Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newfie

That, my friends, is the best answer in this whole thread, except for post post #3.:smiley20:

---

Newf, what about the cheese??? I'm deeply offended that you would trample upon my well thought out reply:smiley6:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

I agree with Barry 100%.

---

:smiley3:

what say

:smiley3:


Not that I disagree, but I never figured.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nhcigarfan

:smiley3:

what say

:smiley3:


Not that I disagree, but I never figured.....

---

I know it's extremely shocking, but it does happen every now and then. :smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

Dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, 68 million years...

Radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed. You can take a dating of two pieces of the same structure and get one piece dating at 12M and the other at 68M. Radiocarbon dating is only accurate within 5,000 years at best, and . The idea behind carbon dating is that the rate of decay of C14 is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. Which is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains any C14, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

---

Carbon 14 dating does indeed have a limit of about 50,000 years. This is well known, and other, more accurate, methods of dating are used such as the potassium-argon method and the isochron method, both of which support the hypothesis of an old Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

What about the geologic strata? Those lines of dirt were laid down as the Great Flood subsided. There are fossilized trees standing upright through strata layers supposedly laid down over millions of years. How can you explain that? The interpretation of the time involved with the deposit of strata was arbritrarily determined. Some geologists saws the layers, saw the bones within those layers and arbitrarily determined that they must have been laid down over vast amounts of time piece of dust by piece of dust. Add the advent of carbon dating and you know have the ideological construct used by geologists today. They are interpreting the data incorrectly.

---

I would think it more likely that you are interpreting the data incorrectly. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

Let me put it this way, what would you expect if a worldwide global flood occurred? Perhaps layers of dirt laid down by water all over the world? The remains of dead creatures laid down by size as if they were swirled in a vortex and allowed to fall due to gravity? What do we see? Layers of rock laid down by water all over the world. We see fossils of creatures arranged by size as if they were swirled in water and allowed to fall by gravity. It's really easy to let go of the lies you were told as a child, if you'd only view the world as evidence. The world has given you one interpretation of the facts, which we now are able to see is physically impossible to support. Evolution as an idea is scientifically dead, but most don't know it yet. The chemical procedures that must take place for amino acids to transform into proteins (the first stage of a long highly improbable process) cannot occur in nature. This has been shown to be true over 20 years ago, and evolutionists have been in the lab trying to come up with ways which will circumvent the problem with little success.

---

You have been fooled again by the pseudo-science used by the creationists.
While the "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis certainly sounds scientific and perhaps even logical, there are numerous examples from the fossil record which demonstrate that it is simply not true. The ammonites, for instance, were a large group of marine invertebrates, similar to the modern day nautilus, which existed for several hundred million years until they were wiped out in the same mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs. Although they remained at approximately the same size and shape, the ammonites over time developed a complicated system of sutures which separated the various gas chambers inside their curved shells. The earliest ammonites, found in the Devonian layers, had simple straight sutures. Later ammonites, found in Triassic layers, retained the same body size and shape, but exhibited slightly more complex suture patterns. The very latest ammonites, from the Cretaceous layers, differed from the others only in the increased complexity of their shell sutures.
Link to more in depth article quoted above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

I'm gonna stop now, but just be aware that the case for the Bible standing as a historically sound document is extremely strong.

:smiley43:

---

The bible is a work of fiction designed to keep the simple-minded in line. But the bible really isn't a discussion that would be on topic for this thread.

required reading: Cartoon History of the Universe, by Larry Gonick. Endorsed by Carl Sagan, one of the Leakeys, etc. It's some funny shit - lots of sacred cows get bar-b-qued. And most importantly, it points up the bullshit we get ourselves mired in when (every time) we take ourselves too fucking seriously.

If the earth is only 6000 years old does that mean the furthest star is only 6000 light years away? If it was any further we wouldn't be able to see it, correct?

Holy crap the stoner has a point.

Unless of course it was created that way.

Smokin, I can't understand what is being said in the articles you've posted. They are confusing to say the least. I think it's because I am unfamiliar with certain scientific terminology which states the position of the author early on.

