers to God's creative power. Nothing to do with the subject-matter of modern physics.


    It really doesn't take 'scientific  words' to say E=mc2 does it? Nor does it take 'scientific words' to say that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing does it? Or perhaps better said energy to matter, matter to energy. Anyhow the main point I was trying to make was not just the word 'energy' but the whole phrase "abundance of dynamic energy". I find it very interesting to give some thought to the fact that the discription of God's creative power was translated from  Hebrew to English as "abundance of dynamic energy". An investigation of the Hebrew would show this an accurate translation.

    But this is another case of why I need to hve a file of information I can easily post to the computer. I frequently look to my Hebrew lexicon (or Greek), use various translations of the Bible. I have a nice home library, but all on paper.

    I'd doubt that. Evolution, and therefore speciation, is certainly the mainstream position among scientists that work in the field of biology.


    Here again I need a file I can post right at my finger tips. This topic, speciation, will for a certainty be one that I can have some fun building because it is of some interest to me and there are alot of articles out there.  Among many other popularly proclaim cases Darwin's Finches do not fall into the predicted/purposed speciation model. Indeed, Evolution and therefore speciation are the mainstream position the only thing that guarantees is that there is a lot of information out there. It does not guarantee the mainstream position is correct. There have been many, many  mainstream positions through out history that have proven themselves wrong. Need I list them?  wacko

    I'm sorry if my responses seem curt, but as I've said, I really have little interest in debating this subject nowadays. Sure, I pretty much accept evolution as the means by which life came into being as it is now, but I have really no firm knowledge of the exact mechanisms, time scales, or such things that are involved in the process. I can stand not knowing about such things.


    Your responses don't seem curt. Well, actually I didn't know what 'curt' meant, I looked it up but still, no. I spend more time reading then posting. People that are posting thoughtful ideas, regardless of the similarity to my own ideas, interest me. So that's where you came in I had read you before and just happened on this thread in progress and just wanted to see where it would go. Spme people on this forum have jumped me about evolution, because I'm of the opinion that the facts do not support it. I'm just starting to work on ways to have this conversation on the computer, trying it out. Thank you every much for your time and your help.

    I hope this doesn't make you anger however is seems as if your opinion about evolution are based very much on blind faith.

    So I was very glad you had this to say:

    I don't have to know these things, and my rejection of religion is not, by any means, predicated upon evolution.


    Yeah, I thought as much but I only asked because I wondered where young-earthers got the idea that the earth was 6,000 years old.  wacko



    Young-earthers got the idea of the earth being 6,000 years old because they can calculate from the genealogies in the Bible how long ago Adam was created then they just add 6 days for the creation of every thing else (not taking in the rest of the information I gave you). I hope this is helpful. parrot

     thnkyu
    until another topic of interest.
    Lynna

    Don't I dream of a convalescence. Nothing but slave labor for me. mysmilie_977

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #88 - November 27, 2010, 02:06 PM

    @Lynna

    Hello, sorry for the belated reply Smiley

    Quote
    It really doesn't take 'scientific  words' to say E=mc2 does it? Nor does it take 'scientific words' to say that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing does it? Or perhaps better said energy to matter, matter to energy. Anyhow the main point I was trying to make was not just the word 'energy' but the whole phrase "abundance of dynamic energy". I find it very interesting to give some thought to the fact that the discription of God's creative power was translated from  Hebrew to English as "abundance of dynamic energy". An investigation of the Hebrew would show this an accurate translation.


    I never take translations as decisive, people always translate things with the particular meaning they want, and are predisposed to accept. Even so, I think if we look at how the majority of the scholars of these languages have interpreted it, we can narrow down what's said to the most likely meaning.

    So, here's the New International Version; a translation done collaboratively by numerous scholars:

    Isaiah 40

    25: “To whom will you compare me?
       Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.

    26: Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
       Who created all these?
    He who brings out the starry host one by one
       and calls forth each of them by name.
    Because of his great power and mighty strength,
       not one of them is missing.


    It all seems pretty straight-forward to me. But here's the New King James Version too:

    25: “To whom then will you liken Me,
          Or to whom shall I be equal?” says the Holy One.

    26: Lift up your eyes on high,
          And see who has created these things,
          Who brings out their host by number;
          He calls them all by name,
          By the greatness of His might
          And the strength of His power;
          Not one is missing.


    And the English Standard Version:

    25: To whom then will you compare me,
          that I should be like him? says the Holy One.

    26: Lift up your eyes on high and see:
          who created these?
          He who brings out their host by number,
          calling them all by name,
          by the greatness of his might,
          and because he is strong in power
          not one is missing.


    All these translations are saying precisely what I thought the verse to be saying. That is, they're simply talking about God's creative power. Nothing to do with 'energy' in the scientific sense of the term.

    I'd also be interested in knowing exactly what translation you've cited.

    Quote
    Evolution and therefore speciation are the mainstream position the only thing that guarantees is that there is a lot of information out there. It does not guarantee the mainstream position is correct. There have been many, many  mainstream positions through out history that have proven themselves wrong.


    Yes, I know. I never said that because it's the mainstream position that it's therefore correct. I simply said that it's mainstream and that, therefore, there would be more scientific literature in favour of evolution and speciation than against it. This was in response to your claim that you can find plenty of literature that opposes this mainstream position.

    But even then, the debunked scientific concepts like phlogiston and the four humours can't really be compared to evolution, given that these concepts only survived in times when the evidence in certain fields was very limited. By contrast, the contemporary understanding of Biology is quite detailed, although hardly complete, but yet evolution remains accepted.

    Quote
    Your responses don't seem curt. Well, actually I didn't know what 'curt' meant, I looked it up but still, no. I spend more time reading then posting. People that are posting thoughtful ideas, regardless of the similarity to my own ideas, interest me. So that's where you came in I had read you before and just happened on this thread in progress and just wanted to see where it would go. Spme people on this forum have jumped me about evolution, because I'm of the opinion that the facts do not support it. I'm just starting to work on ways to have this conversation on the computer, trying it out. Thank you every much for your time and your help.

    I hope this doesn't make you anger however is seems as if your opinion about evolution are based very much on blind faith.


    Well, I'm sorry that I can't give you a more in-depth conversation or debate about evolution, but like I said, my time studying this stuff is over.

    And I'm not sure I'd say that it's based entirely on blind faith. I did study this stuff, you know, and I do know a few things about it, and I do find the evidences for evolution vastly more compelling than the 'evidences' in favour of creationism. It also doesn't help that the leading proponents of creationism are almost invariably Christian or Muslim ideologues, something that immediately puts their objectivity into question.

    Yes, there are things that I don't know about or understand, but I guess some degree of 'faith' is simply unavoidable in most things, so it doesn't really bother me if I don't have absolute certainty.

    Quote
    So I was very glad you had this to say:

    Quote
    I don't have to know these things, and my rejection of religion is not, by any means, predicated upon evolution.



    Yes. I think that it's a common belief of creationists that people reject religion because of evolution, thinking that they see religion as superfluous. But for probably most atheists this isn't the case, and for me in particular, I think that the flaws I see in religion are quite sufficient a reason to reject it.

    Quote
    Young-earthers got the idea of the earth being 6,000 years old because they can calculate from the genealogies in the Bible how long ago Adam was created then they just add 6 days for the creation of every thing else (not taking in the rest of the information I gave you). I hope this is helpful.


    Ah, I see.

    Well, then, until next time, be well.  Smiley
  • Re: 24:45, water or sperm?
     Reply #89 - November 27, 2010, 08:06 PM

    @Zebedee

    I hope everything is well with you.

    I'm kind of stuck at the hospital for awhile (because of work and weather). So I have awhile on the computer.

    I never take translations as decisive, people always translate things with the particular meaning they want, and are predisposed to accept. Even so, I think if we look at how the majority of the scholars of these languages have interpreted it, we can narrow down what's said to the most likely meaning.

    All these translations are saying precisely what I thought the verse to be saying. That is, they're simply talking about God's creative power. Nothing to do with 'energy' in the scientific sense of the term.

    I'd also be interested in knowing exactly what translation you've cited.


    Some times translations can lean toward the meaning  the translator is inclined to. So, indeed it is a good idea to look at what scholars of these languages, both secular and religious, have to say. Thus just looking at additional translations of the Bible is not the end all of investigation. Please recall I said I have done this as well as having some knowledge of original languages. Normally when I post a Scripture I use the New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures. Unless I say otherwise.

