Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Bandit

a tulip bulb is a tulip bulb & it produces tulips & maybe different varieties of tulips if you mess with it enough. it does not change into a maple tree.

i know that does not make sense because everyone has been taught that everything started as a fish & kept changing into different species.

Bandit, are these example (and others littered throughout the thread) deliberate strawmen created to fudge the issue, or simple misunderstandings?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Bandit, are these example (and others littered throughout the thread) deliberate strawmen created to fudge the issue, or simple misunderstandings?

oh. like Jaikets & mr diamonds incomplete example & misunderstandings of how people are a species of chimp.

humans beget humans. tulips produce tulips.
what makes that fact a strawman?

[Andre']

Hi Bandit, thanks for all the responses, sorry it took awhile, been really busy. I'm glad you feel that way about Cladisitics, as well as some of the questions that you have addressd is exceptionally intersting, especially the one on the decomposing body recycling itself. If you are into engery continum theories I have a great theory for you to read on, the math is absoultely unbelievably hard, but the good part is it is all put in the back into an Appendix for Scientists, if you don't want to follow the math, just don't read it. The main body of the text is math-free, except for just little x= stuff. This book is asserevating the Omega Point Theory, which is a very complex theory, it really is, which is why I saying to read the book. You should grasp it fine, but you need a sceince background in physics, just simple stuff though. This theory is trying to prove within the axiom of physics that there is a God and that we will continue living for ever, our spirit that is or energy is infinite. Tipler, the author, is trying to say that if you can prove the infinite existence of the human beings, then it can be further suggested that it correlates with the Christian Bible's perception of Heaven. He is a physicist at heart, but is a Christian who is trying to make a diffrence and present a good argument for people within his field. The book is called "The Physics of Immortality" By Frank Tipler and, obviously, comes highly reccommended. Yes, I do believe that not necessarily decomposing, but death is a form of energy continum. Decomposoing is just the recycling of organic tissues. Now if you are implying a Hindu explainination, like everything is Atman, a continuity of selfhood throughout, then I would agree that decomposition is a form of energy continum. I can say much more on this, but specify if you mean the actual scientific process of atmoic recycling, or do you mean on a metaphysical level.

On what you said about Darwin, I really don't consider Darwin to much. So many people, I'm not saying you, cherish him and quote him, and factualize him, he is antiquated. The only idea that can persist to this day and even the way he had it has been revised is Natural Selection. Many people aren't aware that Darwin contemplated heavily and it was very hard for him to implicate what he did about the world that he did. He was raised in a strict Christian family and contemplated heavily. I don't ever talk about him much because he is just so antiquated and doesn't hold in modern science. He makes up one mechanism of evolution, let's all get out over him, I can't stand these evolutionists who really aren't educated within the field and quote him to prove their point. Little soap box of mine, sorry.

Yes I would like to see this video anytime you want to get back to me. It sounds interesting.

I wonder why you can't find the thread? All I can say is it is under Eastern Thought, in the Buddhism forum, and the thread name is Zen and Qunatum Mechanics meet, Silverbackman made a comment but the thread hasn't had anyone else hit it, it is a rather specified subject. I don't know how I could send it to you, this is my third day in this comparative-religions forum site. I'm new to it, as you can see from my posts.

I was wondering what you were refering to when you said "And tell me what you think may have happened in all of this from your studies." I didn't know if it was something specific and if it was let me know?

Yes, I have enjoyed convesing to someone who is learned on this subject. This subject takes quite a lot of background in order to discuss.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Andre'

I was wondering what you were refering to when you said "And tell me what you think may have happened in all of this from your studies." I didn't know if it was something specific and if it was let me know?

all i meant by that is, in short, your version of how life came to be. i think somewhere you mentioned giving the best educated guess & that is all i was refering to.
it is a big mystery that is for sure.

i will get back to you on Tidler ( a guy i work with has talked about the same things). i will get the origins of life video, decompisation & some other comments on your post out in a day. i think a new wheel might be starting to turn in my head from some of this. i just find it hard to put into words without too many misconceptions of what i am thinking & really trying to say.
putting evolution & creation into a good perspective is not easy.
have nice day Andre

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Bandit

macro has not been proven dear boy. get your facts right.

why are you so horrified that the bible is true? is the bible that ugly to you? it sounds like you hate it.
as far as i am concerned the bible is very scientific & has been proven correct in all sciences all the time.

i do not discuss the bible & God with people who have your attitude & this is not the first time i have detected that you do not like the bible & per say Christians for there beliefs.
if you choose not to believe in the bible then dont believe it. believe what best fits you .
you are entitled to your opinion about the bible & so am I.
from here, you wont be getting a discussion about the bible & creation from me, so that should make you happy.

you are an ape according to your belief. i am a man according to mine. get over it.

