Original thread is here:

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...0;t=012696;p=9

Last post made by Grungi:

Have fun! [img]smile.gif[/img]

-Sazerac

(in reply to his last comment [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) cloudbringer its not great minds thinking alike, your using your esp psychic powers again [img]tongue.gif[/img]

and check this link everyone

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=1846750

thats a documented reason as to why i have problems with organised religion (not personal religion)

<font color="plum"><font color="orange">Grungi</font> - I just wanted to let you know that I've developed a lot of respect for you throughout the previous discussion. I understand you don't like religion. I went through similar (but far less harsh) circumstances growing up. I know what it's like to be picked on by other kids. I went through a lot of that myself mainly because I was just too small to do much about it.

<font color="lightsteelblue">Darkman</font> - I made the post about dinosaurs in the Bible because <font color="orange">Grungi</font> and <font color="red">Hunter of Jahanna</font> had both asked why the Bible didn't mention them at all. I realized (and admitted) that the wording used in <font color="deepskyblue">Job</font> was very generic and subject to interpretation. The explanation gave the reasoning behind the decision that "behemoth" was the OT term for "dinosaur".

Also, I personally do not "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible I consider literal and which parts I consider symbolic. I consider the entire Bible to be literal (with the exception of <font color="deepskyblue">Revelations</font>, which can't be literal as it describes events that have not yet come to pass) - yet it is also amazingly symbolic at the same time. A rather unique accomplishment in my opinion. However, as you read my posts, you will notice that I do not engage in "Bible-thumping". It's ineffective, tires out my arms, and ruins the spine on my Bible....so I finally just gave it up. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="coral">Madriver</font> - It was not fear that kept me from responding to the links you posted...it was simply real-life. Too many family and work obligations going on right now. The information was interesting, but gave no evidence compelling enough to change my mind. I don't deny that evolution does occur <font color="white">within</font> the same species or breed...but I saw nothing to convince me that it is possible for one species to evolve into a different one. Here is a link to a Christian rebuttal of the Theory of Evolution {[url]http://christiananswers.net/creation/menu-humans.html[/b]}. It answers several of the more common issues regarding Evolution vs Creation.

<font color="lime">Trickster</font> - Just wanted to say HELLO and GOOD TO SEE YA! I've missed your presence on the boards and hope you'll be around more often.

{whew} Let's see......what else do I need to cover....OH YEAH!!!!!

The whole series of "attacks" on science and carbon dating were basically just my way of trying to turn the tables on those who say they only believe that which can be proven with hard evidence. They typically (but not always) criticize Christians for accepting God on "faith" and say that we are just deluding ourselves. <font color="yellow">Yorick</font> was the first to point out that - unless the critics were scientists themselves - then they also were accepting the facts of science on "faith". I carried that concept a bit further to show that science is NOT infallible (and is sometimes just flat out wrong).

I don't fear science, nor do I believe there is a global conspiracy among scientists to discredit religion in general. The two fields can be quite compatible and support one another when viewed in the proper perspective. I do view science with some skepticism because we have first-hand accounts that scientists sometimes manipulate the data in order to get a favorable result. And - as has been mentioned already - things that were considered universally true just a few years ago are now known to be false, or only partially correct.

Well, I'm sure I've overlooked some other important members and/or points from the previous discussion, but my time is up for now. I do want to commend EVERYBODY on the lack of <font color="yellow">flaming</font> in these threads. You have all been very civil and respectful to each other (for the most part) and that is what leads to the most enjoyable discussions here.

Keep up the good work. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="#ff00cc"> Good post as usual <font color=plum>Cerek</font> As usual. I still have my own beliefs that the creator made the laws of nature and that the Universe evolved through those laws not through the mystical "poof" its done style of what I believe to be a mostly alagorical and parable laden Genesis. [img]smile.gif[/img] I wouldn't argue against anyone though, I just have this theory that I use for my own spiritual & intellectual comfort [img]smile.gif[/img] .</font>

[ 12-05-2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

There are hundreds of transitional fossils proving that evolution occurs inter-species (macroevolution), as opposed to intra-species.

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps", represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others.

Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave".

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia. As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals - even though none are found living today.

One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids. Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.

This is just a sample. Do transitional fossils between species convince you that evolution is not restricted to within a species?

That was an interesting link you provided, but it is the same as most "evolution is a lie" links, it picks and chooses what to argue and refute. And most of the chosen arguments that are refuted are usually the weaker ones.

Oh, and, I was only joking about the fear part anyway...why should anyone be afraid of a good-natured debate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 12-05-2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Madriver ]

nooo cerek dont get me wrong, i like religion though its not for me, but not organised religion which does more harm than good, personal religion is a very good thing esp with people who follow it well.

btw i have one more point about the whole incest issue which is this....

genetically where did genetic disease come from if adam and eve were created perfectly? for me it gels less the adam and eve theory than evolution creation theory, how do you explain racial skin tones as well, because if your explanation is they adapt to their climate yes i agree but thats genetics and dna which does that, so therefore they evolve, how else can you explain different races?

Incest & intermarrying between small communties is proven to continue genetic disorders, see the amish community for example so that eventually you get an almost xfiles (ever see that episode) where the inbreeding cannot continue any further. So if we all began from an incestuous relationship by now there would have been enough impurities surely to have messed us all again unless evolution compensated, in which case theres a theory in between the two which fits both. But theres no way you can discount evolution i think not if you really think about the origins even if adam and eve are involved.

ACK!!! I disappear for a few days and see what happens. [img]smile.gif[/img] Looks like I stirred up some contreversy. *contrives to look innocent*

Hmmm...*starts slogging through 5 pages of replies* I'll see you guys when I get done, and I'll try to find/post those links I was talking about.

Nacht

We think alike [img]smile.gif[/img]
I don't at all see how believing in God rules out evolution or the Big Bang for example (I believe in all 3 [img]smile.gif[/img] ). Evolution and Big Bang were tools of God and Genesis is symbolic, each "day" representing millions of years. That's my opinion.

Whoa...I may have to agree with you. :D

Well, this second thread is filling in nicely! Keep up the good discussion!

Okay, here is why I'm right and all of you are so very wrong:

I don't use confusing colors.

hehe just kidding...don't excommunicate/eviscerate and/or bludgeon me.

I'll wait til Yorick is back in town before I join the fray once more.