[Jura-Glenlivet]

Flying squirrels, flying fish, frogs, geckos & flying tree snakes, non can truly fly but all use gliding to evade predation, it's also an energy efficient way of travelling between stands of trees (not the fish) rather than climbing down running across exposed ground and climbing back up. To find food or a mate.
Like it said in my post (if you had bothered to read it) Archaeopteryx wouldn't have been a true flyer.
And it (and all the other examples in the link) rubbishes the statement that no transitional forms have been found.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Flying squirrels, flying fish, frogs, geckos & flying tree snakes, non can truly fly but all use gliding to evade predation, it's also an energy efficient way of travelling between stands of trees (not the fish) rather than climbing down running across exposed ground and climbing back up. To find food or a mate.
Like it said in my post (if you had bothered to read it) Archaeopteryx wouldn't have been a true flyer.
And it (and all the other examples in the link) rubbishes the statement that no transitional forms have been found.

So falling down out of trees would be better. Thanks. I think I'd keep my fully functional legs with claws if I'm a reptile.

Interestingly enough there aren't any fossils highlighting this gradual change either. It's just here is one species... here is another. Where's the fossils with the quarter wings, half wings, 3/4 wings.

Besides, a highly suspicious, possibly unauthentic fossil doesn't provide evidence of a transitional species that should have lived for thousands of generations.

But wait, we all know it is legit, 100% without a doubt no way anyone would ever forge a missing link fossil. Oh wait, someone did? Maybe after they got busted for this one they got a little bit better at it on the next go.

[Lord Dave]

Why is it that evolution is scrutinized so much, added to, confused with ambiogenesis, etc... But when asked "who made God" the answer is " God has always existed".  Its a copout yet we're not allowed to call you out on it.

[andruszkow]

Flying squirrels, flying fish, frogs, geckos & flying tree snakes, non can truly fly but all use gliding to evade predation, it's also an energy efficient way of travelling between stands of trees (not the fish) rather than climbing down running across exposed ground and climbing back up. To find food or a mate.
Like it said in my post (if you had bothered to read it) Archaeopteryx wouldn't have been a true flyer.
And it (and all the other examples in the link) rubbishes the statement that no transitional forms have been found.

So falling down out of trees would be better. Thanks. I think I'd keep my fully functional legs with claws if I'm a reptile.

Interestingly enough there aren't any fossils highlighting this gradual change either. It's just here is one species... here is another. Where's the fossils with the quarter wings, half wings, 3/4 wings.

Besides, a highly suspicious, possibly unauthentic fossil doesn't provide evidence of a transitional species that should have lived for thousands of generations.

But wait, we all know it is legit, 100% without a doubt no way anyone would ever forge a missing link fossil. Oh wait, someone did? Maybe after they got busted for this one they got a little bit better at it on the next go.

Ack, this reply is lacking intellect on so many levels, you can do better than this!

As if you're the first person in the world to carry these thoughts, come on! It shouldn't be necessary to explain the insane amount of variables needed to be just right to perfectly preserve a fossil, let alone being able to find them in the first place. Even archeologists have had their doubts, but then they wake up and realize that they need to keep digging.

And yes, you being a creationist is a BIG thing, not just to me, but to this whole debate. You claim you're undecided on the shape of the planet, yet you only refute perfectly reproducible round earth facts. You only inject doubt into this particular discussion no matter what's thrown at you, all while subscribing to a religion that believes the earth is 6000 years old.

You expect all or nothing, even though you know this field, and any other scientific field is in a continuous state of research. You can't possibly be that that dumb, so stop trolling.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ack, this reply is lacking intellect on so many levels, you can do better than this!

As if you're the first person in the world to carry these thoughts, come on! It shouldn't be necessary to explain the insane amount of variables needed to be just right to perfectly preserve a fossil, let alone being able to find them in the first place. Even archeologists have had their doubts, but then they wake up and realize that they need to keep digging.

So the insane amount of variables needed for natural selection and mutation to be a reasonable solution to organisms emerging from a single cell into infinitely more complex families of animalia in such an incredibly short amount of time is OK though. Sure bud.

And yes, you being a creationist is a BIG thing, not just to me, but to this whole debate. You claim you're undecided on the shape of the planet, yet you only refute perfectly reproducible round earth facts. You only inject doubt into this particular discussion no matter what's thrown at you, all while subscribing to a religion that believes the earth is 6000 years old.

You expect all or nothing, even though you know this field, and any other scientific field is in a continuous state of research. You can't possibly be that that dumb, so stop trolling.

I don't subscribe to any particular religion, that has been established. I don't expect the mysteries to ever be solved, especially while we go down this rabbit hole filled with erroneous assumption after assumption. Natural Selection and prebiotic primordial ooze isn't the answer.

Why is it that evolution is scrutinized so much, added to, confused with ambiogenesis, etc... But when asked "who made God" the answer is " God has always existed".  Its a copout yet we're not allowed to call you out on it.

Call me out all you want, don't pretend you guys haven't at every turn. Here is a quote from a different thread that basically sums out how I feel about evolution, by someone who has obviously done more research than me. Read it, or don't, that's your decision. But don't insult my intelligence and call me ignorant if you refuse to look at the logical arguments presented by scientists and biologists actually in the field.

There is no evidence for an intelligent creator because logically, there cannot be. Science only finds explanations that involve the physical, a metaphysical being cannot be discovered by science.

The scientific explanations exclude any kind of evolution theory.


'Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.

"By what devices the genes direct the formation of patterns of neurons that constitute innate behavioral patterns is entirely enigmatic. Yet not only do animals respond appropriately to manifold needs; they often do so in ways that would seem to require something like forethought" (p. 68). R. Wesson adds: "An instinct of any complexity, linking a sequence of perceptions and actions, must involve a very large number of connections within the brain or principal ganglia of the animal. If it is comparable to a computer program, it must have the equivalent of thousands of lines. In such a program, not merely would chance of improvement by accidental change be tiny at best. It is problematic how the program can be maintained without degradation over a long period despite the occurrence from time to time of errors by replication" (p. 81).


Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).


M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).

In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that certain RNA molecules, called "ribozymes,"
could cut themselves up and stick themselves back together again, acting as their own
catalysts. This led to the following speculation: If RNA is also an enzyme, it could perhaps
replicate itself without the help of proteins. Scientists went on to formulate the theory of the "RNA world," according to which the first organisms were RNA molecules that learned to synthesize proteins, facilitating their replication, and that surrounded themselves with lipids to form a cellular membrane; these RNA-based organisms then evolved into organisms with a genetic memory made of DNA, which is more stable chemically. However, this theory is not only irrefutable, it leaves many questions unsolved. Thus, to make RNA, one must have nucleotides, and for the moment, no one has ever seen nucleotides take shape by chance and line up to form RNA. As microbiologist JamesShapiro writes, the "experiments conducted up until now have shown no tendency for a plausible prebiotic soup to build bricks of RNA. One would have liked to discover ribozymes capable of doing so, but this has not been the case. And even if one were to discover any, this would still not resolve the fundamental question: where did the first RNA molecule come from?". He adds: "After ten years of relentless research, the most common and remarkable property of ribozymes has been found to be the capacity to demolish other molecules of nucleic acid. It is difficult to imagine a less adapted activity than that in a prebiotic soup where the first colony of RNA would have had to struggle to make their home".


The contents of this famous soup are problematic. In 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
did an experiment that was to become famous; they bombarded a test tube containing water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane with electricity, supposedly imitating the atmosphere of the primitive earth with its permanent lightning storms; after a week, they had produced 2 of the 20 amino acids that nature uses in the construction of proteins. This experiment was long cited as proof that life could emerge from an inorganic soup. However, in the 1980s, geologists realized that an atmosphere of methane and ammoniac would rapidly have been destroyed by sunlight and that our planet’s primitive atmosphere most probably contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and traces of hydrogen. When one bombards the latter with electricity, one does not obtain biomolecules. So the prebiotic soup is increasingly considered to be a "myth".

Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: "In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

During the 1980s, it became possible to determine the exact sequence of amino acids in given proteins. This revealed a new level of complexity in living beings. A single nicotinic receptor, forming a highly specific lock coupled to an equally selective channel, is made of five
juxtaposed protein chains that contain a total of 2,500 amino acids lined up in the right order. Despite the improbability of the chance emergence of such a structure, even nematodes, which are among the most simple multicellular invertebrates, have nicotinic receptors.
Confronted by this kind of complexity, some researchers no longer content themselves with the usual explanation. Robert Wesson writes in his book Beyond natural selection: "No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics."
Other researchers have pointed out the improbability of the mechanism that is supposed to be the source of variation — namely, the accumulation of errors in the genetic text. It seems
obvious that "a message would quickly lose all meaning if its contents changed continuously in an anarchic fashion." How, then, could such a process lead to the prodigies of the natural
world, of which we are a part?


Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.
Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."


In the middle of the 1990s, biologists sequenced the first complete genomes of free-living
organisms. So far, the smallest known bacterial genome contains 580,000 DNA letters. This
is an enormous amount of information, comparable to the contents of a small telephone
directory. When one considers that bacteria are the smallest units of life as we know it, it
becomes even more difficult to understand how the first bacterium could have taken form
spontaneously in a lifeless, chemical soup. How can a small telephone directory of information
emerge from random processes?
The genomes of more complex organisms are even more daunting in size. Baker’s yeast is a
unicellular organism that contains 12 million DNA letters; the genome of nematodes, which are rather simple multicellular organisms, contains 100 million DNA letters. Mouse genomes, like human genomes, contain approximately 3 billion DNA letters.'

[Lord Dave]

You quoted Sandokan?! 




Bwahahahahabhahahahahahhahahah!!!


Fun fact: Sandokan aka Levee, is insane.

[andruszkow]

You regard millions to billion years a short amount of time, while at the same time living for 100 years yourself is rather an accomplishment?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

You quoted Sandokan?! 




Bwahahahahabhahahahahahhahahah!!!


Fun fact: Sandokan aka Levee, is insane.

fun fact: none of the text there is original thought of his own, all quotes from literature that one typically would be interested in if he wanted to learn the truth of a matter.

You regard millions to billion years a short amount of time, while at the same time living for 100 years yourself is rather an accomplishment?

It is a short time, considering the evolution from single celled organisms that is purported to have happened would need untold billions of years. Yet, life as we know it, and any transition from these simple organisms, remained unaccounted for in your precious fossil until the explosion of life that was the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. Species rapidly appeared at a rate that natural selection and random mutation could not POSSIBLY have accounted for.

I've only lived 30 years, and I've seen no indication of things becoming other things, but I've witnessed plenty of extinctions so far.

[Rama Set]

It is a short time, considering the evolution from single celled organisms that is purported to have happened would need untold billions of years.

All evidence to the contrary.

Yet, life as we know it, and any transition from these simple organisms, remained unaccounted for in your precious fossil until the explosion of life that was the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. Species rapidly appeared at a rate that natural selection and random mutation could not POSSIBLY have accounted for.

Stephen J. Gould would disagree with you.  Are you a biologist?  He is.

I've only lived 30 years, and I've seen no indication of things becoming other things, but I've witnessed plenty of extinctions so far.

How did you witness an extinction?  If wikipedia is your source, I have linked, in this thread, one species of mosquito evolving in to another in living history, so what are you on about?

[andruszkow]

You quoted Sandokan?! 




Bwahahahahabhahahahahahhahahah!!!


Fun fact: Sandokan aka Levee, is insane.

fun fact: none of the text there is original thought of his own, all quotes from literature that one typically would be interested in if he wanted to learn the truth of a matter.

You regard millions to billion years a short amount of time, while at the same time living for 100 years yourself is rather an accomplishment?

It is a short time, considering the evolution from single celled organisms that is purported to have happened would need untold billions of years. Yet, life as we know it, and any transition from these simple organisms, remained unaccounted for in your precious fossil until the explosion of life that was the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. Species rapidly appeared at a rate that natural selection and random mutation could not POSSIBLY have accounted for.

I've only lived 30 years, and I've seen no indication of things becoming other things, but I've witnessed plenty of extinctions so far.

That's strange. Even though humans helped the process along, different breeds of dogs only took a couple hundred years to evolve, some maybe close to a Millennium, everything from great Danes to chihuahuas to huskeys. While they all look very different in shapes and sizes, they serve quite different purposes, and excel in each of their own environments, while sharing 99% of their genes with wolves. That's evolution right there.

Humans share, what, 96% of their genes with chimpanzees? Have you seen how different humans look from each other? Or how some humans can live a whole lifetime in 4500 meters of altitude, have different colors, some have an extra bone etc, and yet, the human genome across all these variants of the human species are 99.8-99.9% alike.

Ignoring the obvious clues of evolution, even though we're not able to uncover everything because time, is only possible if you choose actively to just disagree with everything and not being a so-called "conformist", being religious and believe the earth is not older than 6000 years, or lacking intellect.

Being eloquent and throwing off the simple minds with well put statements does not equal intellect. You should try and leave the safe boundaries that is your America and see the world as it is. Even if it's in the comfort of your desk chair.

Edit: Without looking it up, would you say a Hyena is canine or feline?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

All evidence to the contrary.

What evidence? *Crickets*

Stephen J. Gould would disagree with you.  Are you a biologist?  He is.

Are you? There is a litany of biologists that don't agree with the very basic concepts and doodles presented by Darwin... that's why there is a thing called "neo-darwinism."

How did you witness an extinction?  If wikipedia is your source, I have linked, in this thread, one species of mosquito evolving in to another in living history, so what are you on about?

You don't say? By golly, did the mosquito become a hummingbird? Oh, the mosquito became a mosquito... fascinating. For someone who knows what "suspension of disbelief is" you certainly go against all logic and reason when it fits your worldview.

That's strange. Even though humans helped the process along, different breeds of dogs only took a couple hundred years to evolve, some maybe close to a Millennium, everything from great Danes to chihuahuas to huskeys. While they all look very different in shapes and sizes, they serve quite different purposes, and excel in each of their own environments, while sharing 99% of their genes with wolves. That's evolution right there.

Humans share, what, 96% of their genes with chimpanzees? Have you seen how different humans look from each other? Or how some humans can live a whole lifetime in 4500 meters of altitude, have different colors, some have an extra bone etc, and yet, the human genome across all these variants of the human species are 99.8-99.9% alike.

Ignoring the obvious clues of evolution, even though we're not able to uncover everything because time, is only possible if you choose actively to just disagree with everything and not being a so-called "conformist", being religious and believe the earth is not older than 6000 years, or lacking intellect.

Being eloquent and throwing off the simple minds with well put statements does not equal intellect. You should try and leave the safe boundaries that is your America and see the world as it is. Even if it's in the comfort of your desk chair.

Edit: Without looking it up, would you say a Hyena is canine or feline?

Do you even understand what you're saying? Yes there are thousands of variants of dogs... BUT IT'S STILL A FUCKING DOG. That is NOT EVOLUTION, that is selective breeding. Your quip about how the human genome is 99.9% the same across all environments is OBVIOUS PROOF THAT NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T OCCUR. A Hyena is a separate type of animal altogether. Where are the obvious clues of evolution?

I've said my piece, as far as this thread goes, I'm finished. Really nothing left to do at this point. I'm not here to make any of you change your entire conception of the universe, just to point out the inconsistencies you're willing to accept to protect that concept. You can argue with me and doubt God and question my intelligence and personal beliefs all you want, but the evidence speaks for itself.

Also, the OP still stands as sound logic... Christian apologetics aside, the bible taken literally does describe a flat earth. Trying to discuss a topic such as the earth's shape with people who so hypocritically shovel shit like evolution down their gullets in the name of science and progress will never agree, for one second, to ponder any alternative to Carl Sagan's cosmos. Those who don't believe that humanity and life itself is a lucky accident on an insignificant speck of dust in the middle of an ever expanding universe might. Those at odds with the direction of modern science might. Explains why geocentrists and anti-relativity people are actually a more pleasant group to deal with then the glut of conformists here, and they're not very pleasant at all.

It's been real folks, but now I know that Politics, Religion, and now even Science itself is a hot topic to be avoided at all costs. What progress we've made in the 21st century, I tell ya.

[Rama Set]

Stephen J. Gould would disagree with you.  Are you a biologist?  He is.

Are you? There is a litany of biologists that don't agree with the very basic concepts and doodles presented by Darwin... that's why there is a thing called "neo-darwinism."

Who said Darwin was infallible?  Stephen J. Gould does not agree with Darwin on all counts either.  Like any first inquiry in to a subject, it is far from complete.

How did you witness an extinction?  If wikipedia is your source, I have linked, in this thread, one species of mosquito evolving in to another in living history, so what are you on about?

You don't say? By golly, did the mosquito become a hummingbird? Oh, the mosquito became a mosquito... fascinating. For someone who knows what "suspension of disbelief is" you certainly go against all logic and reason when it fits your worldview. [/quote]

So I suppose you don't agree with the definition of species now? Please tell me again how illogical -I- am.

Do you even understand what you're saying? Yes there are thousands of variants of dogs... BUT IT'S STILL A FUCKING DOG. That is NOT EVOLUTION, that is selective breeding. Your quip about how the human genome is 99.9% the same across all environments is OBVIOUS PROOF THAT NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T OCCUR. A Hyena is a separate type of animal altogether. Where are the obvious clues of evolution?

I've said my piece, as far as this thread goes, I'm finished. Really nothing left to do at this point. I'm not here to make any of you change your entire conception of the universe, just to point out the inconsistencies you're willing to accept to protect that concept. You can argue with me and doubt God and question my intelligence and personal beliefs all you want, but the evidence speaks for itself.

Also, the OP still stands as sound logic... Christian apologetics aside, the bible taken literally does describe a flat earth. Trying to discuss a topic such as the earth's shape with people who so hypocritically shovel shit like evolution down their gullets in the name of science and progress will never agree, for one second, to ponder any alternative to Carl Sagan's cosmos. Those who don't believe that humanity and life itself is a lucky accident on an insignificant speck of dust in the middle of an ever expanding universe might. Those at odds with the direction of modern science might. Explains why geocentrists and anti-relativity people are actually a more pleasant group to deal with then the glut of conformists here, and they're not very pleasant at all.

It's been real folks, but now I know that Politics, Religion, and now even Science itself is a hot topic to be avoided at all costs. What progress we've made in the 21st century, I tell ya.

All you have done is an inability to understand how traits can build up over time and how long a billion years is.  Trying to paint those who can as fascists is a nice touch.  The progress in the 21st century is divorcing people's notion of universe from religious views as far as empirical pursuits are concerned, but there is still a long way to go.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Troll comes on, states his badly conceived position, refuses, or more likely can't process the information we freely give him to try and bring him up to date, calls “God did it!” sound logic and then accuses us of being narrow minded, priceless!

[Round fact]

First and foremost is the fact that the OP is placing limits on God and His Creation to fit the OP's personal view of what he believes it should be. The OP seems... Strike that. IS convinced that God did not then, nor does now, have the power to create the Big Bang. That God is so puny that a small little FE under a small dome is all He is capable of.

Second, the OP, is like Intikam, though more polite in that he hints, rather than getting in your face, that if you don't take the Creation Account word for word you deny God.

Third, the OP forgets that the Creation Account was told to, and written by, people with a very a limited vocabulary. They had no concept of the vastness of Creation, nor were they capable of understanding what it was God was showing them. God reduced it the understanding of the lowest common denominator.

Keeping on with the above point, all one needs do is read the Revelation of John. John was shown further events and did his best to describe them to his readers. I daresay, his descriptions are still unintelligible to the reader, though many have attempt to guess what was described.

Fourth, the OP like many others, past, present and future, have attempted to make science and God into one Being. Religion, or in the OP's case, God, is WHO did it. Science was, is, and always will be HOW it was done.

Which brings us to the the fifth point. Science is not Anti-God. Not even the Atheist Scientist is anti-God, simply because God not provable. One can observe, but there is no experiment, there is no math to prove Him. There never will be. God is about Faith.

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.

It is clear, science has no part in this.

One more point that needs to be understood, thoughI have doubts the OP will seek to understand.

Humans on a Blue Marble orbiting a star orbiting a galaxy orbiting billions of other galaxies are still special to God, because He STILL created us.

It is sad the OP believes he has to limit God's Creation in order see himself as worthy of God and it misses the point of the New Testament completely.

Open your eyes and LOOK at His Creation. ALL of it. AMAZING

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

First and foremost is the fact that the OP is placing limits on God and His Creation to fit the OP's personal view of what he believes it should be. The OP seems... Strike that. IS convinced that God did not then, nor does now, have the power to create the Big Bang. That God is so puny that a small little FE under a small dome is all He is capable of.

Second, the OP, is like Intikam, though more polite in that he hints, rather than getting in your face, that if you don't take the Creation Account word for word you deny God.

Third, the OP forgets that the Creation Account was told to, and written by, people with a very a limited vocabulary. They had no concept of the vastness of Creation, nor were they capable of understanding what it was God was showing them. God reduced it the understanding of the lowest common denominator.

Keeping on with the above point, all one needs do is read the Revelation of John. John was shown further events and did his best to describe them to his readers. I daresay, his descriptions are still unintelligible to the reader, though many have attempt to guess what was described.

Fourth, the OP like many others, past, present and future, have attempted to make science and God into one Being. Religion, or in the OP's case, God, is WHO did it. Science was, is, and always will be HOW it was done.

Which brings us to the the fifth point. Science is not Anti-God. Not even the Atheist Scientist is anti-God, simply because God not provable. One can observe, but there is no experiment, there is no math to prove Him. There never will be. God is about Faith.

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.

It is clear, science has no part in this.

One more point that needs to be understood, thoughI have doubts the OP will seek to understand.

Humans on a Blue Marble orbiting a star orbiting a galaxy orbiting billions of other galaxies are still special to God, because He STILL created us.

It is sad the OP believes he has to limit God's Creation in order see himself as worthy of God and it misses the point of the New Testament completely.

Open your eyes and LOOK at His Creation. ALL of it. AMAZING

I'm assuming I'm OP, even though a lot of that doesn't seem to correlate to my position whatsoever.

First and foremost there is no limit to the Creator. I never implied that. The implication is that evolution and the big bang are not sound logically. Another important thing worth mentioning, and has been mentioned --i forgive you for not reading all 8 or so pages of this-- is evolution excludes God, and is an alternative to Creation. Creation does NOT exclude evolution, though I'm more inclined to believe that it has not been demonstrated how a single cell can turn into a fish into an ape into a man. Another thing that evolution has absolutely no answer for is the Origin of Life. I've been accused of conflating evolution and origin of life, via stupidity and or malicious intent, repeatedly. However we know this basic tenet of existence: Life comes from other life. There is no answer for that first spark of Life within the confines of Godless modern cosmogony. There is no example of an inorganic compound becoming an INFINITELY and INFINITESIMALLY complex living being, even a single celled organism.

You seem to be a believer in Creation, but you must realize you are at odds with even an atheist scientist, who's personal agenda is to remove God from the equation. You can say he can't be anti-god but isn't that what atheism is in the first place? Agnosticism is maybe what you are referring to, someone that admits they can't prove or disprove God's existence. There is, in my opinion, an active malevolent agenda to condition people into believing life is a meaningless, fleeting, material thing. What better way then to remove God from creation, and teach people they are a lucky accident on a speck in the Universe. This is the implication. This is the accepted dogma. I'm not making this up. It is evolution vs creationism education being debated across the country, even though I went to public school in the North East and evolution was completely and totally taught as a fact.

Of course all of Creation would be precious to the Creator. I do agree with that. I don't doubt for a second that there are possibly thousands, or millions of other planets that have life on it like ours. I don't pretend to be special in that sense. I am strictly bringing to light the agenda in which the Creator is being actively removed from the Creation in society. You should be able to tell by the degradation of values and morals and even the family structure itself just how effective this agenda has been.

Perhaps, though, maybe you missed the intent of this post in the first place. I didn't come here to debate creation/evolution/big bang at all. I came here to discuss the inherent error with trying to debate the shape of the Earth within the confines of the scientific community. As you can see I've been staunchly rebuked, and even attacked personally for my belief in God-- of which I'm in the majority of humanity. To try to discuss the Earth possibly being flat in that same arena is a disaster.

I do, however, want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the discussion. Discourse and debate are great ways to find the truth of a situation, but not always the best way to come to understand someone. Just because one doesn't believe the same exact things as another, that doesn't make them any less worthy of having a say. If my treatment here is any indication, you can see just how judgemental and close-minded we have become as a society. America in particular was built upon the principle of giving the minority a say in how there life is ran, built upon allowing dissenting voices to be heard, not silencing them.

Of course, I must be trolling if I believed that those principles are dear to our leaders or the general public anymore.

[Ecthelion]

I'm assuming I'm OP, even though a lot of that doesn't seem to correlate to my position whatsoever.

First and foremost there is no limit to the Creator. I never implied that. The implication is that evolution and the big bang are not sound logically. Another important thing worth mentioning, and has been mentioned --i forgive you for not reading all 8 or so pages of this-- is evolution excludes God, and is an alternative to Creation. Creation does NOT exclude evolution, though I'm more inclined to believe that it has not been demonstrated how a single cell can turn into a fish into an ape into a man. Another thing that evolution has absolutely no answer for is the Origin of Life. I've been accused of conflating evolution and origin of life, via stupidity and or malicious intent, repeatedly. However we know this basic tenet of existence: Life comes from other life. There is no answer for that first spark of Life within the confines of Godless modern cosmogony. There is no example of an inorganic compound becoming an INFINITELY and INFINITESIMALLY complex living being, even a single celled organism.

You seem to be a believer in Creation, but you must realize you are at odds with even an atheist scientist, who's personal agenda is to remove God from the equation. You can say he can't be anti-god but isn't that what atheism is in the first place? Agnosticism is maybe what you are referring to, someone that admits they can't prove or disprove God's existence. There is, in my opinion, an active malevolent agenda to condition people into believing life is a meaningless, fleeting, material thing. What better way then to remove God from creation, and teach people they are a lucky accident on a speck in the Universe. This is the implication. This is the accepted dogma. I'm not making this up. It is evolution vs creationism education being debated across the country, even though I went to public school in the North East and evolution was completely and totally taught as a fact.

Of course all of Creation would be precious to the Creator. I do agree with that. I don't doubt for a second that there are possibly thousands, or millions of other planets that have life on it like ours. I don't pretend to be special in that sense. I am strictly bringing to light the agenda in which the Creator is being actively removed from the Creation in society. You should be able to tell by the degradation of values and morals and even the family structure itself just how effective this agenda has been.

Perhaps, though, maybe you missed the intent of this post in the first place. I didn't come here to debate creation/evolution/big bang at all. I came here to discuss the inherent error with trying to debate the shape of the Earth within the confines of the scientific community. As you can see I've been staunchly rebuked, and even attacked personally for my belief in God-- of which I'm in the majority of humanity. To try to discuss the Earth possibly being flat in that same arena is a disaster.

I do, however, want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the discussion. Discourse and debate are great ways to find the truth of a situation, but not always the best way to come to understand someone. Just because one doesn't believe the same exact things as another, that doesn't make them any less worthy of having a say. If my treatment here is any indication, you can see just how judgemental and close-minded we have become as a society. America in particular was built upon the principle of giving the minority a say in how there life is ran, built upon allowing dissenting voices to be heard, not silencing them.

Of course, I must be trolling if I believed that those principles are dear to our leaders or the general public anymore.

Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?

Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?

Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.

Who said religious institutions aren't apart of this degradation? I certainly didn't. Samuel L. Jackson said it best in Pulp Fiction: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."

Interestingly enough, that isn't even an actual bible passage. The message however is as real as it gets. There are selfish, tyrannical men in many positions of power all across every facet of society, political, religious, industrial, law, media, the list goes on.

Man is inherently fallible because of our inherently fallible flesh, and the desires of it. Therefore we must strive to overcome the lust for the worldly things that satisfy our most immediate desires. We must metaphorically sacrifice our lower selves which are controlled by ego and attempt to attain a higher principled version of yourself more in tune with compassion and empathy. It is a never ending struggle, nobody is perfect, so we must be mindful of our flawed nature in this regard. We can begin by putting more emphasis on genuine emotional connections and less on the temporary material things in this world.

There are some of the values I try to live by, I hope you've found reading them worthwhile.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Actually no!

I'm all for the lust.

[Rama Set]

Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?

Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.

Who said religious institutions aren't apart of this degradation? I certainly didn't. Samuel L. Jackson said it best in Pulp Fiction: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."

Interestingly enough, that isn't even an actual bible passage. The message however is as real as it gets. There are selfish, tyrannical men in many positions of power all across every facet of society, political, religious, industrial, law, media, the list goes on.

Man is inherently fallible because of our inherently fallible flesh, and the desires of it. Therefore we must strive to overcome the lust for the worldly things that satisfy our most immediate desires. We must metaphorically sacrifice our lower selves which are controlled by ego and attempt to attain a higher principled version of yourself more in tune with compassion and empathy. It is a never ending struggle, nobody is perfect, so we must be mindful of our flawed nature in this regard. We can begin by putting more emphasis on genuine emotional connections and less on the temporary material things in this world.

There are some of the values I try to live by, I hope you've found reading them worthwhile.

You need to read some Buddhist thought if you think that emotional connections are most lasting and permanent than physical ones.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?

Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.

Who said religious institutions aren't apart of this degradation? I certainly didn't. Samuel L. Jackson said it best in Pulp Fiction: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."

Interestingly enough, that isn't even an actual bible passage. The message however is as real as it gets. There are selfish, tyrannical men in many positions of power all across every facet of society, political, religious, industrial, law, media, the list goes on.

Man is inherently fallible because of our inherently fallible flesh, and the desires of it. Therefore we must strive to overcome the lust for the worldly things that satisfy our most immediate desires. We must metaphorically sacrifice our lower selves which are controlled by ego and attempt to attain a higher principled version of yourself more in tune with compassion and empathy. It is a never ending struggle, nobody is perfect, so we must be mindful of our flawed nature in this regard. We can begin by putting more emphasis on genuine emotional connections and less on the temporary material things in this world.

There are some of the values I try to live by, I hope you've found reading them worthwhile.

You need to read some Buddhist thought if you think that emotional connections are most lasting and permanent than physical ones.

I have very eclectic views on spirituality... if I wrote them all out most would think I'm some kind of lunatic. But I am inclined to believe that reincarnation is real. I'm not inclined to believe that you can become a bug or a dog or something, more so that your soul is infinite in nature and undergoes a refinement process through physical manifestation. Since the Creator is merciful, you aren't destroyed for your sins, you are given the opportunity to reach "nirvana" through this metaphorical refinement process akin to the process used to purify gold. Maybe most never reach this point, and maybe there is a limited number of chances, who knows. One thing though is that I do not believe this life to be the end all be all of existence. Hence my disillusionment with the worship of the mundane and material that we see celebrated these days. In my opinion, there is either an active campaign by mortal men who wish to horde the secrets of the universe and the powers unlocked in that knowledge to themselves, or a more spiritual battle sanctioned by the great deceiver himself in order to keep humanity from reaching Oneness with the Creator and realization of their divine origin.

Or maybe human's just fucking suck, and there is no enemy except ourselves. Either way, it is beneficiary to all mankind to practice self-discipline, and to try to live a more principled life. In that regard, even if all teachings boiled down to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others..." then that is a great a place to start. Followed eventually by "Do for others..." "Teach others..."

And no, flesh isn't inherently evil... I embrace all aspects of my creation, as they are all aspects of the Creator. Life is about balance. It's easy to avoid lust living on a mountain as a monk, a lot more challenging being in the world. You shouldn't let any aspect of yourself dominate your life because then you'll miss just how magical and complex it is.