Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

How can anyone tell if something has been researched to the extent that 100% proof is available? Some things did not necessarily require 'full' proof to have evidence of it.

Didn't you say science is based on proof? now your contradicting yourself, stating a partial proof is enough

We do know the mechanisms that cause cells to deteriorate and 'die'. The process of Apoptosis DNA fragmentation is a major factor of programmed Cellular Apoptosis (death).

I don't think you understood what i meant, humans die, we know what happens as you state it that causes us to die, DNA breaks off, but a "reason" i really find it hard to explain myself on this point and if with this this isn't understood yet(my bad) i'm going to stop trying

To this many scientists/researchers argue that the development of Emotions was necessary in ensuring the survival of the species. As time moved on, species evolved and further developed emotional capabilities. We consider ourselves to be the dominant ones with emotional capabilities.

Science is based on facts/proof

I think your putting a little faith up

countless Biblical scholars that claim to know the message of the Bible the Bible is open to interpretation and may convey different messages to different people

i asked you if [b]you understood the bibles message

But honestly state an example that is open to interpretacion counting that you "believe" the bible is right, meaning if you were to put on an interpretacion on that would create a conflict it would not be an interpretacion, it would be a tought

MT

[Yanoda]

How can anyone tell if something has been researched to the extent that 100% proof is available? Some things did not necessarily require 'full' proof to have evidence of it.

Didn't you say science is based on proof? now your contradicting yourself, stating a partial proof is enough

You forgot to quote the examples I mentioned... quarks and electrons, that's what I meant

not necessarily require 'full' proof to have evidence of it.

We were still able to verify the existence of these particles.
In no way will we be able to have 100% proof of anything, but close to it. That is what science tries to achieve.
I also said somethings, not everything.

I don't think you understood what i meant, humans die, we know what happens as you state it that causes us to die, DNA breaks off, but a "reason" i really find it hard to explain myself on this point and if with this this isn't understood yet(my bad) i'm going to stop trying

It is a mechanism of the cells. If the cell is unable to performs its role, it has to 'die' to ensure that the other cells are not hindered. The mechanism tries to prevent the cells from becoming cancerous (constantly replicating and damaging normal cells). The formation of cancer cells is caused by the DNA fragmentation, including other factors. If animals/organisms do not die to let their younger generation succeed them, an over population can occur. This diminishes resources and can lead to mass deaths of the population. Organisms with shorter life spans reproduce more often over time. Reproduction enables the formation of mutations that can further improve the species' ability to adapt to the environment.

To this many scientists/researchers argue that the development of Emotions was necessary in ensuring the survival of the species. As time moved on, species evolved and further developed emotional capabilities. We consider ourselves to be the dominant ones with emotional capabilities.

Science is based on facts/proof

I think your putting a little faith up

How so? There are inherent emotions in almost all organisms, pain and fear were examples I gave in a previous post (one can argue that it is a fight or flight mechanism). This can aid the survival of the organism and its species. Advanced emotions like guilt is more prevalent in social animals (Apes, humans etc.), this gives us the 'guilt' when we harm our own. It prevents the population from attacking itself, preserving the population and ensuring their safety.

countless Biblical scholars that claim to know the message of the Bible the Bible is open to interpretation and may convey different messages to different people

i asked you if [b]you understood the bibles message

But honestly state an example that is open to interpretacion counting that you "believe" the bible is right, meaning if you were to put on an interpretacion on that would create a conflict it would not be an interpretacion, it would be a tought
MT

I don't know whether you understood what I meant... If Biblical Scholars cannot come a common agreement as to what the real message of the Bible is, how can I say what the message is of the Bible? Why do you think there are so many different Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelical etc.), let alone religions? They all interpret the Bible (Holy Book) differently. The interpretations are based on the views of the people.
I see no reason to state my interpretation since it will be inherent that others will claim it a false interpretation. Why do you think there were so many religious wars in the past?

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

@Pepsi

Our DNA isn't flawless you say, the part where we die is in the bible however the why cannot be explained yet by science, yes i know your going to state at a certain point that science has prooved that our cells at a certain age start dying and as they die we die, but the reason why they die.....

Why we have emotions or why we are conscious CANNOT be applied to creationsim THOSE answers ARE in the bible i suggest you read it before you claim such things
Saying "oh you already have your belief so you think diffrently about things" really? how do you think i believe in god while i was taught evolution was the right way?
Before i believe anything i STUDY it i don't make claims before i did, and if i made i mistake somewhere i will correct said mistake.

Like i said before, you can say that science changes and it does, but stating that something is true before all the proof has been collected?
Also the link is based on times before the RNA discovery.....and from what i see it's argument is much worse then the ones yanoda posted wich make a bit more sence
MT

Firstly, I have read the Bible. I attended a private christian school for 8 years, and I was forced to take Christian Education classes as well as being forced to attend chapel everyday. Secondly, the Bible says we were created out of clay, this makes no sense to me. Also, the Bible never explains how we are conscious. It merely states that we are, and that God made us this way, it does not explain how. And yes, evolution is not complete but it is all we have to date, so it should be taught. Saying we should not teach it because it is not complete is like saying we don't know exactly how ALL the particles of atoms work, so we shouldn't teach about atoms. That is ridiculous. And I can understand that evolution may offend some Christians, they can be taught what they like while at home, but while at school, they will be taught science. Not teaching evolution because it offends is like saying: meat packaging offends Hindus, so we should not teach agriculture, or how blood is unclean to Jehovah's Witnesses, so we don't teach about blood transfusions. When will it end then!?

And why do we die? The Bible says we die because we were kicked out of Eden because Adam and Eve ate a pomegranate that we weren't supposed to. So you say the Bible explains it, and if your definition of an explanation is "we ate a forbidden pomegranate," then I don't know what to say. Science talks about how cells die, and how they lose energy, and how things AGE. Once an organ that we are dependent upon ceases to function, then we die.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

It is a mechanism of the cells. If the cell is unable to performs its role, it has to 'die' to ensure that the other cells are not hindered. The mechanism tries to prevent the cells from becoming cancerous (constantly replicating and damaging normal cells). The formation of cancer cells is caused by the DNA fragmentation, including other factors. If animals/organisms do not die to let their younger generation succeed them, an over population can occur. This diminishes resources and can lead to mass deaths of the population. Organisms with shorter life spans reproduce more often over time. Reproduction enables the formation of mutations that can further improve the species' ability to adapt to the environment.

Yet this is from what i see untrue in the animal world comparing it to the human world.
A bunny as far as i know lives 4-6 years and when they breed(even tough it's a variable) as far as i know can have 4-8 little ones, a cat(at least the ones i had here at home) have the same numbers, however a cats live up to 20 or even a bit older, that's 4-5 times the age of a bunny....
Also humans live an average life(not counting third world countries) of 70-75 years, yet we manage to overpopulate the earth, i don't see the years going down at the moment...condicions may apply but "naturally" nope.

How so? There are inherent emotions in almost all organisms, pain and fear were examples I gave in a previous post (one can argue that it is a fight or flight mechanism). This can aid the survival of the organism and its species. Advanced emotions like guilt is more prevalent in social animals (Apes, humans etc.), this gives us the 'guilt' when we harm our own. It prevents the population from attacking itself, preserving the population and ensuring their safety.

Pain is actually from what iv'e seen not as comparable as other emotions, basicly pain "warns" us for what's bad for ourself, if you were to put your hand in a campfire, and wouldn't feel the pain you wouldn't take it out and you would burn your hand of to say it like that, it's more or less a protection.
Fear however lies more personal to each human, some have fear of hights while others jump off cliffs.
Also "IF" i'm not mistaken i haven't seen animals with a "phobea" before.
Also i have not heared about animals with "guilt" either, the "right or wrong" question is still in place from what i'm trying to say, if one ape kills the other, does it know what it's doing is bad?

I don't know whether you understood what I meant... If Biblical Scholars cannot come a common agreement as to what the real message of the Bible is, how can I say what the message is of the Bible? Why do you think there are so many different Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelical etc.), let alone religions? They all interpret the Bible (Holy Book) differently. The interpretations are based on the views of the people.
I see no reason to state my interpretation since it will be inherent that others will claim it a false interpretation. Why do you think there were so many religious wars in the past?

True but that's the point, each gives another idea about the bible in their own way, hence why not to become in their "point of view" you have to study the bible yourself.
If you like you said you did, read the bible yourself then you must have your own interpretation about it.
Now if you want to talk about the religions there are it's quite simple tough, what religions "act" and "follow" the laws stated in the bible? if the bible states we can't murder people and we start a "holy war" then are we following the "laws/rules" or are we breaking them? basicly many religions claim while they do something else, but i don't want to derail this thread into a religion war.

Also just an FYI, iv'e seen many evolutionists discuss/argue/debate/fight under each other as a lot of creationists do, not that you started a war but still you can't all agree on something.

@Sirpepsi

1- Dust, not clay.
2- This reminds me of one of my teachers, whom i already quoted here, "i'm not going to say what you have to believe, i simply give you information/facts, and you believe what you want to believe" other then my evolution's teacher who wanted to fail me for saying that i didn't believe in evolution.... all those things you named are topics i have discussed before in school, but it's the evolution "being 100% prooven and true" that teachers have been feeding me all the time that drives me nuts, and after 26 pages now your saying it isn't flawless....
3- However i don't get how cells that die, appearently quite quickly were able to replicate fast enough to actually both evolve and survive, and yet even tough i'm pretty sure yanny is going to come up with a page that explains another certain "theory" about it, but I don't get the point where cells come to existance without oxigen are able to evolve into the first living animal and then suddenly the moment you get an animal the sun starts shining brighter and we get oxigen wich is suddenly needed to sustain life....

MT

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

I sincerely doubt that any of your teachers mandated your belief in The Theory of Evolution. More likely, is that they attempted to convince you of this fact of nature through evidence. However, I will admit that I was not in your class, therefore I cannot offer a viable account on what your study experiences withheld.

Countless amounts of research has been conducted in order to speculate as to how exactly the origins of single-celled organisms evolved through many stages into the forms of life the earth is home to today. I like to think of it as 68 million branches branching out of 68 million separate branches, with sub-branches that each hold 68 million other branches, and so on, and so on.

Without speculation as to how evolution works, there would be little hope for humanity. Here is an example of evolution in modern day times: http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolution/evolution-in-bacteria.html.

Now, most scientists do not even debate that evolution is ever-occurring. Now the debate has moved on to the specifics of the process.

Signed Sincerely,
(SWGO)SirPepsi

[THEWULFMAN]

MT, for the love of God. The conjuction for "you are" is "you're", not "your". Please remember that. It pains me when I see "your" being used as a conjunction.

Also humans live an average life(not counting third world countries) of 70-75 years, yet we manage to overpopulate the earth, i don't see the years going down at the moment...condicions may apply but "naturally" nope.

That's so easy to explain it's sad. The reason why we are over-populating the Earth is because we aren't dying fast enough anymore! We used to have shorter life spans, which is why women would get married so young. 200 years ago, you got married at 14 or older. We've been learning too much about medicine. We've wiped out too many diseases. We've made infant fatality far more rare. The reason why the life span of humans keeps going up is simple, we're learning more about medicine. It's estimated we'll be living to over 150 soon, many (scientists) say the first person to live to 200 has already been born.

Pain is actually from what iv'e seen not as comparable as other emotions, basicly pain "warns" us for what's bad for ourself, if you were to put your hand in a campfire, and wouldn't feel the pain you wouldn't take it out and you would burn your hand of to say it like that, it's more or less a protection.

I'm going to agree that pain is not an emotion. It's a sensory response to damage to the body. Not an emotion. You can be afraid of pain, and fear is the most basic of all emotions.

Fear however lies more personal to each human, some have fear of hights while others jump off cliffs.
Also "IF" i'm not mistaken i haven't seen animals with a "phobea" before.
Also i have not heared about animals with "guilt" either, the "right or wrong" question is still in place from what i'm trying to say, if one ape kills the other, does it know what it's doing is bad?

Yeah, that is true. You know why fear is personal to each human? Tiny, minute mutations in our DNA. It's called evolution, on a much smaller scale at least. Our brains are all different from eachother because the DNA does not replicate identically during reproduction. If evolution didn't exist, we'd all be the same, and dogs wouldn't exist. Unless you're going to claim that God created dogs, and they are not decended from wolves. Breeding is an example of evolution on a much faster scale.

