The religious debate from male genetalia area con

---

In reply to: I feel bad for people who think they are bound to so many crazy rules and restrictions. Holy shit guys, you people act like it's some drastic change in lifestyle. Like you have to completely revamp yourself. It's not that difficult. I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Oh WOW such a toughy, you believe in One God and that's all. Not like He's asking you to keep cows holy or anything.)II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. (Don't worship statues?)III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. (Is changing the last letters of a word so much more difficult? God -> GoSH? I'm sure many of you have done for worse and far more numerous times, like in school..."Awe shit! I mean...SHOOT.)IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (He's just asking you to remember He, whom created you, once a week - minimum...so hard?)V. Honour thy father and thy mother. (You listen to your parents anyways don't you? If you don't, I feel sorry for them.)VI. Thou shalt not kill. (What do you know, not only His law, but it's also illegal in most, if not ALL of the countries on this planet.)VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Think of it like this...if you do this and live in CA you're wife gets half your stuff...God's looking out for your well-being.)VIII. Thou shalt not steal. (Another moral law that is frowned upon by most, if not ALL of the countries on this planet, some of which hold a harsher punishment then just a smack on the wrist. Like say, complete removal of the wrist.)IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Basically, don't lie.)X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Don't be too envious)Wow, don't kill, lie, be envious, pray to statues, say "oh my God", steal, cheat on your wife/partner, but pray only to God, be nice at least once a week and think of Him at least once a week, and listen to your parents...WOW what a drastic change to any NORMAL AND DECENT HUMAN BEING.

I like the way you think.

Thanks, I just got tired of people making it seem like in order to be a good Christian, you have to completely altar your way of life; like it's some great deal of work with no benefits. When the inverse is true. It's NOT a lot of work when compared to what one does in AN AVERAGE DAY, could you imagine how much more work it would be to try to committ to lies, instead of telling the truth; and to ball up feeling of envy, instead of being happy for them - and what do you get for it? Most likely someone is going to get hurt. But when it comes to God and Christianity, again compared to what I just said, man, it's a piece of cake, and the reward is BY FAR THE BEST PART!! WHY IT'S PRACTICALLY FREE!!! THE LORD WANTS YOU TO INHERIT HIS KINGDOM...And all you have to do, is believe, and keep living the life that He gave you.

In reply to: Well I think the idea of natural selection requires no proof. What is with all this "I must be right because my beliefs have no proof" stuff?? I must be missing something...I never, nor did anybody on here, say they didn't understand the concept behind evolution. I was raised an evolutionist and I've studied it in depth in classes specifically created to study evolutionary beliefs, and the evidence doesn't hold true.Hype, how old are you? Have you studied your beliefs in depth? Do you even know what you believe or have you just been taught to believe in anything that isn't God? Can you stand up for what you believe in, backing it up with facts, or have you, like so many other poor kids in our generation, grown up brainwashed by the godless society of America?You came to be you through DNA? That's great. Me too. Where'd your DNA come from? Did it just decide to form itself one day against all measurable odds? How then did it find more DNA created against all odds to link up to? How did those guys find more and more, until there was enough for a cell? How did that cell realize it needed to make more cells? If we all came from one original cell, how come when it's time for me to reproduce, another of me doesn't just break off? What cells decided one day to reproduce sexually, and how did they plan it in order to be able to evolve simultaneously? Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind, since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? Did those cells decide to become plants or animals first? How did digestive systems, nervous systems, immune systems and everything else in an animal body evolve? How did photosynthesis evolve?Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)? - The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? -The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? -The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? - DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? - The termite or the bacteria in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? -The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants to reproduce them? -The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.How did free thought evolve? Did you know that the brain is made up of 100 million nerve cells per cubic inch, with 10,000 miles of connecting fibers, all working intricately together to help you figure out what shirt to put on this morning?Hype, do you know how things like origin (including creation/evolution) are researched? They can’t be reproduced. They happened in the past. You can’t do an experiment and recreate Aristotle’s life. You can make a conjecture about whether or not you think he lived, and look at the given evidence to see if he was really a real person that walked the earth, but you can’t prove it beyond a doubt without being there. It’s the same way you prove crimes in a court. The judge wasn’t there, but makes his best guess as to what probably happened given the evidence that has been brought to his attention. Anybody that has talked to me in this forum or any other has failed to provide me with any evidence for evolution. There is a lot more evidence for creation, such as fossils, the geologic column (both of which support the world-wide flood belief, and over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found) There are also many evidences that Jesus lived, including 6 eyewitness writings written 20-70 years after Jesus’ death, and two researched accounts, by Mark and Luke, written 20-40 years after Jesus’ death. That might seem like a long gap, but not really when you consider that between Buddha’s death and the first written record of him, there was a 600 year gap. There was a 150 year gap between mohammad’s death and the first writing of him. This might also surprise you, but the first written account of Alexander the Great was written 300-500 years after his reign. Do you believe any of them existed? The gospels also aren’t the only sources referring to a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God. Josephus, a Jewish historian around 70-100 AD wrote about the effects of Jesus on society. He wasn’t a Christian author, but his writings, among others, are cross references to the bible and teachings of it from around the same time. Other reliable sources from the times are by Pliny, Tacitus, and Eliezar, including over 30 other writings of other authors, all referring to a man named Jesus. The question, Hype, is what religion is true. If you are a uniformitarian, then you would say all religions are ultimately true. This couldn’t possibly be true, since most religions directly contradict each other. Two statements that are true cannot directly contradict each other. That means, Hype, that there is only one truth. Which one is it? Examine the evidence and make your conclusion.

As far as proof for the evolution theory goes, natural selection can explain most of it. I will explain the theory of evolution, and show the truths behind it that you say haven't been shown by anyone else on this thread. First, I'm sure you know this, but the evolutionary changes that occur in living organisms happen from mutagens in our environment. There's many natural, and now artificial chemicals that cause changes to our cells and DNA that exist in the environment - most of these changes being negative rather than positive, like cancer. The sun, over the years, has been by far the greatest cause of change in the DNA structures of living organisms since the first carbon compounds (why we are carbon based lifeforms) formed an extremely basic, yet living, creature that had a structure far more basic than that of one of our individual cells. Deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) may not have been formed at this point (as you say how could it have happened all at once, the idea is that it didn't), but instead there may have been something far simpler that would eventually become DNA due to the ability of organisms with DNA to become more adaptable than those with out, or maybe for a different reason, but natural selection would rule out weak for the strong.As I said, most of the mutations or changes tend to not be beneficial, but harmful; especially in multicellular organisms where there's so many different internal structures and types of cells that rely upon a certain way of acting and performing from other cells in the organism's body. Occasionally, there are beneficial mutations. This is where the theory of natural selection explains things. The organisms that have these beneficial mutation in the DNA are more likely to survive than those that have a detremental mutation, and this is why new species that adapt to new climates and situations form and prosper.Many things, like the development of internal organs, and the drive to sexually reproduce, are beneficial changes that didn't happen all at once, but over time through thousands to hundreds of millions of years. This time allowed for extensive "trial and error", where the weakening changes that didn't work would cause creatures to die or migrate to a different environment where it may be beneficial, and the strong creatures would reproduce and thrive. To answer your question on why organisms reproduce when you'd think it might decrease their individual chance of survival; the organisms that did have some reason to reproduce themselves would survive (as a species), and those that did not would die.There is far more proof than you seem to say their is for the evolutionary theory. I think the problem is that many people who believe in the evolutionary theory don't necessarily understand the reasons why it makes sense, but instead they just believe the media or whatever other source shows it to be true. I could say the same thing of many religions, that many of the people who believe in their religion, including fundamentalists, would have little or no proof to base their beliefs on; not necessarily because they don't have the ability to find out, but that they are content to live with the beliefs that they have because their beliefs give them peace of mind.

In reply to:Well I think the idea of natural selection requires no proof. Its not that difficult a concept to understand. It only seems obvious and natural that the most fit would breed and eventually cause evolution. Which is a harder concept to prove. Let me tell you about natural selection. Natural selection was first put out by Charles Darwin as a theory of why species looked different and how they adapted to their environment. It was taken a step further with Herbert Spencer with the term "survival of the fittest," Being where those animals with mutations were able to survive and those who didn't have those mutations died off. Another part of Spencer’s theory was that the reason humans haven't evolved any more was because we have culture and our culture evolved so we didn't have to biologically. He also had a theory that said that we couldn't influence the course of cultural evolution and that to help the poor, for example was to mess with the 'survival of the fittest.' But contrary to that, our norms (The ways we carry our ideas) and values (The ideas that supports or justifies norms) say that we should help people. If you see someone in need, you feel a need to help them. But if we indeed evolved as you say from crud found on the ground and through natural selection found our way into society (a population organized to carry the main functions of life) that isn’t found in the beginning life forms, then developed culture (All the modes of thought, behavior and production that are handed down from one generation to the next by means of communicative interaction instead of genetic transmissions) Which, by its self is impossible to come about, and make the civilization (A cultural complex formed by the identical major cultural features(that couldn’t have evolved) of a number of a particular society (that doesn’t exist in the beginning stages of life)) we have today. In reply to: Not really cause I would never even take such a magical superstitious and ridiculous idea into consideration. Oh really, see above statement.In reply to: Umm DNA and the environment I grew up in. Simple. The environment that you grew up in could not have come to be with only evolution as its helper.In reply to: Hehe. I feel bad for people who think they are bound to so many crazy rules and restrictions. Not the moral ones though which probably the only good thing that religion does. Which is to herd the sheep. Especially the incompetent ones. Incompetent? Evolution is nothing but a crutch for the ignorant who don’t want to do any work to find the truth, or those who can’t handle the fact that they have to be responsible and not just do whatever they want whenever they want. It just blows my mind sometimes the extremes people will go to just to have their so called ‘freedom from God.’ Adam and Eve started it with ‘hiding’ from God in the garden of Eden, now people are ‘hiding’ from God right here and now. Incompetent, hmmm.

In reply to:Let me tell you about natural selection. Natural selection was first put out by Charles Darwin as a theory of why species looked different and how they adapted to their environment. It was taken a step further with Herbert Spencer with the term "survival of the fittest," Being where those animals with mutations were able to survive and those who didn't have those mutations died off. Another part of Spencer’s theory was that the reason humans haven't evolved any more was because we have culture and our culture evolved so we didn't have to biologically. He also had a theory that said that we couldn't influence the course of cultural evolution and that to help the poor, for example was to mess with the 'survival of the fittest.' But contrary to that, our norms (The ways we carry our ideas) and values (The ideas that supports or justifies norms) say that we should help people. If you see someone in need, you feel a need to help them. But if we indeed evolved as you say from crud found on the ground and through natural selection found our way into society (a population organized to carry the main functions of life) that isn’t found in the beginning life forms, then developed culture (All the modes of thought, behavior and production that are handed down from one generation to the next by means of communicative interaction instead of genetic transmissions) Which, by its self is impossible to come about, and make the civilization (A cultural complex formed by the identical major cultural features(that couldn’t have evolved) of a number of a particular society (that doesn’t exist in the beginning stages of life)) we have today. You seem to have this mind set that natural selection also deals directly with the creation of society, but it doesn't. Humans are a species, like any other, that evolved and was successful. The reason we thrived so much had to do not with the physical aspect of our species (we were very weak in comparison to most natural predators), but our mental capacity. Homosapiens were so successful, because we had this concept of the group that was so strong, and over time we began to settle in larger groups that could prosper as a whole. This is where natural selection ends it's role in the evolution of humans, because we no longer begin to face the same problems as other species, since the strong and the weak mutations enter our gene pool since society does a good job of saving people (which is as it should be). The idea that you can deny the evolution of species through the idea of the formation of society is absurd, since the two ideas fit interchangeably and evolution leads itself into the creation of society through the evolutionary progress of the mental aspect in humans.You seem to think that as an evolutionist (which I'm not necessarily, I just view it as one of many valid theories on the subject) I accept everything that every single other person believing in the same idea has to say. You say that Herbert Spencer also defines survival of the fittest (although Darwin introduced the idea), yet I don't agree with everything that he has to say and neither does every single other evolutionist. For example: the idea that humans are no longer evolving due to our culture and the reason that we no longer have to evolve. We don't choose to evolve, so this has no basis. Natural selection doesn't play a part in the genetic variation of humanity, since society saves those who might not otherwise make it, but we continue to be exposed to the mutagens that alter our DNA (cancer, unfortunately, being the most common mutation).In reply to:Incompetent? Evolution is nothing but a crutch for the ignorant who don’t want to do any work to find the truth, or those who can’t handle the fact that they have to be responsible and not just do whatever they want whenever they want. It just blows my mind sometimes the extremes people will go to just to have their so called ‘freedom from God.’ Adam and Eve started it with ‘hiding’ from God in the garden of Eden, now people are ‘hiding’ from God right here and now. Incompetent, hmmm.You say this without any basis, that you are completely right and that others who don't share the same beliefs as you are incompetent. The way you act is that others who don't see things in the same way are ignorant, when you are being ignorant in the same sense in not being able to see their point. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines enlightenment as: a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism. This, to me, says that true understanding stems from a certain knowledge and acceptance in all other beliefs. The only way to truly comprehend the beliefs of others, is to shed ignorance and disbelief, and take a rational approach in seeing that any of a number of theories could be correct, and relate all contrasting beliefs to piece together a bigger picture while trying to make your own inferences on the ideas. Not to put you down, but the reason I respect F22's posts is in the idea that he rationally shows his beliefs, and gives understanding rather than portraying other beliefs, irrationally, as wrong. I think you see others as trying to have their "freedom from god", when in reality they may not even see god as relevant and you take this as offense or with disgust that they're 'running away from the(your) truth', rather than you understanding why.

Natural Selection can only operate on the information already in the gene pool, plus some newly defective genes. There is no mechanism by which new information is added into the genes. Dr. Werner Gitt, a German professor and expert in information theory, stated that "there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter." Mutations do not increase the amount of information, as evolution would require. Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner said "all mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome." By this concept, natural selection, organisms would by nature have to 'devolve.' This would mean that you and I would have to be organisms less genetically complex than a single cell if we have in fact gone through this process of natural selection. There is a difference between adaptation and mutation. If you take a fish out of water and put it back into water in a dark cave, it will lose its color and turn albino. It will also probably lose its eyesight from not using it. Now what do you have? Well, a fish. Same species, same everything, except that it adapted to survive in its surroundings. Did the fish then become a lizard and walk out of the cave? It didn't change kinds, as that's impossible, it merely adapted and still is a fish. This adaptation, really a 'fine-tuning to the environment', was seen by Darwin to be a process which was essentially creative, and virtually without limits. If 'new' varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is genes. In such an information-losing process, there is automatically a limit to variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing their information indefinitely.

Over a period of time there is a loss of information. For instance, the aa bb cc combination (if you haven't studied genetics, see graph below) have LOST the A's, B's, and C's from the original Aa Bb Cc. Domestic breeds of animals tend to have many of their gene pairs as the same: aa instead of Aa. All domestic varieties have less genetic information than the original 'wild' types from which they were bred.

If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? There is no basis in the evolutionary theory that implies that the organism would learn how to use it. Organisms going through such mutations would die from confusion because they wouldn't know how to use their bodies. Instinct can't exist if an organism has a trait it's never known before. It would die long before it would be able to reproduce. But it's not possible anyway, because the genetic information required to make a wing could not be added naturally.
I feel sorry for the organism that had a heart but no brain, or a brain but no heart. Also, that poor guy that had a stomach and luckily an endocrine system, but unfortunately had not developed an esophagus yet. Sucks for him. The probabilities that the beneficial mutations would happen in the first place are almost non-existent, and the thought that they would reoccur until they got it right is preposterous. You would need hundreds and trillions of millions and billions of years for that thought to even cross a studious person's mind. Actually, according to the research of Dr. Kent Hovinid, the amount of time it would take to get your first cell would be 31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. That's 60 trillion, trillion times the evolutionist's estimated age of the earth of 4.5 billion years!! That's a lot of 0's! Just imagine, every time it did finally get a cell working correctly, the next mutation was wrong, forcing evolution to start from scratch ones again! Too bad...Better luck next time, evolution.

I'm not going to step into that survival of the richest debate you got going on there. It really honestly doesn't seem very relevant to evolution in the sense that was already being debated. In reply to: although Darwin introduced the idea Sadly, even this thought is incorrect."Edward Blyth (1810—1873), wrote about it in 1835—7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth"-Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men , TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, pp. 125—133, 1984.

In reply to:You would need hundreds and trillions of millions and billions of years for that thought to even cross a studious person’s mind. Actually, according to the research of Dr. Kent Hovinid, the amount of time it would take to get your first cell would be 31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. That’s 60 trillion, trillion times the evolutionist’s estimated age of the earth of 4.5 billion years!! That’s a lot of 0’s! Just imagine, every time it did finally get a cell working correctly, the next mutation was wrong, forcing evolution to start from scratch ones again! Too bad…Better luck next time, evolution.There's one major flaw to that theory. It doesn't acknowledge the fact that the beneficial traits in a cell don't get eliminated when a cell with that beneficial trait gets a bad mutation, because that cell has already divided and other cells with that beneficial trait exist. This process continues, as most of the cells with the beneficial trait live, some die from harmful mutations or otherwise, and some will see further beneficial traits that make them more successful than their predecessors.Relating to the idea that mutations only work backwards, I'm going to have to do more research into that. That's something that I've never heard before, and I'll have to compare how his theories contrast with others on how the mutation process takes place.

Regardless of whether or not a trait is beneficial, robbob, it still loses genetic information. The most common trait from mutation referred to as 'beneficial' is sickle cell anemia, which most of the people that have this wouldn't consider it beneficial at all. The people with this disease are a LOT less likely to get malaria, which makes it helpful in places where malaria is still a big problem like Africa (which is where they think the mutation originally became popular in the genetic code) Still, even though it is helpful to those in danger of getting malaria, it affects the blood cells in a way that they do not carry as much oxygen as normal blood cells,and it also causes the cells, which are misshapen, to die earlier, and when that happens, it is painful and causes other difficulties. It is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for

In reply to:Sadly, even this thought is incorrect."Edward Blyth (1810—1873), wrote about it in 1835—7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth"-Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men , TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, pp. 125—133, 1984.Sorry, didn't realize that it had been said before Darwin. You learn new things every day, lol. Regardless though, it doesn't really relate to the point I was making.I don't see why my survival of the fittest idea isn't relevant to proving evolution as a theory. Unless you're saying that survival of the fittest doesn't exist, which I don't think is an idea that can really be proven wrong. I'm using it because it relates very closely to the idea of evolution, in the way that most living species are successful in some way rather than being three legged, one eyed, squeeling gimp creatures that can't sustain themselves.

No no, I wasn't saying that survival of the fittest doesn't exist, because if something isn't designed to live in the area that it lives in, obviously it's not going to survive. How, though, does survival of the fittest account for the increase in genetic information? Also, there are several ideas connected with evolution concerning the origin of the universe, like the big bang theory, that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. There are a lot of different concepts that are categorized under 'evolution'...

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. (I haven't studied the theories of this one much, but uh, if you put two hydrogens together don't you just end up with Helium, which is a noble gas, which I believe is unreactive? So how could that be used to form higher chemicals?? If you know how they got that idea, let me know, because I haven't studied that!)
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter. (which basically is what we're talking about)
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds. (also part of what we're talking about, being the fish turning into amphibians, turning into lizards to birds and humans and whatnot, constantly adding more information, and doing it in a relatively short amount of time [considering the probabilities, even if they are considerably less than what hovind suggested, the conjectured age of the earth wouldn't be long enough for all of this to happen])

I've been having trouble keeping track due to the large posts. Is this still a religious debate?

I used the word 'evolution' 8 times in my last post....does that answer your question?

Not really. Who says god didn't mean for evolution to take place?

Well, right now this topic is specifically over whether or not evolution could have occured and if the evidence supports it, regardless of whether or not God did it. Once it's realized that, in reality, there is little to no proof supporting evolution or godless creation of the universe, one must find new beliefs, unless of course you have infinite faith and still want to believe that evolution could have occured. If that's the case then there's no point in debating. We'll take that when it gets here. If you really are curious as to what this forum is about, you can get through the entire thing in about an hour. Otherwise it's no fun jumping in if you don't know what's already gone on. No need for redundance of things already covered.

In reply to my own post, inquiring about chemical evolution, I've done a bit of research:http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch03.htm"There have been two main views regarding the origin of the planets in our solar system. The first is that another star happened to pass near our sun, and drew off clouds of gases which then formed themselves into planets. This is the planetesimal group of theories.The other main viewpoint is that a swirling cloud of gas formed itself into our sun, planets, moons, comets, and asteroids"That's great and all, but they kindof skipped an important step, like HOW did the hydrogen just 'become' the planets and solar systems???? apparently they didn't have anything to say about that?That is a pretty good looking site if anybody's looking for info on evolutionary theories, this is a very scientific site. http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c23a.htm

heehee. The evolution vs god conversation has been discussed before and if this were one of those I meant for the mixture to be a thread ender. I guess it's a little more complex though. Anyway, continue on.

If you'd like a theistic evolution vs 6 day creation debate I could give you one in another thread...