[Michael]

Can you please list the four "distinct sub species of humans" there is one thing to note they are all humans or apes, none are half human and half ape. Evolutionists know that, and admit it.

we can safely postulate upon its first creation as we know a cell is a collection of proteins that have formed together into what we know as a living organism

You every studied the cell? If you did you would know all it mini system that is relays on, take one out, it is dose not work. And as to the proteins being is such a concentration that is would even happen is very unscientific. First most of the proteins can't be made except by cells. And the ones that they can make break down over time unless joined together to make a cells. By the way that time is about 30 minutes.

Back to blood clotting, so you can't have mammals till you have blood clotting, and you can't have blood clotting till you have mammals. So what came first?

If you go right back to the "Big Bang" what caused that? To say nothing is just absurd! If you starting say nothing did something, you are starting to leave science.

Yes you have noted that I can't prove Divine Intervention but can can show how it agrees with Genesis at every point including Noah's flood and all.

And you can try and believe both, but form a Catholic point of view they contradict each other on just about every thing.

Edited by Michael, 02 November 2005 - 06:39 PM.

[Advertisements]

I agree with you until this point:

And you can try and believe both, but form a Catholic point of view they contradict each other on just about every thing.

I'm a Catholic, and I know many others who also believe that there was evolution, but God played a role in it. I believe that the Bible is not meant to be taken 100% literally, but that we should find the signs, morals, and teachings behind the readings in the Bible. However, this is just one view, and Catholics generally have one of two views (spiritual and literal). For more information on what the Catechism says, you can look here

Check this out:

Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists.

I am not saying that anyone should believe this, but pointing out that Catholics can indeed believe in theistic evolution.

I also found this, that says:

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

For now, I am leaning towards the theistic view.

Note: These are all my opinions, and I'm not trying to force anybody to agree with me.

Edited by Pi rules, 02 November 2005 - 07:22 PM.

[Pi rules]

I agree with you until this point:

And you can try and believe both, but form a Catholic point of view they contradict each other on just about every thing.

I'm a Catholic, and I know many others who also believe that there was evolution, but God played a role in it. I believe that the Bible is not meant to be taken 100% literally, but that we should find the signs, morals, and teachings behind the readings in the Bible. However, this is just one view, and Catholics generally have one of two views (spiritual and literal). For more information on what the Catechism says, you can look here

Check this out:

Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists.

I am not saying that anyone should believe this, but pointing out that Catholics can indeed believe in theistic evolution.

I also found this, that says:

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

For now, I am leaning towards the theistic view.

Note: These are all my opinions, and I'm not trying to force anybody to agree with me.

Edited by Pi rules, 02 November 2005 - 07:22 PM.

[SlowComp]

ops. wrong forum sry.

[warriorscot]

Well the flood in the bible isnt neccesarily true. yes it did happen but long before the single god religions developed, alot of our ancient history was in the spoken word, when they created the bible they simply manipulated the story to fit with their notion of god it is a trend so often seen in religion in most of the texts. And can you tke anything in the bible at face value: the simple answer no, because for over two thousand years the bible was written by hand and there are few identical versions from this time, from one century to the next it was adapted and manipulated to suit the current climate we live in the only point in time where the text of the bible remained mostly unchanged.

But when did this start about the bible this is about divine intervention, its also a useful point to note that 2/3 of the world does not beleive in any of the single god faiths.
Yet these people who do not believe in a single god or indeed any god at all are supposed to be told that a god had a hand in there development.
If its a term of global democracy you cannot justify teaching divine intervention.

On the cell, i avoid biology unless its neccesary i am a chemist and a bit of a physisist, proteins are not rare but are rather quite abundant, you can find them in great quantities simply floationg around in nebulas in space. And because something is unlikely does not neccesarily mean it is not possible, so many things are unlikely yet they do indeed happen.

Mammals werent around for quite a while our species began life as fish.

And the four species of human was recently documented after a re catalogue and analysis of the worlds fossilised human remains that we have discovered so far. It was found that there was major discrepancies in fossils of the same time. It was found that there was a large more gorilla like herbiverous from of human large and powerful yet not all to intelligent they werent able to adapt fast enough to the change in climate at the last ice age. Then there was a very tall species of mostly predatory human not overly strong but a much more agile than we are now, then there was a smaller stronger form that lived in the far north, Then there was the scavenger species, this the most inteligent is the most like us and it is thought that this species was the main contributor to what we are now. The taller and shorter species both migrated towards the same region along with the scavenger species and it is thought that while the tall and short perished due to again the inability to sufficeintly adapt; however there is evidence to indicate a cross breeding at this junction and scientists have been able to see examples of this mingling and it can be used to explain some of our own genetic codes that dont all neccesarilly seem to come from anywhere or mathc the evolutionary chain of the main form of human.

[dsenette]

Another problem is there is an almost impossible barria between signal celled animals and multi celled animals. Even the smallest multi celled animal has 500 cell and a full set of body systems (Digestive, Excretory, etc.)

there are many multicelled organisms that have less than 500 cells...so...you're slightly wrong..

and as far as your point about the cells being evidence of devine creation because of their complexity...

i work in a alluminum casting facility....we use giant robots to machine the parts to final specifications...if you remove one part from the machine...it stops working....so..by your theory...the engineers that built this machine...built it in one try...without leaving a part out?....sorry...that's what prototypes are for...and it's a direct relation to evolution...

[warriorscot]

Yes there is some very small multicelled life forms they found the smallest fairly recently when they did that whole ice mining sulphur cave expeditions. Nasa has picked up the technology for it to use on the moons of jupitor.

[Pi rules]

But when did this start about the bible this is about divine intervention, its also a useful point to note that 2/3 of the world does not beleive in any of the single god faiths.

Look here. 1/3 of the world is Christian, but Christianity isn't the only monotheistic religion. More than half of all people in the world are monotheistic (Christianity 33% and Islam 21%, Judaism .22%, Zoroastrians, etc.).

i work in a alluminum casting facility....we use giant robots to machine the parts to final specifications...if you remove one part from the machine...it stops working....so..by your theory...the engineers that built this machine...built it in one try...without leaving a part out?....sorry...that's what prototypes are for...and it's a direct relation to evolution...

I would rather not compare humans to machines or animals. Also, I would not like to compare engineers with God.

I would like somebody to answer how the Big Bang occurred, along with how life really started from nothing. I might possibly become an astrophysicist, and nothing I have seen explains it. What was there before the Big Bang, and how did it get there? Also, why was there a Big Bang? There's a lot of evidence (in my opinion) towards a theistic or divine inspiration theory/belief.

[Michael]

I know what you are refering to, every one you listed is 100% ape or 100% human and don't even have to prove it, because it is know to both sides of the argument. Text book I will admint have to slow it updateing to the corrent theory.

Where is the link between fish and mamales. Coelacanth the one pictured in text book was a deep see fish and is still alive to day, and nothing like a mamal. Again text books have been slow in updating themselves. Also then how did fish live with out blood cloting?

No onw has answered what I said about the big bang.

i work in a alluminum casting facility....we use giant robots to machine the parts to final specifications...if you remove one part from the machine...it stops working....so..by your theory...the engineers that built this machine...built it in one try...without leaving a part out?....sorry...that's what prototypes are for...and it's a direct relation to evolution...

Good point is stops working, so if it was an aminal it would have died, and there would have been no off spring.

[Michael]

Just found a copy of an e-mail I sent some one a while ago. Here is a copy of it.

I said that I would send an e-mail on the topic of evolution. I will start by stating the definition of evolution; it is the gradual change from one species into another. The point of this e-mail is to show why this cannot happen.

To start with, I would like to say that evolutionists have never found a “missing link.” “Missing links” should exist if animals and plants had gradually changed from one species to another. The topic of plants is hard to deal with because they do not form fossils except on rare occasions and they are very hard to classify from those fossils. For this reason I will limit the discussion to the subject of animal evolution. Every “missing link” that has been put forward has been found to be a wrong conclusion. Here are some that were thought to be absolute proof for evolution and were found to be false.

- You might have seen the pictures of a fish like creature that was supposed to crawl out onto land and turn in a matter of a few hundred generations into an amphibian. This fish was the Coelacanth. Unfortunately for evolutionists a live one was caught in 1938 and it turned out to be a deep sea fish that never comes to the surface. Evolutionists had to abandon this “missing link” as untrue.

- Another so-called “missing link” was Archaeopteryx. This bird was the “missing link” between reptiles and birds, so they said. The reason for this was that it had some unusual characteristics such as teeth and claws on the end of its wings (some birds alive today also have these unusual characteristics.) It is now generally agreed that Archaeopteryx is a true bird and not related to reptiles in any way.

- In the way of human evolution there have been many “missing links.” The first two that I will talk about are Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man turned out to be a fake that had been filed down to look like something that was half man and half ape, it had also been chemically treated to look very old. Nebraska Man was a filed pig’s tooth and is probably the biggest joke in evolution history. Every other fossil that has at first been called a “missing link” has turned out to be either 100% man or 100% ape.

This covers all the major “missing links” there have been at the present time. There has been no “missing link” that has turned out to be genuine.

You would have heard of the Geological Column. This is circular reasoning at its worst. This is how it works – they find a fossil and date it according to the theory of evolution. The fossils are then arranged in their assumed order. The simple to complex progression in the Geological Column is then called proof for evolution, this is the obvious result if they are dated for no other reason than to show this. The obvious question that comes to mind is don’t they use Radiometric Dating? The answer is Yes! But the real thing is how do they get the results from Radiometric Dating? For Radiometric Dating there are four things you must know. They are how much of the mother element and how much of the daughter element there is present in the sample now and also how much of the mother element and how much of the daughter element there was. They can easily find out how much of the mother element and how much of the daughter element there is now but you cannot find out how much of the mother element and how much of the daughter element there was. So you make a guess so that you get the result you want. So therefore it is up to the person dating the specimen as to how old it is. Also they have never found the complete Geological Column. They have found part of it but most of the time the layers are in the wrong order, with layers that are supposed to be hundreds of million of years younger under ones that are supposed to be older.

Another restraint on evolution, Ian, has been the science of genetics. In Darwin’s day DNA was unheard of. We were thought to be lumps of protoplasm, so why could we not change? Genetics has shown that there is a limited DNA in an animal and this limits its change. The only way for this to happen by chance is by mutation. Mutations do not do good things to the DNA and could not change one species into another. The reason for this is that something so finely tuned as an animal’s DNA doesn’t improve by random changes. It is as silly as thinking that you could get a car by having a tornado go through a scrap yard. They have used millions of generations of bacteria to try to get evolution to happen by exposing the bacteria to radiation. Man was supposed to evolve in 500,000 generations but bacteria won’t do it in millions. (It takes 3 years to complete one million generations for bacteria.)

Another point is the age of the earth. Evolutionists require an old earth, 4.6 billion years, whereas if you believe in creation the lowest estimate that is feasible is 7 thousand years, thought most put it at 20 thousand years. These are the scientific facts that support this.

- One is the magnetic field. It is declining at a rate of 5% per century. And if the earth were more that 25,000 years old the electric current that produces the magnetic field, that flows in the regions of the mantle where there is a high concentration of iron and nickel would have had to have been so strong that it would have destroyed the earth through the heat produced. Evolutionists cannot explain this.

- Also evolutionists teach that the continents were formed 1 billion years ago. The problem with this is that the edges of the continents are being worn away at a rate that would cause them to disappear in 25 million years. That means there would be no continents left at this point in time if the continents were really this old.

- The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, etc are entering the oceans is extremely rapid compared to the amount in the oceans. For this reason it is impossible for the oceans to be over a million years old.

- The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after 4.6 billion years, the amount should have come to 182 feet of dust all over the earth’s surface. Since the dust is high in nickel there should be an abundance of nickel in the rocks of the earths crust. There is no such abundance of nickel.

This is just a small selection of facts for why the world is younger than what evolutionists say would be required for evolution to happen.

If you do not think any particular part of the information I have given you is clear I can easily go into it in more detail because this is not a very detailed essay. All of the facts that are in this essay I have obtained from several reports totalling 55 pages. I have looked up several books and magazines written by evolutionists and they sometimes mention some of these facts but just say that some explanation will come out in the future when they have discovered more. I think they will never have an answer for some of these facts because the theory of evolution by its very nature cannot explain these facts.

[wolfboy]

When one mentions Genesis one is speaking of the old testament which is a part of the Judaic cosmological world wiev.
The Catholics can not excuse themself of all the evil they have forced upon humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.
The burning of books, the annhilation of ancient cultures and their people. Inquisitions,persecutions, torture and burning heretics on bonfires.
The leaders of the Catholic movement should be judged for their crime against life itself, and for a conspiracy to gain world power and leadership .
I hope that there will be a Tribunal against these religios movemenst which have poisoned earth and man for over thousands of years.
This goes for Islam ,Judaism and Christians. The three biggest problem makers on the planet right now.
Their crimes and manipulation and the suffering from their victims should definetly be taught in schools to all children over the world
In modern times they have lost a little of their power to the scientist. The Caths are ready to accept darwinism if only science could accept the divine
They are ready to do that so they can modernise and hang on to history and power.

The leader in a soceity was before a king, emperor or the like. next to them are the ones who shall explain the cosmological worldview to the peasants.
Normally a priest.(note ancient pre/cath priests)
When Judaism and Chritianity gained power they wanted to have the kings or emperors ruling powers as well.

The Kings and emperors is today politics, ministers and presidents and next to them are today the scientists or the guys who are telling the cosmological worldview to the peasants. Just as with the Abrahamic religions, the scientist claim copyright to the Answers conscerning life.

The system of institutions like the universitys and their secret lodges like the skulls and bones, alphabetatheta and their likes, the Nobel Price commité are wery close connected with the ruling powers , presidents etc,. In fact it seems like they are even controlling the number one positions.

Actually what good have modern science brougth us? well penecillin somebody might say and medicins. These already existed in nature in herbs and other medical compounds over the history of man. We are here today arent we ? We managed going trough millions of years without modern chemical medicin.
No, the obviuos fact is that this market has been taken over by the Chemical/medical companies. The money interest is here togheter with science conspiering for their own sake as primitive as ever, to gain control and power.

Otherwise, we are on the brink of annhilation of life as we know it, thank you modern science, thank you for changing the atmosphere, for using up all natural resorces faster and faster etc etc .

The ancient belif systems and cosmological worldvievs pre/Abrahamic all contained what today is known as science , Mathematics,physics, chemistry, geometry all the basics in science was developed by ancient cultures long time ago. Or were they developed by people at all ? Maybe these sciences are embedded within our own consciosness. Like the pattern of life, or a world tree.
Anyway the ancients were all in to this togheter with the ruler and peasants, but they had also a divine touch to it sort of mixed explanations of the science on different levels of perception like life on earth and life of the divine powers, divine as in a creative force invisible for the human eye. But possible to study using various techniques.
Meditation, Yoga, Dancing, Singing etc etc or the intake of certain herbs, today known as hallucinogens .
The effect hallucinogens has on religios/catholic or scientific people are in many cases documented, whereas many Catholics feel like they have been fooled all their life,
scientist on the other hand usually discovers to them previosly unknow and unexplainable dimensions of possibilites.
Like Albert Hoffman for example a well known scientist chemist who was the first to syntesize LSD, He´s own comment after a experince with this compund was, quote
"I saw the world as it really is". All these guys who started in top science Leary, McKenna etc just to mention the two most (in)famous ones.They all went into unknown territory to science. as they say themself, this was more of a religios spiritual experience.

Unfortunatly the scientific community has been forbidden to investigate these metaphysical domains, that maybe the bridge between religion and science.


well thats my 2 cents for know.

[dsenette]

Good point is stops working, so if it was an animal it would have died, and there would have been no off spring.

right...but you missed the point...complexity is not proof of divine intervention...just because something is complex in nature does not mean that it was made by "God"....and to suggest that complexity is the be all end all sign of proof is...a little short sighted......the fact of the matter is that 9 out of 10 times....science can either explain or disprove instances in the bible....

it needs to be understood that the bible was a book of guidelines written in a time when science didn't exist....so they had no other logical explanation of what was going on...some examples

the rules about not eating pork because the animal is unclean.
pigs are known to carry trichinosis, without refrigeration pork becomes toxic because of this....there was no refrigeration...so most people who ate pork....died...so to explain this...."god doesnt like for you to eat pork"

there are many instances where people in the bible lived to be somewhere around 500 years old..
how is it that we have just now been able to raise the avereage life expectancy to 80..through great medical advances?

the story of noah suggests that he retrieved 2 of each animal on the planet to allow them to propigate and then the entire world flooded killing everything...
this story suggests that the 6 or 7 people on this boat repopulated the planet...so therefore..i'm related to all of you...yet...there's no evidence of that in my dna or my geneology...this story also suggest that noah had access to all land animals.....last i checked there were no polar bears in the middle east...so...how are there polar bears today?

i'm n ot bashin any religion or faith or anyone who reads the bible and believes it is fact.....but there are so many holes in that book that to accept it blindly as truth....is dangerous