I don't hate the Bible, I think its a great book and has some divine origins. But you can't take what everything the Bible says literally. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that we ain't apes, does it? Yes of course your a man, so am I! But man is an ape, or at least something very close.

It isn't just belief brother, it is scientific fact. Just because I listen to scientific fact doesn't mean I hate the Bible.

You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts. You can believe a dog is a primate if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that dogs are carnivoras.

Now just because man is an ape, it doesn't mean that evolution is true. All it means is that Yahweh, your God, created you as an ape. He didn't create you into a species of canine or feline. He didn't create you a dolphin. He created you as an ape. Get over it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I don't hate the Bible, I think its a great book and has some divine origins. But you can't take what everything the Bible says literally. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that we ain't apes, does it? Yes of course your a man, so am I! But man is an ape, or at least something very close.

It isn't just belief brother, it is scientific fact. Just because I listen to scientific fact doesn't mean I hate the Bible.

You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts. You can believe a dog is a primate if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that dogs are carnivoras.

Now just because man is an ape, it doesn't mean that evolution is true. All it means is that Yahweh, your God, created you as an ape. He didn't create you into a species of canine or feline. He didn't create you a dolphin. He created you as an ape. Get over it.

he, he, there is absolutely no evidence conclusive beyond a doubt, to back your "facts" ? NONE. We have no idea who we are, when it comes down to brass tacks.

I will agree on that.

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I don't hate the Bible, I think its a great book and has some divine origins. But you can't take what everything the Bible says literally. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that we ain't apes, does it? Yes of course your a man, so am I! But man is an ape, or at least something very close.

It isn't just belief brother, it is scientific fact. Just because I listen to scientific fact doesn't mean I hate the Bible.

i would say you do not know the bible very well & have issues with it.

what you mean is, in your 'belief' God created YOU as an ape.
& in my belief He created me as a man & in his image. the bible does not say animals & fish are in his image but it does say man is created in His image.


& where is all this scientific proof that proves the bible cant be taken literally.
that sounds more like an opinion to me than scientific fact.

& where is your scientific fact that the bible only has SOME divine origin?
that sounds like a belief, not a scientific fact.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

he, he, there is absolutely no evidence conclusive beyond a doubt, to back your "facts" ? NONE. We have no idea who we are, when it comes down to brass tacks.

I will agree on that.

v/r

Q

Really? Is that so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

"Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans. Currently, there are two families of hominoids:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

"The hominids are the members of the biological family Hominidae (the great apes), which includes humans , chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

Or you can search on google. Whichever you like to do it doesn't change the facts. Now you can always dispute whether humans should be classified as a different type of ape or as a great ape, its all up to you. But right now we know for sure humans are some type of ape.

I hope Bandit takes a look at it as well.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i would say you do not know the bible very well & have issues with it.

what you mean is, in your 'belief' God created YOU as an ape.
& in my belief He created me as a man & in his image. the bible does not say animals & fish are in his image but it does say man is created in His image.


& where is all this scientific proof that proves the bible cant be taken literally.
that sounds more like an opinion to me than scientific fact.

& where is your scientific fact that the bible only has SOME divine origin?
that sounds like a belief, not a scientific fact.

So you know what that means then? That means the image of God is an ape. That might offend a lot but it doesn't change the facts. We are classified as apes, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God did not put us in the same family or superfamily of apes.

Again I think your offended by the name "ape". What is so wrong about being an ape? What is wrong if our image (which maybe the image of God) is an ape?

Also do you also doubt that we are primates, mammals, and vertebrates? Because if you doubt that then something is really wrong here.

As for my opinion on the Bible having some divine origin, that is my opinion and faith. What I believe does not conflict science. I believe for example Jesus is a Godman, there is no scientific way to prove it right but at the same time there is no scientific way to prove it wrong.

But it is scientific fact that humans are classified as apes, then primates, then mammals, then vertebrates, then Chordata, and then finally Animalia. That is scientific fact and to my knowledge the Bible never disputes this, but never confirms it as well. If it does (dispute it), then you have yourself a flawed book, but the Bible by many is not a flawed book.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

So you know what that means then? That means the image of God is an ape. That might offend a lot but it doesn't change the facts. We are classified as apes, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God did not put us in the same family or superfamily of apes.

Again I think your offended by the name "ape". What is so wrong about being an ape? What is wrong if our image (which maybe the image of God) is an ape?

I dont know where you got this from Silver. The evolutionary theory does NOT say that God "created" apes in his image and humans then evolved from those apes. Never heard of such a theory sorry.

Also the classification of humans and apes under primates happened even before the theory of evolution was proposed. It was purely classification....nothing to do with evolution.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I hope Bandit takes a look at it as well.

yes, scientifically speaking. i know how we have been 'classified' since 7th grade but thanks again.
i did not choose that classification & would have prefered our own classification and i understand why science did it that way.
apes are also classified as zoo animals, but humans are not. (except on birthdays)

[I am free]

Hi All,

Having read this thread and some others on the subject I have come to understand that the primary fear of creationists is that evolution disproves the Bible. But I dont see why it should be so. Sometimes written words are not enough to even express our emotions such as love. I think it is fallible of men to think that all of God's creation can be expressed in a few paragraphs in a human language.

I found some very interesting letters written by Galileo and others which were exchanged during the heliocentric/geocentric debate way back in 1615. Even though that matter is settled now and even though it was nearly 4 centuries ago, yet I find it most interesting that some of the ideas expressed in the letters are so relevant even today, especially on the subject of scripture vs science. I am pasting the links here.

Galileo to Benedetto Castelli (December 21, 1613)
Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615
Robert Bellarmine: Letter on Galileo's Theories, 1615

Also a lecture by J.H. Gladstone way back in 1872 some time after Darwin's Origin of species was published. I found his views interesting as well.

J. H. Gladstone:Points of Supposed Collision Between the Scriptures and Natural Science, 1872

Ultimately when a conclusion to this debate would be found many years from now, I would venture a guess that neither science nor the Bible, neither evolution nor creation would be proven false. But it would most certainly become clear that it was just a few MEN (after all) and their interpretations that were wrong.


Regards.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I am free

Hi All,

Having read this thread and some others on the subject I have come to understand that the primary fear of creationists is that evolution disproves the Bible. But I dont see why it should be so. Sometimes written words are not enough to even express our emotions such as love. I think it is fallible of men to think that all of God's creation can be expressed in a few paragraphs in a human language.


Ultimately when a conclusion to this debate would be found many years from now, I would venture a guess that neither science nor the Bible, neither evolution nor creation would be proven false. But it would most certainly become clear that it was just a few MEN (after all) and their interpretations that were wrong.


Regards.

yah. but i dont have fear about the bible being proven wrong. fear is not a good word. i see it the other way around where those who do not believe in it & discard it as rubbish are the ones looking for a belief based strictly upon scientific proof. there are way more critics out there who try to prove the bible wrong than the nontheist evolutionist. a stern evolutionist is trying to obtain the knowledge of how life began & that would make him God.
that is never going to happen.
Only God is the giver of life.

it is a silly ferris wheel debate & that is why i never take it serious.

i totally agree with both of your last paragraphs (especially the writing on love)... except for creation nor evolution in the strict sense will ever draw a complete conclusion as to how, & that is where faith does.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

So you know what that means then? That means the image of God is an ape. That might offend a lot but it doesn't change the facts. We are classified as apes, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God did not put us in the same family or superfamily of apes.

Again I think your offended by the name "ape". What is so wrong about being an ape? What is wrong if our image (which maybe the image of God) is an ape?

Also do you also doubt that we are primates, mammals, and vertebrates? Because if you doubt that then something is really wrong here.

As for my opinion on the Bible having some divine origin, that is my opinion and faith. What I believe does not conflict science. I believe for example Jesus is a Godman, there is no scientific way to prove it right but at the same time there is no scientific way to prove it wrong.

But it is scientific fact that humans are classified as apes, then primates, then mammals, then vertebrates, then Chordata, and then finally Animalia. That is scientific fact and to my knowledge the Bible never disputes this, but never confirms it as well. If it does (dispute it), then you have yourself a flawed book, but the Bible by many is not a flawed book.

i am not offended by the word ape or animal. we are an animal in the flesh, but in Gods eyes we are also spirit beings housed in a temporary flesh body that HE MADE after His image & in His likeness... specially for the human spirit & His own spirit to dwell.
While i believe animals do have a spirit, APES do not have the same opportunity to choose to love or discard God like humans do.

i guess we are batting 1000. While i believe Jesus is the Son of God & everything the bible declares him as, i do not believe in any of the Jesus/godman doctrines but i understand why you do.

we made one home run on this is, that what we both believe does not contradict science.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by Bandit

creation nor evolution in the strict sense will ever draw a complete conclusion as to how, & that is where faith does.

I can see your point and I agree.