# The Theory of Evolution



## Big Texun (Apr 21, 2008)

I have a confession to make: I am an engineer. As a semi-scientific type, I have always struggled with the church's reasons for refuting Darwin's theories on evolution. Sensationalized sermons on "It would be analogous to a tornado ripping through a junk yard... and a fully functional 747 coming out the other end" just didn't do it for me. I wanted to believe that evolution wasn't "real" but, I just struggled.

Then it happened.

One night I was on a business trip. In my hotel that night, the Holy Spirit (I believe), in a voice I  heard inside my head just as clear as a bell, asked me a very simple question. "If man evolved, where did woman come from?"

Think about that question for a minute. It is a lot like looking up at the stars and contemplating infinity. It also drops the bottom out of the rationality of the theory of evolution... at least for me.

God Bless and have a great day!
Big Tex


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 21, 2008)

If I came from an Ape, why are there still Apes?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 21, 2008)

I know one thing for sure, I am not here because of some accidental combinations of compounds.

And if God used Evolution to create mankind, then you are basically saying that God didn't know what He wanted in the first place and just kept experimenting on the previous model. 

DB BB


----------



## Randy (Apr 21, 2008)

The Bible has no more explanations than scientists.  Bottom line is, it does not matter.  It has nothing to do with your salvation.  So debate all you like, prove all you like, dispell all you like.  There are lots of things we will never know.  There is scientific proof that they were beings that are no longer here that were very close to humans as we know them today.  They were obviously gone before the big flood as none were mentioned as being on the ark.   To me evolution is no less a mirical than creation.  Either way God made it happened is truely amazing.


----------



## pnome (Apr 21, 2008)

Must... not.... post.....


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 21, 2008)

pnome said:


> Must... not.... post.....



chicken


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 21, 2008)

The only thing science has proved is that they can not demonstrate where any mutation has been beneficial to any species.  I personally think the bible tells us that God's time is not our time and the week of creation was without man until near its end.  I can't wait to hear the story from Him.


----------



## PJason (Apr 21, 2008)

You guys make my teeth hurt


----------



## formula1 (Apr 21, 2008)

*Re:*

I like this topic.  I, too am a trained Engineer.  As a result, I must also reconcile the spiritual with the natural.  Here is  my view:

For me, the Bible cannot prove or disprove science anymore than science can disprove the Bible.  We have both for very different purposes.

The Bible was written to lead us to Christ and to Salvation and redemption to a Holy God. As long as you understand that, there is no conflict with natural theories.  To use the spiritual to discount the natural, I believe, is to discount scientific record of facts and fossils and many Christians become a dead voice for Christ, at least to those who hold the knowledge of science in high esteem. I would only say what Paul says here, "Be all things to all people so that you may win them to Christ" (My Paraphrase).

In contrast, science is man's ever increasing knowledge and I believe that which is revealed to man by God.  Where would we be today without the advancement of knowledge? It is important for man to have understanding of his natural surroundings as much as it is for him to understand his spiritual being.  To use the natural to discount the spiritual as many do is the fulfillment of this:

1 Corinthians 1:26-28  For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.

That's my viewpoint and I welcome yours!  Thanks to Big Texan for bringing it up!


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 21, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> I have a confession to make: I am an engineer. As a semi-scientific type, I have always struggled with the church's reasons for refuting Darwin's theories on evolution. Sensationalized sermons on "It would be analogous to a tornado ripping through a junk yard... and a fully functional 747 coming out the other end" just didn't do it for me. I wanted to believe that evolution wasn't "real" but, I just struggled.
> 
> Then it happened.
> 
> ...


Yes I believe you are right, The fact that there is an order in Creation that 99% of beings created reproduce by means of a male and female, shows a purpose.
The Laws of Odds is against 1 being such as an ape becoming man would be incalculable, what are the odds of 2 of different genders h.omo will come to be ? Incalculable, for the first h.omo erectus to pass on his characteristic to a next generation of h.omo erectus then a female h,omo erectus would have being necessary with the same gene change as the male, again the odds are incalculable


----------



## jason4445 (Apr 22, 2008)

Okay lets go through this again.  Neither Darwin's, or anyone else's Theory of Human Evolution ever once said man evolved from apes or monkeys.  The Theory of Human Evolution said "humans" evolved from  "ape like creatures."

Everyone write that down  fifty times

"Ape like creatures not apes or monkeys."

To the question if man evolved from apes, where did women come from?

Again,  it is the Theory of "Human Evolution" not the Theory of Man evolution. To those whose head is still swimming around the difference between apes and ape like creatures, Human means both man and woman.


----------



## matthewsman (Apr 22, 2008)

*hahahaha*



jason4445 said:


> Okay lets go through this again.  Neither Darwin's, or anyone else's Theory of Human Evolution ever once said man evolved from apes or monkeys.  The Theory of Human Evolution said "humans" evolved from  "ape like creatures."
> 
> Everyone write that down  fifty times
> 
> ...



The problem ain't with the distinction between ape or apelike...The problem is with the word evolve....write that down 150 times

We didn't come from apelike creatures,dog like creatures or sea monkeys(or sea monkey like creatures..)that's the jist of what the guys are saying...

God created us...man and woman...The rest is semantics...or semanticlike,if you prefer....


Big Texun& WTL,DBBB and Lowjack.. good posts all of you...

I think if a person studies the Bible,or Bible like study material, enough it will be revealed to them.

A person that leans on their own understanding will not ever wrap their head around it.

Yom....I will remember that..


----------



## dixie (Apr 22, 2008)

the evolution folks and some Christians sell God WAY short in His abilities and plans for us


----------



## Israel (Apr 22, 2008)

formula1 said:


> I like this topic.  I, too am a trained Engineer.  As a result, I must also reconcile the spiritual with the natural.  Here is  my view:
> 
> For me, the Bible cannot prove or disprove science anymore than science can disprove the Bible.  We have both for very different purposes.
> 
> ...



I appreciate the discussion, would add I'd mentioned a book many of you may already be familiar with, but if you are not, might find interesting. I thought I posted it on this thread, but must have been another..."Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Biehe. Addresses many issues being discussed here, but on the bio molecular level. But it's a pretty good read...as I am not a man educated in bio molecular science.

I guess what I see to address in this post is something we all seem to take for granted...or at least it seems, many of us do.
It is the statement above:

"Where would we be today without the advancement of knowledge? It is important for man to have understanding of his natural surroundings as much as it is for him to understand his spiritual being." 


Since I am typing this on a computer keyboard you can assume I am not a luddite. But, I would ask...has any "scientific" advancement added one thing of eternal value to mankind? 

Is life really better than it was, let's say, when the Lord walked the earth? 

Now, before I start getting bombarded with questions about "Would you like to watch your children die of polio/flu/tetanus/cholera/diphtheria/common cold/sepsis?"
etc etc...or 
Would you surrender your engine and have to row to your favorite fishing spot? Or
Could you live without Starbucks or Wendy's?or
"Don't you like air conditioning and surround sound?"

What I mean to address is the common assumption that seems so prevalent, as mentioned. That somehow man's progress (even that word has a built in value judgment, doesnt it?) has, in some way, improved man. 

I would submit it really hasn't at all. In fact, I believe the point could be made that almost every bit of what is called "progress" could be attributed to man's attempt to get back to the Garden of Eden without going through the cross of Christ.  That is; Death being fought on the carnal level in it's myriad manifestations, hunger/environmental/medical health/spatial limitations...that is to say, every limitation man finds facing him that are a result of the fall. Man is constantly searching out the comfort and security of the Garden that seems to be a part of every ones inward knowledge. 


Even the "lowliest" amoeba has an inward knowing that death is all wrong and will assiduously make whatever motions it can to deliver itself from a hostile environment to preserve its life. Life is for life...and death is always seen as its enemy. 

And so man battles death, but not with the soul informed by a renewed spirit, but with a head that is little changed (if any) from the day he ate the very fruit that cost him (not only) his physical life. And how much of this scientific knowledge is little more than a search for convenience, a way to keep the head occupied and a result of little more than simple discontentment? (The better mousetrap)

Now, I understand that on a case by case basis, this may not hold up, and I am sure there have been many well intentioned men that have suffered and devoted their lives in finding a cure or battling some nemesis that causes man to suffer. But in toto, unless it has been through the Lord's intervention the same mind that gave us the polio vaccine is the mind that has given us the H Bomb.

Ultimately I would say my point is this: man will make scientific progress so to speak, to the Lord's appearing. That is a given and quite apparent. And I am not suggesting that it should even be resisted by the believer in any sense. 

What I would ask is this: Isn't there an "a priori" assumption of the goodness of such progress that we (even as believers) often engage in unknowingly? And it is a goodness that really isn't there at all. That it really points to the result of eating a fruit that has caused us to believe we know good from evil, but really do not.

Remember, the world will celebrate its progress and 'evolution' toward what it considers enlightenment. It is the pride of life that would speak of the Lord, and our faithful forebears in the faith as silly and superstitious bumpkins. It is the same pride of life that cause present day man to imagine he is a better person, than let's say our brother Abraham, or Moses...because they were caught up in such prejudicial and darkened thinking as to imagine certain behaviors really are wrong and an offense to what is most often considered today a mythical deity. 

Indeed it has gotten to the point where one may encounter so called christians that will claim they either have greater enlightenment than our brother Paul regarding certain carnal affections or that he is entirely misunderstood in his decrying them. All of this comes, I believe, from the pride of life. And part of this is traceable to the "success" man has had in keeping (momentarily) at bay the consequences of sin and explained away by his "science". 

I suppose I can speak for no one but myself, but I can see how so much of what we take for granted as "good" things may not really be a help to us at all. 

Lord knows I am inclined to either swear or have to stifle one when the TV remote seems to have stopped working.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 22, 2008)

Israel,

I wholeheartedly agree that from an eternal perspective, human advancements' have more negative results than good.

Want to see some people praise the Lord with all of their being? Go to inner city Atlanta and lead a worship service in a homeless shelter.

Now, back to the topic of evolution...

I have a dear brother in Christ that is a meat cutter for Publix. He has been a butcher all is life. One night, we were cleaning a deer... and I asked him, "If we were cleaning a cow right now, how would the muscle structure be different?" He said, "It wouldn't. It would be exactly the same." He went on to say that from what he could tell, "every animal he'd ever cleaned had exactly the same muscle structure... and from what he could tell, it was pretty much the same muscle structure in a human."

Add that thought to the mix. A deer has the same muscle structure as a hog... who has the exact same muscle structure as a cow. If all of these creatures "evolved", doesn't it seem irrational that they would "end up" having the same muscle structure? That they just both just stumbled upon the same "solution"?

Big Tex


----------



## formula1 (Apr 22, 2008)

*Re:*



Israel said:


> "Where would we be today without the advancement of knowledge? It is important for man to have understanding of his natural surroundings as much as it is for him to understand his spiritual being."
> 
> Since I am typing this on a computer keyboard you can assume I am not a luddite. But, I would ask...has any "scientific" advancement added one thing of eternal value to mankind?
> 
> ...



Just so you know, I can't really disagree with your point of view at all, when it comes from the scenario of the eternal as you have mentioned.

Still I accept my lot in life to do my best to advance knowledge for the good of man while on the earth.  I believe that is "Being a good Steward" of what God has given me.

Some areas of scientific advancement may have no lasting value and may indeed lead to our demise. But on the other hand, many areas are for the betterment of our lives while on earth.  I believe that even man's knowledge can be for the good and comes from God as "Every good gift comes from above".

Case and Point
-----------------
I have a son who has a medical issue.  It is such that had he been born say 20-30 years ago, he would not be alive. Yet because of the advancement of science (specifically medical science), he is with us today.  I am glad that God has provided the knowledge to someone in order to bring life to my son.

Could God have done it outside of this knowledge given to men? Absolutely! 

But He chooses many times to move and do his will through men!  Therefore I see knowledge and scientific advancement as coming from God in reality!  I believe He desires to better our lives while we are here on the earth!


----------



## Flash (Apr 22, 2008)

dixie said:


> the evolution folks and some Christians sell God WAY short in His abilities and plans for us



 Good post


----------



## Doyle (Apr 22, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> The only thing science has proved is that they can not demonstrate where any mutation has been beneficial to any species.




Absolutely untrue.   The deer that you hunt in Ga are physically different than the deer of the same species up in Canada.  They have adapted their genes to best fit the area in which they live.   Every animial on earth today is the product of adaptation to their environment.   That is what evolution is all about.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 22, 2008)

dixie said:


> the evolution folks and some Christians sell God WAY short in His abilities and plans for us



What Most of Christians miss from the Hebrew Beres.hit or Genesis, is the way Jews Keep time, when the word "Yom" is used as someone pointed out it means "day"not years but also a Hebrew day as established by God in genesis "It is the morning and the evening"or to the evening, it does not include the night time, so we are talking periods of about 12 hours of daylight, so God did not create all in 6 twenty four periods but in 6 twelve hours period, which is even a greater accomplishment creating all things in 72 hours withing 6 days, Praise be his Holy name.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 22, 2008)

Doyle said:


> Absolutely untrue.   The deer that you hunt in Ga are physically different than the deer of the same species up in Canada.  They have adapted their genes to best fit the area in which they live.   Every animial on earth today is the product of adaptation to their environment.   That is what evolution is all about.



Mutation and adaptation are two different things, the 300 lbs deer in Canada are genetically identical to the tiny ones 50LBS in the florida Keys.
They have adapted but not mutated.


----------



## widowmaker1 (Apr 22, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> What Most of Christians miss from the Hebrew Beres.hit or Genesis, is the way Jews Keep time, when the word "Yom" is used as someone pointed out it means "day"not years but also a Hebrew day as established by God in genesis "It is the morning and the evening"or to the evening, it does not include the night time, so we are talking periods of about 12 hours of daylight, so God did not create all in 6 twenty four periods but in 6 twelve hours period, which is even a greater accomplishment creating all things in 72 hours withing 6 days, Praise be his Holy name.



i was once told that if i take part of the bible litteraly,then i must take it all litteraly.therefore in rev. of the new test. -it states that one day to us is a thousand years years to god and vise versa. that would put the 7 day creation taking 7000 of our years.creation is a miraculus thing in itself.---i am not trying to argue with any one because i truly dont know. but have always been fascinated with this subject. but i do know that christ came and died for my sins. the mystery of god will be revealed to me when i meet him.


----------



## RackNBeardOutdoors (Apr 22, 2008)

When was the last time you blew something up in your front yard and the next day beatiful flowers and trees appeard in the yard, and a beatiful deer came from the explosion and a human popped out of the ground?


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 22, 2008)

RackNBeardOutdoors said:


> When was the last time you blew something up in your front yard and the next day beatiful flowers and trees appeard in the yard, and a beatiful deer came from the explosion and a human popped out of the ground?



I shot a pinata once witha high brass 12 GA, candy and little plastic toys appeared everywhere.  It wasn't the next day, it was almost instant.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

People that don't understand what thunder is will cower from it or worship it or make sacrifices to it.  Just because you don't (yet) understand how some things in the universe work, doesn't mean that they are supernatural or the act of a deity.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 22, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> Just because you don't (yet) understand how some things in the universe work, doesn't mean that they are supernatural or the act of a deity.



It also doesn't mean the things you don't understand are not the act of a diety either!!! And when you do become enlightened on a particular subject,  how do you 'know' that some act of a deity did not grant you that understanding?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

The very notion of a deity flies in the face or rational thinking.  If one wants to believe in things by faith, one must accept that those beliefs aren't based on facts.  It's not even  important to me how anyone derives their beliefs as long as their actions are civilized.


----------



## widowmaker1 (Apr 22, 2008)

one thing i do know is that dinosaurs and neanderthal beings with hand made tools and learned minds did exist. you cant argue that, you can go to a museum and put your hands on them. but if we evolved from them or are a entirely different creation -there is no way to know.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

these are indeed the FACTS


----------



## Norm (Apr 22, 2008)

My thoughts, for whatever they are worth!!
 Imagine a single cell living organism that "mutates" toward another form. This process, according to evolutionists, continues for years upon years until the final form or animal comes into being. That is their explanation. 
    BUT, that explanation requires that there were at least 2 separate single celled organisms  would have had to have "mutated" at the same exact rate of mutation and eventually mutated into the same final animal, except that one was a male and the other became a female !!!??????? WHAT ARE THE ODDS ????
ASTRONOMICAL!!!!! 
  Also, once these animals are the final product, why is it necessary for them to die of old age?? Supposedly they are the "best of the best" Right? Explain why, if evolution exists, anything would die?
 I mean, aside from being mortally injured, starving to death, or contracting a disease, why would a organism die for no apparent reason? 
  Thanks for reading.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 22, 2008)

widowmaker1 said:


> i was once told that if i take part of the bible litteraly,then i must take it all litteraly.therefore in rev. of the new test. -it states that one day to us is a thousand years years to god and vise versa. that would put the 7 day creation taking 7000 of our years.creation is a miraculus thing in itself.---i am not trying to argue with any one because i truly dont know. but have always been fascinated with this subject. but i do know that christ came and died for my sins. the mystery of god will be revealed to me when i meet him.



The thousand Year day is an allegorical statement in the bible, it simply means a thousand years to an eternal God is nothing, like a second to you or me.
The word Yom is genesis means one literal day.
God is not bound by time and space, so  days don't exist to him.
Also the Hebrew terms in genesis means and explosion of life became , when he ordered it, now if from that explosion of different life animals birds and fish became from some basic forms , the Genesis Hebrew account says it was instant, Jewish Scholars use the Pupa of A worm turning to a butterfly as an example, the worm becomes a pupa and the Pupa becomes a butterfly but according to its genetical arrangement, and that is what Genesis says according to its genus, God created all things.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 22, 2008)

John Scotus Erigena’s Periphyseon: On the Division of Nature

John Scotus Erigena (c. 810-c. 877) was an Irish theologian and philosopher. He served as a teacher in the royal academy of King Charles I (Charles the Bald) of France. He later taught at Laon, France. He translated the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (fifth century A.D.), Gregory of Nyssa (331-95), and Maximus the Confessor (c.580-662) from Greek into Latin. Erigena’s major works included: De Praedestinatione (On Predestination, 851) and De Divisione Naturae (On the Division of Nature, c. 862-66).

Erigena’s Periphyseon: On the Division of Nature is a philosophical treatise on how nature may be investigated as a unity of essence, creative power, and action. Erigena uses the term ‘nature’ to refer to the unity of all things. ‘Nature’ refers to all the creative and created principles of the universe. Erigena argues that ‘nature’ itself is not divisible, but that various species of nature may undergo differentiation. The division of nature is thus a differentiation into genera and species which may each have their own distinctive properties.

According to Erigena, there are four main species of nature: 1) that which creates and is not created, 2) that which creates and is created, 3) that which does not create and is created, and 4) that which neither creates nor is created. The first species of nature refers to Divine Nature (i.e. God). The second species of nature refers to the primordial causes or divine ideas which are the causes of all things. The third species of nature refers to the final effects of the primordial causes. The fourth species of nature refers to the final return of all things to unity in God.

Erigena argues that all things which are made by God have only God as their First Cause. There cannot be any other First Cause of the universe other than God. Everything ultimately has its being from God. God establishes the unity of all being, and is the First Principle of all things.

Erigena claims that the primordial causes are produced by God, who is the beginning of all things. The primordial causes are divine ideas, which guide the creation and development of the universe. According to Erigena, the primordial causes include: goodness, essence, life, wisdom, truth, intellect, reason, virtue, justice, salvation, magnitude, omnipotence, eternity, peace, and other principles which follow from the Wisdom of God. The primordial causes are created by God as primary principles of being for all things.

Erigena also claims that God created the world from formless matter, and that God created formless matter from nothingness. All formed and unformed things have the same First Cause. All material and non-material things depend on God for their being.

According to Erigena, God’s creative power and being are eternal. God is the Creator of an infinite nmber of things. An infinite number of things may be caused by God, and may have their being in God. God is infinitely perfect, and the being of all things in God is a perfect unity.

Erigena also claims that nothing can be the negation of God. If anything could be the negation of God, then it would have to be co-eternal with God. However, nothing could be co-eternal with God without also being co-essential with God. Thus, when God is referred to by names such as "Essence," "Goodness," "Truth," "Wisdom," "Justice," or "Eternity," these names are merely metaphorical and are not adequate to describe the infinite unity of God. If God were merely "Essence" or "Truth," then "Non-Essence" or "Falsehood" would be the negation of God. However, God is not merely essential to the being of all things, God is “more than essential” (i.e. "superessential"). God is not merely eternal, God is "more than eternal" (i.e. "supereternal"). Moreover, Divine Nature is not contradictory to Itself, and thus there can be no negation of God.

According to Erigena, there is nothing accidental to the being of God. The being of God is not contingent upon any set of conditions. God is "superessential," and transcends whatever is essential or accidental. Neither "Essence" nor "Accident" can adequately describe the being of God. However, God is the First Cause of whatever is essential or accidental. All essences and accidents have the First Cause of their being in God.

Erigena argues that God is not Being itself, but that God is the source of all Being. All Being proceeds from, and ultimately returns to, God. All Being is included in the infinite unity of God. God’s Being and Creating are One, and are the same undivided reality.

Erigena also argues that God, as the First Cause of all things, surpasses all understanding. The creative power of God cannot be comprehended by the intellect. Divine Nature cannot be defined by any name, and transcends any category of being. However, divine appearances or "theophanies" may, through the grace of God, be apprehended by the intellect. These "theophanies" may provide the intellect with images of eternal causes, and may provide insight into the eternal reasons for the being of things.

According to Erigena, the being of all things is a participation in the universal reality of God. Each genus or species of being participates in the reality of a genus or species higher than itself, and is participated in by a genus or species lower than itself. Each genus or species of being receives its reality by participating in a higher genus or species of being.

Erigena claims that each species of being is good to the extent that it participates in the goodness of a higher species of being. Thus, goodness is ultimately determined by whether a species of being participates in the goodness of God. Goodness may be demonstrated by a species of being which participates in the goodness of God. Evil may be demonstrated by a species of being which fails to participate in the goodness of God. The order of the universe has been established by Divine Providence. The being of all things ultimately depends on the Will of God. All things proceed from primordial causes which are produced by the Will of God.

According to Erigena, the process by which all things return to God may include stages in which various genera and species return to their primordial causes, and the primordial causes then return to God. All things, visible and invisible, material and spiritual, corporeal and incorporeal, must ultimately return to God to find the Cause of their being.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 22, 2008)

what I want to know is where are all the transition fossils?  Given the time it takes Evolution to work, there should be hundreds of thousands of fossils? 

I don't mean pieces of remains, I mean full skeletons, or atleast so much of it that you do not have to theorize about the structure of the skeleton.

hmmm something reminds me of a mistake that scientist made... Brontosaurus? The thing is Brontosaurus never exsisted....

The Wrong Headed Dinosaur

 Sometimes paleontologists make mistakes with dinosaur fossils. You have probably heard of the great Brontosaurus (BRAHN-toe SOR-us). This is the dinosaur most people know best. Millions have seen it in books and advertising. Unfortunately, the Brontosaurus never really existed - even though it was pictured in almost every dinosaur book and museum for the last hundred years.

The dinosaur was discovered with the head missing. To make the skeleton complete, a scientist added a skull found three or four miles away. But no one else knew this. The skeleton actually belonged to a type of Diplodocus (Dip-LAHD-oh-kuss). The skull was from an Apatosaurus. (Ah-PAT-oh-SOR-us)


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

if you pre-suppose God,  anything goes.  You no longer need natural law to explain anything.  if you use science to explain things, you should REALLY understand the science.  If you have faith, you don't need science. There is no rational argument that can compete with faith.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 22, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> The very notion of a deity flies in the face or rational thinking.



The very notion that anybody on this planet is educated or intelligent enough to understand everything also flies in the face of rational thinking.  Conversely, the notion that some very well educated and intelligent people don't want to admit that there is something they can't explain with science, IS a "caught-in-the-act" portrait of rational thinking.... because it is human nature.

Here's an example: Look up at the stars at night. Contemplate what is out there beyond what you can see... Where is the end of "infinity"? It will short circuit a rational man's mind.  Yet, well educated and extremely intelligent people try to explain it like their opinion is fact. After all, they are the "smartest people" on the planet, they have to have an answer. If they can't come up with an explanation  that seems rational, maybe somebody else will and thus  become top dog.

Note: These people do not have to prove anything because proof is impossible. All they must do is to come up with a theory that can't be disproved by their peers. 

Perhaps I am a simpleton but, the older I get and the more I learn, the more humbled I become about all that I don't know.  I am not in the running for being considered the "smartest" person on the planet. ... but, I can hold my own in the "logic" department.

Big Tex


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

I don't think that reason is the end all be all. I do think that faith is irrational but  still a valid position.  

There are many things that science cannot explain.  But without the search, they will remain mysteries.

I prefer the search to an mystical explaination.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 22, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> if you pre-suppose God,  anything goes.  You no longer need natural law to explain anything.  if you use science to explain things, you should REALLY understand the science.  If you have faith, you don't need science. There is no rational argument that can compete with faith.



Kurt,

I think the problem, at least for me, lies in the second of your two words, "natural law." From my understanding of science, a "law" is something that can be proved. A "theory" is something that seems very logical... but, since it can't be proved, it remains a "theory." 

I'd ask you to consider the fact that many of the natural "laws" that are bantered about... aren't truly laws. Instead, they are theories that have been put forth by some very well educated humans. 

Where did these very well educated humans receive their education? From very well educated humans that came before them... and so on. After awhile, I think that people begin accepting their "teacher's" theories as laws... and begin using those "laws" as the foundation for proving their own theories. 

Here's an example... and, as an engineer myself, I would be laughed off the board in many circles for saying it... but, how are we able to so confidently use carbon dating to proclaim something to be 200 million years old? Was anyone around to calibrate the instrumentation? Of course not, instead we take a carbon sample of something that we think is maybe 1,000 years old... and use that data to extrapolate back. Our theory is that the carbon dating model is "linear", or at least predictable. How do we know?

While everyone in the scientific community now considers the accuracy of carbon dating to be a FACT... the truth is, carbon dating is based on one theory rolled into another into another into another... 

Acceleration due to gravity is a natural law. It can be proven. The thermodynamic properties of water, the heat transfer characteristics of aluminum, and the chemical composition of crude oil from Saudi Arabia are all natural laws because they can be proven in the here and now.... and so on and so on and so on.  

See the difference?

Big Tex


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

I don't use the words law and theory with nearly as much conviction or certainty as one who would use the terms God's Law or God's Will.  I understand that they are just a working platform to explain observable properties of matter.  

That's the thing that science affords us.  The opportunity to be proven wrong.  No such flexibility in the faith arena.  

If one day a ball "falls" up, science will  rework the theory of gravity.

There will be no amendments to spirit based texts.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

thank you all for your insights.  hope to talk to you all again


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 22, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> I don't use the words law and theory with nearly as much conviction or certainty as one who would use the terms God's Law or God's Will.  I understand that they are just a working platform to explain observable properties of matter.
> 
> That's the thing that science affords us.  The opportunity to be proven wrong.  No such flexibility in the faith arena.
> 
> ...



I totally agree... but, not in the manner that you may have preconceived. If one day, science PROVES the bible to be wrong, there will be no amendments to spirit based texts. Instead, many... including me... will just throw their bibles away.

The thing is, despite its great and concerted effort to do so, science has NOT proved the bible wrong. I believe with all my heart that they never will. But, if a "spiritual ball falls up," you can bet that I'll be watching.

Please make no mistake: I have NOTHING against science. I also have nothing against theories. I AM a scientist. I DO have a problem with people pushing unproven (perhaps unprovable) theories into law. If they are wrong, and I believe that they are, they are leading many towards eternal suffering (words chosen to avoid censoring )

So, with all that said... you place your faith in the scientific theory of evolution. Where did woman come from?


----------



## formula1 (Apr 22, 2008)

*Re:*

WTL, Good Post.

It is a known fact that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived about 2000 years ago and challenged the religious structure of the day.  It is also known that he was crucified for it and his life influences many to this day.

What could be construed by many as 'faith' is that He rose from the dead on the third day, revealing His purpose to become the supreme sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, if you choose to believe it.

The biblical record, of which many scholars consider to be historically accurate, also makes the claim that over 500 people physically witnessed Jesus alive after His crucifixion. 

Now, while I still believe that it is faith which brings us to Christ, it cannot be denied that there is some historical record which could be considered an element of fact!


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

Are you willing to bet your eternity on it?

John[/QUOTE]

Presuming and "eternity" and a "soul"


----------



## formula1 (Apr 22, 2008)

*Re:*

You exercise even more faith than I if you believe this. 

Presuming no 'eternity' and no 'soul' means you and I lose nothing!
Presuming an 'eternity' and 'soul' are valid, means you could lose life eternal!

I'll pray that you may understand that science and faith are indeed not mutually exclusive, and that one day you will come to know salvation through Christ!

I wish you the best in your search!


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

not saying they don't exist. i just haven't experienced a situation where choosing one way or the other would do any good.  i've observed that when people make important decisions based on faith as opposed to reason, irrational things happen.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 22, 2008)

*Re:*

Kurt,

That was very enlightening.  I now know that experience shapes your viewpoint.  That's great! There is much hope for you.  I also know that you wrestle with the understanding of the eternity and the soul, per your own experience.

Questions to Ponder!

Could the irrational you mention in fact be rational from a different experience?  

What if your preconceived viewpoint was different? Might that change your understanding of the irrational?

My challenge to you is to try to put down your preconceived notions and see if you cannot begin to at least view some things differently!  Yes, this is one of the most difficult things for any man to do, but if you can accomplish it to some small level, you might begin to open a new world of understanding for yourself.

Going to sleep now.  We'll discuss more later if you wish!


----------



## WTL (Apr 22, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> not saying they don't exist. i just haven't experienced a situation where choosing one way or the other would do any good.  i've observed that when people make important decisions based on faith as opposed to reason, irrational things happen.



Just a note. Making a decision for Christ isn't to really bring about good in this life. On the contrary, it brings about persecution by the world. There is a false message which is being preached in the modern world, and it is that for anyone who trusts in the Lord Jesus, they will have health, wealth, etc. That's not Scriptural that I can find. I do know it to bring joy into my life. In my life, many things have brought me happiness. I've taken pleasure in a lot of things, so a secular world can certainly fill that need. But joy is different.

Philippians 4:4 says: "Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say rejoice."

People read that quickly, but Paul is speaking of joy again and again: "Re-joy". And Paul as well as the other apostles were so confident at what and who they'd seen and witnessed, that they gave up everything. I mean, everything. Endured persecution to death. And to make statements which they did, they weren't speaking of mythology. They were willing to be martyrs peacefully for what they saw:

1 Cor 15:12-19: "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be it that dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

All of these men who followed Jesus had a chance to turn back; to renege; to spare their own lives before their particular deaths simply by making a public renunciation as Peter did prior to the crucifixion. 

Faith in something as great as that is very reasonable.

John


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 22, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> if you pre-suppose God,  anything goes.  You no longer need natural law to explain anything.  if you use science to explain things, you should REALLY understand the science.  If you have faith, you don't need science. There is no rational argument that can compete with faith.


Let me know when Natural law creates anything without a cause.
And when science creates something from nothing,LOL

Applying the rules of evolution, the Amazon River one of the longest in the world ,flows through the Jungles of South and central America, one of the richest areas in gold and other precious stones, which are created from actions of nature, they are inert minerals without a single living cell and no complex actions, so applying the law of Millions of years of evolving, by the time the Gold reaches the ocean there should be a nice Rolex watch in the bottom of that river able to tell time and date at least with one function.
Anybody want to go look for it ?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

.  We'll discuss more later if you wish![/QUOTE]

see you around.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 22, 2008)

"creates" implies a creator. if you start from that position, there's no more discussion necessary. Science and Natural Law aren't  beings. They're tools used to describe things. it doesn't create anything except confusion, apparently.


----------



## Israel (Apr 23, 2008)

Seems there's one area not touched on. 
God is able to bring strong delusion upon those who reject the truth. God is not obligated to assist man with an intact reasoning that was intended for his glory when it refutes him. 
When man's spiritual state is corrupted, so is man's reasoning. Have you ever wondered how the spies for the Pharisees could watch Jesus resurrect Lazarus and still continue to rat Jesus out to them? They had no understanding of what their eyes saw, so great was their hatred of the truth. I am no less convinced that God is able to completely blind the eyes of those who reject him, and allow them to come up with (what in their own minds) is a perfectly reasonable structure to explain him away. It's a hard thing when man is given over to strong delusion...black will look white, evil will look good.
All engagement with the truth is a moral, and _never _an intellectual matter. God is not impressed at all with man's intellect, it is a tool that will either serve the truth or see corruption. When it is elevated to the position of being the arbiter of the truth, God will make sure it is seen to be what it is, a corrupt and pitifully envious pretender to his throne. 
With his mind darkened, man will follow darkness, believing it is light, to his own destruction.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

it still confounds me that people can be SO sure that what THEY believe is TRUTH; full stop, without any room for doubt.


----------



## Israel (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> it still confounds me that people can be SO sure that what THEY believe is TRUTH; full stop, without any room for doubt.



I don't know your position regarding the Lord Jesus, and if you care to enlighten me that's fine.
I will say this...if you claim the Lord Jesus as your life, but do not understand the testing of your faith...I can only encourage you to keep going. It's not wise for a disciple to make too much of what he's been through regarding the testing of his faith, but more appropriate to extol the Lord's faithfulness in it.


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 23, 2008)

Doyle said:


> Absolutely untrue.   The deer that you hunt in Ga are physically different than the deer of the same species up in Canada.  They have adapted their genes to best fit the area in which they live.   Every animial on earth today is the product of adaptation to their environment.   That is what evolution is all about.



Your statement is absolutely false  What I said is true.  There is NO PROOF that any animal actually evolved.  Evolution implies that there was a mutation of the genes...the only way there can be a change in the genes...and science has yet to be able to demonstrate even one positive change from mutation.  You are one of the dangerous ones...you think you know science, but your understanding is superficial.  What I quoted comes from the great minds of science based on years and years of study.  Darwin merely observed the differences and he came up with a theory.  A theory is just an opinion, it is not proof.  Just because animals are similar, but different does not prove evolution and in fact lends more proof of creation.


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 23, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> Mutation and adaptation are two different things, the 300 lbs deer in Canada are genetically identical to the tiny ones 50LBS in the florida Keys.
> They have adapted but not mutated.



I like your line of thought, however, these deer are genetically different.  However, being genetically different does not prove that they were ever genetically identical. There has never been any proof that a mutation can successfully improve or adapt a species.  Darwin, who studied back in what would be considered the beginning stages of modern science, only came up with a theory  based upon observation.  He could never prove his theory, but it seemed to make sense. Until science can demonstrate in real time that mutation can be beneficial to a species, it proves that the theory of evolution is either incorrect or unprovable.

Personally, it makes more sense to me that God, the all knowing and all powerful, made changes in the species to allow it to live in different areas. 

Adaptation is where a species is thrown into an environment that is foreign to it, but it changes its patterns and survives.  Deer living within city limits is a prime example of that.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> it still confounds me that people can be SO sure that what THEY believe is TRUTH; full stop, without any room for doubt.


Each person's experience is different, most believers go through their Christian lives without having to have prove, that is pure faith.
I for one , saw my son resurrect after being dead 20 minutes, have seen at least 2 tornadoes stop on their tracks when rebuked in the name of Jesus, have seen 2 other kids resurrect at the name of Jesus, One 13 yr old Girl on a death bed with bone cancer, healed instantly and today she is a doctor has 4 children and still go to my church, one 33 YR old in a coma and last hours of Life with Meningitis, wake up after praying for him and was sent home the next day, saw my partner in the Karate Schools we had, healed instantly from a stroke and 3 others he had before with doctors seeing the strokes in Xray and machines that proved all scars in his heart disappeared in 1 day after we prayed for him.
We saw How God didn't let a communist general go to sleep as my wife and I were held and might have being executed for Trespassing into a military area unawares, but yet we were to be executed we continued to prayed until the general returned 4 hours later and said I can't sleep someone keeps speaking to me and says to turn you lose, go before I go crazy,LOL

I suppose if you never had personal experiences with a Supreme being, you have to rely on man to tell you with Came from an ape,LOL


----------



## formula1 (Apr 23, 2008)

*Re:*

I believe that if I look under an oak tree and see acorns, I observed the result of the law of gravity.  Gravity is a natural law that caused my experience and it exists in a natural realm.

I believe that if I look at the same oak tree and can see the greatness of God, I observed the result of the law of faith. Faith is also a law that caused my experience, but exists in a different, spiritual realm.

I submit to you that faith is a law just like gravity, only it operates in a different realm.  Within its own realm, it can be proven, much like gravity can be proven within the natural realm.

Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to experience the law of faith in operation without steppin into its realm. And if you belief system causes you to doubt its reality, you shall never step into that realm of understanding.

Who is more open-minded?
1) the man who seeks knowledge of the natural world.
2) the man who seeks knowledge of God or the spiritual realm.
3) the man who seeks both.

Just a few more things to ponder!!


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> if you pre-suppose God,  anything goes.  You no longer need natural law to explain anything.  if you use science to explain things, you should REALLY understand the science.  If you have faith, you don't need science. There is no rational argument that can compete with faith.



Many many scholars began their trek to faith pre-supposing there was no God and instead there was only science.  Many of them reached the end of their rational thinking process and found God there.  One of the most notable of these was a funny looking little fellow named Albert Einstein.  Perhaps you recognize that he had at least moderate human intellectual abilities.

I can tell you that in my trek, there came a time when I believed that man's intellect was the ultimate force in play in today's universe and that there was nothing we could not study and explain without reference to God.  As I grew older, studied more and hopefully gained some measure of wisedom, I move further and further from the arrogance of man and more toward God.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

as far as i can tell, if one claims the lord jesus into ones life, or Vishnu, Allah or satan for that matter, then one relenquishes the optin of questioning.  I would prefer to come to my own conclusions about things rather than blindly following a book written by men.  

i think it might be better to leave room to question things like: is it ok to hunt, or is it ok to eat meat (both things i enjoy immensely), rather than to just accept it as my devine right because a book says " of these you may eat.. or you shouldn't eat pork.... or animals are our brothers...etc"


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> Many many scholars began their trek to faith pre-supposing there was no God and instead there was only science.  Many of them reached the end of their rational thinking process and found God there.  One of the most notable of these was a funny looking little fellow named Albert Einstein.  Perhaps you recognize that he had at least moderate human intellectual abilities.
> 
> I can tell you that in my trek, there came a time when I believed that man's intellect was the ultimate force in play in today's universe and that there was nothing we could not study and explain without reference to God.  As I grew older, studied more and hopefully gained some measure of wisedom, I move further and further from the arrogance of man and more toward God.



einstein said something like " my sense of god is my wonderment about the universe"  i'm sure he would be the first to tell you taht its an irrational position.  He just believes.    i'm sure he still left room in his belief to hash it out intellectually.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

moreover,  its not that i care if one rubs on a rock or a rosary or lights incence to find comfort in their own private lives. its when they take those beliefs and impose them upon others by deciding how to vote on things based on a book instead of thinking it through


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> Let me know when Natural law creates anything without a cause.
> And when science creates something from nothing,LOL
> 
> Applying the rules of evolution, the Amazon River one of the longest in the world ,flows through the Jungles of South and central America, one of the richest areas in gold and other precious stones, which are created from actions of nature, they are inert minerals without a single living cell and no complex actions, so applying the law of Millions of years of evolving, by the time the Gold reaches the ocean there should be a nice Rolex watch in the bottom of that river able to tell time and date at least with one function.
> Anybody want to go look for it ?



This is the cond of hocus pocus that only a god could do


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> it still confounds me that people can be SO sure that what THEY believe is TRUTH; full stop, without any room for doubt.



Kurt,

I think I truly understand where you are coming from. Yes, there are many many many Christians that will enter into a "debate" by saying something like, "God said it, I believe it, end of story." While they are very sincere in their beliefs, it is pretty frustrating for someone that is equally sincere in their skepticism. Years ago, I was in your shoes... so I DO understand.

I hope that through these discussions, you have seen that there are some people on this board that both believe AND are willing and capable to rationally discuss the conflicting overlap in science and religion. Their eyes are not closed to what science says and they are educated enough to understand what science says... Yet, they still believe.

Are these people irrational or, are they right? Personally, I believe that science and religion (as defined by the Bible), go hand in hand. I think that the problem lies in the FACT that there is a big difference in true science and "speculative" science.  It takes a truly wise person to differentiate between the two.

One more thing for you to contemplate; there is a very big difference between "wisdom" and "academia." In the business setting, the two words are analogous to "leader" and "manager." You can attend the most prestigious university in the world and study management. You can obtain 4.0 gpa, get a Masters and a PhD in Management... you can write books and consult with companies far and wide... YET, you can still be a very poor leader.

Does this seem rational?

Big Tex


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

formula1 said:


> I believe that if I look under an oak tree and see acorns, I observed the result of the law of gravity.  Gravity is a natural law that caused my experience and it exists in a natural realm.
> 
> I believe that if I look at the same oak tree and can see the greatness of God, I observed the result of the law of faith. Faith is also a law that caused my experience, but exists in a different, spiritual realm.
> 
> ...



I get a sense of things greater than what i can sense,  things that one might consider spiritual.  i don't understand them completely but thats no reason to just assume that they a divine and not try to understand them some more


----------



## DanTroop2000 (Apr 23, 2008)

Who came first chicken or the egg:crazy


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Kurt,
> 
> I think I truly understand where you are coming from. Yes, there are many many many Christians that will enter into a "debate" by saying something like, "God said it, I believe it, end of story." While they are very sincere in their beliefs, it is pretty frustrating for someone that is equally sincere in their skepticism. Years ago, I was in your shoes... so I DO understand.
> 
> ...



You make alot of sense, Tex.  I just wonder what means you used to come to rely on one doctrine over another, if that's not too personal?  Tis is the most interesting question to me.  Did You use a scientific method or did you accept your present doctrine because you inherited it?  really none of my business, but if you care to share, i'm anxiosly awaity a response


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

DanTroop2000 said:


> Who came first chicken or the egg:crazy



what difference does it make in your every day life?


----------



## farmasis (Apr 23, 2008)

Just my $0.02.

I am well educated (not trying to be boastfull) and I believe not only in creationism, but also in a young earth. I admit my belief in a young earth is based more on faith than facts. I have an extensive background in chemistry and the more that I learned about chemistry, sterochemistry, isomers, etc the more I realized just how much a stretch the theory of evolution is.

Natural selection happens. We can observe it. Living things can change and adapt to their surrounding and genes can be altered and traits can be transferred from one generation to the next. However, science began calling natural selection microevolution. IMO, it was to give some validity to macroevolution that is not reproducible and never has been observed. It makes sense that a little small changes can equal a big change over time. However, with microevolution, genetic material is always removed. It is the alleles that are deleted or removed that allows the other genes to be expressed. In macroevolution, genetic material must be added for ocean slime to mutate into a llama, for example. There is next to no evidence that this has ever occured. I say next to, because there has been resistant strains of bacteria observed to add genetic material in defense of antibiotics, for example.

The natural order of life is just too overwhelming for me to believe in chance.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Kurt,
> 
> I think I truly understand where you are coming from. Yes, there are many many many Christians that will enter into a "debate" by saying something like, "God said it, I believe it, end of story." While they are very sincere in their beliefs, it is pretty frustrating for someone that is equally sincere in their skepticism. Years ago, I was in your shoes... so I DO understand.
> 
> ...



The older i get, the more i realize the benefits of being open minded.  its acting on my skepticism that often ends up in a surprising learning experience.  

sometimes when i hunt or fish in a manner  that completely  goes against conventional wisdom or historical tradition, i get positive results.  Same with when i apply an unpopular or unconventional course of action to big life issue (often in contradiction to a religious doctrine).


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Just my $0.02.
> 
> I am well educated (not trying to be boastfull) and I believe not only in creationism, but also in a young earth. I admit my belief in a young earth is based more on faith than facts. I have an extensive background in chemistry and the more that I learned about chemistry, sterochemistry, isomers, etc the more I realized just how much a stretch the theory of evolution is.
> 
> ...



after all that knowledge and self examination the answer you came up with is faith?  it just seems wierd to me that you would put all your eggs in one basket and not leave room for doubt.  

it is indeed overwhelming.  but i think you're selling yourself short if you don't think that by  you might get that wall to crack. like i said before, i support any belief system one chooses to find comfort in their own lives. i just worry when they extrapolate it incude everyone else.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> after all that knowledge and self examination the answer you came up with is faith?  it just seems wierd to me that you would put all your eggs in one basket and not leave room for doubt.
> 
> it is indeed overwhelming.  but i think you're selling yourself short if you don't think that by  you might get that wall to crack. like i said before, i support any belief system one chooses to find comfort in their own lives. i just worry when they extrapolate it incude everyone else.


There is no room for doubt in faith, otherwise is not faith.
It says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 6


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

why is the concept of evolution and natural selection so threatening?  arent they just concepts used to explain and attempt to predict how lifeforms have or might change over time?  what are the consequences of using them as a basis for breeding flowers or attempting to cure a viral disease?  it seems like the best sytem to use so far, kind of like how we use the theory of gravity.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> There is no room for doubt in faith, otherwise is not faith.
> It says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 6



thats what concerns me


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

you know,  i would feel more comfortable if people used the term Theory of Creation.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> There is no room for doubt in faith, otherwise is not faith.
> It says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 6


Originally Posted by Big Texun  
Kurt,

I think I truly understand where you are coming from. Yes, there are many many many Christians that will enter into a "debate" by saying something like, "God said it, I believe it, end of story." While they are very sincere in their beliefs, it is pretty frustrating for someone that is equally sincere in their skepticism. Years ago, I was in your shoes... so I DO understand.

I hope that through these discussions, you have seen that there are some people on this board that both believe AND are willing and capable to rationally discuss the conflicting overlap in science and religion. Their eyes are not closed to what science says and they are educated enough to understand what science says... Yet, they still believe.

Are these people irrational or, are they right? Personally, I believe that science and religion (as defined by the Bible), go hand in hand. I think that the problem lies in the FACT that there is a big difference in true science and "speculative" science. It takes a truly wise person to differentiate between the two.

One more thing for you to contemplate; there is a very big difference between "wisdom" and "academia." In the business setting, the two words are analogous to "leader" and "manager." You can attend the most prestigious university in the world and study management. You can obtain 4.0 gpa, get a Masters and a PhD in Management... you can write books and consult with companies far and wide... YET, you can still be a very poor leader.

Does this seem rational?

Big Tex


----------



## Wild Turkey (Apr 23, 2008)

Ok based on the logic of BTex. You have no more knowledge than the person who taught you the knowledge you have. And so on down the line. So how did any of the inventions/achievements of the last 2 centuries happen. 

Religion is based on faith that the words of the Bible are correct and true. 
Science is based on theories and hypothesis which are potentially proven true/false by experimentation.

You can have faith in God and accept scientific facts as well as theories. Way too many people lump evolution, Big Bang, and other theories about creation in one pot of junk. Each is separate and should be considered separate theories and sometimes facts.
The fact that plants and animals evolve based on external and internal influences has been proven time and again.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> You make alot of sense, Tex.  I just wonder what means you used to come to rely on one doctrine over another, if that's not too personal?  Tis is the most interesting question to me.  Did You use a scientific method or did you accept your present doctrine because you inherited it?  really none of my business, but if you care to share, i'm anxiosly awaity a response



Kurt,

Not too personal at all. I did not inherit my present doctrine; My parents are / were GREAT people... but, not believers. While I was growing up, the only time I EVER entered a church building was to attend a funeral or a wedding. My parents were smart people and they were very skeptical of "religious people." Their conclusion was that they'd get drunk on Saturday night (neither of my parents drank) and go to church on Sunday morning to judge people for drinking. Their skepticism rubbed off on me.

After college, I took a job in engineering and got married. My wife was also not a believer. She was (and is still) a very smart CPA. My wife's mother died when she was a sophomore in high school... and her dad raised her to be extremely (underscore EXTREMELY) self sufficient. As you may learn some day, self sufficiency is not a trait that is consistent with faith. So, suffice it to say, we did not attend church.

I got promoted, she got promoted, we had kids, I got promoted, she got promoted, I got promoted... etc etc etc... and life was good. We had a great house, money in the bank, everybody was healthy and happy.

One Tuesday night, some people from the local "First Baptist Church" came a knocking. We hid and didn't answer the door. The next Tuesday, they came back. We hid again. The next Tuesday, they came back and, against my protests, my wife answered the door.

That night, my wife accepted Jesus. I must be honest, at the same time she "prayed the prayer", I did too. I did it just to get them to go away... and to make my wife happy. The next Sunday night, they drug us to the church and Baptised us.

Well, praying that prayer, or getting Baptised, didn't do a thing for me... but, it did for my wife! She started changing. She went on a mission trip to Haiti. She got involved in church. She changed for the better and I could see it clearly in the way she lived her life... right before me.

So, she'd drag me to church... and I'd listen to the speaker talk about how crazy people were for believing in Evolution. Like you, I'd snicker under my breath.

When I was 32, life was really good.  I was the golden boy at the office times two, my wife had long since given up her career to stay home and raise our children, everything was just wonderful.   

One week, my wife's church was having a revival. She drug me along. During the invitation that was given by a special speaker, I was overcome with the sense that I was lost as a goose. I had seen the change in my wife's life and I wanted it too. Yes, I had been Baptised... yes, I had prayed the prayer of salvation... but, when I had done that, I knew that I didn't mean it.  So I went forward and placed my faith in Jesus. I was Baptised again... and this time, it really meant something. 

The Lord started to change my life. He slowly opened my eyes to many things that were previously so blatantly obvious... but, I just couldn't see them before.  The last of which was the issue of evolution... which, if you'll read the very first post in this thread, explains how the Lord helped me to overcome that.

Do you think I am irrational?

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

Wild Turkey said:


> Ok based on the logic of BTex. You have no more knowledge than the person who taught you the knowledge you have. And so on down the line. So how did any of the inventions/achievements of the last 2 centuries happen.



On the contrary Wild Turkey...

You have the knowledge that the person taught you... you also have the knowledge that you have acquired from others and through self learning.

The issue that I was attempting to describe is that sometimes, the knowledge that you gain from somebody else is not accurate. They believe it to be accurate and pass it on to you... you believe it to be true, subsequently add to it... and pass the expanded "package" on to someone else... to repeat the process again and again. It is somewhat analogous to the old "pass the whisper around the table game" except it plays out over generations, not minutes. In some respects, you, Wild Turkey, just gave a good example by mis-interpreting my logic, adding to it, and passing it on.

Where did all the inventions and improvements come from? Clearly, not all knowledge is inaccurate. So as accurate  knowledge is compounded from generation to generation, good things happen.

Sorry if I did not clearly articulate my thoughts earlier!

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> you know,  i would feel more comfortable if people used the term Theory of Creation.



Me to. 

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> There is no room for doubt in faith, otherwise is not faith.
> It says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 6



Lowjack, I know you mean well... but, this is a big legalistic don't you think? Consider Matthew 6:27-29:

 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

If there is a person on this board that has never worried... I'd truly like to meet them. Do they doubt these words to be true? Do they lack faith?

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> it just seems wierd to me that you would put all your eggs in one basket and not leave room for doubt.



Kurt,

I may be missing something here... but, if someone is ever able to prove Kurt's basket is defective, which, after years of study, I believe they wont... Won't his eggs fall to where yours are now?

Help me better understand how you think this is weird.

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> like i said before, i support any belief system one chooses to find comfort in their own lives. i just worry when they extrapolate it incude everyone else.



Kurt,

I am not pushing my beliefs on anybody. I AM attempting to debate rationally... which I think is something you originally found to be lacking.

The simple truth is, I am trying to help you. If I am right, you ARE included, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. By not choosing, you are choosing.  That is your choice... lets go fishing... I'll even drink a beer or two with you.

Big Tex


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

now ur making sense


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

I'm afraid Webster might agree with me that faith is irrational. 
Wasn't the the bible written by folks?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

how does the pass the secret game play out over 2000 years?  gotta go. but im not done yet. hope to see yo on later.


----------



## widowmaker1 (Apr 23, 2008)

there is nothing wrong with a christian wondering about god, in fact he knew we would,hence the saying from the bible-the mystery of god will be revealed to you when you die. i am a christian i do believe christ was born a miraculous birth, crucified ,and resurected. i also believe that learned -upright lifeforms have been on this planet a loooong time.it is fact. for people who wont give a second glance at some type of evolution, how do you explain that caucasion males are now taller than they were 300 years ago, or explain the appendix ,which now serves no real porpuse, but could be effective in digesting raw meat. ---i want to know who made it law -that one cannot believe in evolution and jesus christ? remember that our bible is only a small portion of the scrolls that were found in the middle east, the rest were burned too badly to be deciphered, so surely there is much - we don't know.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> I'm afraid Webster might agree with me that faith is irrational.
> Wasn't the the bible written by folks?



I don't know how Webster would define faith. But, despite what Webster may or may not say, not all faith is irrational. You have faith that your car or truck will start when you turn the key. Otherwise, you wouldn't drive it into the woods in the winter. Let's face it, a car that won't start is a PITB... and it is down right dangerous in some places. . 

Yes, people's hands touched "pens" to write the words. Where the words came from requires faith. Set that debate aside for a second: The 4 most important books of the bible, at least for me, are Luke, Matthew, Mark and John. These are first hand accounts of what each of these men observed during the time that Jesus Christ lived on the planet. Their accounts were written independently and are different... yet they are consistent.

Big Tex

PS: I'd strongly suggest that you read the book of Matthew. See if it doesn't seem rational.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

widowmaker1 said:


> there is nothing wrong with a christian wondering about god, in fact he knew we would,hence the saying from the bible-the mystery of god will be revealed to you when you die. i am a christian i do believe christ was born a miraculous birth, crucified ,and resurected. i also believe that learned -upright lifeforms have been on this planet a loooong time.it is fact. for people who wont give a second glance at some type of evolution, how do you explain that caucasion males are now taller than they were 300 years ago, or explain the appendix ,which now serves no real porpuse, but could be effective in digesting raw meat. ---i want to know who made it law -that one cannot believe in evolution and jesus christ? remember that our bible is only a small portion of the scrolls that were found in the middle east, the rest were burned too badly to be deciphered, so surely there is much - we don't know.



Widowmaker,

Nobody, to my knowledge, made it a law that one must not believe in evolution to believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus was my savior long before He helped me shake my belief in evolution. During that time... we got along just great! However, having this shaky position does make it pretty hard to reconcile a number of things that are written in the Bible.

About the appendix... If I am reading my calendar correctly, it has been an AWFUL long time since humans have made a habit of eating raw meat. Why haven't we mutated ourselves away from having that pesky appendix? Like you said, it serves no purpose nowadays, why haven't we dropped it from our list of "required equipment"?

A more rational argument would be that God, in His infinite wisdom, knew that we'd be eating some raw meat on occasion. So, He designed us with an appendix. We needed it then so we got it. We don't need it now... but, since it was part of the original design, we still have it.

This is fun, keep 'em coming!
Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> how does the pass the secret game play out over 2000 years?  gotta go. but im not done yet. hope to see yo on later.



Verbally, I'm sure the "pass the secret game" plays out about as you'd expect. Try playing the "pass the secret" game but, start by writing down the initial statement. It's a whole lot more accurate but not nearly as much fun.

I need to go also... Even though I own the company, there are only so many liberties a person can take!

You boys and girls play nice while I'm away... okay?

Blessings to all,
Big Tex


----------



## widowmaker1 (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Widowmaker,
> 
> Nobody, to my knowledge, made it a law that one must not believe in evolution to believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus was my savior long before He helped me shake my belief in evolution. During that time... we got along just great! However, having this shaky position does make it pretty hard to reconcile a number of things that are written in the Bible.
> 
> ...



then why now are people being born without an appendix, i did some looking and it is more common than i thought, evolution [if it exist]takes millions of years, and what about the most recent  archeological finds of the creatures with humanistic skulls but have canines. they pre date the homo-erectus finds.the national geographic had an article on it,the remains were found with hand made flint tools.-  and i do not feel that my beliefs or salvation are shakey. enjoy talking with ya


----------



## Randy (Apr 23, 2008)

Why do people believe Genesis is literal yet have no problem believing Revelations is symbolic?  Seems just as rational to me that Genesis could be symbolic.

Can you imagine God trying to tell the person who wrote Genesis about DNA and evolution as it might have really happened.  Genesis would have never been written, that guy would have been so confused!


----------



## Doyle (Apr 23, 2008)

The general thought process of many of the "ultra-Christians" here is like that of most lawyers:

1.   If a thing cannot be proven, it does not exist at all.
2.   Everything that happens is caused by or is the fault of, someone.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 23, 2008)

widowmaker1 said:


> ... or explain the appendix ,which now serves no real porpuse, but could be effective in digesting raw meat....



I read an article not too long ago that said the appendix had little to do with raw meat, but more to do with a repository for beneficial bacteria for digesting in the event someone has severe upset stomach.  That bacteria would not get removed and would recolonize the intestines.


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> einstein said something like " my sense of god is my wonderment about the universe"  i'm sure he would be the first to tell you taht its an irrational position.  He just believes.    i'm sure he still left room in his belief to hash it out intellectually.



Pulled only a small part.  What Einstein said is that what he learned, he learned by discovery and that there is no conflict between intellect, natural order, natural laws and God.  In fact he saw them as one and the same.


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 23, 2008)

Doyle said:


> The general thought process of many of the "ultra-Christians" here is like that of most lawyers:
> 
> 1.   If a thing cannot be proven, it does not exist at all.
> 2.   Everything that happens is caused by or is the fault of, someone.



What is an ultra-Christian? 

1. Not true.  What is true is that one theory, the theory of evolution, which is unproven, is given the status of being the gospel, while the gospel is being given the status of mere "faith".

2. That is a natural law.  All matter at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

widowmaker1 said:


> then why now are people being born without an appendix, i did some looking and it is more common than i thought, evolution [if it exist]takes millions of years, and what about the most recent  archeological finds of the creatures with humanistic skulls but have canines. they pre date the homo-erectus finds.the national geographic had an article on it,the remains were found with hand made flint tools.-  and i do not feel that my beliefs or salvation are shakey. enjoy talking with ya



People are sometimes born without appendix. People are also sometimes born without hands... or feet... or kidneys. Sometimes two people are born joined together and they share the same heart or lungs or what have you. 

If you discover that 50% of all human babies are being born without an appendix... and the percentage is rising...  you will definitely raise my eyebrows.

Lastly, I did not mean to infer that your salvation was shaky. I did say it is a shaky position, if you are attempting to defend the validity / credibility of the bible. 

Now, I really gotta get back to work.

Happy trails,
Big Tex


----------



## widowmaker1 (Apr 23, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> What is an ultra-Christian?
> 
> 1. Not true.  What is true is that one theory, the theory of evolution, which is unproven, is given the status of being the gospel, while the gospel is being given the status of mere "faith".
> 
> 2. That is a natural law.  All matter at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force.



i say the gospel is my path to salvation, not only by faith ,but there have been lots of archeological finds that prove the bible to be solid. i also say that evolution is very possible. yet i am just a sinner saved by grace---and thats really all that matters . i'll find out if evolution really happened-happens-when i die


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> People are sometimes born without appendix. People are also sometimes born without hands... or feet... or kidneys. Sometimes two people are born joined together and they share the same heart or lungs or what have you.
> 
> If you discover that 50% of all human babies are being born without an appendix... and the percentage is rising... you will definitely raise my eyebrows.
> 
> ...


 

I have an uncle that his entire circulatory system is a mirror image of what it should be like... found out it is pretty common also...

DB BB


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 23, 2008)

widowmaker1 said:


> i say the gospel is my path to salvation, not only by faith ,but there have been lots of archeological finds that prove the bible to be solid. i also say that evolution is very possible. yet i am just a sinner saved by grace---and thats really all that matters . i'll find out if evolution really happened-happens-when i die



Well brother, you and I are in agreement


----------



## farmasis (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> after all that knowledge and self examination the answer you came up with is faith? it just seems wierd to me that you would put all your eggs in one basket and not leave room for doubt.
> 
> it is indeed overwhelming. but i think you're selling yourself short if you don't think that by  you might get that wall to crack. like i said before, i support any belief system one chooses to find comfort in their own lives. i just worry when they extrapolate it incude everyone else.


 
I believe it takes as much faith to belief other theories like evolution as well.
No, I admit faith has some to do with my belief in creationism, but has a more part in my belief in a young earth. Most of my belief in creationism is based on my observances, but admit my observances are seen through the eyes of my interpretation and my interpretations are influenced by my belief in God. Just as an evolutionist can interpret the same information through eyes based on "science" and come up with a totally different observation.


----------



## farmasis (Apr 23, 2008)

Wild Turkey said:


> The fact that plants and animals evolve based on external and internal influences has been proven time and again.


 

Incorrect.


----------



## farmasis (Apr 23, 2008)

widowmaker1 said:


> how do you explain that caucasion males are now taller than they were 300 years ago, or explain the appendix ,which now serves no real porpuse, but could be effective in digesting raw meat. ---


 
Natural selection, not macroevolution. Huge difference.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> What is an ultra-Christian?
> 
> 1. Not true.  What is true is that one theory, the theory of evolution, which is unproven, is given the status of being the gospel, while the gospel is being given the status of mere "faith".
> 
> 2. That is a natural law.  All matter at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force.



i would never use the word gospel to describe Evolution. that would be an oxymoron. just cause we dont know what got a ball rolling doesn't mean the sause was (or wasn't) supernatural


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

more like a comtradiction in terms


----------



## widowmaker1 (Apr 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Natural selection, not macroevolution. Huge difference.



hey that works for me--lets just say the species-: through natural selection,became what it is today


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

i meant "cause" and "contradiction"  but i was just being light


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> I don't know how Webster would define faith. But, despite what Webster may or may not say, not all faith is irrational. You have faith that your car or truck will start when you turn the key. Otherwise, you wouldn't drive it into the woods in the winter. Let's face it, a car that won't start is a PITB... and it is down right dangerous in some places. .
> 
> Yes, people's hands touched "pens" to write the words. Where the words came from requires faith. Set that debate aside for a second: The 4 most important books of the bible, at least for me, are Luke, Matthew, Mark and John. These are first hand accounts of what each of these men observed during the time that Jesus Christ lived on the planet. Their accounts were written independently and are different... yet they are consistent.
> 
> ...



i believe my truck is gonna start based on imperical data.

The debate is evrything.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Woodswalker said:


> our brains have been wired to "wonder."  that is, the First Cause started it all, but how was it before the First Cause?
> 
> when the swarm of electrons in my brain rises up into a thought pattern, how do i know what the thought is, in the English language?



First Cause....set things in motion or directly influencing evrything or something in between?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Woodswalker said:


> my simple mind doesn't have a clue.   it's pretty easy for me to think mechanically or linearly. beyond that, and i'm left wondering, or estimating.
> 
> if things are in motion, then they were set into motion, right?  and so, what set it (things) into motion?  and what was that Originator? ah, the First Cause enters the scene.  and how was it (whatever it is) before the motion began?  again, just wondering.
> 
> for the benefit of the chemists aboard, surely the whole thing is not a phase change kind of chemistry? the stars come out at night, and the day is bright, because of the chemistry?



you sell yourself short.  you seem to be thoughtful and educated.  its invigorating and frustrating and exhausting to consider another cause for things happening other that a magical force.  if no one asked questions that defied clergy, gospel, church would anyone care to smash an atom apart?


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> i believe my truck is gonna start based on imperical data.
> 
> The debate is evrything.



As I'm sure Farmasis and others on this forum will attest, after you've been a Christian for awhile, you accumulate some empirical data of your own. That data says that He is very real. It is hard to explain and it sounds irrational if you are the one having it explained to you... but, it IS real. I know that Jesus is real, even more so than you know your truck is going to start... because trust me, some day (or night), your truck WON'T start.

If debate is everything, what do you wish to debate? 

Big Tex


----------



## farmasis (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> i believe my truck is gonna start based on imperical data.
> 
> The debate is evrything.


 
I believe your truck had a maker, and never was a volkswagen bug previosuly.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> As I'm sure Farmasis and others on this forum will attest, after you've been a Christian for awhile, you accumulate some empirical data of your own. That data says that He is very real. It is hard to explain and it sounds irrational if you are the one having it explained to you... but, it IS real. I know that Jesus is real, even more so than you know your truck is going to start... because trust me, some day (or night), your truck WON'T start.
> 
> If debate is everything, what do you wish to debate?
> 
> Big Tex



i meant the dabate about the pen holders (writers of the bible)


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> As I'm sure Farmasis and others on this forum will attest, after you've been a Christian for awhile, you accumulate some empirical data of your own. That data says that He is very real. It is hard to explain and it sounds irrational if you are the one having it explained to you... but, it IS real. I know that Jesus is real, even more so than you know your truck is going to start... because trust me, some day (or night), your truck WON'T start.
> 
> If debate is everything, what do you wish to debate?
> 
> Big Tex



when r we fishin?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I believe your truck had a maker, and never was a volkswagen bug previosuly.



cmon now, lets stay on track please.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

Doyle said:


> The general thought process of many of the "ultra-Christians" here is like that of most lawyers:
> 
> 1.   If a thing cannot be proven, it does not exist at all.
> 2.   Everything that happens is caused by or is the fault of, someone.



Doyle,

I'm guessing that you are referring to me?  If so, let me dissect your accusations:

"1. If a thing cannot be proven, it does not exist at all."

How can that be? Let's take a more conventional issue: Global Warming. I know that it exists. I've seen the data. I believe that Global Warming IS happening. I do NOT believe that humans' release of C02 is what is causing it. Why? For the first 15 or 20 years of the C02 versus Globe Temperature regression (starting in the late 1960's and through the 70's), the C02 shot up like a rock... but, during this same period of time, the temperature of the globe DECREASED. If you are an old guy like me, you may remember that years ago, all the scientists were very concerned about the ICE AGE that was fast approaching. 

"2.   Everything that happens is caused by or is the fault of, someone."

A year or so ago, I met Dr. Heidi Cullen, the chief Climatologist for the Weather Channel and a friend of Al Gore (the main pundit for Global Warming). While I had her ear, I asked her to explain this very statistically significant set of data (that she had just shown me). With a bit of a blush on her face, she said, "Well, our theory is that during this period of time, man was also emitting a tremendous amount of particulate matter. This particulate matter shaded the earth and cooled it. This cooling more than offset the effects of the C02."

If THAT explanation is right, I have the perfect solution for global warming. Throw away your "green light bulbs" and your hybrid cars...Don't plant trees - start burning leaves!!! The carbon particulate will cool us down right away.

My point? Who's blaming who? The scientific community is BLAMING man for destroying the planet... based upon a theory that cannot be proven... and whose own data contains very clear data that clearly contradicts the theory.

Why might they do this? Research grants? Face time on TV? Notoriety? Fame? The opportunity to sell a bunch of hybrid cars (which, by the way, use electricity ) and "green" light bulbs to people that already have fully functional lightbulbs? Subconsciously perhaps... Consciously, I seriously doubt it. I suspect that they have convinced themselves that their theory is true.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled broadcast,

Big Tex


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Doyle,
> 
> I'm guessing that you are referring to me?  If so, let me dissect your accusations:
> 
> ...



statistics are worth as much as the people who gather them or interpret them.  But what other evidence can we use? faith?(sorry, couldnt help it)


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> statistics are worth as much as the people who gather them or interpret them.  But what other evidence can we use? faith?(sorry, couldnt help it)



No doubt about that Kurt. A statistics professor once told me, "Careful lad, with statistics you can prove that the average American citizen has one boob and one ball." True... very true. 

HOWEVER, being an educated and informed man yourself, you know that the entire theory of the cause of global warming... is based upon a linear regression. This regression shows the average temperature of the planet on one axis; the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere on the other axis. This chart goes back to millions of years ago... but, the last 50 or 60 years make up the lions share of the chart... why? I guess we have a lot more data in the last 50 or 60 years.

The first 15 or 20 data points on this chart CLEARLY show the CO2 rising at a rate that was higher than it has risen since. The temperature of the planet was dropping during that same period of time (eg; A strong negative correlation).

When that happens, it ain't statistical manipulation... it is just common sense. That's why Dr. Heidi blushed. I truly think that she has her own doubts because of this conflicting data. Why won't she admit it? She'd lose her job! She'd be laughed out of town by the top tier academics who are her professional peers.

You can disagree with everything I say but, understand this clearly: there is a herd mentality among academics. Don't believe it? 6 or 700 years ago, a scientist would get laughed at for saying anything other than the planet was flat.

That ain't faith. That is very educated skepticism. Lookin forward to that fishin trip. You come here, I'll buy the gas and supply the boat.

Gotta go, be back tomorrow.
Big Tex


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 23, 2008)

Randy said:


> Why do people believe Genesis is literal yet have no problem believing Revelations is symbolic?  Seems just as rational to me that Genesis could be symbolic.
> 
> Can you imagine God trying to tell the person who wrote Genesis about DNA and evolution as it might have really happened.  Genesis would have never been written, that guy would have been so confused!


Right On, not only that, how do we know God calls it DNA ?
Or Calls science ?   Those are man made terms, LOL 
Those of Who believe what the Bible says, believe That God dictated to moses what to write, so it was from God's mouth to moses' Ears.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

deal. we have much to talk about


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> No doubt about that Kurt. A statistics professor once told me, "Careful lad, with statistics you can prove that the average American citizen has one Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- and one testicle." True... very true.
> 
> HOWEVER, being an educated and informed man yourself, you know that the entire theory of the cause of global warming... is based upon a linear regression. This regression shows the average temperature of the planet on one axis; the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere on the other axis. This chart goes back to millions of years ago... but, the last 50 or 60 years make up the lions share of the chart... why? I guess we have a lot more data in the last 50 or 60 years.
> 
> ...



deal. we have much to talk about


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 23, 2008)

Randy said:


> Why do people believe Genesis is literal yet have no problem believing Revelations is symbolic?  Seems just as rational to me that Genesis could be symbolic.
> 
> Can you imagine God trying to tell the person who wrote Genesis about DNA and evolution as it might have really happened.  Genesis would have never been written, that guy would have been so confused!



And who could have imagined, 2,000 years ago, that the earth would end by fire? Don't know about you but, Iran getting their hands on Nukes makes this pretty darn plausible... if not the PROBABLE end of the world.

From where I sit, this 2,000 year old prediction looks like a pretty good wager. Whoops, I forgot, us Christians will cause a brother to stumble if we wager!  On top of that, I wouldn't be around to collect on the bet after the nukes have flown. 

Nighty nite boys and girls, I'm closing the shop and going home.

Big Tex


----------



## SBG (Apr 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I believe your truck had a maker, and never was a volkswagen bug previosuly.




Great analogy.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

SBG said:


> Great analogy.




sarcastic, right?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

please tell me that was sarcasm


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

sigh


----------



## farmasis (Apr 23, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> please tell me that was sarcasm


 
I can't apply the same logic to my quote? 

There is evidence that cars are made and witnesses to the fact. There is even a tag on it that says when and where it was made. Now I can't be 100% sure, because I wasn't there to watch it, but the evidence points to a maker.

How did I get off track?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I can't apply the same logic to my quote?
> 
> There is evidence that cars are made and witnesses to the fact. There is even a tag on it that says when and where it was made. Now I can't be 100% sure, because I wasn't there to watch it, but the evidence points to a maker.
> 
> How did I get off track?



apples and oranges.  the process of making a truck and the process described by evolutionary theory are sooooo different. dont you see that?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> Let me know when Natural law creates anything without a cause.
> And when science creates something from nothing,LOL
> 
> Applying the rules of evolution, the Amazon River one of the longest in the world ,flows through the Jungles of South and central America, one of the richest areas in gold and other precious stones, which are created from actions of nature, they are inert minerals without a single living cell and no complex actions, so applying the law of Millions of years of evolving, by the time the Gold reaches the ocean there should be a nice Rolex watch in the bottom of that river able to tell time and date at least with one function.
> Anybody want to go look for it ?



does this make sense as well?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 23, 2008)

i like our exchanges, but can we play on a level playing field and by some common rules, like, say, logical progression.


----------



## Israel (Apr 24, 2008)

There is simply no evidence in the natural world of anything progressing from less order to more order, apart from the imposition of an intelligence and will to accomplish it. 

Entropy is as much a law of the natural universe as gravity, and as such has universally accepted consequences that work against any lesser proposition which is merely a theory.

Even allowing for the spontaneous appearance of the most rudimentary of life forms, its fragility argues against chances of successfully gaining a foothold in what was an even more hostile environment chemically, meterologically and thermodynamically according to the "scientific record".
Even big bangers have only a finite amount of time in which to work, as long as it may seem relative to other time measurements.

Scientists will never discover "God" using instruments and calculations...unless he determines by his will to be found that way. He is not inert and does not submit to poking and probing according to man's attempts to quantify the uncontainable. Man's ignorance of God does not result from fallible scientific method, but from a darkened spirit. 

If a man would be wise, let him become a fool in the world's eyes.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 24, 2008)

Buenos Dias All!

This question is intended to steer this debate back on track... and, I'd specifically like to hear an answer from Kurt. Kurt, I ain't picking on you... On the contrary, you are a very smart guy and I want to understand your views.

Here goes:

If man evolved, where did woman come from?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 24, 2008)

Woodswalker said:


> hmm, interesting. was he left-handed by chance?


 
Nope Right handed...

DB BB


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Apr 24, 2008)

It's obvious that y'all are alot smarter than this ol hillbilly so how did the duckbill platypus evolve and what were its ancestors?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Buenos Dias All!
> 
> This question is intended to steer this debate back on track... and, I'd specifically like to hear an answer from Kurt. Kurt, I ain't picking on you... On the contrary, you are a very smart guy and I want to understand your views.
> 
> ...



glad u asked that question, cause i didnt know.  but you prompted me to find the answer.  first crack out of the barrel when i googled "how did male and female evolve"  i got this

>"In order for sexual reproduction to work you would need to corresponding organisms to develope in parralel"

This is correct. So evolutionary theory holds that there was a *long* history of progression, in many stages:

* From completely asexual reproduction, to partial exchange of genetic material;

* From completely asexual reproduction, to organisms that can reproduce both asexually and sexually (as exemplified in *many* organisms that still exist, from amoebas to aphids);

* From partially asexual/partially sexual, to completely sexual reproduction;

* From sexual reproduction with no dedicated sexes (which is still used by the majority of plants, and many "lower" animal forms), to sexual reproduction where individuals can become *either* male or female, to sexual reproduction with dedicated sexes (male and female).

* To all the many different ways that sexes are determined (e.g. determined by what they are fed during early development ... like bees and wasps; or individuals that can become male or female depending on mating opportunities ... like many types of molluscs, like slugs; or where males are haploid and females are diploid ... like ants; to male and female determined by temperature during gestation ... as in many types of reptiles; to males and females determined by X or Y chromosome ... which is the system used by us mammals).

* Finally, the transition from sexual reproduction with different sexes that are almost identical, to where the different sexes are significantly different ... like us humans, but even moreso in other mammals such as pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) or ungulates (deer, cows, goats, etc.).

It would take a *lot* more explanation to describe each of these stages ... and a *lot* more examples where all of these different transitions can still be seen in effect in modern organisms.

But there are 2 main points:
1. Male/female can evolve from simpler forms of reproduction ... forms that have many examples *currently* in nature; and
2. There doesn't have to be a sudden leap from one form of reproduction to another. For example, a species can use both asexual and sexual reproduction *IN THE SAME SPECIES* ... or a species can have a more blurry line between "male" and "female" that slowly becomes a more solidified line.

it makes sense to me.

As far as I know, everything in there is fact, some of it observable TODAY in your backyard or at least at the zoo.

I like this explanation better than spontaneously generating a person from clay and spit then taking out one of its ribs and generating a female.  i mean, no offense, but it sounded silly to me when i was ten and it still does.

I shudder  when I think of what my life might be like if that had that been my only explanation  of how I got here.  Would i cower at the lightning and thunder?   Would I be wearing a lion cloth and burning goat innards to predict the future.

Who would have cared to split an atom if they had been  content with the creation story?  I'm glad they did.


----------



## widowmaker1 (Apr 24, 2008)

No. GA. Mt. Man said:


> It's obvious that y'all are alot smarter than this ol hillbilly so how did the duckbill platypus evolve and what were its ancestors?



started as a rat--gerbal hampsters, squirls


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

No. GA. Mt. Man said:


> It's obvious that y'all are alot smarter than this ol hillbilly so how did the duckbill platypus evolve and what were its ancestors?[/QUOTE
> 
> Remember,  no intelligent person calls what is being said in this video the TRUTH.  its the THEORY of evolution.  Please don't allow any personal bias towards the narrators appearance affect your objectivity ( I can hear it now, "Durned aig haid! bet he don't even hunt!").  It's an explanation that to my mind makes more sense than the stuff just coming POOF out of no where.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hG4dcTj408


----------



## farmasis (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> apples and oranges. the process of making a truck and the process described by evolutionary theory are sooooo different. dont you see that?


 
Egggggsactly my point.

Let's just move along.


----------



## farmasis (Apr 24, 2008)

Israel said:


> There is simply no evidence in the natural world of anything progressing from less order to more order, apart from the imposition of an intelligence and will to accomplish it.
> 
> Entropy is as much a law of the natural universe as gravity, and as such has universally accepted consequences that work against any lesser proposition which is merely a theory.
> 
> ...


 
Great post Isreal. I knew we had some common ground somewhere.


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> No. GA. Mt. Man said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious that y'all are alot smarter than this ol hillbilly so how did the duckbill platypus evolve and what were its ancestors?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## farmasis (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> Who would have cared to split an atom if they had been content with the creation story? I'm glad they did.


 
Trying to not be offended by the notion that people who believe in God are less smart or weaker that those who don't.

There are a lot of really smart folks who believe in God and all of the stories in the Bible.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

No. GA. Mt. Man said:


> It's obvious that y'all are alot smarter than this ol hillbilly so how did the duckbill platypus evolve and what were its ancestors?



Here is an article about the platypus from a creationist perspective.. The main point of disagreement is that the creation theory states that the platypus fossils are only found in one place.  The evolution video contradict this and says that fossils were found in argentina. 

The science is, admittedly a bit confusing to me, but the part in the movie about bird reproductive genomes made sense.  anybody want to debate the existence of genomes?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

forgot to paste the article. here it is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html


----------



## farmasis (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> It's an explanation that to my mind makes more sense than the stuff just coming POOF out of no where.


 
If you boil it down, both stories start with a poof out of "nowhere". It boils down to what you believe the first cause, cause was. It was either an all powerful deity or a natural occurance. 
In my mind, through the testimony of my life and how God has made himself real to me time and time again, it is easier for me to believe it happened as it was written, than a lightning bolt stricking a pile of carbon and it grew fins or something.
Now if I get to heaven and find out evolution was the process that God used to create earth, but that Moses recieved a symbolic version of creationism, I will say "cool, thanks for creating me and loving me however you did it."


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Trying to not be offended by the notion that people who believe in God are less smart or weaker that those who don't.
> 
> There are a lot of really smart folks who believe in God and all of the stories in the Bible.



I'm trying not to offend anybody.  The smart folks who believe in god tend to still ask questions.  They say:" Let me hear this out. This makes sense, this does not"  

They are objective and when the come across an idea that they believe to be reasonable but contradicts scripture they don't dismiss it but possibly try to reconcile the two.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> If you boil it down, both stories start with a poof out of "nowhere". It boils down to what you believe the first cause, cause was. It was either an all powerful deity or a natural occurance.
> In my mind, through the testimony of my life and how God has made himself real to me time and time again, it is easier for me to believe it happened as it was written, than a lightning bolt stricking a pile of carbon and it grew fins or something.
> Now if I get to heaven and find out evolution was the process that God used to create earth, but that Moses recieved a symbolic version of creationism, I will say "cool, thanks for creating me and loving me however you did it."



You make much sense.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 24, 2008)

What farmasis says is right, both theories make little logical sense. Some of us have chosen to believe that God is the ultimate creator, others have chosen to believe in a scientific "natural" theory. 

If you want to say they are both theories that is fine with me. If you want to disagree that is fine as well. If you cannot bring yourself to believe in the Great Creator(God), that is your choice. 

I kinda take offense though at the fact that you seem to think that those who believe in God are somehow less intelligent than you.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> If you boil it down, both stories start with a poof out of "nowhere". It boils down to what you believe the first cause, cause was. It was either an all powerful deity or a natural occurance.
> In my mind, through the testimony of my life and how God has made himself real to me time and time again, it is easier for me to believe it happened as it was written, than a lightning bolt stricking a pile of carbon and it grew fins or something.
> Now if I get to heaven and find out evolution was the process that God used to create earth, but that Moses recieved a symbolic version of creationism, I will say "cool, thanks for creating me and loving me however you did it."



I have this creation evolution debate occasionally and what I've noticed is this:

1. Some say, "Man came out of the mud and spit fully formed and thats it."

2. Some say, "evolution might be true but god put it in place."

3. Some say, " The creation story is a fairy tale, I can't believe people believe it."

In the end, after all is said and done, my position never changes. And that is: none of this really impacts me in my daily life and i dont really care after all how or why i got here. 

i debate mostly for amusement.

one question i do have is, why are some christians sooooo threatened by evolutionary theory?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> What farmasis says is right, both theories make little logical sense. Some of us have chosen to believe that God is the ultimate creator, others have chosen to believe in a scientific "natural" theory.
> 
> If you want to say they are both theories that is fine with me. If you want to disagree that is fine as well. If you cannot bring yourself to believe in the Great Creator(God), that is your choice.
> 
> I kinda take offense though at the fact that you seem to think that those who believe in God are somehow less intelligent than you.



i dont think that at all. just people who dont question.  thats a little ignorant to me.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> In the end, after all is said and done, my position never changes. And that is: none of this really impacts me in my daily life and i dont really care after all how or why i got here.
> 
> i debate mostly for amusement.
> 
> one question i do have is, why are some christians sooooo threatened by evolutionary theory?



I find it kinda sad that you don't care where you came from, I think knowing where I come from helps establish my purpose in life. 

To answer your second question, I for one am not threatened at all by evolutionary theory and in fact I find it as silly as you do creationism. 

I am not threatened because I think I am right and I think you are wrong. As to the reality of that statement I will only find out when my life here is over. As will you. For your sake, maybe you are right. I just don't believe that you are


----------



## farmasis (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> one question i do have is, why are some christians sooooo threatened by evolutionary theory?


 
Well, though others try to harmonize science with the Bible, when scripture is taken literally creationism must be believed. The denial of creationism denies a creator (when taken literally). When I see something that looks convincing that evolution could have happened, I have to simply trust that what I read is accurate. What usually is heralded by the scientific community as the Holy Grail to explain it all, usually has holes opned up in it eventually that denies it's factuallness and deflates it to a possibility.
To me, because I fully believe in the act of Jesus coming and dying for my sins and saving my soul for eternity, then I believe all of the Bible even when it doesn't make since. If I chose to believe that the Bible embelished the story of creation, then why would I believe in salvation? Maybe it was also a story made up to make people feel better about death?


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> >evolutionary theory holds that there was a *long* history of progression, in many stages. From completely asexual reproduction, to partial exchange of genetic material;  From completely asexual reproduction, to organisms that can reproduce both asexually and sexually (as exemplified in *many* organisms that still exist, from amoebas to aphids)...



Kurt, I'm not saying that I agree with this theory but, I will say that I agree that it sounds like a logical explanation for "where did woman come from?"

Let's broaden your horizon: What about dogs, cats, deer, cows, lions, tigers, bears (oh my), giraffes, rhinos, water buffalos... I could go on but, you get the point. Each species has a male and a female. They reproduce pretty much by the same "procedure." The male and the female in each species are very much the same but very much different. A female cat can't mate with a male dog and produce offspring.

Applying the Googled theory, millions of years ago, one of two possible scenarios played out:

1. Not one but, 10's of thousands of different and independent life forms started from "something" (aka: the slithery amoeba that crawled out of the swamp). Each evolved along its own path, beginning asexual... and later evolving into both male and female. Some were lions, some were tigers, some were bears (oh my).  Question 1a): Does it seem logical / rational that each of these different, and independent life forms would coincidentally end up having the same reproductive process ? After all, under this scenario, they started out independently.

Scenario #2: One life form (aka: the slithery amoeba) began millions of years ago. It started out asexual as you have described and began to evolve ever so slowly. Question 2a: Does it seem logical / rational that at some point during this evolutionary process, a group of these life forms somehow decided to be tigers? Meanwhile, other groups decided to become bears, cats, dogs, sheep, foxes, rabbits, zebras, hippos? Once they started their respective "clubs", they became exclusive "member-only" groups that did not allow intermingling. Rational? Logical?

When considered macroscopically, it doesn't seem rational at all... at least not to me.

Big Tex


----------



## farmasis (Apr 24, 2008)

I think he is implying that a single organism began that way and then developed into a male and female, then those species evolved to form all other species male and female throughout time. In other words all life came from a single organism, plasma, bacterium, or simple life form.

My problem is that even if that did happen, what about plants? Did they also come from the same organism, or did 2 evolutionary process happen relatively at the same time?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Kurt, I'm not saying that I agree with this theory but, I will say that I agree that it sounds like a logical explanation for "where did woman come from?"
> 
> Let's broaden your horizon: What about dogs, cats, deer, cows, lions, tigers, bears (oh my), giraffes, rhinos, water buffalos... I could go on but, you get the point. Each species has a male and a female. They reproduce pretty much by the same "procedure." The male and the female in each species are very much the same but very much different. A female cat can't mate with a male dog and produce offspring.
> 
> ...



Tex,

first of all, this is not    My    explanation.  I found it on google and it was AN answer to your question (i think) and it  made enuff sense to me  that I thought to share it.

But, using the THEORY of evolution as a model (and for the sake of argument we must use this model EXCLUSIVELY) as i understand it (and I am no geneticist or biologist or botanist or zoologist), and I understand it to work thusly; that like trunk of a tree, there was a common organism from which branches sprung.  It was in the trunk that the different modes of reproduction, that are observable today were established.  The branch carrying the sexual reproductive trait resulted in organisms that reproduce sexually (cats, bats, rats, geese...you know what I mean).   The branch carrying the asexually reproductive trait resulted in organisms that reproduce asexually (amoebas, bacterium...) and so on. The stuff, I believe, eloquently explained here:

>"In order for sexual reproduction to work you would need to corresponding organisms to developed in parallel"

This is correct. So evolutionary theory holds that there was a *long* history of progression, in many stages:

* From completely asexual reproduction, to partial exchange of genetic material;

* From completely asexual reproduction, to organisms that can reproduce both asexually and sexually (as exemplified in *many* organisms that still exist, from amoebas to aphids);

* From partially asexual/partially sexual, to completely sexual reproduction;


So, as I read it, all these different ways or reproduction occurred simultaneously on the "trunk" of the tree then got "set" later in a "branch". Then there's this interesting little bit here:

But there are 2 main points:
1. Male/female can evolve from simpler forms of reproduction ... forms that have many examples *currently* in nature; and
2. There doesn't have to be a sudden leap from one form of reproduction to another. For example, a species can use both asexual and sexual reproduction *IN THE SAME SPECIES* ... or a species can have a more blurry line between "male" and "female" that slowly becomes a more solidified line.

As an engineer I'll bet that you have a pretty good grasp of calculus.  I took calculus but I swear to this day I still don't understand how calculus works.  I could do it, not well, but I could do it, because I used formulas that were given to me and I observed that when I plugged them into the right places that I would get the right answer.  I guess I think of evolutionary theory the same way.  It's not exactly accurate, but neither is Pi nor Bols Model (or whatever they use to determine the location of electrons) but they all seem to "work" so far.  

It seems to me that if one uses creation theory to explain how we got here, its like doing math but using another number besides 3.14.....as the value for Pi.

But to believers, anything goes. God can do anything and he doesn't have to follow any rules. That much I understand.  Any anomaly observed that occurs in nature can be explained by faith.  I can't leave it at that.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I think he is implying that a single organism began that way and then developed into a male and female, then those species evolved to form all other species male and female throughout time. In other words all life came from a single organism, plasma, bacterium, or simple life form.
> 
> My problem is that even if that did happen, what about plants? Did they also come from the same organism, or did 2 evolutionary process happen relatively at the same time?



Again, I'm no scientist, but I believe the original life stuff was just genetic material (DNA, RNA..) that formed into mitochondria, then cells, then algae (plants) and organisms (animals).  Were still made of the same stuff.  just arranged differently.  I'm not the expert. But if you REALLY want to find out how they say this stuff works it should be pretty easy to google.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

here are some other creation stories. just read them for amusement, if you dare..........

http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> My problem is that even if that did happen, what about plants? Did they also come from the same organism, or did 2 evolutionary process happen relatively at the same time?



Again, not my words, but they make sense to me:

So evolutionary theory holds that there was a *long* history of progression, in many stages:

* From completely asexual reproduction, to partial exchange of genetic material;

* From completely asexual reproduction, to organisms that can reproduce both asexually and sexually (as exemplified in *many* organisms that still exist, from amoebas to aphids);

* From partially asexual/partially sexual, to completely sexual reproduction;

* From sexual reproduction with no dedicated sexes (which is still used by the majority of plants, and many "lower" animal forms), to sexual reproduction where individuals can become *either* male or female, to sexual reproduction with dedicated sexes (male and female).


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> to believers, anything goes. God can do anything and he doesn't have to follow any rules. That much I understand.  Any anomaly observed that occurs in nature can be explained by faith.  I can't leave it at that.



Kurt,

An anomaly that occurs in nature is just that, an anomaly that occurs in nature. In most scientific situations, data that is considered to be an anomaly is ignored... because it is considered not representative of the more predictable norm. Why are anomalies so important now? Without building anomaly upon anomaly, it is virtually impossible to have an "ice cube's chance" of defending Darwin's theories.

Even you must admit that the "branches on the tree", asexual reproduction stuff is a very big stretch of logic. I'd wager that had the creators of this train of "logic" not already placed all of their intellectual eggs in Darwin's basket, they'd have never bought it either. 

As for me, I've come to grips with the fact that, although I've learned a lot in my 50 years, I will never understand everything. I'd bet my life than NOBODY will. As a matter of fact, the more I learn, the more I know I don't know.

Does creation make sense? No.

Does the fact that we live on a planet that is in a solar system that is imbedded in trillions of other solar systems... to infinity and beyond... make sense? No... but, we do.

Let me ask you this... If you don't believe in God, why is this so important to you?

BT


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> To me, because I fully believe in the act of Jesus coming and dying for my sins and saving my soul for eternity, then I believe all of the Bible even when it doesn't make since. If I chose to believe that the Bible embelished the story of creation, then why would I believe in salvation? Maybe it was also a story made up to make people feel better about death?



Maybe that's what's so threatening about evolution


----------



## Doyle (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> Maybe that's what's so threatening about evolution



Exactly my point.  My faith in God has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not genetic material can mutate into something else.    God is the greatest scientest that ever existed.  If he built DNA and genes so that they could adapt and mutate then I'm not going to complain one bit.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Kurt,
> 
> An anomaly that occurs in nature is just that, an anomaly that occurs in nature. In most scientific situations, data that is considered to be an anomaly is ignored... because it is considered not representative of the more predictable norm. Why are anomalies so important now? Without building anomaly upon anomaly, it is virtually impossible to have an "ice cube's chance" of defending Darwin's theories.
> 
> ...



Asexual reproduction is going on in our mouths and guts and on or fingertips.

The gigantic numbers involved in calculating the numbers of stars or even the numbers of atoms is baffling to me too. But there are mathematicians and quantum physicists that do it every day.  I'm glad they're around and doing what they're doing.

I never said I don't believe in god... and as I said before, this issue (evolution) isn't that important to me because it doesn't impact me in a practical sense. I do enjoy the dialogue.

What does impact me in a practical way is the people around me, who affect my world based on their decisions.  I worry when they base their decisions on unsound principles.


----------



## farmasis (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> What does impact me in a practical way is the people around me, who affect my world based on their decisions. I worry when they base their decisions on unsound principles.


 

Kinda like the refusal to teach side by side opposing theories of the formation of human life, darwinism and intelligent design?

Of note: ID can be taught and religion can be removed from it. There are also those who believe in ID and are atheist.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Kinda like the refusal to teach side by side opposing theories of the formation of human life, darwinism and intelligent design?
> 
> Of note: ID can be taught and religion can be removed from it. There are also those who believe in ID and are atheist.



That's the: "Look how complicated it is! It must have been made by intelligent forces!" argument, right?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

This is a court case all about ID and what happened in a town called Dover. It really happened.  

I was particularly appalled when the lady got death threats.

Anybody ever hear of Scopes vs. TN?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Woodswalker said:


> i was ridin' along pretty much for free, until this one popped up. now you've gone and done it.
> 
> what's wrong with divining the future by rolling the entrails out on a slab of rock and reading (and interpreting) what they say (and mean)?
> 
> ...



"Making sense" being the operative phrase.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

ur funny


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> I never said I don't believe in god...



With all due respect, you haven't made it real clear that you do either.  If you want God's help with your current problems, another good place to start is by confessing your faith in Him before men.

If you had children of your own, and maybe you do... would you go out of your way to help them if they were openly embarrassed of you as their father?


----------



## 60Grit (Apr 24, 2008)

My wife has been an RN in hospitals for over 20 years.

Her statement of fact is; "Emergency Rooms and the folks that visit them are evidenciary fact that Darwins theory of evolution does not exist."

I believe her...


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

60Grit said:


> My wife has been an RN in hospitals for over 20 years.
> 
> Her statement of fact is; "Emergency Rooms and the folks that visit them are evidenciary fact that Darwins theory of evolution does not exist."
> 
> I believe her...



you should google a thing called the "darwin awards".  it might make you wish that you believed in natural selection.


----------



## 60Grit (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> you should google a thing called the "darwin awards". it might make you wish that you believed in natural selection.


 
Who said I don't, I also believe in genetic adaptation, but neither one of those necessarily have anything to do with evolution in so much as our origins are concerned, but more with a creative process inherently programmed by the Creator.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

is anybody gonna watch that nova program that i found?  its really interesting.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Woodswalker said:


> how does religion and science merge? well, religion has to hand off roles and responsibilities to science.  is that easy? get real, did you ever hear of any bureaucracy that didn't engage to protect turf?



you are waaaaaaaaaay more optimistic than me


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> The gigantic numbers involved in calculating the numbers of stars or even the numbers of atoms is baffling to me too. But there are mathematicians and quantum physicists that do it every day.  I'm glad they're around and doing what they're doing.



I'm glad that girl scouts are around selling cookies. Truth be told, the girl scouts and their cookies have a more positive impact on society than the mathematicians and quantum physicists that are trying to count the stars. At least after they've made their rounds, people have something good to munch on. 

Seriously, what benefit... AT ALL... comes from having an estimate of the number of stars?

Big Tex


----------



## 60Grit (Apr 24, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> I'm glad that girl scouts are around selling cookies. Truth be told, the girl scouts and their cookies have a more positive impact on society than the mathematicians and quantum physicists that are trying to count the stars. At least after they've made their rounds, people have something good to munch on.
> 
> Seriously, what benefit... AT ALL... comes from having an estimate of the number of stars?
> 
> Big Tex


 
It keeps that particular group of brainiacs from trying to run our country....


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> I'm glad that girl scouts are around selling cookies. Truth be told, the girl scouts and their cookies have a more positive impact on society than the mathematicians and quantum physicists that are trying to count the stars. At least after they've made their rounds, people have something good to munch on.
> 
> Seriously, what benefit... AT ALL... comes from having an estimate of the number of stars?
> 
> Big Tex



wow! girl scouts have a more positive impact than scientists........

what's the point about questioning anything? again, why smash an atom?  Cmon. where would we be without scientific advancement?

the value is in the search itself.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

60Grit said:


> It keeps that particular group of brainiacs from trying to run our country....



who would you prefer to run the country? Ernest T. Bass?


----------



## 60Grit (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> who would you prefer to run the country? Ernest T. Bass?


 
OK two names for you (remind you that this is slanting more political than spiritual)

Jimmy Carter & Al Gore.

I honeslty believe Ernest T. Bass (the man that played the character) not the character, was smarter than both of them combined.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Tex,

I think I was able to find the best answer, from an evolutionary standpoint, to ur original question that I could. Its somewhere on page 3.  

Its an answer. 

What happened here is what always happens in this debate.  You'll either have to accept the explanation as a possibility and somehow reconcile it with ur dogma or not.  

Again, its not my theory and it doesn't belong to me anymore than the value of Pi.

My mom said, "I'm too tired to worry about those things. I will just trust what the bible says." I guess she feels that if it was good enuff for daniel, its good enuff for her.

I'm gonna poke around some more, lift up some rocks, crack open an atom. I'm compelled, maybe by god. It's not important to me where my impulse comes from, only that it tells me that creation doesn't satisfy my thirst.

now how bout a spirited round of Pre-destination vs. Free will?


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> wow! girl scouts have a more positive impact than scientists........
> 
> what's the point about questioning anything? again, why smash an atom?  Cmon. where would we be without scientific advancement?
> 
> the value is in the search itself.



Spoken like a man seeking a research grant.

I'm all for research to find a cure for aids, cancer, diabetes, heck, the common cold! Research is great, provided the learning has at least some REMOTE chance of providing some learning that is beneficial. The number of stars? Here's your number, prove me wrong:

10,584,299,385,897,221,980 x 10 to the 671st

Now that we've established that, what good have we accomplished besides making you feel better? And how much did it cost us to obtain that number? In this specific case, nothing because I pulled the number out of my posterior. In the case of the quantum physicists who are working to solve this incalculable mystery, it is costing MUCHO DINERO. Show me the beef - I don't see any. We're paying for steak... getting an empty plate... or, the promise of an empty plate.

Now that you brought it up... Why DID we smash an atom? So we could nuke Japan and go on to proliferate nuclear weapons that would ultimately be possessed by other countries who just might be cRaZY enough to push the button?  Don't get me wrong, nuclear power is great... IF we were allowed to use it. For the most part, we aren't.

In case you haven't noticed, we Americans need to start paying closer attention to where we spend our money... because... we don't have any. 

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> now how bout a spirited round of Pre-destination vs. Free will?



A topic that, quite honestly, has about as much value as counting stars. 

I'm going home to find a girl scout. I'm hungry for some S'mores.


BT


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

all the research is connected.  more importantly,  its the fact that people are asking questions.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Now that we've established that, what good have we accomplished besides making you feel better? . In the case of the quantum physicists who are working to solve this incalculable mystery, it is costing MUCHO DINERO.
> 
> Now that you brought it up... Why DID we smash an atom?
> 
> Big Tex



youre not gonna read this, are you?

http://chongonation.com/WhyPhys.htm

whats the point of learning?


----------



## mens ex machina (Apr 24, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Now that we've established that, what good have we accomplished besides making you feel better?


Isn't that why we do anything?



Big Texun said:


> In the case of the quantum physicists who are working to solve this incalculable mystery


Quantum physicists don't count the stars. Astronomers do. Quantum physicists count subatomic particles. 



Big Texun said:


> Now that you brought it up... Why DID we smash an atom? So we could nuke Japan


Yup. That's the only reason. Einstein's equations show that when something's mass decreases (nuclear fission), the loss will be made up in an energy increase (nuclear explosion). Einstein realized that the Nazis might be able to figure this relationship out and make "extremely powerful bombs of a new type."   Einstein wrote four letters to Roosevelt warning him that this would be possible. For a while Roosevelt just said, "That's nice," in more or less words, but then he realized, "Hey, WE could make extremely powerful bombs of a new type!" Enter: the Manhattan Project. 

We dropped nukes on Japan mostly to show the USSR that we were bigger and badder than them, anyway. 



Big Texun said:


> we Americans need to start paying closer attention to where we spend our money... because... we don't have any.


This is true. But science, and especially science education, should be one of the LAST things to go. How about a decrease in government payroll salaries, for starters?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Tex,

I asked some educators what they thought the value of trying to understand quantum mechanics or why its important to count and name stars is and they said, "so that we can better understand how the universe works."  

Is that a good enuff reason?  

They also said that  the study of quantum mechanics involves mostly mathematical theory which really doesn't cost anything besides a  professor's salary.  

As an engineer, were Newton's efforts at least as valuable to you as a girl scout cookie? How about Copernicus'?  As I understand it there were people in there day who thought their pursuits were useless wastes of time and resources or worse (blasphemy).

The things these scientist do don't tear down the notion of god.  That's not what they're trying to do at all.  They just want knowledge and that's a very good thing to have.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

Woodswalker said:


> Man Alive! i'd just like to know how many whitetail deer exist in my own neighborhood.
> 
> my garden has deer tracks from time to time, but i have no clue as how many are there or not?  maybe some good statistical estimating could provide an answer?
> 
> ...



It's OK woods, no need for comic relief.  We are all just chewing the fat. I don't think anyone's feelings have gotten hurt.  I think we can continue in a civilized manner as long as anyone is still interested.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 24, 2008)

I think people smash atoms to see what's inside


----------



## mens ex machina (Apr 24, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> They also said that  the study of quantum mechanics involves mostly mathematical theory which really doesn't cost anything besides a  professor's salary.



Clearly you don't know how much particle accelerators cost.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 24, 2008)

The Final Evolution Of Man Is Instantaneous.
By Lowjack

*In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.Corinthians 15*


We also gather From the Hebrew test and account of Creation, that all species came from the water and evolved instantly not through Millions of years but instantaneous evolution and instantaneous extinction as the Creator saw fit.

First Evolution For The Dead:

When we deal with the nature of Jesus’ resurrected body as He explained it to His disciples, we understand that it was a physical body and not a spiritual body. He proved it by eating broiled fish and a honeycomb in their presence! “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39) I agree that He presented Himself to the disciples in a physical, corporeal, body after His resurrection. Further, I do believe that the body of Jesus that suffered on the cross is that same body that the disciples saw up until His ascension. It was not a spiritual presence; it was His actual physical body. 
But it is important to ask whether or not Jesus’ resurrected body was also His glorified body. Many assume that it was, but do not say why. I believe that the Scriptures teach that the body in which Jesus was crucified was the same body that came out of the grave, but that the body in which He now dwells is one that was changed or transformed. 
Here I must appeal to the word of God to clarify our understanding of this subject. I would agree that He now exists in His glorified body, but I must insist from the Scriptures that it is not of the same essence that was crucified, buried, raised and ascended. It was changed after His ascent to the Father, as I shall demonstrate below. 
First, I do not deny that the body that Jesus had from birth to death was a physical, mortal, perishable, natural body. It was also that same body that was raised from the grave at the resurrection that Sunday morning. But I believe that at some point after that, His resurrected body was changed into a glorified state. 
Let’s begin with the period of time after His resurrection, but before His ascension. On these occasions, there were times when He was immediately recognized (Matt. 28:9-10; Mark 16:14). At other times He was not (Luke 24:13-31; John 20:14). He says He is “bone and flesh” (Luke 24:39) and He ate food (Luke 24:42-43). 
His ability to vanish from sight is interesting (Luke 24:31), but we cannot conclude that this was caused by a change in the nature of His physical body after the resurrection. Before His crucifixion, He was able to walk on water (John 6:19) and pass through hostile crowds untouched (Luke 4:39-40). What’s the difference? My conclusion thus far is that we have no reason to doubt that Jesus’ body that went into the grave is the same body that came out of the grave with no appreciable change, not even decay (Acts 2:27). 
Fortunately, the Scripture is not silent as to when the change( evolved) into glorification took place. We have the inspired record of Jesus appearing on multiple occasions after His ascension. Was the body of His post-ascension appearances similar to or different from His post-resurrection/pre-ascension body? Here are some observations and questions that relate to this. 
1. Paul declares that Christ appeared to Him and that he had seen the Lord (I Cor. 9:1; 15:8). What was His appearance then and how does it compare to His post-resurrection/pre-ascension appearances? 
In Acts 9:3-4, we have this account: “As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’” This was definitely Jesus (v. 5). 
In v. 17, we are told that this was “…the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came…” Here was a post-ascension appearance by Jesus in which there is no mention of a “bodily” appearance. The only physical manifestations mentioned were a bright “light from heaven” and a voice. Before one says that Paul did not see Christ’s appearance because of his blindness, consider that those who were with him were not blinded and it is said they witnessed the appearance of Christ as a “light” (Acts 22:9). 
If Jesus had a physical, corporeal body which He will inhabit when He comes a second time, why did He not reveal Himself with this to Paul on the road to Damascus? Was He saving His physical body for later? Or, could it be that His physical body had been changed into its glorious essence by this time? 
2. I Tim. 6:16 describes Jesus as He “who alone possesses immortality.” Reason with me on this: Was His body before the crucifixion mortal or immortal? It had to be mortal (able to die), because if it wasn’t, how could He have died for our sins? Is the body He possesses now (at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy) mortal (able to die) or immortal (able not to die)? It has to be immortal since the inspired word says so. Conclusion: Jesus’ body was changed. 
We need to remember that before the cross Jesus’ bodily form, while perfectly human and physical, according to Heb. 10:5 was especially “a body You have prepared for Me.” It was not a mortal body in the exact same sense as our mortal bodies. There was both continuity and discontinuity here. Only Jesus, who was sinless, was promised that His body would not see corruption (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27 & 13:35) as distinct from ours. No man could take His life from Him; only He had the power to lay it down and take it again (John 10:17-18. But we, unlike Jesus, are not only “able to die” but “destined to die” because of our sin. Jesus before the cross was “able not to die,” but He was not yet in a bodily form that was “not able to die.” After the ascension, it seems that his bodily form was “changed” so that in heaven He does now have a bodily form that is “not able to die. When we speak of Jesus’ bodily form as “able to die” (hence the cross), we are in no way taking away from His deity or glory of His Person as the Son of God. 
Further, if He were to return in a mortal (as defined above), unchanged body, He could be subject to death again and this we know could not happen. My point here is that somewhere along the way (I believe after His ascension) the bodily form of Jesus was changed in its glory and nature; from mortal to immortal, from weakness to power, from natural to spiritual. It was the self-same body but changed in its bodily form, with no change in the glory of His Person, in order to dwell in heaven. 
3. Do we not find in 1 Cor. 15:51-52 a clear statement of the nature of the resurrection as involving change? Certainly, the bulk of the chapter deals with the resurrection of our bodies, but there is also continuity with the body of Jesus, in that it, too, was changed. “…flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…(vs. 50); hence, the need for change. 
Please note this very carefully: I am not denying that Christ has a body. I am affirming that it is a “body of glory” that He did not possess before His crucifixion and ascension. Neither is I affirming that our resurrection will be bodiless! I believe that the resurrection does indeed involve the saints receiving new bodies (1 Cor. 15:37-38) – new, immortal, imperishable, spiritual bodies (vs. 42-49) – changed in nature from the bodies we now have. 
4. The appearance of Jesus to John on Patmos certainly bears out the idea of a change in bodily form, appearance and nature (Rev. 1:12-17). This description bears no resemblance to the appearances found at the end of the Gospels and beginning of Acts. Further, the reaction of John, who was a witness to His resurrection and ascension, was much different from the reaction to the appearance of His beloved Savior in His glory. Jesus’ bodily form was changed! 

So Will we in the Resurrection and or the Transformation, will be changed (Evolve) to a different Body;
1 st Cor.15

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it adie: 
  37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, ait may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 
  38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 
  39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 
  40 aThere are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the bcelestial is one, and the glory of the cterrestrial is another. 
  41 There is one glory of the asun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the bstars: for one star different from another star in dglory. 
  42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in acorruption; it is raised in incorruption: 
  43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in aglory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 
  44 It is sown a anatural body; it is raised a bspiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 
  45 And so it is written, The afirst man bAdam was made a living soul; the last cAdam was made a dquickening spirit. 
  46 Howbeit that was not afirst which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 
  47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 
  48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 
  49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 

1st Thessalonians 4

13	But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14	For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15	For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16	For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17	Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 
Deut 30:4 Matt 24:31 


This is the True and Final  Evolution of Man !


----------



## mens ex machina (Apr 24, 2008)

What if I told you I didn't believe you?

I made a new thread for evolution:
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=196235


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 24, 2008)

yada ,yada ,yada !


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

mens ex machina said:


> Clearly you don't know how much particle accelerators cost.



Inexpensive in relative terms. relative to say, space exploration or R&D for synthetic fishing line.  Most of the research done on quantum mechanics is theoretical. You know that.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> yada ,yada ,yada !



did you read it and try to understand it?  take a minute and go through it slowly.  its alot of information.


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

i hope i don't sound patronizing. just give it a chance.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 25, 2008)

Kurt I don't think you are patronizing. This has been a great discussion! But here is the thing I think you need to understand. 

Many of us on here have given lots of stuff the chance and decided to put our faith in God

Now you may think that is ignorant or whatever I do not know. I have seen things happen in my life that only God could do. I have watched Him work in the lives of many, many people! I have seen some of the worst people I have ever known have dramatic life transformation. I've seen broken lives and broken families healed. Bottom line is I have what I consider sufficient evidence for my faith in God. 

In my study of His word I am convicted to believe it all, not just the parts that make sense. Therefore I view God as the great creator. How He did it I have know idea. What I know is that my God created the atom, and He knows how to work it. The only detail that matters to me is my knowledge that God put creation in motion.

Now again, there is no way to scientifically prove a Big Bang or Intelligent Design, or the creation story of Genesis. 

In my heart I know I am right, I know that those who don't believe in fact that somehow God is the great creator are wrong. 

I can read all the cut and paste articles on google and that won't change. Once again I will say that we will not know who is right or wrong until you and I pass from this life. 