    The other thing is that no knowledge existing in a void.

    I could not prove to you absolutely that Jehovah God used dynamic energy in the same way as E=mc2 to create the physical substance in the universe anymore then you could prove absolutely that a method of evolution was used to cause diversity of life on earth. Neither of us, or any human, was there to use the sceintific method to examine the events. The reason I brought up that point in Isaiah 40:25,26 is because I found it interesting that it was mentioned in the Bible that energy of any sort was used to create compared to what some and/or most other ancient account say.

    Yes, I know. I never said that because it's the mainstream position that it's therefore correct. I simply said that it's mainstream and that, therefore, there would be more scientific literature in favour of evolution and speciation than against it. This was in response to your claim that you can find plenty of literature that opposes this mainstream position.

    But even then, the debunked scientific concepts like phlogiston and the four humours can't really be compared to evolution, given that these concepts only survived in times when the evidence in certain fields was very limited. By contrast, the contemporary understanding of Biology is quite detailed, although hardly complete, but yet evolution remains accepted.


    Interesting thing that you mention phlogiston and the four humors as bygone mainstream ideas. I had really been thinking of things more recent and well thought of, however the point is still made.

    Perhaps, it did not make an impression that I said I'm fascinated by tigons and ligers. Well, really there is no reason why it should I guess. These animals are hybreds but on the way and around that subject there is alot about species. I actually had a creationist once tell me that there was a tigon and a liger on Noah's ark. Like, "Say what?" (that's a whole other subject). One file I will definitely get around to making will be about speciation. This is because there is alot of fluctuation regarding this subject by reputable science. As I already mentioned.

    Well, I'm sorry that I can't give you a more in-depth conversation or debate about evolution,...
    And I'm not sure I'd say that it's based entirely on blind faith. I did study this stuff, you know, and I do know a few things about it, and I do find the evidences for evolution vastly more compelling than the 'evidences' in favour of creationism. It also doesn't help that the leading proponents of creationism are almost invariably Christian or Muslim ideologues, something that immediately puts their objectivity into question.
    Yes, there are things that I don't know about or understand, but I guess some degree of 'faith' is simply unavoidable in most things, so it doesn't really bother me if I don't have absolute certainty.
    Yes. I think that it's a common belief of creationists that people reject religion because of evolution,... But for probably most atheists this isn't the case, and for me in particular, I think that the flaws I see in religion are quite sufficient a reason to reject it.


    By all means, no need to be sorry.  It is very much a relief to me.  For the most part it was just something I was doing because I keep having people address me on the subject of evolution. So, I figured it was something I needed to be perpared to do. So I was seeking information and ways to perpare.

    Yeh. Most most people do at least some things with a certain degree of "faith". Not all are honest enough to admit to it. Actually, as I see it, as the Bible really defines faith it is not a bad thing anyhow. Absolute "blind faith" is a problem. Thank you for clearling up my misconception that you were putting blind faith in evolution, I likely knew that but sometimes I can be an ass.

    By the way I'm not a Creationist.  I'm not sure of all things about Creationist except that for the most part that they are Fundamental Activist that have the literal 6 day thing going on. Alot of other stuff also.  However, if you want reassurance find some one who is a Creationist and ask them if their belief is similar to Jehovah's Witnesses. You will likely find out that they hate me more if not at least equal to you Atheists.

    Actually, it would have never entered my mind that Evolution (or the lack there of) would be the primary reason a person would reject religion. From conversations with people and general life exsperience I would say the most common reason people reject religion is actual or percieved hypocrisy perhap of individuals but more so of religious orginizations. I would think the second most common reason for the rejection of religion is percieving God as the religious traditions and actions of mankind instead of seeking accurate knowledge about God.  Anyhow,  thank you for the thought that evolution somehow plays a big part. My understanding of why this evolution thing keeps coming up is now expanded. From now I'll ask the person bringing it up, if it is really interesting to them or if they just think I think it might be a main point.  Because by all means, even though it is important and can't be totally passed by, I don't see it as a most prime subject of interest.

    Thanks again. Until next time.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »