Darwinism vs creationism

[Lunk1]

I thought it went pretty damn well.

I liked the evolution talk. I love me some science. My second favorite website is www.sciencedaily.com

It has gone very well. I fear there will come a point where neither side concedes and that seems to be when feelings are hurt! Although we have a cpl great guys debating here so I am confident at the end of the day the solution will be an agreement to disagree and shake hands!

Not like this is a thread about all women being whores!

[Times Roman]

I was hoping we could wrap up this discussion by converging physics and metaphysics, another hugely interesting topic of discussion. But we weren't ready to get past the religious aspect of it. Oh well, it happens.

I've had conversations/debates that attempt to get inside the mind of god via discourse on advanced physics. After all, if there is a god, then there must be some kind of thought process going on, right? And even if there is a big bang, that doesn't preclude the existance of a supreme being. Very esoteric stuff.


We'll leave that for another day then!

[AD]

clearly, we're not the first few guys on earth to ask these questions. and tried as he did, 405 may not have all the answers. but these questions have been asked and answered many times over on many many christian websites all over the internet. if anyone is still sincerely looking for answers, its only a google away.

[--->>405<<---]

TR i agree i dont think theres much more of a path to travel. i do not want to continue repeating the same things over and over nor do i want to bring shame to the Word of God or christianity by beating an issue into the ground. this will be my last post regarding this issue.

i have been trying to put a finger on my thoughts about this whole conversation/debate (not really what i consider it) and it occurred to me the thing of most significance that stood out as i was driving back to work from my 2nd cardio session this evening. what stood out most to me was how hard it is for u to understand why i can not consider the possibility that my faith/belief in the Bible and the message of salvation could be untrue.

it occurred to me the answer about half an hr ago. the reason goes back to what my wife was trying to tell me that i blew off and blew off. i was trying to fill my God-shaped hole. that didnt make any sense to me whatsoever at those times when she was telling me. in retrospect now i can see she was indeed correct. at the time i was trying to fill that hole with as much drugs and alcohol and sex and fun and debauchery i could get my hands on. the problem was it was not doing the job. sure id get high and drunk and laid and feel good for awhile but eventually that emptiness and lack of direction would come right back.

the answer was obvious (to her not me). the only thing that could fill that hole was God. my whole life i felt some sort of desire to know something i just couldnt figure out what it was. i didnt even know i was looking. i can look back now and see it but i couldnt see it then. life had mystery and i felt as if there was some kind of information out there that would unlock it but i didnt know where to look.

only now do i understand those questions and that mystery could only be answered by the one with the answers. the Lord.

i see that u have also studied many religions and science and u have an inquisitive nature and want to find conclusive answers to questions and mysteries of life. u keep searching for truth. ur knowledge of science far exceeds my own. the problem as i see it is the answers are not in a science book. wouldnt it suck to have the answer right in front of u yet the very thing that ur passionate about is the one thing that prevents u from solving ur problem?

ill leave u with this scripture and pray that u find what ur looking for : matthew 7:7,8 - " 7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

[JohnnyVegas]

clearly, we're not the first few guys on earth to ask these questions. and tried as he did, 405 may not have all the answers. but these questions have been asked and answered many times over on many many christian websites all over the internet. if anyone is still sincerely looking for answers, its only a google away.

Are you implying that a handful of guys on a bodybuilding forum will NOT be the people that finally put these issues to rest? I am offended, sir.

[Times Roman]

405
it was great rattling sabers with you! =)
Never wanted to create any doubt for you or your faith. Faith, as I know very well, is a VERY POWERFUL thing. And you have found something that is precious to you and helps you solve lifes' problems.
Please don't get me wrong. I am NOT an aethist! I never said god doesn't exist! I think i was looking more at how people worship and the underpinnings of their faith than at the existance of god.
I may someday make the leap. But if I do, it will probably be in a very unconventional way, something i will have to figure out for my self, instead of in any particular bible. there are many in the scientific community that found science to be inadequate, and made the leap. Even Einstein was a very religious man!

But you are right. I think it's time we leave this one alone.
But I do look forward to our next healthy debate!

Cheers!
---Roman

[AD]

Are you implying that a handful of guys on a bodybuilding forum will NOT be the people that finally put these issues to rest? I am offended, sir.

bb forum, sure. but roid forum, not a chance!...hahahha

now, where is lunk's other thread, the one about mammary glands.... most people prefer to study that aspect of evolution instead of this.

[Lunk1]

This should be locked and stickied to show how adult men SHOULD debate....I will say it AGAIN. Excellent job all of you. Even Gixx

AD...I shall bump the boob thread now.

I notice that 405's faith did NOT keep him out of that thread either LOL!

[warmouth]

What if you live your whole life the way as a true christian and do good works that are pleasing to god. What if god choses you but then you change your beliefs to the exact opposite of that 50 years later?THis depends on what your view of what good is pleasing to God. I do not believe that if God actually chooses you, you will reisist His will. I think when you have been shown the mercy bestowed upon you, there would be no way to resist God. I do think a person can fall from God and revert back to the desires of the flesh, but I dont think the person will abandon God for all time. Like what I said about the dog analogy.


Is that then Gods will to change you? Then there is that whole predestination thing...
I am a Calvinist, so I am partial to predestnation.
Again I know there is no answer that you will be able to convey to me personally. The thing is from my viewpoint, I have been at that same place where I KNEW in my heart the true god. I had heard and felt him during prayer. To this day I still cant describe what I felt that night. But the more I researched answers the more I saw discrepancies which made me challenge my own personal faith. A faith which earlier seemed completely unchangeable.

Is this my choice or gods?I am so loving this thread! This question is falling from the original post, but if it is ok, I would be glad to continue.

The breakdown for the whole debate is do we take the bible literal or metaphorical. The literal believers choose to believe in a young earth and that there are absolutely no discrepancies in the bible whatsoever. A literal translation of the bible leaves many many things that science can actually physically disprove today. Why did god even allow the bible to be written in such a way where we have a debate such as this in the first place? God himself said there is nothing that humans cannot do if they put there minds to it.... ie the tower of babel. So why would we think that these questions are so unanswerable to even try to search?

On the last bold, not all literalists believe in a young earth. I for one could care less, as it is irrelevant to my faith. And to the last part, could you tell me some of the many things that science has physically disproved? Great stuff BTW!

[warmouth]

Why is this debate taking place?

I've seen this debate happen a thousand times on the internet and everyone is better of moving their forefinger around in a circular motion for hours on end.

It just decends into, who can write the most, without a remote chance of convincing the other side they are right. Both are as indoctrinated as the other.

Pointless.

Are you kidding! This has been one of the best threads of pure knowledge on this site since I have been here! No matter which side you stand on, there is a TON to take in. It really hasnt been as much a debate as a Q and A session. Alot of people questioning and getting both sides of the argument and no one has lost thier cool yet. Seems we are all getting along, and that is what matters. There has been alot of respect towards eachother and has shocked me to be honest. It has been really good, and very civil.

[Atomini]

[Times Roman]

Mate,

Please do not disrespect 405 or others that have a belief system by posting something like this. I have an extreme amount of respect for 405, for not only having the courage of speaking up about his belief system, but also not flaming others (me) for not sharing his same view point. I may not have the same view point as 405, but i will aggressively defend his right to express himself, especially when he is doing it in good faith and with a great deal of respect.

You are a good man Atomini, and I can appreciate what you are trying to say. But this isn't the right way.

Peace!
---Roman

[JamesKennedy]

I welcome anyone to give me proof of evolution....

Not Micro evolution, but Macro evolution...

[Honkey_Kong]

We're 86 years past the Scopes Monkey trial and people are still inheriting the wind.

[HitIt]

religious people believe in theories. scientific people believe in theories. enough on theories, here's a simple fact. you're all going to die not knowing.

[Times Roman]

I welcome anyone to give me proof of evolution....

Not Micro evolution, but Macro evolution...

THE LORD HELPS THOSE THAT HELP THEMSELVES.....

.....there is a TON of evidence out there mate! All you have to do is look. This took me 15 seconds to find:




Dinosaurs and the origin of birds

Main article: Origin of birds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_dinosaur

Confuciusornis, a Cretaceous bird from China
Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialized subgroup of theropod dinosaurs.[10] More specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.[11] As scientists have discovered more nonavian theropods closely related to birds, the previously clear distinction between nonbirds and birds has become blurred. Recent discoveries in the Liaoning Province of northeast China, which demonstrate many small theropod dinosaurs had feathers, contribute to this ambiguity.[12]

The consensus view in contemporary paleontology is that the birds, or avialans, are the closest relatives of the deinonychosaurs, which include dromaeosaurids, troodontids and possibly archaeopterygids.[13] Together, these three form a group called Paraves. Some basal members of this group, such as Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, have features which may have enabled them to glide or fly. The most basal deinonychosaurs are very small. This evidence raises the possibility that the ancestor of all paravians may have been arboreal, may have been able to glide, or both.[14][15] Unlike Archaeopteryx and the feathered dinosaurs, who primarily ate meat, recent studies suggest that the first birds were herbivores.[16]

The Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx is well known as one of the first transitional fossils to be found, and it provided support for the theory of evolution in the late 19th century. Archaeopteryx was the first fossil to display both clearly reptilian characteristics: teeth, clawed fingers, and a long, lizard-like tail, as well as wings with flight feathers identical to those of modern birds. It is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds, though it is possibly closely related to the real ancestor.[17]

[JohnnyVegas]

religious people believe in theories. scientific people believe in theories. enough on theories, here's a simple fact. you're all going to die not knowing.

Just to clarify, the scientific term "theory" is not the same as used in common language and is certainly not the same as a religious belief.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A scientific theory is not an idea or a guess. That would be a hypothesis. Even a scientific hypothesis is stronger than a belief because a hypothesis is something that is put forth as needing further research...not just something that should be believed because someone said so.

[Times Roman]

We're 86 years past the Scopes Monkey trial and people are still inheriting the wind.

I wasn't familar with this one, and so had to look it up. and YES, it was just a wee bit before my time! =)

[Flagg]

THE LORD HELPS THOSE THAT HELP THEMSELVES.....

.....there is a TON of evidence out there mate! All you have to do is look. This took me 15 seconds to find:




Dinosaurs and the origin of birds

Main article: Origin of birds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_dinosaur

Confuciusornis, a Cretaceous bird from China
Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialized subgroup of theropod dinosaurs.[10] More specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.[11] As scientists have discovered more nonavian theropods closely related to birds, the previously clear distinction between nonbirds and birds has become blurred. Recent discoveries in the Liaoning Province of northeast China, which demonstrate many small theropod dinosaurs had feathers, contribute to this ambiguity.[12]

The consensus view in contemporary paleontology is that the birds, or avialans, are the closest relatives of the deinonychosaurs, which include dromaeosaurids, troodontids and possibly archaeopterygids.[13] Together, these three form a group called Paraves. Some basal members of this group, such as Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, have features which may have enabled them to glide or fly. The most basal deinonychosaurs are very small. This evidence raises the possibility that the ancestor of all paravians may have been arboreal, may have been able to glide, or both.[14][15] Unlike Archaeopteryx and the feathered dinosaurs, who primarily ate meat, recent studies suggest that the first birds were herbivores.[16]

The Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx is well known as one of the first transitional fossils to be found, and it provided support for the theory of evolution in the late 19th century. Archaeopteryx was the first fossil to display both clearly reptilian characteristics: teeth, clawed fingers, and a long, lizard-like tail, as well as wings with flight feathers identical to those of modern birds. It is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds, though it is possibly closely related to the real ancestor.[17]

Good post, but if you cant convince certain people that we're decended from a type of proto ape/human, then you'll never convince anyone that birds came from dinosaurs, because they would have to concede that dinosaurs existed which would be an omission of how old this world really is.

[--->>405<<---]

Good post, but if you cant convince certain people that we're decended from a type of proto ape/human, then you'll never convince anyone that birds came from dinosaurs, because they would have to concede that dinosaurs existed which would be an omission of how old this world really is.

actually we believe dinosaurs existed (because they did) and it fits into our belief system. it does not concede the age of the earth being billions (or millions whatever it is) old..

[--->>405<<---]

furthermore the notion of us descending from an ape is ridiculous and rubbish IMO..

[AD]

very soon, we'll be trying to convince each other by using nuclear bombs. lets just give this a rest...

[Lunk1]

very soon, we'll be trying to convince each other by using nuclear bombs. lets just give this a rest...

Time to bump some boobs as a distraction huh AD lol?

[AD]

do you play tennis, Lunk?

[Lunk1]

do you play tennis, Lunk?

No but I would be their ball boy

[AD]

No but I would be their ball boy

you might want to start learning...

[DSM4Life]

Darwin FTW