Yet another example of astonishing fossil preservation

Rather incredibly the BBC news website reports today how palaeontologists have actually drawn using ink from a 150 million year old squid.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Wiltshire | Ink found in Jurassic-era squid


So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months :rolleyes:

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that :)

Ha the Daily Mail version says 155 Million years!

Apparently the odds of finding something like an ink sac unfossilised according to the evolutionary scientists is a billion to one, a nice find then.

Best of all it includes a photo of the drawing of the squid made using the actual ink from the sac.

If anyone thinks that ink is 155 million years old........seriously......... :vd:

The 150million-year-old squid fossil so perfectly preserved that scientists can make ink from its ink sac | Mail Online

Wow a squid with ink in it:o


I was hoping for one of those big T-Rex things with a wooly mammoth inside it or sommet.

So does this mean time isnt lineal?

Its is all just one big moment we have been trying to measure from our stupid point of view?


:kick: "Hey turn around the future has to be that way "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months :rolleyes:

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that :)

---

Did you read the part about how the "ink" had solidified and had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia before they could "draw" with it?
:D

Did the squids ink stink?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months :rolleyes:

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that :)

---

Did you read the part about how the "ink" had solidified and had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia before they could "draw" with it?
:D

---

Of course it would have solidified, that would have happened within a couple weeks, the point is that it shouldn't have remained at all. They have now found ink, blood cells, proteins, collagen etc that are supposedly tens of millions of years old, substances previously thought to have shelf lives in the thousands of years at best.

They have found unfossilised hadrosaur bones, do you even know how amazing that is? We now have miners hats from less than a hundred years ago completely fossilised yet some hadrosaur and T Rex bones defied the fossilisation process for millions and millions of years.

And now ink can apparently survive for 150,000,000 too.

I wonder how long before they find a prehistoric tomato from 80,000,000 BC that can be rehydrated and fed to some rabbits, and you'll helpfully point it that the tomato was sundried not fresh. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months :rolleyes:

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that :)

---

Did you read the part about how the "ink" had solidified and had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia before they could "draw" with it?
:D

---

Of course it would have solidified, that would have happened within a couple weeks, the point is that it shouldn't have remained at all. They have now found ink, blood cells, proteins, collagen etc that are supposedly tens of millions of years old, substances previously thought to have shelf lives in the thousands of years at best.

They have found unfossilised hadrosaur bones, do you even know how amazing that is? We now have miners hats from less than a hundred years ago completely fossilised yet some hadrosaur and T Rex bones defied the fossilisation process for millions and millions of years.

And now ink can apparently survive for 150,000,000 too.

I wonder how long before they find a prehistoric tomato from 80,000,000 BC that can be rehydrated and fed to some rabbits, and you'll helpfully point it that the tomato was sundried not fresh. :)

---

OK, well you were the one who made such a big deal about being skeptical that the ink could be in liquid form, I was just pointing out that which you had apparently overlooked, which was that no-on in either article made the claim that it was liquid in the first place. If you want to now say of course it was solidified, well the discrepancy is obvious.

Anyways, the "ink" had solidified, more than that, it was fossilized. That much is explicit and clear from the BBC article. . If you want to argue that that is not possible, then take it up with The British Geological Survey, and let us know how it goes.

your comments seem to indicate total cluelessness about the concept of fossilization.

I don't believe in evolution and little by little, Bilbo is giving me more reasons not to believe it.

:cool: Thanks Bilbo.

I don't see how this dispells evolution?

It is astonishing to me, yet nothing new, to hear someone claim to be intelligent, then within a few breaths say they don't believe evolution. And it isn't even that I am suggesting all smart people agree it is part of our history (even though most do) but more that it amazes me that people have so little subjective reasoning ability. That they'll totally not notice the giant mountain rising up from the Earth in front of them, to then grab a questionable pebble and say, "here it is, and so we climb!"

Yes Youngblood its like having blinkers on.

But to say the reverse is only true, is also having blinkers on too.

I think its a mixture of both creation and evolution. Just because two sections of thought split and two groups took sides who says you have to think one way or the other?

Night and day ,good and evil, hot and cold,white and black. False judgments the whole lot of them; when viewed from only inside their own effect.

I say your spirit your body and your mental state are separate and they each evolve through separate means and the mind is also mainly split in two so as to accommodate the fact you are locked into duality.People can be ran by either, some by one, some by all in balance,that is where our choices and personalities evolve from and form.

Physics is on the brink of proving the whole thing (in this dimension only) is held together by thoughts and that thought is the original form behind energy and energy behind all matter. What will never be measured from where we are at, is the divine feeling that created the original divine thought.

Then unfortuantley a question arose and is being answered internally from within the questioners,us.


We should be growing or evolving on each level. Fixed thinking and fixed beliefs are judgments and that is from the heart of duality and that is what keeps people stuck and not able to think outside of the square.
Their own religious documents warned them about it,their own religion warns them to cease it on all levels, but alas,they judge ,the mental ,the physical and the spiritual all with the same measuring stick ...right or wrong...which is the judgment their own book warns about getting stuck within.


Vibrating frequencies have dimensional limitations; as do thoughts, if your whole system isnt in sync and ready to operate at a higher frequency you will be stuck within one point of view, until you feel to choose otherwise.

lol what's a blinker?

I'm not saying that there aren't possibly things going on we don't know about. There of course are. And we discover more and more each passing day. But to hinge a whole arguement for discounting a mountain of scientifically proven evidence based on a mere belief and no proof is the foolish part. To say, 'ha you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is. So therefore I am right and the world is 6000 yrs old! Here is a tiny morsel of maybe disproof, it all must be beans!" lol is basically that logic simplified. And it is flawed reasoning. But anyway, this is a long tiring subject, and I really am not trying to convert anyone.

But what are you talking about here, "thought is the original form of energy and energy behind all matter? And that physics is on the brink of explaining it and in this dimension only?" :confused: lol what?

I'd like to get a bit more clued in where you are finding this stuff. I am pretty aware to where physics is currently, and where M-string theory is in trying to unravel the possibilities of other dimensions (as I've previously discussed, 10 of space, 1 of time in Witten's work after unifying the five differing POVs of string theory) and this is more about understanding particles, supersymmetry, the mysteries of gravity, things that occured micro-seconds after creation, by recreating them. Not thoughts. (You know I can go in this area forever...)

I like you Andre, and I get the whole higher thinking/spirituality based angle you tend to wander in, and a part of me hopes for humankinds sake we further evolve as a species beyond the mere physical and one day become an enlighted species, beyond such petty things now as our primary negative emotions and traits, anger, greed, domination, jealousy, self-centeredness etc. They will be our downfall I believe.

And Andre, I agree we should have an open mind.

I guess what I am saying regarding religion and such things, is OK, you creationists who must believe in some kinda God, have your belief, your faith, but don't try to use that to in some way argue facts that are proving to explain the known universe. As well the unseeable universe. That explain who you are and where you came from. The realm in which we live. We have laws of nature that make it work. These laws, and science are leading us there to an answer. Hey, who knows what that answer is. It may even be God. But blind faith is often trying to pull us back. And why? Because science contradicts a bunch of beliefs written up thousands of years ago by some dudes sitting around, and people, for whatever reason, can't get there heads around that...it was likely just a story! Made by men.

So anyway, yea. This is a subject which ofc will never have closure. But we are getting closer. By doing math. By conducting experiments. By challenging beliefs, questioning. By theorizing. And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd all still be living on a flat world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

lol what's a blinker?

I'm not saying that there aren't possibly things going on we don't know about. There of course are. And we discover more and more each passing day. But to hinge a whole arguement for discounting a mountain of scientifically proven evidence based on a mere belief and no proof is the foolish part. To say, 'ha you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is. So therefore I am right and the world is 6000 yrs old! Here is a tiny morsel of maybe disproof, it all must be beans!" lol is basically that logic simplified. And it is flawed reasoning. But anyway, this is a long tiring subject, and I really am not trying to convert anyone.

But what are you talking about here, "thought is the original form of energy and energy behind all matter? And that physics is on the brink of explaining it and in this dimension only?" :confused: lol what?

I'd like to get a bit more clued in where you are finding this stuff. I am pretty aware to where physics is currently, and where M-string theory is in trying to unravel the possibilities of other dimensions (as I've previously discussed, 10 of space, 1 of time in Witten's work after unifying the five differing POVs of string theory) and this is more about understanding particles, supersymmetry, the mysteries of gravity, things that occured micro-seconds after creation, by recreating them. Not thoughts. (You know I can go in this area forever...)

I like you Andre, and I get the whole higher thinking/spirituality based angle you tend to wander in, and a part of me hopes for humankinds sake we further evolve as a species beyond the mere physical and one day become an enlighted species, beyond such petty things now as our primary negative emotions and traits, anger, greed, domination, jealousy, self-centeredness etc. They will be our downfall I believe.

And Andre, I agree we should have an open mind.

I guess what I am saying regarding religion and such things, is OK, you creationists who must believe in some kinda God, have your belief, your faith, but don't try to use that to in some way argue facts that are proving to explain the known universe. As well the unseeable universe. That explain who you are and where you came from. The realm in which we live. We have laws of nature that make it work. These laws, and science are leading us there to an answer. Hey, who knows what that answer is. It may even be God. But blind faith is often trying to pull us back. And why? Because science contradicts a bunch of beliefs written up thousands of years ago by some dudes sitting around, and people, for whatever reason, can't get there heads around that...it was likely just a story! Made by men.

So anyway, yea. This is a subject which ofc will never have closure. But we are getting closer. By doing math. By conducting experiments. By challenging beliefs, questioning. By theorizing. And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd all still be living on a flat world.

---

Fuck you for being half my age and twice as smart as me. I hope you die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

lol what's a blinker?

I'm not saying that there aren't possibly things going on we don't know about. There of course are. And we discover more and more each passing day. But to hinge a whole arguement for discounting a mountain of scientifically proven evidence based on a mere belief and no proof is the foolish part. To say, 'ha you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is. So therefore I am right and the world is 6000 yrs old! Here is a tiny morsel of maybe disproof, it all must be beans!" lol is basically that logic simplified. And it is flawed reasoning. But anyway, this is a long tiring subject, and I really am not trying to convert anyone.

But what are you talking about here, "thought is the original form of energy and energy behind all matter? And that physics is on the brink of explaining it and in this dimension only?" :confused: lol what?

I'd like to get a bit more clued in where you are finding this stuff. I am pretty aware to where physics is currently, and where M-string theory is in trying to unravel the possibilities of other dimensions (as I've previously discussed, 10 of space, 1 of time in Witten's work after unifying the five differing POVs of string theory) and this is more about understanding particles, supersymmetry, the mysteries of gravity, things that occured micro-seconds after creation, by recreating them. Not thoughts. (You know I can go in this area forever...)

I like you Andre, and I get the whole higher thinking/spirituality based angle you tend to wander in, and a part of me hopes for humankinds sake we further evolve as a species beyond the mere physical and one day become an enlighted species, beyond such petty things now as our primary negative emotions and traits, anger, greed, domination, jealousy, self-centeredness etc. They will be our downfall I believe.

And Andre, I agree we should have an open mind.

I guess what I am saying regarding religion and such things, is OK, you creationists who must believe in some kinda God, have your belief, your faith, but don't try to use that to in some way argue facts that are proving to explain the known universe. As well the unseeable universe. That explain who you are and where you came from. The realm in which we live. We have laws of nature that make it work. These laws, and science are leading us there to an answer. Hey, who knows what that answer is. It may even be God. But blind faith is often trying to pull us back. And why? Because science contradicts a bunch of beliefs written up thousands of years ago by some dudes sitting around, and people, for whatever reason, can't get there heads around that...it was likely just a story! Made by men.

So anyway, yea. This is a subject which ofc will never have closure. But we are getting closer. By doing math. By conducting experiments. By challenging beliefs, questioning. By theorizing. And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd all still be living on a flat world.

---

Sorry mate; Blinkers, like on horses to create tunnel vision.

I like you too by the way, but we wont get a room. :-)

I have studied and practiced so many things I cant say all as some ways are to be found by those who seek.

I'll try and split up and answer all you asked of me there just so you can begin to understand why I choose to view it the way I do; but from the physical -add and subtract point of view only Im more with Albert Einstein than anyone else regarding the big question.

I dont agree with him at all that mankind does not shape his own life because I know that it is shaped by our previous incarnations our Karmic position and our agreements and more than that our intention from being right in the moment of now.

Many ancient scriptures had that knowledge removed and kept secret completly in order to hold people under an "its now or never for you" fear based control', so as to gain full control over the masses, who breeds faster who has money tithed to them etc, as they still do.

The Vatican its self has this knowledge and more under lock and key and Rome will not relinquish control over its adopted and reshaped religion, Just yet there is too much $ and control of people at stake.

Anyway some excerpts from the times when Albert E was asked the big question:

Do you believe in God?
“I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
Is this a Jewish concept of God? “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”
Is this Spinoza’s God? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”

Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.”

Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo,
“What I Believe,” that he recorded for a human rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”



People found the piece evocative, even inspiring, and it was reprinted repeatedly in a variety of translations. But not surprisingly, it did not satisfy those who wanted a simple, direct answer to the question of whether or not he believed in God. For some, only a clear belief in a personal God who controls daily life qualified as a genuine faith. “The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism,” Boston’s Cardinal William Henry O’Connell said. This public blast from a Cardinal prompted the noted Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, to send a very direct telegram: “Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words.” Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”








:smilie_whisper: That last statment has so much hidden wisdom in it that has to do with why God remains whole ,untouched and in his/her original form elsewhere away from this lower dimension that we experience our own stuff from. Which is also linked to why there is only about 4% matter in the whole universe and how it is held in formations.

That was a great read Andre. :)

Thanks.

Thank you Andre for that wonderful explanation though like a child, I could not grasp the meaning of all that you have said thus making your statements as fuzzy as my knowledge in Latin.

To Youngblood, you are indeed a wonder boy and a prodigy in terms of your knowledge of this world but like a child there are mysteries in this universe that we will never fathom nor understand. I must agree therefore with Andre on that aspect. Though we may think that our mind has infinite capacity, our biological makeup will always put a finite end to our understanding of this world.

What Bilbo did was to give us a proof that science and the bible do not necessarily contradict. In fact, if we only have enough scientific tool and if we are open to accept all the results of our scientific inquiry, it is my opinion that science will help explain our faith and will ultimately lead us to God.

I must accept though that I am prejudiced towards the belief that there is someone who created the universe. That is a blinker that I have decided to wear; I could not make myself wear a blinker based on the knowledge of man which I know is fallible.

The discussion involving metaphysical constructs is indeed something that will never be ended with agreement yet it gives me satisfaction that at least I (and Bilbo) have tried to unveil my(our) faith to others especially to those whom I believe to be spiritually benighted because of too much faith in science.No offense meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brucelee

I don't believe in evolution and little by little, Bilbo is giving me more reasons not to believe it.

:cool: Thanks Bilbo.

---

I'd love to hear more about how you don't believe in Evolution, do you have some madcap list of theories?

Bruce, Bilbo hasn't given you anything I'm afraid. Little more then the proverbial chain jerk on your already need to believe. I'm fairly certain he is secretly laughing too. And although I often tease you, on this point I am serious. I know you're not a stupid guy. And I readily agree many smart people have a need to follow certain religious doctrine no matter how improbable.

I believed in Santa Clause long after most of my friends tried to tell me otherwise, long after I knew in my core the whole story and deal didn't line up. Silly right? I'm a smart kid, right. The thing was, my dad always bred into me the value of honesty, integrity, and I trusted the man more then anything in the/my universe, especially through the eyes of my innocent childhood. So when person after person tried to tell me Santa didn't exist, and when I'd ask my dad, again and again and he'd go into great detail on the how and the why he did, I couldn't bring myself to believe my father would lie to me, would betray me in such a way. For he was large and perfect in my eyes. And so I defied all the reason and logic as long as I could, to dispell the reality that he was and is nothing more then a flawed man, much like we all ultimately are.

Just a bit of an analogy from my perspective. But it has to do with some of our basic human traits that often can overwhelm our logic. Consider it a sort of emotional system fail safe. I believe we are often too fragile to understand, or moreso unable to believe a truth that dispells a story we so trusted as a truth. It's just too painful for many of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Bruce, Bilbo hasn't given you anything I'm afraid. Little more then the proverbial chain jerk on your already need to believe. I'm fairly certain he is secretly laughing too. And although I often tease you, on this point I am serious. I know you're not a stupid guy. And I readily agree many smart people have a need to follow certain religious doctrine no matter how improbable.

I believed in Santa Clause long after most of my friends tried to tell me otherwise, long after I knew in my core the whole story and deal didn't line up. Silly right? I'm a smart kid, right. The thing was, my dad always bred into me the value of honesty, integrity, and I trusted the man more then anything in the/my universe, especially through the eyes of my innocent childhood. So when person after person tried to tell me Santa didn't exist, and when I'd ask my dad, again and again and he'd go into great detail on the how and the why he did, I couldn't bring myself to believe my father would lie to me, would betray me in such a way. For he was large and perfect in my eyes. And so I defied all the reason and logic as long as I could, to dispell the reality that he was and is nothing more then a flawed man, much like we all ultimately are.

Just a bit of an analogy from my perspective. But it has to do with some of our basic human traits that often can overwhelm our logic. Consider it a sort of emotional system fail safe. I believe we are often too fragile to understand, or moreso unable to believe a truth that dispells a story we so trusted as a truth. It's just too painful for many of us.

---

Regarding Bilbo, I know that he agrees with me and even if he doesn't categorically admit that, his posts against evolution impliedly gives assent to my opinion regarding faith and science.

Your analogy regarding Santa Claus is somewhat misplaced and your reason not to believe in a divine being as the creator of all things is definitely not plausible for me. In life, we simply don't decide not to believe because we don't want to get hurt. This is where discernment comes. When we are unsure, we think. When we can't think, we believe. In believing, we take risks and that's the beauty of faith. As you may have known already, wherever we go and whatever we do, we always take risks. The intensity of risks may vary in different situations but there will always be risks. For example, when you go to school there is a risk that you might get hurt along the way but it doesn't hinder you from attending classes because you know that you need to learn. As you take your classes everyday, you learn to forget and discount the risks of getting hurt and later on you will realize that thinking about getting hurt is futile and counterproductive because learning something everyday from your classes is a "taste of heaven". That is because I assume that you are the type of person who seeks knowledge and relishes on wisdom.

My faith is just like that. The risk I'm taking in my belief in God is nothing compared to the return I will get if He really exist... and that's my pragmatic side speaking. If the reward of heaven and the damnation of hell has a probability of one over a billion true, prudence dictates that despite the risk of being disillusioned, believing in God is the ultimate road to take in a world full of diverging roads of lies, deceits and pains.

Will I then believe in the work of scientists and all their postulates which I happen to know to be changing even as I write now? My answer will be NEVER. Of what eternal good will I get if I trust in the works of men which I know is fallible, prejudiced and biased? My erudite analysis says, "NONE".

I will rather trust in God and His promise of eternal heaven. If God and heaven is not true, at least, I will pass away knowing that I live a "good and contented life" because of my belief.

So Santa Claus is not true and you got hurt. At this moment, could you honestly say that the pain of disillusion was too great that you could no longer take risks concerning God?

I''m sorry Bruce, but the lottery is a bad bet. And that is what you're doing given the explanation.

