Go to Unsolved Mystery Publications Main Index Go to Free account page
Go to frequently asked mystery questions Go to Unsolved Mystery Publications Main Index
Welcome: to Unsolved Mysteries 1 2 3
 
 New Mystery StoryNew Unsolved Mystery UserLogon to Unsolved MysteriesRead Random Mystery StoryChat on Unsolved MysteriesMystery Coffee houseGeneral Mysterious AdviceSerious Mysterious AdviceReplies Wanted on these mystery stories
 




Show Stories by
Newest
Recently Updated
Wanting Replies
Recently Replied to
Discussions&Questions
Site Suggestions
Highest Rated
Most Rated
General Advice

Ancient Beliefs
Angels, God, Spiritual
Animals&Pets
Comedy
Conspiracy Theories
Debates
Dreams
Dream Interpretation
Embarrassing Moments
Entertainment
ESP
General Interest
Ghosts/Apparitions
Hauntings
History
Horror
Household tips
Human Interest
Humor / Jokes
In Recognition of
Lost Friends/Family
Missing Persons
Music
Mysterious Happenings
Mysterious Sounds
Near Death Experience
Ouija Mysteries
Out of Body Experience
Party Line
Philosophy
Poetry
Prayers
Predictions
Psychic Advice
Quotes
Religious / Religions
Reviews
Riddles
Science
Sci-fi
Serious Advice
Strictly Fiction
Unsolved Crimes
UFOs
Urban Legends
USM Events and People
USM Games
In Memory of
Self Help
Search Stories:


Stories By AuthorId:


Google
Web Site   

Bookmark and Share



To Believe Evolution, Mathematically, You Have A Greater Faith Than I

  Author:  19092  Category:(Debate) Created:(11/12/2004 5:11:00 PM)
This post has been Viewed (15578 times)

Mathematics has been called the “universal language”. Here is an example as to why, from http://www.learner.org/exhibits/dailymath/language.html

“With this language we can explain the mysteries of the universe or the secrets of DNA. We can understand the forces of planetary motion, discover cures for catastrophic diseases, or calculate the distance from Boston to Bangkok. We can make chocolate chip cookies or save money for retirement. We can build computers and transfer information across the globe. Math is not just for calculus majors. It's for all of us. In addition, it's not just about pondering imaginary numbers or calculating difficult equations. It's about making better daily decisions and, hopefully, leading richer, fuller lives.”

And, from http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/math.html

“It has often been pointed out that despite the great differences between cultures and natural languages on Earth, mathematics is the same the world over. In fact, scientists are inclined to believe that mathematics and the mathematical rules which underpin nature are universal, so that all intelligent races in space have at least this much in common. Since the fundamental properties of numbers are the same everywhere, these can be used as the basis of interstellar messages. Binary numbers and prime numbers, in particular, being so fundamental, are considered to be of great importance in SETI. They underpinned the Arecibo Message and provided the initial clues to the decipherment of the alien signals in Carl Sagan's Contact and Fred Hoyle and John Elliot's A for Andromeda.”

It is on these bases, that I have more respect for mathematics than any other intellectual subject. Let me also share (which also plays a role for my understanding and enjoyment of mathematics) that even though its been said that I am ignorant, have no knowledge of “true” science, am stupid, cannot see the obvious, and the likes…I do have a college education and degree in microprocessor technology, hold a FCC General Radiotelephone Operators License, and am employed at a laboratory as a Senior Validation Technologist to provide professional and technical support to contract manufacturing of pharmaceutical lyophilized products. I hope that for some, this will assist in validating that I am not “stupid”.

Based upon mathematics, if you believe in “evolution,” you posses a much greater faith than I do as a Christian. In fact, your faith must near almost infinite proportions. Before going on, it might be better to first explore what exactly faith is.

Faith: 1. The idea that something can be made true, merely by wishing it to be so. 2. The proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it. 3. The belief that something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

"Faith is something you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." -- Archie Bunker

What are the odds that you can flip heads on a penny 12 million times in a row without tails coming up?

The answer is .5 to the 12 millionth power. Which could also be stated as 10 to the 3 million 600’Th power (1 with 3,600,000 zeroes after it). These are the same odds that E Coli developed 12,000,000 right-handed nucleotides by chance without one left handed nucleotide being added. The building blocks of DNA and proteins are molecules, which can exist, in both right and left-handed forms. This is called "chirality." The best result that experiments have shown has been a 3/7 chance. Meaning; from one nucleotide to the next there is a 3/7 chance that it will be the same hand as the previous nucleotide.

The Odds

(The following are taken from books in my own library and/or found at other web-sites)

During the last several decades a number of prestigious scientists have attempted to calculate the mathematical probability of the random-chance origin of life. The results of their calculations reveal the enormity of the dilemma faced by materialists. In the 1950's, Harold Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a “primordial soup.” Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state:

"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a 'chance' act." In the 1970's British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth - a bacterium.

Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup, he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoeba. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power.

Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability, which is less likely than one chance in 10 to the 50’Th power, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle.

Consider this. To win a state lottery you have about 1 chance in ten million (10 to the 7’th power). The odds of winning the state lottery every single week of your life from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 10 to the 29, 120’th power. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoeba.

In his calculations, Hoyle assumed that the primordial soup consisted only of left-handed amino acids. Hoyle knew that if the soup consisted of equal portions of right and left-handed amino acids, then the mathematical probability of the origin of pure left-handed proteins would be exactly zero.

After completing his research, Hoyle stated that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacterium "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. Hoyle also stated:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle's calculations may seem impressive, but they don't even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has made a more realistic estimate for spontaneous generation. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that were super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance are one in 10 to the 100 billionth power. This number is so large that it would require several thousand blank books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that you and your entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance.

In his book, Origins-A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro gives a very realistic illustration of how one might estimate the odds of the spontaneous generation of life. Shapiro begins by allowing one billion years (5 x 10 to the 14’Th power minutes) for spontaneous biogenesis. Next he notes that a simple bacterium can make a copy of itself in twenty minutes, but he assumes that the first life was much simpler. So he allows each trial assembly to last one minute, thus providing 5 x 10 to the 14’Th power trial assemblies in 1 billion years to make a living bacterium.

Next he allows the entire ocean to be used as the reaction chamber. If the entire ocean volume on planet earth were divided into reaction flasks the size of a bacterium we would have 10/36 separate reaction flasks. He allows each reaction flask to be filled with all the necessary building blocks of life. Finally, each reaction chamber is allowed to proceed through one-minute trial assemblies for one billion years. The result is that there would be 10 to the 51’St power tries available in 1 billion years. According to Morowitz we need 10 to the 100 billionth power trial assemblies. Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote:

"The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."

Regarding the origin of life Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated in 1982:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954:

"One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

In this incredible statement by Wald we see that his adherence to the materialist's paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald's belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Despite these incredible odds, and the seemingly insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to university. In fact, NASA scientists reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes. George Wald eloquently points out the reason for this fanatical adherence to spontaneous generation:

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is not third way.

Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred 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 spontaneously by chance!"

According to Wald, it's not a matter of the evidence; it's a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like, and cannot accept the alternative: that a transcendent Creator created all life on earth. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible," in order to cling to their belief that the universe is a closed system. A system that has no room for such a Creator.

There are so many examples, mathematically, why evolution is all but impossible, that in-order to share them all would require hundreds, in not thousands, of pages. And by now, I’m sure most readers didn’t make it this far…

In conclusion let me add…

The principles for practicing science itself are not taught in school. As an alternative, we concentrate on what subjects may or may not be taught. Maybe we need to ascertain how to teach science, rather than telling science what it may or may not construe about the universe.







You can join Unsolved Mysteries and post your own mysteries or
interesting stories for the world to read and respond to Click here

Scroll all the way down to read replies.

Show all stories by   Author:  19092 ( Click here )

Halloween is Right around the corner.. .







 
Replies:      
Date: 11/12/2004 5:30:00 PM  From Authorid: 62915    I'm sure this is very interesting but I am very sorry to say I cannot get my mind around the mathematical terms. I just went brain dead. I do however think your conclusion brigns up a very good point! Ghost-Chick  
Date: 11/12/2004 5:36:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    Hello Ghost-Chick and thanks for your reply. For some, math can be boring. For me, it's the basis for everything. I'm kinda nerdy in a sense when it comes to math. I have read your replies to other posts related to this subject and appreciate your open minded thoughts. Thanks for stopping by...  
Date: 11/12/2004 5:51:00 PM  From Authorid: 62915    No problem Ghost-chick  
Date: 11/12/2004 6:38:00 PM  From Authorid: 55967    Granted, I don't have time to read the whole thing through although I read most of it, and it seems you are only making a case for "intelligent design" vs. spontaneous creation. I read nothing that says evolution itself could not have occured even with "intelligent design." I submit that it can.  
Date: 11/12/2004 6:46:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    Interesting position GypsyHawk, thanks for your comment. Science and mathematics go hand in hand. What I have tried to share within this post is scientific mathematical evidence which opposes evolution as the "origin" of life.  
Date: 11/12/2004 6:51:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    Many people have different ideas about the definition of religion. The one I acknowledge as most correct is found in James 17 >cPure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.  
Date: 11/12/2004 6:59:00 PM  From Authorid: 38751    Excellent post! i too am unsure about evolution , after studying it , i still felt i had far to many questions to be resolved , and too many things i could account for beyond the evolutionary sphere. I have always had the conclusion that as much as people may disagree (and thats fine) science is a study of trial and error , of testing and proof. Religon is simply a matter of faith. Evolution is not simply "big bang....a few apes......humans" - its such an indepth study and as my point , i would like to say i am in agreeance as you have presented the other side of evolution , and its true , while there are clues for and against , when it comes to religion , science stand no chance with true belivers. If i told the pope that i had proved the theory of evolution (if i actually had) , i strongly doubt he would throw off that hat thing he wears and lose his faith.  
Date: 11/12/2004 7:04:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    Thanks Devil-With-A-Halo for stopping by and your comment.  
Date: 11/12/2004 7:41:00 PM  From Authorid: 47218    if the numbers here are even correct, all this demonstrates is that we don't understand the full details of the conditions in which life first came into existance (probably true) or that there are probably few to no other planets with life on them. Extremely low probability is NOT the same as impossiblity.  
Date: 11/12/2004 8:30:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    Keep in mind that this is the mathematical odds for the simplest of life, bacteria....not people.  
Date: 11/12/2004 9:08:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    The fundamentals of math, the "universal language" cannot lie or mislead. These are the mathematical facts, "believe it, or not". The undisputed fact remains, to believe in evolution requires faith...  
Date: 11/12/2004 9:54:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    Interesting King, while I hate Math..LOl, I have studied some of these men you speak about in college and this is interesting stuff. As far as the math work, Ill take your word for it...LOL  
Date: 11/12/2004 10:04:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    Hello my friend SixGun. Good to have and see you back at USM. Almost feels like old times again. The mathematical probability of evolution provides undeniable evdience that a logical, sensible, and reasoning mind cannot dispute.  
Date: 11/12/2004 10:35:00 PM  From Authorid: 47218    I'm not disputing the fundamentals of math (though I question the reliability of some of the facts presented here)-- I'm disputing the conclusions drawn from the facts.  
Date: 11/12/2004 10:52:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 19092    And that, MollyCat, you are entitled to do. I thank you for reading the post and considering what I have presented. God bless,  
Date: 11/12/2004 11:50:00 PM  From Authorid: 12341    I think the last paragragh said enough for me. College math was my worst subject, but what makes sense just makes sense.  
Date: 11/13/2004 5:02:00 AM  From Authorid: 42792    If someone has faith in a supernatural higher power then why is it so difficult to believe in a so called miracle? The improbability of a god is probably about the same as evolution. I choose evolution and stick to MY theory that we're all part of one god and its name is energy.  
Date: 11/13/2004 6:51:00 AM  From Authorid: 47296    You are assuming that life as we know it follows the rules of math, as were those who did the research. You are also assuming that life originated on this planet, and not elsewhere. Our planet, and our solar system, are both young, especially when given the age of other stars that we know are out there. As I have stated in the past, there is evidence to support that at one time there were civilazations far greater than any known today here on Earth. What is to say that man even originated here on Earth? If he did not, then exactly how old is man? We do know that the human body is capable of adapting (evolving) over time to fit the enviroment in which it lives. Science and mathematics are both knowledge. Man has a history of gaining arrogance as he gains knowledge. It is arrogance to believe that all life originated here, on one of the younger planets in the universe, just as it is folly to beleive we are the only people in that vast universe. History has shown that man is quick to use religion to explain those things he does not understand, just as some beleive man turned to religion after the last apopolyptic event to explain why much of the Earth was destroyed by a cataclysmic event that led to the Ice Age. The answers all seek may indeed be embedded in mathematics and science, but I do not believe they will be found here on Earth, but elsewhere within our universe.  
Date: 11/13/2004 9:32:00 AM  From Authorid: 62682    Great Post KingCaspian!!! Though you may have been called ignorant or stupid, this sounds like a post of a very smart man. Never have been good at math, and you use to bore me as a child while helping me on my math problems for school..hehehe...but now you did it, you caught my attention. Makes sense to me!!  
Date: 11/13/2004 11:26:00 AM  From Authorid: 15621    2 sprirt, you said "there is evidence to support that at one time there were civilazations far greater than any known today here on Earth" what evidence would this be?  
Date: 11/13/2004 12:41:00 PM  From Authorid: 47296    Six Gun, the strogest evidence is found on a mountainous plateu in South America. Overflying the area, one can clearly make out what appears to be the lines of a gigantic airstrip, far larger than any we have today. There has yet to be a logial answer as to where it came from, or how it was built, but it is known that the lines as they are laid out are far strighter and accurate than anything that could have been done by our ancestors. Also, in numoerus temples found through Central and South American there are carvings that clearly show people with advanced technology. As I said, it is folly to beleive that life originated here, on such a young planet, when there are millions of stars that could have their own solar systems, and life, that is much older, and far more advanced thatn we are today.  
Date: 11/13/2004 3:44:00 PM  From Authorid: 19613    My position is somewhat similiar to Gypsyhawk's. Creationsim does not have to come into conflict with the theory of evolution unless one believes a version such as that found in the bible, literally. I have always wondered that if God created man through some means more complicated than that described in Genesis, how would he have explained it to the people living thousands of years ago?  
Date: 11/13/2004 6:35:00 PM  From Authorid: 11240    I love math. Almost became a math teacher, actually. A miracle is just a wonderful thing without any belief that "something" created the wonderful thing. Knowing that science OR mathematics have not been able to give us "the full details of the conditions in which life (on this planet) first came into existence" doesn't mean that there are not other subjects available to ponder that question. It has always been a puzzle to me why we teach subjects in such vacuums. All school subjects are interrelated if one just thinks about "how" long enough. In a science class, the thought processes of a student aren't going to be utilized to his or her full capacity if all that is available for them in their "scientific inquiries" is whatever the current acceptable scientific theories of the day are. Which brings me to this question: How scientific is it for evolutionists to ignore ancient discoveries such as the one TS speaks of? God Bless.  
Date: 11/13/2004 6:37:00 PM  From Authorid: 11240    Oh, I meant to add, GREAT POST, KC. I did read all the way through it, and it held my interest beside. God Bless.  
Date: 11/13/2004 8:04:00 PM  From Authorid: 36967    There is science agianst evolution, but Natural Selection is sceintific. Many people claim to be scientist, and think they are so smart because they have more degrees than a thermometer, yet they cannot tell the difference between the two.  
Date: 11/13/2004 8:26:00 PM  From Authorid: 62599    I read the whole thing, and have to say im quite impressed. Ill try to comment later when ive examined all the evidence more, because right now this post has just fried my mind.  
Date: 11/13/2004 10:10:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    2 spirit, while I do not want to take this post of on a different direction to say and I quote from your reply to King "there is evidence to support that at one time there were civilazations far greater than any known today here on Earth." and then to say that evidence is the following "the strogest evidence is found on a mountainous plateu in South America. Overflying the area, one can clearly make out what appears to be the lines of a gigantic airstrip, far larger than any we have today. There has yet to be a logial answer as to where it came from, or how it was built, but it is known that the lines as they are laid out are far strighter and accurate than anything that could have been done by our ancestors. Also, in numoerus temples found through Central and South American there are carvings that clearly show people with advanced technology."
  
Date: 11/13/2004 10:14:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    I've read about these lines you speak of, and its pretty strong terms to say "there is evidence to support that at one time there were civilazations far greater than any known today here on Earth" but the evidence you speak of you say " appears to be the lines of a gigantic airstrip" notice the words appears to be. Your not sure are you? nor is anyone else. There is no real evidence to support life on other planets other than earth. If you point to drawing or lines hat can only be seen from the sky as evidence then your on pretty shaky ground.  
Date: 11/13/2004 10:23:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    The problem is your using the same argument here that people who are for evolution say the people who favor creation are accused of using...LOL, let me use your own words and insert some of my own to see if you get the problem with your reasoning. Here is what you say about your evidence "There has yet to be a logial answer as to where it came from (the air strip ), or how it was built(the air strip), but it is known that the lines as they are laid out are far strighter and accurate than anything that could have been done by our ancestors."
Now let me show yo uhow you are just believing in something because of faith just as people who believe in creation do... Here I will you your saying with my own words inserted "There has yet to be a logial answer as to where they came from (Humans ), or how they was built/made(the Humans ), but it is known that the Humans they are as accurately made than anything that could have been done by happenstance (evolution)."
  
Date: 11/13/2004 10:24:00 PM  From Authorid: 47296    Six Gun, if you had ever seen the site from the air, which I had the opportunity to see several years back while on deployment to South America, then you would be convinced that what is there was made by a civilization far more advanced than those indigenous to that area. As for life on other planets, why would we be the only ones in this vast universe? All through the history of man there have been reports of visitors from the sky, and there are even things in the Bible which point to that same thing. People can believe creationism and evolution all they wish. The real answers are not here though, but somewhere out there in that expanse we call space.  
Date: 11/13/2004 10:25:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    See, we believe what we believe because of the same reasons...faith...and actually, i have more proof for my belief...Lol....just making a jab at ya  
Date: 11/13/2004 10:26:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    But 2 spirit, Ive seen the rain, and the flowers.....Ive seen the sun rise and set..Ive seen people..Ive seen babies......ive seen the the trees in fall.....and I know in my heart what I know....that God made what I see..  
Date: 11/13/2004 10:37:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    When you say "As for life on other planets, why would we be the only ones in this vast universe?" that is a fallacy called, begging the question. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

According to your statement you assume just because life is on this planet that there must be life on other planets somewhere, and as you can see this is fallacious reasoning.
  
Date: 11/14/2004 12:27:00 AM  From Authorid: 16671    Good post King, keep em coming. Math is something that is used in so many ways. I'll read more tomorrow. I'm sleepy.  
Date: 11/14/2004 6:23:00 AM  From Authorid: 47296    Six Gun, why do our governments wish to expore space and other worlds? Because they know that there has to be other life out there, and they know the answers are out there. Voyager was sent into space no just to gather information, but to tell others that "hey, we are here".  
Date: 11/14/2004 7:57:00 AM  From Authorid: 15621    Again by saying "our governments wish to expore space and other worlds? Because they know that there has to be other life out there" is begging the question again, fallacious reasoning there, I thought we had covered that already?....Joking  
Date: 11/14/2004 8:47:00 AM  From Authorid: 62118    "There has yet to be a logial answer as to where they came from (Humans ), or how they was built/made(the Humans ), but it is known that the Humans they are as accurately made than anything that could have been done by happenstance (evolution)." - This is a contradiction, you're trying to apply evolution to the same limits of design. Complexity isn't a limiting factor in evolution, things don't appear instantly complex. This Complexity argument comes from the lack of understanding of Evolution.  
Date: 11/14/2004 8:56:00 AM  From Authorid: 15621    I disagree, Ive studied evolution in a college setting and probably have as much knowlege and understanding of it than 90% of the people here. You my friend, apparently did not read through all of my replies because if you did yo uwould have realized that the statement you have quoted, this one "This is a contradiction, you're trying to apply evolution to the same limits of design." was not made as fact to ber called a contradiction it was made only to show someone that there argument was false in the sense that they were using the same typwe of argument. It has nothing to do with, evolution, creation, or space line, or aircraft landing lines etc, it has to do with the argument used.  
Date: 11/14/2004 9:01:00 AM  From Authorid: 15621    you have just picked something ive said and tried to make it something its not......IF...you go back and read what I said before that quote you will see the following things...." The problem is your using the same argument here that people who are for evolution say the people who favor creation are accused of using" Here I am pointing out that the argument is the problem and then "let me use your own words and insert some of my own to see if you get the problem with your reasoning." I say there is a problem with that reasoning...so Actually, I admit there is a problem with that reasoning myself ...then I go on to say "Now let me show you how you are just believing in something because of faith"..actually, the woman I was talking to believe that life started on another planet, she didnt mention evolution, I did.  
Date: 11/14/2004 11:13:00 AM  From Authorid: 47296    Six Gun, there are people who have seen things which cannot be explained as being aircraft or weather ballons, or tricks of light. Most of them are called crazy. I myself have seen a light in the sky, years ago, which could not be explained. At first, it appeared to be an aircraft with the sun relfecting off it. I watched it for over 5 minutes slowly moving across the sky. Then, it dove at an angle, at an extremely high rate of speed, and disappeared from sight along the horizon. I kept expecting to hear of a plane crash, but there were never any reports. Maybe I saw a meteor, but meteors do not move slowly in one direction, then accelerate shrply in another direction. So, what did I see? I guess I am just another one of those crazies, because there is no doubt in my mind that what I saw was not of this world.  
Date: 11/14/2004 1:02:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    Again you are committing the same fallacy. Let me explain, I got into an acident and seen an Angel an he told me God had sent him to me, therfore God is real and angels are real. Well, this is not true but see what Im saying....things doesnt work this way....maybe you saw a secret military aircraft, but I know your answer to that...you worked in the military and you know we have nothing like that right?...well, maybe your right...maybe there are others out there but your reasoning and facts are as faulty as could be. Using your logig and reasoning my friend you are un-debatable, but its still been fun, hope we havent messed your post up here King..lol  
Date: 11/14/2004 1:04:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    When I said, this is not true....I did not mean Angels and God did not exist..LOl...I meant just becaus I see something doesnt mean its real or I should say..Just because isee something and THINK it is something else, does not mean it exists.  
Date: 11/14/2004 1:05:00 PM  From Authorid: 15621    And forgive my spelling, LOL. I get in such a hurry and forget to spell things correctly or hit the wrong keys or forget to put periods here or there, im just impatient..LOL  
Date: 11/14/2004 7:27:00 PM  From Authorid: 14226    I'm a bleiver in evolution but also in mathematics and creationism. Evolution does occur but it still does not exlpain why life just occurred? It's difficult to get your head around this topic in general. love,  
Date: 11/14/2004 7:33:00 PM  From Authorid: 14226    it does not require that much faith to believe in evolution. It is a theory that does support scientfic facts. He didn't rule out the possibility of god. he just seemed to belive that god allowed for the advancement of life by ridding those not suited to an environment be eliminated from the gene pool (ie Natural Selection). This allows for a great variety of species. hy is it so hard to believe both may have its faults and both have its truths?  
Date: 11/14/2004 7:34:00 PM  From Authorid: 14226    woops when i say 'He' I mean Charls Darwin.  
Date: 11/15/2004 9:44:00 PM  From Authorid: 61977    Two Spirit said it best for me here...(-:  
Date: 11/17/2004 12:22:00 AM  From Authorid: 36079    TS you could of seen some sort of experimental military aircraft? and heck just to throw it out it says in the Bible that Lucifer is the prince of the powers of the air.  
Date: 11/17/2004 12:29:00 AM  From Authorid: 36079    eclipse, there is just as much proof in God and the Bible as there is in evolution. There is so many fualty things with it anyway like carbon dating, and stating certian skulls must be pre human. I think it takes faith to believe in something you havent ever seen ie pre humans. Those skulls could just as easily be an extinct money or ape, or an extinct form of human. King, I'll try reading this tomorrow when it's not 3:30 am, lol  

Find great Easter stories on Angels Feather
Information Privacy policy and Copyrights

Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization

Pages:134 1414 526 1434 279 533 104 1094 113 193 839 141 1215 955 1152 1411 780 535 1591 1360 740 33 555 1288 1294 958 21 1367 1227 1050 467 1462 241 108 997 762 75 1413 1467 997 1231 754 210 471 104 1453 159 1281 900 991 976 945 764 429 1172 427 906 1437 637 1360 526 520 360 473 736 1239 959 416 889 1236 2 184 100 464 933 340 775 207 1 646 1332 908 777 1282 531 391 287 1274 594 490