This was copied and pasted directly from Mr. Shelley's Gamespot UK interview. Is anyone else surprised by this? I'm an atheist, and I certainly agree with him, but I'm still surprised he said it. Could it have been a typo? Do you suppose he meant something different when he said "mythology" that what we typically consider it to mean?
[This message has been edited by Sir William of Pork (edited 08-22-2001 @ 04:26 PM).]
Yes I am aware that bible scholars disagree on many points, oh well. Yes, there are so many different interpretations on some of the harder things to understand, that it's not surprising that they disagree ont them. But in the end these little detals aren't that imporatant, it's the overall message that counts, and I think most bible scholars agree on these.
Just curious, why would you like to lie in those countries rather than the U.S?
I am really getting tired of people using stupid, out dated, or just plain wrong arguements to combat evolution. Statements like "why are there worms?", or claiming there are "invalid creatures", are really starting to frustrate me. If you want to convince anybody of anything, you have to use good, accurate information and be able to back it up. Otherwise you just make yourself look stupid, and you give creationists everywhere a bad name.
De nada But the problem is one of validity- what makes your version of the 'overall message' count more than anyone elses? Not that I disagree, I think the most important point of life is to enjoy yourself as much as possible without infringing on another's right to do so. This is what drives me- being kind and making this world a little easier to live for everyone. And, this is remarkbly similar to 95% of all the core religious teachings, so what does it matter? Well, the Netherlands for 3 reasons- the tolerance of the society, the rich artistic tradition, and I've always wanted to live in Rotterdam. No, it's great when society realizes that it should invest in what determines the course of it's future. Why do you think that the economy has done so swimmingly over the past decade, bringing prosperity to the nation as a whole? It is due to college-educated men and women. You want to speak to me of hardworking? How about: 22 hours/week at Job #1 This is what was expected of me this time last year. Of course, a simple calculation can determine that there aren't enough hours in the week for all of this, especially without sleep factored in. I stubbornly persevered for 3 months, doing horribly in all areas, and making myself sick, undernutriented, and depressed to boot. It is well-nigh impossible for a student to both go to school and pay for it at the same time, if society were to help students and view it as an investment in the future, everyone will be much better off.
35 hours/week at Job #2
10 hours/week at Job #3
37 hours/week of college
30 hours/week of transportation
50 hours/week of homework
In vino veritas
As far as evolution contradicting the Bible, there is a major portion of Genesis (chapters 1-11) that expresses quite blatantly that God made the universe in six days. Even if you don't believe that, consider this: Think about how many beneficial mutations would need to occur to get a platypus from its evolutionary ancestor. (By the way, what its ancestor?) The changes in genetic codes to gradually grow a bill, fur, egg-laying ability, mammary glands, venom, etc. are monstrous. (I realize that not all of these would have to evolve, but that would depend on its ancestor.) Why are there no fossils even close? Fossilization is rare process, you say. But you have to give some evidence for your millions (perhaps billions?) of missing links. Quite frankly, there is no experimental evidence for macro-evolution or spontaneous generation. If you want to believe in evolution, I cannot technically prove it wrong. But I if say that purple parrots are living inside Neptune, you cannot prove me wrong either. [This message has been edited by Clarissimus (edited 09-09-2001 @ 03:40 PM).]
You seem to have forgotten the millions of Christians living outside of North America and Europe. The continent with the most Christians on it is
Also, a note on the talk about mass burial grounds. These are not refering to people being buried as in a funeral service. This is talking about a massive flood or mudslide burying the people and animals in contorted and twisted positions. (I think that's what you were trying to talk about.)
eifersucht, your responses are many and well-thought, but most of the them come down to speculation. If you say languages had 200,000 years to evolve, that does not prove anything. It is not science. If you say the cell or the eye or the duck-billed platypus came from intermediate forms that have vanished, that is not science. It is speculation.
In order for a scientific theory to have weight, it must rely on as few assumptions as possible. When you bring in so many speculations, I have no rational choice but to reject your assertion.
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the Cambrian sedimentary layers, life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed (fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, & brachiopods.) These layers contain all animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates.
Insects, which comprise about 80% of all known animal species, have no evolutionary ansectors.
