Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

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.

The thing is that around the medieval times the "church" at that time was destroying the Bible.
Their claim was "it was too holy to read" for common people, so anyone having a bible and was caught were killed in the end.
The reason why? well at those times people were....dumber then they are now, prayers were in Latin and people couldn't understand them.
From my point of view the chuch wanted to keep the people "stupid" and make them open to be manipulated, INVENTING a story of them burning in hell wich doesn't appear in any place of the bible, eternal suffering was made up....i could show many things here but meh.

There were however a group that activly hid the bible and copied the bible by hand, since at those times they didn't have machines to make more bibles.
Later on the catolic church was more or less separated from the goverments in europe and religion became free, as well as the bible being allowed to be read.
However many religions claimed they were based on it yet they weren't/aren't

MT

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

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.

Read what i responded to wulf(since i just posted that just before you reposted)

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

That's another thing wich wulf said before, "fear of death" if a predator is spotted by an animal, this animal will run to save itself, the reaction would be fear, it's another defence mecanism, however "HUMANS" develop phobeas of things that they souldn't fear.

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.

I don't think you understood me, if (whoever said that) claims that the people who learn the bible via a religion are under their influence in their benefit they sould learn the bible from their point of view, meaning away from religion, creationism, study of the bible and religion are diffrent things, hence why you sould look yourself in answer to the "influence" part.
About religions fighting each other to see who's right or wrong you sould look youself why, i know why i know that "muslims" are wrong, muslims state that "the christ" wich in their eyes hasn't come yet, will come of the elder grandson of Noah wich would be the the "line" that would lead to the christ while christians claim that this is untrue, however if you would have read the bible yourself you would know why this cannot be true.

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

It doesn't explain it diffrently, in my other responses you sould have noticed the "why i think" evolution cannot be the way

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.

True but i didn't live(as far as i know) in times were religions and their ideas were fed to the people on wich i cannot agree hence stating for the fourth time i think
"I don't say what you have to believe, i simply give facts/information, and you believe what you want to believe)

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...

1. From what iv'e seen the mix between breeds wich "sould" be related leads to a steril life form mutacions and alterations do happen, but it leader to another species is another thing.
2. But didn't you say that this factor is linked?, so if animals start to die faster/slower souldn't they reproduce faster/slower? also things like bacteria need a host, at that time there wasn't a host.
3. Yes, but then the sun would heat this water at some point wich is now known as the water cycle, at some point that water is going to become gas, and even if at that time it wasn't if an animal that depended on the oxigen in the water depended on it, where to come out of said water without oxigen in the air, would it not die?
4. Still random and lucky to become what we are.
5. That's what i meant....but from what links you gave me scientists think that after the first cells came to be the sun's engergy became stronger providing oxigen of wich later the animals that were evolving made a use of, quite lucky?
6. yes but you need plants for that, so basicly plants came after animals....else this theory would not be correct since the oxigen would have destroyed the expiriment done wich created the first cells.
7. Not all, yet we are "supposed" to come from cells that didn't need air yet every animal(as far as i know) needs oxigen and are based on cells.

MT

[Yanoda]

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

Could you give a link/source where evolutionists make that claim. Lifespan can affect the population, longer lifespan enables the organism to live longer and reproduce more often. With the addition of medicine etc. our death rates have dropped as well, this lead to the drastic population increase in the past 200 years. An overpopulation can lead to resource depletion and a large part of the population would starve and die. This would lead to a decrease in life expectancy within the population.

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.

House cats and lions are related, they are both considered felines. Dogs we know today have come from constant selective breeding by humans when we domesticated wolves.

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?

That's like the same argument Creationists use with the 'Crocoduck'.
If we start to do selective breeding among humans we may be able to get blue/purple hair. FYI, there are people who have white hair (naturally, not by age) and red hair.
Heredity is also part of Evolution...

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

Read/watch above point.

That's another thing wich wulf said before, "fear of death" if a predator is spotted by an animal, this animal will run to save itself, the reaction would be fear, it's another defence mecanism, however "HUMANS" develop phobeas of things that they souldn't fear.

Fear and phobia are different. Phobia is not an emotion, whereas fear is. Animals still experience fear and emotions.

About religions fighting each other to see who's right or wrong you sould look youself why, i know why i know that "muslims" are wrong, muslims state that "the christ" wich in their eyes hasn't come yet, will come of the elder grandson of Noah wich would be the the "line" that would lead to the christ while christians claim that this is untrue, however if you would have read the bible yourself you would know why this cannot be true.

How do you know Muslims are wrong? How do you know that your Bible (Holy Book) is the correct one? Ever thought that maybe your interpretation of the Bible can be wrong/false?

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...

1. From what iv'e seen the mix between breeds wich "sould" be related leads to a steril life form mutacions and alterations do happen, but it leader to another species is another thing.
2. But didn't you say that this factor is linked?, so if animals start to die faster/slower souldn't they reproduce faster/slower? also things like bacteria need a host, at that time there wasn't a host.
3. Yes, but then the sun would heat this water at some point wich is now known as the water cycle, at some point that water is going to become gas, and even if at that time it wasn't if an animal that depended on the oxigen in the water depended on it, where to come out of said water without oxigen in the air, would it not die?
4. Still random and lucky to become what we are.
5. That's what i meant....but from what links you gave me scientists think that after the first cells came to be the sun's engergy became stronger providing oxigen of wich later the animals that were evolving made a use of, quite lucky?
6. yes but you need plants for that, so basicly plants came after animals....else this theory would not be correct since the oxigen would have destroyed the expiriment done wich created the first cells.
7. Not all, yet we are "supposed" to come from cells that didn't need air yet every animal(as far as i know) needs oxigen and are based on cells.

1. Your point isn't even relevant to what I said... please revise the sentence, I can't even understand half of what you wanted to say.
2. You're misunderstand what I was saying. Rate of reproduction is not the same as life expectancy (lifespan). Did you take Population Geography? Review some of the basics to get a basic understanding of population growth, changes, decline etc. Bacteria do not need hosts... review some Biology.
3. Read my previous statement 4.
4. Not as random as you think, chemical processes are not as random as you or Creationists claim.
5. WTF? The solar output was very subtle, in the past 4.5 billion years the Sun increased in solar out by only 20% from today's output. There was nothing sudden like you seem to convey. The process of photosynthesis is the major factor for the production of Oxygen... photosynthesis still occurs when sunlight is low. Review some Chemistry/Biology.
6. How do plants come after animals? Is that based from your interpretation of the Bible? Photosynthesizing micro-organisms came before respiring micro-organisms. The second part of your sentence makes no sense to me... revise it so I can understand what you want to say.
7. I thought the past 26 pages should have given you a hint that mutations of micro-organisms (that didn't need Oxygen) led to them using oxygen (respire). Oxygen enabled the organisms to mutate faster and Evolve into more complex organisms.


Cheers

Yanoda

[THEWULFMAN]

However i haven't seen a person being born with blue, or purple hair before.

Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin, eumelanin and phaeomelanin. If more melanin is present, the color of the hair is darker; if less melanin is present, the hair is lighter. Levels of melanin can vary over time causing a person's hair color to change(which is why old people's hair becomes gray and white), and it is possible to have hair follicles of more than one color. The color blue requires compounds that doesn't natually ocur in hair follicles. It would take a specific situation for such a dramtic change of hair color.

It would take primitive man, living in an enviroment with lots of blue in it, for a change that dramtic to ocur. Animals have their colors for a reason. It's not random. Depending on your enviroment, the animals with the best colors to suit their needs survive to pass on thosre genes. For example: A gecko with green and orange markings blend in with it's enviroment, making it harder to spot. It makes it's chances of survival better because it can hunt small insects without being noticed. It also prevents it from being seen by larger predators, ensuring it's survival.

Humans don't have blue or purple hair because there's been no enviromental need for it. However if, for example a group of humans lived in a jungle that was abundant with blue and purple plants, then maybe in a couple hundred thousand years someone with blue and/or purple hair might show up. This assumes they are living in a primitive society and hunting for their food.

Or do selective breeding like Yanoda suggested.

Ever tought that maybe a grandparent or some distant family member could have been blond?

It doesn't er if they did or not. The point is that reproduction doesn't create perfect duplicates. That is the basic idea of evolution. Animals are born with slightly different genes than their parents. The animals with the best genes for the enviroment survive, and the animals with the worst genes die out (go extinct). My point is, evolution can be seen on the small scale all around you. All you have to do is open your eyes. We don't fully understand evolution yet, no. But that doesn't mean it's not a fact.

We don't fully understand how gravity works. Yet my fat ass is still firmly planted on this planet, so gravity must be true. Just because something isn't fully understood doesn't mean it's false. This works for religion. Just because someone doesn't fully understand God, doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist. The bible is not perfect. Anyone with half a brain in it

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?

That's a horrible example. Of course someone carved it into the rock. A better example would have been: You find youself on an island. You come acrossed a rock that is a near perfect pyramid shape. Did someone carve the rock into a pyramid or was it natural erosion?

The reason why your example doesn't work is because you're making it way too obvious. The words and letters John 1900 don't just erode natually.

Although I guess you could say you're trying to state that it's painfully obvious that humans are of intelligent design. Which, it's not. At least not your version of intelligent design anyway.

"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

I'm not going to speak for anyone else here, so I'll just state my personal belief.

Why is evolution not an intelligent design? Better question, how exactly did God create us? Did he just say the magic words and poof, there's a Human? I believe he used a process that took millions of years. I love studying evolution, so I can have an insight to God's creation of us. It would be nice if you could open your mind to evolution. It's not a slight to our lord.

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

Oh? I didn't realize it was a point that needed an answer. Please, enlighten me so I know you didn't misunderstand anything I said.

[FaiL.?]

You humanoids are the smartest, well educated group of people that I have ever seen. Where have all of you guys been educated??

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

You humanoids are the smartest, well educated group of people that I have ever seen. Where have all of you guys been educated??

Although I am not nearly as well-informed upon this topic as my friend Yanoda, I like to study and research for my own benefit. If I have questions, I ask those who know more than I do or I research on the internet. If I had the time, I would post comebacks to nearly everything Minas_Thirth said, but since I don't--oh well...

I will, however, say that Minas_Thirith is incorrect in his statement concerning Moslems. The Moslems are not waiting for a Christ of some sort. They believe Yeshua was a respectable prophet to precede who they believe is the true prophet-- Mohammed. No historical evidence to date can validate either what the Christians, Jews, nor Moslems believe about the creation of the world.

[WD-40]

Although I am not nearly as well-informed upon this topic as my 'suger love-muffin' Yanoda,...

Fixed.

[Commander Sparrow]

Although I am not nearly as well-informed upon this topic as my 'suger love-muffin' Yanoda,...

Fixed.

[Yanoda]

You humanoids are the smartest, well educated group of people that I have ever seen. Where have all of you guys been educated??

I say most have high-school education, I am currently working on my Bachelor. Be enthusiastic about education (in school), read science reports or work as an assistant with a professor are just a few ways to educate yourself better.

Although I am not nearly as well-informed upon this topic as my 'suger love-muffin' Yanoda,...

Fixed.

That just made my day.

Cheers

Yanoda

[THEWULFMAN]

Although I am not nearly as well-informed upon this topic as my 'suger love-muffin' Yanoda,...

Fixed.

That just made my day.

I concur.

As for me, I home school. I get to study what I want(well, sorta. I get the chance to pick what I want to study more than others at least), and I happen to be fascinated by Astronomy, Geography and Paleontology. I'm not as smart as I sound, and I don't sound all that smart.