Question for the biblical religious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

---

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

---

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

---

Oh ME! ME ! pick ME ! :willydance:



#Thought derived from feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

First I am not trying to prove God exists. It can't be done. It is an act of faith to believe in God. I acknowledge that. However, from an evidence base we are on the same footing but evolutionists NEVER acknowledge that.

Second point... I have never seen conclusive evidence that there are millions of year old fossils. The carbon dating methods used to date fossils are at best able to calculate up to 10,000 years. The use of dating fossils by the geological column is circular reasoning. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks.

As far as beliefs by different believers, they differ greatly. One main point about that is some people don't need any real solid answers to believe in God, so they will take some really unusual stances on these scientific matters. I don't and couldn't buy those type of answers. What you will find is a similair acceptance of evolutionary beliefs. If you use the same scale to measure evidence they are both nothing more than belief systems. It's the argument that one is more "scientific" than the other that I have a problem with. I hope to have a spirited debate regarding this without any offense taken. So I apologize in advance if I offend. Anyways that's my position on that.

---

We're not on an equal basis on evidence. There is endless evidence for evolution and zero evidence for a god.

Carbon dating can be inaccurate. For example rocks which are shown by carbon dating to be four billion years old may be as little as three and a half billion years old, maybe even less. If you don't like carbon dating try potassium-argon dating. That's what's commonly used these days on samples over 100 000 years old.

I'm not sure how you can argue that evolution theory isn't scientific.

Let me intrude;D - sorry about that. I think God can work through evolution too. What I don't agree to is the idea of 'suvivor of the fittest.' If survivor of the fittest were the driving force for evolution, why not just evolve a super crocodile or even a super cockroach that can survive under most harsh conditions and which can just mindlessly gobble up any competing species - including 'pre-humanoids' so as to prevent the future 'bustards' from lording it over them and before those pre-humans can even think about putting them in a zoo. But why did it have to be human beings, or why did the evolution path choose the path of intelligence. Think about it, fellas. Believe me, if you think about it very deeply, you'll realize that it didn't have to be that way. But somehow, nature (or is it God?) chose the evolutional path of ultimately leading to intelligent beings, to reign over (and destroy - just kiddin' folks, let's relax a bit) the earth. I think whatever it is or Whoever it is, He wanted to ultimately create an intelligent being with feelings, consciousness, emotion, spirit, soul and more importantly, if not the most, conscience (although I have to admit many people has not 'evolved' that part yet and you know who) so as to put some meaning in this world. Farfetched? Just remember, everything in this world has meaning to it, even the evolution process itself, so is it not possible that we humans were ultimately created or evolved for some meaning or purpose. Think about it.

Besides, isn't this world or life itself boring and meaningless if we humans were ultimately meant to be consigned to nothiness? Is that all there is to it? All this thing called evolution? all that unimaginably painstaking process of continuous transformation from simple amino acids to magnificently complex beings called humans - beings that may still be evolving into 'super-beings,' just to be relegated to nothingness and eventually be completely wiped out with the inevitable end of the world? Or am I just harboring some grand illusion and pursuing some phantom dreams? Think about it folks. Besides, weren't we given intelligent mind to ponder upon these things than just thoughlessly be resigned to doom. Definitely not me, I'm gonna go out to this world with a firm belief and the feeling that this world is beautiful and that there must be a reason for all the beauty and magnificence in this world...
...and be happy - that's all that matters to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

---

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

---

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

---

Ok so how does (LOVE ,JOY and HEALING) just to mention 3, come into it?

Joy and love are human emotions, healing is something we evolved and which is still evolving within us, but I'm guessing you have a different meaning.

The closed loop system must have a mechanism already in place in order to harness the energy being put into the earth. See getting over one of the obstacles is just the beginning.

The biggest problem is everything had to evolve at the same time. What good is it to make an evolutionary jump in one area only to have no food source, or no mate to reproduce with, or no way to digest your food. It's too many things to have possibly happened. It is actually more likely that things are devolving.

Why if evolution were true would all the prehistoric lifeforms have been so much bigger than current life forms? Wouldn't they have crawled out of the primordial ooze in a primitive weak life form? Instead we have fossils of huge versions of many of the same life forms we have now and not 1 single example of a transitional species.

Another problem is there would have been thousands of fatally flawed transitional species, but we cant find even one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

The closed loop system must have a mechanism already in place in order to harness the energy being put into the earth. See getting over one of the obstacles is just the beginning.

The biggest problem is everything had to evolve at the same time. What good is it to make an evolutionary jump in one area only to have no food source, or no mate to reproduce with, or no way to digest your food. It's too many things to have possibly happened. It is actually more likely that things are devolving.

Why if evolution were true would all the prehistoric lifeforms have been so much bigger than current life forms? Wouldn't they have crawled out of the primordial ooze in a primitive weak life form? Instead we have fossils of huge versions of many of the same life forms we have now and not 1 single example of a transitional species.

Another problem is there would have been thousands of fatally flawed transitional species, but we cant find even one.

---

There's no need for any mechanism to be in place for life to evolve.

Nothing had to evolve at the same time. Humans didn't just crawl out of the sea and start killing animals to eat. Life began as single-celled organisms which ingested nutrients through their skins like endless single-celled organisms do today. And they reproduced asexually, like Lyle. The various species on the earth today all evolved over billions of years. Nothing happened quickly.

Species are constantly evolving, not devolving. When hominids first appeared on the earth if you were anywhere near four feet tall you could have played in the prehistoric NBA. Today we're much bigger. Various species over the billions of years of life on earth have been various sizes as they've evolved to live in their environments. You can trace the evolution of the horse from the tiny Eohippus to its current size.


We have plenty of transitional species in the fossil record, most famously Archaeopteryx which has bird and dinosaur features. Since Darwin started studying evolution the Hawthorn fly has developed a separate group that doesn't feed on hawthorn but apples instead. Human infections and diseases are constantly evolving to live with the antibiotics we use to treat them to the extent we're now having to develop totally new antibiotics. Pests like the boll weevil have evolved to become resistant to pesticides we used to use to kill them.

...evolution does not explain that there is no God...just in case you were aiming in that direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

...evolution does not explain that there is no God...just in case you were aiming in that direction.

---

It doesn't, you just need common sense to know there isn't a god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

It doesn't, you just need common sense to know there isn't a god.

---

Do you not think that life is incedible? Do you not think of why we are here and why the Universe is what it is and how it is what it is?

It's too big for me to answer and too big for you too fella

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

It doesn't, you just need common sense to know there isn't a god.

---

Do you not think that life is incedible? Do you not think of why we are here and why the Universe is what it is and how it is what it is?

It's too big for me to answer and too big for you too fella

---

We'll know a lot better in a couple of decades when we stick a bunch of radio telescopes on the moon and we can look back at how the universe formed. It's only a matter of time till we get smart enough to work it out. Look how far we've come in 100 years.

True but Why, How, and What caused it will ALWAYS be a question.


We're told before the Universe formed there was nothing....if there was nothing then how did it form? What did it form out of?


God is not a crutch for the weak minded but should be viewed as what binds us all together as humans. We're all children of God, only some people live that better than others.

I'm not "religious" persay but I do have a spiritual side to me and I think the answers God gives us, be it in the Bible or any other religious text (bar the crazy L. Ron Hubbard book Dyanetics) is very useful and helpful to those in need spiritually, mentally, and even psychologically

One time I was once doing some work outside in a very hot tropical weather and tons of sweat started to pour down from my forehead. But what surprised me just a bit was that those sweats were perfectly deflected by my eyebrows away from the eyes, and that's the first time I really knew what they were for and the first time I saw them in action. They were meant to keep the irritating sweat away from the eyes. What a nice contraption, I thought. Then I thought of the theory of evolution. According to the idea of suvivivor of the fittest, those eyebrows evolved so that I might have a better chance of surviving and passing on my genes to the future generations? So that means I evolved those eyebrows so that I can see clearly without any sweat coming into my eyes and helped me fight off successfully my ancient competitors who didn't have one? Naw, I don't buy that. That's stupid - eyebrows giving me advantage over my competitors who didn't have one? and so I survived while they went into extinction? just because of them damn eyebrows? Who am I kiddin.'

