These forums are not kept organized, therefore it is hard to keep up with everyone's remarks. Oh, and I have been away for awhile; busy with schoolwork and such.

Somehow, through my 24(ok, so I'm paranoid) college applications, my 76 page senior thesis, and 24 flights across the US of A this school year, I've had no problems with the 'disorganized forums'. Everything is automatically bumped, and each thing shows how many new posts there are, and who posted last. I was referring to the fact that even when you have responded, you'ev ignored all potential answers, and moved on only to things you think you can exploit. I can understand this once or twice, when the posts have gotten massively long and you only really have one point to make as you haven't been involved, but this was specifically a question you asked, I answered, and you subsequently failed to respond to consistently.

However, 'busy'ness sates my desire for an excuse, as I can at least sympathize, if not agree with it.

EDIT: While I don't think the forum layout is perfect, it's damn good, and I feel like people bashing something with no alternatives is silly(bashing creations, not ideas)

I was scanning through and noticed this question:

[quote]Why did God design the gp120 protein of the HIV virus to match perfectly with the CD4 protein of a child's T-cells?[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this question irrelevant because the HIV virus is not a human virus? I believe that it adapted this way so that it would be able "do its job" within humans.

Also, they are going to talk about the HIV virus tonight on the Debate Hour at 8pm EST. at www.freethoughtmedia.com

Yes, tey, that is the point I was getting at. Oh, and I do believe in intelligent design but that doesn't mean that I believe there is no adaptation. In fact, everyone I know that believes in intelligent design agrees that adaptation occurs.

And that's why I said correct me if I'm wrong. Way to be mature. It really was not originally a human virus though.

We're desgined to somehow get a virus that is transmitted through bodily fluids from another species?

[quote]Do some research on the gp120 protein of the HIV virus.

Also, check out the design of the CD4.

Please, you sound retarded.[/quote]

I understand that the design of CD4 allows HIV to enter and attack the T-cells. And by the way it's not the fact that the design of the CD4 receptor allows HIV to enter and attack T-cells that makes the virus so lethal; it is the fact that the T-cells keep trying to destroy HIV and the immune system eventually wear itself out.

[quote=logos]I understand that the design of CD4 allows HIV to enter and attack the T-cells.And by the way it's not the fact that the design of the CD4 receptor allows HIV to enter and attack T-cells that makes the virus so lethal; it is the fact that the T-cells keep trying to destroy HIV and the immune system eventually wear itself out.[/quote]

My point wasn't to tell you what made the virus lethal. It's about why it even enters the body if we were [i]intelligently[/i] designed in the first place.

And there are other parts of our bodies that are "designed" in such a way...well, I just can't say it. LOL!

[quote]My point wasn't to tell you what made the virus lethal. It's about why it even enters the body if we were intelligently designed in the first place.[/quote]

Oh, I see. But one of my point's is that the virus does not naturally occur in humans. We don't just naturally get this virus as if it were a cold or something; we got it from apes. However that happened. Ha.

[quote]And there are other parts of our bodies that are "designed" in such a way...well, I just can't say it. LOL![/quote]

Ha.

[quote=logos]
Oh, I see. But one of my point's is that the virus does not naturally occur in humans. We don't just naturally get this virus as if it were a cold or something; we got it from apes. However that happened. Ha.
[/quote]

Chimps, we got it from chimps, who in turn got it from a hybrid strain between a species of SIV which was a species of monkey and a species of SIV which was in a species of apes. It's called zoonosis. It's not exactly complicated. You get the blood from another species and the microbes cross over. Normally, nothing happens, but if they're closely enough related, the virus might evolve to affect the new species.

[quote]It's not like God said oh I think I'll give humans a virus to kill them. This is originally a virus that occurs naturally in monkeys (most monkeys don't even feel the effects of this virus). [/quote]

That's funny, so he knows how to make the virus NOT effect species, he just chose not to give us that advantage? so in other words, this disease is designed only to hurt us? nice guy. It kinda seems like He DID give the fvirus for that reason... well, the next logical conclusion is that it hurts us arbitrarily because it evolved for symbiosis in chimps, but we didn't have those evolutionary protections. Nice to see we were so Intelligently Designed. However, the point is not about AIDS specifically, it's about anything like that. All the ailments are designed to affect us, and we are not designed well enough to fight many of them off. Doesn't sound like the machinations of the Christian God.

[quote]Here is the problem with creationsim. They believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted...... Am I the only one who thinks thats kinda dumb? Yes, I'm sure they were able to tame the t-rex. As Lewis Black said, these people watch the Flintstones like it's a documentary.[/quote]

Wow. ROFL! That is not a problem at all ... considering that we have always coexisted with animals that will kill us. Plus, haven't you ever seen the Jurassic Park movies, it's very possible to outsmart dinosaurs... ha.

[quote]Will kill us? Or could kill us?

Right now, we're at the top of the food chain. But yes, there are animals that could kill us, especially back then. Dinosaurs were not one of them, they were already long gone.[/quote]

My point was to prove that humans could exist with dinosaurs. Which they could. Not to debate whether or not they did.

This thread has reached 2292 reads. It's one of the most viewed threads on this site!

Eventually, I will open a "Most popular/viewed threads" forum section. Then I'll put this and the other most viewed threads in there.

[quote]No offense, but that's kind of illogical. Darwin obviously wasn't a true Christian let alone a Christian minister in the sense you mean if he tossed the Biblical account out the window because Christians believe the Bible to be the true Word of God.[/quote]

Since you wanted to bring logic into it, I'm pretty sure the "true Irishman" is a fallacy.

Then you would have to give me a static definition of a "Christian".

Anybody want to debate about [i]"Creation vs evolution"[/i]?

[quote=American Atheist]Anybody want to debate about [i]"Creation vs evolution"[/i]?[/quote]

Not really. In all honesty the subject bores me.

[quote=KCahill].. Then why post?
[/quote]

I was responding to things that arent related to creation/evolution.

Now if your asking why I came in here in the first place: I dunno. I was bored.

[quote=rafreyna]
Im a true christian and i believe in evolution. i see evolution as gods process of creation.[/quote]

Now that puts a new twist on things.... but what you are saying seems to concern our evolution over the centuries and how they have grown into modern day man through industry and technology. Not the evolution that is defying the theory of creation.

but in the end creation and evolution are still nothing more than hypothesis/ theories and both still have their grey areas and faults.

ok, evolution is inevitable and not a theory in itself, but there are multiple theories as to how and why.

sorry having no sleep for a few days kinda makes me a retard when it comes to getting across what i mean.

Yes you are right. Believers do not disagree about microevolution, or changes within species. The bible says go and produce after your own kind, not species.

Macroevolution is another thing altogether. The idea that a animal can evolve into a totally different animal is kinda weird, plus it's never been observed in a lab or in nature.

I have a couple of problems with evolution, first of all evolution is a forced belief system that has not a provable statistical base. In other words, evolution has more holes than it has substance.

The evolutionist will start with the complex and work backward in hope that it will all add up. The actual idea that an eye could be gradually developed over millions of years is ridiculous. The focus system, the lens, the iris, the rods and cones, the optic nerve, the brain to make it all make sense. And what told the evolutionary process that there was color or depth of field? What told evolution there were things to taste or smell or even hear? What frequency? What spectrum? All at the same time as the ear, the nose, the sexual reproduction system? It's ludicrous. And what of the soul? Of love? Of affection? Are these necessary for survival of the fittest? What about the search for our Creator? There is nothing evolutionary about that in the least. Why do we seek to save Eagle eggs or whales? Survival of the fittest. We are tampering with evolution by trying to save them.

DNA and the human body are far too complex to be thrown together by long periods of chance mutation, and natural selection. DNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve out of such occurrences. So either you believe in the ET seed theory that such an organism was planted here by alien beings, or in a Designer who dwells in the eternal.

Now, suppose a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth. Upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidentally evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestrial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots. Humanism and atheism has taken over the power structure of the science community so that any use of the Bible as a source of possibility will be squelched and demeaned with extreme prejudice.

As for evolution being just "a theory". A theory, in science, is something that all available supposed evidence points to as being a fact. What the average person defines as "theory" is called a "hypothesis" in science. The "theory" part is in the how, not the if.

The fact about evolutionists can be summed up in this quote by George Wald...

When it comes to the origins of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved hundreds of years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible. That life arose from spontaneous chance. - George Wald, "The Origin of Life",

Though proven wrong by sheer math, they still refuse to give it up, just because they cannot stomach the alternative.

"Evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science."
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Also, I noticed that many here claim that only real 'evidence' can come from people who are unbiased. That's the problem, nobody is unbiased. If you believe in a god, then you will come to conclusions that show that god's design. If you don't believe in a god, then your 'evidence' will show other ways. But nobody is unbiased.

This was posted over a year ago and no one responded to it?!

[quote=Maccdaddyboss]Macroevolution is another thing altogether. The idea that a animal can evolve into a totally different animal is kinda weird,[/quote]

Argument from incredulity? You think it's weird, so it must be false.

[quote]plus it's never been observed in a lab or in nature.[/quote]

It is common misconception of science that you have to directly observe something to know that it happens. Frequently, we can observe the effects and results of scientific processes.  

Okay, biology 101

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

What is really holding you up is the unquestioned belief that animals types are clearly defined, with a magical line dividing every species from another, when they are obviously debated and and agreed upon by scientists whom establish this science based on similar characteristics. For example, is a chihuahua the same species as a great dane? Is a great dane the same species as a wolf? Microevolution and macroevolution are not two different types of evolution. They are exactly the same process; the only difference is the factor of time. To say that microevolution is possible, but not macroevolution, is ludicrous. This is like saying that you can walk to the kitchen, but that walking to school would be impossible. 

We know that...

1) There is variation in traits.

2) Traits are passed on.

3) If you have more fur in a cold climate, you're more likely to survive.

If this continued for thousands upon thousands of generations, what do you suppose might happen? The animals would change, duh! Thus, logically, the better question to ask is not whether macroevolution happens, but what would prevent it from happening? 

On top of that, scientists have observed new traits appearing in animals. They have found vestigial organs and features in many animals. You have fossils demonstrating changes in organisms. Scientists are working on mapping out entire genomes, and have even begun controlling genes to benefit humanity. Turn on a gene, and you have a chicken with teeth. Change another gene, and you have cold-resistant crops. God isn't the only entity that can tamper with life anymore.    

The only people that are against evolution are either uneducated on the subject, which is the case here, or they want to continue leaning on their comfortable religious crutches so much that they decide to deny reality.

[quote]first of all evolution is a forced belief system[/quote]

No.

[quote]that has not a provable statistical base. In other words, evolution has more holes than it has substance.[/quote]

Wrong.  

[quote]The evolutionist will start with the complex and work backward in hope that it will all add up. The actual idea that an eye could be gradually developed over millions of years is ridiculous. The focus system, the lens, the iris, the rods and cones, the optic nerve, the brain to make it all make sense. And what told the evolutionary process that there was color or depth of field? What told evolution there were things to taste or smell or even hear? What frequency? What spectrum? All at the same time as the ear, the nose, the sexual reproduction system? It's ludicrous.[/quote]

Just because you don't grasp basic scientific theory doesn't mean that it's ludicrous. 

Also, you are committing another common fallacy. Nobody tells evolution to do anything, and evolution isn't trying to do anything. Evolution is the inevitable result of the interaction between an organism and its environment. If an animal receives a mutation that helps it distinguish between light and darkness, it will possess an advantage over it's peers, and, through natural selection, be more likely to pass on this trait to successive generations. 

[quote]And what of the soul?[/quote]

The soul is a crotch. We have no objective reason to believe that it even exists. 

[quote]Of love? Of affection? Are these necessary for survival of the fittest?[/quote]

First of all, we know that an organism with two genders possesses an evolutionary advantage over asexual species. When two members interact to produce offspring, the process spreads beneficial traits much faster than asexual reproduction.     

You're going to need to explain what the hell "love" is? There's lust, which encourages members of our species to reproduce. Then, after a couple has been together for a longer period of time, they develop a different kind of attraction, more like friendship. 

[quote]What about the search for our Creator? There is nothing evolutionary about that in the least.[/quote]

Stop making assumptions when you don't know the answers. Humans have an innate desire to want to worship something. Although I'm not certain about the source of this desire, it certainly doesn't harm the legitimacy of evolution. Ugh, if this was on the main forum, this post would have been annihilated within 24 hours.

[quote]Why do we seek to save Eagle eggs or whales? Survival of the fittest. We are tampering with evolution by trying to save them.[/quote]

As humans, we are different from all other animals in that our minds have developed to the point where we are not only self-aware, but able to conduct advanced reasoning. As a social animal, we have a desire to help others because if our tribe suffers, the individuals in the tribe suffers. Combine this inherent "caring" with a rational mind, and it's really not that hard to figure out. 

[quote]DNA and the human body are far too complex to be thrown together by long periods of chance mutation, and natural selection.[/quote]

Why?

By the way, you forgot genetic drift, gene flow, etc.

[quote]DNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve out of such occurrences.[/quote]

Why not? Again, the fact that you, a scientifically illiterate high schooler, cannot conceive of the processes involved, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. 

[quote]So either you believe in the ET seed theory that such an organism was planted here by alien beings, or in a Designer who dwells in the eternal.[/quote]

You are now criticizing abiogenesis, not evolution. (I can sense a quote mine from Dawkins already)

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

[quote]Now, suppose a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth. Upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidentally evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestrial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots.[/quote]

What a stupid analogy.

[quote]Humanism and atheism has taken over the power structure of the science community so that any use of the Bible as a source of possibility will be squelched and demeaned with extreme prejudice.[/quote]

Dammit! Scientists deal with what is testable and repeatable. They're not prejudiced against the Bible; they just don't use it because it's bullshit! What kind of scientific theories can you derive from the fucking Bible.

Furthermore, if you examine history, non-theists never had an intention to take over science, this happened automatically because science is deals with objective reality while religion deals with comfortable delusions.

[quote]As for evolution being just "a theory". A theory, in science, is something that all available supposed evidence points to as being a fact. What the average person defines as "theory" is called a "hypothesis" in science. The "theory" part is in the how, not the if. The fact about evolutionists can be summed up in this quote by George Wald... When it comes to the origins of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved hundreds of years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible. That life arose from spontaneous chance. - George Wald,[/quote]

Ooooooohhhh, appeal to authority.

[quote]"The Origin of Life", Though proven wrong by sheer math,[/quote]

Complete lie.

[quote]they still refuse to give it up, just because they cannot stomach the alternative.[/quote]

Lie.

[quote]"Evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science." Dr. Jonathan Sarfat[/quote]

I find it rather ironic that theists always quote scientists to support their beliefs when over 99% of scientists in the state of Texas in the U.S. accept evolution based on the evidence.

[quote]i Also, I noticed that many here claim that only real 'evidence' can come from people who are unbiased. That's the problem, nobody is unbiased. If you believe in a god, then you will come to conclusions that show that god's design. If you don't believe in a god, then your 'evidence' will show other ways. But nobody is unbiased.[/quote]

This is a completely meaningless argument, virtually an intellectual cop-out. If you claim that 2+2=5 while I state that 2+2=4, you're wrong, regardless of our biases. In reality, no matter how it may be argued, the evidence only points in one direction; this becomes ridiculously obvious when fundies lie and cheat to maintain their agenda and make a profit. Notice that most of the time, the evidence is so obvious that Creationists just pretend it doesn't exist instead of actually analyzing it. 

Yes, I am biased. My bias involves adhering to reason and objectivity as paramount above any blind faith.   

[quote=noor][quote=butterbattle]This was posted over a year ago and no one responded to it?![/quote] Yeah, this forum was dead for about a year I believe, so I think that's why. You did a good job responding to it though.[/quote]

Thanks. I'm working on not insulting people or cursing though, even when I'm communicating with the scientifically illiterate. Well, most people don't give a damn, (haha, I did it again!) but I'm really trying to stop doing these things.

edit: I was on the main forum when I spotted this link. I'm only 19 years old, so I decided to migrate over and hop in. This forum needs someone like me to put all the theists in their place anyways. Lol.