Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't think that any Christian has the right to say that someone who does something in particular can not be a Christian. All Christians are human, and no human is perfect.

We send missionaries to prisons to convert murderers, rapists, child-molesters, and the like, yet so many Christians have the nerve to tell homosexuals that they are going to Hell. PISS ON THAT!

I don't begrudge prisoners finding Jesus, God knows they need it. But Christianity is about love and acceptance, and so many are so hung up on homosexuality, which actually doesn't hurt anyone, that we miss the big picture!

It is God's job to tell people what is right and what is wrong! It is a Christian's job to LOVE and Accept people for who they are, and be there when they need support. It is a Christian's job to care for those who are in need, not to finger-point and condemn.

Christians that read this need to think about it. There is something you do that would not be considered right by the people in your congregation. If you don't exactly feel it is wrong for you to do, but you keep it a secret because you are afraid of what others may think, then you are just as likely to go to hell as the Homosexuals are, by most Christians' standards. In my opinion homosexuals are more likely to go to Heaven because they are at least being honest.

Maybe your hang-up is porn, or gossip, or even smoking (these are only by select Christian standards, not my own). All three of these things hurt more people than Homosexuality. Porn because of the slavery, depravity, and violence it perpetuates. Gossip because of the devastating effect it has on the person being talked about. Smoking because second hand smoke is arguably more hazardous than first-hand smoke. rolleyes

Any of these offenses are more damaging to people than homosexuality, but I never hear people telling others to stop gossiping or you are going to hell. Yet I know of a girl who killed herself when people started talking about her, and she was humiliated.

OK 3nodding

I finally found something online that relates to something I learned in school about "day" possibly being misinterpreted in Genesis.

"Day" might should have been translated as "Age"

Long story short, the Hebrew letter Yod can have a couple of different pronunciations, and depending on how you pronounce it in the given word for "day", it could change said word to "Aeon", or "Eon" (meaning "Age").

So, for those of you who go by taking the Bible literally, you aren't taking it literally enough. You need to go back to the original texts, and study the transliteration of each word to get it literal enough. Even then, no one will be able to agree 100% on how each word should be interpreted.

wink GOOD LUCK!

I think you may have it backwards, with micro and macro- Micro meaning small, macro meaning large. But I'll go with your terminology since I'm too lazy to look it up.

You say that macro evolution just makes small changes to creatures. Fine. Now stack those small changes over millions of years. That fin turns in to a rudder that turns into a webbed foot that turns into a leg. Because this smaller scale evolution exists, we know that large scale evolution must exist- It is simply the result of that process happening over millions of years.

Again, take the micro-evolution of the wolf. Look at the shitzu. That was 20,000 years of change. Imagine 1 million. You think it's going to be the same species?

I do not feel that actual physical evidence is necessary- It's a lot harder to produce than you would think. I mean, assuming that you don't take vestigial organs and bone structures into account. Like human tails. Like whale leg bones. Even then, you believe in gravitational theory, correct? Now, using any tools you have, or any you can imagine, prove that gravity exists. No, dropping something proves nothing to me as shown earlier- I believe that it's just because the pencil is heavier than the air and that there is NO relation to the mass of the planet. Prove me wrong. I seriously want to see you do it- It will demonstrate the difficulty in proving any scientific theory, even the most basic. That's a theory that doesn't even require finding rare, easily missed, easily destroyed, million year old fossil records.

By the way, what sort of fossil are you looking for? You do realize that the changes are all extremely gradual and had to allow for survival of the species, right? You're not going to find a fish with an arm sticking out of it's side, or a lizard with wings.

Yes. a play by play of what might have happened. One which is based on knowledge of several things- The age of the older species (millions of years) the knowledge of small changes over time (micro evolution), remnants of structures no longer of use to an organism (vestigial parts) and a fairly linear progression between fossil records.

But you jumped over mine to get there- Can a shitzu breed with a wolf and provide offspring that can breed? (To be of the same species, this must be true- the offspring must be able to breed. That's why mules and horses are different, even though they can breed to make sterile donkeys. Or maybe it's the mules that are sterile. Either way, same idea) Even if it can NOW, (which frankly, I doubt) the vast changes that have occurred have done so within only 20,000 years at the most. Imagine 500 more equivalent changes- Do you think wolves and the new shitzu will be able to breed still?

No, gravity is not "proven", it's accepted as the current theory. This is what I am trying to demonstrate- I am trying to make you think critically about what you consider to be a true scientific "fact". Just because you read it in your textbook doesn't make it true- Or so it is with evolution, am I right? So if a scientific theory can be wrong, then I am challenging gravity. In the same way I "accept" evolution, you "accept" gravity.


Then prove it. Go ahead. Prove it to me right now. Demonstrate it. I want a gravity demonstration that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we stay on the ground because of the mass of the planet we are on. If we are to accept only theories that we can test in our daily lives and see with our own eyes, then I would like you to prove to me that gravity is real.

Keep in mind, this is with fossils. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a fossil? Let alone of a specific creature? It basically had to be dumb enough to fall into a tar pit or lucky enough to be buried in ice or sand or some other perfect environment and quickly mummified before it rotted. If it was exposed, or even buried incorrectly, it would simply disintegrate. The bones need to petrify, and that rarely just happens. Of course we haven't found a fossil. Imagine that you're looking for one diamond, but there's no serial number on any diamond and it can be in any diamond store or mine in the world, and it could have already been cut into some different shape, or be destroyed. That's basically what we're trying to do. Find that diamond.

Except that rats and dogs have existed a lot further back, and a fossil record that showed the transition several million years after the creation of rats and dogs would fail immediately. Again, see above, we don't have the fossils because you don't just stumble over them.

That's my point- A creature does not suddenly and massively hop from one creature to another. We will not see a fish with feet (amphibians) or a monkey with a human head (missing link) or a mouse with wings. (bats) It doesn't work that way. It's very gradual changes. It would go from fish to fish to fish to fish to fish to fish to fish with protruding fins (X) to X to X to X to X to X to X to fish with slightly larger fins (Y) to Y to Y to Y to Y to Y to Y to Y to Y to Y to Y to fish with slightly larger fins with cartalige for steering (Z) to Z to Z to Z to Z and so forth. Over a million years.

Evolution is as fact as gravity. That's the tie in. Now either prove gravity, or I don't need to "prove" evolution. The reason for this is thus- Evolution is the best theory with the most concrete evidence. So is gravity. Therefore, until a better, more complete theory comes up, it is as close to fact as we can get. That's why science goes by "theory" and not "fact".

I am not telling you to stop believing evolution. Yes I am aware of of how hard it is to find fossils. I am also aware of evolution as a plausible THEORY and I accept it as such. For people to preach it to me as Truth is what I disagree with.

Just because a fossil is incredible like 2 species does not make that fossil a link. Do you think the platypus is the missing link between a duck and a beaver.

And yes a wolf and shitzu could breed and have fertile babies. Wolves and Domestic dogs have 39 pairs of chromosomes. The problem would be size, as if a male wolf bred with the Shitzu, the momma would never survive because of the size the puppies would grow. I don't see a male shitzu being capable of effectively mounting a female wolf.

Now I know a little bit about mules and hinnies. A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. A hinny is the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey. A horse has 32 pairs of chromosomes and donkeys have 31 pairs. It is true that there are no documented cases of male mules fathering offspring, but females are not always sterile. This happens because of the odd number of chromosomes. The differences in the 2 species are a functional difference. This only proves to me that there was macro-evolution involved somewhere down the line. It does not prove that they all evolved from a single-celled organism.

There are also what is called neutral genetic differences. This are the genetic differences that we have with Chimps. Our genetics look 94% to 98% similar to a chimpanzees. Yet we only have a minimal functional genetic compatibility. Humans have 23 pairs while chimps have 24 pairs. This proves to me that humanity is not related to chimpanzees.

I also know that rats and dogs go further back as well. I was offering up a possibility of what might happen to show what may have already happened. I seriously doubt the information we have today is going to survive in entirety a million years from now. So how in the hell is the million-years-future humans going to know how many breeds of dogs there were today as opposed to how many will exists then? Dogs may be extremely different then, but it won't mean they came from one organism millions of years ago. It just means they have adapted beyond our present recognition. It won't mean they aren't genetically dogs anymore, we may classify them as something else though.

Now I will stress again that these points are what I believe. The same information that proves micro-evolution as implausible for me may just solidify your belief. That is alright. I am not trying to disprove evolution for everyone. I would just like to show why there is no grounds for someone who quotes the Scientific Theory of Evolution as the Truth against Creationism, when there is no material to prove we evolved from amoebas.

Seriously, if all humanity comes down to quoting a theory against a myth, then we are wasting allot of time that we could be devoting to something useful.

