intelligent design or evolution

You said it ! :stuck_out_tongue: Darwin’s theory ! It has never progressed beyond that, not one scientist has ever been able to produce any tests or peer reviewed proof that evolution is true, just more assertions, more theories and more mud to throw. The Bible has never been re-written, it’s been translated but never re-written because the original authors died years ago :slight_smile:

What about ‘Jedi’

Jedi Knight is know a listed religion!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1589133.stm

See!!

Steve, it’s a fact that the first Gospels were not written until 70 years after Christ died. I think it was Mark and he was half mad and nearly dead. A theologist did a program on it.

What about King James??? HE re-wrote it. Half starved, mad monks translating it from the old language to latin and back into old english. Have faith but don’t ignore historical facts (mind you that get re-written too)

Don’t get me started… please!

Hmmm, here we go… Slarty, actually your wrong, there is plenty of evidence, and if you’ve done all the reading you claim you will have found it in bucket loads! If you do the research, think logically and remove bias you’ll find the evidence. In Steve Jones book I linked to, the opening chapter on viruses will start you off nicely - evolution in action, happening in real-time and all in the comfort of your very own petri dish :w00t:In one of Dawkins earlier books he gives a nice time frame for the world. I’m paraphrasing so please excuse me a bit. If you imagine a single sheet of A4 paper as recording one year of the world, you would need a stack of just over 2000 pages to take you back to Jesus, or perhaps a stack of paper about mid calf length. Now to take you back to the beginnings of our planet you will need a stack of paper stretching from central London up to the end of Scotland.It’s very hard for brains to comprehend these time scales we are simply not evolved in a way to sense these time frames. To challenge science is a brave thing indeed, especially from your science given computer under the science given light and about to go home on that most beautiful of science given thing the motorbike!:PSeriously though, evolution is simply the best thing we have so far for understanding where we come from. If tomorrow a testable theory comes along that is better then science will embrace it willingly. If god comes down and supplies some evidence of her excistance - same thing. The alternative is superstition. The god and the legends of ALL the Judao/ Xtian can be traced much further back to the preceding legends of the people that came before them.As Douglas Adams once said, “Is it not enough to look and know the garden is beautiful, without believing in fairies at the bottom of it?”

Your confusing theory with hypothosis here.

Can you summarise this and post it up? Put it in laymans terms otherwise I’ll never understand what you’re saying! :crazy: Words of one syllable will be fine ;)When I say scientific evidence and how it is interrpreted from your own angle I’m talking about our pre-suppositions.You are pre-supposed to evolution therefore you will look at an animal and see how it has passed on it’s genetic information and how that information can change. This, to you, would be good evidence of evolution. (Please correct me if I’m wrong).A creationist, would be pre-supposed to the idea that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. So looking at the same evidence of the animals passing on genetic information they are simply reproducing “of their kinds” as it states in Genesis. Therefore, to us, it’s good evidence of the creation/flood model.Now in my mind, I can happily call this “proof” because it is enough for me support the creation/flood model.Likewise you would call it proof of evolution. The evidence, however, is the same.Continuing to look at that genetic information we see that it is only coming from information which is already present. What it is not doing is creating any new information (which would create brand new characteristics). In fact in there is less genetic information in the resultant sub species which holds even more to the creation/flood model. We don’t see evidence in creatures passing on genetic information and becoming more complex. Which is why scientists who hold to creation don’t believe we started as genetically simple micro-organisms which became more complex and turned into creatures.

This is where, I suspect, it’s going to get flippin’ complicated but I’ll do my best to keep up!

Ok so it’s petty for me to say so but actually Mark was written 65-70 AD which is only 40 years or so after the death of Christ. Still, however, within the life time of those who walked with Jesus. In fact Mark was the interpreter of Peter, someone who did know Jesus.It is also supposed that Acts could have been written in 63 AD and as Acts was after Luke which was based on Mark then that could mean that Mark was written even earlier.The only reason I mention this is because certainly, still being in the lifetime of the disciples, means that anomolies in the stories would have been shown up. Added to which, the gospel of Luke uses a lot of sources within it’s texts, such as the Roman rules etc. to back up what it states.It’s highly unlikely that the authors would have been able to get away with falsefying it.Added to which, although this is only my opinion, what would they have to gain from doing so? A wonderful death being eaten alive by lions, or public floggings and stonings by they Jews. Crucifixion itself was a horibble way to be killed by asphyxiation.

So where did Mary and whats his face come into this…:D;)

You’ve started as all evolutionists start their “proofs”, by trying to suggest that “the evidence is there if you look for it” . . . sorry but it’s not there, show me ! :smiley: Why is it that a petri dish is required, what are they trying to prove with that, is there no evidence in animals ? We’re talking about where animals, plants and man came from, is there no evidence for us being the product of evolution ? Lets not blind everybody with science because I’ll get lost on the way as much as anybody else so lets keep it simple, show us the proof that man evolved from some ape or monkey like creature, or even from some sea based creature. Show us the proof that there is any form of evolution still carrying on today :wink:

Lets also define proof, a proof isn’t a statement that’s based on an assumption or a theory, a proof is something that is based on demonstrable fact, something that science can prove through experiment or that something exists in a physical state.

Sorry, I can’t summarize the chapter you ask as I read this book at least three years ago! But please do be assured, we can witness evolution happening - it happens all time. All viruses are incredibly hard to get rid of because of this. A virus, being so simple in nature, it can change it’s form rapidly making it much harder for us to ‘cure’ or actually treat it. As you have probably read antibiotics are finding harder to treat patients as the viruses their designed to cure are mutating - read evolving- into ever more diverse strains of the same virus.You claim that new information is not being created from the same DNA, but again this is not so. The human genome is full of ‘junk DNA’. Now I’m not one of those cyber warriors that’ll spend hours googling for my argument, that’s down to you;) We have loads of DNA that is no longer used or needed, but every now and again it’ll jump back at us in a way that we may or may not like, we often call it a deformity. To find the real info you will need to speak to far wiser and better educated people than me! You have a good point on presuposition, however this is known to science and so the ‘double blind experiment’ was created to counter it. A scientist has an idea and tests, the results back up her idea so she askes for independant research. This will involve someone carrying out similar tests independantly ‘double blind’ or in other words in a test, the person doing the test has no idea what the outcome will be, or be biased either way. A good example I saw reciently was a test for dowsing. a sample of buckets were put in a tent, some had water in them others were empty and some had sand in. A group of expert dowsers were asked to dowse and find the buckets of water. The buckets were NOT arranged by the scientists watching, but by independant, non biased people. The tests showed the dowsers had no better results than anyone else being asked to pick the buckets of water. A double blind test, neither dowsers nor testers knew which buckets had water so noone could infuence the test either way.FYI I grew up in a catholic envioroment and even the priests I questioned told me that the whole old testerment was simply metaphor, if catholic priests can admit that I can’t understand why whole swaiths of people can believe this stuff. Later,Sean

Hey Slarty, well there’s a challenge! It’s a bit of a non-arguement the idea that when a proof is given (ok in a petri dish;) ) a creationist who can’t be bothered to read anything including their own good book usually, will state no! Give us REAL proof! Well that is real proof, only proof happening in real time, in our lifetime and to a scale that we can see. As I said earlier it’s the timescale thats the problem and takes some real thinking to get around.

As I said, evolution is simply the ‘best’ answer we have so far, all else is superstiton, and I’m cool with that. I by know means feel superior or consider theists ‘weaker’ than I, we’re just different in opinion thats all, bit like politics:w00t:

You guys like you 2000 year old book, you overlook the real evil in there (the condoning of prostituting your daughters, masacre, genocide, racial hatred, stoning adultrus wives etc) You happily ignore these things and choose the nice stuff, but I ask,who are you to judge? How qualified are you? The proofs within the animal world are there for eveyone to see. As Dawkins has been mentioned you could start here

http://www.richarddawkins.com/

I’m no scientist myself, but I read a lot, subscribe to New Scientist (a much easier read than some might think :P) and I’ve come to my own conclusons. I’m not trying to preach, or make ad hominem attacks - please don’t think that!

But, your religeous, please read your books, you might be supprised by just how nasty they are.

England’s oldest surviving printed document, produced by William Caxton December 13 1476, was know as an “indulgence”, the document granted its recipients freedom from sin in return for penitence ( and sizeable charitable donations).

There is no proof as it’s unprovable. If it was a court of law it would have reasonable doubt :smiley: The great thing is that we ALL spend our lives working it all out and we ALL **** up along the way. :smiley:

If you threw it all in the pot and mixed it up - it’s all about right (minus the fanatical sides) Life is what you make of it. If you can learn from lessons written by prophets or ordinary men/women then great stuff. It’s no different to how I draw knowledge from those around me. There are many wise words spoken by ordinary people.

Jesus said ‘turn over an stone or leaf and I will be there. Don’t build temples to me’ … funny how people listen to what they chose to hear and not things like that :smiley: I look forward to the 3 variations of that quote :smiley:

I loved the Da vinci code - that had some great ideas. I also loved Dogma… :wink:

Me - Atheist, can’t remember when I wasn’t. I don’t mind others having ‘religion’ as long as they don’t shove it down my throat or argue about it in the pub or other public places (like here).

We are but part of the life-cycle of the sperm…

That’s ok, I didn’t for a second think or believe you were being superior. I have no problem with you or anyone else having a different opinion. Sometimes it’s only by sharing these opinions that we can understand more.

The old covenant did indeed condone genocide, masacre, racial hatred and the stoning of adultrous wives etc. (bit lost on the prostituting daughters bit) and these are all things that we find totally unacceptable in todays society.

There are some very harsh things that happened in old testament times.

Thankfully, under the new covenant (“testament”) the old is no longer necessary. That is, we no longer have to fulfill the old testament requirements on being able come into God’s presence by having to sacrifice animals etc. to take away our sin.

Lol, I remembered that during the last census they said that enough people put “Jedi” as their religion it would be formally recognised :slight_smile:

Yeah I did that with the census :smiley:

RK you said about the old testament and the harsh times of that era. Sweetie, those times are still with us and people are still living by those words. Same with all fanaticals, sadly

Yeah, that’s true enough. It is a sad “sign of the times”. The only thing I would say is that religion is often the excuse people will use. I suspect that if there were no religion of any type, then we would find another cause for it :frowning:

[quote]
shorinjidude (11/10/2007)

i belive in fairys :w00t:i think everyones right…in a way . if thats what a person belives in then thats what they belive in . i just dont hapen to have the same belifes as you …i am pagan but have dif belifes than bandit bird .its good to be dif it would be a bloody boring life if we was all the same.i look at life like this …:hehe:

she does too… totally off her rocker that bird :smiley: :hehe: