Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

[USincognito]

I know it is said often but sometimes it just isn't said enough.

Lucaspa Rocks!

Thank you for taking the time to research and educate. The time you spend to give knowledge to this anonymous group is admirable. I've learned more on this board over the last 2 years related to evolutionary science than all my time in highschool and college.

To paraphrase Ford Motor Company, "Have you repped Lucaspa lately?"

(and Notto, I rep you every chance I get too btw - some people in C&E are criminally underrepped.)

 

[lucaspa]

This is an interesting question (although very off-topic here). Should world community simply allow whatever butcher to be in power as long as he doesn't cross any borders?

Pretty much, all throughout history people have been faced with oppression by their leaders, and when they had enough of the oppression, rebelled. You can't give a country it's freedom like we did with Iraq, the people have to fight for it themselves, and want freedom.

I don't know about "should", but that has been the way it has been. So I guess a lot of people decided we should leave butchers alone as long as they don't hurt people out of their country. For democracies, that was the majority since the politicians are dependent on them.

Notice that the Kurds and Shiites did revolt against Hussein and we gave them aid. The Kurds succeeded but the Shiite revolt was crushed by Hussein. However, Physics_guy, Hussein needed soldiers. It wasn't just him. If the soldiers hadn't been with him, Hussein would have had no army.


I remember a story about an African dictatorship -- the predecessor to Idi Amin, I believe. A friend of mine who was there said the English sent in one plane with one platoon of troops. The platoon deplaned and the dictator's military deserted! End of dictator.

 

[lucaspa]

I know it is said often but sometimes it just isn't said enough.

Lucaspa Rocks!

Thank you for taking the time to research and educate. The time you spend to give knowledge to this anonymous group is admirable. I've learned more on this board over the last 2 years related to evolutionary science than all my time in highschool and college.

Thank you. And you are welcome. It is fun, you know. Natural selection does ensure you don't have a trait only for the welfare of others!

 

[Vinegar]

We don't generally arrest or convict on intent, but on actions. In the international arena, a country can have whatever psychopath it wants as ruler as long as that psychopath doesn't threaten his neighbors. Remember Idi Amin? Did we invade to remove his slaughter of his people? The US has even supported some psychopaths, such as Pinochet in Chile. Being a psychopath and being the ruler of a country has never been sufficient for an invasion.

In my book, it should be. Heck, I'd love Sweden to invade Australia right now and remove our "Christian" Prime Minister who only fails to support the death penalty for, in his own words, the purely pragmatic reason that occasionally the courts make an incorrect judgement.

And it wasn't in the case of Iraq! Take a step back and look at the series of rationalizations for war with Iraq. At the beginning, that Hussein oppressed his own people wasn't even mentioned!

My memory, and newspaper clippings, argue contrariwise.

It was all about WMD.

I've dealt with that. It was a legal pretext, however I think some key influential people also honestly believed there was a strong possibility of an extant program. Even some of Saddam's most potent Iraqi critics continue to contend that he was actively pursuing means to revive a WMD program.

It was only after it was transparent that there were no WMD was the rationalization of Hussein's bad behavior trotted out. And now that it is realized that this is insufficient, we get the refuted claim that Hussein supported Al Queda!

Just a halfwit Republican President fantasising and trying to hoodwink the voters. I'm no Bush fan.

You forget ...

Nope. Remembered all that. And just how expensive was this "containment"?

...[Saddam] rebuffed Al Queda when they approached him. He knew that all they would do would be make the US angry.

I am inclined to agree with you. But it didn't stop him pushing to the limit in other areas, including "compensating" the families of suicide bombers, and playing hide'n'seek with the weapons inspectors.

In the days leading up to Bush's war, the former ambassador to Iraq was conveying demands from the Bush administration. According to his book, Hussein capitulated to every demand, including resigning from office. But we went to war anyway.

Well the not-quite-cunning-enough ******* was beginning to see the writing on the wall then, wasn't he, but only when the wall started to fall on him.

The Saudis have been doing that for years, yet we never invaded them.

One of those unholy Pinochet-type deals, but involving oil. Have I accused the US/Bush/Halliburton regime of having pure principles?

BTW, where is the documentation for this?

I have my sources, and no, no-one's paying me.

Nonsense. Hussein represented no immediate danger to his neighbors. He had no plans to invade anyone and was content to try to hold onto his personal power.

I don't care. He was a bad egg and had to go.

And you would have had us invade Afghanistan before 9/11?

Preferably the UN.

On what pretext?

More bad eggs.

That you have hindsight that 9/11 was going to happen?

Enough people did to have been working more intently on preventing it.

[qoute] The benefits?

A net saving of thousands of innocent lives.

I've been reading the book Thunder Run[/QUOTE] A fair tally will be available in ten years.

That assumes that the Palestinian fight is "terrorism" and is unjustified. I see you have been swallowing Israeli propaganda.

Well, that statement assumes a lot, too. I happen to think inducing people to engage in suicide bombing is immoral, doing it to innocent civilians is unjustfiable in any circumstances, that the Palestinians are perfectly entitled to enjoy the peace and security and properity of their own nation, that they are very poorly led by Arafat - who should have accepted the Clinton-brokered offer, and that Israel is an unfortunate anomoly that needs to be occupied by international forces until the whole mess is sorted out.

Not a good thing since the role is that the US does whatever it d-mned well pleases no matter what the UN may say.

I'm not exactly cosy with the idea, either, but better the US than the Saudis in charge, and where would Europe be now if it weren't for Eisenhower's cavalry?

We are the bad guys now. I don't know about you, but I don't like being the Nazis of the 21st Century and being the ones to decide when we want to go to war in a war of aggression.

Nazis - a bit strong I think. That's why I favour a stronger and more interventionist United Nations.

As opposed to Halyburton's dirty deals?

Business is business, and unregulated will be dirty business. No worse than the oil-for-food business that feather-bedded Saddam & Co. (I'm not a free-for-all marketeer).

You forgot one more benefit:
Providing a much closer place for anti-American terrorists to kill Americans than coming to the US. So, all of us in the US can sleep better at nights knowing that we are safer because the terrorists will be gunning for our friends, husbands, siblings in Iraq instead of us!

I sense a deep irony in there somewhere. As I said, I would have preferred a more cohesive and balanced international effort, as in (despite French recalcitrance) the Balkans. But on the whole, you're not exactly losing your brightest and most promising fellow citizens, are you? In Australia, we let the muscle-heads drive their cars into trees.

All that said, it's a gamble, and I'm just a bit nervous about my own reasoned balance between principle and pragmatism. Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[dstauff]

I would like an explanation from somoeone who is a Christian on how "evolution" and God could possibly co-exist. The ideologies are opposites, and evolution devalues the power of God.

 

[Magnus Vile]

I would like an explanation from somoeone who is a Christian on how "evolution" and God could possibly co-exist. The ideologies are opposites, and evolution devalues the power of God.

How does it devalue the power of god? Because he didn't do it the way you think he should have?

And evolution is not the opposite of christianity, it's perfectly compatible with christianity, unless the christian insists that their interpretation is infallible.

 

[PhantomLlama]

I would like an explanation from somoeone who is a Christian on how "evolution" and God could possibly co-exist. The ideologies are opposites, and evolution devalues the power of God.

The standard 'god' concept states: The universe is controlled and/or was created by a sentient supernatural force of immense power.

The Theory of Evolution states: Natural Selection acting on variation in the gene pool has led to the current state of life on earth and the way each creature, fungus or plant is suited for it's environment.

As you can see, the two don't overlap.

 

[dstauff]

First of all, Magnus Vile, you're an atheist. I asked for a Christian view since they are the ones saying that evolution exists AND that there is a God. If you study the Bible (a book that all Christians trust in), you will clearly see that the earth was created in six normal, 24-hour days. This alone makes it impossible for evolution to have occured. I apologize for alienating all of the non-Christians in this forum for a moment, but I think you will get over it.

 

[PhantomLlama]

First of all, Magnus Vile, you're an atheist. I asked for a Christian view since they are the ones saying that evolution exists AND that there is a God. If you study the Bible (a book that all Christians trust in), you will clearly see that the earth was created in six normal, 24-hour days.

While I am sure a TE will be along in a moment to explain it better than me, most christian evolutionists think of Genesis as an allegorical tale to teach us important theological truths about man's fallen state and so forth.

This alone makes it impossible for evolution to have occured.

No, the obstacle for evolution in the YEC model is the 6,000 years the world has existed for. Evolution doesn't care how the world was created.

I apologize for alienating all of the non-Christians in this forum for a moment, but I think you will get over it.

 

[Valkhorn]

First of all, Magnus Vile, you're an atheist. I asked for a Christian view since they are the ones saying that evolution exists AND that there is a God. If you study the Bible (a book that all Christians trust in), you will clearly see that the earth was created in six normal, 24-hour days. This alone makes it impossible for evolution to have occured. I apologize for alienating all of the non-Christians in this forum for a moment, but I think you will get over it.

So why don't you ask for an UNBIASED view instead of the obvious biased one? I guess in your world if someone wanted to find out how something worked they'd just open the bible, read a passage and say "Oh well that's all there is to it", shut the bible and go on with life.

I guess then you'd love to have surgery in a world like that.

DOCTOR: Ok, this man has a brain tumor. Nurse! Bring in the tools I need.
(Nurse brings in a sterile Bible on a silver tray)
(Doctor opens the Bible up and reads a few lines)
DOCTOR: Well, Nurse, go ahead and roll this man out of here. According to the Bible this man is full of demons, and we need to cast them out. I'm not qualified but Pastor Deacon Fred is down the road.
NURSE: Anything else I need to do for this man?
DOCTOR: Get the coffin ready.

 

[Magnus Vile]

First of all, Magnus Vile, you're an atheist. I asked for a Christian view since they are the ones saying that evolution exists AND that there is a God. If you study the Bible (a book that all Christians trust in), you will clearly see that the earth was created in six normal, 24-hour days. This alone makes it impossible for evolution to have occured. I apologize for alienating all of the non-Christians in this forum for a moment, but I think you will get over it.

I have studied the Bible, though not as well as others here, I am sure. I am married to a christian, and have a pretty good idea that, for my wife, there is no conflict between her belief that god created everything and that evolution is one of the mechanisms that he chose to use. She does not accept that it took 6 days because the evidence that she sees around her tells her it didn't take 6 days. It took a long time.

She has a choice. She can either accept that the Bible must be telling the literal truth and god is lying through his creation, or that the story in Genesis was written by men that had no way of understanding what it was god actually did.

You see, she is certain that god did create the universe, whatever mechanism he chose to use. And she is equally certain that he created life. And she has no difficulty living without a literal interpretation of Genesis. For the same reason that she has no problem living on a globe, and knowing that the Flood couldn't have affected the whole planet without leaving some evidence. (And a wrecked planet) Unless god is lying. And she is equally certain he isn't doing that.

There is a christians Only Creation Science & Evolution forum on this site, perhaps you'll get a better response there?

 

[dstauff]

No, the obstacle for evolution in the YEC model is the 6,000 years the world has existed for. Evolution doesn't care how the world was created.

Obviously, PhantomLlama, you are not familiar with the bible. Not only the world was created in six days, but also all of the organisms, which would contradict evolution because evolution requires much more time for everything to be created.

I enjoy your little amusing assumptions, Valkhorn, but try to do more than just use personal attacks.

