Evolution

[MissileMan]

Are you referring to the common misconception that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exculsive?

Evolution is the constant changing of life to adapt to its ever-changing environment. Life is either evolving or it's dead.

On the other hand, if you are referring to the various scientific theories on the origin of man as "evolution," they are no more valid, and IMO far less reasonable than a Creator.

Life, in all its forms, is too perfect to be an accident; which, is what science would have us believe. Out of nothingness -- some great void -- we just "happened." There wasn't lfe, then there was in some great, magical moment.

Sound like some superstious religious belief to me.

Hey Gunny!

So you believe that the complexities of life point to the intervention of an outside intelligence?

 

[Nuc]

I think you watch way too many cartoons...Tasmania as in Tasmanian Devil...not the Island next to Australia...did ya surf over there from Australia too? If you were having a conversation with so called religious people... well they must have been escapees from a mental ward!

Yes I was in Tasmania and had that conversation with religious zealots. I think they were just Christians, not escapees. They actually believed what they were saying, I kid you not.

 

[Gunny]

Hey Gunny!

So you believe that the complexities of life point to the intervention of an outside intelligence?

I'm not sure what you are asking. As a primary belief? No. As a belief in support if my religious conviction? Yes.

 

[MissileMan]

I'm not sure what you are asking. As a primary belief? No. As a belief in support if my religious conviction? Yes.

From the religious standpoint you believe that God created the universe and all the life within it?

 

[dilloduck]

Hey Gunny!

So you believe that the complexities of life point to the intervention of an outside intelligence?

Maybe the only complexity is the fact that man simply can't see the whole picture. A jig saw puzzle makes no sense if you don't have all the pieces.

 

[Gunny]

From the religious standpoint you believe that God created the universe and all the life within it?

HAH! Yeah. You going to ask next where God lived before he created the Universe?

In Texas.

C'mon and let's have the meat here .... what're you getting at?

 

[MissileMan]

HAH! Yeah. You going to ask next where God lived before he created the Universe?

In Texas.

C'mon and let's have the meat here .... what're you getting at?

Something to mull over for a while. If God, or any deity for that matter, were to be capable of creating life from nothing, do you really think that He, or She (don't want to offend anyone... ), would assemble something as complex as a human being? If you were going to create a hammer, for instance, would you design it to include billions of parts and dozens of subsystems? If you stop to think about it, the complexity of everything is an argument against ID or creationism.

 

[-Cp]

Something to mull over for a while. If God, or any deity for that matter, were to be capable of creating life from nothing, do you really think that He, or She (don't want to offend anyone... ), would assemble something as complex as a human being? If you were going to create a hammer, for instance, would you design it to include billions of parts and dozens of subsystems? If you stop to think about it, the complexity of everything is an argument against ID or creationism.

For over two millennia, people have argued that the ‘design’ in nature points to a Designer. In 44 bc, the Roman writer, orator and statesman, Cicero (106–43 bc), used this concept in his book De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) to challenge the evolutionary ideas of the philosophers of his day.

The two main schools of philosophy then were Epicureanism and Stoicism. The Epicureans sought happiness through bodily pleasures and freedom from pain and anxiety. The two chief causes of anxiety were fear of the gods and fear of death, so Epicurus sought to nullify both of these by teaching an evolutionary atomic theory.

He denied that there was any purpose in nature, because everything was composed of particles (atoma: atoms), all falling downwards. He said that these sometimes spontaneously ‘swerved’ to coalesce and form bodies — non-living, living, human, and divine. The gods were made of finer atoms than humankind. They did not create the world or have any control over it, so they were not concerned with human affairs, and there was therefore no need for man to fear them. At death, the soul disintegrated and became non-existent, so there was no need to fear death or the prospect of judgment after death.

Cicero used the Stoic character in his book to refute these ideas with arguments from design, aimed to show that the universe is governed by an intelligent designer. He argued that a conscious purpose was needed to express art (e.g. to make a picture or a statue) and so, because nature was more perfect than art, nature showed purpose also. He reasoned that the movement of a ship was guided by skilled intelligence, and a sundial or water clock told the time by design rather than by chance. He said that even the barbarians of Britain or Scythia could not fail to see that a model which showed the movements of the sun, stars and planets was the product of conscious intelligence.

Cicero continued his challenge to the evolutionism of Epicurus by marvelling that anyone could persuade himself that chance collisions of particles could form anything as beautiful as the world. He said that this was on a par with believing that if the letters of the alphabet were thrown on the ground often enough they would spell out the Annals of Ennius. And he asked: if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city?

In the 18th century, the most notable user of the design argument was William Paley (1743–1805). In his book, Natural Theology, he put the case of someone finding a watch while walking in a barren countryside. From the functions which the various parts of the watch fulfil (e.g. spring, gearwheels, pointer), the only logical conclusion was that it had a maker who ‘comprehended its construction and designed its use’. Paley also discussed evidence of design in the eye — that as an instrument for vision it showed intelligent design in the same way that telescopes, microscopes and spectacles do. And he went on to discuss complex design in many other human and animal organs, all pointing to the conclusion that the existence of complex life implies an intelligent Creator.

David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptical philosopher, tried to counter the watch argument by pointing out that watches are not living things which reproduce. However, Paley wrote 30 years after Hume, and Paley’s arguments are proof against most of Hume’s objections. For example, a modern philosopher has countered Hume: ‘Paley’s argument about organisms stands on its own, regardless of whether watches and organisms happen to be similar. The point of talking about watches is to help the reader see that the argument about organisms is compelling.’

Charles Darwin was required to read Paley during his theological studies at Cambridge (1828–31). He later said, ‘I do not think that I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology.” I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’

However, he then spent the rest of his life developing and promoting a theory to explain how ‘design’ in nature could occur without God. Darwin proposed that small, useful changes could occur by chance, and enable their possessors to survive and pass on these changes — natural selection. Natural selection would work on even the tiniest improvements and, over vast ages, would supposedly accumulate enough small changes to produce all the ‘design’ we see in the living world.

 

[Avatar4321]

Don't really care. I haven't figured out why people seem to think that evolution somehow disproves God's existence. Because even if Evolution were true, Evolution focuses on the how of the creation of life and not the who created it or why He created it. it's a false dichotemy so why play those games?

 

[manu1959]

look..... if god created everything he created evolution

if evolution created everything the survival of the fittest created a species that believes in god to survive

 

[Nienna]

I was in Tasmania at a street fair and a creationist group had a booth set up that said, "Evolution-the great lie. Darwin was wrong. The world was created 6000 years ago."

I asked them, "Hey, you guys are a comedy group right? When does the show begin?"

They said they were serious. I asked how could the world be only 6000 years old. If that were true humanity would have historical records of encounters with dinosaurs and so on.

They told me that the dinosaurs never existed. God made dinosaur fossils to trick doubting people into thinking the world has been around for more than 6000 years. And people of faith know the dinosaurs never existed.

Something to think about, I guess.

Those people WERE wackos. God does not TRICK people! They obviously don't know God. Of course dinosaurs existed; we have their fossils. And we also have cave drawings like the one in White River Canyon, Utah, that depicts a sauropod seen by native tribesmen. We also have many many stories about dinosaurs, passed down through ancient times. Only they didn't call them "dinosaurs." That word wasn't coined until 1841. They called them "dragons" back then.

Personally, I see no reason why crocodiles are not considered to be dinosaurs. They are large reptiles, are they? They certainly coexist with man.

 

[Nienna]

Can you provide some verses that describe this massive volcanic flood?

(Genesis 6:17) I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

(Genesis 7:17-23) For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. , [c] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

[Nienna]

Don't really care. I haven't figured out why people seem to think that evolution somehow disproves God's existence. Because even if Evolution were true, Evolution focuses on the how of the creation of life and not the who created it or why He created it. it's a false dichotemy so why play those games?

I guess it really depends on which god a person believes in. If they just believe in a generic sort of "higher power," I guess there would be no reason to disbelieve one or the other.

But the God whom I (and others) know, is the God of the Bible. The theory of evolution conflicts with the Bible, God's holy and perfect word. So, for Bible-believing Christians, it is not a question of what God could do. It's about what He said He did. He said He made the universe in 6 days about 6500 years ago. So it is a question of whose word is more reliable, who has more knowledge---- human scientists, or God. This is why some people cannot believe in both God and evolution.

 

[Gunny]

Something to mull over for a while. If God, or any deity for that matter, were to be capable of creating life from nothing, do you really think that He, or She (don't want to offend anyone... ), would assemble something as complex as a human being? If you were going to create a hammer, for instance, would you design it to include billions of parts and dozens of subsystems? If you stop to think about it, the complexity of everything is an argument against ID or creationism.

You are limiting God to Man's knowledge. Perhaps what you find complex is simplicity itself to the One who creates it.

 

[deaddude]

Try going here


IControlThePast is much more articulate about this subject then I am.

 

[deaddude]

Those people WERE wackos. God does not TRICK people! They obviously don't know God. Of course dinosaurs existed; we have their fossils. And we also have cave drawings like the one in White River Canyon, Utah, that depicts a sauropod seen by native tribesmen. We also have many many stories about dinosaurs, passed down through ancient times. Only they didn't call them "dinosaurs." That word wasn't coined until 1841. They called them "dragons" back then.

Personally, I see no reason why crocodiles are not considered to be dinosaurs. They are large reptiles, are they? They certainly coexist with man.

There is not a fossil to date which corrisponds to the template for a Western dragon. Simply put there is not, nor is there a fossil of a quadrapedal creature with wings (also the fact that the wing spans on a creature of that size would have miles long). The eastern dragon is more plausible accept for the fact that it was said to be able to fly without any kind of winglike structure. Nor have I ever heard of a dinosaur which could breath fire. Sorry but the Dragons as dinosaurs argument is a bit thin.

 

[Nienna]

There is not a fossil to date which corrisponds to the template for a Western dragon. Simply put there is not, nor is there a fossil of a quadrapedal creature with wings (also the fact that the wing spans on a creature of that size would have miles long). The eastern dragon is more plausible accept for the fact that it was said to be able to fly without any kind of winglike structure. Nor have I ever heard of a dinosaur which could breath fire. Sorry but the Dragons as dinosaurs argument is a bit thin.

I guess that would depend on what you rely on for a description of a dragon. The "western template," or actual descriptions written by people who observed them.

John of Damascus
‘I am not telling you, after all, that there are no dragons; dragons exist but they are serpents [reptiles] borne of other serpents. When just born and young, they are small; but when they grow up and mature, they become big and fat so that they exceed the other serpents in length and size. It is said they grow up more than thirty cubits [14 metres, 45 feet]; as for their thickness, they become as thick as a huge log.’

‘Dio [Cassius] the Roman [ad 155–236], who wrote the history of the Roman empire and republic, reports the following: One day, when Regulus, a Roman consul [3rd C. bc], was fighting against Carthage, a dragon suddenly crept up and settled behind the wall of the Roman army. The Romans killed it by order of Regulus, skinned it and sent the hide to the Roman senate. When the dragon’s hide, as Dio says, was measured by order of the senate, it happened to be, amazingly, one hundred and twenty feet long, and the thickness was fitting to the length.’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/dragons.asp

These both sound like crocodile-type creatures to me. No mention of fire-breathing or wings here.

'Dragon' fossils seized
Chinese archaeologists claim to have found fossils of reptiles which resemble the dragons of Chinese mythology.

Seven hundred fossils of the 'Guizhou dragons' were confiscated from illegal fossil traders last April. The small reptiles had long necks, long curved tails, and five long bones in their feet.

The reptiles were found around Xingyi city in Guizhou province.

A researcher of ancient vertebrates from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Zhao Xijin, said Guizhou was an important base for the 'dragons'.


The Times (Malta), May 25, 1995.
This could be your fossil evidence.

 

[Nienna]

More...

Are there other ancient records of dinosaurs?
British historical documents from ancient times to the 1900’s record encounters people had with dragons—and many of the descriptions fit well-known dinosaurs.37 The emblem on the flag of Wales (United Kingdom) is a dragon.

In the film, The Great Dinosaur Mystery,38 a number of dragon accounts are presented:

A Sumerian story dating back to 2,000 B.C. or more tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.
When Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.
China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery and carvings.
England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
There is the story of a 10th century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.
In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several animals that we would call dinosaurs, as still alive. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on 13 May 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.
Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaur-like creatures have also been found.39


Ancient Indian rock drawings, like this one of a sauropod dinosaur from White River Canyon, Utah, show that dinosaurs coexisted with man.

Summary: People down through the ages have been very familiar with dragons. The descriptions of these animals fit with what we know about dinosaurs. The Bible mentions such creatures, even ones that lived in the sea and flew in the air. There is a tremendous amount of other historical evidence that such creatures have lived beside people.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp

P.S. This link also shows that cave drawing of the sauropod that I have been talking about.

 

[dilloduck]

More...

Are there other ancient records of dinosaurs?
British historical documents from ancient times to the 1900’s record encounters people had with dragons—and many of the descriptions fit well-known dinosaurs.37 The emblem on the flag of Wales (United Kingdom) is a dragon.

In the film, The Great Dinosaur Mystery,38 a number of dragon accounts are presented:

A Sumerian story dating back to 2,000 B.C. or more tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.
When Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.
China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery and carvings.
England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
There is the story of a 10th century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.
In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several animals that we would call dinosaurs, as still alive. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on 13 May 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.
Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaur-like creatures have also been found.39


Ancient Indian rock drawings, like this one of a sauropod dinosaur from White River Canyon, Utah, show that dinosaurs coexisted with man.

Summary: People down through the ages have been very familiar with dragons. The descriptions of these animals fit with what we know about dinosaurs. The Bible mentions such creatures, even ones that lived in the sea and flew in the air. There is a tremendous amount of other historical evidence that such creatures have lived beside people.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp

P.S. This link also shows that cave drawing of the sauropod that I have been talking about.

wow--this challenges reality as I have always known it---so the encounters with ufos are real too?

 

[deaddude]

You miss understand me mom4, go to to google type in western dragon hit images, most of the pictures you see will be of four legged retiles with wings. Now type in eastern dragon, the you will se song serpentine predominantly wingless dragons. The difference is based on the differences of east and west dragon myths. Neither of these creatures is in any way supported by the fossil record.