So if they really didn't have any significant effect on our survivor why were they evolved? By accident or is it just for our convenience? 'Nature' must have loved us so much if they thought of our convenience, a concept, I think, not part of the evolution theory. I'm pretty sure there are lots of other features in our body that don't have much significant effects on our survivor but are just conveniently there for us. So 'nature' has a heart afterall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacfan

One time I was once doing some work outside in a very hot tropical weather and tons of sweat started to pour down from my forehead. But what surprised me just a bit was that those sweats were perfectly deflected by my eyebrows away from the eyes, and that's the first time I really knew what they were for and the first time I saw them in action. They were meant to keep the irritating sweat away from the eyes. What a nice contraption, I thought. Then I thought of the theory of evolution. According to the idea of suvivivor of the fittest, those eyebrows evolved so that I might have a better chance of surviving and passing on my genes to the future generations? So that means I evolved those eyebrows so that I can see clearly without any sweat coming into my eyes and helped me fight off successfully my ancient competitors who didn't have one? Naw, I don't buy that. That's stupid - eyebrows giving me advantage over my competitors who didn't have one? and so I survived while they went into extinction? just because of them damn eyebrows? Who am I kiddin.'

So if they really didn't have any significant effect on our survivor why were they evolved? By accident or is it just for our convenience? 'Nature' must have loved us so much if they thought of our convenience, a concept, I think, not part of the evolution theory. I'm pretty sure there are lots of other features in our body that don't have much significant effects on our survivor but are just conveniently there for us. So 'nature' has a heart afterall.

---

Rep for you.well said.

How good does making love feel too!
It cant be against natural law;
only against a human interpetation of a divine guideline made into a localized law for more control over the masses by the leaders, dont you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

It doesn't, you just need common sense to know there isn't a god.

---

Do you not think that life is incedible? Do you not think of why we are here and why the Universe is what it is and how it is what it is?

It's too big for me to answer and too big for you too fella

---

We'll know a lot better in a couple of decades when we stick a bunch of radio telescopes on the moon and we can look back at how the universe formed. It's only a matter of time till we get smart enough to work it out. Look how far we've come in 100 years.

---

You will probably still only see it all from a physical perspective just closer up it may or may not give up whats behind it all.
To see things from the other side of the coin you have to move your own view point to be able to see it.
You have to want to move.
Physicality gets in the way of whats behind phyicality only from our fixed point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Do you not think that life is incedible? Do you not think of why we are here and why the Universe is what it is and how it is what it is?

It's too big for me to answer and too big for you too fella

---

We'll know a lot better in a couple of decades when we stick a bunch of radio telescopes on the moon and we can look back at how the universe formed. It's only a matter of time till we get smart enough to work it out. Look how far we've come in 100 years.

---

You will probably still only see it all from a physical perspective just closer up it may or may not give up whats behind it all.
To see things from the other side of the coin you have to move your own view point to be able to see it.
You have to want to move.
Physicality gets in the way of whats behind phyicality only from our fixed point of view.

---

That's what drugs are for. And I still don't get religious when I take them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

We'll know a lot better in a couple of decades when we stick a bunch of radio telescopes on the moon and we can look back at how the universe formed. It's only a matter of time till we get smart enough to work it out. Look how far we've come in 100 years.

---

You will probably still only see it all from a physical perspective just closer up it may or may not give up whats behind it all.
To see things from the other side of the coin you have to move your own view point to be able to see it.
You have to want to move.
Physicality gets in the way of whats behind phyicality only from our fixed point of view.

---

That's what drugs are for. And I still don't get religious when I take them.

---

All religions are man made and compiled from a greater more ancient knowledge.
What I speak of is not religion, it is the experience of naturally operating from the other side of the coin.
Religions are all still operating from the physical side of the coin like sign posts showing where and how.

I dont take mind altering ones, but some drugs are natural ,they are fine ,if you have a direction and control over them and yourself.

"Rehab is for quitters" ;D
looks great on a tee shirt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

True but Why, How, and What caused it will ALWAYS be a question.


We're told before the Universe formed there was nothing....if there was nothing then how did it form? What did it form out of?


God is not a crutch for the weak minded but should be viewed as what binds us all together as humans. We're all children of God, only some people live that better than others.

