Question for the biblical religious

[El Kabong]

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

[Kirkland Laing]

OK, then.

[El Kabong]

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

[Kirkland Laing]

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

Yes, Lyle, you're a scientific grandmaster.

[El Kabong]

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

[luvfightgame]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[luvfightgame]

Did anyone else catch this part of the site Lyle posted. It sums up my argument that evolution isn't scientific but is philosophy.

Karl Popper suggested that a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it can in principle be falsified by experiment; any idea not susceptible to falsification does not belong to science.

[Kirkland Laing]

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

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

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

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

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

Biomechanical and biochemical actions on the ancient earth to create original life had billions of years to happen. No planning necessary.


There are plenty of examples of transitional species. Here are just a few. You could go and do a bit of research yourself and find plenty more :

talk.origins newsgroup


It depends what you mean by "scientists". There were also plenty of "scientists" that thought they could change lead into gold. But if we're talking about actual academic disciplines that developed their own methods of peer-reviewing of their discoveries based on observation, calculation etc. rather than a bunch of quacks making claims without evidence then no, no scientists have ever claimed the world was flat.


Evolution has been observed and measured endlessly. From Darwin discovering different shell shapes on Galapagos turtles (go read the hows and whys of just this single thing) there's more observation and testing of evolution than you could read in ten lifetimes. I've already posted examples of all this for you yet you continue to make the same arguments.

Once we've dealt with evolution we can start on quantum mechanics.

[Kirkland Laing]

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

Over the centuries religion has done everything it could to supress science and scientific discoveries that conflicted with their dogma. Check what happened to Gallileo Gallilei for instance. Science is constantly questioning itself every single day. Nothing in the scientific world has ever been rigourously proved or ever will be, but a great number of scientific theories have overwhelming evidence of proof, like evolution.

[El Kabong]

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

Over the centuries religion has done everything it could to supress science and scientific discoveries that conflicted with their dogma. Check what happened to Gallileo Gallilei for instance. Science is constantly questioning itself every single day. Nothing in the scientific world has ever been rigourously proved or ever will be, but a great number of scientific theories have overwhelming evidence of proof, like evolution.

Hey science has also fought science before just look at the history of medicine no religion to stop any progress there.

[pacfan]

I have no problem with the theory of evolution but the question is 'if' there indeed were evolution, what force lead those very simple elements to transform into very complex beings called humans. I think I can sit in front of a big pond with all necessary elements inside and watch it for billion years and still nothing would have happened unless there is some force that will lead them to evolve. This is common sense, there must be some force involved and it must be some guided force, or else it would clearly have been a haphazard sort of evolution, a messy one instead of perfectly symmetrical ones. This is what I call a life force. Now where this life force is coming from is what we are debating here, right? I think there must be this sort of a central nerve center where these forces come from and where they are guided from. So what or Who can it be. Some deny its existence, some call it a universal mind, while the rest says it's God. The problem with us humans is that we tend to mold God's image with how our very limited mind can imagine. If there was God, He will naturally be someone so complex that he would be way beyond our imagination and comprehension. I guess that's why our mind still can't grasp Him, or else there will be none of this debate, right? Think about it, folks. The problem with some of our science guys is that they tend to think only from a fixed point of view; you got to 'think out of the box' sometimes, so to speak, to see the whole truth. Keep your minds open folks, keep 'em open.

[pacfan]

I have no problem with the theory of evolution but the question is 'if' there indeed were evolution, what force lead those very simple elements to transform into very complex beings called humans.

I think I can sit in front of a big pond with all necessary elements inside and watch it for billion years and still nothing would have happened unless there is some force that will lead them to evolve. This is common sense, there must be some force involved and it must be some guided force, or else it would clearly have been a haphazard sort of evolution, a messy one instead of perfectly symmetrical ones.

This is what I call a life force. Now where this life force is coming from is what we are debating here, right? I think there must be this sort of a central nerve center where these forces come from and where they are guided from. So what or Who can it be. Some deny its existence, some call it a universal mind, while the rest says it's God. The problem with us humans is that we tend to mold God's image with how our very limited mind can imagine. If there was God, He will naturally be someone so complex that he would be way beyond our imagination and comprehension. I guess that's why our mind still can't grasp Him, or else there will be none of this debate, right? Think about it, folks. The problem with some of our science guys is that they tend to think only from a fixed point of view; you got to 'think out of the box' sometimes, so to speak, to see the whole truth. Keep your minds open folks, keep 'em open.

Talking of coincidence, about a week I wrote the above post, the local newspaper Manila Bulletin came with this daily devotional guide:

http://www.mb.com.ph/archive_pages.p...430123218.html

part of which quoted Genesis 1:2,

'...the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, bringing order out of chaos.'

This is exactly what I was trying to say there on that underlined section of that post. I wrote that without knowing anything about that Bible verse. Actually I've never been that religious and never read the Bible, the book itself I mean. All my religious activity is limited to reading religious article almost exclusively from that newspaper which I subscribe to. The daily guide only features the New Testament parts but the description sections sometimes quote from other parts of the Bible as shown in the link.

This is a good example of what I've been saying, that Bible shouldn't be taken literally. The description 'bringing order out of chaos' IMO means that nature as we see it now wouldn't have formed or evolved in such an intricately precise manner by just leaving it to nature or by some haphazard trial-and-error method as the evolutionalist would want us to believe, but instead must have formed by some guided force I talked about on the above post.

[Andre]

I have no problem with the theory of evolution but the question is 'if' there indeed were evolution, what force lead those very simple elements to transform into very complex beings called humans.

I think I can sit in front of a big pond with all necessary elements inside and watch it for billion years and still nothing would have happened unless there is some force that will lead them to evolve. This is common sense, there must be some force involved and it must be some guided force, or else it would clearly have been a haphazard sort of evolution, a messy one instead of perfectly symmetrical ones.

This is what I call a life force. Now where this life force is coming from is what we are debating here, right? I think there must be this sort of a central nerve center where these forces come from and where they are guided from. So what or Who can it be. Some deny its existence, some call it a universal mind, while the rest says it's God. The problem with us humans is that we tend to mold God's image with how our very limited mind can imagine. If there was God, He will naturally be someone so complex that he would be way beyond our imagination and comprehension. I guess that's why our mind still can't grasp Him, or else there will be none of this debate, right? Think about it, folks. The problem with some of our science guys is that they tend to think only from a fixed point of view; you got to 'think out of the box' sometimes, so to speak, to see the whole truth. Keep your minds open folks, keep 'em open.

Talking of coincidence, about a week I wrote the above post, the local newspaper Manila Bulletin came with this daily devotional guide:

http://www.mb.com.ph/archive_pages.p...430123218.html

part of which quoted Genesis 1:2,

'...the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, bringing order out of chaos.'

This is exactly what I was trying to say there on that underlined section of that post. I wrote that without knowing anything about that Bible verse. Actually I've never been that religious and never read the Bible, the book itself I mean. All my religious activity is limited to reading religious article almost exclusively from that newspaper which I subscribe to. The daily guide only features the New Testament parts but the description sections sometimes quote from other parts of the Bible as shown in the link.

This is a good example of what I've been saying, that Bible shouldn't be taken literally. The description 'bringing order out of chaos' IMO means that nature as we see it now wouldn't have formed or evolved in such an intricately precise manner by just leaving it to nature or by some haphazard trial-and-error method as the evolutionalist would want us to believe, but instead must have formed by some guided force I talked about on the above post.

If you read the bible From Aramaic straight into English (the preceeding launguage to Hebrew or Greek) it makes alot more sence with its deeper meanings.
You have to know the immediate areas intimate history too if you are to try and take things literally.

"I shall come as a thief in the night" literally from the times means I shall be banging and crashing cymbols and swords with torches held high in the sky and you will hear me comming for a long time before my arrival.
That is how thieves used to come in the night through the desert in those times.

It has come through from Aramaic to Hebrew, Greek,latin,German into English. If you think 4 languages of translation cant change some things.... then Lyle has a massive Southern Bridge he wants to sell you.

Much of the original information on creation of Earth and its many different forms of humans and time structures was written in Summarian picture form and hiroglyphs prior to any sscript writing too.

[pacfan]

I have no problem with the theory of evolution but the question is 'if' there indeed were evolution, what force lead those very simple elements to transform into very complex beings called humans.

I think I can sit in front of a big pond with all necessary elements inside and watch it for billion years and still nothing would have happened unless there is some force that will lead them to evolve. This is common sense, there must be some force involved and it must be some guided force, or else it would clearly have been a haphazard sort of evolution, a messy one instead of perfectly symmetrical ones.

This is what I call a life force. Now where this life force is coming from is what we are debating here, right? I think there must be this sort of a central nerve center where these forces come from and where they are guided from. So what or Who can it be. Some deny its existence, some call it a universal mind, while the rest says it's God. The problem with us humans is that we tend to mold God's image with how our very limited mind can imagine. If there was God, He will naturally be someone so complex that he would be way beyond our imagination and comprehension. I guess that's why our mind still can't grasp Him, or else there will be none of this debate, right? Think about it, folks. The problem with some of our science guys is that they tend to think only from a fixed point of view; you got to 'think out of the box' sometimes, so to speak, to see the whole truth. Keep your minds open folks, keep 'em open.

Talking of coincidence, about a week I wrote the above post, the local newspaper Manila Bulletin came with this daily devotional guide:

http://www.mb.com.ph/archive_pages.p...430123218.html

part of which quoted Genesis 1:2,

'...the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, bringing order out of chaos.'

This is exactly what I was trying to say there on that underlined section of that post. I wrote that without knowing anything about that Bible verse. Actually I've never been that religious and never read the Bible, the book itself I mean. All my religious activity is limited to reading religious article almost exclusively from that newspaper which I subscribe to. The daily guide only features the New Testament parts but the description sections sometimes quote from other parts of the Bible as shown in the link.

This is a good example of what I've been saying, that Bible shouldn't be taken literally. The description 'bringing order out of chaos' IMO means that nature as we see it now wouldn't have formed or evolved in such an intricately precise manner by just leaving it to nature or by some haphazard trial-and-error method as the evolutionalist would want us to believe, but instead must have formed by some guided force I talked about on the above post.

If you read the bible From Aramaic straight into English (the preceeding launguage to Hebrew or Greek) it makes alot more sence with its deeper meanings.
You have to know the immediate areas intimate history too if you are to try and take things literally.

"I shall come as a thief in the night" literally from the times means I shall be banging and crashing cymbols and swords with torches held high in the sky and you will hear me comming for a long time before my arrival.
That is how thieves used to come in the night through the desert in those times.

It has come through from Aramaic to Hebrew, Greek,latin,German into English. If you think 4 languages of translation cant change some things.... then Lyle has a massive Southern Bridge he wants to sell you.

Much of the original information on creation of Earth and its many different forms of humans and time structures was written in Summarian picture form and hiroglyphs prior to any sscript writing too.

Very interesting about different languages. I wish I had the time and the luxury to study them. I think the Revelations chapter would be an excellent one to study deeply because it is wrought with full of sybolism and I believe it is about the future. If anyone can interpret that correctly, I think we will know what's ahead.

This is an excellent thread, Andre; just wish I had more time. I'd be talking about your post yesterday, there at few blocks back, about cycles, waves etc., when I have time. I believe our world which is nothing more than an energy mass moves as a wave. Waves moves in cycles and that explains why certain things repeat themselves and why they come together. So there is no coincidence in this world, it's just a cycle.

[Andre]

Talking of coincidence, about a week I wrote the above post, the local newspaper Manila Bulletin came with this daily devotional guide:

http://www.mb.com.ph/archive_pages.p...430123218.html

part of which quoted Genesis 1:2,

'...the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, bringing order out of chaos.'

This is exactly what I was trying to say there on that underlined section of that post. I wrote that without knowing anything about that Bible verse. Actually I've never been that religious and never read the Bible, the book itself I mean. All my religious activity is limited to reading religious article almost exclusively from that newspaper which I subscribe to. The daily guide only features the New Testament parts but the description sections sometimes quote from other parts of the Bible as shown in the link.

This is a good example of what I've been saying, that Bible shouldn't be taken literally. The description 'bringing order out of chaos' IMO means that nature as we see it now wouldn't have formed or evolved in such an intricately precise manner by just leaving it to nature or by some haphazard trial-and-error method as the evolutionalist would want us to believe, but instead must have formed by some guided force I talked about on the above post.

If you read the bible From Aramaic straight into English (the preceeding launguage to Hebrew or Greek) it makes alot more sence with its deeper meanings.
You have to know the immediate areas intimate history too if you are to try and take things literally.

"I shall come as a thief in the night" literally from the times means I shall be banging and crashing cymbols and swords with torches held high in the sky and you will hear me comming for a long time before my arrival.
That is how thieves used to come in the night through the desert in those times.

It has come through from Aramaic to Hebrew, Greek,latin,German into English. If you think 4 languages of translation cant change some things.... then Lyle has a massive Southern Bridge he wants to sell you.

Much of the original information on creation of Earth and its many different forms of humans and time structures was written in Summarian picture form and hiroglyphs prior to any sscript writing too.

Very interesting about different languages. I wish I had the time and the luxury to study them. I think the Revelations chapter would be an excellent one to study deeply because it is wrought with full of sybolism and I believe it is about the future. If anyone can interpret that correctly, I think we will know what's ahead.

This is an excellent thread, Andre; just wish I had more time. I'd be talking about your post yesterday, there at few blocks back, about cycles, waves etc., when I have time. I believe our world which is nothing more than an energy mass moves as a wave. Waves moves in cycles and that explains why certain things repeat themselves and why they come together. So there is no coincidence in this world, it's just a cycle.

I think the cycle is about to reverse and we are about head back and shake off all what we have humanly built this up to be. The universe is in a situation soon that will have us plummenting out of a very fast turn.
Its taken thousands of years on this slow arc to get to here and its been painful. Now we are in the tighter part of and end curve (THE quikening); After we will head back and it will be joyful. Watch for many mentally falling off on the tightest part of the curve though!