Question for the biblical religious

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[El Kabong]

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

[Kirkland Laing]

...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.

[El Kabong]

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

[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.

[El Kabong]

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

[brucelee]

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.

[Andre]

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[El Kabong]

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

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[El Kabong]

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 :

[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.