G.W. Bush's Creationist beliefs

[Mr. Miyagi]

Martial Artist, I just reread your post and wanted to comment a few things. You asked why evolution has stopped, it hasn't! These things took thousands or millions of years in the fist place, you think you will witness the entire species change in one lifetime?
"A footprint of a person't shoe and a bug that died during the second stage of evolution"- MA, what the hell are you talking about. I could go out to the garden right now and make a footprint with my shoe, I see no way that this would show evidence against evolution! What bug died during the 2nd stage? If this example exists, and it truly did die during a transitional time for the species, so what? All living things die, it doesn't mean they couldn't have evolved!
And then lastly you say that for a species to change that one would have to be deformed and change slowly and that instincts are created and if not followed the animal will die. That hardly makes any sense to me, you could explain what you are trying to say better but I will give you another example. The first white polar bear occurred as a freak of nature in the arctic regions, it just wasn't the same color as other bears. It mated with a normal bear and the white fur being a recessive trait, a minority of it's offspring were also white. These white bears held an advantage, they could hunt and hide better than other bears because they were not seen by their prey or enemies in the snow. In time the species evolved in isolation, the darker colored bears that dared to migrate to the arctic had no chance, and a new species was created. Same deal for snow leopards, arctic foxes, and even North American lynxes. Hate to sound like a cheesy storyteller but this is very likely that over thousands of years that a species could develop.

[Martial Artist]

Originally posted by Mr. Miyagi
Martial Artist, I just reread your post and wanted to comment a few things. You asked why evolution has stopped, it hasn't! These things took thousands or millions of years in the fist place, you think you will witness the entire species change in one lifetime?
Well havent we been around long enough(This is the 21st century and I'm talking about since man was first documented) and WE STILL LOOK AND ARE THE SAME! We look and are the same since the first documented steps of makind.


"A footprint of a person't shoe and a bug that died during the second stage of evolution"- MA, what the hell are you talking about. I could go out to the garden right now and make a footprint with my shoe, I see no way that this would show evidence against evolution! What bug died during the 2nd stage? If this example exists, and it truly did die during a transitional time for the species, so what? All living things die, it doesn't mean they couldn't have evolved!

There are stages in evolution that animals evolve.I dont know the names but one is like Meseomeric,or,angeo something.Now,in those stages,a species that scietist say died out hundreds of millions of years ago,there was a foorprint found that crushed one of those speciies that died out millions of years ago.If it died out millions of years ago,how could man have stepped on it.


And then lastly you say that for a species to change that one would have to be deformed and change slowly and that instincts are created and if not followed the animal will die. That hardly makes any sense to me, you could explain what you are trying to say better but I will give you another example. The first white polar bear occurred as a freak of nature in the arctic regions, How do you know?

it just wasn't the same color as other bears. It mated with a normal bear and the white fur being a recessive trait, a minority of it's offspring were also white. These white bears held an advantage, they could hunt and hide better than other bears because they were not seen by their prey or enemies in the snow. In time the species evolved in isolation, the darker colored bears that dared to migrate to the arctic had no chance, and a new species was created. Same deal for snow leopards, arctic foxes, and even North American lynxes. Hate to sound like a cheesy storyteller but this is very likely that over thousands of years that a species could develop.

You are missing the point,okay,for a species to change,like a lizard to a bird,the lizard has to be born with a wing.The natrul instintcts of a mom(Of all species) is to push the deformed child to the side(Not feeding it) which means it will die.

To the other person who contested the sun issue(I didnt read the whole post) let me explain.There is evidence that the sun is shreinking AT 5-FEET PER HOUR.So,if the earth is 4.6 billion years old(Which evolutionist "think" it is)then the sun would have swallowed the earth up a long time ago!

[keiths]

ok first i need to know what shreinking is to understand the sun part. i thought it was a typo the first couple times but not so sure now

[Mr. Miyagi]

Martial Artist, you've not read much about evolution huh? Of course a lizard would NOT evolve into a bird, they are in different phyla. A species is characterized by it's kingdom, phylum, class, family, order, genus, and species. Birds and lizards separated a long time ago, one is in the reptile phylum and one is in the bird phylum. The five kingdoms are plants, animals, mollusks, fungi, and algae. A mushroom is not going to evolve into a lion by this theory. However, leopards and jaguars may have indeed been the same cat (family is panthera) before they were separated and isolated from each other by continental drift.
Again you have used the work "shreinking", a term I have yet to encounter. Please tell me what that means because if you mean shrinking then the sun's surface is getting farther. If you can't give me numbers on why that makes evolution impossible that's fine, just try to explain the jist of it and tell me what "shreinking" is.
Hope that you're not trolling because it sure seems like it.
If you have the patience please read my posts on the previous page to give you some idea of how evolution occurs according to theorists.

[Chopstix]

martial artist, evolution is taking place all the time. do you know why the common cold has no cure? because it keeps on changing and evolving.. same with viruses and bacteria, why do you think they are keeping stronger and more resistant to antibodies... insects also evolve fast, as an example of a species of flies has changed within the alst 100 years.. humans are evolving too.. the social, cultural changes affect people aswell.. what we eat has a change on us.. ahve you noticed how every generation is getting bigger and stronger? well that is because of the growth hormones that they use to feed our food, and its affecting us.. girls are also getting their mentrual flow a lot faster than they used to, at an earlier age, because of cultural and social changes.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Where did you Christians go? As soon as the discussion became serious you guys disappeared. And Martial Artist, for you an admission of your mistakes and lack of post high school education regarding this subject would be coming. MA, take Anthropology 101 in college, you will find it very interesting. Of course that is several years away for you...

[Ryu (non-working password]

Miyagi, even though most on the board would probably term me an "agnostic" or whatnot...(I don't feel that way..)
A Christian standpoint doesn't have to be completely moronic when it comes to matters of science and reason.
Genesis itself advocates evolution.
You have to read between the lines. Plus the orthodox church accepts evolution, and is absolutely not against science. I've mentioned before that Orthodoxy was the first Christian church. It started 33 AD.
For the most traditional church to hold very modern science in high esteem says a lot for the competence of their religion itself. You can't argue back and forth as "die hard scientist vs the die hard Baptist"
Nothing will get solved. You need a middle ground.
Hmm perhaps I'm Daoist..LOL

Ryu

[Rob B]

A few things to clear up

First of all Ryu; I can't understand where you are getting this "true church" from. From what I remember from school 33 A.D. was approximately 4 years after Jesus death ( Jesus being born in 4 B.C. ). At that time you had the individual apostles preaching the word, underground of course as Christianity was then illegal. Traditions were beginning to develop but it there was no distinction between east and west. There was no Charlamagne, there was no Constantinople and there was no Byzantium; there was one church, at the time. Even after Christianity was made the legal church of the Roman Empire ( about 400 A.D. )and divisions between east and west did form, it was not till 1054, the Great Schism that Roman Catholisism and Greek Orthodox officially spilt.

Now, to address the 6000 year old earth.

If you read Luke 3:23 it will trace the geneology of Jesus. These verses give 75 generations from Jesus all the way back to Adam, the original man. In 1654 Archbishop Usher, of Ireland, tackled the problem with a Biblical approach. He carefully read the account of Creation and the sequence of generations as it is outlined in the Bible. Counting back from the present he determined the time of creation to be the 26th of October, 4004 BC, at 9:00 am in the morning! Thus, we had our first basis for estimating the age of the Earth. It was a pretty generous calaculation giving about 50+ years per generation.

I was born and raised a catholic but I in no way believe that the bible is complete historical fact. It is a source of inspiration and of deep spritual meaning. It was a book written by many different authors, by men, who may have been divinely inspired but were nevertheless still men who made mistakes.

[Edited by Rob B on 11-26-2000 at 01:20 PM]

[Ryu (non-working password]

Rob, in my haste to prove a point, I might have come across a little condescending and I'm sorry.
"true church" is just as biggoted as anything. My apologies. I only meant that the traditions followed by the Greek Orthodox church are the closest to the "original teachings" so to speak. Yes, there was no seperation of east and west, etc back then. When the church split the catholics branched off and the "orthodox" took the name to mean the "original" teachings.
My point was that the traditions and "service" of the teachings that took place 4 years after Christ's death are still very much what the Orthodox faith is. Though I'm sure things have definately been altered a bit.
I was relating the Orthodox church to the original church founded by Christ's followers. At least to them, it is one in the same.
But I claim no expertise in the subject.

Ryu

[david a]

Rob B,
------------------------------------------------------------
If you read Luke 3:23 it will trace the geneology of Jesus. These verses give 75 generations from Jesus all the way back to Adam, the original man. In 1654 Archbishop Usher, of Ireland, tackled the problem with a Biblical approach. He carefully read the account of Creation and the sequence of generations as it is outlined in the Bible. Counting back from the present he determined the time of creation to be the 26th of October, 4004 BC, at 9:00 am in the morning! Thus, we had our first basis for estimating the age of the Earth. It was a pretty generous calaculation giving about 50+ years per generation.
------------------------------------------------------------
Archbishop Ushers geneology record is based on a false premise.

1. There are known generation gaps in the geneologies. This is not to say the are wrong, because different geneologies back up other ones throughout the Bible eg. Matthew says "Joram begot Uzziah", whereas 1 Chronicles 3 shows that Matthew left out 3 generations. Also the geneologie4s in the Bible are clearly abbreviated geneologies- not complete chronologies. Luke's objective is to show the maternal geneology of Jesus. He also had the Greek audience in view, addressing their interest in Jesus as the perfect man, which was the quest of Greek thought.

2. The word son in the Bible can also mean grandson, even so, the word begot can mean father or grandfather. The word begot literally means "became the ancestor of" and begotton is "the descendant of". For eg. Matthew says "Joram BEGOT Uzziah, but 1 Chronicles lists Joram(and then his son) Ahaziah


------------------------------------------------------------
I was born and raised a catholic but I in no way believe that the bible is complete historical fact. It is a source of inspiration and of deep spritual meaning. It was a book written by many different authors, by men, who may have been divinely inspired but were nevertheless still men who made mistakes.
------------------------------------------------------------
That's to bad that you believe that, since that is the total opposite of what the Roman Catholic Church believes. Contrary to your beliefs, the Bible is rich in Historical facts. Its telling when skeptics have to alter their theories in light of daily archaeological finds which completely parallel the history of the Bible.

Are you open minded Rob? If you are, you need to pick up a book in any Christian book store called " The Case for Christ"(Lee Strobel) It will answer alot of your doubts. No one can convince you though... that is... if you have a closed mind. There are many other books to list but that one is quite thorough.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Martial Artist, if you don't acknowledge your error about the shrinking theory then I am going to appear on every thread I see your name and ridicule you! C'mon man!

[Tony10]

The earth is 6000 years old.

There is no evolution.

The bible is to be taken literally.

Lots of mewling about carbon dating, complete with excrutiating detail-less detail.

If we could somehow convert this brain power to raw energy, we could probably toast bread...

[Mr. Miyagi]

C'mon Martial Artist. Just please give me the satisfaction of your admission of an error. We'll still be friends, I promise. If you don't I'm going to follow you around and annoy the crap out of you until you acknowledge this.

[Mr. Miyagi]

ttt

[Mr. Miyagi]

ttt...um Martial Artist