Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

[benholt06]

I never do this, but if it is what you want, I will allow it. But for the record, I disagree with everything you said here.

If there's another reason you reject evolution as a fact besides your faith (a reasonable reason to do so), then I'd like to know what it is.

 

[jakez4ut]

I'm in Louisville getting ready to do some of The Bourbon Trail with a friend. So far, what I've seen of the UL campus is trash. No wonder they had to pay athletes to come here.

Churchill Downs is overwhelming with size and splendor but underwhelming in beauty. Though it is summer. Just thought it would be a prettier view from the Millionaires Row.

i know plenty of people that love Louisville.

i've been there several times. i'm not one of them. i think it's a dump of a city. jmo.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

If there's another reason you reject evolution as a fact besides your faith (a reasonable reason to do so), then I'd like to know what it is.

Just briefly, evolution has never been shown to actually work. Mutations that happen do not add information. If you're going to talk about dinosaurs to birds, dinosaurs would have to add feathers, their entire lung systems would have to change, etc. etc. A fish growing legs and walking on land and breathing air would have to add a mountain of genetic information. This doesn't happen and has never been shown to happen. In fact, when mutations happen, they lose something, not gain. No changes in an animal has added information that it would take to create a new species. We see natural selection, a short haired dog giving birth to a long haired dog for example, but its still a dog, not a lizard. Nothing like that has ever been shown to happen.

Further, there are no examples of transitional species in the fossil record.

Further, there are things that could not evolve and work, such as the eyeball and the bacterial flagellum. Evolution cannot explain those things or the other complexities of life.

Still further, we have living fossils. Scientists believed that the Coelacanth went extinct with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Until we found one swimming in the early 20th century. Now you can see them in aquariums. What did we find out? Did they evolve over the 65 million years that they supposedly existed? No, they look exactly the same as they did in their fossil.

These are just a few reasons why, scientifically, I reject evolution. There are many many more. But really, evolution is impossible and does not explain the complexities of life, the origins of the universe, the existence of objective morality or laws of logic or many other things.

It is secularisms way of trying to explain the world without God and it fails miserably.

 

[samanderson]

ok, I’m at lunch so I’m gonna keep throwing out some ideas:

I am a Christian and was taught that after death, our immortal soul continues on.

But have you thought about where you were or who you were BEFORE you were born?

The Bible says “Before I formed you in your mother’s womb I knew you.”

To me, this means that your eternal soul has always (and will always) exist.

People spend too much time worrying about what happens after death when we should realize that what happens before your body existed in its current, brief physical form is just as interesting.

The Buddhist concept of Dharma captures this in the analogy of wave and ocean. If we think of our existence on this earth as each one of us being a wave on the surface of the ocean - unique And definite, but temporary. Some are small ripples, some are huge crashing waves, some are short and brief, some are tsunamis. But What is a wave before it becomes a wave; and what is a wave after it crashes on the beach? If you look at the existence of the wave itself as birth-life-death, then you can understand this quote from Thich Nhat Hahn “Enlightenment is when the Wave understands that it IS the Ocean.”

Spend a day thinking about that. It can be a really empowering concept.

An aphoristic way of describing that empowerment is the following:

The sky looked down at some waves as they formed on the ocean and headed toward the shore. The sky asked the first wave “what are you?”
And the wave said - “just a wave, blown by the winds and headed toward that terrifying shore to end soon.”

The second wave replied “I’m just a temporary ripple on top of the ocean, pulled by currents and the wind and will be exitingished soon when i crash on the beach.”

However, the third wave, when asked “ what are you?”, proudly answered “I AM THE OCEAN!”



As you argue and discuss with people about condemnation and salvation you are only discussing what happens after the crashing on the beach. It’s kind of eye opening to think
about - what was I before i was even a wave to begin with?

Thanks for posting this, bluegrasser. I find it to be very awesome.

 

[benholt06]

Just briefly, evolution has never been shown to actually work. Mutations that happen do not add information. If you're going to talk about dinosaurs to birds, dinosaurs would have to add feathers, their entire lung systems would have to change, etc. etc. A fish growing legs and walking on land and breathing air would have to add a mountain of genetic information. This doesn't happen and has never been shown to happen. In fact, when mutations happen, they lose something, not gain. No changes in an animal has added information that it would take to create a new species. We see natural selection, a short haired dog giving birth to a long haired dog for example, but its still a dog, not a lizard. Nothing like that has ever been shown to happen.

Further, there are no examples of transitional species in the fossil record.

Further, there are things that could not evolve and work, such as the eyeball and the bacterial flagellum. Evolution cannot explain those things or the other complexities of life.

Still further, we have living fossils. Scientists believed that the Coelacanth went extinct with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Until we found one swimming in the early 20th century. Now you can see them in aquariums. What did we find out? Did they evolve over the 65 million years that they supposedly existed? No, they look exactly the same as they did in their fossil.

These are just a few reasons why, scientifically, I reject evolution. There are many many more. But really, evolution is impossible and does not explain the complexities of life, the origins of the universe, the existence of objective morality or laws of logic or many other things.

It is secularisms way of trying to explain the world without God and it fails miserably.

Bass this shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works.

Here are just a few of the fallacies you're committing here:

A mutation is certainly not always a negative. If I'm a rabbit and a mutation causes my ears to be a half-inch longer than my parents, I can hear predators coming better, and am more likely to survive. My offspring which inherit said mutation are the ones more likely to survive. Over years, the longer-eared rabbits dominate the population until the long ears just become a trait of the species. You seem to view all mutation as some sort of deformity or radical departure from the norm. Those mutations exist but quickly die out because they make it harder for the individual w/ the mutation to survive. Thus, the more subtle mutations that can be useful are the ones that survive.

Another little anecdote: A species of pond-dwelling fish's pond is about to dry up. A few of the fish in the population have larger side fins (forgive the lack of vocabulary here), and once the water is completely dried out they use those side fins to propel themselves across dry land into another extant nearby pond. These fish with the larger fins are the ones who survive and reproduce, and the ones who have abnormally large side fins due to a mutation are almost assured to be able to make the journey to the new pond. The ones with the biggest side fins are the first to the new ponds, thus the first to new food sources and become big and dominant among the population. The big dominant fish spread their seed, thus perpetuating large side-finned fish for years and years to follow.

A slender, aerodynamic tail fin that doesn't get caught up on the solid land, might also aid in these large side-finned fish getting from a dying pond to a new one. So, the large side-finned, slender-tailed fish are the survivors. Over years and years and years until the large side fins become legs and the slender tail fins become tails and after tens of millions of years you have a lizard from what was once a fish.

See? You grossly over-simplify a process that you expect to happen almost immediately when it takes subtle change over amazing amounts of time to evolve a species.

And there have been a ton of transitional species dug up. Australopithicus (don't check my spelling) is just one that is clearly an evolved ape and a primitive man.

It's ok for your reason for rejecting evolution to be your religion, Bass, because this "science" you presented is total bunk my friend.

 

[Rishvol]

Bass this shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works.

Here are just a few of the fallacies you're committing here:

A mutation is certainly not always a negative. If I'm a rabbit and a mutation causes my ears to be a half-inch longer than my parents, I can hear predators coming better, and am more likely to survive. My offspring which inherit said mutation are the ones more likely to survive. Over years, the longer-eared rabbits dominate the population until the long ears just become a trait of the species. You seem to view all mutation as some sort of deformity or radical departure from the norm. Those mutations exist but quickly die out because they make it harder for the individual w/ the mutation to survive. Thus, the more subtle mutations that can be useful are the ones that survive.

Another little anecdote: A species of pond-dwelling fish's pond is about to dry up. A few of the fish in the population have larger side fins (forgive the lack of vocabulary here), and once the water is completely dried out they use those side fins to propel themselves across dry land into another extant nearby pond. These fish with the larger fins are the ones who survive and reproduce, and the ones who have abnormally large side fins due to a mutation are almost assured to be able to make the journey to the new pond. The ones with the biggest side fins are the first to the new ponds, thus the first to new food sources and become big and dominant among the population. The big dominant fish spread their seed, thus perpetuating large side-finned fish for years and years to follow.

A slender, aerodynamic tail fin that doesn't get caught up on the solid land, might also aid in these large side-finned fish getting from a dying pond to a new one. So, the large side-finned, slender-tailed fish are the survivors. Over years and years and years until the large side fins become legs and the slender tail fins become tails and after tens of millions of years you have a lizard from what was once a fish.

See? You grossly over-simplify a process that you expect to happen almost immediately when it takes subtle change over amazing amounts of time to evolve a species.

And there have been a ton of transitional species dug up. Australopithicus (don't check my spelling) is just one that is clearly an evolved ape and a primitive man.

It's ok for your reason for rejecting evolution to be your religion, Bass, because this "science" you presented is total bunk my friend.

"Reasoning" in evolution has no science. It's all an "educated guess" hence the term theory. Also, the transitional species do not show any link between one species and another. It's called transitional because they have no flipping idea where to put it and it better aligns with the theory of evolution.

 

[benholt06]

"Reasoning" in evolution has no science. It's all an "educated guess" hence the term theory. Also, the transitional species do not show any link between one species and another. It's called transitional because they have no flipping idea where to put it and it better aligns with the theory of evolution.

It was called a theory when Darwin proposed it in the 1800s. Now it's just called evolution and it's accepted by virtually every credible scientist. Transitional species means literally, a species that existed in transition from a lesser evolved form to a great evolved form. For example, why did a chimp survive and a human survive but Australopithecus did not? Well, better evolved species killed it off. And chimps? They're perfectly evolved to survive in the jungle as it is. Don't believe me? Go there and f*** with one.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Bass this shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works.

Here are just a few of the fallacies you're committing here:

A mutation is certainly not always a negative. If I'm a rabbit and a mutation causes my ears to be a half-inch longer than my parents, I can hear predators coming better, and am more likely to survive. My offspring which inherit said mutation are the ones more likely to survive. Over years, the longer-eared rabbits dominate the population until the long ears just become a trait of the species. You seem to view all mutation as some sort of deformity or radical departure from the norm. Those mutations exist but quickly die out because they make it harder for the individual w/ the mutation to survive. Thus, the more subtle mutations that can be useful are the ones that survive.

But they’re still rabbits. They don’t become birds or snakes. This is the long haired dog analogy I mentioned in my post.

Another little anecdote: A species of pond-dwelling fish's pond is about to dry up. A few of the fish in the population have larger side fins (forgive the lack of vocabulary here), and once the water is completely dried out they use those side fins to propel themselves across dry land into another extant nearby pond. These fish with the larger fins are the ones who survive and reproduce, and the ones who have abnormally large side fins due to a mutation are almost assured to be able to make the journey to the new pond. The ones with the biggest side fins are the first to the new ponds, thus the first to new food sources and become big and dominant among the population. The big dominant fish spread their seed, thus perpetuating large side-finned fish for years and years to follow. A slender, aerodynamic tail fin that doesn't get caught up on the solid land, might also aid in these large side-finned fish getting from a dying pond to a new one. So, the large side-finned, slender-tailed fish are the survivors. Over years and years and years until the large side fins become legs and the slender tail fins become tails and after tens of millions of years you have a lizard from what was once a fish.

This is natural selection, not evolution. They don’t grow legs and walk up on land able to breath air. They are still fish. To say that all you need is time and they’ll suddenly grow legs and be able to breathe air and become a lizard is a GIANT leap of faith with no supporting data. This has never been observed or shown to be possible.

See? You grossly over-simplify a process that you expect to happen almost immediately when it takes subtle change over amazing amounts of time to evolve a species.

And there have been a ton of transitional species dug up. Australopithicus (don't check my spelling) is just one that is clearly an evolved ape and a primitive man.

It's ok for your reason for rejecting evolution to be your religion, Bass, because this "science" you presented is total bunk my friend.

Actually, I and many others not committed to the doctrine of evolution would say this “science” you have presented here is bunk and fantasy. And no, I still reject the premise that transitional species have been shown. That is not reality. Australopithecus was an ape. Nothing more. “So much glamour still attaches to the theme of the missing-link, and to man’s relationships with the animal world, that it may always be difficult to exorcise from the comparative study of Primates, living and fossil, the kind of myths which the unaided eye is able to conjure out of a well of wishful thinking.” -sir Solly Zuckerman

 

[Rishvol]

It was called a theory when Darwin proposed it in the 1800s. Now it's just called evolution and it's accepted by virtually every credible scientist. Transitional species means literally, a species that existed in transition from a lesser evolved form to a great evolved form. For example, why did a chimp survive and a human survive but Australopithecus did not? Well, better evolved species killed it off. And chimps? They're perfectly evolved to survive in the jungle as it is. Don't believe me? Go there and f*** with one.

I have to teach this stuff. So I understand the difference between microevolution and macro evolution. I understand the difference between natural selection and human selection. Humans use human selection as a way to "prove" macro evolution. The problem with human selection is that the "new species" always returns to what it was before humans messed with it. That alone is the greatest argument against evolution is that it always returns to what it was.

 

[Vols410]

There’s a great book called “Darwin’s Black Box.” Written by an atheist biologist/geneticist I believe, but calls out some of the nonsense surrounding Darwin’s ideas. Great read, highly recommend it.

 

[benholt06]

But they’re still rabbits. They don’t become birds or snakes. This is the long haired dog analogy I mentioned in my post.


This is natural selection, not evolution. They don’t grow legs and walk up on land able to breath air. They are still fish. To say that all you need is time and they’ll suddenly grow legs and be able to breathe air and become a lizard is a GIANT leap of faith with no supporting data. This has never been observed or shown to be possible.


Actually, I and many others not committed to the doctrine of evolution would say this “science” you have presented here is bunk and fantasy. And no, I still reject the premise that transitional species have been shown. That is not reality. Australopithecus was an ape. Nothing more. “So much glamour still attaches to the theme of the missing-link, and to man’s relationships with the animal world, that it may always be difficult to exorcise from the comparative study of Primates, living and fossil, the kind of myths which the unaided eye is able to conjure out of a well of wishful thinking.” -sir Solly Zuckerman

They don't grow legs, Bass, they start as an useful appendage. One mutation makes them larger. One down the line may "split the fin" in half at the end forming kind of a fork. Another may make the fibers that compose the fins especially strong, and this is the beginnings of tendons in what will later become a fully functioning leg. All fish have air bladders for various reasons- buoyancy, sound production, etc.; these bladders also store air, and the fish with the largest ones could stay alive longer on their overland trek, until you have lungs that can function amphibiously (an actual category of critter). Look, it's impossible for me to condense millions of years of subtle mutations here and there, on different parts of the body and useful for different reasons into a couple of paragraphs to explain to you how evolution works. And natural selection IS evolution. Evolution is just the result of it over time, it's not this "poof" magic thing you describe. You seem to think a person, who lives 80 years or so should be able to observe this phenomenon to prove its existence. Ironic for a Christian.

And Rish, no one is talking about human selection. What level do you teach science at? Ever heard of a bacteria/infection becoming resistant to antibodies? How a teacher could deny evolution exists is beyond me. Oh yeah, probably also a Christian.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

They don't grow legs, Bass, they start as an useful appendage. One mutation makes them larger. One down the line may "split the fin" in half at the end forming kind of a fork. Another may make the fibers that compose the fins especially strong, and this is the beginnings of tendons in what will later become a fully functioning leg. All fish have air bladders for various reasons- buoyancy, sound production, etc.; these bladders also store air, and the fish with the largest ones could stay alive longer on their overland trek, until you have lungs that can function amphibiously (an actual category of critter). Look, it's impossible for me to condense millions of years of subtle mutations here and there, on different parts of the body and useful for different reasons into a couple of paragraphs to explain to you how evolution works. And natural selection IS evolution. Evolution is just the result of it over time, it's not this "poof" magic thing you describe. You seem to think a person, who lives 80 years or so should be able to observe this phenomenon to prove its existence. Ironic for a Christian.

And Rish, no one is talking about human selection. What level do you teach science at? Ever heard of a bacteria/infection becoming resistant to antibodies? How a teacher could deny evolution exists is beyond me. Oh yeah, probably also a Christian.

And there is no proof or evidence that any of this has ever happened. Again, it’s fantasy and wishful thinking.

 

[Rishvol]

They don't grow legs, Bass, they start as an useful appendage. One mutation makes them larger. One down the line may "split the fin" in half at the end forming kind of a fork. Another may make the fibers that compose the fins especially strong, and this is the beginnings of tendons in what will later become a fully functioning leg. All fish have air bladders for various reasons- buoyancy, sound production, etc.; these bladders also store air, and the fish with the largest ones could stay alive longer on their overland trek, until you have lungs that can function amphibiously (an actual category of critter). Look, it's impossible for me to condense millions of years of subtle mutations here and there, on different parts of the body and useful for different reasons into a couple of paragraphs to explain to you how evolution works. And natural selection IS evolution. Evolution is just the result of it over time, it's not this "poof" magic thing you describe. You seem to think a person, who lives 80 years or so should be able to observe this phenomenon to prove its existence. Ironic for a Christian.

And Rish, no one is talking about human selection. What level do you teach science at? Ever heard of a bacteria/infection becoming resistant to antibodies? How a teacher could deny evolution exists is beyond me. Oh yeah, probably also a Christian.

Yes, I am a Christian and teach at the high school level. What makes me different is I've taken more evolution classes than most who try and defend the theory. How does a teacher no take evolution as fact? Because to best teach a subject I need to learn all I can about to put the subject into layman terms. So, I take what I've learned and what I've researched and I decide for myself if I should take it as fact or not. Evolution in the sense that microbes over millennia have turned into this vast biodiversity we have now does not hold water to me. Evolution in the sense that animals adapt to their environment does hold water, but this change is not tiny changes over time. It's a cat growing thicker due to combat the cold. A bird nesting on the ground because that's the safest place to incubate their eggs. A bacterial infection resisting medicine because that's how it survives. Adaption is real. Macro evolution is science fiction

 

[thunderduck17]

You can believe in both the concept of evolution and Christianity. They don't have to be independent from one another. It is pretty tough to deny evolution in any form over the course of history.

 

[benholt06]

And there is no proof or evidence that any of this has ever happened. Again, it’s fantasy and wishful thinking.

Well I suppose to prove it you'd have to sit for a hundred million years or so and observe it, but the evidence is everywhere in nature. You just choose to ignore it.


Why do we have an appendix? A useless blob that only bursts and causes problems? Part of God's perfect design and we're just slow on the uptake? Don't know how to use it properly?

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Well I suppose to prove it you'd have to sit for a hundred million years or so and observe it, but the evidence is everywhere in nature. You just choose to ignore it.


Why do we have an appendix? A useless blob that only bursts and causes problems? Part of God's perfect design and we're just slow on the uptake? Don't know how to use it properly?

Listen Ben, it wouldn’t be hard to stump me on evolution. I’m not a scientist. But if the best you have is natural selection and then a giant leap to new legs and lungs, that’s just ridiculous and impossible. Time is not a creative force. Natural selection is not birds to dinosaurs evolution. It’s short haired to long haired dogs. But still dogs. They don’t become a different species.

 

[benholt06]

Listen Ben, it wouldn’t be hard to stump me on evolution. I’m not a scientist. But if the best you have is natural selection and then a giant leap to new legs and lungs, that’s just ridiculous and impossible. Time is not a creative force. Natural selection is not birds to dinosaurs evolution. It’s short haired to long haired dogs. But still dogs. They don’t become a different species.[/QUOTE

Well you'll never accept it because of your religion, and that's ok. but what I'm trying to tell you is there are no giant leaps involved. It's small change after small change after small change.

And it's thought that Dinosaurs became birds, not the other way around.

What you're putting out there is tried and true way of Christians kind of acknowledging that the microprocesses that compile over time to result in macroevolution exist, but that macroevolution itself doesn't. It doesn't work scientifically. Rish should know that, but he's a Christian first, and a science teacher second.

 

[bignewt]

And there is no proof or evidence that any of this has ever happened. Again, it’s fantasy and wishful thinking.

I do think though buddy that if there were dinosaurs living amongst the old testament dwellers there would have been more recorded proof than a few obscure biblical references.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

I do think though buddy that if there were dinosaurs living amongst the old testament dwellers than would have been more recorded proof than a few obscure biblical references.

I don’t know. There’s very few references of tigers, bears, dogs, or any other animals either. If dinosaurs lived then they were just normal to them. Most of the dinosaurs we see in the fossil record would have died in the flood tho according to a biblical worldview. However, I think the dna that has been found in some dinosaur fossils including soft tissue would be evidence that those dinosaurs are not as old as secular scientists would have us believe.

 

[SCvol333]

WOW

 

[SCvol333]

Not sure where to start. But you don’t come close to needing Darwin to disprove the idea of God in the Christian sense. Physics does a plenty good job of that

 

[Devo182]

this. people in general are not to be trusted. and while i respect Bass's position and belieft structure, the one thing i've never been able to reconcile is, while i believe in God and Jesus Christ, everything we know about it has come from the writings or speaches of men.

and it's been interpreted over thousands of years by other men. and taught by other men. the reason we have so many denominations of the christian faith is because of man's interpreations of 'the word' and the differences men wound up having with the prevailing christian wisdom of the time.....sometimes it was for good reason, sometimes not, and yet for some, it just isn't what suited them. and all of them believe their interpretation is correct.

and they'll all tell you that it's not an interpretation, but the word of God, and it's infaliable. then there's all the other religions of the world, who the most devout believe similarly about their belief structures. and they believe that the other religions got it wrong.

so i always come back to either everyone's right, or everyone's wrong, and Bass's pancake batter analogy aside, i doubt seriously the subjects of those comparisons would agree with the analogy that was made. cause in the eyes of those most devout, most rigid in their belief structure, there's definitley no room for the other guy being right, in any way shape or form. so, we move to everyone's wrong. i mean you have radical muslims that believe so devoutly in what they've been taught, they'll strap a bomb to their chest to make their point. had the christian crusades. you had nazis....

which is why there's been more war and corruption in the name of religion than anything else in our world's history. it's why it's used as a devisive tool in politics today in our country.

it's a tool used to divide people. and you can see it being played out here in this thread. it's really sad, when in general, the whole point is simply to be good to one another, be charitable, and treat people like you'd expect to be treated.

the rest...........well, how much do you trust "people" to get this big a thing right??? really?

all that said, religion can be good, if sought out for the right reason.

Damn good opinion.

 

[benholt06]

Not sure where to start. But you don’t come close to needing Darwin to disprove the idea of God in the Christian sense. Physics does a plenty good job of that

He takes scripture 100% literally. I have to work this Sunday. Should I be put to death?

 

[Devo182]

Yes, it is 100% infallible truth, that Christ taught that He is the only way to God and that nobody would see the Father except through Him. That is 100% truth. Nobody has shown where that is wrong today and nobody will be able to.

Can't even prove such a real man existed. Even if he did, x man saying y is truth does not make it so.

I'm sure other religions say you must follow this or that person. None of it makes it so. You just have to have your faith, no?

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Can't even prove such a real man existed. Even if he did, x man saying y is truth does not make it so.

I'm sure other religions say you must follow this or that person. None of it makes it so. You just have to have your faith, no?

I said it is 100% true that He taught that. That was denied by others earlier.

But you are left with the choice to believe it or not. But what He taught is clear.