Thread: London terror attack, yo. :O

but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

"God works in mysterious ways."

That answers pretty much everything and anything.

As a Christian, I have never understood why so many Christians refuse to accept the idea of evolution. I know many of them want a "literal" reading of Genesis (where "Creation" is narrated...7 days and all that)...but...

Why is it, for some Christians, so difficult to believe that God could have engineered the fundamental "rules" of the universe (physics, mathematics, biology, botany...EVOLUTION), constructed the universe with these "equations" and rules, and then allowed Time to work for Him as He sat back sipping a beer and watching the fireworks...formation of suns, worlds, galaxies, and the "evolution" of animals, plants, and us...DDT included ?

Anyway, that's what I believe. I think "evolution" cannot disprove the existence of God, the initial "Engineer" (my opinion)...and religion cannot disprove the existence of the Theory of Evolution. Personally, I think the two co-exist in harmony...that evolution is a part of the initial blueprint.

My Bachelor degree is in agriculture. Sorry, but we've been using principles of evolution and genetics for the last hundred years to create better plants, crop yields, insect and disease resistance, etc., etc. Too many examples exist of "natural" and "forced" selection. The theory of evolution continues to prove itself successfully in the science of agriculture.

And the theory of evolution has been important in understanding disease, viruses, and plagues, and how to fight them and create vaccines and medicines that fight them. Pioner's example may be the best proof of evolution.

Anyway, my 2 kopeks.

Originally Posted by DDT

Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory is the only other alternative to Evolution and is not in of itself neccesarily connected to religion. Even Albert Einstein was investigating the possibilities of this theory before he died and somehow I imagine him to be a lot smarter than you or I. For you to say that it should not be taught in schools is just plain uneducated or predjudiced.

Originally Posted by DDT

And further more who is going to decide what exactly an "unbiased source " is? You? Do you think that only an atheist should decide? You best rethink what yoiu are saying here. It sounds like you must think that a scientific dicovery made by a scientist who believes in intelligent design is to be ignored. That is not a scientific attitude. Even Einstein was investigating the possibilities of some sort of creator.

Try as we might, we just can't keep ourselves out of this thread, can we Dobry?

Well, I just want to say that this constant association of Einstein with creationism/intelligent design is really getting on my nerves. This is typical of the kind of approach proponents of creationism take to try and make their loony 'theory' seem credible. Mention someone famous and well-respected in science and try to imply they had some time for this nonsense. Well, like Pioner said, Einstein's work was in PHYSICS not BIOLOGY, what the hell would he be doing trying to come up with a theory to challenge evolution?? But it's not just that, the idea that Einstein would have anything to do with creationism is just absurd beyond words. People like DDT try to pretend Einstein had some sympathy for a whole host of their views because he mentioned God on several occasions. But Einstein did not believe in the Judaeo-Christian personal God nor in the survival of the individual consciousness beyond death. He did believe there was an order and structure to the universe and that human life was not meaningless but his conception of an impersonal God was totally different to the kind of thing creationists have in mind. Mentioning his name in the same breath as creationism is about as misleading as you can get.

Now DDT, please quit peddling misinformation about Einstein and creationism!

Originally Posted by Cyphyr

Try as we might, we just can't keep ourselves out of this thread, can we Dobry?

Very true, Cyphyr!

I never metioned anything about Einstein believing in a personal God. He believed in some type of intelligent creator. http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/ei ... outgod.htm
http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/pearl-einste ... ingod.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html

The Intelligent Design Theory does not neccesarily believe in a personal God either.

Speaking of faith. Somehow it seems that evoluionists require more of it.

The mutation of bacteria in no way proves that one life form can evolve into a completly different species. There has never been found evidence of a lizard that turned into a horse! Or a monkey into a human. They are still looking for their "missing links". Yet they still hold fast to their theory. This requires "faith".

Originally Posted by DDT

The mutation of bacteria in no way proves that one life form can evolve into a completly different species. There has never been found evidence of a lizard that turned into a horse! Or a monkey into a human. They are still looking for their "missing links". Yet they still hold fast to their theory. This requires "faith".

Well, DDT, you impressed me with your stubborness. Non of living people saw a god, or Satan, or hear their voices, none of them saw creation of animals by God, but you believe in that, and when scientists speak about natural selection which creates species in MILLION years you scream that no one saw that. Well, again, what about artaficial selection? Did you see all those variations of dogs? God created all of them?

I worked as an archeologist for several years, and when we found a brocken vase, we glue it together, and it damn may miss some pieces, but we still glue it together and get general idea who the vase looked like, although somebody may speculate that we came with a wrong theory.

Regarding bacterias, what is your definition of new species?

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

where did I mentioned breeding? I talked about artaficial selection. Which is human made copy of natural selection.

OK. If you insist - I will refrase
Do not mix artificial selection with evolution. They are totally different things!
And yes, it is ARTIFICIAL, not artaficial.

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

OK. If you insist - I will refrase
Do not mix artificial selection with evolution. They are totally different things!
And yes, it is ARTIFICIAL, not artaficial.

thanks for correcting my spelling.

I will do mix it. Because it is almost the same. If I decide to create a dog with long ears, I will start to select dogs with longer ears and breed them together, generation after generation. In nature, let's say some conditions create favor for surviving wolfs with longer ears, so wolfs with longer ears got more chances to survice and produce cubs. Those with shorter ears do not survive (got out of breeding pool). So finally we got wolfs with longer ears.

So, what is the difference?

см. выше.
Wolf is still a wolf.
Evolution is about evolving from one animal to another. Isn't it?
Fishes to frogs, frogs to lizards, and so on.

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

см. выше.
Wolf is still a wolf.
Evolution is about evolving from one animal to another. Isn't it?
Fishes to frogs, frogs to lizards, and so on.

no, it is not, it is just a part of Theory of Evolution. Microevolution process is very intensive inside of the species as well, and being studied very thouroughly all the time. And to create a new species it takes million years. And such a huge change, like fish to "frog" even more then that.

Have you seen small fish which lives in mangroove forests? It spends most of the time out of water, it climbs trees etc. Remove all frogs, lizards, birds and beasts from land and you will see that that fish will move futher to land, and will turn to some type of "frog" in several miillion years. We just need some patience to wait and see that.

Yes, you have a strong faith, friend. Good luck to you!

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Yes, you have a strong faith, friend. Good luck to you!

I do not have any faith. I have logic and I know some facts. That is it.

Nothing else to reply? Well. I draw a picture of Dragonfly on my monitor.

I have logic and know some facts, too. It doesn't stand in the way of having faith. We just have faith in different thing, that's all.
And should I start drawing little kids with red bandanas around their necks?

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

I have logic and know some facts, too. It doesn't stand in the way of having faith. We just have faith in different thing, that's all.
And should I start drawing little kids with red bandanas around their necks?

No, you have no right to draw kids (and those are not bananas ), because you quited from argument, as you have nothing to say.

Logic and knowing fact does not interfare with faith. But it does not mean that everyone got a faith. Some people survive without any.

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

Well, humankind did successfully turn a wolf into a dog.

Originally Posted by DDT

I never metioned anything about Einstein believing in a personal God. He believed in some type of intelligent creator.

Well, he sure as hell didn't believe that the earth was created in 7 days or that God designed each species separately from each other and then placed them upon the earth. Nor did he seek to calculate the age of the earth from studying the Bible.

If you're talking about evidence of intelligence behind the structure and development of the universe, then that's a different argument. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but I don't think it's an outrageous position to take. It's important not to confuse the debate over the origin of the universe with that concerning the origin of living organisms on earth.

Originally Posted by DDT

http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/ei ... outgod.htm
http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/pearl-einste ... ingod.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html

Well, all I can say from reading some of these is that some people must be very insecure in their 'faith' if they need to try and misrepresent Einstein's concept of God and pretend it supports their own.

"I am grieved that no one ever offered Einstein the clear, biblical resolution to the paradox he posed. I am also sad that Einstein did not live long enough to see the accumulation of scientific evidence for a personal caring Creator"

Yes, of course, poor old Einstein was obviously misguided in not believing in a personal God Missed his place in heaven as I well I suppose

Actually, I have a lot to say, but do not see a reason why. In such "argument" thruth will not be revealed. It's just a matter of opinions. You have yours, and I have mine. Neither of us can prove that he(she) is right or neither of us is going to change his(her) mind, so - why bother?

Red bananas around necks - it is a funny picture, I admit. But I said bandanas. It seemed the closest analog to пионерский галстук in English-speaking american culture to me, anyways.

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Actually, I have a lot to say, but do not see a reason why.

Why бы и not?