Finally saw "The Passion of the Christ"...

[JackC 0]

Quote

The fact that it had some features in common with reptiles means simply that it had some features in common with reptiles ? not that it evolved.

That still doesn't mean Goddidit. There's plenty of evidence for evolution but you say it isn't enough, yet you are quite happy with the idea of creation even though there is precisely zero evidence for that. Pajarito, this is a serious question and I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to answer. Is there any evidence, even in principle, that would make you change your mind?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Adaptation to one's environment is not at all the same thing as changing into another species altogether. There?s not evidence to support that?anywhere.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).


Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).


Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:


Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are


the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001).
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

Quote

Giving credit to a "higher being" for the ability to think rationally and having to suspend rational thought in order to believe in the higher being seems ironic.

Your assumption of having to suspend rational thought in order to believe in God has no basis.

all religions are cults. Cults use coercive mind control techniques to get adherents to their respective faiths to "believe" what they are told to believe. Wh at is the definition of a cult? See below, unless you are too afraid of burning in HELL for doubting your astro-theology myth book that you call a bible.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

blind faith is the most absolute and perfect example of the suspension of rational thought in existence on this planet. the simple fact that a bible thumper constantly refuses to look at information(factual and provable) that contradicts what their religion tells them from the time they were babies is proof that religion is MIND-CONTROL

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[Luv2Fall 0]

I haven't watched it yet, but it's on the top of my list of movies to watch.

[pajarito 0]

I'm at work and can't reply right now with much at all. However, in the few moments that I have, I'd just like to ask what in life has pissed you off so bad. Don't tell me it's religion or Christianity. I don't buy that. It sounds like something has been eating at you for a long time. Dude... Chill. The sun will rise tomorrow. Well....... Maybe.

[billvon 2,470]

>you'd think there would be fossil evidence of millions of transitional
>forms. It's just not there.

?? So are those millions of fossils we find in fossil beds fakes planted by God? Are the transitional forms between land mammals and whales faked? The transitional forms between reptile and bird? The transitional forms from jawless fish to bony fish? From bony fish to amphibians? From reptiles to mammals?

In the interests of brevity, I'll list only the transitional forms found so far between reptiles and mammals:

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian)
Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian)
Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian)
Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian)
Varanops (early Permian)
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian)
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, 270 Ma)
Biarmosuchia (late Permian)
Procynosuchus (latest Permian)
Dvinia (latest Permian)
Thrinaxodon (early Triassic)
Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma)
Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma)
Probelesodon (mid-Triassic)
Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma)
Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239 Ma)
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma)
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma)
Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma)
Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma)
Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma)
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma)
Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma)
Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma)
Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous)
Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous)
Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma)
Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma)
Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous)
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (very late Cretaceous)

Would take a very sneaky God indeed to plant all those fossils to mess with our minds.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Would take a very sneaky God indeed to plant all those fossils to mess with our minds.

Yes, it would. But my understanding is that God is a damn sneaky little fellow.

(And let me apologize now to all of the Christians that I just insulted. I can be a real asshole sometimes. Please forgive me... )

[pajarito 0]

Quote

?? So are those millions of fossils we find in fossil beds fakes planted by God?

No...I don't think fossils are fakes planted by God.

Quote

Are the transitional forms between land mammals and whales faked? The transitional forms between reptile and bird? The transitional forms from jawless fish to bony fish? From bony fish to amphibians? From reptiles to mammals?

Could it be that they're not "transitional" forms?

Quote

Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, was asked why he had included no transitional forms in his book on evolution. He replied:

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

Dr Colin Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April, 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, 1984, p.89.

Refutation of Boyce Rensberger’s anti-creationist Washington Post article
‘How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution’, Jan. 8, 1997.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

The fact that it had some features in common with reptiles means simply that it had some features in common with reptiles? not that it evolved.

Quote

That still doesn't mean Goddidit.

I agree. That in and of itself does not prove God.

Quote

There's plenty of evidence for evolution

That is where I disagree.

Quote

yet you are quite happy with the idea of creation even though there is precisely zero evidence for that.

Jesus Christ defeated death, proved his own divinity, and testified to the validity of the early Jewish records which included Genesis and the creation account.

Quote

Pajarito, this is a serious question and I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to answer. Is there any evidence, even in principle, that would make you change your mind?

About what? That Evolution (natural selection) is the answer? I don't think there's evidence to support that. I don't think there will be evidence to support it. Science does not trump the Bible. It supports and validates it.

• Quote

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

There's plenty of evidence for evolution

That is where I disagree.

You disagree with "plenty" or "evidence"? How much more evidence do you want? Can you provide any evidence at all for creation?

Quote

Jesus Christ defeated death, proved his own divinity, and testified to the validity of the early Jewish records which included Genesis and the creation account.

According to your 2000 year old book. There is no way you can check the truth of this hearsay, not even in principle. With evolution you can at least check the available facts to see if they fit with the theory, virtually all scientists think they do.

Quote

About what? That Evolution (natural selection) is the answer? I don't think there's evidence to support that. I don't think there will be evidence to support it. Science does not trump the Bible. It supports and validates it.

At least there is evidence for evolution, there isn't for creation. The points in the bible that can be checked are found to be false; the main point (God) isn't even a coherent concept.

Science definately trumps superstition, more often than not it proves superstition to be complete gibberish. If you think science supports and validates the bible, you should stop getting your science(fiction) from creationist websites and start reading the real thing. I somehow doubt that you will do that though.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Science definately trumps superstition, more often than not it proves superstition to be complete gibberish. If you think science supports and validates the bible, you should stop getting your science(fiction) from creationist websites and start reading the real thing. I somehow doubt that you will do that though.

The Bible and Earth's Free-float in Space
At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). Science didn't discover that the earth hangs upon nothing until 1650.

The Scriptures Speak of an Invisible Structure
Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of things that we cannot see invisible atoms. In Hebrews 11:3, written 2,000 years ago, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The Bible Reveals that the Earth is Round
The Scriptures tell us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated "circuit" or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched; not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 B.C. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere. It was another 2,000 years later (at a time when science believed that the earth was flat) that the Scriptures inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.

The Bible and the Science of Oceanography
Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, "If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them." Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.

The Bible and Radio Waves
God asked Job a very strange question in 1500 B.C. He asked, "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). This appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that all electromagnetic radiation from radio waves to x-rays travels at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. The fact that light could be sent and then manifest itself in speech wasn't discovered by science until 1864 (3,300 years later), when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

The Bible and Entropy
Three different places in the Bible (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25,26; and Hebrews 1:11) indicate that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increasing Entropy) states: that in all physical processes, every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. Everything is running down and wearing out as energy is becoming less and less available for use. That means the universe will eventually "wear out" to the extent that (theoretically speaking) there will be a "heat death" and therefore no more energy available for use. This wasn't discovered by science until recently, but the Bible states it in concise terms.

The Bible and the Water Cycle
The Scriptures inform us, "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7). This statement alone may not seem profound. But, when considered with other biblical passages, it becomes all the more remarkable. For example, the Mississippi River dumps approximately 518 billion gallons of water every 24 hours into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? And that’s just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, so well brought out in the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 11:3 states that "if the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth." Look at the Bible's concise words in Amos 9:6: "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth." The idea of a complete water cycle was not fully understood by science until the seventeenth century. However, more than two thousand years prior to the discoveries of Pierre Perrault, Edme Mariotte, Edmund Halley, and others, the Scriptures clearly spoke of a water cycle.

The Bible and the First Law of Thermodynamics
The Scriptures say, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Genesis 2:1). The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" � once and for all. That is exactly what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law (often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass) states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed.

It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle's "Steady-State" (or "Continuous Creation") Theory was discarded. Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called "irtrons," matter (or energy) was constantly being created. But, the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.

The Bible and Ship Dimensions
In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the 1.5 million cubic foot ark he was to build. In 1609 at Hoorn in Holland, a ship was built after that same pattern (30:5:3), revolutionizing ship-building. By 1900 every large ship on the high seas was inclined toward the proportions of the ark (verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping" in the World Almanac).

The Bible and Meteorological Laws
The Scriptures describe a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them: "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6). We now know that air around the earth turns in huge circles, clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other.

The Bible and Science
"In antiquity and in what is called the Dark Ages, men did not know what they now know about humanity and the cosmos. They did not know the lock but they possessed they key, which is God. Now many have excellent descriptions of the lock, but they have lost the key. The proper solution is union between religion and science. We should be owners of the lock and the key. The fact is that as science advances, it discovers what was said thousands of years ago in the Bible." Richard Wurmbrand, Proofs of God's Existence

[narcimund 0]

Not to mention:

The Bible and Cell Phones
The Scriptures, revealed to man through divine inspiration direct from God, but without any wired connections between God and man, anticipated the cellphone more than 4000 years before Nokia or ATT Wireless were founded. As well, the voice of God emanating from the burning bush is a clear precurser to the downloadable ringtone.

The Bible and Aerodynamic Engineering
Men such as Wilbur and Orville Wright took sinful pride in their accomplishments, but God himself inspired the technology of flight in Genesis 1:20 "And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.'" In fact, the proper reading of this passage is that the 'birds' referred to were in fact Cessna 182s full of skydivers. Of course this was 6000 years ago and freefly wasn't invented yet so we can be sure they were bellyflyers.

The Scriptures and Wholesome Summer Family Sports
As we all know, Jesus is said to have walked on water. This is just one of the many miracles by which we know his godliness. However, now we know that the true miracle was Jesus' invention of water skiing so now anyone can be God!

The Bible and Laser Eye Surgery
Acts, chapter 9 depicts the Conversion of Saul. On his way to Damascus he was blinded by a great light. Ananias, the first eye surgeon, waves his hands (which we should understand to be early computer-guided wavefront laser devices) and restores Saul's sight. It wasn't until 1992 when science finally correctly read the blueprints encoded in Scripture and began performing the same surgeries again.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[JackC 0]

Pajarito, I'll say it again just so it's clear, pretty please, with sugar on top, STOP GETTING YOUR SCIENCE(FICTION) FROM CEATIONIST WEBSITES AND START READING THE REAL THING!!!

To make that list work, you not only have to misinterpret the science it uses but also redefine big chunks the English language. I really worries me that people actually take this stuff seriously.

[StreetScooby 5]

The church vs. scientists was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,470]

>Could it be that they're not "transitional" forms?

Well, I listed 30 transitional forms between reptiles and mammals above. Each is a transitional form by definition, in that it shares some features of the fossils before it and after it.

There will never be a complete fossil record (which is a very good thing once you think about it) and thus there will always be gaps in the record. But saying "This fossil has four molars, and this fossil has six molars! Since there's no fossil with five molars, there's a missing link that couldn't possibly happen naturally! Take that, silly evolutionists!" isn't a very valid position to take.

If a reasonable person knew dogs had been bred from wolves into shapes ranging from great danes to chihuahuas, then saw a new dog that looked like a cross between a collie, a beagle and a german sheperd, he would likely assume that it was a new breed that came from existing dogs, not a new animal created by God - even if he could not find the beagle/collie ancestor. I think strict creationists would make such an assumption, and assume the 'missing link' really existed.

>Dr Colin Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April, 1979 . . .

And thousands of such transitional fossils have been found since then. Relying on science to stand still to buttress a religious belief is a losing proposition.

[stevebabin 0]

You're welcome!
Steve

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

Quote

Who really saw Jesus walking, stumbling with the weight of the cross on his back??? It's all playing with emotions and the phantasy of folks. Show me a proof.

Brian did !!!!!

brian did not!!!!!!!!! the truth about the origins of all religionsssssssssssssssss, can be accessed at the link below

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

>Could it be that they're not "transitional" forms?

Well, I listed 30 transitional forms between reptiles and mammals above. Each is a transitional form by definition, in that it shares some features of the fossils before it and after it.

There will never be a complete fossil record (which is a very good thing once you think about it) and thus there will always be gaps in the record. But saying "This fossil has four molars, and this fossil has six molars! Since there's no fossil with five molars, there's a missing link that couldn't possibly happen naturally! Take that, silly evolutionists!" isn't a very valid position to take.

If a reasonable person knew dogs had been bred from wolves into shapes ranging from great danes to chihuahuas, then saw a new dog that looked like a cross between a collie, a beagle and a german sheperd, he would likely assume that it was a new breed that came from existing dogs, not a new animal created by God - even if he could not find the beagle/collie ancestor. I think strict creationists would make such an assumption, and assume the 'missing link' really existed.

>Dr Colin Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April, 1979 . . .

And thousands of such transitional fossils have been found since then. Relying on science to stand still to buttress a religious belief is a losing proposition.

"[email]Spirit and science are humanity's two grand approaches to The Truth. Both are searching for the truth about us and our universe; both seeking answers to the Great Questions. THEY ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN."
I am I doesn't know who said it, but it came out of a book titled "What the Bleep do we know-Down the Rabbit Hole". one thing that stands out is this-- nowhere in that statement do you see the word 'religion'. the bible is the foundation of a 'religion' that forbids spirit or science. a bible-thumper friend of mine's father will adamantly tell you all that spirit-ism is SATANISM. not!!!!!!!

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish