Originally posted by scottishinnzDidn't you know *GOD* created the world like that just 6245.87 years ago with all those bones in place just to fuk with our minds?
Well, the bit on page one where it says that land plants were created before the sun, and the bit where it has birds created before land animals are surely wrong. Either that or all the physical evidence (and there is alot) that has ever been found is wrong. Which is it to be?
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere are small changes, the 'facet' of the theory I have issues
Irrespective of some guys cliches evolutionary theory explains the fossil record, the diversity of life taking only observed phenomena. Do we need to observe, in real time, every facet of the theory? I don't think so. Neither does the majority of biologists on the planet. It seems only that the Christian fraternity requires that - ironic really, since it's impossible to observe god objectively.
with are, do those small changes do what is being claimed about
them? Adding up to something quite new is a big deal, while
small changes within a system do occur all the time, that doesn't
mean they add up to major changes, which is a major assumption
being made when it comes to life? If we see monitor this type of
phenomena, it is then a major matter of faith on those that accept
it, which is exactly the same thing people who believe in God have!
Explaining the fossils is no different that coming up with any
other story, the fossils will remain what they are. If someone
finds some fossils and looks at them, they can make a claim
that this fossil find is an animal that looked like this, and give a
description. A museum can get the fossils, give an artist a pay
check to draw what that description would look like, put both
the fossils and the picture on display, have the forth graders
come in on a field trip see both the picture and the fossils and
they will 'believe' they know what that creature looked like;
however, what if the person who described what was found
was wrong, what if the fossils were really two creatures
instead of one? No one would ever know in this life time
that was the case!
Simply getting an explanation doesn’t mean that the explanation
is true, it only means we have an explanation.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think suggesting the process for fossils was just to play with people's
In which case, I REALLY don't want to believe in him.
heads is a little out there. There are a lot of processes in the universe
they simply are what they are, what people do with them in how they
look at them or what they make of them, is completely up to the
people. Unless you are suggesting God told you fossils were
something other than what they really are, you cannot say that God
was trying to trick you into believing anything about fossils.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySame nonsense, different day.
There are small changes, the 'facet' of the theory I have issues
with are, do those small changes do what is being claimed about
them? Adding up to something quite new is a big deal, while
small changes within a system do occur all the time, that doesn't
mean they add up to major changes, which is a major assumption
being made when it comes to life? If ...[text shortened]... h on those that accept
it, which is exactly the same thing people who believe in God have!
If a small drop of water drips into a hollow in the earth, it remains as a tiny droplet of water.
Then another one, and another and another....for a very very long time
The nature of the situation changes, they are no longer separate droplets, they are a pond....a lake, an inland sea. So lots of small things can add up to make a big thing. It may take a long time, but it happens in so many ways, in so many systems.
No-one has ever watched a small drip filling a huge lake but only a fool could argue that many small drips never collect to make lakes.
So, by analogy, many small genetic changes can add together and effect a major change.
To difficult for you to understand?
Originally posted by KellyJaySerious people study fossils and draw conclusions.
Explaining the fossils is no different that coming up with any
other story, the fossils will remain what they are. If someone
finds some fossils and looks at them, they can make a claim
that this fossil find is an animal that looked like this, and give a
description. A museum can get the fossils, give an artist a pay
check to draw what that description ...[text shortened]... ation doesn’t mean that the explanation
is true, it only means we have an explanation.
Kelly
Bigots who don't like those conclusions sneer and deride their efforts. Large numbers of paleontologists have been sinscere christians and have interpreted the fossil record with integrity. Why do you doubt them?
Originally posted by KellyJayIt looks like you have a problem recognizing sarcasm.
I think suggesting the process for fossils was just to play with people's
heads is a little out there. There are a lot of processes in the universe
they simply are what they are, what people do with them in how they
look at them or what they make of them, is completely up to the
people. Unless you are suggesting God told you fossils were
something othe ...[text shortened]... you cannot say that God
was trying to trick you into believing anything about fossils.
Kelly
The very idea of an omniscient god is rediculous on the face of it.
Such an omniscient being would have the knowlege of the universe inside it in such a way that it would already know who is the "sinner"
and who is not and who would go to its heaven and who would not,
BEFORE it created the whole frigging universe. So it would be nothing but an unchanging film with this god knowing the universe like a film editor knows his films, frame by frame. So there would be no sense of time for such a being and therefore would have to rely on sub-units of itself to experience time somewhat like a laser goes from dot to dot on a cd, with 'god' being the cd, representing all the knowledge there is and the laser mechanism being the sub-unit of itself which by definition would be only a robot with maybe some intelligence, in other words a being like us. So this introduces a hierarchy of gods and therefore how could you believe such a being if it came amongst us?
"I am the agent of god, believe in me and you shall have everlasting life". Such a message would be unneccessary because this god would already know who has everlasting life so the whole proposition is a bit on the rediculous side.
Originally posted by sonhousePersonally, based upon his apparent necessity to try and trick people I reckon god deserves a good long spell in hell.
It looks like you have a problem recognizing sarcasm.
The very idea of an omniscient god is rediculous on the face of it.
Such an omniscient being would have the knowlege of the universe inside it in such a way that it would already know who is the "sinner"
and who is not and who would go to its heaven and who would not,
BEFORE it created the whole frig ...[text shortened]... dy know who has everlasting life so the whole proposition is a bit on the rediculous side.
Originally posted by KellyJaySO what are the differences between you, me, a broccolli and an amoeba? DNA sequences. That's it. That's all the difference there is! And guess what? That self same DNA can, and does, change over time. We've got lots and lots of time. 4,000,000,000 years or so. We know that around 40 mutations occur per generation to the germ line in current humans with real good DNA repair mechanisms. That would be higher in other organisms, especially when life was young. A mind excercise for you. Draw two lines from a single starting point, but alter the tragectory between those lines by only 0.1 degrees. At the start there is little difference, but those lines diverge as you get further from the start point. We're 4,000,000,000 years away from the start point now, and we have many diverse species, habiting whereever there is conditions to support life.
There are small changes, the 'facet' of the theory I have issues
with are, do those small changes do what is being claimed about
them? Adding up to something quite new is a big deal, while
small changes within a system do occur all the time, that doesn't
mean they add up to major changes, which is a major assumption
being made when it comes to life? If ...[text shortened]... on doesn’t mean that the explanation
is true, it only means we have an explanation.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeBigots don't like conclusions sneer and deride their efforts, is
Serious people study fossils and draw conclusions.
Bigots who don't like those conclusions sneer and deride their efforts. Large numbers of paleontologists have been sinscere christians and have interpreted the fossil record with integrity. Why do you doubt them?
someone here a bigot in your view that is deriding their efforts?
I'm questioning the conclusions, I don't believe I'm deriding
anyone, and I'm not attacking anyone's integrity either. Not
agreeing with someone does not mean I'm calling them a liar,
and not agreeing with them does not mean I'm calling them
a bigot, or any other name! I believe small minded people have
to result to those type of attacks when confronted with those
that don't agree with them. I can and have agreed to disagree
with many people without ever once calling them names. Doubt I
thought was a good thing, you think I should just accept what I'm
told when I don't believe what I'm being told?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayJust Kelly if we had to join the dots to recapitulate an unseen crime. I just think you have not read enough to comment about the matters that you are talking about which is only a theory of mine. What books have you read about abiogenesis and why did you not like them for instance and what are you doing about it too? Are you comfy in your armchair? In science we call that a crank.
Why?
Because I like to call things the way I see them, and you don't?
Kelly