 

[Valkhorn]

I enjoy your little amusing assumptions, Valkhorn, but try to do more than just use personal attacks.

Those weren't personal attacks. Those were arguments against your points of reasoning. Besides, thinking the earth is only 6,000 years old is the biggest assumption of them all so far.

Scientists have not assumed that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We came to that conclusion only after we had the evidence for it.

 

[dstauff]

She does not accept that it took 6 days because the evidence that she sees around her tells her it didn't take 6 days. It took a long time.

Well, Magnus Vile, perhaps your wife should do some more investigating (no offense intended). If you would look at the bible, you would see that plants were created on the third day and that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Now, if each day was millions of years, how did all of these new plants exist without sunlight to sustain photosynthesis?

 

[Tomk80]

Well, Magnus Vile, perhaps your wife should do some more investigating (no offense intended). If you would look at the bible, you would see that plants were created on the third day and that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Now, if each day was millions of years, how did all of these new plants exist without sunlight to sustain photosynthesis?

dstauff, here I see a strange pattern occurring, which I've witnessed more often lately. You ask a christians position. Now, here is a story about a christian who thinks evolution and the bible are reconcilable. Then, you're reaction is that she "should do some more investigating". How do you know she did not fully investigate it, but came to different conclusions then you did? You know nothing of her, accept what Magnus Vile wrote.

Apparently, when confronted with another viewpoint then your own, you automatically assume that the other is wrong. If you honestly want to discuss this, you'll need to change this attitude, because it will hinder you in fully researching their claims. If you don't do this, I don't see the reason why other christians should respond to you.

 

[Valkhorn]

Well, Magnus Vile, perhaps your wife should do some more investigating (no offense intended). If you would look at the bible, you would see that plants were created on the third day and that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Now, if each day was millions of years, how did all of these new plants exist without sunlight to sustain photosynthesis?

Don't you think the bigger fallacy lies in the thought that plants were created after the sun?

 

[dstauff]

Scientists have not assumed that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We came to that conclusion only after we had the evidence for it.

What evidence do you have that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Radiometric dating is very unreliable. There are a staggering amount of cases where carbon dating has been tested and failed miserably.

Besides, thinking the earth is only 6,000 years old is the biggest assumption of them all so far.

Knowing that the earth is 6,000 years old is far from an assumption. Hemoglobin and red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones.The dinosaur was dated as living 65 million years ago by evolutionists; however, research shows that these cells could not survive longer than a few thousand years, which means that the dinosaur lived recently. This is just one of many, many reasons that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[dstauff]

Don't you think the bigger fallacy lies in the thought that plants were created after the sun?

Like I have stated before, I am questioning the thought of other Christians for just a moment. Restrain yourself from arguing that of which you have not studied and are not familiar with.

 

[Tomk80]

What evidence do you have that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Radiometric dating is very unreliable. There are a staggering amount of cases where carbon dating has been tested and failed miserably.

Sources?

Knowing that the earth is 6,000 years old is far from an assumption. Hemoglobin and red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones.The dinosaur was dated as living 65 million years ago by evolutionists; however, research shows that these cells could not survive longer than a few thousand years, which means that the dinosaur lived recently. This is just one of many, many reasons that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Sources?

 

[Magnus Vile]

Well, Magnus Vile, perhaps your wife should do some more investigating (no offense intended). If you would look at the bible, you would see that plants were created on the third day and that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Now, if each day was millions of years, how did all of these new plants exist without sunlight to sustain photosynthesis?

Where did I mention a day lasting millions of years? She is a theistic (Christian) evolutionist. She believes God created the universe, and all life in it. Evolution is, to her, one of the mechanisms he chose to use.

She has done a lot of investigating, and studying, and has come to the conclusion that either god created the world to look old, or the world is old. The first would mean god is lying to the human race, the second means that Genesis isn't literally acurate. One of those options she will not accept. So, for her, the book of Genesis isn't a science lesson and was never intended to be one.