[Pi rules]

wolfboy, this thread is about teaching Divine Intervention as an alternative theory, it is not supposed to be anti-religious. Please don't make more comments such as these, because I find these comments offensive. I know you weren't trying to offend anybody, but please don't post something like that again.

he leaders of the Catholic movement should be judged for their crime against life itself, and for a conspiracy to gain world power and leadership .
I hope that there will be a Tribunal against these religios movemenst which have poisoned earth and man for over thousands of years.
This goes for Islam ,Judaism and Christians. The three biggest problem makers on the planet right now.
Their crimes and manipulation and the suffering from their victims should definetly be taught in schools to all children over the world

People can't be blamed for what previous people have done. Sorry, but that "tribunal" sounds too much like what the Nazis did. In my opinion, you cannot persecute people for what they believe. (I am NOT calling you or anyone else a [bleep], just saying that I don't think that there should be a "tribunal").

Sorry if this post is offensive to anyone.

Edited by Pi rules, 04 November 2005 - 12:13 PM.

[Woman]

Yea, Michael - you hit the nail on the head!

There is not one shred of evidence for evolution. Even learned evolutionists have been heard to say the only reason they believe in evolution is because they don't want to believe in the alternative (divine intervention). Scientific? (Even Darwin had problems with his theory - theory - not fact. Do keep that in mind. And, in his day, no one knew how complex life truly was - and is.)

And one has to wonder where all the man-apes are today. [No pathetic feminist jokes, please. They aren't funny.] If we came from apes, where are all the ones that are late bloomers?

Divine intervention, on the other hand, makes sense. Everything falls into place. (Though "divine creation" is a more fitting term. Really, what did God intervene in, anyway?)

But evolution is a lot easier to accept, isn't it? No God = no accountability. No God = any belief goes, so just pick the one that makes you feel the best, live however you please, cross your fingers, and hope you're right when your number comes up.

And remember, science can't "prove" everything. Science can't prove art. Science can't prove beauty. Science can't prove love (or even define it). So, just because scientists can't prove that God exists doesn't mean He doesn't.

[dsenette]

There is not one shred of evidence for evolution. Even learned evolutionists have been heard to say the only reason they believe in evolution is because they don't want to believe in the alternative (divine intervention). Scientific? (Even Darwin had problems with his theory - theory - not fact. Do keep that in mind. And, in his day, no one knew how complex life truly was - and is.)

there is actually more scientific proof that evolution exists than that God does.....and...by denouncing evolution because it's a "theory" is a little bit one sided...because...any notion of divine intervention is based on a belief...beliefs require no basis in fact..the just require you to believe (like santa)...where as for something to be accepted as a scientific theory it has to have a large basis in scientific fact....

Divine intervention, on the other hand, makes sense. Everything falls into place. (Though "divine creation" is a more fitting term. Really, what did God intervene in, anyway?)

of course everything makes sense and falls into place...everey single portion of devine intervention is based on one religion or another....people created these religions to cope with thier times....so it makes sense that it would explain things...."how do birds fly?"...you know i have no idea but i bet that god guy had a hand in it...it's a pretty easy answer

And remember, science can't "prove" everything. Science can't prove art. Science can't prove beauty. Science can't prove love (or even define it). So, just because scientists can't prove that God exists doesn't mean He doesn't.

science actually can prove some aspects of beauty....there are algorithms in place that predict what modern society conciders "beautiful"...i say modern society because this deffinition changes alot...in fact throughout history the main scientific link to beauty has always been symetry...if it's symetrical it's generally accepted as pretty if it isn't...it's ugly....well...sounds like geometry to me...

and as far as the last sentence in that last quote.....just because you haven't found the missing link...doesn't mean there isn't one

[warriorscot]

Some people tend to disregard certain aspects of the evolutionary evidence(even some scientists) because it is inconenient to them and there various theories.
People seem to think that science is something that can automatically find the answers to any problem it wants. It cant there are time and technology restrictions, modern science has only really recently settled into set methods in the last twenty years, in the last year we have discovered and created as much as we had in 100 years previous.
Im a firm beleiver science can indeed prove anything, but unlike the people that wrote the religous texts science needs time as funnily enough it actualy has rules, you cant just think something up and say oh well that sounds about right and fits with that other thing. You have to prove it chemically?physically and mathematically.

What came before the big bang is a tricky question, because there was no before, time didnt exist at that point because it was the big bang and the expansion of the universe that caused time.