There is not one cell of my being that doesn't believe in God, however the same goes for Evolution. In regards to evolution, it can be seen on a small scale all around us if you care to look. Evolution's basic principles can be seen constantly. Hair color for example. My mom's hair is brown, my dad's is black. My hair is blonde. I have different colored hair because of a genetic mutation during gestation. Genetic mutations, the bare basics of evolution.

In regards to you not believing in evolution, where does that stop? What is the line between science and religion? I personally don't see a line. However you draw one somewhere. What other scientific facts do you not believe in? If you disregard evolution, a simple fact, what else can be easily dismissed as blasphemy? Do you believe in atoms? Or is the idea of your body made of millions of atoms too much for you? Where does it end? The best question to ask would be; what scientific things do you believe in?

1- Dust, not clay.

Oh wow, that makes so much more sense!

Actually, I'm going to say the Bible was telling some version of the truth here, as I believe it (almost) always does. In my opinion the bible can't be taken literally. It's written by humans, who are fallible. The truth is we are made from "dust". Stardust that is. All of the atoms that make up our bodies come from first generation stars. Our sun is a second generation star.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

That's so easy to explain it's sad. The reason why we are over-populating the Earth is because we aren't dying fast enough anymore! We used to have shorter life spans, which is why women would get married so young. 200 years ago, you got married at 14 or older. We've been learning too much about medicine. We've wiped out too many diseases. We've made infant fatality far more rare. The reason why the life span of humans keeps going up is simple, we're learning more about medicine. It's estimated we'll be living to over 150 soon, many (scientists) say the first person to live to 200 has already been born.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011425/The-person-reach-150-alive--soon-live-THOUSAND-claims-scientist.html

You are correct. The science of medicine has advanced to such a degree within the past decade, that at this rate, most diseases will be eradicated by early in the 2040s. But bacteria evolves as well, so new forms of diseases already seen and new diseases entirely will develop.

Many creationists deny evolution because it scares them.They (and even I at times) cannot handle the possibility of there not being a Supreme Being (though I am not denying the existence of said Being). They hope the principal of quia ego sic dico will carry them through, but it won't any more, because science is proving them wrong.

[WD-40]

Well, I 'saved' a long response to finish later, and now I can't find anywhere.

Oh well...the short version. As far as Bible interpretation, what about all those scrolls/ducuments that were not included in the passages, when it was formally put together as we read it today? I assume the 'originals' are locked away in the Vatican somewhere, for all not to see. And those that 'interpreted' the passages, what if they mis-interpreted? (Like saying Man was made from 'clay'.) Why did the Leaders of the Church leave out certain passages, stories or entire scrolls?

Also, in the Bible, it mentions people living hundreds of years. Perhaps a misinterpretation, or was it biologically possible? The days before Noah had many who supposed ly lived that long. Was it a 'Firmament of cloud vapor' in the sky that protected Humans from the Sun's radiation, thereby keeping the human cells from degenerating and deteriorating as quickly back then. Maybe the 'big flood' of Noah's time came from that water vapor firmament, dumping all it's water content onto the Earth, and as a result after the flood, there's no more super-protection from the Sun's radiation. Flying at high altitude causes skin cancer..not that I have it...yet...but I sure 'feel' older physically after flying our jets up high over the handful of my almost 50 years on this planet.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

That's so easy to explain it's sad. The reason why we are over-populating the Earth is because we aren't dying fast enough anymore! We used to have shorter life spans, which is why women would get married so young. 200 years ago, you got married at 14 or older. We've been learning too much about medicine. We've wiped out too many diseases. We've made infant fatality far more rare. The reason why the life span of humans keeps going up is simple, we're learning more about medicine. It's estimated we'll be living to over 150 soon, many (scientists) say the first person to live to 200 has already been born.

This is so easy to answer it's sad.
I recall well in history that around the medieval times people lived an average life of 40, the "why" can be found in varios things, wars, no food, unclean water are a few examples.
People in Europe or the USA generally live up to 75 years, yet people in Africa live generally till their 43 very similar to the medieval times.
It's more or less how you stated it, however there are diseases that we cannot cure, cancer and AIDS being the main ones at the moment.

However, evolutionists state that our life span changes depending on the population we have, yet naturally NOTHING has changed for humans, only the conditions we live in.
The medieval or dark times were the times that there was way less population then there is now, yet with the "revolution" both cultucal and on the farmlands wich started in England people got more food, better life conditions and alongside the "lifespan" increase the population increased, and Hunderds of years later we live longer and longer overpopulating the Earth and yet "nature" isn't acting towards it, we live longer and keep overpopulating so "naturally" our life span isn't decreasing as it sould.
Wich means of course "untill it changes" that the theory given by some "scientists" is wrong[/quote]

Yeah, that is true. You know why fear is personal to each human? Tiny, minute mutations in our DNA. It's called evolution, on a much smaller scale at least. Our brains are all different from eachother because the DNA does not replicate identically during reproduction. If evolution didn't exist, we'd all be the same, and dogs wouldn't exist. Unless you're going to claim that God created dogs, and they are not decended from wolves. Breeding is an example of evolution on a much faster scale.

Dogs, wolves and foxes are all canine animals, that one came from the other however i cannot state, they are similar but not the same.
I could as well state that cats come from lions since their "similar" besides their size.

There is not one cell of my being that doesn't believe in God, however the same goes for Evolution. In regards to evolution, it can be seen on a small scale all around us if you care to look. Evolution's basic principles can be seen constantly. Hair color for example. My mom's hair is brown, my dad's is black. My hair is blonde. I have different colored hair because of a genetic mutation during gestation. Genetic mutations, the bare basics of evolution.

However i haven't seen a person being born with blue, or purple hair before.
Ever tought that maybe a grandparent or some distant family member could have been blond?

In regards to you not believing in evolution, where does that stop? What is the line between science and religion? I personally don't see a line. However you draw one somewhere. What other scientific facts do you not believe in? If you disregard evolution, a simple fact, what else can be easily dismissed as blasphemy? Do you believe in atoms? Or is the idea of your body made of millions of atoms too much for you? Where does it end? The best question to ask would be; what scientific things do you believe in?

It's quite simple for me, you see the diffrence between science and religion has been stated here a few times before.
Maybe this example works for you, imagen you go to an island and you find a rock, on that rock you see there is a carving that says(for example) John 1900
What do you think, did someone carve that in this rock or did it came to be because the erosion on that island?
"Inteligent life cannot create life, yet life created itself"
We are an inteligent design, so i cannot believe such a design was created randomly wich luck from "stardust" wich noone aided to create life.

Basicly where i draw the line is that "science" or the evolution theory says that life has created itself by "chance?" rather then someone far more intelegent creating a intelegent design

The truth is we are made from "dust". Stardust that is. All of the atoms that make up our bodies come from first generation stars. Our sun is a second generation star.

You basicly answered this point yourself

PS. sorry for the grammer in case there are grammer problems, i don't have the time to correct it all

MT

[Yanoda]

Yet this is from what i see untrue in the animal world comparing it to the human world.
A bunny as far as i know lives 4-6 years and when they breed(even tough it's a variable) as far as i know can have 4-8 little ones, a cat(at least the ones i had here at home) have the same numbers, however a cats live up to 20 or even a bit older, that's 4-5 times the age of a bunny....
Also humans live an average life(not counting third world countries) of 70-75 years, yet we manage to overpopulate the earth, i don't see the years going down at the moment...condicions may apply but "naturally" nope.

I didn't say organisms with shorter life spans get more offspring, I said organisms with shorter lifespans reproduce more. Meaning that rabbits would have undergone at least 4 generations before the cats got to their second generation. Reproduction can lead to slight mutations that either benefit or hinder the organism.

Pain is actually from what iv'e seen not as comparable as other emotions, basicly pain "warns" us for what's bad for ourself, if you were to put your hand in a campfire, and wouldn't feel the pain you wouldn't take it out and you would burn your hand of to say it like that, it's more or less a protection.
Fear however lies more personal to each human, some have fear of hights while others jump off cliffs.
Also "IF" i'm not mistaken i haven't seen animals with a "phobea" before.
Also i have not heared about animals with "guilt" either, the "right or wrong" question is still in place from what i'm trying to say, if one ape kills the other, does it know what it's doing is bad?

Made a mistake with Pain, though pain can induce fear (among other emotions). Animals experience fear as well, ever see how some dogs react to humans when it was abused? It is an inherent emotion in the majority of animals. Here's an articles about chimps experiencing grief including several other emotions: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cha ... an-sadness

True but that's the point, each gives another idea about the bible in their own way, hence why not to become in their "point of view" you have to study the bible yourself.
If you like you said you did, read the bible yourself then you must have your own interpretation about it.
Now if you want to talk about the religions there are it's quite simple tough, what religions "act" and "follow" the laws stated in the bible? if the bible states we can't murder people and we start a "holy war" then are we following the "laws/rules" or are we breaking them? basicly many religions claim while they do something else, but i don't want to derail this thread into a religion war.
Also just an FYI, iv'e seen many evolutionists discuss/argue/debate/fight under each other as a lot of creationists do, not that you started a war but still you can't all agree on something.

Wait... to fully understand the Bible, everyone should have their own point of view and interpretation of the Bible? Do you realize that it just invalidates your argument of what the Bible tries to convey. Since your arguments (specifically about the Bible) are your interpretation, it doesn't mean that your interpretation is true and may not be the actual message the Bible tries to convey. The fact that the Bible isn't concise and is open to interpretation, leads to disputes among people with different religious beliefs (Christians vs Muslims for example). That is why I do not view the Bible as a book of truths and facts.
I hardly know any Evolutionist that disputes Evolution, they may argue about the subtle processes that lead to Evolution but never about 'Evolution'. If one disputes the concept of Evolution, the person can not call him/her-self an Evolutionist.

1- Dust, not clay.

Is that a difference? Does it really explain it better how we come to be on the world than what Evolution says?

2- This reminds me of one of my teachers, whom i already quoted here, "i'm not going to say what you have to believe, i simply give you information/facts, and you believe what you want to believe" other then my evolution's teacher who wanted to fail me for saying that i didn't believe in evolution.... all those things you named are topics i have discussed before in school, but it's the evolution "being 100% prooven and true" that teachers have been feeding me all the time that drives me nuts, and after 26 pages now your saying it isn't flawless....

We (I at least) never said Evolution is flawless, just that it is the best explanation to the origins of life (better than the Bible). Now you know how others feel when they are being constantly being fed about Creationism and Religion.

3- However i don't get how cells that die, appearently quite quickly were able to replicate fast enough to actually both evolve and survive, and yet even tough i'm pretty sure yanny is going to come up with a page that explains another certain "theory" about it, but I don't get the point where cells come to existance without oxigen are able to evolve into the first living animal and then suddenly the moment you get an animal the sun starts shining brighter and we get oxigen wich is suddenly needed to sustain life....

So many flaws and false assumptions in your statement there...
1. Replication can cause DNA to mutate, other factors such as radiation also can lead to mutations within the DNA. The more generations an organism undergoes, the more mutation can occur over time.
2. If organisms die faster than they can reproduce, the organisms' population will die out. Cells can perfectly reproduce faster than the rate of death.
3. Oxygen doesn't need to be in a gaseous form, Oxygen is in Water (H2O for example).
4. You assume life happened spontaneously (like how the Bible explains it). It took millions/billions of years for the first micro-organisms to develop, mutations on some of the micro-organisms enabled them to use photosynthesis. The process of photosynthesis enabled the production of gaseous/free Oxygen, this took many more millions of years to get the concentration of Oxygen at a stable level (oxygen is highly reactive).
5. What are you talking about "suddenly the moment you get an animal the sun starts shining brighter"? You statement makes no sense and nowhere is it stated among the scientific community. The Sun has been steadily increasing its energy output over the past several billion years, there was no instance where the sun suddenly started being brighter.
6. Free Oxygen is produced by the process of photosynthesis not just by the brightness of the Sun.
7. Not all organisms require oxygen to sustain life...

Cheers

Yanoda