In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.
In Turkmenia and in Arizona, dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together.
In South Carolina, dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse and other fossils, plus crude human tools were found in phosphate beds.
In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, ferns spores and pollen are found in Precambrian rocks.
In Virginia, hoofprints are alongside 1000 dinosaur footprints.
In Arizona, petrified trees contian fossilized bee nests and wasp cocoons.
The Piltdown Man was a universally acknowleged hoax, yet it was in textbooks for over 40 years.
Prior to 1978, the evidence for
The only evidence for Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig's tooth.
Eugene Dubois admitted 40 years after he discovered Java Man that it was just a large gibbon.
The skulls of Peking Man are considered by many experts to be the remains of apes. The classification
The first confirmed limb bones of
The Australophithecines are quite distinct from humans. Studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that she not never walked upright.
For about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. Recent studies show that this belief was based on some Neanderthals with bones diseases such as arthritis and ricekts. Neanderthal Man, Heidelberg Man, and Cro-Magnon Man were completely human.
Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in rocks long before man supposedly began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck's skeleton, and many others.
Many of which I was not eligible for, due to race or religious background information.
Something I've avoided trying to get saddled with due to the fact that they will haunt me for years to come. Neither or these two options refutes the statement that society would be better off providing the necessary funding for any student to get a decent higher education. We do it for primary and secondary, and now that we have progressed to the point that this is no longer good enough to make it in the world, we should either take on support of colleges and universities, or rework 'lower education' to provide students with the necessary skills for
In vino veritas
I have no doubt at all that millions of uneducated people might not agree with evolution. There are more, but I'm not interested enough to argue it (because I see no point defending a religion I don't like). What it means that languages 5000 years old are only 1/20'th or so the length of language evolution. That is, we are near the end anyway, languages can fully evolve by that point. If you bear in mind that the languages we are most likely to find are the most prolific, which would tend to be from the most advanced societies, it is no surprise at all. I should point out that for every new fossil we find, by definition we increase the number of 'missing' links. The rest of this is the same. [This message has been edited by eifersucht (edited 09-13-2001 @ 08:32 PM).]
Evolution is not compatible with the Bible.
That is
Some other alternatives:
1. (ultra-metaphorical): "Jesus" dying for our sins shows the suffering + sacrifice of the world for the sake of humans, and that we should understand this suffering + sacrifice in order to get in touch with "God".
2. That the adam + eve story is metaphor, basically for the human nature of sin. This is useful because it gets rid of the ridiculous idea of punishing decendants for the sins of ancestors, clearly not a just tradition. As for death being in the world, I don't see that as an issue. Animals without souls dying mean nothing. If it did, then Jesus' death would have to involve them in some way as well. Since animals (most, at least) are unable to comprehend, that would involve making the comprehension of the fact (even of the events that happened, ie, any knowledge at all) meaningless, making Christianity itself meaningless.
Yes. A local flood could do this. The ground that it occurred on could easily later become a mountain.
It means that pointing to languages 5000 years ago being developed as proof that they don't evolve, it does quite a lot.
It isn't science, granted. However, that is because it is dealing with a complaint that also isn't science. It is explaination of an event.
That is just wrong. I provided sources of people who have examined it. I have given you the available materials to at least start your search in this area. Clearly you haven't, from which I can only assume that you aren't looking for answers to questions, but questions without answers. If you can give a rational reason why what the sources I provided are faulty, then go ahead. If you can't, then admit you were wrong, or at least drop the point.
1. I'm not sure on the "no fossils" thing. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it before. Frankly, I am quite busy, and can't check every claim that everyone who is debating against me (multiple forums, not just this thread) makes. I will get to it eventually, but this may be a matter of weeks. Sorry about that.
2. Even if there were no ancestors (that we can find and identify as such), this simply means that in the stages between modern platipii and proto-platipii no fossilisation events occurred. This is hardly unlikely in the 2nd dryest continent on the planet.
Millions?
Define "missing link".
Say there the numbers 1-10.
We find number 1 and 10. There is 1 gap. If we find number 3, there are suddenly 2 gaps. If we find number 6, there are 3 gaps. If we have all numbers, there are 9 gaps.