Smokin, you call the Bible a work of fiction. Let me just say this, it has never been shown to be incorrect by archeology. Modern archeology in the Middle East has uncovered towns, cities, and people groups who were thought to have been made up by the various authors of the Old Testament. The more they dig, the more they reveal, showing that at the very least the Bible stands as an accurate document from a historical perspective. Archeology is a testament to the veracity of contents. Does it prove that Moses parted the Red Sea? No, but all that digging proves that the stuff they were talking about is actually there, it existed. The New Testament also has stood up to the rigorous acid test of archeology, and even more so due to the fact that it is so close in relative time frame to the present. If you read Acts, you will see that there is a lot of information contained there in which can be tested by going to the area and looking around. Names of governors, aides, architectural pieces, who was ruling what areas at what time, etc. There is a ton of stuff to disprove. But it has all been shown to be accurate. Luke, the author of the book, has been called a "historian of the highest degree" because of the amount of detail in his book found to be backed up by the archeological record. It's all there. Why would Luke go through so much trouble to take a detailed record of what was going on during his travels with Paul? Perhaps it was because he understood the importance of the events of his time. But you've got to ask youself, if he took such extreme effort to get minor details of his record right, wouldn't he take even more effort to make sure he got details right in his account of the life and death of Jesus?

Whitewidow, the speed of light has been slowing down since it's been first measured a few centuries ago. It's has been show to be slowing down, and even it's rate of slow down has been slowing down. In other words, it was slowing down at a great pace early on, and now is slowing down extremely slowly. So if we can imagine an early universe with the speed of light being almost instantaneous, and for some reason (perhaps the fall of Adam), it has been caused to slow down, we can see the universe in its current state.

Barry Setterfield was the first to notice the phenomenon and has done groundbreaking work in this area, which was first embraced by the scientific community as being fundamentally sound, but after it was found out that Barry was a young earth creationist and the connection was made to how this seminal work could be construde as supporting a young earth, all further support was removed. The humanist influence in education and the sciences is extremely powerful.

I think I'm done with this thread. I was warned that this sort of a thread usually ends with two angry parties when conducted on a message board. This is the first time I've done anything like this, and I feel it would be best if I stop posting here.

:smiley43:

I just wanted to add this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shagaroo

I find little, either Scripturally or scientifically, that indicates the earth is a mere 6,000-10,000 year old.

---

If you add up the ages of the people listed in the geneologies in the Bible from Adam to Jesus you are left with 4,500 years or so. Add the 2,000 since that time and you are left with 6,500 or so. How can you disregard this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shagaroo

Unfortunately some have tried to turn this into a Salvation requirement, which it clearly is not. And in the grand scheme of things, as far as Christianity is concerned, doesn't matter one bit.

---

This is not a salvation requirement, but it gives power to those who are saved. The world tells us that the Bible is a fairytale which preys on the weak minded. We are bombarded everyday with the notion that we have been living in a world who's inner workings are death and destruction, ie. evolution. We are told that everything that God wrote in the Bible as fact is wrong. It's the biggest slap in the face of the Christian, who despite all of the propoganda has had a spiritual encounter with Jesus and believes. Yes, a person can come to salvation without having to understand and accept the historical record recorded in the Bible, thank God for that. But when living in this modern world as a Christian, we shrink and feel embarrassed that we have experienced a real emotional/spiritual thing in Jesus Christ because of what that entails. "Omg, you believe the Bible? But it's just a book of stories written by drunk shepards". We never share our beliefs with our neighbors, we never read in the Old Testament, we never put up our flag and stand for our beliefs.

"In the grand scheme of things", it makes all the difference in the world. This is coming from a person who use to be embarrassed that he prayed to Jesus.

We as Christians have absolutely no reason to live like this. We have every right to stand strong in our beliefs and stand strong in knowing that God has spoken in our hearts and in the Bible. Understanding that the Bible is on point from cover to cover is such a critical point in owning your faith. If we don't take literally that with Adam's fall sin came into the world, and with sin death also came into the world. Then we can't understand why Jesus had to die as a undeservant sacrifice. And this ties to evolution because evolution tells us that death and destruction has fueled the process that brought us into being. The Bible tells us the exact opposite, that we were brought into being and sin/death followed. If we can't believe that, then why believe any of it? Why believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If there is a single lie in a book which claims to be the written voice of God, then we are fools. If evolution is true, then the Bible is full of lies and more to the point, there's no reason Jesus had die. Nothing in the Bible makes sense unless you accept a literal reading of Genisis. It lays the foundation for everything that follows.

God is going to be really pissed when she finds out you are hell bent on short changing her for billions of years of dedicated work. :smiley18:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

If the earth is only 6000 years old does that mean the furthest star is only 6000 light years away? If it was any further we wouldn't be able to see it, correct?

---

Only if you believe the speed of light.:smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

Snip <Nothing in the Bible makes sense unless you accept a literal reading of Genisis. It lays the foundation for everything that follows.

---

So unless you believe in the 6x 24hr day creation story then nothing in the bible makes sense? I'm sure many people who find sense in the bible who disagree with the literal 6 day creation story would disagree with you there.

Keep 'em coming though. This stuff is priceless.:smiley20:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basil

required reading: Cartoon History of the Universe, by Larry Gonick. Endorsed by Carl Sagan, one of the Leakeys, etc. It's some funny shit - lots of sacred cows get bar-b-qued. And most importantly, it points up the bullshit we get ourselves mired in when (every time) we take ourselves too fucking seriously.

---

Hey that looks awesome! Must get myself a copy.

And without wanting to link to wikipedia too much more, this looks like a pretty good description of the "Cartoon History of the Universe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

Smokin, I can't understand what is being said in the articles you've posted. They are confusing to say the least. I think it's because I am unfamiliar with certain scientific terminology which states the position of the author early on.

---

Don't take this wrong, but if you can't understand science how can you expect to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion?
You posted about hydraulic theory when you brought up the flood. Do you just repeat what others have told you, since you don't understand science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

Smokin, you call the Bible a work of fiction. Let me just say this, it has never been shown to be incorrect by archeology. Modern archeology in the Middle East has uncovered towns, cities, and people groups who were thought to have been made up by the various authors of the Old Testament. The more they dig, the more they reveal, showing that at the very least the Bible stands as an accurate document from a historical perspective. Archeology is a testament to the veracity of contents. Does it prove that Moses parted the Red Sea? No, but all that digging proves that the stuff they were talking about is actually there, it existed. The New Testament also has stood up to the rigorous acid test of archeology, and even more so due to the fact that it is so close in relative time frame to the present. If you read Acts, you will see that there is a lot of information contained there in which can be tested by going to the area and looking around. Names of governors, aides, architectural pieces, who was ruling what areas at what time, etc. There is a ton of stuff to disprove. But it has all been shown to be accurate. Luke, the author of the book, has been called a "historian of the highest degree" because of the amount of detail in his book found to be backed up by the archeological record. It's all there. Why would Luke go through so much trouble to take a detailed record of what was going on during his travels with Paul? Perhaps it was because he understood the importance of the events of his time. But you've got to ask youself, if he took such extreme effort to get minor details of his record right, wouldn't he take even more effort to make sure he got details right in his account of the life and death of Jesus?

---

My wife reads romance novels. Some of them refer to cities and countries, and to people that were real but are now dead. Are her novels then to be held up as scripture? I think not. Just because there are references to actual places and well known people in the bible, does not make it's wild tales of magical tricks true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

Whitewidow, the speed of light has been slowing down since it's been first measured a few centuries ago. It's has been show to be slowing down, and even it's rate of slow down has been slowing down. In other words, it was slowing down at a great pace early on, and now is slowing down extremely slowly. So if we can imagine an early universe with the speed of light being almost instantaneous, and for some reason (perhaps the fall of Adam), it has been caused to slow down, we can see the universe in its current state.

---

The speed of light is slowing down? Link to scientific explaination as to why that theory is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

Barry Setterfield was the first to notice the phenomenon and has done groundbreaking work in this area, which was first embraced by the scientific community as being fundamentally sound, but after it was found out that Barry was a young earth creationist and the connection was made to how this seminal work could be construde as supporting a young earth, all further support was removed. The humanist influence in education and the sciences is extremely powerful.