Anyway, I hate getting into these discussions, because I don't want to convert anyone, or change their beliefs. And I often feel like that is what I'm attempting. It really isn't. And I feel the Santa analogy (albeit all analogies are weak) is not at all misplaced. It speaks to human nature.

But I am going to sign out of this discussion, as again, it really isn't my intent to persuade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

I''m sorry Bruce, but the lottery is a bad bet. And that is what you're doing given the explanation.

Anyway, I hate getting into these discussions, because I don't want to convert anyone, or change their beliefs. And I often feel like that is what I'm attempting. It really isn't. And I feel the Santa analogy (albeit all analogies are weak) is not at all misplaced. It speaks to human nature.

But I am going to sign out of this discussion, as again, it really isn't my intent to persuade.

---

It may seem to be a lottery with the way I presented my argument but if you allow me to use the scriptures, then it becomes 50/50 chance. If you would agree that the Bible is true, then it becomes 100 percent sure.

Honest to goodness, in all my bible expositions, it has been my intent to make all my listeners Christian converts.;)

People can mock me on this but it is my belief that I have the responsibility to share the word of God to whoever I meet in life whether it be in the classrooms or in the forums.

Bruce you categorically state that you will never ever believe things that don't fit your already conceived world view (i.e. you will never believe the work of scientists). So all of your knowledge is already formed and you are convinced. So It would be a waste of my energy to attempt to present any kind of a case for the contrary, cause your mind is already made and cast in stone.

Make no mistake though. In no way shape or form is your case bolstered by the issue of the fossilized ink, or anything that was said about it in the first two posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

It is astonishing to me, yet nothing new, to hear someone claim to be intelligent, then within a few breaths say they don't believe evolution. And it isn't even that I am suggesting all smart people agree it is part of our history (even though most do) but more that it amazes me that people have so little subjective reasoning ability. That they'll totally not notice the giant mountain rising up from the Earth in front of them, to then grab a questionable pebble and say, "here it is, and so we climb!"

---

Josh you need to question the mountain that is put in front of you my friend.

The theory of evolution is a giant delusion, the evidence for which evaporates under scientific scrutiny.

The theory does not stand up to logical reasoning or scientific testing.

The confusion lies in people's misconceptions. They see adaptation and change within a species, different breeds of dog, Darwin's finches etc and are told that creationists deny these self evident truths thus they rightly reject such apparent blindness to the obvious and then accept without question the rest of the evolutionary dogma, i.e the Macro Evolution, life from non life, changes within a species can lead to new species and ultimately new life forms evolving over time.

This is one giant hoodwink however. Firstly all creationists accept that creatures can adapt and change according to enviromental pressure etc but this is NOT evolution on a macro scale.

You see it all comes down to information.

Each animal and plant kind has encoded within its DNA all of the information necessary to build that organism. There is a tremendous amount of information, and variability encoded within that DNA and can lead to a great variety within species, or animal kinds.

However with every reproduction information is LOST, half of the information of the male, and half of the female goes into producing the offspring, the rest is not transferred to the offspring.

Thus by selective breeding, either natural or artificial certain traits can be removed and added by the process of reproduction.

Thus a wolf can over many generations eventually be weaned down to a tiny poodle if the breeding process takes away the right chromosomes and elements.

However and this is the key fact, there reaches a point where too much information is lost and the creature cannot change any more. In fact it will nearly always been unheathly, and have less intelligence and a shorter lifespan than animals that mix up their gene pool.

Eventually you get to the point where the only way to reintroduce new information to that animals DNA is to breed it with another dog species to add back some of the information that is missing.

This is the OPPOSITE of evolution which says that new information can be created out of nowhere by random mutations in the reproductive process. Such beneficial mutations have NEVER EVER been observed to occur, not one single time, yet this is according the science the main driving factor of evolutionary change, a near infinite number of such mutations must have occured during the span of life on earth, more numerous than grains of sand on all the beaches on earth yet not one has EVER been found.

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances. There is not a single observation or experience which contradicts this law of science, yet evolution requires it, out of disorder and chaos comes order and increasing complexity, the universe ordered itself as a result of random processes following a gigantic intergalatic explosion etc.

Properly understood macro evolution is impossible according to mathematics, logic, science and observation.

The fossil record screams against evolution, no gradual change of organisms over millions of years is found, but rather just extinction, once again order descending into disorder, as all of our science, logic and experience indicates.

It is a bold claim to make, but one that cannot be contradicted, but there is NO, not a shred, not iota of evidence for evolution on a macro scale.

I urge all of you enlightened and intelligence souls to investigate this for yourself.

Look behind the curtain, examine the theory in detail and you will see it collapse and evaporate into nothingness before your very eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

---

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

---

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

---

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

How many times has science managed to create an explosion that built something, or how many times has life 'popped' into existence, or maybe an inanimate object turned to life?

All of these ideas are ludicrous to the extreme, yet for some reason people believe that by extrapolating them to even greater heights, and then placing the events billions of years into times past that they become plausible. It is an interesting exercise in self delusion.

If a hand grenade thrown into a house cannot tidy the house up or a bombing of an automobile factory cannot produce a new car how much more absurd is it to believe that an explosion could create the entire known universe?

Order into disorder is a universal, unavoidable fact of this universe. Everything is dying, everything is losing information and deteriorating. Please if I am misuing this idea then suggest just one single example where this is contradicted?

Macro evolution runs counter to science, it is anti scientific by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

---

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

---

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

---

Well, for starters, your original claim stated that it is a universal law that order turns into disorder. If I were to show an example of order coming from disorder, that would hardly disprove your original claim, would it? In order to disprove your original claim I'd have to show a situation where order didn't turn into disorder. Agreed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

---

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

---

Well, for starters, your original claim stated that it is a universal law that order turns into disorder. If I were to show an example of order coming from disorder, that would hardly disprove your original claim, would it? In order to disprove your original claim I'd have to show a situation where order didn't turn into disorder. Agreed?

---

Well not really, evolution operates on the basis that order and increasing complexity results from disorder.

But I can't see you producing a satisfactory answer to either statement so feel free to offer up what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

---

Well, for starters, your original claim stated that it is a universal law that order turns into disorder. If I were to show an example of order coming from disorder, that would hardly disprove your original claim, would it? In order to disprove your original claim I'd have to show a situation where order didn't turn into disorder. Agreed?

---

Well not really, evolution operates on the basis that order and increasing complexity results from disorder.

But I can't see you producing a satisfactory answer to either statement so feel free to offer up what you will.

---

What you said at first was that order turns into disorder, which is something quite different, and highly debateable I might add.

