Your Religious Views

[Roy Munson]

Dean! you cant be real with the stuff you stated if evolution is real then where is the in between animals in the fossil record? I am sure you are a great person an have great snakes but if we ever meet lets not talk religion! as far as god resting on the 7 th day that was not because he was tired it was so he could look at all he created everything he had created. and where does the bible chance its story at about the order of creation?

Oh I'm for real all right. :grin01:

Genesis 2.2 (KJV): "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he is created before. Again, don't take my word for it, look for yourself.

And I'm sure you're a great person too! But you shouldn't assume that because I'm an atheist that I am ignorant of the bible. I know it a lot better than most devout Christians I know.

I'll spare you the endless series of fossil transitions I could present you. You'll find that many are presented in the link I provided earlier. The fossil record is abundant with transitional fossils. Don't take my word for it; do the research. Your pastor may be an expert in scriptural matters, but I wouldn't take his word on issues of science. The bible is not a science book.

 

[GregF]

We are living within a universe that operates by its own laws - and those laws probably have nothing to do with us. Atheist (agnostic if I'm feeling generous).

p.s. Thank you all for the civility of this thread.

 

[SkyChimp]

I'm a dyslexic agnostic. Essentially, I sit around wondering if there really is a DOG.

 

[El Jefe]

The bible is not a science book.

And vice versa.


Well said. Both require faith and both are systems of beliefs. You believe the scientist/science book or you believe the pastor/priest/bible. They are not mutually exclusive. The scientists say the earth is X number of years old because of Y theory. Faith in his calculation. A southern baptist may say the earth is X number of years old because of the bible. Faith in his theory.

This forum is not the first time this debate as come up and I can guarantee it is not that last....unless........

HE comes for us....:sidestep:

Or someone builds a time machine.....:sidestep:

 

[Nanci]

DOG is on the lam!

Nanci

 

[Jrgh17]

Dean! you cant be real with the stuff you stated if evolution is real then where is the in between animals in the fossil record?

Well, between monkeys and humans, there's Australopithecus, and Neanderthals.

 

[SkyChimp]

I have very strong beliefs. But I don't wear them on my sleeve. I look at all the tragedy religion as caused in recorded history and wonder how there can be a God. Then I go into the woods and on the water and wonder how there can't. It's all very hard to reconcile.

 

[dr73]

Oh I'm for real all right. :grin01:

Genesis 2.2 (KJV): "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he is created before. Again, don't take my word for it, look for yourself.

And I'm sure you're a great person too! But you shouldn't assume that because I'm an atheist that I am ignorant of the bible. I know it a lot better than most devout Christians I know.

I'll spare you the endless series of fossil transitions I could present you. You'll find that many are presented in the link I provided earlier. The fossil record is abundant with transitional fossils. Don't take my word for it; do the research. Your pastor may be an expert in scriptural matters, but I wouldn't take his word on issues of science. The bible is not a science book.

In Genesis 1 it tells the story of how god made the world an the order of it .Genesis 2 it tells (in more detail ) how this happened. It does say god brought the animals to Adam to name but it does not say that he made man then animals. genesis 2 is not a differant version of Genesis 1. it just gives more detail. I never said you did not know the bible but the problem with picking the bible to pieces is why we have so many differant religions. people can pick it apart to fit what ever they want. you have to read all of it an go from there . I hope that your beliefs are right because if there not ...........In Psalms (somewhere) it says that a day to god is like a thousand years to man. I am not trying to argue. You are like a corn god to me! an I am sure you are to others too. I just dont want all of them to think your statements are all correct. god takes faith to believe in and I can tell you have very little faith.

 

[dr73]

Well, between monkeys and humans, there's Australopithecus, and Neanderthals.

that is not an in between! those are all differant species! if it was an in between the fossil record would show a slow transition from one to the other not 4 differant fossil's. as I said before there is no in between because that is not how it happens an if it does then how come it still is not happening today :shrugs:

 

[Roy Munson]

I am not trying to argue. You are like a corn god to me! an I am sure you are to others too. I just dont want all of them to think your statements are all correct. god takes faith to believe in and I can tell you have very little faith.

I'm not trying to argue either, really. And I'm no "evangelistic atheist". In fact, I find the theist/atheist and creation/evolution debates to be pretty boring at this point. I'm usually drawn in when someone attacks science. I have a lot of respect for scientists. And you're right about the faith thing; I seem to have been born with little or none of it.

Corn god? I hope not! :grin01: I'm not disputing the existence of corn gods, but I'm not one of them. We both think corns are cool; that's enough. We don't have to agree 100% on everything to be friends and to respect each other. :cheers:

 

[dr73]

:cheers: Dean I agree with your last statement. :cheers:

 

[suecornish]

Right on Dean.

People should be able to get together and talk, exchange ideas, ask the other person why he/she feels the way they do. That is intellegent discussion which leads to a greater understanding of what and why someone else is the way they are.

What it all comes down to with religion is faith. Faith that what you believe in is correct. A modern day Muslim scholar once said "I believe in Islam and what the Prophet Mohammad preached. If it is wrong, than it is the biggest con job in the world."

It's like that with everyone. You have faith that what you believe is correct. But we should also have respect for our fellow man to allow him to believe what he wants to believe without insulting that faith or belittling the intellegence of the man.

 

[jaxom1957]

Well, between monkeys and humans, there's Australopithecus, and Neanderthals.

Neanderthal man is not considerred an ancestor of modern man, but a parallel branch to Homo sapiens that went extinct. Some scientists are looking at the fossil record and genetics for evidence that Neanderthal man interbred with modern man. I believe they will find it, as something has to explain the Basque. :flames:

 

[desertanimal]

The scientists say the earth is X number of years old because of Y theory. Faith in his calculation. A southern baptist may say the earth is X number of years old because of the bible. Faith in his theory.

But as you well know, those theories are not the same. One, the scientific theory, is only a theory because it has stood up to rigorous testing and has not been able to be falsified. Faith is not a theory in the same sense of the word.

 

[desertanimal]

that is not an in between! those are all differant species! if it was an in between the fossil record would show a slow transition from one to the other not 4 differant fossil's. as I said before there is no in between because that is not how it happens an if it does then how come it still is not happening today :shrugs:

We don't have that kind of resolution in the fossil record of hominids. But, if you look at the fossil records of insects, or of some of the micromammals, you can find the sort of pattern you are after. I'm guessing you're not going to look, though.

However, we do have some pretty good resolution in the fossil record from archaic Homo sapiens in Europe to Neandertals from about 800kya to 150kya. It shows pretty well a gradual change from populations that look like classic "archaics" to classic Neandertals. And, your species definition here is inadequate for this discussion, but, I won't launch into that unless I hear from you that you're really interested.

Evolution IS still happening today. But the kind of change you're wanting to see (macroevolution, i.e., speciation) happens very slowly, because the generation times for most of the animals we are interested in is pretty long. We won't be around to see the end result of most speciation events. It's a process, not an instantaneous event, and the process takes longer than you or I will be around for.

 

[suecornish]

Neanderthal man is not considerred an ancestor of modern man, but a parallel branch to Homo sapiens that went extinct. Some scientists are looking at the fossil record and genetics for evidence that Neanderthal man interbred with modern man. I believe they will find it, as something has to explain the Basque. :flames:

Those are the men with extremely hairry backs. :grin01:

 

[desertanimal]

Neanderthal man is not considerred an ancestor of modern man, but a parallel branch to Homo sapiens that went extinct. Some scientists are looking at the fossil record and genetics for evidence that Neanderthal man interbred with modern man. I believe they will find it, as something has to explain the Basque. :flames:

LOL! The data are already in, Jaxom. The mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that Cro Magnon (anatomically modern Homo sapiens contemporaneous and sympatric with Homo neandertalensis) had mtDNA within the range of variation of today's human populations, but Neandertal mtDNA was way outside the range of today's human variation. The mtDNA analyses suggest a divergence date between modern humans and neandertals of around 800kya. We are sister species, and there is no good evidence of substantial amounts of interbreeding. I even have an Iranian friend who is a staunch believer that neandertals and modern humans interbred, but his dissertation analysis on dental characteristics fell firmly on the side of the argument that they did not, which he was forced to admit. You've got to come up with another explanation for the Basque, if that's your contention!

 

[desertanimal]

By the way, has it been proven that people and dinosaurs never existed together? Because if dinosaurs went into extinction before people were created, then how do we know what they look like? :sidestep:

Yes. It has been irrefutably proven. And no, we don't know what they look like. We know the general shape from fossils, but we don't know what colors they were, what their skin looked like, etc. The could've had noses the size of length of telephone poles. But we make educated guess based on what we know from living reptiles, as well as what we know from physics. If you had a nose the length of a telephone pole, you'd need a tail to counterbalance that, and tails have bones to tell their length, and no tails suggest the dinos were needing to counterbalance noses that long. If you watch any of those dinosaur shows with a dino paleontologist, they get all upset, yelling about how. "We don't know that!" and carrying on. Much the same as watching Law and Order with a lawyer.

 

[jazzgeek]

But as you well know, those theories are not the same. One, the scientific theory, is only a theory because it has stood up to rigorous testing and has not been able to be falsified. Faith is not a theory in the same sense of the word.

Good on ya, Steph. I made a post on "layman theories" vs. "scientific theories" a-coupla-years ago now.

My personal belief system? Credo consolans.

regards,
jazz

 

[Jrgh17]

If you believe in genetics (and understand it), it's almost impossible to say that evolution isn't happening. Very simply, evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in any gene pool. If you have 20 corns, 10 het for anery and 10 anery, and you mate them randomly for many generations, you'll eventually find that even though anery is recessive, the percentage of the animals in the population which are anery will increase if you positively select for anery in some way (for instance, selling all corns which are not het anery, if you could tell). The allele frequencies in your population will be changing, and evolution will be occurring.

And my bad on the early humans thing. I get them mixed up all the time. Desertanimal's right.