Announcement

**Jack the Bodiless** · July 17, 2002, 09:33

I'd like to know if seeing some BIG dude in a toga rip up a mountain, and bury a hundred-headed fire-breathing giant with it, would make people (especially Christians) believe in Zeus.

Seas have been known to retreat (e.g. before a tsunami). It's a much more common event than the appearance of a toga-wearing mountain-hurler.

**Richelieu** · July 17, 2002, 09:39

Horse : Can you turn it into wine ? Or beer ?

**Alex** · July 17, 2002, 09:42

beware, Horse... god is watching you...

**Alexander's Horse** · July 17, 2002, 09:42

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I'd like to know if seeing some BIG dude in a toga rip up a mountain, and bury a hundred-headed fire-breathing giant with it, would make people (especially Christians) believe in Zeus.

Sure I could go for that

**Alex** · July 17, 2002, 09:50

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I'd like to know if seeing some BIG dude in a toga rip up a mountain, and bury a hundred-headed fire-breathing giant with it, would make people (especially Christians) believe in Zeus.

Again, I would think that Hollywood went too far.

**Urban Ranger** · July 17, 2002, 09:58

CyberShy,

Stop regurgitating the same old crap. Evolution has been observed. See Observed Instances of Speciation.

It doesn't matter one way or other that we can't explain some of the things. It's like asking how gravity works. We aren't sure, but that doesn't mean there's no gravity.

**loinburger** · July 17, 2002, 10:04

Originally posted by CyberShy
Why don't they find a way to cure cancer / aids, to stop food starvation in Africa.

How are they supposed to do that effectively if they're not allowed to believe in evolutionary biology?

Assistant: "Sir, the virus has mutated. It is no longer affected by the experimental vaccine."

Researcher: "Heretic! Everybody knows that evolution is a lie!"

Assistant: "Sir, we've created a new hybrid grain plant that is highly resistant to crop failure."

Researcher: "Heretic! Everybody knows that evolution is a lie!"

**Robert** · July 17, 2002, 10:07

Urban Ranger, don't mix up gravity with the evolution from reptiles into mamals.

We actually can observe gravity but we didn't and will never observe the evolution from reptiles into mamals.

And yes, indeed I'm regurgitating old crap.
But so do you. That's why I said: for every argument there is a counter argument.

Science can't define things that can't be observed directly or indirectly.

**Skanky Burns** · July 17, 2002, 10:12

I've never quite understood why people who believe in God also refuse to believe in evolution. Like the two are mutually exclusive or something.
It kind of reminds me of the uproar when scientists proved that the Earth moved around the sun, and not the other way around.

Is it not possible that God created the universe, and programmed it to change and adapt by itself?

God may or may not exist (I believe it does), but evolution is proven.

**Lemmy** · July 17, 2002, 10:14

We actually can observe gravity but we didn't and will never observe the evolution from reptiles into mamals.

because this never happened

they evolved seperately, and birds evolved from reptiles...well, that is the theory

**Robert** · July 17, 2002, 10:17

How are they supposed to do that effectively if they're not allowed to believe in evolutionary biology?

:|
First I did not say they're not allowed to believe in evolutionairy biology.
2nd did I say they should cease focussing on those things that are not relevant. Curing cancer means of course that you have to know what the origins of cancer are.

I don't think you need to understand the evolution from a fish to a reptile or the cause for the big bang.

Is it not possible that God created the universe, and programmed it to change and adapt by itself?

I believe God created the universe at a quiet adult stage, but indeed from that point on things lived and mutated.

I simply do not believe that mutation results in new organs and much new functionalities though.
Of course now and than micro evolution will work, but not in such a big scale.

It's against any law of logic.

they evolved seperately, and birds evolved from reptiles...well, that is the theory

wait 20 years and the scientists will claim something different anyway.

**Jack the Bodiless** · July 17, 2002, 10:19

Originally posted by CyberShy
Urban Ranger, don't mix up gravity with the evolution from reptiles into mamals.

We actually can observe gravity but we didn't and will never observe the evolution from reptiles into mamals.

And yes, indeed I'm regurgitating old crap.
But so do you. That's why I said: for every argument there is a counter argument.

Science can't define things that can't be observed directly or indirectly.

But the evolution of reptiles into mammals HAS been "observed indirectly", in the fossil record.

First there are just reptiles in the lower layers, then you get therapsids (mammal-like reptiles) which get progressively more mammal-like, then you get mammals.

There IS no creationist counter-argument to this. If Genesis was true, there would be no separation in the fossil record, and no "transitional forms" like therapsids.

But these things exist. Therefore Genesis is bunk.

**Urban Ranger** · July 17, 2002, 10:22

Originally posted by CyberShy
Urban Ranger, don't mix up gravity with the evolution from reptiles into mamals.

I'm not mixing them up.

Originally posted by CyberShy
We actually can observe gravity but we didn't and will never observe the evolution from reptiles into mamals.

Of course not. The evolution of mammals occured in the past. Of course we will never observe it. There is always the fossil record.

How would you explain the existence of transitional forms? Creationism cannot do it.

**Lemmy** · July 17, 2002, 10:24

wait 20 years and the scientists will claim something different anyway.

based on new evidence off course, and only the birds from reptiles was theory, there was sufficient evidence found that mammals and reptiles did evolve seperately.

I simply do not believe that mutation results in new organs and much new functionalities though.
Of course now and than micro evolution will work, but not in such a big scale.

It's against any law of logic.

why would it be against logic?

but back to this:

They have also been proven wrong on very much things before as well!

Yes, they have been proven wrong, but that was never done by religion, but by other scientist.
Scientist have always corrected things that were taken for granted by religion, for example "earth is the center of the universe" But religion has never corrected science, except in a scientific way maybe.

**loinburger** · July 17, 2002, 10:26

Originally posted by CyberShy
It's against any law of logic.

How can the dismissal of a false dichotomy be illogical? I always thought that false dichotomies were, well, false.

wait 20 years and the scientists will claim something different anyway.

Yes, better to stick to the Fundie claims, since they never ever change regardless of how much evidence contradicts them.

Announcement

Would seeing the sea part make you believe in God?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment