Christian ... or Not?

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
Which leads me to my second point, which is that all these supposed miracles occured during a time they could not be properly recorded. If God wanted everyone to believe all he's have to do is halt Niagra Falls or fill the Gran Canyon. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

What is your definition of 'properly recorded'?

[Killer7]

Now will be somebody's retort " God does not like to show himself" or something like that. Honestly most of the "miracles" Jesus preformed could of been been faked. People he brought to life, who says he didn't pay them or promise to forgive thier sins, if they pretended to be dead, back then thier was no way they could tell the difference.

[Xander Harris]

[quote name='Killer7']Now will be somebody's retort " God does not like to show himself" or something like that. Honestly most of the "miracles" Jesus preformed could of been been faked. People he brought to life, who says he didn't pay them or promise to forgive thier sins, if they pretended to be dead, back then thier was no way they could tell the difference.[/quote]

Excuse me? People back then couldn't tell if someone was dead or not? Come now. Credit our ancestors with [I]some[/I] modicum of intelligence.

[Break]

[quote name='Xander Harris]Excuse me? People back then couldn't tell if someone was dead or not? Come now. Credit our ancestors with [I]some[/I'] modicum of intelligence.[/quote]

It's true. Even the Victorians used to bury 'corpses' with strings attached to their fingers which went out of the ground onto little bells they could ring if they woke up. Apparently it was quite common. Anyway, less of that.

I've said already that "I think some people take everything very literally, the immaculate conception and all that. There are metaphors abound in the bible." Perhaps we should not take all of these miracles as we see them. If I remember rightly there are all stories behind all of these little miracles, the fish and loaves of bread and the water into wine and that stuff in the woman's cupboard that kept filling up. Just maybe it is true that we should look deeper rather than taking it at face value.

[Lafleur]

[quote name='Xander Harris']What is your definition of 'properly recorded'?[/quote]

By that I mean not recorded in a book that, for all anyone knows, was nothing but a work of fiction. There is absolutly no proof any of these so-called Miracles occured outside of the Bible. If it happened today we would have tonnes of proof, video cameras and news stations, the entire world would have defintive proof. But all we have to go on is some 2,000 year old book that is most likely just a work of fiction.

[QUOTE]
Excuse me? People back then couldn't tell if someone was dead or not? Come now. Credit our ancestors with some modicum of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Or perhaps it just never happened and was made up on the spot.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

Break is right about that whole ancestoral intelligence thing. They had none--or at the very least...very little. Their levels of comprehension are the precise reasons we have things like Epic of Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, the Bible, etc. They're all mythologies in some form or another.

[quote=Xander]The problem with this idea is that the kinds of things reported as miracles in the Bible are still things that would be considered miracles today. They were not natural pheonomena.

People can't walk on water (unless it's frozen water lol) People can't turn water to wine. People can't be suddenly cured of years of blindness by having mud and spit put on their eyes. Pillars of fire do not come out of the sky and lead people around the desert. Seas do not instantaneously part to allow people to walk through them on dry land. People do not rise from the dead. That is why these things are called miracles. Because a miracle is a violation of the natural laws, not a supernatural explanation for a scientific fact.

Unless you think any of the things above are explainable by science, then the idea that Christianity is a belief system designed to explain natural phenomena is ludicrous.

The question is whether or not the miracles occured.[/quote]
Xander, you're kind of missing the point. Yes, the things you listed above are impossible from a scientific standpoint. Yes, they rarely can be explained by science.

But that doesn't mean the recordings of those events weren't seriously exaggerated or mistaken (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Did [i]something[/i] happen? Probably. Did it happen exactly as it was written (recorded) in the Bible (i.e., was it really a miracle)? Probably not.

While Killer7 and Ilium may not be getting their point across as tactifully as some would like, their point is a valid one.

The literary basis for Christianity is the same literary basis for Eastern religions. It's the same as the flood of the world in Gilgamesh. They're myths.

And incidental point: I read Xander's "tree" post a few pages back. I don't think I need to point out the importance of the distinctions between physics and metaphysics, which make the "tree exists whether or not X" largely irrelevant to a discussion pertaining to religion.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='2_D']It's kinda funny when they call me a Satanist, but... whatever. Me<~~Not a Satanist. I don't like being part of someone else's classification.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Well in some ways you [i]are[/i] a Satanist since you go against God and maybe just do what you want without fear of sin? Who knows.

Satanists aren't bad people. True Satanists do [i][b]NOT[/i][/b] worship Satan, they don't do ritual sacrifices and they don't eat babies.

Practioners of Satanism (or LeVayism) may wear an inverted (upside down) Pentacle. Of course they could also be followers of the Gardenerian Trad which is a branch of Wicca. Yeah I think I should also mention that some Satanists call Wiccans fluffy Pagans since we don't like to do bad things to people and there's no Satanist Reede that suggests that doing bad things to others invites kharmic retribution.

So yeah Satanists are interesting people since they can do more stuff and embrace what they feel is the essence of human kind.

I think you can check this site if you want more. But don't quote me.
[URL]http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html[/URL] Yes I looked at it, there is no profanity.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

*sigh*

Why are people debating about this anyway? I mean, consider the fact we don?t all go Hume on each-other for a moment and humor one another?s beliefs for once? Why should I, as a Christian, have to explain or [i]prove[/i] my faith?! Isn?t that kinda missing the point? I don?t choose Jesus because I?m forced to, or I cannot refuse man?s evidence of his being the Son of God. I chose Jesus because of my personal desire and [i] relationship [/i] with him.

I know what you?re thinking; ?relationship with Jesus?? I can only explain my relationship with God as easily as I can explain the color purple to a man born blind.

No-one?s ideas are beyond question or scrutiny, which seems to make someone?s arguments against a specific religious philosophy (at least beyond the particulars) rather fruitless. Take evolution for example. I think the more one actually examines the evolutionary processes and the irreducibly complex biochemical systems that exist, it begins to seem like your arguments are walking on water.

I?ll give Chibihorsewoman some credit. Satanists or more alternate philosophies are often subject to gross misconception. Take Christianity, for example, probably the most misunderstood religion of all. Why are people so prejudiced against the idea of Christianity as their religious choice? Most likely, those ?Christians? they have met weren?t so ?like Christ?, were they?

Besides, anyone who claims that we can explain ?explain everything or at least study them? probably has a lot to learn?

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]
Besides, anyone who claims that we can explain ?explain everything or at least study them? probably has a lot to learn?[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
I meant that now when we see somthing we can't explain we don't just right it off as an act of God, we can adaquitly explain most things or at least do somthing to try and find out. Religion was created to explain the then-unexplainable and is more or less usless in this day and age. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]I think the more one actually examines the evolutionary processes and the irreducibly complex biochemical systems that exist, it begins to seem like your arguments are walking on water.
[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
I don't understand what you mean, I've studied a lot about evolution and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that humans just... were. Human Evolution probably makes the most sense. How life came to be is considerably more complicated, I don't fully understand it, but the basics make sense.

As for the argument about faith, well, I just find it fun. Argueing about fairy-tales always makes me feel like a scholar.[/COLOR]

[Break]

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']I don't understand what you mean, I've studied a lot about evolution and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that humans just... were. Human Evolution probably makes the most sense. How life came to be is considerably more complicated, I don't fully understand it, but the basics make sense.[/COLOR][/quote]

What, then, would be situation if one person [i]hadn't[/i] studied a lot about evolution; if they, like you, did not fully understand how life came to be, but [i]didn't[/i] have the basics, or didn't think that the basics made sense?

The situation would be a belief in religion. To be honest, if someone wants to think either, that God created everything or science is the answer to everything, then that's totally cool. No one can really win, since both arguments, in my opinion, are valid.

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]I don't understand what you mean, I've studied a lot about evolution and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that humans just... were. Human Evolution probably makes the most sense. How life came to be is considerably more complicated, I don't fully understand it, but the basics make sense.

As for the argument about faith, well, I just find it fun. Argueing about fairy-tales always makes me feel like a scholar.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]I think what he meant was that we're the product of so many 'random' mutations, that it's nearly impossible we came out to be this good. I think he's arguing that God is guiding the evolutionary process, but of course, I can't really speak for him.[/SIZE]

[sakurasuka]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
I don't understand what you mean, I've studied a lot about evolution and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that humans just... were. Human Evolution probably makes the most sense. How life came to be is considerably more complicated, I don't fully understand it, but the basics make sense. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[CENTER][SIZE=1]Just because Evolution makes the most theoretical sense [I]in theory[/I] doesn't mean that the hypothysis is true.

If a creature were to morph so much it changed it's genetic code, then it would have to adjust the number of alliels in its DNA. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't ignore the fact that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to alter genetic makeup of a creature in such a way. (It would litterally be more scientifically correct to argue that we just poped into existance one day.) If you are trying to argue that science is in favor of the theory of Evolution, you are DEAD wrong. Even science is on the side of Creation.

Alas, there is no proof that the theory of Creation is true, either. Do you want to know why, my friend? Because God wants us to rely on our faith, not numbers and genetic codes. He wants us to do what we want to do and believe in whatever we wish, be it faith in him or otherwise. That is also why he gave us free will ~_^[/SIZE][/CENTER]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=sakurasuka][CENTER][SIZE=1]Just because Evolution makes the most theoretical sense [I]in theory[/I] doesn't mean that the hypothysis is true.

If a creature were to morph so much it changed it's genetic code, then it would have to adjust the number of alliels in its DNA. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't ignore the fact that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to alter genetic makeup of a creature in such a way. (It would litterally be more scientifically correct to argue that we just poped into existance one day.) If you are trying to argue that science is in favor of the theory of Evolution, you are DEAD wrong. Even science is on the side of Creation.[/SIZE][/CENTER][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Whoa, nelly. I'm a Christian too, but I can accept science as science.

It [i]is[/i] possible for animals to evolve. These genetic mutations take place over [i]excruciatingly long periods of time[/i]. There are fossil records of such things happening, changes in skull structure and whatnot. Really, there's heaps of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Why are you so against the idea that we evolved? Who's to say both Creationism and Darwinism (I hope that = evolution) can't co-exist in harmony?[/SIZE]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=sakurasuka][CENTER][SIZE=1]Just because Evolution makes the most theoretical sense [I]in theory[/I] doesn't mean that the hypothysis is true.

If a creature were to morph so much it changed it's genetic code, then it would have to adjust the number of alliels in its DNA. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't ignore the fact that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to alter genetic makeup of a creature in such a way. (It would litterally be more scientifically correct to argue that we just poped into existance one day.) If you are trying to argue that science is in favor of the theory of Evolution, you are DEAD wrong. Even science is on the side of Creation.

Alas, there is no proof that the theory of Creation is true, either. Do you want to know why, my friend? Because God wants us to rely on our faith, not numbers and genetic codes. He wants us to do what we want to do and believe in whatever we wish, be it faith in him or otherwise. That is also why he gave us free will ~_^[/SIZE][/CENTER][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Theoretically impossible, not scientifically impossible. There is no evidence that it can happen, but remember, we've only been studying genes for the past few centuries, and we only have about one thousand years of information to go on. Over the course of Millions upon Millions of years, ****, literally, does happen.

By the by, saying 'Accept me as thy father or thee shall be cast down to Hell' isn't exactly the definition of Free Will.[/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
I meant that now when we see somthing we can't explain we don't just right it off as an act of God, we can adaquitly explain most things or at least do somthing to try and find out. Religion was created to explain the then-unexplainable and is more or less usless in this day and age. [/COLOR][/QUOTe]

We can try as we may, but the truth of life... and the more you study what we already know, the more you'll run into the same knowledge barricades that we all share... is that there are still many concepts that cannot be explained. Not only this, the information that remains unexplainable often is far too important to ignore. Basic Chemistry is 99% of all the concepts you'll ever learn. Often this is covered in a couple semesters of college. All more advanced chemistry classes deal with more esoteric processes that are still open to debate and discovery. Much of life and the universe still remains fairly mysterious. I don't use God as a scapegoat. I don't [i]need[/i] an explanation for earth's creation. God is more of a philosophical and character guide than anything, besides his forgiveness and relationship.
[QUOTE=Ilium]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
I don't understand what you mean, I've studied a lot about evolution and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that humans just... were. Human Evolution probably makes the most sense. How life came to be is considerably more complicated, I don't fully understand it, but the basics make sense. [/COLOR][/QUOTe]

How about we look at blood clotting! [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_clotting[/url]
Every protien involved in blood clotting is a critical, and irreplacable, factor in the cascade resulting in our bleeding being stopped. Were any protein missing from the cycle, it would fail completely. Not only that, the proteins in blood clotting each require their own specific line of genetic code on the strand of DNA. Are you going to tell me that this critical process of blood clotting evolved over thousands of slow mutations and somehow the jigsaw fit itself to produce a closed circulatory system capable of clotting?

Gee, believing in a concept so outlandish sounds kinda like.... faith. Yup, you've got faith in these scientific theories and you are eating up every scientist's educated guess like it's God's word.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
As for the argument about faith, well, I just find it fun. Argueing about fairy-tales always makes me feel like a scholar.[/COLOR][/QUOTe]

Intriguing how you can patronize my faith when you don't even recognize the simple fact that we both share the same goddamn thing.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the key difference there is that you're talking about an educated guess or theory, versus a more general "leap of faith". Obviously having a general "belief" in science isn't hard to maintain, considering that without such knowledge, so many things that humans do would be impossible. So the evidence kind of continually slaps people in the face. That's quite different, I think.

Still, I don't think science and God are mutually exclusive at all. Science and [i]religion[/i] are, but I don't regard religion as being the same thing as God.

Personally, I don't follow any religion at all. Obviously, I agree with certain philosophies from various religions - but these are principles and yardsticks that I feel apply to my own life and to life in general. They are, of course, a personal reflection and I wouldn't say that any of them are absolutes.

But I definitely don't subscribe to any religious doctrine, for a multitude of reasons. However, this does not mean to say that I'm an athiest or an agnostic - I'm neither, really. I am open to the idea of some kind of intelligent being having created the world that we see around us, but I don't believe in the human representations of God thusfar. And I don't believe in pre-determination or anything like that. I mean, if you could see the future, you could alter it...and therefore, there's an inherent contradiction. So I don't think that really pans out. lol

But all of that is really theoretical. I mean, most of that doesn't really matter to me at all. I suppose I'd say that I'm not into extremes one way or the other - while I personally feel that organized religion is anti-knowledge (and often plainly anti-human), I also do not feel that I can personally write off every concept of intelligent design or something.

For instance, I think that one can accept the realities of evolution and still think that God created evolution. That seems logical enough to me - that doesn't change the fact that evolution clearly exists. The debate is more whether or not it's a self-correcting system that occurs by default, or whether it is somehow the result of an intelligent creator. Since I don't [i]know[/i] the answer to that, I'm unwilling to presume either way. To just presume without really knowing is something I couldn't do. I'm open to either possibility, should I ever discover it.

But yeah, I could go on forever about my views on religion and how all of that applies to my own life. It's something that I've considered for many years and my views are really formed from so many sources.

The important thing to me, though, is that my views are my own; they weren't forced into me at a young age and I wasn't simply "told" something and accepted it without question. My beliefs have evolved (no pun intended) over the years, as a result of many things. So, I've thought about it and made decisions about it. I think that's the way it should be, really (whichever way you go ultimately).[/font]

[quote]I'm pressed for time, so I won't go much further except to say this. There is no credible proof in favor of either theory, Creation or Evolution. I doubt there ever will be.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]No credible proof in favor of Creation or Evolution? That only demonstrates that you know little about either, lol.

Whether or not someone agrees with all of the evidence that supports evolution theory, nobody can credibly support Creationism. Nobody can stand there and say that the world was created in six days, that it is flat and stands on four pillars and that Adam and Eve were the first human beings.

I mean, even the Catholic church official denies Creationism. lol

Basically, this is the type of stuff that makes me think that religion is a drug for the masses. But again, note that I'm saying "religion" and not "God". I [i]do[/i] seperate the two, as I'm sure many do.

As soon as you start claiming that Creationism is actually legitimate in any sense, you pretty much invalidate anything else you say on the subject. Belief in God does not mean that one has to believe in the fallacy of Creationism.[/font]

[sakurasuka]

[QUOTE=Retribution][SIZE=1]Whoa, nelly. I'm a Christian too, but I can accept science as science.

It [i]is[/i] possible for animals to evolve. These genetic mutations take place over [i]excruciatingly long periods of time[/i]. There are fossil records of such things happening, changes in skull structure and whatnot. Really, there's heaps of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Why are you so against the idea that we evolved? Who's to say both Creationism and Darwinism (I hope that = evolution) can't co-exist in harmony?[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[CENTER][SIZE=1]Other than the fact that [I]some[/I] people say that evolution [I]might[/I] have been possible, no there isn't. Every Christian (Well... Every [I]person[/I], really) is told that there is so much evidence for evolution, vs. the fact that there is none for the theory of Creation. I am using the word 'theory' alot merely because both are [I]just that[/I] scientifically... A THEORY.

And I'm not [I]against[/I] the theory that we evolved at all! I'm just trying to let Evolutionists realize that, (to believe in the theory of evolution without merely just hearing someone say it's true and beleiveing them) it is just as much of a 'Faith in your theory' as Christains do. And (In this thread alone) Christians have been riddiculed for having blind faith. You would have to have blind faith to support a theory with absolutely [I]no true[/I] evidence.

Fossil records are against evolution. DNA is against evolution. Micro-organisms are against evolution. The mere fact that everything exists so perfectly in the world right now goes against evolution. Explaination? Sure. I know much more about this subject than I probably should ~_^

[B]How fossil records are agianst evolution[/B]

If, some thousands of years ago, there were things mutating into humans, whould there not be intermediate links? Something in the middle of dinasaurs and humans? Well, you'd think that the fossil record would have more mutations than actual creatures that live today, and that lived then. Yet none of these missing 'Intermediate links' have been discovered. Mere coincidence? Maybe... But maybe NOT.

There was one instance where they found the skeleten of a gorrila. (I think I may have mentioned this in this thread, but meh.) It looked slightly more upright than a normal gorrila. Other than that, it had no mutations of any kind. Just the fact that it was slightly more upright. This is to date the most evidence for the theory of evolution. Sad, isn't it, that so many Evolutionists have told me personally that my theory is wrong fand supported another theory that is just as scientifically wrong? Maybe more? I think so. In fact, that is why I study the theories side by side almost daily.

Not convinced yet? I didn't think so. Let's move on, shall we?

[B]How DNA is against evolution[/B]

There are a different number of alliels in the DNA of each species. There are two crucial factors in this that force me to believe that evolution isn't the pony to bet on.

1- The number of alliels in a species cannot change. It is scientifically impossible, the creature would never live. Unless by some miracle of God, the creature would die before it was born. The species-specific strands of DNA would uncoil and there would be nothing. Even what I just said is impossible, it would be like being born without a head... Or your torso. That's how absurd it is.

Though it is possible for creatures to adapt through MicroEvolution. A slow change to adapt to environment and such, but only slightly inside of the genetic code of that specific creature.

2- If we evolved, wouldn't you think that the number of alliels in DNA would slowly become higher and higher as creatures get more complex? Well, that's not how it happened. In fact, Humans are the furthest number away from apes, and the closest to yeast! So... Apes turned to yeast and [I]then[/I] humans? Really, now?

[I]That[/I], Retribution, is why I don't trust the theory of evolution. It is just something a man decided was better long ago, after losing faith in his God.

I'm pressed for time, so I won't go much further except to say this. There is no credible proof in favor of either theory, Creation or Evolution. I doubt there ever will be.[/SIZE][/CENTER]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I believe if everyone actually goes back and, you know, [i]reads[/i] Generic NPC #3's initial post about evolution half your circular arguments would dissipate. But, oh no, that would ruin your 'debate' wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is, there is evidence that evolution is at work around us right now. I'm not saying this is automatic proof that 'OMG God is totally not existant!', I'm just stating fact. For all we know, evolution could be part of the 'grand plan' he set in place for the world. Who knows. *shrug*

You can call it 'microevolution' if you want (any terms to sugercoat the fact it's still evolution, even if it's slow, are acceptable), but it's still evolution. I suggest you deal with it and move on... lol.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]There was one instance where they found the skeleten of a gorrila. (I think I may have mentioned this in this thread, but meh.) It looked slightly more upright than a normal gorrila. Other than that, it had no mutations of any kind. Just the fact that it was slightly more upright. This is to date the most evidence for the theory of evolution. Sad, isn't it, that so many Evolutionists have told me personally that my theory is wrong fand supported another theory that is just as scientifically wrong? Maybe more? I think so. In fact, that is why I study the theories side by side almost daily.
[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
One fossil? One fossil? Lucy (I believe this is the one your referring to) is one of the few complete sekeletons. It is not by any means the only evidence of our ancestors.
[URL=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#erectus]*Caugh*[/URL]

[/COLOR]
[QUOTE]

And I'm not against the theory that we evolved at all! I'm just trying to let Evolutionists realize that, (to believe in the theory of evolution without merely just hearing someone say it's true and beleiveing them) it is just as much of a 'Faith in your theory' as Christains do. And (In this thread alone) Christians have been riddiculed for having blind faith. You would have to have blind faith to support a theory with absolutely no true evidence.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
No true evidence? How to you explain the evolution that is taking place around us as I write this? What about the Amazon Rain Forest? Around the Amazon River, the forest is known as the Floated Forest because the Amazon floods year round. Now the trees here, related to the trees outside of the Floated Forest, they look the same, but they use the flooded river to spread their seeds; their germanation methods EVOLVED because they were unable to cope with the flood. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]

2- If we evolved, wouldn't you think that the number of alliels in DNA would slowly become higher and higher as creatures get more complex? Well, that's not how it happened. In fact, Humans are the furthest number away from apes, and the closest to yeast! So... Apes turned to yeast and then humans? Really, now?[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

Humans share, literally, 99.9% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]

Fossil records are against evolution. DNA is against evolution. Micro-organisms are against evolution. The mere fact that everything exists so perfectly in the world right now goes against evolution. Explaination? Sure. I know much more about this subject than I probably should ~_^[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Everything is so perfect in this world DUE to evolution. Millions upon millions upon millions of years is a lot of time to smooth out the bumbs. I dont believe in macro evolution, but Micro Evolution, over millions upon millions of years, can change little things. Than these little things, due to micro evolution, can themeselves change. So on and so forth, and, a few hundred million years later, you have the ecosystem.

Evolution is extremely IMPROBABLE, not impossible. There was probably a 1 in 2 Billion chance of it turning out this way, probably even higher. But there are trillions upon trillions of worlds in the universe; it was bound to happen.Why did it happen on earth? Well, that's the way Lady Luck dances.[/COLOR]

[mechaconneko]

Hmmmmm, my mother was Buddist, my Father was Baptist, and then they became Catholic. Rosary, prayer beads same thing. I like to study why people believe the things that they do, where the belief came from, and what is the driving force to allow people to do wonderful things to justification of doing things in the name of God. What am I? I would rather look for the similarities that we share, and try to understand the differences.

It's all good :cool:

[Morpheus]

Anyone that disagrees with evolution entirely should step back from science and look at some facts. It is a [B]fact[/B] that we have grown taller over the past 200 years. Just that simple bit of trivia comepletely disproves any theories depicting a completely static gene makeup.

[Dagger]

[quote name='sakurasuka][CENTER][SIZE=1]There are a different number of alliels in the DNA of each species. There are two crucial factors in this that force me to believe that evolution isn't the pony to bet on...[/SIZE'][/CENTER][/quote]
Each variant of a gene occupying a specific locus on a chromosome is known as an allele. As things stand, your reasoning doesn't really click. It makes a little more sense if I substitute "chromosomes" for "alleles," but nevertheless I can't help but suspect that your argument is not based on the best of research.

Anyway. I recently had the pleasure of reading the English translation of the novel "Silence," which was written by Shusaku Endo, a Japanese Catholic. The moral climax occurs in the final few pages. The main character, a Portugese missionary who came to Japan during a period when Japanese Christians were being mercilessly persecuted, is forced to come to terms with the fact that he has essentially apostatized by giving into his tormentors and treading on an image of Christ. Despite this act of betrayal, he decides to continue playing the role of a priest by hearing out the confession of a fellow apostate.

The book ends with these lines: [I]"The priest had administered that sacrament that only the priest can administer. No doubt his fellow priests would condemn his act as sacrilege; but even if he was betraying them, he was not betraying his Lord. He loved him now in a different way from before. Everything that had taken place until now had been necessary to bring him to this love.

'Even now I am the last priest in this land. But Our Lord was not silent. Even if he had been silent, my life until this day would have spoken of him.'"[/I]

I'm not a religious person. Still, there's a unique beauty in faith that I can appreciate even if it's not something I find myself able to participate in.

~Dagger~

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Morpheus]Anyone that disagrees with evolution entirely should step back from science and look at some facts. It is a [B]fact[/B'] that we have grown taller over the past 200 years. Just that simple bit of trivia comepletely disproves any theories depicting a completely static gene makeup.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Ryan's right. we've definately gotten taller over teh years.

I know this sounds odd, but have you ever gone into a [i]really[/i] old house - over 150 years old would be ideal- you'll find that the ceilings are lower and the doorways are cut lower too. People on average were shorter than they are today.

That's my input[/color]

[Dagger]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Ryan's right. we've definately gotten taller over teh years.[/color][/quote]That's purely a function of environmental changes & better nutrition, however. It has nothing to do with evolution. :animeswea

~Dagger~

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Dagger]That's purely a function of environmental changes & better nutrition, however. It has nothing to do with evolution. :animeswea

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]


I think I have to disagree with you on this one, because I thought this was the function of evolution. We evolve to fit better into our changing environment.

Some of the changes are fast and happen in a few generations, others take a million years.

I talked about evolution with my very religious schoolmate once, and he, opposing the evolution as a theory, began to explain something about mutation and how everything else but the mutated individuals die etc. I honestly didn't understand diddle! ;P

I perceive these changes that we can sometimes see with our own eyes as the essence of evolution. From the dawn of time, lifeforms have evolved to meet the requirements of their new environments. Sure, that has required some serious mutation over the generations and naturally survival of the fittest, but it's not like Pokémon where things happen instantly, as if a wizard did it!