But anyways, I think I know what you meant. there's two ways of responding to your question, based on what what exactly you mean by this so called law.

I think what you are referring to is the law of statistical entropy, which is a statistical law, not an immutable one. What it says is that in a system where events are happening randomly, that system tends towards disorder. It does not say that it must result in a disordered state.

We can also talk about whether or not the theory of evolution requires that things must have started in a disordered state. I do know that proponents of intelligent design say that the theory of evolution requires it, so that they can turn around and use (misuse) the order disorder argument. But anyways, that ain't a critical argument.

As I see it, the essense of your argument is that an ordered state could not have happened accidently. And that is not an immutable law.

There's also the role played by Newton's 2nd law of thermodaynamics. And no I don't wish to get into a long drawn out discussion about that.

interested parties can start their own research at the following page of particular interest is the section on Entropy and Life.

Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time digging up examples and writing up explanations that you will not give due consideration anyway. I've been down that road before. Nor am I interested in making a case for evolution. I'm merely trying to show that some of your key arguments are fallacious. People can decide for themselves whether I've done that.

I'll take this opportunity to say again that you completely misinterpreted the report of the British Geological Survey on the case of the fossilized ink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Well, for starters, your original claim stated that it is a universal law that order turns into disorder. If I were to show an example of order coming from disorder, that would hardly disprove your original claim, would it? In order to disprove your original claim I'd have to show a situation where order didn't turn into disorder. Agreed?

---

Well not really, evolution operates on the basis that order and increasing complexity results from disorder.

But I can't see you producing a satisfactory answer to either statement so feel free to offer up what you will.

---

What you said at first was that order turns into disorder, which is something quite different, and highly debateable I might add.

But anyways, I think I know what you meant. there's two ways of responding to your question, based on what what exactly you mean by this so called law.

I think what you are referring to is the law of statistical entropy, which is a statistical law, not an immutable one. What it says is that in a system where events are happening randomly, that system tends towards disorder. It does not say that it must result in a disordered state.

We can also talk about whether or not the theory of evolution requires that things must have started in a disordered state. I do know that proponents of intelligent design say that the theory of evolution requires it, so that they can turn around and use (misuse) the order disorder argument. But anyways, that ain't a critical argument.

As I see it, the essense of your argument is that an ordered state could not have happened accidently. And that is not an immutable law.

There's also the role played by Newton's 2nd law of thermodaynamics. And no I don't wish to get into a long drawn out discussion about that.

interested parties can start their own research at the following page of particular interest is the section on Entropy and Life.

Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time digging up examples and writing up explanations that you will not give due consideration anyway. I've been down that road before. Nor am I interested in making a case for evolution. I'm merely trying to show that some of your key arguments are fallacious. People can decide for themselves whether I've done that.

I'll take this opportunity to say again that you completely misinterpreted the report of the British Geological Survey on the case of the fossilized ink.

---

So no examples then? Just like evolutionists cannot produce any missing link fossils or transitional forms, beyond a bird having some teeth.

So in effect what you are saying is that you know that evolution is true and that it doesn't need any examples because the truth is self evident.

It's an interesting use of logic and science I must say.

As for me misinterperating the Geological Survey regarding the fossilised ink, I think I am interperating it correctly.

You see they KNOW that the squid is 180,000,000 years old, they KNOW that because their evolutionary theories say it is so, based on the rock strata it is found in.

So faced with a preserved ink sac, which the discoverer himself admitted was a greater than 1 in a billion chance, instead of challening the age theory they instead invent a whole new process of fossilisation called the 'Medusa Effect' whereby this fossil must have turned to stone in just a couple of days!

So they now believe that fossils can turn to stone in just days, that's wonderful, but does this not mean that the rest of their uniform approach to geology is under threat? I mean if this can fossilise in just days thanks to a hitherto unknown fossilisation process could not some of the geologic structures that they believe took hundreds of millions of years to form similarly not have been created in a much quicker fashion, requiring just days or weeks rather than entire epochs?

The Grand Canyon for example? Is it really several hundred million years of slow and gradual erosion caused by the Colarado River, or could it have another cause, more catastrophic in nature?

I think for you this becomes just a matter of debate and you are not really thinking with your own mind.

It's a fascinating subject and you should test the evidence.

The whole theory of evolution totters on shaky foundations and a little digging of your own can topple the entire structure.

Actually Richard Dawkins is poised to release his latest book entitled' Why evolution is True' where he presumably will cram all of the biggest evidences to prove evolution beyond doubt.

I've preordered my copy, I love reading his stuff even though I disagree with all of it. His last book, The Dawkins Delusion was embarrasingly poor imo using the kind of tactics you'd expect from a snake oil salesman.

But as the most highly devoted atheist in the world, his books are surely the place to go to get the proof for evolution so I recommend everyone who is interested in buying his books, to see for yourself all this 'evidence' then go out and do some real learning and you'll see how quickly all of the evidence can be refuted and dismissed.

It's Dawkins books on evolution (and in times past Stephen Jay Goulds) that first convinced me of creationsim.

lol really Bilbo c'mon.

The whole is your arguements always boil down to the same theme. Interpretation. 2nd law of Thermodynamics. You interpret this way. The rest of the science world interprets it another. Understanding the fossil record. Same thing. And now Dawkins to?

It is one of the reasons I rarely ever jump into the debates here on the subject. There is simply no point.

I'd rather go debate with the neighbors kid who is 5 and get into a "I know you are but what am I" because atleast then we can go get ice cream later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

lol really Bilbo c'mon.

The whole is your arguements always boil down to the same theme. Interpretation. 2nd law of Thermodynamics. You interpret this way. The rest of the science world interprets it another. Understanding the fossil record. Same thing. And now Dawkins to?

It is one of the reasons I rarely ever jump into the debates here on the subject. There is simply no point.

I'd rather go debate with the neighbors kid who is 5 and get into a "I know you are but what am I" because atleast then we can go get ice cream later.

---

No problem Youngblood my man, when I was your age I laughed at those who challenged evolution too.

It was only in my late teens and early twenties when I actually wanted to study paleontology that I really started to study evolution and to my shock and dismay found out it was a complete bust.

Continue to scoff now but hopefully sometime in the future you will find the time and inclination to look into this fascinating subject more closely, you may be suprised at what you find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

...
So no examples then? Just like evolutionists cannot produce any missing link fossils or transitional forms, beyond a bird having some teeth.

So in effect what you are saying is that you know that evolution is true and that it doesn't need any examples because the truth is self evident.

It's an interesting use of logic and science I must say.

---

You completely misrepresented my post. Maybe you didn't read it. Surprise surprise. That's why debating with you is a waste of time. I said very clearly that I was not attempting to prove evolution, nor was I attempting to disprove intelligent design. I repeat, my only goal was to point the falseness of one of your arguments. I repeat, you misstated, misinterpreted, and misapplied the order/ disorder thing. Not that I expect you to acknowlege that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

As for me misinterperating the Geological Survey regarding the fossilised ink, I think I am interperating it correctly.

You see they KNOW that the squid is 180,000,000 years old, they KNOW that because their evolutionary theories say it is so, based on the rock strata it is found in.

So faced with a preserved ink sac, which the discoverer himself admitted was a greater than 1 in a billion chance, instead of challening the age theory they instead invent a whole new process of fossilisation called the 'Medusa Effect' whereby this fossil must have turned to stone in just a couple of days!

So they now believe that fossils can turn to stone in just days, that's wonderful, but does this not mean that the rest of their uniform approach to geology is under threat? I mean if this can fossilise in just days thanks to a hitherto unknown fossilisation process could not some of the geologic structures that they believe took hundreds of millions of years to form similarly not have been created in a much quicker fashion, requiring just days or weeks rather than entire epochs?

The Grand Canyon for example? Is it really several hundred million years of slow and gradual erosion caused by the Colarado River, or could it have another cause, more catastrophic in nature?

I think for you this becomes just a matter of debate and you are not really thinking with your own mind.

It's a fascinating subject and you should test the evidence.

The whole theory of evolution totters on shaky foundations and a little digging of your own can topple the entire structure.

---

You've changed your story a lot from the first two posts. Surprise surprise. I won't attempt to debate what you have said above. I'll just quote the first two posts, and bold the obvious misrepresentations...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Rather incredibly the BBC news website reports today how palaeontologists have actually drawn using ink from a 150 million year old squid.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Wiltshire | Ink found in Jurassic-era squid


So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months :rolleyes:

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Ha the Daily Mail version says 155 Million years!

Apparently the odds of finding something like an ink sac unfossilised according to the evolutionary scientists is a billion to one, a nice find then.

Best of all it includes a photo of the drawing of the squid made using the actual ink from the sac.

If anyone thinks that ink is 155 million years old........seriously......... :vd:

The 150million-year-old squid fossil so perfectly preserved that scientists can make ink from its ink sac | Mail Online

---

I'll repeat the the article clearly stated that the ink was fossilized and had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia before they could draw with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

Wow a squid with ink in it:o


I was hoping for one of those big T-Rex things with a wooly mammoth inside it or sommet.

---

Or if it had red or green ink in it,


:spongebob: It would be like : "WOW Squidlips", you've really outdone yourself this time"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

---

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

---

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

How many times has science managed to create an explosion that built something, or how many times has life 'popped' into existence, or maybe an inanimate object turned to life?

All of these ideas are ludicrous to the extreme, yet for some reason people believe that by extrapolating them to even greater heights, and then placing the events billions of years into times past that they become plausible. It is an interesting exercise in self delusion.

If a hand grenade thrown into a house cannot tidy the house up or a bombing of an automobile factory cannot produce a new car how much more absurd is it to believe that an explosion could create the entire known universe?

Order into disorder is a universal, unavoidable fact of this universe. Everything is dying, everything is losing information and deteriorating. Please if I am misuing this idea then suggest just one single example where this is contradicted?

Macro evolution runs counter to science, it is anti scientific by definition.

---

That is a great piece of thinking there, Bilbo.

I am pro God too by the way.

Bilbo Im not out to destroy your faith ,if something serves you well hold onto it, live it and expand with it.

Follow my thoughts here just for the mental exersize alone dont feel unduly threatened;

Who is to say, that the human hands and minds that wrote the Bible didnt bother to mention that there were already an existing group of humans and ancient animals already here, outside the garden, proir to the Adamaic light skinned created race? Just because their story starts briefly and then jumps straight into their own begining of their race who is to say what came before them and over what time span?

Who is to say that a day in Gods time isnt a hundred thousand in our time?



I mean some people even choose to argue whether God is black or white and some use the Bibles own words "And God made man in his own liking".
So they automatically think he is white (like the Adam race) and so they portray God as white in paintings and such.

Truth is God can be no one color, black is also not a color; Although we do say so but in expression only.
God did make man originally in his own image, black skinned ones.


Adams only two sons fought and one was killed and he got the boot out of Eden and then he took up a wife! Are we talking different genetic pools here?

Or did they forget to tell us another thing, in that he grabbed one of his sisters and left with her? If so ,why leave that simple point out of the story? If thats the case and they are ommiting information, then it isnt a word for word, fact to fact history any more, it is already effected by mankind.

Also right in the first few paragraphs of the Old testament,it tells you logically there is something else in the storyline being left out.

I've said this before but follow me here please:

In chapter 4 or so it states God made light and saw it was good.

Then later in chapter 9 or so it then states God made the large light to rule over day and the lesser light to rule over night.

Obviously that original light (not the sun or the moon is cause to suspect it could be in the 'materially speaking' form of the big bang yes?

Whats the problem with a Creator who sets up a system that explodes out of reality into formation into material forms within a duality then he allows things to evolve in their natural order after being created ?; as I see we are doing on more than just a physical level.

Im not saying we came from monkeys here either if we did then the Chinese are the most advanced genetically with less body hair and we cant have that! :p

Im not only pro God, I practice love for and in God, projected too when its possible.

But back then, people could only see things from their own perspective and the scribes knew it and the Bible is good in that sense that it is written as a story they can relate to of a a Father God who has sons that chose to become lost and went out into the wilderness and placed all there love into that false reality... Duality.

I can see that, no problem.

I can also see that the Father figure sends out his first untouched image of himself in the Son, to go and send all the lost a message about how to return. See I believe also in that same system of love, no judgment and total forgivness also as the fastest way out of here.

But to have a father God, perfect in heaven: that same God, cannot possibly be stained by the things of this world or by our own doing or he would instantly take on imperfection and that would be indirectly by his own creation by his own doing.

So if that is the case that he is untouched by duality, The real 'Original One God' or Alpha -Omega Creator cannot possibly judge his own creation, cannot punish, can not possibly be jealous of his own creation, or that would mean that he has become imperfect through creation.


(you still with me)? :spongebob:


So the tribe that scribed some things that have been allowed into the Bible have scribed things not directly from the One source of all things,the untouched God,perfect love God that has remained in the perfect realm.

They recreated their God, a father figure like they saw on their own lands in their own homes etc. One who would say, dont do this or that, or I will crush you. That is not a perfect Gods love in action.

What you see occurring on planet Earth right now is perfect love in action, it is allowing all things their own time. Love doesnt punish yet it warns you of the real consequences of your actions. Those things are from the untouched reality. The Judgments are all from within duality and will remain here, leaving all within reality untouched.

That is how you can tell what is written from the ONE and what is written by those who were still trapped and thinking from within this worlds two opposing forms.


I write this because in hard times to come people will not except their part i it all ,they will not say ok we were warned about the consequences of our group actions here.

Instead they will curse The name of the Creator for allowing them to have their own way with the world (as was their wish) and they will scream and yell and try to blame a God who is supposedly meant to be in control of all things and all loving and all forgiving.

See the difference? Between the formed God of Duality with the inbuilt human conflicting messages of loving forgivness and punishment and the One true God of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Bruce you categorically state that you will never ever believe things that don't fit your already conceived world view (i.e. you will never believe the work of scientists). So all of your knowledge is already formed and you are convinced. So It would be a waste of my energy to attempt to present any kind of a case for the contrary, cause your mind is already made and cast in stone.

Make no mistake though. In no way shape or form is your case bolstered by the issue of the fossilized ink, or anything that was said about it in the first two posts.

---

NO CGM. You got it all wrong. What I mean is,I believe that if we apply TRUE science in our search for the divine being, we would ultimately find God.

Science need not contradict with my belief in God. Like Bilbo, I find it difficult to trust the current mumblings of man's supposed scientific findings especially those that try to explain evolution.

While those scientists are still wondering, studying and making erroneous, conflicting, and ludicrous conclusions on how man and things evolved, I shall conveniently put my trust in the explanation of the Bible of how things started.

At least I have something to believe that hasn't changed for 2 millennia.

Hey Andre they are some interesting questions you pose and in regards to evolution being the possible tool that God used to create the universe and lead eventually to life as we know it is a nice idea, and looks to be a peaceful compromise but it only works if you are a general deist, i.e you believe in a God but not the God of the Bible.

Evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible.

Let me explain.

Firstly the Bible claims that the world was created perfect. There was no death until Adam's sin, all the animals, and man ate only plants, the Bible is explicit on this.

Evolution of course requires the Garden of Eden to be built upon the bones of millions of ancestors, God's 'perfect' creation coming about as the result of billions of years of death and a brutal natural arms race between predator and prey.

If you are a deist or a theist then such an idea is acceptable but it's completely incompatible to the Biblical God of love.

Secondly the Bible makes it clear that death came as a result of sin, and that that sin is spread to all of the human race as we are all children of Adam.

Christ came to redeem us from that sin, and he came as the Second Adam as the New Testament calls him.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall in sin then Christs redemptive mission makes no sense. He came to redeem us from our sin, a sin that if evolution is true, we never contracted in the first place, as there was no perfect world, no fall from grace, no Adam, no Eve etc.

So to your question, if you a deist, a believer in a God of your own making, or you believe in an intelligent 'energy' if you will, then there is no problem in grafting evolution and God together.

If you believe the Bible however you can only accept evolution by disregarding and relegating to myth much of the essential Bible message.

Suprisingly athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this much better than most Christians who don't realise the contradiction and attempt to accept both beliefs.

Dawkins has only contempt for those Christians who profess to accept evolution and delights in pointing out the illogical nature of their position. I for one completely agree with him on this.

Like athiestic scientists Christians should be fundamentalists and stand up for their faith, basing their beliefs on God's Word over man's opinions.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that macro evolution (from molecues to man) is a completely failed theory and Christians should be bolder in their faith and stick to what they believe despite what the scientific experts tell us.

Sadly few people have faith in their convictions any more and, largely as a result of watered down religion have by and large turned into sheep and will accept uncritically what the men in white coats tell them.

As for God creating light being a feature of the Big Bang, again you can try and reconcile conflicting ideas in this way if you wish to try and force a round peg into a square hole but there is no need.

I believe in creation by God and therefore any ideas of a Big Bang are meaningless to me.

When God said 'Let there be light' he meant 'Let there be light', I see no reason to speculate a massive fiery explosion.

I understand that my convictions seem almost backwards and retarded in this modern age but I have no shame in saying what I believe.

Mortal man is born into this world blind and helpless, groping futiley for the corners of a circular room.

The reality is man on his own is no closer to understanding the how's and the why's regarding our existence than they were several thousand years ago.

There were Greek evolutionists over 600 years before the birth of Christ. The idea is nothing new, as the Bible says 'There is nothing new under the Sun'.

Regarding evolution, the best I can say is what Paul said to Timothy

'For the time will come when man will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires they will gather around themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear'.

Or as he told the Romans

'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.'


So whilst I respect your opinion regarding an unlikely marrying of the two diametrically opposed belief systems, I reject it totally and put my faith soley in what God says, rather than man.

Of course I try not to think about the bits that would condemn sex before marriage, the selling of illegal pirate dvd's, the endless lust for porn but hey that is what forgiveness is for right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Hey Andre they are some interesting questions you pose and in regards to evolution being the possible tool that God used to create the universe and lead eventually to life as we know it is a nice idea, and looks to be a peaceful compromise but it only works if you are a general deist, i.e you believe in a God but not the God of the Bible.
You realise Im going to have to google Deist.:spongebob:

Evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible.





I agree, but only on the monkey into man part of the term.

Right now some of us are evolving into a better species while others are de-evolving into a cess pit more animalistic existance is what is actually occuring.

Let me explain.

Firstly the Bible claims that the world was created perfect. There was no death until Adam's sin, all the animals, and man ate only plants, the Bible is explicit on this.

Stars, galaxys etc also die.

Evolution of course requires the Garden of Eden to be built upon the bones of millions of ancestors, God's 'perfect' creation coming about as the result of billions of years of death and a brutal natural arms race between predator and prey.

If you are a deist or a theist then such an idea is acceptable but it's completely incompatible to the Biblical God of love.

I see the monkey into man being totally incompatable: but to further evolve from our choices surley you can see we are doing that on a few different levels mentally ,spiritiually some physically .


(challenge question for 4) :p

Isnt jealousy,judgment and siding with chosen armies also logically incompatible with the Biblical God of Love?

Secondly the Bible makes it clear that death came as a result of sin, and that that sin is spread to all of the human race as we are all children of Adam.

Christ came to redeem us from that sin, and he came as the Second Adam as the New Testament calls him.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall in sin then Christs redemptive mission makes no sense. He came to redeem us from our sin, a sin that if evolution is true, we never contracted in the first place, as there was no perfect world, no fall from grace, no Adam, no Eve etc.

The world is perfect, it is man who is for a time lost.

Have you seen the kabalistic tree of life?
It is an expansion of the seed of life brought forth from the to be named later..( plutonic solids).

and all accumulate and form into the flower of life.

:smilie_whisper:Its not a real tree with apples growing off it.

It is the point in this time when what was ment to remain holy and singular became plural and reproduced into duality creating a separate tree of life that has an ending.

The ancient from many different areas including the Jews maped it out geometrically.

So to your question, if you a deist, a believer in a God of your own making, or you believe in an intelligent 'energy' if you will, then there is no problem in grafting evolution and God together.

If you believe the Bible however you can only accept evolution by disregarding and relegating to myth much of the essential Bible message.

Suprisingly athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this much better than most Christians who don't realise the contradiction and attempt to accept both beliefs.

Dawkins has only contempt for those Christians who profess to accept evolution and delights in pointing out the illogical nature of their position. I for one completely agree with him on this.

Like athiestic scientists Christians should be fundamentalists and stand up for their faith, basing their beliefs on God's Word over man's opinions.

Im under the impression Gods words were actually physically written down by a mans hand.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that macro evolution (from molecues to man) is a completely failed theory and Christians should be bolder in their faith and stick to what they believe despite what the scientific experts tell us.

Sadly few people have faith in their convictions any more and, largely as a result of watered down religion have by and large turned into sheep and will accept uncritically what the men in white coats tell them.

As for God creating light being a feature of the Big Bang, again you can try and reconcile conflicting ideas in this way if you wish to try and force a round peg into a square hole but there is no need.

I cant see any conflict in just a term ,I think conflict only arises from within duality, I cant see how God would have any part in it.

I believe in creation by God and therefore any ideas of a Big Bang are meaningless to me.

Until the next megga volcano eh?

When God said 'Let there be light' he meant 'Let there be light', I see no reason to speculate a massive fiery explosion.

Why not? An outward explosion isnt just the soul claim of evolution through apes or monkeys is it?

What light anyway Edisons ???

I understand that my convictions seem almost backwards and retarded in this modern age but I have no shame in saying what I believe.

Good on you.

Mortal man is born into this world blind and helpless, groping futiley for the corners of a circular room.

(Its catchy, but you made that up)

The reality is man on his own is no closer to understanding the how's and the why's regarding our existence than they were several thousand years ago.

There were Greek evolutionists over 600 years before the birth of Christ. The idea is nothing new, as the Bible says 'There is nothing new under the Sun'.

Regarding evolution, the best I can say is what Paul said to Timothy

'For the time will come when man will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires they will gather around themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear'.

Or as he told the Romans

'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.'

Are you sure he was chatting to Timothy about 'evolution' and not a false religon that was to come and take over their whole new message?


So whilst I respect your opinion regarding an unlikely marrying of the two diametrically opposed belief systems, I reject it totally and put my faith soley in what God says, rather than man.

It was man who wrote down what 'God said'.
Other men have since reshaped it to suit their own requirments: look at the Vatican (their murderous history) their take over of the original Christain religion and its message, you will know the enemy through their deeds.

Of course I try not to think about the bits that would condemn sex before marriage, the selling of illegal pirate dvd's, the endless lust for porn but hey that is what forgiveness is for right?

---

We live in hope.

Hey Andre, regarding evolution in the sense you do there is less conflict. When I talk about the evolution I am specifically talking about the molecues to man grand theory and not the fact that people can evolve spiritually.

Even here though I would disagree to an extent. It is my belief that 'the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually' and 'there is none that do good, not even one', backed up with 'there will be terrible unGodliness in the last days', all of which lead me to believe that spiritualy enlightenment and moral progression is not happening at all, morality and spirituality are dying and decaying every bit as much as the physical universe in which we live.

Whilst I certainly believe individuals can improve, the overall trend is definitely downwards.

As for judgement and God's wrath I am with you 100% in that I cannot understand it.

All I can say is that God is Love, but He is also Holy and Just, and a fair and just God must administer justice for offenses caused otherwise people would be getting away with sin, which would mean some people (including God) would not be getting justice for damage inflicted upon them.

Truly I believe that none are innocent, all of us have hurt somebody or something, often without realising in ways we can't see, buying goods that were made with child slavery, polluting the planet and causing death or destruction of God's earth, everyone has played some part in the sins of the world and a Just God must surely see to it that these offenses are set right, to restore the balance as it were.

I can only say regarding punishment and wrath that clearly God does not wish it for us, to the point that He chose to sacrifice His only Son and offer Him up as a scapegoat for us if we would only accept it.

Even in the Old Testament God's wrath was tempered with mercy and compassion. When Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the tree of life they suffered the wrath of God and His judgement. But he was also merciful. He made them coats of animal skin to clothe them. When Cain slew Abel, he put a mark on Cain to ensure that nobody would kill him in retaliation. Prior to all of his judgements, both against Isreal, and the surrounding nations, He sent warnings and offers of mercy. But His prophets were stoned to death and killed! Likewise He has built His Church now to proclaim the message of God's coming judgement, but also of His love and mercy for all those who ask for forgiveness and accept His free offer of salvation.

I'm not really familiar with the Kabbalistic tree of life. It sounds interesting but it is completely clear and beyond doubt from scripture that Jesus believed in a literal Adam and a literal fruit, and a literal fall from grace, along with a literal Noah, so if I am to believe in Him and His resurrection and redemptive mission I must also accept what He believed in and said.


The creation story in my mind simply requires no comparison to the scientific account and just because science believes in a Big Bang does not mean I have to give it any credence whatsoever. The Bible just puts 'God said 'Let there be light', and that's it, so that's all I believe.

Exactly what that light source was I don't know although it's clear it was not the sun as that was created on day 4.

Am I crazy enough to believe God could have lit the earth for three days without a sun? Yes I am, I don't look at the universe as it is now and try and work backwards to see how it was all put together. I believe the creator of the universe could create it in any order he liked just a human computer programmer could create an artificial world on computer and give light without a sun.


Was he talking about false religion rather than evolution? Of course Paul was writing to a specific head of a specific church dealing with specific problems related to that time, however the application is timeless, and evolution IS a false religion.

The beliefs that the universe evolved thanks to some mystical process and that all of life is directly related and arose from billions of years cycle of reproduction and death, culminating in man finally appearing IS a religious belief system.

It is the religion of man, attempting to replace the supernatural with natural, removing God and placing man at the centre of his own destiny, man is God. It's the oldest anti religion of all, it's what mankind has always done right since the time of Adam and the Serpent managed to create doubt in Eve by asking 'Did God really say....?'