I'm not "religious" persay but I do have a spiritual side to me and I think the answers God gives us, be it in the Bible or any other religious text (bar the crazy L. Ron Hubbard book Dyanetics) is very useful and helpful to those in need spiritually, mentally, and even psychologically

---

I have read Ron Hubbard's Dianetics (not Dyanetics bro) and I find it interesting before when I was into meditation. I have also read his ten-volume novel and his more famous BATTLEFIELD EARTH.

I would not recommend those books for people who want to be at peace with their selves.

By the way, I've given/thrown all my Ron Hubbard collections already.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacfan

One time I was once doing some work outside in a very hot tropical weather and tons of sweat started to pour down from my forehead. But what surprised me just a bit was that those sweats were perfectly deflected by my eyebrows away from the eyes, and that's the first time I really knew what they were for and the first time I saw them in action. They were meant to keep the irritating sweat away from the eyes. What a nice contraption, I thought. Then I thought of the theory of evolution. According to the idea of suvivivor of the fittest, those eyebrows evolved so that I might have a better chance of surviving and passing on my genes to the future generations? So that means I evolved those eyebrows so that I can see clearly without any sweat coming into my eyes and helped me fight off successfully my ancient competitors who didn't have one? Naw, I don't buy that. That's stupid - eyebrows giving me advantage over my competitors who didn't have one? and so I survived while they went into extinction? just because of them damn eyebrows? Who am I kiddin.'

So if they really didn't have any significant effect on our survivor why were they evolved? By accident or is it just for our convenience? 'Nature' must have loved us so much if they thought of our convenience, a concept, I think, not part of the evolution theory. I'm pretty sure there are lots of other features in our body that don't have much significant effects on our survivor but are just conveniently there for us. So 'nature' has a heart afterall.

---

Rep for you.well said.

How good does making love feel too!
It cant be against natural law;
only against a human interpetation of a divine guideline made into a localized law for more control over the masses by the leaders, dont you think?

---

Yup, that's been the worst of human nature, to interpret in every ways to suit his motives.

Here's another one.

Warning folks, this is PG18!

Did you notice that in almost all cultures, even the tribal ones, past or present, sex is treated as something to be ashamed of. Why do humans seem to be naturally ashamed of sex and towards opposite sex. Why does topic of sex seems to bring about natural discomfort and brings out blushings. Maybe many western people may have overcome a bit of it but believe me, even in your culture, during the times of your grandpas or great grandpas, they were taboos. Isn't that against the principle of survivor of the fittest? Isn't it better that the more a person is shameless or uninhibited about sex the better so he can just go on multiplying and multiplying to continue his progeny. You're probably aware that raw nature loves orgies - just watch the animals. But why have humans developed this natural inhibitions towards sex. This is totally incomprehensible if you see it in relation to the theory of evolution because it messes up the whole concept of survivor of the fittest. But why?

And why did humans start to cover themselves? The answer my friends I believe is that when humans were created or evolved (whichever you believe, it doesn't matter) with a higher mind, and started to have consciousness and thoughts, they were given conscience. But again what or who gave it to them? That is the question. I believe when humans were endowed with the power to think, with it came an enormous responsibility and so from somewhere, they were given the sense of morals or code of responsible conduct to live by. Of course, the early humans were not perfect so they were more beasts than higher beings. But gradually, we developed into more responsible creatures because the sense of morals or morality naturally pushed us to be more responsible beings little by little. And it is obvious that human society will eventually be a totally peaceful society because that's where we are naturally heading towards, guided by our sense of morals - the very place where God wanted us to be.

And what a conincidence, didn't Adam and Eve get the knowledge of good and evil when they ate the forbidden fruit? The bible says that 'their eyes were opened, and suddenly they felt shame at their nakedness.' 'So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves.' No it's not coincidence. I think when human were created or evolved, he was given by no less than God that sense of morals - the knowledge of good and evil! So the bible was right after all. But I think bible should not be interpreted literally because I think it was passed by God through imperfect channels, the old prophets who received those message through symbolism. I believe bible should be interpreted correctly as it comes with full of symbolism, like the story of Adam and Eve, and highly symbolic serpent and the apple - the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Actually I have it all figured out, and I was planning to put out all my knowledge in my blogs... but something tells me that it is not the proper time nor proper place to reveal all my knowledge of the secrets of this world. So I have to conclude my discussion here. You guys might have been listening here to the greatest prophet of this century, perhaps only second to Andre;). Let me conclude by saying that we humans are endowed with great, nay superb, mind because it is channel between God's infinite grace and us. All we need to do is to develop and open this channel fully so we can be the ultimate beings that God has planned for us from the beginning. As I've said, if there were evolution, it is clear the our evolution was guided by God in a way to reach this perfection - not by some haphazard trial and error method as theorized in the theory of evolution. I believe that when we learned to think, we reached the top of our evolution process because we learned to manipulate and master the evolution system itself, through birth controls methods, medical science which allows the unsurvivables to survive and pass their genes to their progenies, and genetic engineering. It is up to us, and not the nature this time, to develop ourselves into a perfect being so that we can tap the infinite grace of the the Highest Universal Mind. The ball is in our hands, as the job of nature has been finished. I believe we are naturally heading towards that direction because there is no other place to go. So everyone cheer up, there is something beyond in this world afterall, something we can all look up to.

- pacfan, the prophet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacfan

Here's another one.

Warning folks, this is PG18!

Did you notice that in almost all cultures, even the tribal ones, past or present, sex is treated as something to be ashamed of. Why do humans seem to be naturally ashamed of sex and towards opposite sex. Why does topic of sex seems to bring about natural discomfort and brings out blushings. Maybe many western people may have overcome a bit of it but believe me, even in your culture, during the times of your grandpas or great grandpas, they were taboos. Isn't that against the principle of survivor of the fittest? Isn't it better that the more a person is shameless or uninhibited about sex the better so he can just go on multiplying and multiplying to continue his progeny. You're probably aware that raw nature loves orgies - just watch the animals. But why have humans developed this natural inhibitions towards sex. This is totally incomprehensible if you see it in relation to the theory of evolution because it messes up the whole concept of survivor of the fittest. But why?

And why did humans start to cover themselves? The answer my friends I believe is that when humans were created or evolved (whichever you believe, it doesn't matter) with a higher mind, and started to have consciousness and thoughts, they were given conscience. But again what or who gave it to them? That is the question. I believe when humans were endowed with the power to think, with it came an enormous responsibility and so from somewhere, they were given the sense of morals or code of responsible conduct to live by. Of course, the early humans were not perfect so they were more beasts than higher beings. But gradually, we developed into more responsible creatures because the sense of morals or morality naturally pushed us to be more responsible beings little by little. And it is obvious that human society will eventually be a totally peaceful society because that's where we are naturally heading towards, guided by our sense of morals - the very place where God wanted us to be.

And what a conincidence, didn't Adam and Eve get the knowledge of good and evil when they ate the forbidden fruit? No it's not coincidence. I think when human were created or evolved, he was given by no less than God that sense of morals - the knowledge of good and evil! So the bible was right after all. But I think bible should not be interpreted literally because I think it was passed by God through imperfect channels, the old prophets who received those message through symbolism. I believe bible should be interpreted correctly as it comes with full of symbolism, like the story of Adam and Eve, and highly symbolic serpent and the apple - the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Actually I have it all figured out, and I was planning to put out all my knowledge in my blogs... but something tells me that it is not the proper time nor proper place to reveal all my knowledge of the secrets of this world. So I have to conclude my discussion here. You guys might have been listening here to the greatest prophet of this century, perhaps only second to Andre;). Let me conclude by saying that we humans are endowed with great, nay superb, mind because it is channel between God's infinite grace and us. All we need to do is to develop and open this channel fully so we can be the ultimate beings that God has planned for us from the beginning. As I've said, if there were evolution, it is clear the our evolution was guided by God in a way to reach this perfection - not by some haphazard trial and error method as theorized in the theory of evolution. I believe that when we learned to think, we reached the top of our evolution process because we learned to manipulate and master the evolution system itself, through birth controls methods, medical science which allows the unsurvivables to survive and pass their genes, and genetic engineering. It is up to us, and not the nature this time, to develop ourselves into a perfect being so that we can tap the infinite grace of the the Highest Universal Mind. The ball is in our hands, as the job of nature has been finished. I believe we are naturally heading towards that direction because there is no other place to go. So everyone cheer up, there is something beyond in this world afterall, something we can all look up to.

- pacfan, the prophet

---

I could give you 1 million reps for this post pacfan. Except for the "pacfan the prophet" thing, you have some sense.:cool:


Here's some reps to start it rolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

The closed loop system must have a mechanism already in place in order to harness the energy being put into the earth. See getting over one of the obstacles is just the beginning.

The biggest problem is everything had to evolve at the same time. What good is it to make an evolutionary jump in one area only to have no food source, or no mate to reproduce with, or no way to digest your food. It's too many things to have possibly happened. It is actually more likely that things are devolving.

Why if evolution were true would all the prehistoric lifeforms have been so much bigger than current life forms? Wouldn't they have crawled out of the primordial ooze in a primitive weak life form? Instead we have fossils of huge versions of many of the same life forms we have now and not 1 single example of a transitional species.

Another problem is there would have been thousands of fatally flawed transitional species, but we cant find even one.

---

There's no need for any mechanism to be in place for life to evolve.

Nothing had to evolve at the same time. Humans didn't just crawl out of the sea and start killing animals to eat. Life began as single-celled organisms which ingested nutrients through their skins like endless single-celled organisms do today. And they reproduced asexually, like Lyle. The various species on the earth today all evolved over billions of years. Nothing happened quickly.

Species are constantly evolving, not devolving. When hominids first appeared on the earth if you were anywhere near four feet tall you could have played in the prehistoric NBA. Today we're much bigger. Various species over the billions of years of life on earth have been various sizes as they've evolved to live in their environments. You can trace the evolution of the horse from the tiny Eohippus to its current size.


We have plenty of transitional species in the fossil record, most famously Archaeopteryx which has bird and dinosaur features. Since Darwin started studying evolution the Hawthorn fly has developed a separate group that doesn't feed on hawthorn but apples instead. Human infections and diseases are constantly evolving to live with the antibiotics we use to treat them to the extent we're now having to develop totally new antibiotics. Pests like the boll weevil have evolved to become resistant to pesticides we used to use to kill them.

---

Sorry but there does have to be a mechanism in place. Single celled organisms aren't SIMPLE forms of life. They are still extremely complicated and if they ingest nutrients through their skin, that system had to be in place or they would not survive. The nutrient had to be there, and the method for ingesting and using the nutrient, in addition to the miraculous appearance of life from non living things. The life from non living is hard enough, but the systems to sustain that life also being present and in usable form is beyond coincidence.

Think of a car. If it managed to assemble itself, now it needs gas to operate and the gas came from oil which had to be drilled out of the ground and pumped and refined before it could even be used for fuel. Nutrients are the same way. The food sources had to be present and usable before anything could have evolved.

There are no transitional species. The bird/dinosaur is the only candidate. It's a bird and some people say it's part lizard. Anyway you are mixing micro evolution with macro. There are adaptations within a species. There are not changes from one species to another. The evidence for the adaptations is stretched into proving that because a bird can get a longer beak in a few generations, it can become something entirely different over enough generations. It isn't possible and scientifically it's unproven. However, it's taught as if it's fact. Scientists once taught the world was flat in much the same way. Science has a poor track record and evolution will surely be another blemish on that record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brucelee

I could give you 1 million reps for this post pacfan. Except for the "pacfan the prophet" thing, you have some sense.:cool:


Here's some reps to start it rolling.

---

I'll be happy with about tenth of that.;D



I've edited that post by adding the following texts (on the part of Adam and Eve): The bible says that 'their eyes were opened, and suddenly they felt shame at their nakedness. So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves.'

I just wanted to post quickly to commend you guy for presenting your differing views without resorting to the type of childish bickering that usually permeates this kind of thread. These type of theads, in my experience, usually descend rapidly to that sort of thing, but you guys have managed to have an excellent debate on the subject.
As someone who sits on the fence in regards to the issue of God/higher power etc. I find this to be a very interesting discussion. Rep has been spread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Sorry but there does have to be a mechanism in place. Single celled organisms aren't SIMPLE forms of life. They are still extremely complicated and if they ingest nutrients through their skin, that system had to be in place or they would not survive. The nutrient had to be there, and the method for ingesting and using the nutrient, in addition to the miraculous appearance of life from non living things. The life from non living is hard enough, but the systems to sustain that life also being present and in usable form is beyond coincidence.

