TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- This website is so ass-backwards it's funny
Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »

Not trying to defend Nellie, but on the issue of the bible talking about 'gods'.. Tito i think you're misunderstanding it. I think the context in which most of the time they're refered to is as the 'fictional gods' the other people, such as the egiptians believe. As for that one in genesis saying 'us', i don't have a real explanation, but as you said yourself in other context it has been translated so many times and so many versions are out there that it could easily be a translation error.

Also, for that 'day being created on a day', it's more than likely day in two different senses. 'Day and night' as in the distinction between light and dark, and 'day' as a period of 24 hours. Like, an interpertration of it: 'god created the day and night' = 'god created the sun to illuminate earth', got it?

On an unrelated note, let me point my religious views. I was grown as a catholic, and still go to church. Over here, the typical view of bible is that it is very metaphorical and in no way everything must be taken literally. I pretty much believed all of it during a lot of time, but lately being losing most of the faith on it. Nowadays i neither deny the existence of god, neither accept it, these are just possibilities, the concept of 'beleif' itself bring closed-mindness (does this word exist, heh). And I think that if Jesus did really exist and was the son of god, his major message was to give a set of morals and rules for us not to kill each other and **** up our lives, not to force everyone to believe dogmatically in a set of myths and an old book.

Meh.. what a random bunch of ideas.. I am a sucky writer.

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 ...I think the context in which most of the time they're refered to is as the 'fictional gods' the other people, such as the egiptians believe. As for that one in genesis saying 'us'

That's all well and good for a few instances, but it doesn't explain the ones like these:

Gen.1:26 - "And God said, let us make man in our image."
Gen.3:22 - "And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

quote:

i don't have a real explanation, but as you said yourself in other context it has been translated so many times and so many versions are out there that it could easily be a translation error.

Unfortunately that explanation doesn't really fly here, since in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, there is quite a distinct difference between singular and plural pronouns. I've also read the original text (well, in Hebrew, not Aramaic) and I can assure you that it is indeed in plural form.

quote:

Also, for that 'day being created on a day', it's more than likely day in two different senses. 'Day and night' as in the distinction between light and dark, and 'day' as a period of 24 hours. Like, an interpertration of it: 'god created the day and night' = 'god created the sun to illuminate earth', got it?

That's all well and good too, for when the bible is simply talking about the "nth day" of creation, but how about when it is differentiating between day and night, light and darkness? As we all know, it is night on one side of the earth while it is day on the other, so what could those terms possibly have meant when there was no sun?

quote:

Over here, the typical view of bible is that it is very metaphorical and in no way everything must be taken literally.

That is the typical view of most modern conservative religious sects, including the one I used to be a member of. The "metaphorical" approach is especially true when it comes to Genesis, which is widely accepted even among religious scholars as not to be taken literally at all. It is only a small minority of people, like Nessa here, who seem to honestly believe that those stories are "true." Creationism ought to be going the way of Geocentrism, but some people refuse to wise up.

quote:

I pretty much believed all of it during a lot of time, but lately being losing most of the faith on it. Nowadays i neither deny the existence of god, neither accept it, these are just possibilities, the concept of 'beleif' itself bring closed-mindness (does this word exist, heh).

That makes you an agnostic.

quote:

And I think that if Jesus did really exist and was the son of god, his major message was to give a set of morals and rules for us not to kill each other and **** up our lives, not to force everyone to believe dogmatically in a set of myths and an old book.

Good point. Now let's see you convince the fundies of that.

World Fasting Championships current standings:

The Lord Jesus Christ of Nazereth - 40 days

The current champion, David Blaine - 44 days

Nuff said!

(And David Blane was in a box in full view of the public...who has Jesus got to back up his claims?! For all we know, he could have shacked up in some sleezy motel stuffing his face on Mars bars for a month!)

Jesus: "Ay up lads, just got back from t'desert"
Desciples: "How'd it go?"
Jesus: "Bit a sand up me crack but only to be expected"
Desciples: "No we mean the fasting"
Jesus: "Oh yea, didn't eat a thing"
Desciples: "Really?"
Jesus: "Yea, ask Devil if ya dont believe me"
Desciples: "Is that a Mars Bar wrapper in your pocket?"
Jesus: "Look, are you the sun of God? No, well shut yer f*ckin hole then"
Desciples: "Come on lads, lets get out of here, heard there's this fella David Blaine gonna do it in a glass box to prove he aint cheatin"

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 Not trying to defend Nellie, but on the issue of the bible talking about 'gods'.. Tito i think you're misunderstanding it. I think the context in which most of the time they're refered to is as the 'fictional gods' the other people, such as the egiptians believe.

I agree that is true in most cases. However, god says a few times that he will exercise judgement upon other gods, not their followers. That is an indirect proof of their existance, as they must exist in order for god to exercise his judgement upon them.

quote:

As for that one in genesis saying 'us', i don't have a real explanation, but as you said yourself in other context it has been translated so many times and so many versions are out there that it could easily be a translation error.

Personally I believe those passages are remnants of old polytheist myths. As the religion grew towards monotheism, the central god grew more and more powerful, and other gods were reduced to the status of angels. The whole story about Lucifer's rebellion is meaningless if the god was allmighty and all powerful. It only makes sense in the context of a god with divine yet limited powers, something along the lines of greek or scandinavian myths. Especially since the god is walking around the garden in a human form. Too bad those myths are now hard to find as they were absorbed in the bible. Maybe some jews on this forum might be willing to supply me with more of them, I'd certainly appreciate it.

quote:

Also, for that 'day being created on a day', it's more than likely day in two different senses. 'Day and night' as in the distinction between light and dark, and 'day' as a period of 24 hours. Like, an interpertration of it: 'god created the day and night' = 'god created the sun to illuminate earth', got it?

Yes, except that the sun was created on the 4th day

quote:

On an unrelated note, let me point my religious views. I was grown as a catholic, and still go to church. Over here, the typical view of bible is that it is very metaphorical and in no way everything must be taken literally. I pretty much believed all of it during a lot of time, but lately being losing most of the faith on it. Nowadays i neither deny the existence of god, neither accept it, these are just possibilities, the concept of 'beleif' itself bring closed-mindness (does this word exist, heh). And I think that if Jesus did really exist and was the son of god, his major message was to give a set of morals and rules for us not to kill each other and **** up our lives, not to force everyone to believe dogmatically in a set of myths and an old book.

Heh, if all the christians would think this way I would have no problem with them. RC church has lately worked very hard on keeping up the pace with social and scientific changes, and I must say that their views have progressed greatly from the dogmatism of the middle ages. Protestants have, sadly, generally not kept up with those changes and they degraded themselves through time from a progressive and liberal option to a reactionary force of christianity.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It's my choice to improve or not,It's not yours. I'm wrong? Who is saying there is a woman named Lilith in the Bible,and some woman gave birth to demons? Eh. I'm not incorrect.

God are you demented or something? IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE BIBLICAL VERSION OF THE STORY OF CREATION WAS SHORTENED AND THE PART ABOUT LILITH WAS THROWN OUT! IT IS HOWEVER PRESENT IN THE EARLY JEWISH MYTH FROM WHICH THE STORY OF CREATION WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE BIBLE! Clear now?

There comes a time when you meet people who are neither logical nor rational in their beliefs or arguments. Sometimes you just have to let it go ...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 God are you demented or something? IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE BIBLICAL VERSION OF THE STORY OF CREATION WAS SHORTENED AND THE PART ABOUT LILITH WAS THROWN OUT! IT IS HOWEVER PRESENT IN THE EARLY JEWISH MYTH FROM WHICH THE STORY OF CREATION WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE BIBLE! Clear now?

Heh, here's a pretty good summary of the Lilith myth:

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/lillith.html

Wonder why it got taken out of the bible... probably 'cause of those damn feminists.

Jewish mythology, and a huge part of the Jewish religion outside the bible (like the Kabbalah) has TONS of stuff on demons and witchcraft and so on. A lot of people (including Jews) don't realize it, but only a small fraction of the religion is actually represented in the bible, the rest is found in other mystical and mythological sources. The mythology actually explains a lot of the strange parts of the bible that don't seem to make much sense (although sadly, it doesn't resolve any of the obvious contradictions).

Edit: I just noticed that the story also contains the myth of the "first Eve", the fabled failure which I'd forgotten about up 'til now. The mythology is actually pretty interesting if you don't rely on the bible for it...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Jewish mythology, and a huge part of the Jewish religion outside the bible (like the Kabbalah) has TONS of stuff on demons and witchcraft and so on. A lot of people (including Jews) don't realize it, but only a small fraction of the religion is actually represented in the bible, the rest is found in other mystical and mythological sources. The mythology actually explains a lot of the strange parts of the bible that don't seem to make much sense (although sadly, it doesn't resolve any of the obvious contradictions).

I like to read all mythological stories, so I agree that jewish mythology is interesting to read too. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to find. Got some more good sources maybe?

quote:

Edit: I just noticed that the story also contains the myth of the "first Eve", the fabled failure which I'd forgotten about up 'til now. The mythology is actually pretty interesting if you don't rely on the bible for it...

Hehe, yes, god seems to fail quite often in his early days. Lack of excperience I would say.

quote:

God are you demented or something? IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE BIBLICAL VERSION OF THE STORY OF CREATION WAS SHORTENED AND THE PART ABOUT LILITH WAS THROWN OUT! IT IS HOWEVER PRESENT IN THE EARLY JEWISH MYTH FROM WHICH THE STORY OF CREATION WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE BIBLE! Clear now?

It never existed, That's the point..and no,I'm not demented.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The story about Lilith is the full version of the jewish myth. Bible contains the shortened version of the creation in which Lilith has been thrown out. Eve didn't give birth to demons, she gave birth to Abel and Seth. If you examine some jewish folk traditions, especially ones related to childbirth, you will see that the name of Lilith often appears with that of Adam and Eve.

It isn't true.

quote:

Who said anything about contradictions here? Can't you read the whole post? This was a response to when you said there are no other gods. Yet in the bible said god will execute judgement upon other gods. If they don't exist, who the hell is he going to execute his judgment upon. Or maybe he's paranoid so he's imagining other gods.

Quote the verse where God said he will execute judgment upon other gods.



Gen 1:11 Then god said "let the land produce vegetation...
Gen 1:13 ...on the third day

Gen 1:26 Then god said, "let us make man in our image...
Gen 1:27 God created man in his own image...
Gen 1:31 ...the sixth day

So, here it says god created plants on the 3rd day and humans on the 6th. But, later on the story is a bit different

Gen 2:4,2:5 When the lord god made the earth and the heavens - [b]and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up...
Gen 2:7 ...the lord god formed the man...

So here god created man before plants. See the contradiction?[/quote]
Nope,there isn't a contradiction.

quote:

I understand christianity, both how it originated and what it taught through history. That's exactly why I don't believe in it.

No,I don't believe you do understand Chritianity,because if you did,you wouldn't be acting and speaking the way you do.

quote:

Here's a little example which may help you realize how the mistake occured. In english, the word hot means both warm and spicy. So you tell me "A soup is hot". You wanted to say it's spicy. Yet I translate it into croatian as "Juha je vruca". Then someone else translates it back to english and says "A soup is warm". Get it? Sometimes a single word can mean two different things, and the virgin birth was an unfortunate accident of such a flawed translation.

It was a virgin birth,because when the angel came to her she said " How could this be? for I have not known a man. " meaning,she hasn't had sex with anyone.

quote:

Then obviously you are not familiar with either of those gods. Let me spell it out for you again. Osiris was resurrected. Osiris allowed humans to reach the heavenly afterlife. Osiris was solar god. Jesus's birth is right after the winter equinox, the december 25th. The 12 apostols symbolize 4 seasons and 3 stages of life/day. Jesus symbolizes the sun. The council of Nicaea modified christianity to be closely related to pagan cults in order to absorb their holidays as it's own. Easter was the pagan celbration of fertility. Jesus' resurrection was set to be on the very same day. Coincidence? Hardly. Do you know why there are all those easter bunnies symbolize? Fertility, as they multiply rapidly. Bunnies are remnants of the pagan holiday. So are easter eggs, as they symbolize birth.

Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, he was born in the springtime. But,we choose to celebrate his birth at the same time as the winter equinox,the symbol of victory of light over darkness.

Yes, I know the easter egg is of a pagan holiday.

quote:

So are you saying that my backyard is full of satans, cause I think there's a snake lair in the vicinity?

No,that isn't what I'm saying. Satan possesed a serpants body.That's what I'm saying.

quote:

Well, the bible clearly states a woman is Adam's helper, not partner/friend/whatever. Yet another reason why I don't agree with the bible. Have you ever noticed how the old testament condones slavery, poligamy, and incest? Oh, while we're at it, could you explain to me where Cain got his wife from after he was banished from the garden of eden? Well, guess what, you can't because the bible is lacking on that detail. It was most likely Lilith or one of her offspring.

The Bible clearly states that Eve was Adam's helpmate, AKA companion.

No,did not condone it.It explains it, but does not condone it.

His wife had to have been one of sisters, because those were the only people on the earth.
If there were only brothers and sisters, how else were they to follow God's command to populate the earth? This is the way it was at first until there were enough to choose other than your own siblings as your mate.

quote:

Yes, but god did not want us to know that.

And do you know why? God didn't want us to have to know sin.

quote:

I know that satan was god's prime angel and that his name was Lucifer. However, Lucifer was not a walking talking serpent. He was an angel with fluffy wings that led a rebellion against god.

No,Lucifer wasn't a walking talking serpent,He possesed the body. Big difference.
Yes, he did,and he took 1/3 of the angels with him.

quote:

Obviously it didn't because most of the things in bible didn't really happen. But if we for a second consider bible a worthy historical document, then it says there it did.

No,The events in the Bible are historical happenings.

quote:

What, do you want me to dig out some skeletons and send them to you via mail? Turn on the discovery channel.

I watch discovery channel,often infact. But, the only thing I'm seeing about evolution are those 3-D animated programs.

Hmm,Maybe I should pull what some of you all pulled here. " No I only trust internet links, books won't work. "

quote:

Well, say all you want but the your "relationship" with god is pretty much defined as religion.

That's only how the world sees it, and that really doesn't matter. Because it's completely different when you are following God.

quote:

But how do you differentiate between the two? By saying that once creatures of the same species reach the point where they can no longer mate, micro-evolution has become macro-evolution? God, the point of view you are defending has been valid somewhere around the middle of 19th century.

Micro- Small changes within species, Lions-tigers-panthers.... etc.. they are all within the feline species, That's micro. Macro is like cat to dog, things like that. There is a difference. You obviously don't understand what I'm saying,and I'm not sure why it's really really simple.

quote:

I'm sorry but I believe a child's right to be taught non-biased actual facts is more important than a parent's right to educate his children in whichever way they desire. Now, as for home schooling, I accept that in cases such as yours it is the only way possible, but it unfortunately brings around a huge amount of problems, as the obvious bias of the parents who then teach their children in any way they desire.

You must not be a parent. If you are, then I'm seeing major issues here. No, Homeschooling doesn't. I'm getting a better education at home, the work is harder,but much more intense,and it teaches you so much more. The curriculum is much much better than public schools. Did you know colleges accept homeschoolers with open arms?

quote:

Well, if you look at it that way, everything is based upon believing. You can say that you believe that 2+2=5 and that it's not the school's right to order you to believe otherwise. In a way you are right. Schools are there to teach you valid facts and theories. If you don't want to believe them, regardless of the evidence which supports them, but want to believe some bogus theories instead, well the school can't force you to do otherwise.

That's our right,and the school can't trample of it,and I'm glad you see that.

quote:

Heh, so I'll have to go and find myself a book. You might at least post some short contents which defend your point. You can't really expect that everytime someone disagrees with you he should buy a book that explains your points. And yes, the book may be as liable as the internet, but it is more liable than established peer-reviewed scientific books.

I've told you several times,all I've read about evolution is in my biology book. I could give you a link to where the book is, heck if I had money at the moment I'd even send you a copy.

quote:

No, it is not. Again, your stance is "I say it so it must be true".

Nope, it's been proven. It's not just my word.

quote:

Well, "macro" evolution is written in a huge amount of scientific journals and books as well. Therefore, using your arguments, it is true.

Just because it's written in a huge amount of scientific journals doesn't make it true. Now does it?

quote:

Because the evidence against you is overwhelming while the evidence that supports you is quite shaky.

Nope, it's not overwhelming. You're claims that missing links have been found simply isn't true.

quote:

You still haven't explained how the day was created on the first day.

It's all in Genesis,friend.

quote:

Aaargh, for 50th time already, that story was in the old testament and it was thrown out later on.

and again,it never even existed in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 But you refuse to read the proof I have told you about. I gave you the title. Even you can't deny it, it's in a book and it's proof.

Okay Nessa. I obliged you this weekend and went to our local Border�s and checked out Strobel�s newer book you continue to refer to. I sat down and I skimmed through it a little bit, and sure enough it was different than the book I read. His Case for Faith was more or less an answer to those critics of his first book I read, The Case for Christ. He broke it down into 8 different objections that he thought a critic of Christianity may have.

Like his first book I read, it didn�t surprised me how well Strobel writes and describes his arguments. No doubt it was why he held such a high journalist position at the Chicago Tribune for so many years. However in his first objection alone I immediately found a similar flaw in his writing: he has a tremendous sense of bias, and gives very little if any attention to the critics of Christianity. For example, his first interview was with a former minister turned agnostic. In return, however, Strobel answers the critic with 8 different Christians! And of course, no rebuttal is allowed from those 8 answers. Not exactly equal, is it?

But let�s deal with the crux of your argument, Nessa, with Strobel�s 3rd argument: Evolution. Immediately I identified a common Creationist flaw with pretty much the entire chapter: the majority of Strobel�s argument had little to do with evolution, and more to do with the concept of abiogenesis. Evolutionists have very little, if any concern over how life was created on earth (abiogenesis). Rather, they study how life went forth from that period on (evolution). It amazes me how Strobel, being such a great investigative journalist, confuses these two. He then, of course, continues on about transition fossils never being found, which I can only conclude that like you, Nessa, Strobel neglected to read some of the same links I gave you about transitional fossils.

And then much to my delight, Strobel touches on a Creationist concept I am very familiar with, Irreducible Complexity. For his example on this subject, he uses Dr. Michael Behe and his book, Darwin�s Black Box, which I�ve read a number of times. I�ll spare you the detail of the concept of IC Nessa, because I know you�ll do a good job on your own reading more about it, much like you�ve shown here so far. But I�ve debated and thoroughly debunked Behe�s concepts many times over in my past. And one of my favorite authors has also done a wonderful job debunking Behe in his own right, Dr. Ken Miller. Here�s just a couple of websites you can check out for yourself (if you have the intellectual honesty to do so):

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e...view/index.html
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

It�s interesting to note that Ken Miller himself is a Christian, yet he has no problem with evolution. It may also be interesting to note that 40% of evolutionists believe in a deity of some sort, including some are actually Christians like Miller. Coincidentally, one of my favorite books I�ve read is Miller�s book, Finding Darwin�s God: A Scientist�s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. It�s truly a fascinating book, and I�ve recommended it for both Christians and non-Christians in the past.

But back to Strobel. I did not read the rest of his book (I was sitting at Border�s for over an hour anyway and I had other errands to run), but I felt it necessary to do a little more research about some criticisms on the internet. I would be really interested to hear what you have to say to the following criticisms:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ned/index.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...d/strobel.shtml

Please do take note of the criticisms on objection 3, and tell me what you think.

Overall, this chapter takes the common logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance, which you are also very apt at doing. IOW, since Strobel can�t possibly understand (or willing to listen in your case), God must therefore be the culprit. Very bad logic.

quote:

No,it's not a "because I say so"

Yes it is.


[/QUOTE]It's in a book,I gave you the title. Either read it, or don't. But that's proof,it's just as liable as the internet.[/QUOTE]

Really Nessa, does your entire case against evolution rest on this book alone? Do you have anything more to add, considering my criticisms above?

quote:

and I've shown there is a difference. You should know the difference... So tell me, Do you want your Microwave to be a MICROwave? Or a MACROwave? There's a huge difference between the two. Micro,and macro aren't the same. micro- or micr- pref. Small: microcircuit. Abnormally small: microcephaly. Requiring or involving microscopy: microsurgery. One-millionth (10-6): microampere. macro- or macr- pref. Large: macronucleus. Long: macrobiotics. Inclusive: macroinstruction. Get it?

Why yes, I do get this rather immature elementary breakdown of the two words. A wonderful game of semantics you're playing with me here. What is painfully obvious, however, is that you�re being intellectually dishonest and failing to read the links I gave to you, because those links answers this very question you ask about micro- and macro-.

What does Exodus 20:16 (the 9th Commandment) say about dishonesty? Now remember, you can lie to me, you can even lie to yourself, but you just can�t lie to Jesus. So let�s try to be a little more honest with each other and read each other�s content that helps support our arguments. I have read yours, you must do me the honors of reading mine. Now just to be nice, here it is again:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now I know there�s a lot there. But as I�ve said before, feel free to ask me questions if you need to. But more specifically, here�s a specific part on evidence on speciation (macroevolution):

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc...tml#speciations

Get it?

quote:

It's just basic Biology. I don't have the author or anything,the book is in my sisters room ( 2 flights of stairs up. )

You must do better than this. Unlike you, I investigate and research. I want the name of the author so I can look up things for myself. Now go get your sister, go get your mother, go get your neighbor, or go get a very long pole with a little sticky thingy on the end � do whatever you need to do to get that book for me, please.

quote:

In your opinion.

No, God told me too. Can you prove me wrong?

quote:

Again,I'll do as I please,Just as you have and you will. I'm not here to be demanded,you aren't my authority,Alright?

Now you�re really acting 16. What�s next? I�m waiting for a �you�re not the boss of me� comment to come soon. Geez.

You either deal with the fact that this forum is about beliefs, political or otherwise (in this case religion), or kindly don�t post. Your decision.




[/QUOTE]God isn't made up,and nope I'm not desperate.[/QUOTE]

Okay, prove he isin�t made up. And since I�m a deist and don�t believe in the Bible which is man-made, you�re going to have to use something else to convince me.

quote:

Again, I told you. God is logical,God isn't some made up thing. He's real, the real deal. I shouldn't have to explain myself,you know the answer already.

Wow, you�re really going to use logic on me now? You already committed a logical fallacy here: leap of logic. By you simply saying God is logical doesn't make him logical one bit. Prove to me step by step how God is more logical than the Great Cookie Monster I believe in. And no, I don�t know the answer � that is up to you to prove it to me. I can�t see God. I don�t believe the fact that God told men to stuff down about him in a thing called �the Bible� anymore than I believe Allah told Muhammed all his stuff in the middle of a desert. I want proof that God actually did it. Talking through men isin�t enough. For all I know, they all smoked a big spleef and hallucinated their entire life. So show me outside of the Bible that the Christian God exists, and maybe I�ll give credence to it. Stop playing games and prove it.

quote:

They aren't here, I told you they are on another board.

Give me the links. I want to see how well you did with others. Please be honest. Remember the 9th Commandment.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider There comes a time when you meet people who are neither logical nor rational in their beliefs or arguments. Sometimes you just have to let it go ...

Unfortunately you are right. I must say it saddens me to see how people sometimes ignore all the logic, knowledge, and evidence presented to them. Bah, whatever, I give up. Yay for home schooling!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Unfortunately you are right. I must say it saddens me to see how people sometimes ignore all the logic, knowledge, and evidence presented to them. Bah, whatever, I give up. Yay for home schooling!

But you guys were doing such a good job .

In keeping up with the spirit of this debate, I was thinking about inviting my bedroom wall to join the argument. He's not very logical, doesn't respond well to specific arguments, but I've never seen such conviction! Apparentely his style of debate must be growing popular ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But you guys were doing such a good job . In keeping up with the spirit of this debate, I was thinking about inviting my bedroom wall to join the argument. He's not very logical, doesn't respond well to specific arguments, but I've never seen such conviction! Apparentely his style of debate must be growing popular ...

Now be patient. Let's just see how far this lack of logic can go. Honestly, this is becoming quite entertaining.

As for talking to a wall - sounds a lot like Buddhism. Many Buddhists find pure enlightenment in doing such actions. Of course they're going to burn in hell with the rest of non-Christians, so I guess it matters little who or what they talk to.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Okay Nessa. I obliged you this weekend and went to our local Border�s and checked out Strobel�s newer book you continue to refer to. I sat down and I skimmed through it a little bit, and sure enough it was different than the book I read. His Case for Faith was more or less an answer to those critics of his first book I read, The Case for Christ. He broke it down into 8 different objections that he thought a critic of Christianity may have.

Good,glad to see you read Strobels book. (or atleast the highlights)

quote:

But let�s deal with the crux of your argument, Nessa, with Strobel�s 3rd argument: Evolution. Immediately I identified a common Creationist flaw with pretty much the entire chapter: the majority of Strobel�s argument had little to do with evolution, and more to do with the concept of abiogenesis. Evolutionists have very little, if any concern over how life was created on earth (abiogenesis). Rather, they study how life went forth from that period on (evolution). It amazes me how Strobel, being such a great investigative journalist, confuses these two. He then, of course, continues on about transition fossils never being found, which I can only conclude that like you, Nessa, Strobel neglected to read some of the same links I gave you about transitional fossils.

The fact of the matter is you are believing in something that never took place. Macro evolution is false, there are missing links,and no those missing links haven't been cleared up. You know Darwin's finches? Yea, they are still creating Finches.

quote:

And then much to my delight, Strobel touches on a Creationist concept I am very familiar with, Irreducible Complexity. For his example on this subject, he uses Dr. Michael Behe and his book, Darwin�s Black Box, which I�ve read a number of times. I�ll spare you the detail of the concept of IC Nessa, because I know you�ll do a good job on your own reading more about it, much like you�ve shown here so far. But I�ve debated and thoroughly debunked Behe�s concepts many times over in my past. And one of my favorite authors has also done a wonderful job debunking Behe in his own right, Dr. Ken Miller. Here�s just a couple of websites you can check out for yourself (if you have the intellectual honesty to do so):

Yes, I know who Behe is.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e...view/index.html
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

quote:

It�s interesting to note that Ken Miller himself is a Christian, yet he has no problem with evolution. It may also be interesting to note that 40% of evolutionists believe in a deity of some sort, including some are actually Christians like Miller. Coincidentally, one of my favorite books I�ve read is Miller�s book, Finding Darwin�s God: A Scientist�s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. It�s truly a fascinating book, and I�ve recommended it for both Christians and non-Christians in the past.

I don't have anything against evolution,I believe in micro evolution. Just not macro.

quote:

But back to Strobel. I did not read the rest of his book (I was sitting at Border�s for over an hour anyway and I had other errands to run), but I felt it necessary to do a little more research about some criticisms on the internet. I would be really interested to hear what you have to say to the following criticisms:

quote:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ned/index.shtml http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...d/strobel.shtml Please do take note of the criticisms on objection 3, and tell me what you think. Overall, this chapter takes the common logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance, which you are also very apt at doing. IOW, since Strobel can�t possibly understand (or willing to listen in your case), God must therefore be the culprit. Very bad logic.

quote:

So "Objection #3" really isn't an objection at all, but rather an excuse for Strobel to argue: "Since we can't account for the origin of life, God must've been behind it." But this is just an appeal to ignorance, attributing that which we can't explain to God and converting Him into a three letter word meaning "I don't know."

No, that's not true. You need to stop accusing me of things I haven't done. Alright? You want this debate to be fair,correct? So I suggest you drop the personal picking, alright?

quote:

It's in a book,I gave you the title. Either read it, or don't. But that's proof,it's just as liable as the internet.

quote:

Really Nessa, does your entire case against evolution rest on this book alone? Do you have anything more to add, considering my criticisms above?

No, My entire case against MACRO evolution doesn't rest on this book alone. But, that's one of the books I refer to.

quote:

Why yes, I do get this rather immature elementary breakdown of the two words. A wonderful game of semantics you're playing with me here. What is painfully obvious, however, is that you�re being intellectually dishonest and failing to read the links I gave to you, because those links answers this very question you ask about micro- and macro-.

It's not immature elementry broken down. You aren't listening, there is a difference between Micro and macro,you are saying they are the same but they totally aren't. I'm not playing a game. I'm not being dishonest either. I already gave you a link explaining about micro and macro. I understand the difference between the two clearly.

quote:

What does Exodus 20:16 (the 9th Commandment) say about dishonesty? Now remember, you can lie to me, you can even lie to yourself, but you just can�t lie to Jesus. So let�s try to be a little more honest with each other and read each other�s content that helps support our arguments. I have read yours, you must do me the honors of reading mine. Now just to be nice, here it is again:

I'm not lying. Believe what you will,but I'm not.

quote:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Now I know there�s a lot there. But as I�ve said before, feel free to ask me questions if you need to. But more specifically, here�s a specific part on evidence on speciation (macroevolution):

quote:

Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change

Micro evolution small changes within the species.

quote:

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale"

Yes, Macroevolution large changes from one species to the next.
I just pulled that from the link you sent me.



http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc...tml#speciations

Get it?

quote:

You must do better than this. Unlike you, I investigate and research. I want the name of the author so I can look up things for myself. Now go get your sister, go get your mother, go get your neighbor, or go get a very long pole with a little sticky thingy on the end � do whatever you need to do to get that book for me, please.

I told you already,I studied this subject. So,yea I've done my research.
I'll find my science book from last year ( and I'll check what chapter from this year. )

quote:

No, God told me too. Can you prove me wrong?

Yes, I can. God wouldn't tell you to do something like that.

quote:

Now you�re really acting 16. What�s next? I�m waiting for a �you�re not the boss of me� comment to come soon. Geez.

You aren't. I'm not the boss of you either, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to act like you're above me, and stop acting so condscending. Just because you're older than me doesn't mean anything.

quote:

You either deal with the fact that this forum is about beliefs, political or otherwise (in this case religion), or kindly don�t post. Your decision.

I know what this forum is about. Debating. It's not about personally attacking ones beliefs. You can't deny that.

quote:

Okay, prove he isin�t made up. And since I�m a deist and don�t believe in the Bible which is man-made, you�re going to have to use something else to convince me.

Go look in the mirror,and that's your proof. You are living breathing evidence my friend. The Bible isn't man made, It was written through man, but it was God's words. You could says God's inspiration.

quote:

Wow, you�re really going to use logic on me now? You already committed a logical fallacy here: leap of logic. By you simply saying God is logical doesn't make him logical one bit. Prove to me step by step how God is more logical than the Great Cookie Monster I believe in. And no, I don�t know the answer � that is up to you to prove it to me. I can�t see God. I don�t believe the fact that God told men to stuff down about him in a thing called �the Bible� anymore than I believe Allah told Muhammed all his stuff in the middle of a desert. I want proof that God actually did it. Talking through men isin�t enough. For all I know, they all smoked a big spleef and hallucinated their entire life. So show me outside of the Bible that the Christian God exists, and maybe I�ll give credence to it. Stop playing games and prove it.

But,it's obvious that God is logical.
Revelation,and Genesis, and all the books inbetween tell of God's existance. He is speaking to us through it. It's His word afterall.
I suggest you read it, you might actually find something interesting...and no I don't mean read it to pick it apart,I mean read it to learn it.

quote:

Give me the links. I want to see how well you did with others. Please be honest. Remember the 9th Commandment.

I know the 9th commandment, but remeber you have to follow it also. I would send you the links, but the debates aren't there anymore, only new ones open ( which I haven't participated in.)The webmaster ( Jeffrey ) removes anything past a certain date.

This is a special board for people who have the same illness I have. But, I can tell you the topics. If you wish.

I'm sure you'll still accuse me of being a liar, but I did win debates there. I've lost many aswell.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Good,glad to see you read Strobels book. (or atleast the highlights) The fact of the matter is you are believing in something that never took place. Macro evolution is false, there are missing links,and no those missing links haven't been cleared up. You know Darwin's finches? Yea, they are still creating Finches. Yes, I know who Behe is. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e...view/index.html http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.shtml I don't have anything against evolution,I believe in micro evolution. Just not macro. No, that's not true. You need to stop accusing me of things I haven't done. Alright? You want this debate to be fair,correct? So I suggest you drop the personal picking, alright? No, My entire case against MACRO evolution doesn't rest on this book alone. But, that's one of the books I refer to. It's not immature elementry broken down. You aren't listening, there is a difference between Micro and macro,you are saying they are the same but they totally aren't. I'm not playing a game. I'm not being dishonest either. I already gave you a link explaining about micro and macro. I understand the difference between the two clearly. I'm not lying. Believe what you will,but I'm not. Micro evolution small changes within the species. Yes, Macroevolution large changes from one species to the next. I just pulled that from the link you sent me. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc...tml#speciations Get it? I told you already,I studied this subject. So,yea I've done my research. I'll find my science book from last year ( and I'll check what chapter from this year. ) Yes, I can. God wouldn't tell you to do something like that. You aren't. I'm not the boss of you either, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to act like you're above me, and stop acting so condscending. Just because you're older than me doesn't mean anything. I know what this forum is about. Debating. It's not about personally attacking ones beliefs. You can't deny that. Go look in the mirror,and that's your proof. You are living breathing evidence my friend. The Bible isn't man made, It was written through man, but it was God's words. You could says God's inspiration. But,it's obvious that God is logical. Revelation,and Genesis, and all the books inbetween tell of God's existance. He is speaking to us through it. It's His word afterall. I suggest you read it, you might actually find something interesting...and no I don't mean read it to pick it apart,I mean read it to learn it. I know the 9th commandment, but remeber you have to follow it also. I would send you the links, but the debates aren't there anymore, only new ones open ( which I haven't participated in.)The webmaster ( Jeffrey ) removes anything past a certain date. This is a special board for people who have the same illness I have. But, I can tell you the topics. If you wish. I'm sure you'll still accuse me of being a liar, but I did win debates there. I've lost many aswell.

A wall.. thats what you are.

Most of your replies consists of "that is not true...I beleive this....i didnt say that... that is a lie... read this book... read that book...ive done my research...you are wrong" without even arguing it.

So far... everyone agaisnt you has made you look like a complete idiot..

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But you guys were doing such a good job .

Yes, now that I look at it, the discussion is totally entertaining if you're just a side observer. On one hand a bunch of people trying to be logical and serious, providing argument after argument, and on the other a person who totally doesn't get any of them and just keeps saying "you're wrong, I'm right". I stopped at a point where I was either gonna yell or laugh at the situation. But I'm glad to see that Opus has not yet given up and is still fighting ignorance. Go Opus!

quote:

In keeping up with the spirit of this debate, I was thinking about inviting my bedroom wall to join the argument. He's not very logical, doesn't respond well to specific arguments, but I've never seen such conviction! Apparentely his style of debate must be growing popular ...

You know what would be totally cool and awesome? If we start a debate between Dj-Fuq and Nellie. Say about drugs. I'm sure Nellie is against them. That might end up as the longest thread in the history of TA! "'Drugs are harmless, it says so on a pro-drug web page!' 'No they're not, it says so in the bible!'..."

quote:

You know what would be totally cool and awesome? If we start a debate between Dj-Fuq and Nellie. Say about drugs. I'm sure Nellie is against them. That might end up as the longest thread in the history of TA! "'Drugs are harmless, it says so on a pro-drug web page!' 'No they're not, it says so in the bible!'..."

I just had a friend get out of the hospital because she had over dosed on drugs. So if I were you,I'd stop right there.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King A wall.. thats what you are. Most of your replies consists of "that is not true...I beleive this....i didnt say that... that is a lie... read this book... read that book...ive done my research...you are wrong" without even arguing it. So far... everyone agaisnt you has made you look like a complete idiot..

No,they haven't. I'm not a wall. But that's only your opinion,and it doesn't matter to me.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No,they haven't. I'm not a wall. But that's only your opinion,and it doesn't matter to me.

... couse you are a wall

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No,they haven't. I'm not a wall. But that's only your opinion,and it doesn't matter to me.

Yes they have. You are a wall. But that is your opinion , and it deoesnt matter to us all.

Nellie, I believe MrOpus has provided numerous examples for transitional fossils as well as myself. As a matter of fact, way back in page 2, when you actually posted a link to a source, I believe I addressed that source and responded with arguments of my own. Would you care to address the numerous examples myself and MisterOpus have cited?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Nellie, I believe MrOpus has provided numerous examples for transitional fossils as well as myself. As a matter of fact, way back in page 2, when you actually posted a link to a source, I believe I addressed that source and responded with arguments of my own. Would you care to address the numerous examples myself and MisterOpus have cited?

/waves hand in air

Me, me, me, me, me, me!!!!!!

I think the answer is No.



MrS

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 I just had a friend get out of the hospital because she had over dosed on drugs. So if I were you,I'd stop right there.

Actually, if you knew what I was talking about you wouldn't write this. But you don't (as usual), so I'll explain a bit. Dj-Fuq kept saying that drugs are more or less harmless and that overdoses are practically impossible, while I was the one who was saying otherwise. We had discussions on several threads about it, each about 7-8 pages long where he continually presented shakey or faulty evidence and kept attacking me as being a part of a worldwide conspiracy against harmless substances. That's why I said you guys would make a perfect match. You have opposing views, extreme stubbornness, and shakey resources.

Damn, I'm seriously having some fun here! Anyone else wanna give a "shout-out" to this stuff? C'mon, folks, you know you're lovin' it!

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 The fact of the matter is you are believing in something that never took place.

What I believe in is the observed, tested, and falsified evidence that is in front of us for all to see. This is what evolution has gone through over and over. The fact of the matter is Creationism cannot undergo the same scrutiny: give me one piece of evidence from creationism that shows it has undergone the observed, tested, and falsified scrutiny. If you do, you�ll win a great many science awards. So far, no creationist has done so, which is why nothing has been published in any peer-reviewed science magazines on ANY creationist theories. Why do you think that is?

quote:

Macro evolution is false

,

Repetition does not make a statement more true.

quote:

there are missing links,and no those missing links haven't been cleared up.

LOL.

Oh, so you�re having a problem with missing links? What missing links are you referring to? Now seriously, of course there are missing links � no evolutionist would ever deny such. But if this is your point, you are creating a straw man. One of the most obvious difficulties of digging up critters from the ground that are hundreds of millions of years old is there�s a lot of organic gunk that simply can�t be preserved. But the stuff that has been preserved has answered a great many questions about those �missing links� you refer to, and those �gaps� have become smaller and smaller and smaller. But hey, don�t take my word for it, have a look at a very small sample of those �missing links� for the vertebrate fossils (starting from the most primitive):

quote:

Summary of the known vertebrate fossil record (We start off with primitive jawless fish.) Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays �Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles. �Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales. GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks. �Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers! �Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins. �Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks. �Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc. �Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray. �Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous. A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish. Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish �Upper Silurian -- first little scales found. GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified. �Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish. �Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord. �Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws. �Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish. �Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws. �Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder. Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!). Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already. �Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish. �Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. �Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike. �Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins. �Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable." GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet. �Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did. �Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc. More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land. Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible! Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche. In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial. Transitions among amphibians �Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely). Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc. �Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc. �Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc. �Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc. �Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc. �Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc. From there we jump to the Mesozoic: �Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short). �Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog. �Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander. Finally, here's a recently found fossil: �Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma. Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles) The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988) �Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count. �Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches. �Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though. �Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles. The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs. The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals. Some transitions among reptiles I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988) �Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids. Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs: �Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell. �Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993) �Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc.. �Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described. Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info) �Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above �Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum. �Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991) GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian. �Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds). �Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones. �Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though. �Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur. �Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs. Some species-to-species transitions: �De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria. �Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include: 1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus 2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus. 3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus 4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus. All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)

This was just a small sample of primitive vertebrate species. If you would like me to continue onward with the more advanced vertebrates, I�ll continue as needed. Just let me know.
Now here�s the reference list to this evidence, just in case you thought I was making this up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part2c.html
Now keep in mind that according to Creationist Theory, there should be NO transitions whatsoever. So how does creationism explain these transitions? Give specific examples in your answer.

quote:

You know Darwin's finches? Yea, they are still creating Finches.

Yep, I know them quite well. Do you? Are you trying to tell me that your interpretation of evolution means that the Galapagos finches should evolve into something else by now? It�s the same bad creationist argument as to why bacteria is still bacteria. Welp, the short answer is an organism that is successful in a given niche has very little selective pressures to evolve any further. Only under selective pressures will an organism evolve in order to survive.

If this was your argument, then you have proven my point that you understand very little about evolution. If this wasn�t your argument, again, be specific with details and examples as to what you refer to.

quote:

I don't have anything against evolution,I believe in micro evolution. Just not macro.

Just to clarify a minor point � it�s not a belief system, it just �is�. The reason being is there�s no faith involved in science � it is purely the observed and tested, which evolution is. But whether or not you believe in it does not entail its lack of existence. It will continue on, whether or not you believe in it.

quote:

No, that's not true. You need to stop accusing me of things I haven't done. Alright? You want this debate to be fair,correct? So I suggest you drop the personal picking, alright?

But your actions (or in this case, your opinions) dictate your unwillingness to be fair. It is painfully obvious to everyone here that you have either blatantly ignored the material I posted, or you choose not to read it because you do not understand it. Since you haven�t asked me any questions in regards to the material, I�ve deducted that you are being blatantly ignorant but pretending to know the material in the first place. Hence, you are being dishonest.

quote:

No, My entire case against MACRO evolution doesn't rest on this book alone. But, that's one of the books I refer to.

Well when you get some fresh information, I hope you let me be the first to know.

quote:

It's not immature elementry broken down.

Anyone with a right-mind would think otherwise, including the vast majority of readers here.

quote:

You aren't listening, there is a difference between Micro and macro,you are saying they are the same but they totally aren't. I'm not playing a game.

It sure appears that you are. Or you�re being quite ignorant.

quote:

I'm not being dishonest either. I already gave you a link explaining about micro and macro. I understand the difference between the two clearly.

Ah yes, your other piece of evidence. Occrider did a descent job debunking a good portion of it. See for yourself:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=2

Why did you not respond to his criticisms? What say you?

quote:

I'm not lying. Believe what you will,but I'm not.

We�ve covered this ground already.

quote:

Micro evolution small changes within the species. Yes, Macroevolution large changes from one species to the next. I just pulled that from the link you sent me. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc...tml#speciations Get it?

I�m afraid I don�t. Please pull this specific quote off the link. I do not find it anywhere.

Now look, if you want to play semantics games with me, I�ll bite � yes there is a difference between the words micro- and macro-. Science, however, does not see these changes as a difference � over long periods of time there is a result of lots of changes in allele frequencies. Hell, there�s a small change within a species (and thus creating a new species) in polychaete worms over a mere period of 40 years as a result of isolationism:

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete
worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach
Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a
population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs
from this population were transferred to the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these
worms were used as test organisms in environmental
toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was
searched for populations of the worm. Two populations,
P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992)
performed tests on these two populations and the Woods
Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating
isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they
looked at whether broods from crosses were
successfully reared. The results below give the
percentage of successful rearings for each group of
crosses.
WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating
isolation between the WH population and the field
populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed
slightly different karyotypes from the field
populations.

Source: J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992. Evidence for rapid
speciation following a founder event in the
laboratory. Science 46(4):1214-1220.

In accordance to you, this isin�t even �micro� evolution. Since a new species was created, it is (drum roll) Speciation (i.e. �macro�)! And this occurred in a mere 40 years, no less. Now what do you think would happen over 400 million years?

Do you get it?

quote:

I told you already,I studied this subject. So,yea I've done my research. I'll find my science book from last year ( and I'll check what chapter from this year. )

Everything up to this point indicates that you were either studying from a bad science source, or that you pick and choosed parts that only adhere to your faith.

quote:

Yes, I can. God wouldn't tell you to do something like that.

But he did. How do you know he didn�t? Stop playing games and prove to me he didn�t.

quote:

You aren't. I'm not the boss of you either, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to act like you're above me, and stop acting so condscending. Just because you're older than me doesn't mean anything.

I am neither above nor below you (though your Bible does say to respect your elders). You entered into the realm of science and made a claim that so far you have failed to prove with evidence. Consequentially, I have been criticizing you for doing so.

quote:

I know what this forum is about. Debating. It's not about personally attacking ones beliefs. You can't deny that.

But you personally attacked something I understand very well and know to be true and supported with evidence. You therefore attacked me first. I am defending what I understand to be true with evidence. So far you�ve failed miserably to do the same for what you believe.

quote:

Go look in the mirror,and that's your proof. You are living breathing evidence my friend. The Bible isn't man made, It was written through man, but it was God's words. You could says God's inspiration.

Again, logical fallacy: Leap of Logic. You need to show me with DIRECT evidence how I am living proof that your God exists. Going from saying, �I exist� to �therefore God exists� is quite a humongous leap of logic without any evidence to support the following steps. However, going from �I exist� to �therefore evolution is true� is not near as big of a leap when you sit down and look at the fossil and genetic evidence that supports it.

Show me the fossil, genetic, molecular, comparative biological evidence that God exists simply because I exist, and I will consider it. You are missing quite a few steps of logic here. Please fill them in accordingly.

quote:

But,it's obvious that God is logical. Revelation,and Genesis, and all the books inbetween tell of God's existance. He is speaking to us through it. It's His word afterall.

Incorrect Nessa. It�s not obvious at all. Your job was to prove it to me. God did not write anything down in the Bible. Man wrote all those things down. What�s more, man decided what stays and what goes into the Bible, as well as what merges with other pagan beliefs (i.e. 1st Council of Nicaea). I can read you a story about unicorns and it would be no different � both stories are created by man. The Bible is the weakest source known to show that God exists with evidence. You have to do a better job in showing God exists other than what man wrote down in a book. What is the observed evidence?

And more importantly, how does that differentiate with the Muslim God in terms of evidence?

How does that differ with the evidence of Buddha?

How does that differ with the Hindu God? Keep in mind that the Hindu God is much older than your God by a couple of thousand years. Where is the evidence to support your God over the Hindu God?

quote:

I suggest you read it, you might actually find something interesting...and no I don't mean read it to pick it apart,I mean read it to learn it.

It�s rather presumptuous of you to think I haven�t read the Bible thoroughly. It�s even more presumptuous of you to think I haven�t learned anything from it. I tend to find a little judgement in your tone. That�s not very Christian of you to judge my beliefs, is it?

You see, I grew up a devout Southern Methodist, Nessa, and I once believed very literally in much of what the Bible said. But it didn�t take long after a couple of college science courses to realize that the literal word of the Bible does not stand the scrutiny of science, and that a clear distinction between that of faith and that of scientific observation had to be made. IOW, you can believe in the supernatural all you want. You can believe in the powers of God, Jesus, Allah, or any other deity. But when it comes to the test of scientific scrutiny via Methodological Naturalism (from which the scientific method is derived), the supernatural simply cannot be tested because it has no observed evidence to support it.

That is my take home message I am trying to get across to you � you must separate science and faith, because faith cannot and has never withstood the scientific scrutiny. When you do actually separate the two, you may actually find that you can still believe in the supernatural and even miracles for that matter, so long as you try not to rigorously test it.

And if it can�t be tested or observed, Nessa, then it simply can�t be science. That is a fact that you will have to come to grips with eventually (or not, depending on whether you want to continue being ignorant).

quote:

I know the 9th commandment, but remember you have to follow it also. I would send you the links, but the debates aren't there anymore, only new ones open ( which I haven't participated in.)The webmaster ( Jeffrey ) removes anything past a certain date. This is a special board for people who have the same illness I have. But, I can tell you the topics. If you wish. I'm sure you'll still accuse me of being a liar, but I did win debates there. I've lost many aswell.

Show me where I�ve been dishonest and I�ll consider it. Otherwise, stop playing games. And if you can�t post the links about your past �wins�, it would do you credit not to mention them at all. If I can�t see you �winning� any arguments, I can just as easily conclude that you are lying. So please be careful not to post anything in the future you cannot support with evidence. You�re just better off sticking to the topic at hand and not trying to draw upon past �wins� to support your stance. Quite frankly it is completely irrelevant anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Damn, I'm seriously having some fun here! Anyone else wanna give a "shout-out" to this stuff? C'mon, folks, you know you're lovin' it!

Yes, this thread has turned out to be quite entertaining.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.