---

The reason support for his "work" was removed is because it was found to be "gross misinterpretations of innaccurate data". See above link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

I just wanted to add this.
If you add up the ages of the people listed in the geneologies in the Bible from Adam to Jesus you are left with 4,500 years or so. Add the 2,000 since that time and you are left with 6,500 or so. How can you disregard this?

---

I'm not diregarding this. I even stated so in my earlier post. I simply think there is valid evidence in one of the various Gap Theories. God could still have created the earth as we know it in 6 days, even if the earth existed in previous forms prior to the Creation story in Genesis. It does not change the diety of God one bit to see the Creation happening slightly different.

I'm on your side bubba. I just see Creation happening a little different.

I think that I expressed my opinion on this matter in the past: http://www.cigarsmokers.com/showpost...2&postcount=13.

BTW, Richard Dawkins is also a good read

The Bible is a history book and a guide for christian life and religious practice, not a science manual. It was written, compiled, and translated by many human hands throughout history. The science and record keeping we have available now simply wasn't there back then (obviously), and the general population was lucky to be literate, much less educated. Much of it was originally written for simple people with simple language and using simple tools. The fact that it doesn't match up with modern scientific examination doesn't change the message or the spirit of what is in there. There are many lessons to be taken from its pages without worrying about whether every story actually occurred the way it was written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenyth

The Bible is a history book and a guide for christian life and religious practice, not a science manual. It was written, compiled, and translated by many human hands throughout history. The science and record keeping we have available now simply wasn't there back then (obviously), and the general population was lucky to be literate, much less educated. Much of it was originally written for simple people with simple language and using simple tools. The fact that it doesn't match up with modern scientific examination doesn't change the message or the spirit of what is in there. There are many lessons to be taken from its pages without worrying about whether every story actually occurred the way it was written.

---

Thank you Kenyth!:smiley20: I don't know if I've ever seen a better short summary of the Bible that is as well written as this.

I agree, Nice work Kenyth.

Thank you! You're welcome! :smiley1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenyth

The Bible is a history book and a guide for christian life and religious practice, not a science manual. It was written, compiled, and translated by many human hands throughout history. The science and record keeping we have available now simply wasn't there back then (obviously), and the general population was lucky to be literate, much less educated. Much of it was originally written for simple people with simple language and using simple tools. The fact that it doesn't match up with modern scientific examination doesn't change the message or the spirit of what is in there. There are many lessons to be taken from its pages without worrying about whether every story actually occurred the way it was written.

---

So we can conclude from your post that the bible is an inaccurate writing at best, and a total pile of bs is not out of the running.
When the religious zealots, and their ignorant followers, stop attacking proven scientific principles of which they have no real understanding, and stop holding up their particular form of religion and magic as a scientific irrefutable fact, I'll quit calling them on their bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

So we can conclude from your post that the bible is an inaccurate writing at best, and a total pile of bs is not out of the running.
When the religious zealots, and their ignorant followers, stop attacking proven scientific principles of which they have no real understanding, and stop holding up their particular form of religion and magic as a scientific irrefutable fact, I'll quit calling them on their bullshit.

---

I'm with Barry on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

So we can conclude from your post that the bible is an inaccurate writing at best, and a total pile of bs is not out of the running.
When the religious zealots, and their ignorant followers, stop attacking proven scientific principles of which they have no real understanding, and stop holding up their particular form of religion and magic as a scientific irrefutable fact, I'll quit calling them on their bullshit.

---

How you see the Bilble is totally a matter of personal choice and faith. According to the Bible, God works completely outside the rules and boundaries of our known universe. That makes it impossible to prove or disprove. That also makes it a complete matter of faith.

I do agree that religion should stay away from science and research. To try and go against scientific fact and theory that has been held up by the research of innumerable great minds throughout history is a sure way to make yourself look foolish.

