let not forget who Christmas is about

[codybear]

I recieved this in my mail today and thought I would share http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif it with ya'll

WHY JESUS IS BETTER THAN SANTA CLAUS http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Santa lives at the North Pole...
JESUS is everywhere.

Santa rides in a sleigh...
JESUS rides on the wind and walks on the water.

Santa comes but once a year...
JESUS is an ever present help.

Santa fills your stockings with goodies...
JESUS supplies all your needs.

Santa comes down your chimney uninvited...
JESUS stands at your door and knocks, and then enters your heart
when invited.

You have to wait in line to see Santa...
JESUS is as close as the mention of His name.

Santa lets you sit on his lap...
JESUS lets you rest in His arms.

Santa doesn't know your name, all he can say is "Hi little boy or
girl, what's your name?"...
JESUS knew our name before we did. Not only does
He know our name, He knows our address too. He knows our history and
future and He even knows how many hairs are on our heads.

Santa has a belly like a bowl full of jelly...
JESUS has a heart full of love.

All Santa can offer is HO HO HO...
JESUS offers health, help and hope.

Santa says "You better not cry"...
JESUS says "Cast all your cares on me for I care for you."

Santa's little helpers make toys ...
JESUS makes new life, mends wounded hearts, repairs broken
homes and builds mansions.

Santa may make you chuckle but...
JESUS gives you joy that is your strength.

While Santa puts gifts under your tree...
JESUS became our gift and died on a tree.

It's obvious there is really no comparison. We need to remember WHO
Christmas is all about. We need to put Christ back in CHRISTmas,
Jesus is still the reason for the season. Yes, Jesus is better, He is far
better than Santa Claus. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Merry CHRISTmas!!!


[This message has been edited by codybear (edited 12-16-1999).]

[AQR8]

codybear - right on target!

And everyone said "AMEN" Merry CHRISTmas to you all. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[U-96]

Santa Claus = St Nicholas

He's a Saint (Turkish, 12th cent, I believe), and naturally comes further down the pecking order than the Son of God.

His feast day is actually 6th December, which in Germany and many other European countries is the day for giving presents.

Don't knock St Nick, he's not the invention of cynical commercialism....

U-96

[welsh wizard]

Well said U-96, plus we should remember that CHRISTmas day was not the real birth of CHRIST but just a day, to hijack from the Pagens their winter Sol cel. I believe some where about May is the right time of his birth, all the world has done is turn any cel into an excuse for a selling spree.
I also agree we should use this time to think of less fortunate than ourselves, and possibly find way next year to helping find a solution. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
WW

[Bob-NB]

It's always important to "remember the reason for the season!"

[Apostle 83]

Are dates that important? Come on! You know they're not! We celebrate the millenium a year early. Christianity does very few things in unity due to denominational barriers, but have all agreed to celebrate this wonderful day on December 25!
I won't preach at you (because you need to be blessed, not preached at), so I'll just say this, "May God bless you and your family this holiday, in the name of the one whom it is celebrated in honor of!"
There, that wasn't so bad? 'Suppose we hafta have one nut in the bunch, eh?

[Donkey]

All seems rosey in your worlds but you seem to be forgetting that jesus christ and god are all just figments of someones imagination and they don't really exist.
I don't celebrate anything about them at christmas but instead just enjoy the time off work and getting and giving of presents.
in this technological age is there any reason why obviously intelligent people should still be relying on ancient gods from a by gone era!!

[Apostle 83]

Hmmm... you probably believe in evolution too. Hard to see how 9anybody could believe in that. There is, mathematically, greater chance that a tornado would put together a house when all the raw materials are about than that something such as a toe could be formed randomly.
Donkey, God has never cared whether people believed in Him, hated Him, or loved Him. He has always pursued people to the ends of the earth, and no matter what you do, he is after you, trying to make covenant with you.
There, thats all I'm gonna say.

[AQR8]

Me thinks you do have a god after all...HI TECH

[pickel]

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.Ole
Will said alot more with that statement than meets the eye. God , the Creator, by any other name is still the one and only supreme being. I believe that. However, he shows his visage to all people in many shapes and forms. Jesus, Mohamed, Ala,Buhda are all one in the same. God gave us free will and choice
The important thing is to live your live with respect for your fellow man and the wonderful creatures he created. I believe in the natural odrer of things as proven by all the technolocical devices that we have created thru his wisdom. He planted the seed and we
Evolved naturally. That was his intention.
Like" Let me start this reaction and see what happens" That's where free will comes in . We are the result of our OWN choices and God is the silent moderator ,always there in the background. Christmas is just one of many celebrations of his coming. And this is good.
This way all poeple can participate in the
commeration of his arrival and share the same feelings that those of the Christian
beliefs do at this time of year. Christmas is about giving. God the Father gave his only
begotten son for us and we should give the respect of other to have their beliefs. We're all in this together, and you can't stop the world and get off. Let me wish that
the peace we have here can be shared by the
all the war torn countries and where strife
and hunger seem to rule their every waking hour.

I want to extend my wishes for all on this board and anyone that chooses to read these messages, a happy ,secure and safe Christmas time. And may we all give something to ourselves, the gift of tolerance and patience
so we will be able to cope with those who are
not that way.

Merry Christmas,
the pickel

[Apostle 83]

Pickel,
I believe in the right of people to choose. God intended people to have free will, for without it, there could be no submission. But there are major differences in these reiligions. Christianity teaches that man is seperated from God, and that only his admission of his unrighteousness and the acceptance of Jesus as his saviour will bring salvation. So Christianity embraces the unrighteous.
All other religions state that man must be righteous in order to either advance to a higher form of life, or to enter their heaven. So if you are dirty, and want to change, you are on your own.

If you want to believe in a religion other than mine, that is fine. I really do not like religion; it was the first sin in the garden of eden. I have a relationship, that is what I need. Some of you are empty. This is not the form to discuss this. If you would like to talk, then do so email me. I'm apostle83@hotmail.com
God bless, Merry Christmas!

[This message has been edited by Apostle 83 (edited 12-17-1999).]

[Donkey]

I agree with apostle on one point. It isn't that i have been amazingly transformed into a believer or anything. But , that this bulletin board is not the place to bring up this type of topic. There are obviously a lot of you out there how feel it necessary to believe in god and the like and i suppose all you i can do is pity you. But i think it would be better for all concerned if issues like these were not raised and instead we concentrated on discussing things that we all believe in and enjoy, i.e. computing.
Discussions like this can easily change your views of people and this then would be a shame if the advice from these people later effected by this.
Everyone has a right to believe what they want. People like myself have as much right to post discussions opposing your views. But this isn't the place to raise these things. The world would be a better place without religion and politics in my view and i am sure that this board would be too.
Let's just talk about the computers!
Donkey

[Apostle 83]

Donkey,
I try not to talk of certain things mainly because I respect the administration of this board. I could care less what people think of me- I just respect other peoples property, i.e. earthwebs intellectual property, that being sysopt.com
Have no pity on me my friend, for while you look for the meaning of life in carnality and the things of this world, I have found it!

[Donkey]

you have found carnality! i wasn't even looking! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[flagreen]

Hey Donkey'
Religion has given millions aid and comfort in their lives. Many wars have been started and missery spread through religon as well. But I believe that is Man's doing not God's. I sense hostility in your posts towards the religous. If so Why? Keep in mind that many of the gratest minds who have lived believed in God. Folks who were a whole lot smarter and wiser than me or you (no offense intented). I'm not trying to convince you because it doesn't matter to me wether you believe or not. I'm just curious as to why you care about this topic at all.

[Todd Beck]

Thank God for Charles Darwin.

[seti]

To reply, or not to reply? haha

I think it funny people feel smarter and enlightend for not beliveing in something greater than themselves. Though I really hate it when people feel superiour when they do. That has nothing to do with post in this thread. Ha, the scientist holding up imposible odds and illogic agaist the stuborn christian soldier, unbending and litteral. Darwin vs. God.... boy I bet Don King wishes he could get his paws in this one. Yet I find perfect peace in melding them together. If God is the creator...he's a scientist. Science....a means to an end.

To hit Submit Reply, or not to hit Submit Reply?

[Apostle 83]

It says something about the character of Darwin- He was indeed searching for the truth. To this day, their are more cons for theory of evolution than pros. People are fearfully and wonderfully MADE!

[Bob-NB]

Donkey said:

I agree with apostle on one point. It isn't that i have been amazingly transformed into a believer or anything. But , that this bulletin board is not the place to bring up this type of topic.

This may not be the proper forum for a heavy discussion on this topic, but this place is Reader Rant / Religion Topic Area (http://www.dailyrant.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true)

Please feel free to head on over there and express all your deepest opinions...

BTW, regardless of what opinions are stated, that won't change a bit the fact of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for everyone.

Whether you choose to accept this free gift or not, God does leave the choice to you.

[Bob-NB]

Also, BTW, if you head over to that forum, you can see the comments that were posted to the thread that was started by this same Jesus vs Santa Claus posting.

Some are, in fact rather interesting. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[codybear]

Once upon a time there was a real man who traveled the world and gave away presents to
deserving children everywhere he went. You will find him in many lands with different names, but
what he had in his heart was the same in every language. In America we call him Santa Claus. He is
the spirit of unconditional love and the desire to share that love by giving presents from the heart.
When you get to a certain age, you come to realize that the real Santa Claus is not the guy who comes
down your chimney on Christmas Eve. The real life and spirit of this magical elf lives forever in your
heart, my heart,your Mom's heart and in the hearts and minds of all people who believe in the joy that
giving to others brings. The real spirit of Santa becomes what you can give rather than what you get.
Once you understand this and it becomes a part of you, Christmas becomes even more exciting and
more magical because you come to realize the magic comes from you when Santa lives in your heart.

[pickel]

If man hadn't created these wonderful machines, we wouldn't even be here discussing these topics. If Scott hadn't created the Sysopt's BBB, we would all be in our own little worlds without the opportunity to carry on these conversations. Within reason and certain bounderies, correct me if I'm wrong,because we have the bond of computers,
because we share the same goals, sometimes attained , and sometimes failed. I believe
we are intelligent enough to discuss ANY topic and become more of a whole so that even though you may not agree and think the other person is dead wrong, we can respect eachother's views and have faith in opinions
that are put forth here. That what BROTHERHOOD is all about.

the pickel

[codybear]

VERY well said pickel http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[CMonster]

Codybear, thanks for posting that! - I got it, I get it, I love and worship the glorious light that is the center of all the universe -

May the Lord also continue to bless you throughout the year as much he has blessed me and measure more.

George J. Posten

PS. I know that all that we are and all that we have was made from mind,the tools, and materials that were given to us. Even my thoughts are pieced together from all that I have learned - so I ought not to think too highly of myself.

[Swarozyc]

I don't understand, how can you guys not believe in evolution. Evolution is simply change in allele frequency over time. The favorable trait will prevail over the unfavorable one. That doesn't exclude God from the scene. It might have been that God created us using evolution, but evolution is a fact that you can't deny. It's one of the most important theories in the life science field, in fact someone once said that "nothing in biology would make sense w/o evolution"

[AQR8]

I'm not into the sciences but I seem to recall a universal law of entropy (spelling)? No time to look it up now - the jist of it is that everything left alone and not tampered with in the universe, will evolve to a state of "disorder and chaos". This is science based and totally oposed to the notion of even a remote possibility of evolving to a higher order.

[Zotzmein]

I’m posting so that you may bear witness to my affirmation of love for Jesus Christ and our great and wondrous creator God.

God Bless,

Zotz Mein

[Zacko10000]

I find this discussion very fascinating. As a teenager who looks at the universe with uncertianty, I am still trying to sort out truth from nonsense. This is the sort of thing that intreges me, as most of my high school peers seem more concerned about their next date than about matters of religion and philosophy.

Thank you for your opinions,
Zach

[Joel Kleppinger]

I think I speak for all of us at SysOpt when I say that this is a perfectly acceptable place to discuss this - after all, this is the General discussion forum. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif Of course, what I say below is my own personal thoughts and opinions. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Consider with me - what we do on a daily basis is analyze the how and what. However, it is rare that we ever take a step back and analyze the why. Why do we do what we do? I think that's what Zack was referring to - trying to figure out why we are the way we are and why we do the things we do... that's the subject of philosophy and religion.

And the second law of thermodynamics is also known as the Law of Entropy - whenever there is a random act in the universe, it will always head toward disorder. Mutations don't improve, but rather hinder. Sure, adaptability is a fact of science, but that in no way can account for species "mutating" to become a totally different species, even with an infinite time interval.

Yes, I do believe that every life has purpose, and I encourage people to seek to find that purpose. We haven't evolved from slime (take a bit of time to ponder the magnificence of something so simple as your body and the minute detail - we would violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics to go upward like that), so it does seem that there has been a Creator. Why would He create us?

So for whatever reason you celebrate Christmas, at least take time to slow down and ponder the wonders of the universe.

[Swarozyc]

Entropy doesn't have (to my knowledge) much to do with evolution. It deals with interaction b/w molecules/compounds on the molecular level. From what I recall it states that atoms will maximize the distance b/w each other, that's why you could drink your tea sweatend (i'm sure phisicists/chemists here could explain this better). The phenomen of life is that our bodies are able to organize chaos into order. Our bodies still use to law of entropy for procesess such as diffusion. On the largel level, our genetic make up is what determines that you are human, dog or a bird. Our genetic make up is 99.9% the same as the one of chimpanzies, which indicates that we are closely related to this specie. Our specie didn't just pup out of nowhere, it evoleved from other animals. I'm not saying that we are monkeys; no, we are great apes.

Sorry for the spelling and gramma, but I'm in a hurry!
Cheers

[AQR8]

In the end, Darwin abondoned his very own theory...isn't that interesting.

[CMonster]

I do not think random chance and enviromental factors on a billion planets in 4.5 billion years have even a remote chance at forming a simple copy of your car key - Could I step off my space ship and collect a spare key for that hotrod back home? And how about a simple 80286 CPU - do you think that we can find one of those laying around on some distant of a trillion planets, given a few billion years, I could find one of those formed by random chance? After all, a 286 is only about 1,000,000,000 less complicated than an amoebia.

Yet even the "simple" protien is incredibly complex - and what is the likelyhood of a DNA strand forming out of inert mineral salts and water? Frankly I am surprized that anyone can believe IN evolution.

Though the theory of evolution postulates change as a mechanism, changes are not necessarily evolution. Breeding dogs for example does not mean that the new breeds are evolved, they are still dogs. And I do not believe it is correct to say that our genetic markers are even close to 99.9% that of a Chimp -ha! what rumor mill generated that number?


The fact that we share genetic markers in common with even the lowly snail only proves that there are a limited number of aminio acids. Sharing traits in common may also point to a common designer. Many programs share the same binary numbers but they are vastly different by design. But in a good program, if you make a tiny change here and there, change the syntax, rearange the sequence, etc, you end up with a dead amimal.

[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 12-18-1999).]

[XT]

Even tho this is a touchy subject, I thought I would add my 2 cents.

Whether you believe in God or not, I dont think Its really the point. Christmas is a time for people to come together, to share their love. For families to get time off to be together, lovers to be with one another, a time to reflect on the year as it is almost over, and plan to make coming year the best it can be. Personally, whether you believe in god or religion in general, I find it moving that a man loved people so much that he would suffer horribly upon a wooden cross to eventually die for us. There have been times when I thought I was alone, but I know in my heart I am not. I personally asm catholic, tho I do not practice that religion due to the fact that i do not agree with its policies, tho there are many good people involved with it. Nevertheless, I believe in god, because he represents peace and love.. And in these violent times, everbody needs to find peace, in their lives and in their hearts. Merry Christmas Everybody

My 2 cents

[Donkey]

That's the problem with living in th UK by the time i log on there are too many new posts to read. Good to see that so many new people have joined in our discussion in my absents. What isn't good is that you all seem to share the same view. This in itself does not prove anything. I see that most people are from the US and over there it seems people are much more ready to just accept the bible and religion where as here in the UK i would say that the church is failing dismally and i think a lot of different views would have been expressed if there was a larger percentage of UK posts.
As for the way the argument has moved onto evolution i don't really see how you can comment as so many places in the US especially the deep south refuse to teach it and point blank refuse to even listen to the arguments. In my view the chances of evolution happening far outway there being some almighty over lord who just snapped his fingers. And if it was god why did he creat us so late on in the worlds history. It certainly wasn't the seventh day as dinosaurs were around for millions of years previously. Or don't you believe in them?
There also was the experiment which took ingredients that would have been present in the primordial soup and applied an electric shock to it (simulating a lightning strike) and lo and behold basic amino acids (the building blocks for all life) were created. So arguments from those who thought it incredible that complex chemical sructures can just happen are unfounded. Nature is a wondeful thing and it is the struggle of living beings to survive that has forged evolution and changes in species and made us what we are today. Intelligent Apes and nothing else!
There are also alot of you helping as part of the seti@home project. Do these aliens believe in the same god. I do believe in there being aliens ou there. There are so many other worlds and possible places where life can exist it would be arrogant to believe we are alone. but they would only be there for the same reasons that we are here and that is because their world just happens to be able to support life, not because of some devine intervention.
That is the end of this rant. Sorry it is so long but i had so much to couter.
Donkey

[Swarozyc]

CMonster,
I don't really understand what you mean by forming a car key by environmental factors. Metallurgy and mechanic are men-created processes used as a substitution for far more superior and complex solutions encountered in nature. Example: brain vs computer In order for the "key creation" to take place factors that favor this process would have to occur in the environment, but they are not present. Instead, factors that favor life (i.e. cells) formation are.
I'm not sure if you heard about a famous experiment conducted in Chicago University when scientists formed actual proteins (in environment that was not intentionally favorable for their formation) form a mixture of water, carbon nitrogen and other molecules using electric discharge (similar to lighting that are commonly present in earth's atmosphere) as the initiator.
There WAS a chance for these proteins, floating around in water, to come together and form a simple structure (say a part of a future procaryotic DNA) which then picked up another protein that in a future was a part of this organism etc. Nucleotides are not as complex structures as you try to present them to be--each nucleotide is comprised of a phosphorylated deoxyribose covalently linked to a nitrogen-containing base: either a cytosine, thymine, guanine or adenine. Given that these AAs were present in the environment (maybe the four AAs were chosen by a chance and one or all could have been substituted by different AAs) there was a chance that they could come into contact! I know that mechanisms governing DNA replication, transcription, translation, repair, mRNA processing etc. are very complex and require a far better theory than the one above, but we weren't there when it all happened and therefore all we can do is speculate and experiment. Talking about God is pointless. No one have any proves that he(?) exists nor have we proves that he(?) doesn't exist which makes this a neverending argument, because it doesn't lead anywhere. This is a matter of faith--either you have it or you don't.
Coming back to evolution--similarity b/w ours and Chimps' DNA are not generated by rumor mills but taken from Weather's "Histology" and Passingham's "The Human Primate." The major difference (physically) is the brain size–for our is 3xbigger than expected for a primate of our size.
Evolution is not always interconnected with an emergence of a new specie (it's a change of allele frequency within a specie), rather it is accumulation new traits (ones that ensure optimal reproductive success) within a specie that with time might finally lead to an emergence of a new one (specie). This is probable since sometimes (very rarely) mutation could lead to an emergence of new trait, one that is favored by the females of the specie over the one that's the most common; the animal that carries the new trait will have higher reproductive success than the one that don't and with time this new trait will spread within the population of the specie but might not reach a different population of the same specie separated (ex: ocean) from the one with the new trait. Therefore, the new trait will only be present within one population of the specie but not the other, and if more new traits will be introduced within the population, interbreeding b/w these two populations may not be possible anymore--and so new specie emerges. What we do with dogs is a "domesticated" form of evolution and we pick the traits that we want (changing the allele frequency), but don't introduce any new ones, therefore we can't 'form' a new specie.
This also proves that racism within the human population is BS, because differences in skin color, eye shape etc. are just traits that are preferred in a given environment (example: skin color as protection form skin cancer, rickets etc.); we all could interbreed and that make us all human.
enough, enough!!!
I apologize for the length and grammar (not a native English speaker)
_peace_
************EDIT**********
SORRY FOR THE REPEATS FROM DONKEY'S POST; I MUST HAVE POSTED RIGHT AFTER HIM

[This message has been edited by Swarozyc (edited 12-18-1999).]

[Donkey]

Swarozyc you may have repeated but you said it a lot better than i did. Good to know there are a few others out there with my views.
Well i'll have to see what has evolved tomorrow as i'm off and won't be back till then. Cheerio! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
Donkey


[This message has been edited by Donkey (edited 12-18-1999).]

[codybear]

something to keep in mind is the indisputable 'fact' that the Bible has never been proved to be wrong or inaccurate...science has tried since it was written to disprove it and has in fact in its efforts to do so proven it to be right and accurate. case in point...in the early 60's NASA was working on the theory that the windows of opportunity the launch a vehicle into space were precise from a timeframe point of view and programed thier 'supercomputer' to go back through time and develop a timetable for future launches..something we use today throughuot the world..when the information was compiled the NASA scientists were puzzled by the results as it appeared that time had dissapeared or stopped twice in history and had no answers for this and thought it to be faulty programming in the computer and so repeated the process again with the same results...it was one of the employees of NASA that pointed out that God had stopped time twice according to the bible. Upon further investigation the scientists did indeed discover that the time frame found from thier 'supercomputer' when time appeared to stop did match the common acceptance of the time when God stopped time according to the Bible. food for thought for all of those who may still wonder or have not thought much about this subject.

so now back to my post.......It was intended to make ya'll think that while Christmas may have become a commercial greedy got to have and give more and get all I can attitude...Santa has his place in this and as my previous post in this thread pointed out it is in the heart..Jesus also has his place so for those that believe..God bless you and I want to wish you inner peace and prosperity for the comming new year...for those that do not believe..that is your choice and we as humans are given that power of choice to choose as no other species on earth are....by whom have we been given that power to choose???????



[This message has been edited by codybear (edited 12-18-1999).]

[Swarozyc]

codybear,

Don't speak for other species, because you don't know what they think :~)

and the answer is: your expended brain!

[This message has been edited by Swarozyc (edited 12-18-1999).]

[codybear]

No I dont but science through thier experiements have shown that we are the only ones to have absolute power to choose any and all aspects of our lives short of our gentic makeup...I do not want to argue with anyone but the more anyone tries to disprove the word of our creator the more foolish they will look and become..facts are facts and you cannot argue that....

Merry Christmas to those that believe and to those that do not.....to all...peace...

[codybear]

.

[This message has been edited by codybear (edited 12-18-1999).]

[pickel]

CodyBear and All:
I don't think we should draw a line between those who believe and those who don't.....
We all believe... just different approaches
to our beliefs. The most important thing is ,
as I have said, is to have respect for someone else's opinion whether ,in your own opinion, it's right,wrong ,agree, disagree.
We are all unique and the same. Christmas comes to everyone in some shape and form.
It's the spirit of the season that affects everybody, regardless of their religiuos
presuasions. The time to come together ,like we have done here. I'm proud to be apart of this great meeting of the minds. A year ago ,I would never have conceived that this type
interactions were possible, yet look at us now!!! I think we should give thanks, if not to a supreme being, but to ourselves, for being able to conduct ourselves in such a noble fashion as we have done here. I wish all people of all nations could see this post, I feel it would be the start to the path of peace and understanding for us all.
I want to personslly thank Joel for his wisdom and understanding. Regardlees of age or gender, I feel that we all conduct ourselves in a manner that makes the admin proud they developed this medium.
Again, Let me extend warmest regards for a
Very Merry Christmas and an uneventful Y2K.

Your Bro,
pickel

[Chainsaw]

In whatever manner we got the brain that we have, is it not a most wondrous thing that we can use it to weigh it's very existence? May we all find ways to better ourselves and the world in which we live, in order to harbor, for our children and theirs, a better place.
Peace to all,
Chainsaw

[Apostle 83]

Codybear,
The interesting thing is that the bible has been proven! 98% of the old testament is backed up by archeaological finds... the new testament, though mostly teaching on understanding what it means to be a christian, does in the first five books mention many names and places. All of the apostles had their deaths recorded by the roman government. Jesus' prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem came true in a.d. 70. The bibles prophecies about the Jews being brought back together are being fulfilled- the Jewish state has been here for 50 years, and more are coming 'back' every day.
Donkey, you have to see the European union as the restored roman empire that will rule under the antichrist... study, don't blaspheme. I am more than willing to talk to you.
Drop me a mail! (apostle83@hotmail.com)

God bless all!

p.s. I'm off for the holidays!!!!!!!!! wooohooooo!

[codybear]

Apostle, That was my intent when I said that the Bible had not been proven wrong...interesting seeing that the Bible has been around so long and is the #1 selling book of all time and it tells stories that are fact and those stories are the focus of so many whether it be to disprove them or to cherish them...


Jesus is the reason for the season and that is not something anyone can dispute, if he were not born, whether it be today or 6 months from now we would not be having this discusion nor would we be having Christmas in one week...

with that said I am going shopping and will once more wish ya'll Happy Holidays http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[jeana]

Kiddos,

No hardware general forum is complete without its very own creationist/evolution debate! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/biggrin.gif
It is simply AMAZING that Sysopt has gone so long without one!

Happening to be a student of statistics, evolutionary biology, AND a practicing Christian, I find that the opinion that the two are mutually incompatible is often the product of misunderstanding, ignorance, and/or narrow thinking. There's nothing wrong with ignorance: who has the time to memorize the Bible or digest the thousands of articles produced every week by biologists, geologists, biochemists, etc.? Not me!

Here's _my_ ignorant opinion:
*********************************
The biggest (and perhaps most important) lesson that science has taught me is this:
You can't prove anything beyond a doubt.
Since humans are only equipped with proof by induction or contradiction, there's always the chance that the processes (physical laws, what not) that we see in action today were not in action in the past or will not function in the future. That is, just because every time you drop something it falls to the floor, doesn't mean that your glass of orange juice will necessarily head towards the floor next time you knock it off the table.

But a scientist can say that given our knowledge of history, it would still be a good idea to try and catch your glass before it hits the floor, instead of hoping that the law of gravity will be changed just then.

All evolutionary science tries to do is to extend current processes to the past and the future, and to extend local processes to the distance. It tries to explain historical events and to make predictions AS IF EVERYTHING WERE CONSISTENT.

Science can't test one-off events, like the creation of the Universe or the coming into being of humans. However, it can make statements: "if processes like we see always happening now and here, were in action then and there, this is what is likely to have happened".

However, because it is difficult for scientists to speak absolutes, evolutionary scientists will always lose the debate to creationists. "With God, all things are possible"-- including miracles and changes in fundamental rules.

How can a scientist's "maybe" and theories, however well-supported, argue against a creationist's "yes!" and faith?

Creationists will say, "Yeah, but that's only a _theory_." And they will be right.
************************************

For a link to the entire debate from one viewpoint, examine
http://www.talkorigins.org/
It has many links to the other viewpoint (which is not mine), but for starters you can look at
http://www.origins.org/

Note the similar addresses: don't confuse the two!

And whether or not you believe that the Son of God was born 1,998 years ago, whether you believe that a good man with the terrific idea that we should all try to be nice to one another was born about twenty centuries ago, or whether you simply believe that humans need a holiday to look forward to in the middle of a long dark winter:

Merry Christmas!

[jeana]

Thanks pickel!

No snow here yet but still pretty Christmassy here in New England.

"New Haven: as safe as the big city, as dynamic and exciting as a small town"

jeana

[This message has been edited by jeana (edited 12-18-1999).]

[Joel Kleppinger]

You know Donkey, I find it humourous that at one point you lament the fact that so many people agree - except not with you. However, just a few posts later, you noted that you were glad to see someone else agreeing with you. A bit of a double standard, don't you think? http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif (just an interesting sidelight with no bearing on the discussion)

I guess it comes down to this:
Science can only handle what our senses can handle - things that can be heard, smelled, touched, seen, or tasted. Certainly, we have the technology now to surpass our physical limitations, but that technology is, and will probably always be, limited to that tangeable catagory.

However, it cannot be logically denied that there are things that exist beyond our ability to grasp them, for instance, time and other dimensions. The best we can hope to understand them is through our abilities of abstract reasoning.

In reality, science and reasoning can only take someone so far. It will NEVER prove that God does exist, but it will never successfully disprove His existance either. If science could prove God existed, that would destroy any need for faith - the same faith that the God of Bible holds in such high regard.

Evolution requires faith. Creation requires faith.
Athiesm requires faith. A belief in God requires faith.

In the end, it's where you put your faith - in man and this natural world or in man's and this world's limitations and believe that there must be something that doesn't restrict itself to our limitations of the scientific method.

It's still faith.

[U-96]

Science also requires faith.

Few of us could claim to understand ALL the fundaments of science...

We believe Newton's laws for they are written in a BOOK.

We bow before Einstein, for we cannot comprehend HIS genius.

The West followed Christianity for 1500 years because there was no other option. Galileo Galieii was kept under house arrest for 15 years for suggesting that the Earth orbited the Sun. He was extraordinarily lucky not to executed for heresy.

I cannot be critical of the Christian faith in its purest intent - humility, mercy, humanity.

Communism was a great idea too. It's just a pity that human nature had to get involved with such an egalitarian political theory.

If the Amnesty International museum exhibition on torture happens to pass your way, take a look at the Inquisition stuff.

I just like to chose to make my own path rather than have someone decide it for me.

Having said that, I do not deny others of their own beliefs - in many cases science is as hard to prove as the existence of God (of any religion). Many scientists are also devout in their chosen faith without conflict with their research. Even evolutionists. I think I respect them the most for their open minds.

U-96

[grandslammer]

Hi All!

I just want to say Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all of my on line friends. I hope all of you have a very happy holiday season, and remember the blessings we all have, and tend to take for granted.

This is most probably the poorest (monetarily speaking) Christmas my family and I have had in gee, probably since we've been a family. But we are all healthy (so's my gall stone - HA!) and happy to be together. Im very proud of my kids' attitudes because they realize that Christmas isn't just getting a huge pile of gifts that we've been lucky enough to do in the past, but the idea that we are all together, and that we love each other.

I also want to thank each and every one of you who have been nice enough to answer one of my posts, give me instructions, hints, etc. Every one of you who has sent me a joke, funny story or just a hello once in a while. Every one who sent me good wishes when I was sick recently. Very simple things, but they take time and consideration to do and I want you all to know that I appreciate it!

Thank you all, and I hope that all of you have a great Christmas in your own beliefs and faiths.

Mike Prettyman

[medo]

Merry Christmas everybody,

As you can see from my profile I am coming from a country devastated by war. War started because there are three religion groups, and each one claimed it's supremacy and in name of that supremacy their need for more space for more believers or kill those ones who are different. Yes it might sound extreme for your ears but it is reality.
If I am in peace with myself, I do not need to have someone else with a same opinion to prove my own, or go around trying to convert someone else to share my point of view and secure my ego.
In my country Christmas is officially on 25th of December but there is almost million of Orthodox who have their Christmas on 6 of January and that is not state holiday.
What we really need is tolerance and respect for others wives and believes.
Not proclamations - tolerance has to be a state of mind and that is the most difficult task.
So in this world with western Christianity as the most dominant custom, it is really hard to achieve.

[Swarozyc]

That's right, science is not omnibus nor can it be treated this way. The more I learn, the more I see how little we still know. For example Newton laws work fine on the larger scale, but when it comes to quarks they fail altogether. However, science is the best tool we have to try understand mechanism governing our word. Nothing in science (that I know of) exclude God, because it's impossible, but we can't try to explain everything using God or the Bible, otherwise there would be no progress and we'd be stuck in the middle ages forever.

I believe in evolution because (IMHO) it provides the best explanation for the emergence of our specie on this planet; but as I mentioned before, it could have been GOD who guided it, but it didn't have to...

codybear,

I wasn't trying to be nasty or by no means to offend anyone. I was trying to defend my position and answer question that you asked at the end of your post (story ab. NASA.) What I meant was that our brain is bigger than that of any other specie. It wasn't intended to be a sarcasm and I apologize if it seemed that way. My English skills sometimes get me in trouble http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

_peace_

[codybear]

No Swarozyc my friend...the fault lies with me and reading something into nothing...I apologize to you for that....

[chipbgt]

Boy what a Person misses when He is gone for one day http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif I have many things I would like to comment one but there is one thing that stuck out in my mind:

Donkey Wrote:

There also was the experiment which took ingredients that would have been present in the primordial soup and applied an electric shock to it (simulating a lightning strike) and lo and behold basic amino acids (the building blocks for all life) were created. So arguments from those who thought it incredible that complex chemical sructures can just happen are unfounded. Nature is a wondeful thing and it is the struggle of living beings to survive that has forged evolution and changes in species and made us what we are today. Intelligent Apes and nothing else!

While what you said has some basis of fact, let me write an excerpt on a book of mine (It Couldnt Just Happen, By Lawrence Richards, Sweet Publishing)

" IN 1953 a college science student names Stanley Miller decided to conduct an experiment. He designed a system of glass tubes and bottles to reproduce conditions evolutionists thought once existed on the Earth. He put water and gases into his invention. He heated the liquid and used electric sparks instead of ultraviolet rays to jolt the chemicals. His experiement actually produced some of the amino acids and other simple compounds found in living things. The Newspapers reported that Miller had nearly made "life in a test tube."

But while Amino Acids are found in living things, they are only the building blocks. Amino Acids are not themselves living things. Its as if a person found three or four bricks in the back yard, and the newspaper headlines read "local man engineers 50 story skyscraper!!" There's a long way to go from having building blocks to having a completed building.

Miller's experiment did make some of the amino acids in living things. But does this does not mean he showed how living things began. How do we know? First, all the right amino acids are found in dead bodies-but the bodies are still dead. Just having the right amino acids doesnt make something alive.

Second, not all the amino acids needed by living things were formed in Miller's experiment. At least three key amino acids have not been made in the many attempts conducted by scientists since 1953.

Third, many acids HARMFUL to the development of life are formed in experiments like Miller's. Theres experiments produce what one evolutionist scientist calls "hopelessly complex gunks." The chemicals in the "gunks" would have kept life from developing, not helping it to develop.

Finally, the way some of the amino acids were formed in the test tube will destroy other amino acids. Many are destroyed by heat. Others are broken down by oxygen or other acids. Even if the earth had been as many evolutionists believe, the amino acids that might have formed would them quickly be destroyed. Without the protection provided by a living cell, amino acids could never have come together to evolve further."

SO anyway. I thought that was interesting. Some other thoughts:

To say that God uses Jesus, Muhammed, Bhudda or any other "thing" for the common belief is hard to swallow. Jesus Claims to be the song of god while Muhammed said he was just another prophet below himself. These people did not teach the same sort of god. In order for God to be "God," he has to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, as well as perfect and non-contradictory. There can only be one true God, no religion is interchangable with another.

Also, on the actual main topic of this post....I view Santa as a negative force on religion and Christianity specifically. Heres why: we sing songs of how "He see you when your sleeping, he knows when your awake, he knows if youve been bad or good....blah blah blah." In one second hes one our chimney delivery presents from his unlimited rescoures, the next hes on your neighbors roof. All these supernatural qualites we give Santa are only possible in a god-like figure.....which Santa is not. Also, lets say your are bringing up Children to believe in Santa and take them to church as well. You fill them with stories of how santa makes toys for all the good children and at the same time tell them of the Birth of Jesus in a manger....and then comes the day when they learn at the schoolyard that Santa isnt real. They come home and you tell them "Yep, sorry, all that stuff about Santa is fake. But Jesus, now he's real!" How is an impressionable child supposed to be able to tell the difference??? Why do we fill our kids head with these stories of Santa when we know there really is no such thing? If you are trying to set forth any sort of precident of trust with your kids, this is not a smart way to do it.

I have so much more I would love to share but I can only imagine how long this post of mine is right now. please write some replies! And excuse my grammar, Its almost 4 am and i just got home from a wedding http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by chipbgt (edited 12-19-1999).]

[pickel]

jeana: Although I've never stopped there, I remember driving through the valley of the
"City of Lights" ( New Haven) on my way to and from 'Beantown'(Boston). In the winter ,right after a snow, the sights are like a Macy's window display, truly a Christmas
card looking out your windshield. I hope that it hasn't changed. Have a Merry Christmas.I guess, it's the time of the year, many of these posts ,just bring back memories of times gone by, a break before the future catches up with us again. Bon Ani....

the pickel

[medo]

I am a little bit sad with this post above (chipbgt).. To kill Santa just because it happens to collide with a textbook it is a little bit too strong.
What will happen with other fairy-tales and other customs in evolution of religions? In the Sociology (or in one of the streams) it is believed that present religions are only steps in development of universe perceptions. So, we might laughing about some ancient tribe customs, who might say that the future perception of universe can't be different and that our/your perceptions are final and only one.

[chipbgt]

You can be sad all you want. thats fine......If I'm not going to stand up for what I believe in and say it is the only right way to salvation, then theres no point in saying I believe in it....should I say "well, I guess I shouldnt believe in God because some people say he will just be dissproved in about 100 years."..... I guess you mean the Bible when you say "textbook."? But lets get something straight, I can't "kill" santa because there is no santa. I would like to do away with the myth of santa because it takes away from what Christmas is about, the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Every minute we spend telling our kids about Santa is one less minute we could be telling them about Jesus, which, incidentally, makes me sad.

Am I being hostile? no, please don't take it that way. I am just not into the whole "lets be nice and say everyone is right about God" approach. We (whether it be Christians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Buhddists, or Athiest) cannot all be right. if we were all right there would be no point in believing in any of them.

[medo]

All I want to say there is no monopoly on truth and we can believe at this moment with a full heart in something what has meaning to us. We are all products of changing/developments.
I still do not know/and maybe never will what's happening or why. You might be far beyond me because you know truth.
As you might like jazz I might like classic music but that's my choice and I want say my music is better or true music.
Yes I understand meaning of Christmas because I belong to the same civilisation circle but it might happen that my neighbour could be Muslim (or whatever religion) and with do respect I can invite him to share my excitement and be ready to accept his when he has a holiday.

Thank you for your time.

[Todd Beck]

Swarozyc, thank you so much for interjecting some seriously needed sense into this discussion.

[This message has been edited by Todd Beck (edited 02-28-2000).]

[chipbgt]

Medo,
Thanks for writing. Lets look at the basic principles of truth. can you really have two "truths" on the same subject? To have faith in something you have to believe it wholeheartedly. Christians believe that the bible is God-breathed, while Muslims believe it is human inspired and has errors thay were corrected in the Qu-ran. Obviously they cannot both be right http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
Also, I do live in the "Christianized" West but that doesnt mean we have other views here. There is a large muslim community where I went to high school and many good friends are muslim (I'm on my way to play basketball with them now). We both discuss our beliefs and know that we do not match up on certain things (I believe Jesus Died on the cross, Muslims believe someone else was there in his place, probably Judas), and we agree to disagree for the time being, and have agreed that only one of us have a chance at the truth.

And everyone knows classical music is better ;-) j/k

Todd Beck,

I have read in a few publications That Darwin in his later years rejected what he theorized. if you read origin of the species you can see his doubt about fossil records and how there are large gaps between evolutions. But I will try to find the book where I read that at.

Also, I as a christian have nothing against the idea of animals evolving and changing over time. It is obvious that certain animals have changed over time. I believe this is how God set things up....The parts I have problems with is we as humans thinking we can create life in a test tube from nothing or even try to explain where matter itself came from....anyone wanna talk about the big bang theory? http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

As for refferring to God as "he." Point well taken. God is above all earthly labels and is of neither gender, to reduce him to one would be to put him on a lower level than God-hood. But let me squak a little like a parrot and say when the bible refers to God as "he" is uses the capital "He" it's not using it in a masculine form. it is using it in a generic form like it was orignally intended in the greek language (bad example, but we call boats shes but dont really think they are female."

As for the effect of christianity and other religions...we live in a sinful world...God never said life was going to be easy. Nor were christians going to be perfect, I am most certainly not. But trying to keep score won't do any good either. We live in a world led astray and until the return of the Lord, it will continue to be in disarray, thats what grace is for. God knows what God is doing. Check out Jeremiah 29:11.

I dont want to start a flame war here. I don't believe what some of you guys say and you don't believe what I say.Thats fine http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif But We are all humans and should be given basic respect as brothers and sisters. The Lord has blesed me with confidence to take my beliefs to the grave knowing that I will be brought out again. If athiesm is right, we all die and go nowhere. If Christians are right, we spend enternity in the precense of God while non believers will unfortunatly spend it in hell. The amount of time spent on earth is so insignifigant compared to the infinite amount of time spent praising God and as the Bible says "every kneee shall bow and every toungue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

If I am wrong, I will gladly apologize at that time....unfortunatly I will be too busy decomposing into my basic elements
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

Merry christmass "y-all"

[streek84]

Jesus saves.

[Bob-NB]

What is creationism trying to say?

Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").

No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.

Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.

The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).

The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!

If you would really like to take a look at the issues of creation science, feel free to research it here:
Creation Science (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm)



[This message has been edited by Bob-NB (edited 12-19-1999).]

[Bob-NB]

Do You Believe that Evolution is True?

If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.

Something from nothing?

The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

Physical laws an accident?

We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?

Order from disorder?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?

ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

Information from Randomness?

Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.

Life from dead chemicals?

Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

Complex DNA and RNA by chance?

The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

Life is complex.

We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.

Where are the transitional fossils?

If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?

ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!

Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.

Could an intermediate even survive?

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?

ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

Reproduction without reproduction?

A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

Plants without photosynthesis?

The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

How do you explain symbiotic relationships?

There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?

It's no good unless it's complete.

We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

Explain metamorphosis!

How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?

It should be easy to show evolution.

If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?

ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

Complex things require intelligent design folks!

People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?




[This message has been edited by Bob-NB (edited 12-19-1999).]

[Power-B]

Well I will say just this:

How many war's have been fought over old
Saint Nick? this question is for wiser
people then us, Just treat people well
and the rest will take care of it self

Happy Holidays everyone :-)

[Joel Kleppinger]

Jeana, I've got only one question - what physical evidence? If there were real "intermediary" fossil evidence of species evolving from one to another, we wouldn't be having this debate. As it is, people are still trying to find the "missing links" to make it work.

[medo]

From a very first day when mankind starts to be aware of themself and the universe - questions are raised. Who we are and why we are?

For all of you who know the answer and for all of you who still looking for the answer I wish Merry, Merry Christmas or Sretan Bozic

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[jeana]

I'd never have enough time in the world to reply to all these messages, but two clarifications:

(1) Todd Beck, a major point of my message is that science is a way of thought that questions. Things cannot be proven without doubt except in mathematics, which is not a science.(math is more akin to art in that it is a human-made construct: in general it tries to develop self-consistent patterns... science on the other hand is an attempt to further knowledge about the natural world.)

That something is called a "theory" does not mean that is poorly supported or false. It may just mean that we are being honest as we can... on the best basis of our senses and experiences, evolution _could_ have occurred by natural selection and organic life could have arisen spontaneously from nonlife.

The "law" of gravity is only a theory. But as far as we know, it's a **** good theory that WORKS.

The Alabama and Kansas Boards of Education play upon this misunderstanding that "theories" are unreliable... that evolution had to have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be taught in school. Evolution is at the moment less well supported than gravity, but it too "works"...

As an aside, I may add that many good things as well as bad have come out of Christianity as well as other major world religions, Communism, etc. People are very capable of being cruel and vicious to one another, and the fact that a religion doesn't work 100% or even 50% of the time to prevent evil doesn't mean that it should be thrown out altogether.

(2)Joel, CMonster, chipbgt, and everyone else...
please check out the links I posted above if you are interested in the arguments for and against the coming to being of life on Earth.
Both sides of the arguments are extensively discussed in those websites.

Spontaneous life and evolution do NOT violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, any more than you do when you type a novel on your keyboard using energy you got from eating a hamburger! Over the entire universe, yes entropy is increasing: the stars are running down... chemical reactions are releasing energy... and we are using this energy to create little pockets of higher order!

The Miller experiment is not the ONLY experiment ever done in the past fifty years on the subject, y'know. It is true that the origin of life from nonorganic matter may have been a very unlikely event, like throwing simultaneous sixes with 5,000 dice. Miller's experiment was of course insufficient to prove spontaneous life. His experiment was like throwing a few dice and showing that it's possible at all to get sixes... like showing that dice have at least six sides. However, given the immense amounts of time in the past history, spontaneous life COULD occur...just like if you threw the 5000 dice every second for billions of years, at some point you WOULD turn up 5,000 sixes.

What I should have said is that my overall feeling about this debate is that people who try to use rational argument to defeat evolution are wasting their time. Given all the physical evidence we have, Evolution IS the best current theory. However, a faith that God is all-powerful and could have created everything instantly as it is, cannot and should not be countered with logic. Scientists ought never be sure of anything: they cannot win against those who have absolute certainty.

That God wanted to create a self-inconsistent Universe, to create fossil data to test us, etc., is not part of my personal faith, but if others wish to believe so I cannot argue with them.

Pitting science and religion against each other is fun but ultimately pointless, I feel. I know that God could change everything in less than an instant, but I prefer to live my physical life without expecting too many miracles. The fact that I believe we evolved from ape-like primates does not make me feel that I don't have to listen to lessons of love or tolerance.

'Nuff said from me on this subject. Hope I didn't offend anyone in this message, and hope that I helped a few people to reconcile their feelings about science and religion. Happy Holidays, everyone, again!

[AQR8]

I have chosen to believe in God, to me it is clear and obvious. I am thankful that Jesus came to pay the price for my sins. I am also thankful for all of you out there. I respect your views and beliefs. I'd like to extend my thanks to each of you for the willingness to share your views on this thread and your knowledge and experience on comp issues. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all http://www.sysopt.com/forum/biggrin.gif

[daveleau]

Codybear- thanks for those very true words.
Merry Christmas to everyone else.
dave

[This message has been edited by daveleau (edited 12-20-1999).]

[daveleau]

AQR8- That was very well said too. As for the gentleman above on evolution (which I don't know how evolution got into this) I agree with the holes you have found in the theory but must say that I do believe in evolution. Not conventional evolution but evolution directed by God. If God created the earth in 6 days, how many of our manmade centuries were in his 6 days? There is no correlation in the Bible except that it says somewhere that a million yrs is a blink of the eye to the Lord. That means his days are very long. And thus, evolutionary processes and Creationism (faith) can be held in the same theory with much more sense than evol. by itself.
Dave

[jeana]

There are so many posts on the Web on this subject, and many uninformed opinions, but I felt that SysOpt members deserve to have a good look at both sides.
Everybody, I’m sorry for the giant post. For ease of reading I suggest you print out Bob’s post and my post and look at them side by side. No, I don’t know at all how this simple Christmas greeting got turned into the evolution/creation debate! But we can still have fun with it, eh?

Bob, I know you just quoted your points from somewhere, and hope that you don’t mind that I took the time to refute them point by point as best I could (towards the end I got tired and stopped answering every single statement). It’s nothing personal.

Joel? There’s my response to your question on transitional fossils somewhere down below. I’m afraid I had gotten a bit testy by that time... but hope this lets you see things somewhat from my point of view.

Edit for CMonster:
I tried to give you my take on your "a car key formed by chance" conundrum under the "scaffolding" section below.


Q: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
A: Yes!!*

*Given everything I know so far about the natural world.

Q: Something from nothing?
Q: Where did all this energy/matter come from?
A: Ultimately, yes, I can believe that everything and all the rules came from and were set in motion by God. The ultimate source of being of everything is not the business of science! NO conflict here.
Q: what would cause it to explode?
A: Think of the single point, containing all matter and energy, that may have been the Universe before the Big Bang as the utmost order that ever could be: I think of it as “The Word” http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

ANY fall from this highest state of organization would still be extremely ordered. Although things have been breaking down towards their final state of lowest order and energy for umpteen years, every molecule contains a great deal of energy which has yet to be tapped... an pyramid of blocks piled up by a human contains way less order than the molecules in the peanut that the human digested to get the energy. We tend to have the misconception that a gallon of gasoline seems has less “organization” than a snowflake or a human eye, but on the particle level this is not true.

Q: Physical laws an accident?
A: It is not a major opinion in science that they did arise by accident! Would it not be a demonstration of God’s omnipotence and omniscience that he could conceive of an elegantly simple set of rules that could create and run the entire universe according to desire with a single push?

Q:Order from disorder?
A:Already discussed in my replies above.

Q: Information from Randomness
A: There are so many mistakes in Bob’s quote in this section that I felt like tearing the hair out of my head with frustration... I have no TIME to address them all! Why bother with information theory and other findings of science like physical laws if you are going to toss out the findings of science in biology? Look, for all intents and purposes “intelligent” means “able to understand”. If an enzyme is able to understand genetic code, it is “intelligent” and the genetic code is “information”. True, the perception of something as “information” requires an observer or something to pass the information to, but there’s no IQ cutoff point here!

When 2.5 inches of rain fall on Houston, that is “information”... the deposition of soils by a river produces “information” that can be read by a geologist, but the river itself is not purposeful or intelligent!

Q: Life from dead chemicals?
A: The calculation of those odds are incorrect. The “simplest imaginable” self-replicating system that I can think of in a minute is a mineral crystal, and they form from nonliving chemicals all the time. Now think about viruses, barely different from complicated crystals...

Yes, the probability that even the simplest forms of life that we know today could be formed under the present conditions of weather and geological environment are slim to none, in the way that the probability that I could build a freestanding stone arch without a scaffolding is also slim. However, there is the possibility that some of the progenitors of life (scaffolding) could have been produced abiotically, even though they are not present today. One possible reason, among many, that these progenitors are not around today is because they were outcompeted by their descendents. They wouldn’t leave fossils so don’t even ask, eh?

Miller’s experiment, showing that at least some of the organic compounds necessary for the simplest forms of life known today CAN be produced abiotically, was a breakthrough because it showed that some of the “scaffolding” of life could be produced by abiogenesis.

Q:Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
A:See above. DNA and RNA did not have to arise fully formed out of random chemicals.

Edit for CMonster:
I agree that the chance that your spare car key could be formed by random wind, water, erosion, or other geological events is vanishingly small. But how about the chance that a car key could be formed by a key copier at Home Depot? Pretty good. And the chance that the key copier could be formed by a factory in Minnesota? Pretty good. And that the factory could have been built by inventive humans who had cars that needed keys? Pretty good. Probability that once cars were invented, they would need protection from theft? Pretty good. Probability that inventive (or inspired humans would come up with something to help them travel faster? (Don't know)... but we go on down the list to... And that this planet would evolve inventive humans? (We don't really know the chance of this)... etc. Anyway, the chance that car keys would be formed is now pretty good.

You see, under the wrong conditions, things can be very improbable or downright impossible. But if the right conditions existed for the formation of the predecessors of RNA and DNA, and they made RNA and DNA more probable, etc... then the existence of car keys is not so impossible as it seems.

As for abiogenesis... I personally don't know if conditions which would have made abiogenesis a probable event were present in the infancy of life, nor do I know what these specific conditions were. Current experimentation, however, suggests that such favorable conditions are physically possible.

Q: Life is Complex
A: How much intelligence does a river show in forming a highly complex system of valleys and deltas? Is every snowflake planned and designed? Complexity is in the eye of the beholder.

Q: Where are the transitional fossils?
A: Actually, our museums ARE overflowing with skeletons... and one hundred years is a very short time. Think of the percentage of people you know who are geologists or evolutionary biologists (besides me), and the percentage of land that you’ve seen lately dug up for fossil exploration. The search, while intense, has just begun.
“why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species? “ That was a circular statement. There are a LOT of very strange fossils that resemble current species only slightly. (Ediacaran fauna). There are also some fossils that have some features in common with current species, but who have strange features all their own. (Archaeopteryx, and other proto-birds). Of those that belong to recognizable species, well, of course then they look like current species...

Answer to the aside: “A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects”. Why? Think of my great grandfather as an intermediate from me to HIS own great-grandfather. While I may have inherited my great-grandfather’s nose, that may be the only thing I obviously share with him what with inheritance of features from my many other grandparents and great-grandparents. If I am blonde and Great-Grandpa’s great-grandfather was black-haired, did Great-Grandpa have to have brown hair, or have the same hands, feet, and eyes as me or his g-grandfather to be recognizable as a true transition? Isn’t enough that we all got great-great-great...Grandfather’s big nose?

“The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!” I think they will just stop showing you interesting fossils if you are so hard to please. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

Why this obsession with having all transitional fossils? Must we produce the remains of every single ancestor of every descendent in an unbroken chain to convince you? When you are sitting at a table with a friend and he is eating cookies, you may observe that he takes a bite now and then, is chewing, etc. But even though you didn’t observe every single bite and swallow, you interpolate from your sensory data that he ate all the cookies on his plate. Must you assume that a divine entity took away those cookies that you didn’t actually see him eat?
Concerning scarcity of fossil record: why do you think that skeletons and exoskeletons are the most common fossils? Because they are hard and last a long time. If a softbodied animal evolves a hard part, it will leave fossils more frequently. Before then, it will be very difficult to find records of the animal. Also, geological conditions which can preserve remains for millions of year tend to be scattered and localized throughout time and space... what area do YOU know has been a tar pit or mudflat throughout the entire history of life on Earth?

Q:Could an intermediate even survive?
A:Evolution does NOT require that transition be “gradual” or slow! All that is needed is that change be passed down from parent to child. All that nonsense about “punctuated equilibrium” is just pointing out that the rate of evolution varies.

Q:“How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment?”
A: Why indeed? It would NOT be advantageous then and would not survive.
Example of small changes that take a creature from one kind to another: a lake where fishers are allowed only to take fish over ten inches in length. Say that the fish mature and can reproduce at 4-5 months of age, at which point they’re about 9-11 inches long. If size is linked to age, and age is linked to maturation, and if the time of maturation is a hereditable trait, eventually, you’ll have a population of fish in the lake who mature early, at size 9 inches. This is because all the late bloomer fish were caught before they could reproduce.

Q:Reproduction without reproduction?
A: As I pointed out before, even crystals can self-reproduce, given the right starting materials.
We (known living organisms) have similar reproductive systems because we are probably all related to one another to some extent. But there are many organisms that reproduce asexually as well, often organisms that are very distantly related. Why just two sexes... why not three? Hard to say... but think about finding a date on a Saturday night, let alone two! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif Heck, why don’t we have wheels or wings? The answer to these questions is probably “a combination of luck and developmental constraint.”

Q:Plants without photosynthesis?
A:see discussion of “scaffolding needed to build an arch” above.

Q:It's no good unless it's complete.
A:Eniac, often hailed as the first computer, was not complete or perfect by today’s standards, but it was useful. The eyespots on flatworms are not full eyes, but they are useful to the planaria. Windows doesn’t work all the time, but it is useful! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif (no flames please)

Q: Explain metamorphosis!
A: For goodness’ sake, the “mass of jelly” actually consists of cells that do possess an organization, that communicate with one another with chemicals... does the writer of this tract now deny that development does not occur, as well? You can observe metamorphosis with a microscope and with special dyes. It is not the business of evolution to explain development, anyway.
It should be easy to show evolution.
New species of plants, with new traits and reproductively isolated from their ancestral populations, are produced all the time through polyploid mutations.
Reply to the aside: again, there are many NATURAL species that do not differ at all with respect to your definition of “information”. Think of the dozens of species of songbirds... does a robin have more information than a sparrow?

Q:Complex things require intelligent design folks!
A:Natural selection is not about accidents... it is about selecting useful accidents and combinations. The universe is NOT a canister of hydrogen gas. Under evolutionary theory, we still can all be part of God’s plan... it’s just a description of the plan. It’s just in more detail than “And God made them, and he made us”.




[This message has been edited by jeana (edited 12-21-1999).]

[daveleau]

Jeana- Very intelligent arguement. I do beleive that punctuated equilibrium and environmental effects have a great deal to do with quickly changing who is the strongest in the survivial of the fittest theory. I really like the way you put it that:

"Under evolutionary theory, we still can all be part of God’s plan... it’s just a description of the plan. It’s just in more detail than “And God made them, and he made us”. "

Very well said.
Dave

[CMonster]

Now I hope those of you posting replies last have read everything that preceded - it will be on the test.

but just to clairify an earlier reply of mine: My point is not the idea of adaptation, I can accept limited forms of that; but when it comes to life from "dead" elements I find that far fetched.

I mentioned about a car key - something that is incredibly simple in design and can be made out of common materials such as iron, copper, gold, or others that occur in nature- whatever, and yet most of you would find it hard to believe that even one 1 billion planets, in 4.5 billion years, that time, chance, errosion, etc. could shape a piece of raw metal (not alloy) into a splinter that might operate in your car's ignition.

[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 12-20-1999).]

[Bob-NB]

jeana, I'm sorry my post caused you so much frustration. It was not intended to do so. I was simply, in the spirit of earlier postings, replying to comments made within the thread.

ARQ8 said
I have chosen to believe in God, to me it is clear and obvious. I am thankful that Jesus came to pay the price for my sins. I am also thankful for all of you out there. I respect your views and beliefs....

I agree with him up to the point of his statement about others views and beliefs.
I can't say I am willing to go that far, but I'm willing to say that I do strongly believe everyone has a right to believe what they chose, (whether I agree or not) even if that belief ultimately ends up wrong. We are warned within the scriptures in Prov 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Obviously, some of us will be wrong. Some beliefs will lead to death and destruction, others are simply - non-essentials - and will be cleared up by our Heavenly Father some day.

In reality, my beliefs are very clear. In essentials - unity, in non-essentials - liberty, and in all things - love.

Whether it only took 6 days, or if one interprets it as 6000 years, Jesus will clear up those things in the end - or should I say the beginning?

We are, in fact, told in the scripture in 2Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Was it 6 days, or 6 days for God, which may have been 6000 years? We will know someday.
The key here is to believe that God did it, someday we will understand it all. 1Cor 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I too am thankful for those here who have posted and answered my questions. I hope that I have been equally courteous and helpful in those posts where I have assisted others.

I do not believe I have seen, nor do I expect Joel and others will tolerate "flamings" here, as have happened at other boards. For this too, I'm thankful.

I actually talk of Santa as a fictional character who displays the "giving" our Lord tells us about. It, at least, serves as a catalyst for discussion about Jesus this time each year for a largely un-believing world.

The posting between Santa and Jesus is good, and hopefully the point is not lost in our follow-ups to this posting.

Happy Holidays to all and Merry Christmas to all!!! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by Bob-NB (edited 12-20-1999).]

[codybear]

Once upon a time there was a real man who traveled the world and gave away presents to
deserving children everywhere he went. You will find him in many lands with different names, but
what he had in his heart was the same in every language. In America we call him Santa Claus. He is
the spirit of unconditional love and the desire to share that love by giving presents from the heart.
When you get to a certain age, you come to realize that the real Santa Claus is not the guy who comes
down your chimney on Christmas Eve. The real life and spirit of this magical elf lives forever in your
heart, my heart,your Mom's heart and in the hearts and minds of all people who believe in the joy that
giving to others brings. The real spirit of Santa becomes what you can give rather than what you get.
Once you understand this and it becomes a part of you, Christmas becomes even more exciting and
more magical because you come to realize the magic comes from you when Santa lives in your heart.

much of this thread went way past the intention of my original post and it was good to see so many different opinions and not alot of animosity towards one another.
As Christmas draws near we all need as individuals to take a good long look at those in our lives that mean something to us and let them know it. I'm not going to even try to elaborate on anything else said here but end by saying Merry Christmas to all...here and throughout the world....take a minute to tell someone how special they and watch a face glow with pride...you will have made a difference in this world by doing so...

BTW...I will say a prayer for each one of you

[This message has been edited by codybear (edited 12-20-1999).]

[jeana]

Once again the people in this forum prove themselves to be wonderful! I put myself in the dragon's mouth and nary a flame!

Bob, Codybear, Dave, and CMonster, and the rest of you gang: thanks for putting up with my diatribe and Merry Christmas again! XXXOOO http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[CMonster]

It is all energy, and it is given form by thought - thoughts precede words - God spoke the worlds into existence, that was preceded by thought - we are all living in a dream of God. He may wake and we all disappear, or join Him. I am only as solid as the rest of the dream.

"By faith we understand that the worlds (plural) were framed (given their substance) by the word of God so that things which are seen (material things)are not made of things which do appear (energy - thought)."

Thought exceeds the speed of light - I can imagine myself somewhere faster than light can travel there.

And form the illusionary world - Virus - they require a higher order of hosts and therefore could not have been the first order of living things.

But they too are merely thoughts -

Proper scientific answers? What a joke! As if puny humans could grasp the whole of IT ALL in their minds and describe IT with language. We observe that which we did not create, describe some fragmented part of the whole in our own complicated language, and then decide whether of not we will agree with it - but the Universe (ONE-Word) goes on with or without our consent.

Even the mighty mathematics is just a man-made lanugage describing what we percieve and sometimes an attempt to rationalize that which we imagine. Personally I prefere poetry.




[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 12-21-1999).]

[Donkey]

Well it has turned into an interesting argument. Thanks Jeana it is nice to read proper scientific answers to all the popular misconceptions. Anyway as it is obvious that we will end up getting nowhere, i'm going to call it a day and just wish you all a merry christmas and a great (bug free) new year. Eat drink and be merry and maybe also read up on some politics so we can start that debate after new year.
Donkey

[Bleeding Edge]

From what I understand, God, there in the Void, admiring his recent introduction of Light, deciding that it was a Good thing; in his moment of arrogance, praised himself on how Nothing could create such Goodness but He.

...Then from beyond the Void, from the beyond the Nothingness, came a quiet and clear voice, "You are mistaking, Yahweh."


[This message has been edited by Bleeding Edge (edited 12-21-1999).]

[boardhead]

isn't that the truth.MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,AND HAPPY MILLENIUM EVERYONE