The "missing links" tend to be terms for "Gaps", which, as you can see, aren't intrinsically bad. The problem with gaps is when they are of a sufficient degree, and those gaps are quite rare.
1. Speciation events are, at the moment, thought to occur roughly every 10 000 years. Experimental evidence for it would be very very lucky.
2.
Except evolution provides evidence for every single thing it claims. It isn't a baseless claim to knowledge, requiring the proof of a negative propasition.
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the Cambrian sedimentary layers, life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed (fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, & brachiopods.) These layers contain all animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates.
Insects, which comprise about 80% of all known animal species, have no evolutionary ansectors.
I have already dealt with this. Fossilisation is rare. Fossilisation requires hard parts to have any reasonable chance of occurring (although it can, in very rare situations occur without them).
And when it was discovered to be a hoax, was instantly removed. Had the removal of the evidence been vital to evolution, evolution would be in serious trouble.
However, it isn't. Evolution is not reliant on the fossil record, and the fossil record is not reliant on any 1 fossil.
If you want, I can post all the accurate fossil records, you can post the hoaxes, and we'll compare, ok?
Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in rocks long before man supposedly began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck's skeleton, and many others.
1. The Calaveras skull was a hoax. It wasn't found underground at all. Totally false.
2. "The bones from Castenedolo, near Brescia in Italy, belong to several skeletons of men, women, and children and were found on various occasions in a shelly bed of sand and clay, of marine origin and of Pliocene age. In 1899, the discovery of a new human skeleton was the subject of an official report by Professor Issel, who then observed that the various fossils from this deposit were all impregnated with salt, with the sole exception of the human fossils... It seems certain that at Castenedolo we are dealing with more or less recent burials." (Boule and Vallois, 1957,
3. I've not seen anything on Reck's skeleton that makes it appear anomolous. Perhaps you could fill me in...
Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorst attacks against the United States. - CATO Institute, 1998
Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over our own eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters - Karl Marx
Écrasez l'infâme
This is not Christianity. The whole point of original sin is that it totally messed up the world. It brought natural disasters, disease, etc. that affect animals as well as people. Fine then. We'll get back to the debate at hand. This is your circular reasoning I was talking about. Don't back up evolution with evolution. Too bad it's taught as fact in the public schools. Maybe that's why so many "educated" people believe it. It's because they have been "educated" (Read "indoctrinated"). If fossilization is so rare, why is it that we find multiple fossils of the same spieces and I have defined "link" as "species." Maybe this is not proper, if so, I change my wording to "missing species." How many mutations does it take for an ape to change into a human? Look at their vast anatomical and intellectual differences (for a start.) A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand or more? Every time there is a beneficial mutation, a new species would be produced. At least, we could expect a hundred or more transitional forms. Yet they are You just admitted it wasn't science. How can you turn around and make a statement like that? My high school Biology textbook cited "Lucy" as a link between apes and humans and referred to embryonic development as evidence for evolution, among other things. (And I graduated this year.) Also there were hundreds of human bones and artifacts (ancient tools) underneath undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava. The Castenedolo skeletons were encased in clay. This prevented the water from dripping in (with dissovled minerals) and thus preventing the bones from fossilizing. See for info on reck's skeleton: You didn't comment on the out of place fossils (#25). I guess that will come later. . . . 28. Chemical Elements of Life The rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon. Today's atmosphere only holds 1/30,000th of the carbon that has been on the earth's surface since life first appeared. If the early earth was high in oxygen, amino acids could not form. If the early earth was low in oxygen, it was low in ozone (O Nitrogen is earily absorbed by clay and various rocks. Sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. (But these have never been found.) All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which invovles twenty to thiry steps, is absolutely vital to heal a body. However, clotting is fatal if it happens inside the body. If one of these steps goes wrong, is omittied, or changed in timing, all the other steps that were performed flawlessly are in vain. [This message has been edited by Clarissimus (edited 09-11-2001 @ 10:45 PM).]
(Also refer to my comments on ape-men hoaxes and fossil appereances.)
Macro-evolution has never been observed.
Looking at diversified fossils and making proposterous claims does not count as evidence!
M. Bowden,
Since 1930 it has been known that amino acid cannot join if oxygen is present. The chemistry of the earth's rocks (on land and below ancient seas) show the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils were formed. (Oxygen would anyway be produced by solar radiation breaking apart water vapor.)
There is not the remotest chance proteins could randomly form a membrane-encased, self-reproducting, metabolizing, living cell. The is no evidence there are any stable states between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has advanced a testable procedure by which the fantastic leap could have occured -- even if the whole universe were filled with proteins. (Didn't you decry spontaneous generation.)
A typical cell contians thousands of different chemcials, some acids, some bases. Were it not for an incricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. Apparenly these buffers and barriers evolved at just the right times to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, miraculous events have happened for many millions of species?
This is not Christianity. |
Too bad it's taught as fact in the public schools. Maybe that's why so many "educated" people believe it. It's because they have been "educated" (Read "indoctrinated"). |
(Also refer to my comments on ape-men hoaxes and fossil appereances.) |
I'll outline here the lineage that led to humans. Notice that there were many other large, successful branches (particularly the lemurs, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys) that I will only mention in passing. Also see Jim Foley's fossil hominid FAQ for detailed information on hominid fossils. GAP: "The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene) The tarsiers, lemurs, and New World monkeys split off in the Eocene. GAP: There are no known fossil hominids *or* apes from Africa between Known species-species transitions in primates: |
As far as the "that is you opinion" responses, you need to distinguish between opinion and definition. The traditional definintion of Christianity is that which I have described. If other people want to define it differently, they are redefining my religion (and God's).
If someone else started changing the entire premise of the theory of evolution to fit certain fossil evidence that you think is bogus, would you consider that person an evolutionist? Even if they said they were an evolutionist and you were just being narrow minded?
Now your quote, I didn't pull that out of context, but just to be certain, I'll include the whole paragraph. Maybe you can explain it to me a little better:
I take this to mean that you say that an explanation of an event isn't science. I agree. Science is knowledge based on observation and experimentation. Any explanation of an event surely should not be considered to be science. (Please read between the lines there. I don't think I need to state it.) Well this one really takes the cake! Please define a "complete" fossil record. Does it show every mutation? I don't care how rare you say fossilization is, either. The amino acids in life are essential all left-handed. But when amino acids are found in nonliving material or synthesized in the lab, half and left-handed and half and right-handed. No known natural process can isolate either variety. The sugars in living things are almost all right-handed. Natural processes produce half left-handed and half right-handed. If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars that had the wrong handedness, the body could not process it. Such food would be useless.
It isn't science, granted. However, that is because it is dealing with a complaint that also isn't science. It is explaination of an event.
I appreciate your taking the time to type out that rather lengthy fossil record of apes. But there are many more gaps than what you explicitly mentioned. Every time a mutation occurs, we ought to find a fossil recording such mutation.
A degree of similarity of life forms can now be measured by examining the sequence of specific proteins. The fewer changes required to convert one protein to another, supposedly the closer the relationship of the animals.
But the results show not a trace of evidence for the traditional evolutionary sequence: simple sea life =>
The genetic information contained in each cell of a human in roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 books. To accumulate this information randomly, the followed procedure would be followed:
a. Start with a meaningful phrase
b. Retype the phrase, but make some errors and insert some additional letters.
c. Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step "b".
To accumulate 4000 books of meaningful information, this producure would require far more than 10
To produce DNA, a cell require more than 75 different types of proteins. But these proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existance simultaneously.
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always "right-handed." Nucleotides rarely form outside of life, but when they do, half are left-handed and half are right-handed.
Consider how advantageous a mutation that switched a plant's handedness would be. "Inverted" trees would proliferate, since they would no longer nourish bacteria, mold, or termites. "Inverted" forest would fill entire continents. Other "inverted" plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why don't we see any species with right-handed amino acids or left-handed sugars?
Similary, why aren't there more poisonous plants? Why don't benefical mutations permit their carriers to swamp other species?
That you seem to be obsessed with not only evolution being mainly based on the fossil record, but entirely based off it, is a poor indictment of the state of the education system there.
If you critisize (sp?) someone about there beliefs, and then you try and persuade him to come see how you see...what do you expect them to do? Agree? Probably not...even if your belief Never say there wrong. even if they are. What you do is try and persuade them to see how you see. Trust me, less blood shed will come from an arguement if you scream and yell and curse then an arguement that you talk. Rules: 1. Never say "your wrong", because your more likely to persuade him to your way of thinking. If you do say "your wrong" all your going to do is raise resentment, and get him to start defending himself, and start yelling at you, which is not good (you can agree with that right?) Unfortinatly this is 2 vital rules i have just learned (in the past week), and i could not apply this skill in my other posts, however i can now. I agree that it was a very unwise remark, even if it I also agree that Jesus is the
2. The point of this arguement is to get the opposing debators to agree with you...you want them to say "yah, thats right." yelling at them and telling them there wrong is
they aren't smart enough to make their own.
How can it be unwise, even if it's true? Seriously, Christianity is a mythology, just one that is still believed in and practiced today.
In vino veritas
It may be true, but its still unwise because alot of the population is christians; and it would only cause a major up-roar.
because...that is what we feel is true (even if we are right). if we are wrong, we'll still defend (and argue) it which makes his comment unwise... The best comment is a comment that won't start an arguement, and this is not one of those types. It is a comment against a religion and will only start arguements. That is why it is unwise.
Cian, I'm not going to argue over definitions of words (i.e. "mythology") but please read my post #112. I think it's on page 5 (maybe page 4).
If the many instructions were not pre-programmed into each system when it first appeared, the first of thousands of invaders would destory it. This would nullify any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. Many bacteria propel themselves with a type of minature motor. Speeds of up to 15 body-lenghts per second are achieved. These extremely efficient, reversable motors rotate up to 100,000 rotations per minute. Having rotors and stators, they are similar in many respects to electrical motors. Since the bacteria can stop, start, and change directions and speeds, they probably have sophisticated sensors, switches, and control mechanisms. All of this is highly minaturized. Evolution teaches that bacteria were among the first organisms to evolve, and therefore, they are simple. We have all heard it said that humans only use a small fraction of their mental capabilities. If this is true, how did those capabilities evolve? How would natural selection favor them if they were never used?
The simplest conceivable form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The probabily that one of these molecules could form by the chance arrangement of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10
Many different forms of life are dependant on each other. Examples include the fig tree and fig gall wasp, yucca plant and yucca moth, pollen-bearing plants and honeybees, and many parasites and their hosts. Even members of the honeybee family (queens, drones, workers) are interdependant.
If one member evolved first, it could not have survived.
If sexual reproduction is the result of evolution the following must have happened:
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet completely compatible reproductive systems of the male and female must have
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would need to be compatible.
c. The millions of complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen, sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and an electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision.
e. The environment of the fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also produced with another sexually capable adult (which also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
f. This remarkable string of accidents must have spread throughout millions of species.
Each immune system of animals and plants can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize just the right defenders to search out and destory these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.
Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins and whales, the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats, the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird, the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle, the precise and redundant navigation systems of many birds and fish, and the self-repair capabilities of all life forms. Each component of these complex systems could not have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage.
If life is ulimately the result of random processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thought -- what you are thinking right now -- would be the consequence of a long series of accidents. Therefore your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life the result of chance, natural, processes.
By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts itself, since it, too, is an idea.
Unsurprisingly, I completely disagree with this- why should you censor yourself so that middle America doesn't get offended? It is not "against religion". It isn't condoning Christianity for this. Hell, as mentioned before, Shelley is a Christian, why would he be insulting himself? You just have to remember, the number of replies/page is variable, fortunately I'm on 50/page so with that post number, it is easy to find Nobody is debating this, although I would have liked to have seen the Hebrews as a civ... It doesn't matter if it is practiced or not, Christianity, and all religions which base themselves on faith are mythologies. True, but monotheism does not preclude it as a mythology.
In vino veritas
Way to go, Mr. Shelley. The world is much too up-tight and politically-correct for my taste. If you were offended by that comment, you are insecure in YOUR beliefs, and I question how much faith you really have.
/me scampers off.
Copyright © 1997–2024 HeavenGames LLC. All rights reserved.
v2.5.0