This is why religious believers should pay very close attention to evolution.

reply to post by spy66


surely

just go to this page, and any word with a number after it, is a word that was in the original text. click the little numbers after the words, and it'll tell you the original hebrew, how it is pronounced, what the roots of it were (etymology) and references from other scholars who over the years, have written on the subject of what various words mean

GENESIS 1
www.blueletterbible.org...

reply to post by jokei


Just to state my opinion compared to yours. If God is God. Meaning everything that Is. Why would God have to use commands?

-Is he suddenly not God anymore and must threaten with a command?


-Is he not in total control over he's oven creation? Is that what the command is telling us?

In my opinion God is confirming what is coming next by saying let earth bring forth and so on. Its not a command but a time to observe what is coming next.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by spy66

 

surely

just go to this page, and any word with a number after it, is a word that was in the original text. click the little numbers after the words, and it'll tell you the original hebrew, how it is pronounced, what the roots of it were (etymology) and references from other scholars who over the years, have written on the subject of what various words mean

GENESIS 1
www.blueletterbible.org...

Tank you very much

reply to post by undo


I see you have a eye for the alternated version of Genesis chapter one.

Yes, it is convincing in many ways i have to say There are findings that also point in that direction. I have seen a lot of videos made by Michael Tsarion. They sound very convincing. But i haven't looked much into that view yet.

reply to post by undo


That's a pretty cool theory, I don't really believe it since it's kind of lacking evidence but it is definitely interesting.

I like the idea that we were a slave race of clones and that some being threw a wrench into the works by giving us a quick crash course in sex ed

Unfortunately it lacks the backing that evolution has. One of my main disagreements with people who claim beings or aliens interfered with our DNA is that there should be evidence of that interference. Shouldn't some of our genetic code be suspiciously different from other apes? Unless the modification was extremely subtle.

Definitely a fun concept to play around with but it would take a bit more to sway me to believe it

reply to post by spy66


Deep breath - as stated before, I'm an Atheist, so I'm just here devating for the fun of debating.

God might not have to use commands - that's just our interpretation, which is a bit of a cop out. So maybe to clarify (?) God willed it - which isn't necessarily a command.

Is he suddenly not god and must threaten? I'm with Epicurus on this one.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7ab776cd6fe.jpg[/atsimg]

He might not be in total control, but does he want to be? Wasn't man given free will?

I totally agree with you on your opinion on the "commands"...

Edit to add:
Not sure if you read my last post and got what I intended? I was (trying to) compare the difference between "Thou shalt" which is definitely a command" and "Let the earth bring forth" etc - which is a permission.

[edit on 14/5/1010 by jokei]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


hrm, well, it says the first adam was not just men but also women. or rather males and females. i pondered that for a long time. then it dawned on me that moses was the one recounting the story, and being raised egyptian, he would naturally tell it from the egyptian perspective. so whatcha see there is the creation of ATUM clones. they were clones of ATUM. this is why the egyptian stories claim ATUM was self-creating.

some believe we are gods, in effect, that we were fashioned in the likeness of gods, and therefore we must be gods (a clone of a god is no different than the original, with the exception of life experience, knowledge, and environmental factors). but alas, we were downgraded when we were given the ability to procreate like animals do, and in so doing, it effected our capacity to retain huge amounts of data (i believe this is the junk dna, which was originally accessible, and has been blocked off from usage for our personal purposes. i do believe it's recording our lives (the book of life) and this area of our dna is what ends up being accessed by people with savant syndrome.



anyway, egypt ties into this story very tightly

[edit on 14-5-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo

but alas, we were downgraded when we were given the ability to procreate like animals do, and in so doing, it effected our capacity to retain huge amounts of data

But if identical clones were to procreate how could the offspring be anything but gods as well? Wouldn't every sperm and every egg just produce another clone or did the aliens/beings modify man to have genetic variance? Why would they make us to be able to evolve and change through procreation (what you've called a downgrade) and yet not want us to do something our bodies were capable of?

All this sci-fi speculation is fun and all but it lacks the evidence to back it up, particularly the genetic evidence. Shouldn't we find genetic evidence setting us far apart from other apes or has our fall from grace made us become nothing but apes? The whole premise raises far more questions than it answers and could hardly hope to overturn the mountains of evidence in support of natural evolution.

reply to post by jokei





I know you are a atheist, and a smart one too. So i have to pay attention to what you say

Yes, God gave us free will. But Man was created last in the whole sequence.
"We" were given commands to fallow after we were created, but we are not commanded to fallow them. Because of the punishment that is also mentioned if we don't. We have a choice here

So in my opinion the commandments are more like a set of rules instead of a command.

I hope i answered both post with this answer

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


downgrade. it was a downgrade of the original clones. so what you see reproducing are not the original clones of the gods, but a downgraded, part animal version of the original clones of the gods.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


At what time does a blind creature never knowing light decide to evolve an eye? What tells the creature the difference between dark and light? When does it's gene's and D.N.A decide it would be even more beneficial to have two eyes? What caused the need for smell or hearing? If what you say is true that all Speci. evolved from common ancestors which came first? Was it the reptile? The Birds? Maybe the mammals? What the decided that of each group, some should be predators or herbivore's. Careful with your answer on that one because cannibalism is a sure death to your theory.

You do realize that the humans are at the top of the food chain? Do you also realize that in the next step of our evolution we will be no more? We are bound for extinction by our own hands. A creature cannot by your theory devolve. It flies in the face of evolution.

OP this was your original subject matter for the thread:

Genesis 1:11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

You do realize that the grass coming forth was done without photosynthesis?
It was done on the second day the sun and moon were created on the third day. That's not evolution, that is creation. The light that was available and called day was CREATED on the first day.

Here's a thought: When God came on the scene there was already darkness. Then he said let there be light and he saw it was good. Now he did not at that time create darkness nor did he say it was good. But it is evident that it was already present and due to lack of comments I think it was where evil dwelt. I think evolution may fit into the darkness side simply because of its characteristics i.e. "being hard to see in". Some choose to not see, some are misled into believing what can't be seen or proven.

I could point to scripture all day long but you will not have it and so far it only engenders unprovoked attack. And clearly that was not the ops agenda here. The problem I see here is there is no common ground on which the evolutionist and the creationist can have civil debate without sinking to personnel attacks. Water and oil will not mix.

reply to post by Loken68


I'm not here to teach you things you are too lazy to research yourself... here's an overview of the evolutionary process from beginning to end:Timeline of Evolution

By the way organisms do not make conscious decisions to evolve certain advantageous, genetic variation and population mechanics led to the slow develop of advantageous like the first photosensitive cells and eventually organisms with primitive "eyes". The first fossils of the eye come from the during the "Cambrian explosion" but unfortunately the fossil record that far back does not offer an immediate answer for how quickly the eye evolved.
Evolution of the Eye

I can assure that simply because the scientific community has not reached a 100% consensus on why the eye evolved in so many organisms at once does not invalidate the fossil evidence that that is exactly what happened. Lack of an answer means we study harder not that we slap a God did it sticker on and call it a day.

A creature cannot by your theory devolve

Evolution does not necessarily work toward a better organism, merely one more fit for survival in its current environment. Environmental factors often drive evolution. For instance us humans, through malnutrition and poor medicine, used to be shorter in stature and live much shorter lives but when the environmental factors changed and food became abundant and medicine sound we began to grow taller and live longer. This is, as you have defined it, a micro-evolution BUT these micro-changes can not only become permanent but can eventually lead to a divergence of our species (perhaps between the hungry and the full).

And by the way cannibalism does nothing to injure evolution, other than the fact that organisms genetically hard-wired NOT to eat each other typically survive better. A lone predator organism would not suffer too greatly from devouring others of its kind but for a social organism like us humans it is very very disadvantageous hence why we have such an aversion to cannibalism.

Also, Evolution is not MY theory, it is merely THE theory. It is the only scientific theory that explains both the striking similarities of organisms and the intense bio-diversity on the planet and does so with a great deal of evidence present in genetics, all aspects of biology, behavioral studies and the fossil record.

You do realize that the grass coming forth was done without photosynthesis? It was done on the second day the sun and moon were created on the third day. That's not evolution, that is creation. The light that was available and called day was CREATED on the first day.

So what you are saying is that the Creation account in the Bible is not only via magical creation ex nihilo but actually breaks the laws of nature further by having grass grow without any sunlight merely with some supernatural illumination? Why would you purposely poke holes in the account you have been trying to defend? The OP mentions how similar God commanding the Earth to bring forth life sounds to evolution and that Creationists shouldn't be so opposed to Evolution.

The Bible provides no real answers to bio-diversity or why humans and apes are so alike. Apparently God was attempting to deceive us because he appears to have done his best to leave fossils and genetic evidence pointing directly toward evolution and left no trace whatsoever of his mysterious life creating incantation.

I could point to scripture all day long but you will not have it and so far it only engenders unprovoked attack

When have I attacked you? I have been quite civil in rebutting your arguments. I can assure you that scripture does not amount to evidence in a discussion on evolution vs creation unless you can provide archeological or scientific proof backing up said scripture.

As I recall it was you gloating earlier about how the score was Creation 3 Evolution 0.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Loken68

 

I'm not here to teach you things you are too lazy to research yourself... here's an overview of the evolutionary process from beginning to end:Timeline of Evolution

I sought no teaching's from you, Nor do I copy and paste so-called research.

By the way organisms do not make conscious decisions to evolve certain advantageous, genetic variation and population mechanics led to the slow develop of advantageous like the first photosensitive cells and eventually organisms with primitive "eyes". The first fossils of the eye come from the during the "Cambrian explosion" but unfortunately the fossil record that far back does not offer an immediate answer for how quickly the eye evolved.
Evolution of the Eye

I think your mistaken evolution for adaptation.

I can assure that simply because the scientific community has not reached a 100% consensus on why the eye evolved in so many organisms at once does not invalidate the fossil evidence that that is exactly what happened. Lack of an answer means we study harder not that we slap a God did it sticker on and call it a day.

How can you assure me of anything that is not 100% factual.


Evolution does not necessarily work toward a better organism, merely one more fit for survival in its current environment. Environmental factors often drive evolution. For instance us humans, through malnutrition and poor medicine, used to be shorter in stature and live much shorter lives but when the environmental factors changed and food became abundant and medicine sound we began to grow taller and live longer. This is, as you have defined it, a micro-evolution BUT these micro-changes can not only become permanent but can eventually lead to a divergence of our species (perhaps between the hungry and the full).

"What?"


Also, Evolution is not MY theory, it is merely THE theory. It is the only scientific theory that explains both the striking similarities of organisms and the intense bio-diversity on the planet and does so with a great deal of evidence present in genetics, all aspects of biology, behavioral studies and the fossil record.

Where is the evolving fossils? No one else has seen them.

So what you are saying is that the Creation account in the Bible is not only via magical creation ex nihilo but actually breaks the laws of nature further by having grass grow without any sunlight merely with some supernatural illumination? Why would you purposely poke holes in the account you have been trying to defend? The OP mentions how similar God commanding the Earth to bring forth life sounds to evolution and that Creationists shouldn't be so opposed to Evolution.

Now your getting it. Creation doesn't follow the natural laws. God created the natural laws.

The Bible provides no real answers to bio-diversity or why humans and apes are so alike. Apparently God was attempting to deceive us because he appears to have done his best to leave fossils and genetic evidence pointing directly toward evolution and left no trace whatsoever of his mysterious life creating incantation.

Yes the fossil record show thousands of different speci. but it hasn't once gave up a missing link. even now most evo scientist have given up looking and are now trying to connect imaginary dot's.

When have I attacked you? I have been quite civil in rebutting your arguments. I can assure you that scripture does not amount to evidence in a discussion on evolution vs creation unless you can provide archeological or scientific proof backing up said scripture.

Are these your words? Revealed to a bunch of bigots and primitive superstitious people by a genocidal and maddeningly paradoxical deity. The God of the Bible kills children, demands blood of animals, damns people to an eternal Hell for sins as simple as lying, drowns the entire Earth in a horrific flood. The Biblical creation myths do nothing to explain our origins save perhaps the verse spoken of in the OP which does seem insightful. I have decided not to put my faith in anything but to actually base my conclusion on a preponderance of the evidence. You see when something has been vindicated by the evidence there is no need for faith because it is evidently true. Evolution is evidently true. Magical creation is evidently false.

The original thread was a debate on whether or not God created or allowed it to evolve. You hijacked the thread. if you'd like We could start a thread on why I think Atheist do not really exist.

reply to post by Loken68

How can you assure me of anything that is not 100% factual.

It is 100% factual. Many of the fossils we found that correspond to the Cambrian Explosion show, the only question that remains is why so many organisms seem to have developed the eye at the same time. There are several theories in the scientific community explaining but even though one particular theory has not found full acceptance does not mean the fossil evidence becomes invalid. The fossil evidence still shows that the eye evolved in multiple organisms during the Cambrian explosion.

I think your mistaken evolution for adaptation.

Same thing. Adaptation is an empty safeword that Creationists retreat to much like the so-called "microevolution". Evolution and adaptation are the same thing.

Where is the evolving fossils? No one else has seen them.

Wrong. We have more transitional fossils than Darwin could have ever dreamed of. I already debunked this claim in a post above.

Now your getting it. Creation doesn't follow the natural laws. God created the natural laws.

But Evolution, and indeed everything we have ever taken the time to study about our Universe DOES follow the laws of nature. Animals and lifeforms of all kinds are clearly part of the natural world and there is ample evidence to show that we are products of a natural process known as evolution. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that a magical supernatural being descended from the Heavens and made us from dirt. It is silly to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence. In fact there is less than no evidence for Magical Creation. In order for creation to become a contender with Evolution it would need to have at least one shred of evidence, which it does not and then it would need to continue compiling evidence for a century or so until it had accumulated enough to overturn evolution. So Creationists had better stop going over their Bibles and start getting degrees from legitimate Universities.

Yes the fossil record show thousands of different speci. but it hasn't once gave up a missing link.

You must not have read any of my previous posts, look again at the list of Transitional Fossils I posted before. We do have transitional species. In fact in some ways almost all species are currently transitional other than those that have found an advantageous evolutionary niche such as sharks and crocodilians but even those in the niches do undergo alterations and become new species.

now trying to connect imaginary dot's.

The only imaginary dots I see are the ones you are trying to connect. You are constantly ignoring the evidence I've posted rebutting your claims and continue to drone on about perceived flaws in evolution that I have shown are not there. And by the way, connecting the dots using actual scientific evidence is preferable to inventing one massive giant imaginary dot called "GOD DID IT".

The original thread was a debate on whether or not God created or allowed it to evolve. You hijacked the thread. if you'd like We could start a thread on why I think Atheist do not really exist.

Actually I have mentioned the OP many times in my posts. I am open to the idea of God but not open to the idea that God is a magical sky daddy going around conjuring men from dirt with a magic spell. The Bible does have a verse that sounds reminiscent of evolution which makes me wonder why so many Creationists, such as yourself, refuse to even consider evolution an option. Once again, why are you limiting your God to magic?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Darwin introduced his Theory of Evolution in 1859; it became generally accepted worldwide by scientists during the 1930s. That is a full lifetime ago. Since then literally millions of scientists worldwide have studied it and accepted it. Yet scientists have never successfully quantified it, nor produced a working mathematical formula based on the Theory of Evolution.

Darwinists have tried very hard to produce an Evolution Formula. Every scientist knows that whoever succeeds in creating an Evolution Formula would win a Nobel Prize. That is why millions of pro-evolution scientists have each devoted years trying to quantify Darwinism. But no scientist ever succeeded. It was not the fault of the scientists. It was the fault of the theory. The theory is false. You cannot create a working formula for an invalid theory.

Let us quantify this giant failure of Evolution Theory:

If there have been only 5 million scientists in the world in each of the years 1930 to 2007, and only 1 percent of them devoted 5% of their careers to the effort of trying to quantify Evolution Theory in an attempt to win a Nobel Prize, then together, scientists have devoted 7.7 million man-years trying to quantify Darwinism and FAILED.

When we have a formula, we can test it, make predictions with it, and check to see if the theory behind the formula really works.

There is no Evolution Formula because evolution theory fails. The Theory of Evolution is fake science.

reply to post by Loken68

a working mathematical formula

I'm not sure of the veracity of that claim but either way Evolution is not a branch of mathematics.

If there have been only 5 million scientists in the world in each of the years 1930 to 2007, and only 1 percent of them devoted 5% of their careers to the effort of trying to quantify Evolution Theory in an attempt to win a Nobel Prize, then together, scientists have devoted 7.7 million man-years trying to quantify Darwinism and FAILED.

Mind explaining to me how you're coming up with these numbers? To my knowledge Evolution is not a branch of mathematics. Furthermore the proof of evolution comes form multiple different branches of BIOLOGY. Genetics shows how related certain animals are and can help point to common ancestry and also explains how population mechanics, genetic variation and mutation drive evolution. The fossil record shows a number of transitional forms, I point you to my earlier post which contained the link to the list. The most famous, of course, is Archeopteryx. And by the way no one uses the term Darwinism anymore other than Creationists. Behavioral studies also show a link between animals who are evolutionarily related. And what of Phylogeny?

Evolution does not need a formula, it already has enough evidence to be accepted by every scientific mind on the planet (even the Christian ones don't argue against the evidence for evolution that is right in front of them).

Mind explaining to me how you're coming up with these numbers? To my knowledge Evolution is not a branch of mathematics. Furthermore the proof of evolution comes form multiple different branches of BIOLOGY. Genetics shows how related certain animals are and can help point to common ancestry and also explains how population mechanics, genetic variation and mutation drive evolution. The fossil record shows a number of transitional forms, I point you to my earlier post which contained the link to the list. The most famous, of course, is Archeopteryx. And by the way no one uses the term Darwinism anymore other than Creationists. Behavioral studies also show a link between animals who are evolutionarily related. And what of Phylogeny?

Evolution does not need a formula, it already has enough evidence to be accepted by every scientific mind on the planet (even the Christian ones don't argue against the evidence for evolution that is right in front of them).

You got to be joking?
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work. Oh now I see it......lol. Looks like you got a blind spot or you would have known that.

You can test a formula; you cannot actually test words. Numbers are precise; words are not precise. Numbers and formulae have the same meaning all over the world. But when you use just words, they have different meanings in different languages. These are all reasons that mathematics and formulae make up the accepted universal language of science. It is numbers and formulae that distinguish a possible valid scientific law from mere theory.

Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions.

But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so.

The reason for this failure is simple. There is no workable formula for Darwinian Evolution because the theory does not really work. Darwinian Evolution is not quantifiable because the theory is fatally flawed.

Essentially every accepted scientific theory has a mathematical formula to support it, and to prove it really works. Einstein's Theory of Relativity has e=mc2; Newton's second law of motion has f=ma. Mendel's Laws were quantifiable using ratios. The list goes on and on: Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Boyle's law, Bernoulli's Principle, Charle's Law, etc., etc., etc.

reply to post by Loken68


So you are suggesting that because it doesn't have an equation its not true? Evolution is part of BIOLOGY, not PHYSICS and not MATHEMATICS.

Are you suggesting that Germ Theory needs an equation too?

Germ Theory

Like I said, the evidence is in genetics, the fossil record, behavioral study and essentially every branch of biology. Evolution needs no unifying equation to be true. Evolution, Speciation, HAS BEEN DIRECTLY OBSERVED.

And by the way there are several equations that are used within Evolutionary theory but all of them come AFTER Evolution was already proven to occur in more ways than one.

The Price equation (also known as Price's equation) is a covariance equation which is a mathematical description of evolution and natural selection. The Price equation was derived by George R. Price, working in London to rederive W.D. Hamilton's work on kin selection.

Price Equation

Either you have been led astray in the past and are too afraid to let go of the ancient myths drilled into your head as a child or you are being willfully ignorant ignoring the evidence.

I'm done with you in this thread, go back over my posts and do the research yourself. I've done all I can to wake you up.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


WHAT? There is a germ equation.Germ

Price's equation is flawed science=bunkPrice's equation flawed

reply to post by Loken68


Yes there is a germ equation - but they didn't need the equation to prove germ theory. There are equations in evolutionary theory but the theory was proven without them. You claimed that because evolution doesn't have an equation it couldn't be true.

I'm done.


There is truly no defeating the mind closed by religion. Show them all the evidence in the world and they still believe a magical being from Heaven made men from dirt and women from ribs...


....

...

..
.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]