Gravity has been proven. You may not believe the mathematical equations or the experiments that they have done in space. Humanity can measure gravity on this and other planetary bodies. They have demonstrated how each body of mass exerts its own influence on gravitational fields. Yes, there is still allot of mystery surrounding the force of gravity, but that does not mean it is not proven.

I am ill-equipped to prove gravity as I am not a mathematician, or a physicist, but if you really wanted to see if it is real, it is not hard to find proof, and it's not sketchy theories that are based on half-truths and artists renditions either.

You're not seeing what I'm saying. The reason these mutations mean anything is because natural selection determines whether or not they survive to pass on those traits.

What you are describing is fitness (biological).

fitness
the relative ability of an organism to survive and transmit its genes to the next generation
Source: Jenkins, John B. 1990. Human Genetics, 2nd Edition. New York: Harper & Row

While natural selection implies fitness. Fitness does not necessarily imply natural selection since fitness is relative to ones environment. Now natural selection is unique in that it is the only mechanism of evolution that allows for adaptability but evolution is not about adaptability. Evolution is about changes in gene frequency in a population of a species.

But it isn't proven fact, so it should not be taught as proven truth, just the theory it is.



I seemed to have proven more of my argument than you have. All you continue to say is that you believe this and you refuse to believe that. To prove your point, you claim gravity is an unproven theory, but it has been proven through math and physics. I know a bit what I'm talking about, and you try to turn your ignorance of what I'm talking about into me not proving my points.

Again, I am not trying to argue you into not believing evolution. You go right ahead. I will continue to look into theories of how we got here, and I will believe God had a hand in it. I know that there is such thing as evolution with-in species, but I can't believe, and it has not been proven that one species completely evolves into another species.



It is not. As I already tried to explain to you, functional and neutral differences are key on whether a species is compatible to mate. A gene can have the same number of chromosomes, but there are not enough functional differences, nothing happens.



You were right that I had micro and macro backwards.

Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations.

Thank you for your correction. It has been 10 years since I debated evolution, and I suppose the one letter difference got jumbled.




Yeah, I was hoping you would jump on that one. The human gene is one pair off from chimps. That is 2 chromosomes. So, humans have 23 pair. Chimps have 24 pair. You know what else has 24 pair? Potatoes, Tobacco, and Deer mice, and Hares. Sable Antelopes and Reeve's Muntjacks have 23 pair. Does that mean there is definite proof that we are genetically evolved from those species? The point is there are no functional differences, they are neutral differences.



I still don't know what point you are trying to make. If there are only a couple of fossils left of rats and dogs, and they find an animal that looks to them a bit of both (now I used an exaggerated example, but it is just and example), then they are going to try to fit it in somewhere, if they are using the same methods as we do today.



This is where personal belief comes in. There is more proof in my eyes that life was a very sudden thing. Even if we did evolve from an amoeba, where did the amoeba come from? Already I have said that I can not give you proof that we were Created, but you have failed to site proof that we evolved from germs. I already accept the proven evidence of evolution within species, but I cannot accept the digression all the way back to single-cells.

I have read papers about core samples, and layer samples, about the very sudden appearance of life in those samples. I am not going through my library to find those books and papers, and I am not going to hunt them down and type them out. I am not going to quote from internet sites. If you were truly interested in examining more than just the possibility of evolution, you may do so yourself.



Basically, I was trying to point out the absurdity of people spending time on telling other people the are wrong when neither side has been proven. I don't say you are wrong, all I say is that I don't believe what you do.



Gravity is not an assumption anymore, it is a predictable and calculable science. Evolution within a species is proven beyond a doubt, but there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that we evolved from bacteria.

In fact, objective analysis shows how unlikely it is that we have evolved from bacteria. When a bacteria splits, it becomes another single celled organism, it doesn't become a binary-celled organism. Even with mutation, that bacteria wouldn't live long enough to propagate an entire new race of binary-celled organisms.



The evidence is not good enough for millions of people, that in and of itself is enough for me feel justified in being skeptical about it.



Since it is so hard to get evidence, then I feel you are justified in accepting it if you like, as I can not offer conclusive evidence that evolution is wrong.



How about this, since there is mathematical, scientific proof already that establishes gravity as an absolute, it would be more fair if you took time out of your day to disprove it.

If I saw true indisputable evidence that we did evolve from amoebas, then I would believe it, but then the next question would come. "Where did the amoebas come from?" Then I would need conclusive proof that they came from where you said they came from.

I am not here to tell you that you believe wrongly, I would like to see you accept the fact that not everyone needs to believe the same things you do.