Think of a car. If it managed to assemble itself, now it needs gas to operate and the gas came from oil which had to be drilled out of the ground and pumped and refined before it could even be used for fuel. Nutrients are the same way. The food sources had to be present and usable before anything could have evolved.

There are no transitional species. The bird/dinosaur is the only candidate. It's a bird and some people say it's part lizard. Anyway you are mixing micro evolution with macro. There are adaptations within a species. There are not changes from one species to another. The evidence for the adaptations is stretched into proving that because a bird can get a longer beak in a few generations, it can become something entirely different over enough generations. It isn't possible and scientifically it's unproven. However, it's taught as if it's fact. Scientists once taught the world was flat in much the same way. Science has a poor track record and evolution will surely be another blemish on that record.

---

There doesn't need to have been any mechanism in place before any specific mechanism for anything evolved. Even single-celled organisms spent billions of years evolving.

There are plenty of transitional species, an entire flock of bird/dinosaur examples. If you spend a little time studying the basic outlines of evolutionary theory -- you could spend an entire academic career studying evolution and still not cover everything -- you'll see this.

You're starting to get a basic grasp of the outlines of evolutionary theory but you're still making ridiculous arguments -- scientists never taught that the earth was flat for instance, in fact there was a rather long argument between scientists and the church over basic things like the shape of the earth and whether the earth orbited the sun or vice versa. And I'm not confusing anything, you just don't understand evolutionary theory.

You're taking at face value a bunch of discredited arguments from creationists, a bunch of religious extrmists who insist in the face of all evidence that evolution is nonsense. These people are only found in America and only because they believe as a matter of faith that god formed the earth 3000 years ago so they need to discredit any science that proves their beliefs to be rubbish. The entire rest of the world has accepted evolutionary theory, like they have gravitational theory, electro-magnetic theory, etc.

It still awaits explination "How do you get something from nothing?"


And doesn't science tell us to question everything so by that rational you have to question science itself along with other things like religion or else you just end up with a different form of religion and one that doesn't provide ANY moral values or guidelines.


So when I question this "Man Made Global Warming" I'm doing the right thing....blindly accepting that is no different than blindly accepting any form of religion. Sure you have some stuff that says there MAY BE man made global warming but it's never 100% positive, there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a loophole and an acception to what any study finds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

It still awaits explination "How do you get something from nothing?"


And doesn't science tell us to question everything so by that rational you have to question science itself along with other things like religion or else you just end up with a different form of religion and one that doesn't provide ANY moral values or guidelines.


So when I question this "Man Made Global Warming" I'm doing the right thing....blindly accepting that is no different than blindly accepting any form of religion. Sure you have some stuff that says there MAY BE man made global warming but it's never 100% positive, there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a loophole and an acception to what any study finds

---

Science does tell us to question everything. You can question specific viewpoints and data regarding any scientific subject but this doesn't automatically mean that "science" is questionable. Really Lyle, it's not like you to make a third-grade argument.

Hey brother even evolution is a THEORY and what's a theory???

Webster's Dictionary defines a theory as:


1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption :

So are gravity and electromagnetic theory. That's because, although there's endless evidence to show that our observations and calculations of gravity and electricity are correct, it may be, for instance, that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly insert themselves in the gravitational/electrical process. Because we can't rule out every possible alternative then gravity and electricity have to remain theories, like evolution.

Lyle, you could spend your entire life studying stuff we already discovered about evolution and still only scratch the surface of our current knowledge. The evidence is vast and overwhelming. Only in parts of America is it even questioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

It still awaits explination "How do you get something from nothing?"


And doesn't science tell us to question everything so by that rational you have to question science itself along with other things like religion or else you just end up with a different form of religion and one that doesn't provide ANY moral values or guidelines.


So when I question this "Man Made Global Warming" I'm doing the right thing....blindly accepting that is no different than blindly accepting any form of religion. Sure you have some stuff that says there MAY BE man made global warming but it's never 100% positive, there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a loophole and an acception to what any study finds

---

Science does tell us to question everything. You can question specific viewpoints and data regarding any scientific subject but this doesn't automatically mean that "science" is questionable. Really Lyle, it's not like you to make a third-grade argument.

---

Like I said, the issue on the existence of God will be fully realized by the test of time. For the mean time, I will choose to believe in God rather than on scientific discussions/discoveries/theories which are in themselves still doubtful of validity.

Unless science can fully and exactly explain the order of things on this earth, I am of the conviction that there really is God who manages the complexities of this world.:cool:

John 18:37

"...for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

So are gravity and electromagnetic theory. That's because, although there's endless evidence to show that our observations and calculations of gravity and electricity are correct, it may be, for instance, that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly insert themselves in the gravitational/electrical process. Because we can't rule out every possible alternative then gravity and electricity have to remain theories, like evolution.

Lyle, you could spend your entire life studying stuff we already discovered about evolution and still only scratch the surface of our current knowledge. The evidence is vast and overwhelming. Only in parts of America is it even questioned.

---

Hey Newton has a LAW for gravity....a THEORY is a THEORY might I remind you that there used to be a lot of theories which are now obsolete.

Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So today's FACT is tomorrow's FICTION in a lot of cases...I'm not saying everything is wrong in science, I am just saying I like to question things

You can have laws within theories Lyle.

History of gravitational theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly, a guy at MIT has just rewritten part of the quantum field theory. But the whole thing is still only theoretical.

Well there you go, you just proved a point for me

OK, then.

If you don't question the theories that are already in place then the world is still flat....you get me know on why I question things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

If you don't question the theories that are already in place then the world is still flat....you get me know on why I question things?

---

Yes, Lyle, you're a scientific grandmaster.

Fine, be sarcastic, I am just saying if no one questioned these scientific facts then the world wouldn't be any different than it was in the dark ages where religion ruled over everyone and controlled what they thought....only there would be no Pope only some sort of teacher with tenure

There doesn't need to have been any mechanism in place before any specific mechanism for anything evolved. Even single-celled organisms spent billions of years evolving.

There are plenty of transitional species, an entire flock of bird/dinosaur examples. If you spend a little time studying the basic outlines of evolutionary theory -- you could spend an entire academic career studying evolution and still not cover everything -- you'll see this.

You're starting to get a basic grasp of the outlines of evolutionary theory but you're still making ridiculous arguments -- scientists never taught that the earth was flat for instance, in fact there was a rather long argument between scientists and the church over basic things like the shape of the earth and whether the earth orbited the sun or vice versa. And I'm not confusing anything, you just don't understand evolutionary theory.

You're taking at face value a bunch of discredited arguments from creationists, a bunch of religious extrmists who insist in the face of all evidence that evolution is nonsense. These people are only found in America and only because they believe as a matter of faith that god formed the earth 3000 years ago so they need to discredit any science that proves their beliefs to be rubbish. The entire rest of the world has accepted evolutionary theory, like they have gravitational theory, electro-magnetic theory, etc.


If mechanisms weren't in place, then they had to be evolving at the same time and still be finished before the next one could evolve. It still requires an amazing amount of coincidence and very good planning.

With transitional species there should be millions of examples of the failed adaptations of naturally selected for extinction species. There are scant examples of birds looking like dinosaurs, but they are birds. They have wings and presumably can fly. We are missing the failed adaptations in every species of which there should be millions.

Scientists did think the earth was flat and just like the entire rest of the world that accepts evolution at face value they found out later they were wrong.

The problem with evolution being science is it hasn't been tested, observed, measured, it's stringing together theories and observing things now and estimating or guessing what happened long before. Gravitational theory and electromagnetic theory are extremely different. The theory on those is how they work, not what happens. Evolutionary theory has already decided how it works and is now trying to force fit what happened.

Interesting that you mentioned quantum physics in another post. Quantum physics has proven mathematically that there are at least 10 dimensions. We are only capable of interacting in 3 but are aware of the 4th. Did time evolve also? How about other dimensions. Not just the matter, energy, and space, but time, and whatever else exists. Evolution is a theory, but it's a very loose and unproven and untestable theory. It still remains more of a philosophy than science.