The Bible has it's value as a spiritual guide. That's just not something you seem to place value on. If you don't believe, then you don't believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenyth

How you see the Bilble is totally a matter of personal choice and faith. According to the Bible, God works completely outside the rules and boundaries of our known universe. That makes it impossible to prove or disprove. That also makes it a complete matter of faith.

I do agree that religion should stay away from science and research. To try and go against scientific fact and theory that has been held up by the research of innumerable great minds throughout history is a sure way to make yourself look foolish.

The Bible has it's value as a spiritual guide. That's just not something you seem to place value on. If you don't believe, then you don't believe.

---

:smiley20:

First, I avoided this thread until now because I thought that it would quickly degenerate into a name-calling match, but it's actually quite well-behaved. Now wish I had taken part because I want to reply to just about every post (except for the cheese.) Second, I'm impressed that we have one person claiming science as a tool to keep the rabble in check, and another claiming religion as the same thing. I guess you're damned either way if you're not one of the bourgeouis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HersheyWalker

snip... By infusing the masses with the idea that they are nothing more than a glorified monkey, they are able to more easily roll out their plan a step at a time. What they don't want is a large group of people who believe that they are made in the image of God, each with inalienable rights, and irrevocable worth as a human being.

We are entering a new era which will have monumental changes in the way we eat, breath, and procreate. Open your eyes. Peak oil, the Patriot Act, environmental nuts, Martial Law, population reduction, etc. All these ideas are setting the stage for a drama which will completely revamp society in the blink of an eye.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

snip... The bible is a work of fiction designed to keep the simple-minded in line. But the bible really isn't a discussion that would be on topic for this thread.

---

Hershey, I might be misunderstanding you, but I found it interesting that you threw 'environmental nuts' in with Orwellian government stuff. If there's one thing that I think would suffer at the hands of a tyranny it would be the environment. I don't think they would be on the same side.

I'm Creationist, but you can't refute natural selection. Whether that means all life evolved from the primordial ooze, I don't know, but the strongest ones in a species will pass on their genes more often than not.

Finally, I hate the term Intelligent Design, because it makes no sense outside of religion. I agree with most that religion and politics should not hold hands here in the US of A.

PS Somebody should start a gay marriage thread ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mills

I'm Creationist, but you can't refute natural selection. Whether that means all life evolved from the primordial ooze, I don't know, but the strongest ones in a species will pass on their genes more often than not.

---

The two dont contradict... the only theory that is REALLY opposed to creationism is spontaneous generation... basically one says that an omnipotent being 'God' created life, the other that life formed from nothing... from that point on, unless you decide to take the time frames mentioned in the bible literally, they dont contradict... it says God created this and that, but it never said that evolution and natural selection weren't the tools which God used to create this and that... i think its funny how people put limits on a being that is supposedly omnipotent and as such, a time frame-- say 7 days-- would mean nothing to... God would exist outside of a limitation such as time, and viewed in that manner, the theories dont contradict. By the way, not an attack at you, just my view on the situation, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I cant tell exactly what you are saying, but it seems that you imply creationism and natural selection conflict on some level and i know alot of people DO believe just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReV

The two dont contradict... the only theory that is REALLY opposed to creationism is spontaneous generation... basically one says that an omnipotent being 'God' created life, the other that life formed from nothing... from that point on, unless you decide to take the time frames mentioned in the bible literally, they dont contradict... it says God created this and that, but it never said that evolution and natural selection weren't the tools which God used to create this and that... i think its funny how people put limits on a being that is supposedly omnipotent and as such, a time frame-- say 7 days-- would mean nothing to... God would exist outside of a limitation such as time, and viewed in that manner, the theories dont contradict. By the way, not an attack at you, just my view on the situation, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I cant tell exactly what you are saying, but it seems that you imply creationism and natural selection conflict on some level and i know alot of people DO believe just that.

---

Don't worry, I don't feel attacked. I didn't mean to imply that the two couldn't coexist, I am was more trying to get at what you said in your last sentence. Good points by the way. I don't know what is harder to believe, that an omnipotent being created the world, or that enough molecules randomly collided billions of years ago to create life.

Hi long time lurker but posting for first time.
Complexity arose from simplisity a long non random gradual process. to see who we are and where we came from you need to regress,evolution and natural selection has been proven over and over again through the abundance of eviedence that support the facts.to go back to the begining to see what spark the beginings of life on earth right now science doesnt really know but there are working on it just because science may not have the answer now doesnt mean we fill the gaps with god because god is not anymore of an answer than not knowing ,there is nothing to be afraid of not knowing but give it time with the ever advancement in science and tecnology that one day we will have the answer .stop using 1st century thinking. we know why religon was created and where it came from.also to say that god exists outside of our known universe or is beyond space and time is a cop out.that just makes it to easy not having to answer the question of who created god. if god is such a complex being than it had to come from somthing else.alot of things can not be proved or disproved ,golden unicorns ,invisable purple dinosaurs easter bunny, santa but it doesnt make it true.just because somthing cant be proved or disproved doesnt make it TRUE.
As far as the bible being a spitual guide, well i question that also, then your cherry picking the hell out of it because there are alot of nasty things in that 1st century book. stoning women if they are not virgins etc.. we can all cherry pick the bible for all the good things but that doesnt make it a good book to live your life.there are plent of book out now that are much more updated to live your life in a spirtual sense if you refer to spirtual as connected to our world and universe.Anything religon has to offer it got from us ,morailty came from us not the other way around ,good people do god things bad people do bad things.
I can go on and on here about biodeversity and so on but and am a reader not a writer and not that articulate in writing about science.
check out richarddawkins.net if you want plent of good stuff there.
and i always find it interesting that everyone uses science every day in thier lives but the minute it challeges thier belif sytem they reject it ,amazes me simply does.
take care
and where can i get some padrons 64s online cheap lol
peace
Doug

sorry for any typos it was early when i wrote this and i am to lazy to edit ..
lol
take care peace
besides i am sure you get my point
doug

Or you could just completely disregard religion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPB

stop using 1st century thinking. we know why religon was created and where it came from.also to say that god exists outside of our known universe or is beyond space and time is a cop out.

---

Awfully bold statement, but there are a few problems:

a) by telling people that they're straight up wrong, you're only going to make them more belligerent... (also i like how you dismiss the religious argument as being as absurd as "invisable purple dinosaurs" ... i mean, you're entitled to your views, but you'll never win an argument like that... might as well just scream 'NO!' while the other guy screams 'YES!', you'll get just as far. The only way you'd win this argument with a religious zealot is if they just got tired of listening to you talk and gave up...)

b) Never said God IS anything... I said that a being that is supposedly omnipotent and capable of creating reality as we know it would most certainly exist outside of that reality, and thus time and space.

c) i stick by my statement... if a being did exist that were in fact omnipotent and did in fact create the universe as we know it... that being would have had to have existed before said universe and thus able to exist outside of it... not so much a cop out as a logical progression
Why would a god who created time and space then be limited by his own creation... come on.

Now go introduce yourself... jumping right into a religious debate isn't the best way to make a first impression on this board... if you've been lurking you should know that too.

living outside space and time? Now your inventing realms.
If a god exists then the universe if it was created would look like a different universe then we live in now.To try to prove or disprove god is like trying to prove or disprove that a invisible purple dinosaur exists, But again it doesn't mean that its true.But its not up to me to try to disprove its existence but up to whoever to prove its existence.without saying it cant be done that to me is a cop out and just to easy because something cant be explained just don't jump in and use fairy tales to try and explain it. Plus it still leaves a wide door open of if god created everything what created god? that would be a logical progression or regression.
Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPB

Hi long time lurker but posting for first time.
Complexity arose from simplisity a long non random gradual process. to see who we are and where we came from you need to regress,evolution and natural selection has been proven over and over again through the abundance of eviedence that support the facts.to go back to the begining to see what spark the beginings of life on earth right now science doesnt really know but there are working on it just because science may not have the answer now doesnt mean we fill the gaps with god because god is not anymore of an answer than not knowing ,there is nothing to be afraid of not knowing but give it time with the ever advancement in science and tecnology that one day we will have the answer .stop using 1st century thinking. we know why religon was created and where it came from.also to say that god exists outside of our known universe or is beyond space and time is a cop out.that just makes it to easy not having to answer the question of who created god. if god is such a complex being than it had to come from somthing else.alot of things can not be proved or disproved ,golden unicorns ,invisable purple dinosaurs easter bunny, santa but it doesnt make it true.just because somthing cant be proved or disproved doesnt make it TRUE.
As far as the bible being a spitual guide, well i question that also, then your cherry picking the hell out of it because there are alot of nasty things in that 1st century book. stoning women if they are not virgins etc.. we can all cherry pick the bible for all the good things but that doesnt make it a good book to live your life.there are plent of book out now that are much more updated to live your life in a spirtual sense if you refer to spirtual as connected to our world and universe.Anything religon has to offer it got from us ,morailty came from us not the other way around ,good people do god things bad people do bad things.
I can go on and on here about biodeversity and so on but and am a reader not a writer and not that articulate in writing about science.
check out richarddawkins.net if you want plent of good stuff there.
and i always find it interesting that everyone uses science every day in thier lives but the minute it challeges thier belif sytem they reject it ,amazes me simply does.
take care
and where can i get some padrons 64s online cheap lol
peace
Doug

---

Normally I think CC is a little too anal with the spelling and grammar, but damn, this just hurts the eyes.

Science and religion can not coexist together either one is right and the other is wrong .Plus depending in which religion you grew up with gives a different story on how everything started.
If you were born into a christian family then you belive that story if it was hindu then its that story ,jewish etc..
What makes science story unique is that its story has the evidence to tell its story.
Either god (which ever god you believe in)started everything and again what started that god,or the universe and life as we know it was a slow non random process which took billions of years to happen.the probabilities of that happening are low but yet here we are talking about ,gods story is very improbable do to the lack(or none of) of evidence to show how it created everything.Your right you never want to get into a screaming match with a religous person but using clear rational thought and basic observation you would think would be enough ,there are plenty of books in the bookstore that tells science story,hawkins ,Segan, frans de hall ,richard dawkins ,eo wilson ,einstien etc...all books written in modern language in modern times within the 20th and 21st century using the advancements of technology to explain our and the universes origins.lets keep the thinking in these centuries is all i am saying.
Life did not begin from nothing there is always regress you just need to read up on the information that is public knowledge and is out there,from amino acids and proteins being introduced to nitrites to start a simple life. evolution and natural selection takes off from there as far as life on earth this is the best explanation we have right now with the over abundance of evidence given to prove this. You either except these facts as truths or you dont . my problem is that religion makes one satisfied without truly understanding the world we live in. To say god just did it then what just did god.
Peace to all
Doug
and you are right i was rude not to introduce myself in the proper way but i usually come here just to read up on cigars and saw this thread due to i have a great interest on the subject. And i usually do not like to post on any forum but just felt i wanted to add my 2 cents of thought .So i appologize for jumping in like i did and wont happen again on another subject . But I am Doug from NY and I love cigars padrons i live for....

Mills LOL i do apologize for my poor grammar skills i try to be as articulate as possible but i always sucked with grammar . so just try to bear with it .
Sheeet i am just a cable guy :smiley14: Plus when i wrote that first post it was early in the morning and that didnt help either.
Doug

A being that is omnipotent, by its very definition, cannot have a limited existence. What you are saying is that a omnipotent being cannot exist... what i'm saying is that if one did exist, it would most certainly exist outside the limitations of time and space... We aren't discussing the plausibility of a 'God' here anyway, we are discussing evolution... the thing you're missing is that you can scream logic all you want, but some who believes in said God will continue to do so... you wont convince them otherwise, so the next best thing is to at least make them understand that science doesn't contradict religion... which it doesn't. Its really a very simple argument, and weather you believe or not, i would hope a person of science could at least understand what i'm saying here. At some point in the tracing back of evolution, there was nothing, and then, there was something... call it what you will, the big bang, the first day, whatever... the point is, many people on the religious side of things refuse to admit existence could have happened in any other way than what is described in the bible... but there is no reason what was described in the bible couldn't just be short hand for the entire big bang/evolution theory. If you get someone who believes in God to accept the Big bang theory, even if you have to add that God created the big bang to the beginning of the story... is it not a step in the right direction? Even you have to admit that you have to teach people how to read before you teach them the underlying themes in Shakespeare... Anyrate, your argument doesn't seem much more open minded than that of the extreme religious zealots... evidence or not, you're all just basing your argument on what someone else told you, no one knows for sure... and have you noticed yet that i was never arguing with you? my whole initial argument was about the narrow mindedness of an extremist religious argument...

