bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Forum related how to's?  Post your questions to the membership.


.

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: A science debate  (Read 7426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Roy Martin

  • Guest
A science debate
« on: March 18, 2009, 05:15:28 PM »

It might not be true who the student is.

 

H

 

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

 

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

 

'Yes sir,' the student says.

 

'So you believe in God?'

 

'Absolutely.'

 

'Is God good?'

 

'Sure! God's good.'

 

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

 

'Yes.'

 

'Are you good or evil?'

 

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

 

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!'

 

He considers for a moment, 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

 

'Yes sir, I would.'

 

'So you're good!'

 

'I wouldn't say that..'

 

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

 

The student does not answer, so the professor continues...

 

'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

 

The student remains silent.

 

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

 

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

 

'Er...yes,' the student says.

 

'Is Satan good?'

 

The student doesn't hesitate on this one, 'No.'

 

'Then where does Satan come from?'

 

The student falters, 'From God.'

 

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

 

'Yes, sir...'

 

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

 

'Yes.'

 

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

 

Again, the student has no answer.

 

'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

 

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

 

'So who created them?'

 

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question, 'Who created them?'

 

There is still no answer.... Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

 

'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

 

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

 

The old man stops pacing, 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

 

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

 

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

 

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

 

'Yet you still believe in him?'

 

'Yes.'

 

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

 

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

 

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

 

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

 

'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

 

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

 

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

 

'No sir, there isn't..'

 

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet.

 

The student begins to explain...

 

'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

 

'Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

 

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

 

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

 

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

 

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

 

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

 

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

 

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time, 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

 

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains...

 

'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

 

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it....'

 

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

 

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

 

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

 

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

 

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

 

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

 

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room, 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

 

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

 

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

 

Now the room is silent.. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers, 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

 

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues, 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

 

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

 

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

 

The professor sat down.

 

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail it to your friends and family.

 

PS: The student was Albert Einstein.

 
 
   
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 05:17:39 PM by Roy Martin »
Logged

Patrick

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 672
Re: A science debate
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2009, 05:51:34 PM »

Do you believe all of that debate or do you see a contradiction?
Logged

aqrinc

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2009, 06:53:40 PM »


Both are using false premises to make as Ray say (square circles). It takes a whole lot more than
a cursory read to see why the 2 wrong premises do not equal truth or even good debate.

Read Ray's Nashville 2008 Conference papers; see if Scripture and Science contradict
or agree when even a little bit of good scholarship is mixed in.


http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9502.0.html

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,8385.0.html

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,8831.0.html

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9130.0.html

Yes, i have listened to the audios, watched the videos, now reading the transcripts
and studying the source material Ray used (Scripture and Science). Nothing easy about
learning new things, one analogy is (putting New wine in Old wineskins).


Luk 5: 36-39 (GNB)
36  Jesus also told them this parable: "You don't tear a piece off a new coat to patch up an old coat. If you do, you will have torn the new coat, and the piece of new cloth will not match the old.
37  Nor do you pour new wine into used wineskins, because the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will pour out, and the skins will be ruined.
38  Instead, new wine must be poured into fresh wineskins!
39  And you don't want new wine after drinking old wine. 'The old is better,' you say."

george. ;D

« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 07:00:29 PM by aqr »
Logged

musicman

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2009, 07:26:24 PM »

I'd bet that this is no more than an urban legend.  First off, it reads like a strawman analogy.  Second, I've heard it in another version, though less long winded.  And third, I didn't realize that Einstein attended church, because other than the realization that Satan came from God, he seems to be perfectly in line with churchianity 101.

By the way, is there a record of Einstein failing a science class?  Because this blow hard professor probably wouldn't enjoy that kind of challenge.


Logged

daywalker

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2009, 08:18:52 PM »

Sometimes, I wish I could go back to school, just to take Biology again.

Oh, the conversations me and Mr. Durand would have now...  :D :)


- Daywalker.
Logged

Stevernator

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2009, 11:06:20 PM »

I'd like to point out that well over 99% of biologists believe in evolution and that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Also, speciation has been observed. We have vestigal organs that dont really make sense like the appendix and we share similar anatomy to mammals (breastfeeding etc), the kingdom us humans are in. There is much evidence such as comparative anatomy, genetics, Many Christians do accept the widely held theory of evolution. You can go to youtube.com/donexodus2 or talkorigins.org to see some great information for the public. Also, the answer in the Bible according to Isa 45:7 is that the LORD creates evil.

Its really cool.
Check this out, its awesome! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M
Logged

Roy Coates

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2009, 11:57:16 PM »

I enjoyed the read. Entertainment. I picked up on the "square circles" too.
Logged

aqrinc

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2009, 01:10:07 AM »

I'd like to point out that well over 99% of biologists believe in evolution and that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Also, speciation has been observed. We have vestigal organs that dont really make sense like the appendix and we share similar anatomy to mammals (breastfeeding etc), the kingdom us humans are in. There is much evidence such as comparative anatomy, genetics, Many Christians do accept the widely held theory of evolution. You can go to youtube.com/donexodus2 or talkorigins.org to see some great information for the public. Also, the answer in the Bible according to Isa 45:7 is that the LORD creates evil.

Its really cool.
Check this out, its awesome! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M


The reason for shared DNA is that our Life forms (earth physical) all depend on a very narrow band
of life sustaining elements and compounds; three common (Carbon, Oxygen and Water).

Flesh and Blood is a common denominater with most life on Earth.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

DNA-RNA-Protein
Introduction
DNA carries the genetic information of a cell and consists of thousands of genes. Each gene serves as a recipe on how to build a protein molecule. Proteins perform important tasks for the cell functions or serve as building blocks. The flow of information from the genes determines the protein composition and thereby the functions of the cell.

The DNA is situated in the nucleus, organized into chromosomes. Every cell must contain the genetic information and the DNA is therefore duplicated before a cell divides (replication). When proteins are needed, the corresponding genes are transcribed into RNA (transcription). The RNA is first processed so that non-coding parts are removed (processing) and is then transported out of the nucleus (transport). Outside the nucleus, the proteins are built based upon the code in the RNA (translation).


george. ;D

Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2009, 12:12:52 PM »


Hi George,

Glad to have someone around to keep this scientific stuff straightened out for me.  With all that Ray keep has shown us and you coming along to tie up loose ends here, I'm really learning  8)

mercy, peace and love
Kat

Logged

aqrinc

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2009, 02:51:48 PM »


Hi Kat,

Just doing what The Lord Wills that i should do, GOD, Works A Strange Work in us indeed.

There is a whole lot there; just like Ray keeps saying in his papers. I see just a little bit now
why the sciences, have always been grabbing the majority of my non sleep time for decades.


Ray planted, we water; but GOD Gives The Increase. Living The Word daily.

To use a Scripture from Paul:

1Co 3: 6-10 (KJV)
6  I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7  So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8  Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9  For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10  According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

george. :)

Logged

daywalker

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2009, 03:04:29 PM »

I'd like to point out that well over 99% of biologists believe in evolution and that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Also, speciation has been observed. We have vestigal organs that dont really make sense like the appendix and we share similar anatomy to mammals (breastfeeding etc), the kingdom us humans are in. There is much evidence such as comparative anatomy, genetics, Many Christians do accept the widely held theory of evolution. You can go to youtube.com/donexodus2 or talkorigins.org to see some great information for the public. Also, the answer in the Bible according to Isa 45:7 is that the LORD creates evil.

Its really cool.
Check this out, its awesome! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M


When someone asks me if I believe in Evolution, my response is, "well, that would depend on what you mean by evolution. If you mean the basic or primary meaning, that things change--evolve over time, and people & animals, etc. adapt to their surroundings; then I say yes, I do believe that, and Science supports that. But if by evolution, you mean that humans evolved from monkeys or sea slime, and that the Universe somehow came into existence on its own, without a cause, then I say no. That's where Atheists are no different from the religious people whom they despise.  [...and by 'religious people', I am referring to the people who are part of the World Religions and Babylon. I don't consider myself a 'religious person' anymore.]

Amazingly, my interest in Science has actually grown since I came to BT. I'm kinda sad that I was so 'biased' back in my school days, because of my 'delusional doctrines'.

- Daywalker.
Logged

aqrinc

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2009, 03:24:06 PM »


And so it is; a word of caution to anyone who is doing research into matters Science. Even the good research and Scientists still have way too much Babylon ingrained in their training. Chief among their errors is: Mans Free Will, so don't get stumped when you run into this. When in doubt, use The Scriptures and Ray's papers as your measuring stick of Truth or heresy.

This is a time of rapid increase of knowledge, so be prepared for lots of catching up since your last textbook in school or after. Most books on Science written over ten to fifteen years ago need a healthy dose of revision.

The Scriptures; written many thousands of years ago, are still current Yesterday, Today and Going Forward.

Now that; you can take to The Bank Of GOD.


Joh 6:63 (DARBY)
It is the Spirit which quickens, the flesh profits nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life.
 

Heb 13:8 (DARBY)
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and to the ages to come .

george. :)


Logged

musicman

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2009, 04:01:16 PM »

I am somewhat convinced that animals can evolve away to a point where they may not be able to successfully mate.  The horse and zebra can under certain circumstances but their offspring are sterile.  This very well may link these animals.  The trees of evolution can be convincing but should be taken with a grain of salt.  It has been shown time and time again that homologous features are not necessarily due to similar DNA.  Often, certain functions for body parts are controlled by completely separate genes in different animals.  There will remain controversy as to what should be considered good evidence.  I do see overwhelming evidence against the theory of macro evolution.  For one thing, each step required for such a process would have to lend some kind of advantage to the creature for reproduction.  The evidence cited for macro evolution does not answer any of these problems.  And if God were to lead every step of evolution (absolutely necessary in my opinion) then it seems that He would have left a feasible way for such successions to take place, in the evidence.  There is still much for me to consider here, but the basics seem clear.  Mathematically, the theory is impossible.

Let me qualify this by saying, even if proven, macro-evolution can coexist with the bible.   
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 06:29:26 PM by musicman »
Logged

daywalker

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2009, 04:23:14 PM »

I am somewhat convinced that animals can evolve ... And if God were to lead every step of evolution (absolutely necessary in my opinion) ...


Hey Musicman,

And [as I'm sure you already know...] Genesis seems to support animals 'evolving':

Gen 1:20  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,...

Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,...



Water and Earth making animals [evolution?]. And your opinion is shared, and is Scriptural, as "all is of God".


Over & Out,

- Daywalker.
Logged

Dave in Tenn

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4180
    • FaceBook David Sanderson
Re: A science debate
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2009, 05:11:51 PM »

I think its important to distinguish 'Natural Selection' from 'Evolution'.  Evolution as a theory springs from an understanding (or misunderstanding) of Natural Selection.  Natural Selection itself is almost undeniably true--any breeder or expert in animal husbandry can replicate it within certain parameters.  Surely God can do the same. 

To note also...evolutionists do not assume that all mutations are 'improvements'.  Indeed, they assume that most are failures.  Don't know what that adds, but I'll type it anyway.   ;D
Logged
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

aqrinc

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2009, 05:59:46 PM »



To discuss this subject on a somewhat even platform, we need to have some background.

1. What was Darwin claiming with his theory of evolution; what evidence did he use.

2. What does the evidence today show; that he did not have access to in his time.

3. What is the signifance of The Burgess Shale Fossils as it relates to Scripture Timelines.

Ok that is a little bit of research that individuals need to do, to even be in the discussion
in a positive way. Ray has done much of this work already so go back and check out the
Nashville 2008 Conference audio, video and transcripts.

This may seem pointless to some, so be it; remember Ray spent a lot of time doing this
work at a very painful time in his life. Science is catching up to where The Scriptures have
always been in some areas. That is part of the preparation required by all those who would
be saviours.

If The Scriptures say it, and they are properly translated; then we need to brain dump
anything that does not accord with The Scriptures.

BTW: honest Science does accord with properly Translated Scripture.

Luk 5: 36-39 (MKJV)
36  And He also spoke a parable to them: No one puts a piece of a new garment on an old garment. Otherwise, both the new will tear, and the old does not match the piece from the new.
37  And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskin will perish.
38  But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved together.
39  Also no one having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, The old is better.

george. :)

Logged

Stevernator

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2009, 09:42:37 PM »

This is a response to George. Please provide evidence that honest science supports a literal, authorative, creationist interperation of the scriptures. I would like to note that religous authorities have many times been behind the scientific community in regards to age of the earth, shape of the earth and heliocentrism. Many creationists are criminals or dishonest such as Harun Yahya (holocaust denier, allegations of sexual coercion and blackmail), Kent Hovind (tax fraud, deceptive claims) and Ken Ham from AnswersinGenesis (young earth creationism).  According to wikipedia, Michael Behe, proponent of intelligent design: "During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well" Alternatively Kenneth Miller is a noted evolutionary scientist who is a Roman Catholic. I think that biologists are much more honest and furthermore, their credibility is at stake in peer reviewed journals.

1. What was Darwin claiming with his theory of evolution; what evidence did he use.
Organisms have evolved from a common ancestor. It does not explain how life started. The process of evolution involves random variation, selection for a beneficial physical characteristic and heredity of information. This was very impressive for his time since he did not have access to the knowledge of genetics.

Some of Darwin's evidence came from observing finches on the Galapagos Island and how they adapt to get food. You can read more here http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

2. What does the evidence today show; that he did not have access to in his time.
The evidence today shows that during copying of genetic material there are errors such as additions, deletions, substitions etc of nucleotide base pairs. A particular mutation may or may not alter the phenotype of the offspring. The mutated genotype is passed onto offspring and if it confers an adaptive phenotype then they will have a competitive advantage.

The evidence is enormous and has been growing as science progresses and includes comparative morphology (physical anatomy of organisms), similarity in genetics (humans/chimps have 99% of DNA, is that a coincidence??), the consistent fossil record that has hundreds of transitional forms between reptiles/birds, reptieles/mammals fish/ amphibians, amph/reptiles but none in cases which violate the tree of life. . Most species are now extinct.

We share several similar characteristics to mammals. According to wikipedia.org/mammals, Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate animals whose name is derived from their distinctive feature, mammary glands, with which they feed their young. They are also characterized by the possession of sweat glands, hair, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain. They have live birth except for 3 species. All of the biological evidence supports a tree of life classification.

Also, ostriches have bones that birds have which have air pockets in them but these bones are counterproductive to life on lands. Similarly, since bats are mammals they have solid bones (which are bad for flight). Whales have the genes for making tails (in fact some humans have tails), chickens have genes for making teeth, etc. If Intelligent Design were true these details would be unlikely. If any scientist could disprove evolution, they would be a nobel prize winner. Animals have vesitgal features leftover from ancestors which are not useful at all to them which shows evidence of evolution instead of ID.

Most of the information from the previous paragraphs are from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63LRfLyR-JU       I believe this information is backed up from the science record since he has a evolutionary biology degree but if it contradicts information in a peer reviewed journal, let me know.

Also, since the process is over billions of years it should be suspected that there are gaps in the evidence.


3. What is the signifance of The Burgess Shale Fossils as it relates to Scripture Timelines

I am not sure what that has to do with scripture as scripture doesnt directly suggest anything conclusive far before the creation of Adam 6,000 years ago but maybe this is what you are talking about. Taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life, published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more diverse than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct. He suggests that this interpretation supports his hypothesis of evolution by punctuated equilibrium. Gould's interpretation of the diversity of Cambrian fauna relied heavily on Simon Conway Morris' reinterpretation of Charles Walcott's original publications. However, Conway Morris strongly disagreed with Gould's conclusions, arguing that almost all the Cambrian fauna could be classified into modern day phyla.

In response to Dave in Tenn, it is true that many mutations are not beneficial, but these have no impact or have a negative impact. So if the mutation hurts the organsim, it will be less likely to survive and reproduce. This is how natural selection removes organisms with inferior fitness.
Logged

musicman

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2009, 11:43:16 PM »

I don't know if human tails can be considered vestigal organs or not.  After all, there are other anomolies in some that probably wouldn't be in our evolutionary past.  For instance, my nephew was born with an extra finger on one hand.  Where does that fall on the tree.  How about the little girl in India who recently was born with 8 arms.  Perhaps the octopus is closer to us than previously thought.  After all, the eye of the octopus is more similar to ours than those of many mammals.  Which brings me to punctuated equilibriam.  Don't hear much about this hypothesis any more.  Why?  Probably because it goes totally against Darwinism and isn't any more possible.  The idea was that species evolved in small seperate groups from the others.  This provided abundant incest which is conducive for mutations.  Evolution would happen so fast that the smooth transitions expected would not be observed in the fossil record.  Now, if what Iv'e heard about mutations is correct (1 in 10,000 or even 100,000 presents a possitive survival gene) then the group would wipe itself out way before any real adaptave change can take place.  It appears to me, that punctuated equilibrium is a cop out to answer for all of the problems in the fossil record. 

But before punctuated equilibrium took science, there was the short lived "hopeful monster" hypo.  You know, where a dinosaur or something layed an egg and a bird hatched out? (they'd probably feed it to the other younguns)  But perhaps this octogirl is an example of this.  Perhaps she has added information in her genes that give her 8 arms and this can be passed on.  Perhaps there is a small chance that she could give birth to another octokid.  First off, for such a thing to be likely, she would have to mate (she'd have to do it octopus style though) with another who by ridiculous odds has the same mutated genes.  This would be her only chance in nature because nobody else would come near some octowoman beast (would you?).  So, would that have happened in nature?  Or would having 8 arms present such difficulty that octothing dies shortly after birth?  By the way, there are problems with the evolutionary tree concerning homolgous features in animals alive today.  And I don't believe Darwin's finches are an example of mutation.

Evolution evidence is a good challenge and I hope this post continues.   
Logged

aqrinc

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2009, 12:57:20 AM »

Stevernator,

Please read my entire post on this subject in this thread, see below. I am not trying to prove anything.
if you wish to disprove it go ahead. I did provide links to a couple bits of information, anyone who wishes
can access google and get the same information with a little work.

Buying and reading all the journals is another matter, #1 is my current research and reference material.

1. Gerald L Schroeder: Genesis and the Big Bang, The Science of GOD, and The Hidden Face Of GOD.

2. Rays entire series from The 2008 Nashville conference

3. Emmanuel Velikovsky: Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos, plus others i can't recall right now.

3.1. Probably 30 or more large boxes of books my wife wants me to throw out or give away.

Countless hours searching online or in libraries and friends book collections.

I am not trying to convince anyone to believe anything, we are free to believe however until GOD Says Enough.
Sorry if that is a bit abrupt, but if you have evidence that contradicts the information then put it out for discussion
or point me to the source.

My number one focus now is:

The Kingdom Of GOD And HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS; that i will defend with All i have been given.

george. :)


I said


To discuss this subject on a somewhat even platform, we need to have some background.

1. What was Darwin claiming with his theory of evolution; what evidence did he use.

2. What does the evidence today show; that he did not have access to in his time.

3. What is the signifance of The Burgess Shale Fossils as it relates to Scripture Timelines.

Ok that is a little bit of research that individuals need to do, to even be in the discussion
in a positive way. Ray has done much of this work already so go back and check out the
Nashville 2008 Conference audio, video and transcripts.

This may seem pointless to some, so be it; remember Ray spent a lot of time doing this
work at a very painful time in his life. Science is catching up to where The Scriptures have
always been in some areas. That is part of the preparation required by all those who would
be saviours.

If The Scriptures say it, and they are properly translated; then we need to brain dump
anything that does not accord with The Scriptures.

BTW: honest Science does accord with properly Translated Scripture.

Luk 5: 36-39 (MKJV)
36  And He also spoke a parable to them: No one puts a piece of a new garment on an old garment. Otherwise, both the new will tear, and the old does not match the piece from the new.
37  And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskin will perish.
38  But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved together.
39  Also no one having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, The old is better.

george. :)

« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 07:49:05 PM by aqr »
Logged

Deborah-Leigh

  • Guest
Re: A science debate
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2009, 03:49:16 PM »




Well we are just children, you know.  He calls us children all the way through the Bible.  John is one that liked to refer to the church as little children, not even just children, but Ďlittleí children.http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5312.0.html

I think it was Hosea Ballou, Pastor of the Universalist Church and society of Rockberry, and a writer back in 1700s or some time ago.  But I think it was Hosea Ballou who came up with the analogy and itís a very fine analogy.  He said God is Like the rays of the sun and Jesus is, like I mentioned  yesterday that Jesus is the Son of God, but not only the s-o-n, but the s-u-n of God, the brightness of the sun, you see.  So we liken God to the rays of the sun, this bright radiant warmth that gives light and heat and causes things to grow and all these wonderful things from the rays of the sun.
But ironically in the evening, when the sun goes down it gets colder and towards morning it gets damp.  Thereís often times dew on the grass, wet, damp and cold.  Aha, I think I have God figured out now.   When the sun is up, itís not damp, itís not wet, itís not cold, itís not dark.  When the sun goes down itís cold, damp and dark.  Therefore the sun is the cause of dampness, cold and darkness.  How do you like that?  Cause when the sunís up you donít have those things, and when the sun goes down you have them.  Therefore this darkness is caused by the sun.  No, thatís wrong.  Thatís the way some people understand theology.
Itís when the sun is gone the automatic results is, itís dark, cold and damp.  The sun didnít cause it.  Itís when the sun comes up the sun takes it away.  Itís not when the sun goes down it causes it to come.  It always been there, itís the sun that takes it away, itís not the sun causes it to come and thatís the way God is.

When God removes His beams of light from mankind they become cold and damp and dark.  Is that hard to understand?  Automatically.   God does not have to supernaturally make it dark on one side of the earth when the sun is on the other side.  God doesnít have to do that itís automatic, and God doesnít have to force anybody to sin, itís automatic.
Yes God brings about the circumstances, ďWherefore God gave them upÖĒ  yes He did,  Heís behind it. http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3709.0.html
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 29 queries.