Just wanted you to know that most likely many of the in this spiritual forum feel much like I do and have absolutely NO desire to look for an alternative to God being the great creator because we have experienced God


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> Tex,
> 
> I asked some educators what they thought the value of trying to understand quantum mechanics or why its important to count and name stars is and they said, "so that we can better understand how the universe works."
> 
> Is that a good enuff reason?



Kurt,

To me, it really isn't a good enough reason. Making the rather generous assumption that someday, somebody will better understand how the universe works... what will we do with that understanding? Show me the beef... or at least the promise of some beef.

Okay, all this research only costs a professor's salary. What's my problem with that? After all, a professor's salary, albeit phenomenally large in relation to most of those on this board, is but a pittance in the grand scheme of things. Three words: Missed Opportunity Cost.

Those very bright minds that are diligently and passionately attempting to count the stars... could instead be diligently and passionately attempting to find a viable alternative to gasoline... or or or...

In addition to being out of money, we Americans are also running out of scientists. My daughter is a senior at Georgia Tech, majoring in Mechanical Engineering )). Georgia Tech is arguably the #2 engineering school in the nation but, unquestionably in the top 10. What nationality holds the vast majority of seats in her classrooms? American? 

Nope. While the American kids are sitting at home playing X-box, waiting on somebody to serve them up their slice of the American pie... the Asians are studying with my daughter. Upon graduation, they'll go home and they won't be counting stars. 

I'm a scientist, a realist, and I still don't believe that evolution is the answer. 

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> The things these scientist do don't tear down the notion of god.  That's not what they're trying to do at all.  They just want knowledge and that's a very good thing to have.



Kurt,

While it probably should be... that is not my issue at all. God is big enough to defend Himself. 

The sad thing is, however, there are lots of people, perhaps even you, who think, "Wow, those people are so smart, they MUST be right!"

Case in point, I asked you a simple question; "If man evolved, where did woman come from?"  You googled it, then cut and pasted "the answer." 

As a learned man, you know that when asked to write a paper in class, it is important to do your research but, even more important to submit your thoughts in your own words. This demonstrates that you have an understanding of what you have read. 

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I understood "the googled answer"... and could have written it in my own words before you cut and pasted it.  Through this understanding, my conclusion is that it is such a wild stretch; scientifically, statistically, and even logically, that it is wrong. My question is, do YOU understand it well enough to make your OWN conclusion?

Big Tex


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

mens ex machina said:


> But science, and especially science education, should be one of the LAST things to go. How about a decrease in government payroll salaries, for starters?



Mens Ex Machina,

In theory, I wholeheartedly agree. In reality, unless we do something to make American children "hungry", spending on science education... especially at the higher levels, is becoming increasingly counter-productive. We are teaching our global competitors how to kick our tails... so they can loan us more money.

Don't even get me started on the government. A quick snapshot: It isn't the amount we pay each person... it is the amount of people we pay.... and some of those people are, well, they are "counting stars". Sorry Kurt, couldn't resist 

BT


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

how can we arrive at the most accurate description of how nature works other than science?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Kurt,
> 
> While it probably should be... that is not my issue at all. God is big enough to defend Himself.
> 
> ...



i had to read it slowly, but, yes i did understand it. It was a part of evolutionary theory that i hadn't heard about before (where sex differentiation came from). It made sense to me.

Its not just "Wow, he's smart. He must be right". Don't you think that someone spends alot of time studying a particular thing might be considered an authority?  Or can you at least give them credit for having put much thought into it, whether or not you end up agreeing with them?


----------



## SBG (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> sarcastic, right?




Absolutely not.

God given common sense will tell someone that evolution is not possible.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> how can we arrive at the most accurate description of how nature works other than science?



Kurt, what I am about to share with you is a very valuable theory. I believe it is more than theory, I believe it is law:

Not every problem has a solution.


Two examples, both drawn, or at least inferred, from your question above:

1. How nature works? We can (and should) continue to solve that problem. We know how to hybridize corn to maximize crop yields. We know how to kill the crabgrass in our lawns (kinda).

2. How nature got here? Not solvable. Man, as smart as some of us think we are... just does not have the data necessary to solve this problem.

BT


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Kurt,
> 
> 
> Case in point, I asked you a simple question; "If man evolved, where did woman come from?"  You googled it, then cut and pasted "the answer."
> ...



I'm not a scientist.  You asked a question that needed to be answered by a scientist.  I found, then cut and pasted that answer.

I understood it and could have put it in my own words but that wouldn't have been good enough for you either.

My conclusion is that it is a good explanation.

Over the course of the last few days it occurs to me that you may not have really wanted an answer. I say this because it was really easy to find it. I googled: "how did female evolve" and there it was.  

Were you asking more of a rhetorical question? Or were you hoping to get validation for the answer that you already had, particularly considering the forum in which you posed it?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Mens Ex Machina,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What would you have said to Copernicus about "counting stars"?


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> Don't you think that someone spends alot of time studying a particular thing might be considered an authority?  Or can you at least give them credit for having put much thought into it, whether or not you end up agreeing with them?



Without question, someone that spends a lot of time studying a particular thing can typically be considered an "authority." In this particular field, there is NO DATA to study; only speculation and hypothesis rolled together time and time again. To me, that is not SCIENCE, that is PHILOSOPHY.

BT


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> 1. How nature works? We can (and should) continue to solve that problem.
> 
> 
> 
> BT



"Count stars"?  Quantum theory?  Archeology?  Genetic coding?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Without question, someone that spends a lot of time studying a particular thing can typically be considered an "authority." In this particular field, there is NO DATA to study; only speculation and hypothesis rolled together time and time again. To me, that is not SCIENCE, that is PHILOSOPHY.
> 
> BT



I think the data they use is fossil record, genetic mapping....

Before the scanning electron microscope, didn't they theorize about the properties of atoms (and got pretty close)?


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> What would you have said to Copernicus about "counting stars"?



Unlike the "scientists" you are attempting to defend, Copernicus had access to relevant data. His problem WAS solvable... and he solved it. Bully for him.

That said, I'm glad that, thanks to Copernicus, we now know that the earth rotates on its axis once in 24 hours and around the sun every 365 days. To be totally honest however, this knowledge won't have much impact on what we'll be doing at 2 o'clock this afternoon.

If you want to get a standing "O" from me... talk to me about  Fleming (the inventor of penicillin) or Wilbert Gore (Gore-Tex) or or or...

BT


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

SBG said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> God given common sense will tell someone that evolution is not possible.



can you elaborate?


----------



## mens ex machina (Apr 25, 2008)

SBG said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> God given common sense will tell someone that evolution is not possible.


Nonliving things are not subject to evolution because they cannot mate and do not have genes.

Where was that common sense you were talking about?


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> Unlike the "scientists" you are attempting to defend, Copernicus had access to relevant data. His problem WAS solvable... and he solved it. Bully for him.
> 
> That said, I'm glad that, thanks to Copernicus, we now know that the earth rotates on its axis once in 24 hours and around the sun every 365 days. To be totally honest however, this knowledge won't have much impact on what we'll be doing at 2 o'clock this afternoon.
> 
> ...



I brought up Copernicus because he was a scientist  imprisoned for heresy because he proposed something that people thought insulted god; the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> Were you asking more of a rhetorical question? Or were you hoping to get validation for the answer that you already had, particularly considering the forum in which you posed it?



If you'll re-read my original post that started this fray, you'll see that, aside from the title, it was not really posed as a question.

My intentions were multi-faceted:

1. The forum in which I posted has in its audience, a number of well educated Christians. I thought that, like me awhile back, they might have struggled with the "normal",  explanations the church gives for refuting the theory of evolution (eg: the Nile river producing a gold Rolex watch). While sensationalized explanations like those, are symbolically fairly accurate, they can be a real turn off for the Christian who is also a scientist. In essence, those symbolic rebuttals just openly say, "Scientists are IDIOTS". Well, they ain't. For them, I thought this discussion would provide encouragement. We Christians try to help each other.

2. I thought that I might "troll up" somebody like you that wanted to engage in debate. If I was lucky, I might be able to open your eyes to some things you might not have previously considered.  At the very least, I was hoping to convince you, and people like you, that not all people that believe in the truth of creationism... are stupid.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, I believe in creation. Do you think I am stupid or uniformed?

Big Tex

PS: There was a 3rd reason that I started this fray... and it is THE most important. Sometimes, in the most unexpected places, the Lord starts "working" on people. You've spent a lot of time in this thread... so have I. I have other things I should be doing... and you probably do to. I've spent the time because I sense the Lord is working on you. Your eternal prospects are more important to me than the money I would have made over the last two days.

Now, I don't know if you have placed your faith in Jesus or not. It is truly none of my business. At one point, you said, "I didn't say I don't believe in God". That, my dear new friend, was a pretty non-committed answer. You do NOT have to drop your belief in evolution to believe in God... but, you either believe in God or you don't. Do you? If you do, what have you done about it?

Either way, I still want you to come fishing with me! 

Still coming?
Big Tex


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 25, 2008)

kurt aquino said:


> did you read it and try to understand it?  take a minute and go through it slowly.  its alot of information.


Yes Kurt it is all there, the problem with science is that it can only explain what it can see feel and measure.
See we believe in a creator who did all this things, and it is good that men seek out to understand them, but as for me just the fact He said let it be and it was is good enough, I don't know have to know how he did it, it's like the architect that is building my house right now, he knows what he is doing, I don't have to know how many tons of Concrete ,re barb and wood he is putting into it, or even how those things such as wood came to be, or how many atoms are in them or how they formed, if you have that curiosity to know then God bless you, for me is good enough that a book he dictated to Moses says how he did it by the word of his mouth, not by how many atoms are found in matter, you understand what I mean ? All those things God put together.
God bless you.
Peace


----------



## SBG (Apr 25, 2008)

mens ex machina said:


> Nonliving things are not subject to evolution because they cannot mate and do not have genes.
> 
> Where was that common sense you were talking about?



My common sense is borne in the faith of a child.

The Galapagos Islands are Darwin's most damaging witness against his myth. Common sense would tell anyone that if you have a closed environment, and everything that is in that closed environment are subjected to identical stimuli, that it would not be possible for a random divergence into so many different species. Not possible; case closed.


----------



## Big Texun (Apr 25, 2008)

SBG said:


> My common sense is borne in the faith of a child.
> 
> The Galapagos Islands are Darwin's most damaging witness against his myth. Common sense would tell anyone that if you have a closed environment, and everything that is in that closed environment are subjected to identical stimuli, that it would not be possible for a random divergence into so many different species. Not possible; case closed.



And, all those creatures on the Galapagos islands, they all just coincidentally decided to split into males and females too. Maybe the identical stimulus is what precipitated that only commonality. 

I am (or hope I am) done with this thread. I wish all of you the best!

For those of you that think the silence is deafening, me and Kurt are gonna go fishing in a couple of weeks. We set it up via PM. I won't convince him of anything... as if man ever did . Nonetheless, as much time as we both spent crossing swords, I am very much looking forward to meeting him in person. He seems like a great guy!

Adios,
Big Tex


----------



## kurt aquino (Apr 25, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> Yes Kurt it is all there, the problem with science is that it can only explain what it can see feel and measure.
> See we believe in a creator who did all this things, and it is good that men seek out to understand them, but as for me just the fact He said let it be and it was is good enough, I don't know have to know how he did it, it's like the architect that is building my house right now, he knows what he is doing, I don't have to know how many tons of Concrete ,re barb and wood he is putting into it, or even how those things such as wood came to be, or how many atoms are in them or how they formed, if you have that curiosity to know then God bless you, for me is good enough that a book he dictated to Moses says how he did it by the word of his mouth, not by how many atoms are found in matter, you understand what I mean ? All those things God put together.
> God bless you.
> Peace



i do understand you.  thats ok by me.


----------



## mens ex machina (Apr 25, 2008)

SBG said:


> My common sense is borne in the faith of a child.
> 
> The Galapagos Islands are Darwin's most damaging witness against his myth. Common sense would tell anyone that if you have a closed environment, and everything that is in that closed environment are subjected to identical stimuli, that it would not be possible for a random divergence into so many different species. Not possible; case closed.


Random divergence happens all the timmmmme. Anyway he was comparing animals on the islands to animals off the island (eg Darwin's finches). Why did the island finches look different from the land finches.

And I just so happen to be going to the Galapagos this summer. Can't wait!


----------



## SBG (Apr 26, 2008)

mens ex machina said:


> Random divergence happens all the timmmmme. Anyway he was comparing animals on the islands to animals off the island (eg Darwin's finches). Why did the island finches look different from the land finches.
> 
> And I just so happen to be going to the Galapagos this summer. Can't wait!



Random divergence is an assumption that has not and cannot be proven or dupicated in a controlled experiment. 

The lack of observable evidence of divergent mutation under identical conditions is the nail in the coffin of the evolution myth. 

Anyway, have a good time in the Galapagos; I'd enjoy going there myself and witnessing God's creation.


----------



## 60Grit (Apr 26, 2008)

SBG said:


> I'd enjoy going there myself and witnessing God's creation.


----------



## mens ex machina (Apr 26, 2008)

SBG said:


> Random divergence is an assumption that has not and cannot be proven or dupicated in a controlled experiment.


http://biologyinmotion.com/evol/
http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml
http://www.cs.laurentian.ca/badams/evolution/EvolutionApplet102.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183607,00.html

Every time you breed plants or animals to have desirable traits, your witnessing evolution and artificial selection (as opposed to natural selection).


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2008)

I have a question for you scientific types, LOL
Is this adaptation ?
I have a family that goes to my Church, they are the Alvarez Family, the Family originates from Cuba, this family owned a sugar mill for at least 200 years in Cuba, that is all they ever did was to cut sugar cane by hand with Machetes, the family has a peculiarity that of 6 fingers in each hand , do you think this is an adaptation to holding a machete, the first case appeared in that family in 1949 and since then 80% of the family have the 6 fingers ??????????????


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2008)

Thhey all look like this


----------



## mens ex machina (Apr 26, 2008)

Lowjack said:


> I have a question for you scientific types, LOL
> Is this adaptation ?
> I have a family that goes to my Church, they are the Alvarez Family, the Family originates from Cuba, this family owned a sugar mill for at least 200 years in Cuba, that is all they ever did was to cut sugar cane by hand with Machetes, the family has a peculiarity that of 6 fingers in each hand , do you think this is an adaptation to holding a machete, the first case appeared in that family in 1949 and since then 80% of the family have the 6 fingers ??????????????


Probably not.

Had the 5-fingered family members died off because they were unable to use a machete, thus unable to eat, and thus unable to mate, then yes, it would be considered an adaptation. But I doubt that was the case. I doubt the family's old 5-fingered farmers were more prone to death than their 6 fingered counterparts.... 

Regardless of whether or not having 6 fingers helps you hold a machete more easily, their hands don't "know" they're holding a machete, so there was probably no reason other than random chance that an extra finger grew in 1949. You can hold and use a machete with any number of fingers, so more than likely the extra finger was a random de novo mutation. Anyone with 6 fingers is still perfectly able to do work and have children... thus the 6-fingered person would pass on the 6-fingers gene to his kids, and so on. 

I gotta ask though, which finger do they wear their wedding band on?


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2008)

mens ex machina said:


> Probably not.
> 
> Had the 5-fingered family members died off because they were unable to use a machete, thus unable to eat, and thus unable to mate, then yes, it would be considered an adaptation. But I doubt that was the case. I doubt the family's old 5-fingered farmers were more prone to death than their 6 fingered counterparts....
> 
> ...


On their nose, LOL


----------



## SBG (Apr 28, 2008)

mens ex machina said:


> Every time you breed plants or ani...on is dead-man has out grown the need for it.


----------



## Hawkeye (Apr 29, 2008)

One question, how was it that all species had pairs to mate with of the same species ?
I mean 1 man to develop from a lower form is astronomical and then a female also so they could breed and continue the race, BUT Millions of species developing and pairing ? I think that takes will from someone or something ? IMO


----------

