Go Back   Access World Forums > Non-Access Issues > Debates

 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-24-2015, 04:22 AM   #61
speakers_86
I am jack's comment.
 
speakers_86's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: JBLM, Wa
Posts: 1,919
Thanks: 11
Thanked 158 Times in 119 Posts
speakers_86 will become famous soon enough
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Life isn't all that special.

Also, why such fuss over finding the missing link? Consider the evolution of man. We have fossils of our different stages of evolution. Is it really so far fetched that we changed over millions of years? Or is it more likely that there is a man in the sky? At least with evolution we have tangible evidence that allows us to accept, change, or deny a theory (yes, there are issues with evolution). Religion does not offer this.

Also, consider the basic premise of evolution: survival of the fittest. Can't you see how that almost guarantees species will change over time?

__________________
If you look, you can find anything.
Google is your friend.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Access 2010 screw this! I went back to 2007
Windows 7
speakers_86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 04:53 AM   #62
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenHigg View Post
Hum... Why would one supply evidence to support faith? Isn't that some sort of contradiction?
I actually quoted a part of the book "A Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy" and it proclaims exactly what you have said. If you read some of my earlier posts on this or the atheist thread.

I'll quote it again for you.

Quote:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
I particularly enjoy the conclusion to this part, being as random as it is

Apply this argument to most religious peoples view on the human eye and how complex it is.
__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 05:05 AM   #63
KenHigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 13,309
Thanks: 8
Thanked 155 Times in 129 Posts
KenHigg has a spectacular aura about KenHigg has a spectacular aura about
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Not sure what a Babel fish is, sorry if I don't want to google it Odd how some atheist (and some religious people) seem to need to feed an ego by trying to force their view on others. I say live and let live, if you don't want to believe, then don't

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ken

“You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over.”
KenHigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 05:13 AM   #64
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenHigg View Post
Not sure what a Babel fish is, sorry if I don't want to google it Odd how some atheist (and some religious people) seem to need to feed an ego by trying to force their view on others. I say live and let live, if you don't want to believe, then don't
No need to research, when if you read my post, I said replace the babel fish with the human eye. Really not all that hard Ken?

I don't try and force my opinion on someone, They can believe what they like. I have a problem when they try and force theirs on me.

It's also funny how you seem to have been offline on this forum for quite a while and since you've came back - each and every comment you have made seems to contradict something someone has said.

Got up on the wrong side Ken?
__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 05:16 AM   #65
KenHigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 13,309
Thanks: 8
Thanked 155 Times in 129 Posts
KenHigg has a spectacular aura about KenHigg has a spectacular aura about
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

I'm probably just upset because I had to cut down on my coffee in the morning
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ken

“You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over.”
KenHigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 05:18 AM   #66
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

I would recommend a brew.
__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 05:36 AM   #67
KenHigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 13,309
Thanks: 8
Thanked 155 Times in 129 Posts
KenHigg has a spectacular aura about KenHigg has a spectacular aura about
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

At the end of the day both sides seem to have to say 'I don't know' about something. And I suppose that will just have to be ok for now...

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ken

“You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over.”
KenHigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2015, 10:59 AM   #68
Rabbie
Super Moderator
 
Rabbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Returning to Scotland
Posts: 5,906
Thanks: 110
Thanked 76 Times in 68 Posts
Rabbie is a jewel in the rough Rabbie is a jewel in the rough Rabbie is a jewel in the rough
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Having just come across this thread I was surprised to see the assumption that Christians do not believe in evolution. In fact the vast majority of European Christians believe in evolution. Their position is that while God created the first life and then he used evolution to create all the species.

Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive
__________________
The best solution is the simplest one that meets all requirements.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rabbie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Rabbie For This Useful Post:
BlueIshDan (08-11-2015)
Old 03-27-2015, 11:41 AM   #69
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
 
Frothingslosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Flint, Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,194
Thanks: 82
Thanked 452 Times in 410 Posts
Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbie View Post
Having just come across this thread I was surprised to see the assumption that Christians do not believe in evolution. In fact the vast majority of European Christians believe in evolution. Their position is that while God created the first life and then he used evolution to create all the species.

Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive
The thread was started by an American evagalist Protestant who flat-out denies evolution and considers it to be a myth and science to be a competing religion.

Unfortunately, that seems to be pretty standard for American Protestants these days.

Meanwhile, the rest of us (meaning mostly Galaxiom, as the rest of us gave up) are trying to get him to understand that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Frothingslosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2015, 12:53 PM   #70
Libre
been around a little
 
Libre's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 660
Thanks: 24
Thanked 29 Times in 26 Posts
Libre is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbie View Post
Having just come across this thread I was surprised to see the assumption that Christians do not believe in evolution. In fact the vast majority of European Christians believe in evolution. Their position is that while God created the first life and then he used evolution to create all the species.

Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive
Seems to me that, while there are religious folks who don't deny evolution, it is in conflict with the basic tenets of the bible, just as the heliocentric model of the solar system, the chronology of the universe, human biology, the impossibility of miracles like resurrection and immaculate conception, etc etc on and on.
They have had to accept these things because they've been proven - as much as anything can be proven - and to deny them is sheer stubbornness. Even the RC Church has had to modify its doctrines due to these scientific discoveries.
Still, there are those - like the OP, who can't be reasoned with and no amount of evidence, facts, discoveries, or logic will convince them that the bible as originally written is not to be taken as anything but 100% factual.
__________________
"I'm no Einstein."
-Einstein
Libre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2015, 02:04 PM   #71
KenHigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 13,309
Thanks: 8
Thanked 155 Times in 129 Posts
KenHigg has a spectacular aura about KenHigg has a spectacular aura about
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libre View Post
...
Still, there are those - like the OP, who can't be reasoned with and no amount of evidence, facts, discoveries, or logic will convince them that the bible as originally written is not to be taken as anything but 100% factual.
Perhaps if you continue to post your fresh, new and enlightening hypotheses you will eventually convince them...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ken

“You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over.”
KenHigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2015, 05:03 PM   #72
Libre
been around a little
 
Libre's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 660
Thanks: 24
Thanked 29 Times in 26 Posts
Libre is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Looking over your recent posts leads me to retort, perhaps if you do the same, eventually you might come up with something - anything - to contribute to this discussion, but I doubt it.
__________________
"I'm no Einstein."
-Einstein
Libre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2015, 07:07 AM   #73
The_Doc_Man
Happy Retired Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Suburban New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 13,942
Thanks: 79
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,454 Posts
The_Doc_Man is a splendid one to behold The_Doc_Man is a splendid one to behold The_Doc_Man is a splendid one to behold The_Doc_Man is a splendid one to behold The_Doc_Man is a splendid one to behold The_Doc_Man is a splendid one to behold The_Doc_Man is a splendid one to behold
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

I butted heads with Bladerunner on the "Are you an atheist" thread and have been reluctant to step into this buzz-saw, particularly since A2E seems one of the more virulent pulpit-pounding fundamentalists.

The issue of "incomplete fossil records" is of course an example of "hedging the bet." The problem is that if an animal dies in an area that chemically decomposes bones as well as flesh (usually, that means alkaline soil), there are no fossils. If there is tectonic activity, the fossils might have been there but they are now buried by physically tumultuous disruption of the ground on which they had been deposited. In other words, if you wanted complete fossil records you are asking the wrong question to begin with, because you don't dare ask questions that give better answers - like the number of gene changes between two linear species or the number of changes in parallel from a common point. THAT is a lot more telling - but it requires someone to actually think a bit, and so far, A2E hasn't shown any evidence of wanting to do so.

The "why are there still apes" question is SUCH a joke that I have to stop laughing before I address it. We didn't descend from apes. We descended from hominids. However, that is immaterial. When the biologically separated species move to also geographically separate, they no longer complete for the same food. Man descended from the trees to become a ground dweller. Apes remained tree dwellers. Man had the new food source, their ape cousins had the old sources. No competition, so they could continue to survive separately. That would have been true even if we HAD descended directly from apes - which we did not.

Abiogenesis is easily - but not quickly - possible. If you think that CELLS formed in a single event, that is wrong. Free-floating chemicals such as RNA and its components formed in the primordial soup that was the oceans of several hundreds of millions of years ago. These chemicals randomly combined (and usually fell apart... but not always) based on simple laws of physics and chemistry - electrophilic and nucleophilic attraction.

Each milliliter of ocean was home to many hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of molecules other than simple water. Each milliliter had literally thousands of molecular interactions per second. Now, how many milliliters of ocean were there at that time? (Answer: In the trillions, I'm sure, but it is hard to compute.) How many seconds were in the interval between the time those reactions started and the time that abiogenesis occurred? (Answer: Again, hard to compute but each DAY is 86,400 seconds, multiply that by 365 * several hundred million years - and the number will be in the billions or even trillions.) NOW multiply the number of seconds x the number of reactions per second per milliliter x the number of milliliters in which the reactions occurred. It's a big number. Quadrillion? Quintillion? Big enough to qualify for the laws of large numbers, I'm sure.

The final question is simple: Was that time and volume and number of reactions per second per unit volume enough opportunity for random chemical reactions to produce one example of life? If your answer is NO, then your problem is skepticism, and DON'T show your skepticism without granting me the equal right to assert my skepticism over the content of the holy books.
__________________
I'm a certified grandpa (3 times now) and proud of it.
Retired over one year and survived being home all day with the wife. She must really love me.
If I have helped you, please either click the thanks or click the scales.
The_Doc_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to The_Doc_Man For This Useful Post:
ConnorGiles (08-11-2015)
Old 08-11-2015, 07:11 AM   #74
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doc_Man View Post
I butted heads with Bladerunner on the "Are you an atheist" thread and have been reluctant to step into this buzz-saw, particularly since A2E seems one of the more virulent pulpit-pounding fundamentalists.

The issue of "incomplete fossil records" is of course an example of "hedging the bet." The problem is that if an animal dies in an area that chemically decomposes bones as well as flesh (usually, that means alkaline soil), there are no fossils. If there is tectonic activity, the fossils might have been there but they are now buried by physically tumultuous disruption of the ground on which they had been deposited. In other words, if you wanted complete fossil records you are asking the wrong question to begin with, because you don't dare ask questions that give better answers - like the number of gene changes between two linear species or the number of changes in parallel from a common point. THAT is a lot more telling - but it requires someone to actually think a bit, and so far, A2E hasn't shown any evidence of wanting to do so.

The "why are there still apes" question is SUCH a joke that I have to stop laughing before I address it. We didn't descend from apes. We descended from hominids. However, that is immaterial. When the biologically separated species move to also geographically separate, they no longer complete for the same food. Man descended from the trees to become a ground dweller. Apes remained tree dwellers. Man had the new food source, their ape cousins had the old sources. No competition, so they could continue to survive separately. That would have been true even if we HAD descended directly from apes - which we did not.

Abiogenesis is easily - but not quickly - possible. If you think that CELLS formed in a single event, that is wrong. Free-floating chemicals such as RNA and its components formed in the primordial soup that was the oceans of several hundreds of millions of years ago. These chemicals randomly combined (and usually fell apart... but not always) based on simple laws of physics and chemistry - electrophilic and nucleophilic attraction.

Each milliliter of ocean was home to many hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of molecules other than simple water. Each milliliter had literally thousands of molecular interactions per second. Now, how many milliliters of ocean were there at that time? (Answer: In the trillions, I'm sure, but it is hard to compute.) How many seconds were in the interval between the time those reactions started and the time that abiogenesis occurred? (Answer: Again, hard to compute but each DAY is 86,400 seconds, multiply that by 365 * several hundred million years - and the number will be in the billions or even trillions.) NOW multiply the number of seconds x the number of reactions per second per milliliter x the number of milliliters in which the reactions occurred. It's a big number. Quadrillion? Quintillion? Big enough to qualify for the laws of large numbers, I'm sure.

The final question is simple: Was that time and volume and number of reactions per second per unit volume enough opportunity for random chemical reactions to produce one example of life? If your answer is NO, then your problem is skepticism, and DON'T show your skepticism without granting me the equal right to assert my skepticism over the content of the holy books.
Well said
__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2015, 07:19 AM   #75
KenHigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 13,309
Thanks: 8
Thanked 155 Times in 129 Posts
KenHigg has a spectacular aura about KenHigg has a spectacular aura about
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doc_Man View Post
We didn't descend from apes.
What about Col?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ken

“You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over.”
KenHigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Win 8.1 Account user name Dick7Access Windows 0 12-24-2014 09:33 AM
ASP.NET account namliam ASP and ASP.NET 2 09-29-2006 06:23 AM
GroupWise Account tripico Modules & VBA 0 11-15-2005 07:17 AM
Statement of account ZahleServ Reports 5 09-16-2004 11:10 AM
Expired Account nx69 Queries 4 03-17-2004 12:40 PM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:49 AM.


Microsoft Access Help
General
Tables
Queries
Forms
Reports
Macros
Modules & VBA
Theory & Practice
Access FAQs
Code Repository
Sample Databases
Video Tutorials

Featured Forum post


Sponsored Links


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) copyright 2017 Access World