I am basing my argument on what scientific evidence has shown us not what someone told me.We do know for sure what happened up to a point,then it goes into the whole quantum theory of multiverses before the big bang,Everything works out mathematically just we cant comprehend the answer even though it works out on paper .all i am saying god does not.because science does not have the answer now doesnt mean it wont 100 years from now.I am not afraid of not knowing its ok for me,for one day we will know or we wont know and thats ok also.But i will not use 1st century fairy tales in its place.I also agree with you.To try and have a religious person try to understand this you cant go to the last chapter in the book you have to teach them to read first .We only know what information we have been exposed to.growing up in a family that is totally religious of course thats all they will know and it will be hard to try to convince them otherwise until you lay out all the evidence and facts and try to explain slowly.I apologize if it seems like i was arguing with you. i was trying to get my point across.And I understand yours.
I also do not really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes,pray to whoever you want to. Just dont push your personal belief system into politics and policies that will effect my life.and when i say "your" i dont mean you personally just those who wish to do the above. Even though i dont care about what people do in private. religion does effect public policy and that bothers me.
You are correct that this was about evolution and there are plenty of things to discuss on that alone but once religion "creationism" ID or whatever got involved then yes God is brought into this conversation and if some feel god started the whole thing then i will debate that.If evolution will be discussed then lets stick to that and what the evidence shows us.
If you really want to learn more on this there are plenty of books in the bookstore on evolution that can be read just go to the earth science section and have a ball.Not sure which books? www.richarddawkins.net would be a good start to check out.
I am also very open minded. If you can prove to me through scientific evidence enough evidence and facts that i can accept as true that a "god" exists then i will. right now there is no such evidence to do so.Science is not rigid its always changing as new evidence comes in .its great to see new discoveries to disprove old ones I have no problem being wrong if the evidence shows this.Its always great to see new ways at looking at things. monotheism or polytheism is not new, same old story. and the gaps that some try to fill are quickly closing.
Well i guess its like the old saying"its easier to convert a scientist in to believing in god then a religious person not to"

This type of debate can go on and on ..but thats what makes it fun.makes you think a lot harder about things also.
Also now that i have posted here i hope this doesn't effect discussions on cigars in other post and just because some of you may think differently than some other including myself doesn't mean we still cant be friends on the forums.
I look forward to discussing cigars with you all.
Take care
Doug

Again, I'm not trying to convince you anything about if there is or isn't a 'God', just stating what some people may believe about their 'God' and what would be required if said 'God' did exist... consider it a hypothetical situation. Anyrate, on the following two notes, i think its time to turn this topic into another controversial one::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mills

PS Somebody should start a gay marriage thread ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPB

dont push your personal belief system into politics and policies that will effect my life.

---

... i feel similarly on this topic, anyone else?



PS. DPB... have you read back to Hershey's posts? i think the two of you should get along great. :smiley2:

LOL I have read herseys post im sure he is a nice guy thats all i have to say about that.:smiley2:
As far as gay marriage, who cares.
again does not effect my life.let people do what they want just not my cup of tea.I like females, enough said.
Peace
Doug

DPB, please show some common courtesy and edit your posts with CAPITAL letters and proper spelling and grammer. We are all adults here and although your mental faculties are accustom and comfortable processing 'teen' speak, the rest of us aren't. So once again, post proper.

As an update, I've been spending a lot of time lately studying for a CSET exam I have this saturday, and haven't been able to post in this thread. I'm just letting you all know that I have a lot to say with regard to almost every new post, and I'll be on it in a two weeks or so.

In the mean time, carry on

:smiley20: