Welcome to Gaia! ::

Alright, I'm not really going to debate every little thing you said, because that is just nit-picking at this point.

I am a science student, whether I sound it or not. However, I do see your point about "theories". I believe that could have it's own forum topic, but at this point, it's not that important.

About science changing and religion not, you said exactly my point. Science changes when it is flawed. What is to say it's not flawed now and will change again? Do you believe in something you know is flawed?

Just as much as the Bible has not changed, the books trying to explain the Bible have. There are thousands of books that try to interpret the Bible, and, yes, honestly, sometimes they are flawed. But, no one has ever found a fundamental flaw in the Bible that can be proven. Simply saying that Jesus did not exist and was not a virgin-born child is not enough to disprove that He existed. No one has ever found the body of a man that could be Jesus, so He could or could not have existed.

First off, the book I will be using is actually a compilation of facts already organized by someone else. The book is called "Creation by Design" by Mark Eastman, M.D. with general editor Chuck Smith and is distributed by "The Word for Today" publishing. The web site is www.twft.com. If you go to this link, click on the "products" title on the top of the site, then search for "creation" and you'll see the book I'm talking about. However, this book uses (and sites) 25 other sources from science. I'll list them as I use them.

What would you like me to address first? I'll address some facts in another post, since this one is getting a little long.

Given that I'm more of a tech specialist, I shall have to bow to your knowledge. I know just about nothing about anything earlier than the 200s or so. I think that a large amount of things were possible way back before genetic diseases and all that. I mean, incest wasn't bad for you then, why should inter-species mating be? Not that I'm saying it happened, just that, especially if I decide to add God into this, why shouldn't the genetic gap be bypassed and create a whole new creature?

Just remember that laws almost always include numbers and a relationship of some sort. Obviously, there is no such thing as a biological law.


Let me answer this by telling you a very simple fact: I have not voted on the above survey.

I do not know if evolution will be proven wrong. It's perfectly possible, in which case I will embrace the change to a more accurate hypothesis. However, given the amount of evidence in its favor I choose to believe in it at the time being over any opposing hypothesis that do not hold nearly as much evidence.

Science changes when it is flawed. It does this so it will remain as "correct" as possible. Religion does not. Thus, what is to say that religion is not flawed? In fact, chances are that what you believe is much more wrong than what I believe simply because your belief hasn't changed in thousands of years and mine is constantly editing itself to fit with modern discoveries.


No flaws in the Bible? lol Surely you jest?

I can think of several off the top of my head. But that's another discussion, I suppose.



Go ahead.

Real quick, though: What's the publishing date?

The first organism that would qualify as a "eukaryote" was born from a parent very very close to being a eukaryote. In fact, we probably would have considered its ancestors from aeons ago to have been mutated eukaryotes, since we are probably not sophisticated enough to see the difference.


I'm afraid I'm going to need you to give me some context here. What are you talking about?


Excuse my illiteracy, but what on earth is a "se"?

Let me try to explain this again. First of all, as far as I know there is no such thing as a sexually reproducing single-celled organism. I believe that only multi-cellular organisms can perform sex. Please correct me if I'm wrong, which is perfectly possible.

Second of all, the first thing that we would have considered "sex" only came after a very long line of ancestors that exchanged genes in a very sex-like and symbiotic manner. After millions of years of slowly widening this trait of containing slightly different genetic makeups and then mixing them with each other, different sexes came about and with it sex.

I don't think I'm making myself clear. Sex didn't come about as a reslt of a single mutation from one generation to another. Sex only ocurred after millions of years of that branch of the tree using a sex-like mechanism to mix genes between each other for more diverse offspring.


Now here, I would normally just retort with something along the lines of,"Talk with any math professor who knows what they're talking about and they will tell you that the probability of an invisible, all-powerful man coming out of nowhere and creating everything in seven days and he will tell you that it is highly improbable."

But since you're obviously trying, I'll try to remain on the defensive for once.

I would like to see a paper done by a collaboration of scientists that shows me the probability of eukaryotes being developed and how long it would take. But since something like that is nearly impossible to figure out, I think you'll be searching the internet for awhile.

Until then, I think I can rest my case by telling you that dogs have only been bred for around 10,000 years. Look at their variety. Life has been around about 250,000 times that.


Because a very large amount of evidence for it has been observed. For instance, what you refer to as "micro-evolution".


Au contraire, there actually are mechanisms in cellular reproduction and meiosis that encourage a small amount of mistakes and therefore a wider variety of genetic code.

I don't see how mutations would help the body fight cancer, though. confused Care to explain?

The first organism that would qualify as a "eukaryote" was born from a parent very very close to being a eukaryote. In fact, we probably would have considered its ancestors from aeons ago to have been mutated eukaryotes, since we are probably not sophisticated enough to see the difference.


I'm afraid I'm going to need you to give me some context here. What are you talking about?


Excuse my illiteracy, but what on earth is a "se"?

Let me try to explain this again. First of all, as far as I know there is no such thing as a sexually reproducing single-celled organism. I believe that only multi-cellular organisms can perform sex. Please correct me if I'm wrong, which is perfectly possible.

Second of all, the first thing that we would have considered "sex" only came after a very long line of ancestors that exchanged genes in a very sex-like and symbiotic manner. After millions of years of slowly widening this trait of containing slightly different genetic makeups and then mixing them with each other, different sexes came about and with it sex.

I don't think I'm making myself clear. Sex didn't come about as a reslt of a single mutation from one generation to another. Sex only ocurred after millions of years of that branch of the tree using a sex-like mechanism to mix genes between each other for more diverse offspring.


Now here, I would normally just retort with something along the lines of,"Talk with any math professor who knows what they're talking about and they will tell you that the probability of an invisible, all-powerful man coming out of nowhere and creating everything in seven days and he will tell you that it is highly improbable."

But since you're obviously trying, I'll try to remain on the defensive for once.

I would like to see a paper done by a collaboration of scientists that shows me the probability of eukaryotes being developed and how long it would take. But since something like that is nearly impossible to figure out, I think you'll be searching the internet for awhile.

Until then, I think I can rest my case by telling you that dogs have only been bred for around 10,000 years. Look at their variety. Life has been around about 250,000 times that.


Because a very large amount of evidence for it has been observed. For instance, what you refer to as "micro-evolution".


Au contraire, there actually are mechanisms in cellular reproduction and meiosis that encourage a small amount of mistakes and therefore a wider variety of genetic code.

I don't see how mutations would help the body fight cancer, though. confused Care to explain?

im not saying christians should not be able to think about the bible logicly, im saying you should use the information in the bible given to you to think about it but shouldn't add any thing that was not there in the first place/
for example ive talked to people who believe that the "7days" took "millions and billions of years" the bible said that God created the world in seven 24 hour days this i believe is true. cuz if i ask you how was your day yesterday, does that mean how was your last 1000 or 100000000 or 1000000000 years?

Ok, there has been a bunch of stuff posted abouve me, so this may seem a bit out of sequence, but I will address the current topic as best as I can.

First, the publishing date for the book I read is 1996.

About the Bible being flawed:
I never said there weren't little grammatical flaws or number issues (yes, I know about those). Look at my post, I specifically said there has been no FUNDAMENTAL flaws found. Has anyone found specific proof that the story of Jesus could be false? We know that crucifiction did exist. We know that Pilot and Ceasar August (first and all subsequent ones mentioned in the Bible) existed, along with several of the other names and places mentioned during the story.

Dog Breeds:
What is this subspecies of dog you are speaking of? Can you give me the name, so I can look it up?

Also, I knew you were going to bring up Mules and Ligers. Horses and Donkeys are the same genus, yes? I don't remember the name, but if you could give it to me please.

Tigers and Lions are the same genus as well, yes? They are both a part of the cat family.

Where is the cross between a Lion and a Horse?

Where is the cross between the monkey and the human? I mean a living organism. If the "missing link" was a step up from a monkey, why do monkies exist now and not the "missing link"?

Verse:
I mean no offense to you with that verse. Only that when you "scoff" at the Bible and will not, under any circumstances, accept it to be possible, you will never find the proof you need. Even if the tribulation were to begin now, you might not believe despite all the facts you have. You believe with your heart not your head, to use a cliche example.