http://www.protestanterrors.com/incorruptibles.htm
It's not the site I'm interested in, nor the protest-catholic debate, but down at the bottom. I was reading about st bernadette, and figured I'd post this here. Look up all the names. Their bodies are all preserved, not by any artificial means, but by their inability to rot. Please explain scientifically, kthx.
I'm not going to call this bs right off the bat, but I assume if you'll understand my hesitation to belive this. Extraoridnary claims require extraordinary proof etc etc.
I'll look into it tomorow, but I highly doubt that there is no other explaination that zOMG JESUS DID IT!!!1!
It doesn't matter, isn't the body just a vessel for the soul anyway? Why would it matter that these are preserved? Regardless, I don't really care, just throwing that out there. I'll read that site over carefully tomorrow and see if I care enough to actually fancy these ideas in a debate.
I'll work on poking holes in it when it isnt midnight with me having to read a whole book before classes which start at 8AM.
good luck. My 1337 googling skills didn't turn up anything
Doesnt mean I wont try.:cool:
And besides, just because science cant find a reasonable, logical, scientific explaination for something at the moment doesnt mean that there isnt one.
[quote] Incorruptibles are typically found lifelike, moist, flexible, and contain a sweet scent that many say smells like roses or other flowers, for years after death.
Hahaha oh wow.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/PallottiTomb.jpg
One of the people on that list. Doesn't look uncorrupted to me.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Itigelov_preserved.jpg
A non-Christian example, found while looking up the other names. Looks pretty gross, but much less decayed compared to that Pallotti fellow.
[quote]What is most astounding of all is the fact that for each incorrupt body discovered, after research has been done to determine who the person was, it has always been determined that the person was an extremely devout Catholic.
Clearly the author must not have seen the buddhist I have!
Since there was one buddhist found uncorrupt, it is possible for there to be other non-Christian incorruptibles out there. That would simply make this a currently unexplained phenomena, not a Christian miracle, as the page seems to suggest.
who's to say a Buddhist can't be incorrupt by the will of God? Aditionally, Pallotti is lookin pretty good for a corpse of 150+years old
Who's to say that a Christian can't be incorrupt by the will of Buddha? ooooooo
Stupidest twist of logic I've heard in several weeks.
Buddha isn't a god. . .
So, they're all on display?
I wouldn't doubt they've treated the corpses to prevent decomp.
I already said God could have preserve the Buddhist guy, you dip****, so my answer can apply there, too. Quit answering my question with more questions. I'm here to get you rocket scientists to rub two brian cells together and disprove this as being anything short of a miracle. Thanks for giving me yet another strike against you all.
[quote=me]And besides, just because science cant find a reasonable, logical, scientific explaination for something at the moment doesnt mean that there isnt one.
Did you miss that? Just because it cant be explained at the moment doesnt mean that it wont be. Thats what science and discovery is all about.
And do you really think that its fair to expect a bunch of kids with no access to the bodies or reasonable proximity thereof to be able to prove anything? Seems kinda like me saking you to disprove quantum physics only OOPS LOL YOU DONT HAVE A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR GUESS I WIN.
I'm not trying to attack what you're saying here, but just think about how silly a request it is.
Attributing something to god just because it cannot be explained scientifically is a huge display of ignorance.
so basically, I'm just as in the right as you are. You attribute it to some unexplained SCIENTIFIC phenomenon, while I attribute THAT phenomenon to be God. Basically we (Christians) take it a step further.
and I'll read more indepth later, as I just finished THREE HOURS of looking at microfilms. Additionally, I just went off because I think richaod is a nutsack. The rest of you are cool beans, though.
[quote]That would simply make this a currently unexplained phenomena...
As I said earlier. How can something be considered scientific or religious if its origins are unknown? Why are you so focused on making everything science vs. religion anyway?
Uh, science is based on logic:/
Uh, no. Religion is based on faith. There are aspects that dont make sense, but that you jsut have to accept. Science is based on testing things in a logical manner to derive truth, and then revising those assumptions if they turn out to be wrong.
Science can look back and say "whoops, I f*cked up," but religion claims infallibility.
Logic does not mean that it has to be proven, only believed by an individual. Scientific fact and logic are two different things in that scientific fact has to be proven and logic is a system of reasoning, and belief in a religion or God can be part of this reasoning, and yeah, faith can come into play here. Logic can imply a personal bias since it's a personal interpretation and Fact is without bias.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic
See if I misinterpret the word if you want.
But BJ Blaskowitz, why take it a step further? Why attribute something we know little about to God? Why not just admit its something we don't know about, and investigate it to find a scientific explination? In fact, think about what would happen if we took your idea a step further, and attributed everything we didn't know about to God. If we did this, we'd still be dwelling in ignorance with respect to just about every scientific discovery made by mankind.
If we had just accepted on faith that some people, occasionally, recover from diseases, and been satisfied that its just the "will of God," and a "miracle" that shouldn't be tampered with, we never could have discovered anything about our immune systems, or the other disease fighting abilities our bodies have.
That's the problem with some religions, they allow for contentment in scientific stagnation. And Sniper, that's why it has to be science vs. religion in this case, because the religious side takes a phenomena, (which, by the way, God would have no reason to create; think about it, wouldn't an omniscient being have something better to do than partially preserve people's bodies, assuming that the 'soul' is the important part of every human?) and labels it a miracle.
Once something has been labeled 'God's miracle', it is no longer scientific, and is in direct opposition to everything science stands for: the rational mind. If you believe God works through science, this is not a miracle, but rather something that can be explained by science.
I just wanna know if that if God didn't create us (our ancestors, earth, whatever), where did we come from!!!!
Matter was never created, in fact, it always existed. If you wanted to know where you personally came from, it's called evolution.
That's also the problem (read: major issue) with modern science (I'm not saying there isn't problems with religion, though)- according to quantum physics, matter might not actually exist. My stand is that the issue of the creation in and of the universe is a bad arguement for both sides, and it gets annoying.
zOMG EVOLUSHUN IZ TEH DEVULS TEACHIN
Logic is not something that is or is not proved. Logic is a tool that is used to determine whether something is valid. A person in a scientific scenario asks a question and then sets about to collect data, then uses logic to analyze and interpret that data. If there is some fundamental flaw in the grander scheme of things, then the process is repeated until a stisfactory answer is determined.
In religion, you think of a question and then look up the answer in the Bible, and then go with what it says because you believe it to be the inerrant word of god.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz][URL="http://www.protestanterrors.com/incorruptibles.htm"]http://www.protestanterrors.com/incorruptibles.htm[/URL]
It's not the site I'm interested in, nor the protest-catholic debate, but down at the bottom. I was reading about st bernadette, and figured I'd post this here. Look up all the names. Their bodies are all preserved, not by any artificial means, but by their inability to rot. Please explain scientifically, kthx.
See, this is where the difference lies.
Science's take on it: Hm, that's rather odd. Let's find out how that works.
Religion's take on it: IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S MAGIC THEN YOU'RE SOME KIND OF HEATHEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH AN EXPLANATION STRAIGHT AWAY. NO YOU CANNOT TEST IT TO FIND ONE, IT IS TOO HOLY.
Science isn't actually trying to p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ss off religion, contrary to popular belief. The whole point of science is just trying to find out how the world works. Conflict only arises when science finds out that what religion has been preaching for thousands of years, for example the earth being the centre of the universe, is actually bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it.
BJ, has any testing been done on these? Or has the church not allowed it for religious reasons?
I seem to remember them not wanting the Shroud of Turin to be tested for a long time, and then WHOOPS its from the like 15th century. SO have they allowed biopsies and all that good stuff, or have htey just kept scientists away?
The only picture I found of St. Beradette on Google seems to be the only one in circulation.
...Work of God my ***.
sorry guys, I'm looking sketchy, but I just got off work and am late for a party. It's hard to reply when you work 30+ hours a week and with school. I'll answer each reply tomorrow. And Fate, quickly: http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/ba_bernadette_intro.htm
http://www.christianmystics.com/traditional/women/berna2.jpg
http://www.206tours.com/images/StBernadette200.jpg
http://monywa.org/only/lourdes_St_Bernadette.JPG
http://www.expandingrealities.net/images/St_BernadetteWeb.gif
I dunno, maybe you misstyped "google"???
I still don't see how a chick from the 1800s has eyebrows so thin. She also looks like she's wearing makeup. Something had to happen to that body to preserve it.
I'm curious as to why all these bodies were exhumed. If it really is a scientific anomaly, then there are bound to be others just by using probablity.
Which would indicate that she, at most, would be a pale, hairless, and preserved husk.
[quote=somebody]Matter was never created, in fact, it always existed. If you wanted to know where you personally came from, it's called evolution.
[quote=Zerk]Yes yes perhaps, but what I'm getting at, where did matter come from? It always existed? But that doesn't make sense! How can that be? It was just always there? But in the physical world, and scientificaly, one cannot get something out of nothing. So where did the matter come from? Poof?
You are arguing against a system of logic using logic to defend non-logic. Realise this.
Christians don't believe in gravity
Step One:Big bang
Step Two: Big crunch
Step Three: go to Step One
Jesus, just look into the Big Crunch on google. I'm not going to waste my tie trying to explain it to you.
And it IS a theory, hence the name Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Its a good model of how species come about that has a lot going for it. It has not been proven, so its a theory, but its a darn good one, so it ha a decent amount of acceptance. But buy your logic, since you cant see an atom LOL NUCLEAR PHYSICS MUST NOT BE TRUE!!!1!
See the thing that cracks me up is that people say it's just a theory but then they get all upset if you disagree with it. If it's only a theory that you just think sounds good, why get upset when I disagree? (and I haven't even said I disagree) But you're avoiding my question; I don't really care about the big captain crunch, that's not what I'm trying to figure out. I just want to know how the original matter (particles, molecules, whatever) came into being. If you can sensibly explain that to me, I'll be happy!
~~
On my left hand...
I looked on google and I learned that the big crunch is this strange phenomenon that eventually the universe will expand so much that gravitation will take over and suck everything into a little bouncy ball. However, in my little Sherlock Holmes-like quest I also ran into this:
"However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have—to most scientists' considerable surprise—shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity, but instead, accelerating, suggesting that the universe will not end with a Big Crunch, but will instead expand forever. (The evidence of an accelerating universe is considered conclusive by most cosmologists since 2002.)"
Say what? Is this thing lying or are you?
****, I got to catch up. ..
Alright, i am by no means a religious individual, havent gone near a church since like age 5. But i have a super hard time buying that big bang B.S.
I dont care how big the bang was...the things that comprise turkeys, french toast, spoons, rubber bouncey balls, nosehairs, flaming hot cheetos, spicy chicken burritos from taco bell, F-22/A's, latex based paints, 73.4% of micheal jackson horrendously disfigured face...'Atoms' dont just arbitrarily appear out of thin air. Now whether the thousands of different bull**** religions that people choose to believe in are true or not, well...perhaps thats part of what the meaning of life...finding what you beleive in. Anyone with this 'god given' brain...eyes or no eyes...can see that the matter that this universe is made of...could in no way, just have been there...
Oh, btw...whatever makes up the rest of the 26.6 of micheal jacksons face...now that my friends, is truely unexplainable.
[QUOTE=Zerk]See the thing that cracks me up is that people say it's just a theory but then they get all upset if you disagree with it. If it's only a theory that you just think sounds good, why get upset when I disagree? (and I haven't even said I disagree) But you're avoiding my question; I don't really care about the big captain crunch, that's not what I'm trying to figure out. I just want to know how the original matter (particles, molecules, whatever) came into being. If you can sensibly explain that to me, I'll be happy!
~~
On my left hand...
I looked on google and I learned that the big crunch is this strange phenomenon that eventually the universe will expand so much that gravitation will take over and suck everything into a little bouncy ball. However, in my little Sherlock Holmes-like quest I also ran into this:
"However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have
Anyone who discredits evolution (or any other theory) on the grounds that it's "just a theory" knows absolutely fuck all about science.
Theories are working, mostly proven ideas that have been proven by several different people. They do not get upgraded to "laws" or other such nonsense, nor is a theory merely just an idea.
A similar discussion has been had in another board I go to, someone found an explanation of laws, theories and hypotheses complete with analogies.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved.
----
Theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
----
Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions...Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
----
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Demonblade, observing radiation given off by a black hole is not speculation.
I think some of you are missing the point about big bang. Read part of this site if you want to know what big bang is really all about.
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html
I'm technically Catolic, but to tell the truth I'm not really that into it. I mean, for me religions are a way some humans explained things they couldn't by saying it was all because of the will of God. I agree in the fact that it is a clear sign of ignorance. If some people don't agree with the theory of the Big Bang because we can't explain where all that mass that exploded came from, and that it couldn't simply appear there, I just got something to ask you: Where did God came from then huh? Explain that to me. I don't know how people came to believe something that was probably just an idea from a crazy man. Explaining myself, how do you know [insert name of any religion] did not came from a crazy man who was laying on his bed and then just suddenly thought "Hey, I'm bored. I wanna have some fun inventing something and making people believe it!" and it came to be what [insert same name of the previously selected religion] is these days. (By writing this I had no intention of offending anyone, it is just my point of view.)
Alrighty, I'll stop being goofy and cut right to the point. I've been wanting to know how evolutionists believe the universe came into being. I read parts of the article Mr. Cynical provided, and I came across this:
(I am assuming that this article contains what the majority of evolutionists agree on. If not, correct me.)
[quote]These objections, while they make the theory seem strange, can be dismissed by saying that the universe just happened to start that way. Since the big bang model says nothing about how the universe got here in the first place, we have to assume some initial conditions. We are free to assume that for whatever reason the universe started out in exactly the way it had to in order to produce galaxies, stars, and ultimately you."
What I don't understand is how they can actually believe that. Scientifically speaking, things just don't 'begin'. I don't drive down the street and suddenly have a boulder appear in front of me; (its existence started) When I find myself wondering how I'm going to get all my money for college, I don't see piles of $100 appear in front of me. To put it simply, nothing anywhere is 'beginning', IE, appearing out of nothing. One can't get something out of nothing. Yet somehow, evolutions assume that the world just 'began'. Completely against scientific reason.
They also assume it started exactly the way it had to. What would be the odds of that? 1 to 1,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000? (probably much much much much much much much greater)
Any explanation at all for this, or, is it like the article said; it's just assumed. (and thus the entire theory of evolution is based on asssumption; would seem silly to me.)
Who's to say the universe just wasn't always here? Why does it have to have a begining?
[quote]They also assume it started exactly the way it had to. What would be the odds of that? 1 to 1,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000? (probably much much much much much much much greater)
If it happened any other way, you wouldnt be here to ask that. So, really, the probability is 1.
My bad, I was thinking that the big bang was part of the entire evolution theory, sort of misled by the end of that quote I had: "We are free to assume that for whatever reason the universe started out in exactly the way it had to in order to produce galaxies, stars, and ultimately you." Essentially saying that first there was the big bang, which ultimately made me. (that's, evolution right? particles; BOOM!; millions of years; me (sadly) :D)
"it was always there" seems like a very good cop-out. Though granted, infinity is rather an impossible subject to comprehend. It's really hard to say anything for or against it; time is just a very difficult concept to grasp. I am skeptical of it being possible for matter/particles to just always have be there, but then again there is no way to argue that. At least I can't, I sure am not smart enough.
But saying zOMG GOD DID IT doesnt seem like a cop out to you? Huh.
Zerk: according to Quantum Physics, things can actually just happen for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
This isn't the point, though. Science as a whole doesn't think anything about the start of the universe, or if there even is one. No one's come up with a working, proven theory for it so science's stance is basically "no comment". The exact same stance it's taken on EVERYTHING until someone's managed to work it out.
Zerk, guess what the probability of winning the lottery is. Its one out of about twenty six million. Guess what? PEOPLE STILL WIN THE LOTTERY. The point here is that nomatter how unlikely evolution happening exactly the way it has is, IT STILL HAPPENED. And it STILL COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Am I getting through to you?
Also, saying the universe might have always been there is not a cop out. It is merely a general guess as to what MIGHT be true. As speedfreak said, science has no stand on things until there is a testable theory involved. The alternatives, however, take wild stabs in the darkness, making fools out of themselves in the process. In short, the universe may have always existed, or it may have started at some point for some reason, but until we know there's no point assuming some omniscient being did it.
And lastly, "(that's, evolution right? particles; BOOM!; millions of years; me (sadly) )" No, that's not evolution. Evolution says nothing about "particles; BOOM." Evolution merely states that over millions of years the human race has macro and micro-evolved to adapt to its surroundings and such. You really need to separate the Big Bang and evolution completely. They have absolutely - NOTHING - to do with each other; one is biology, one is cosmology.
I choose to think that the big bang explainsit a lot better than some sort of god, and at least my beliefs have some evidence going for them. All god has is a bunch of fanatics claiming that a moldy, several thousand year old, retranslated and re-edited book is the inerrant word of god.
So, yeah, it makes more sense to think that the big bang is the right answer.
For the record, the Big Bang is no longer regarded as an explosion, but rather an expansion.
Why does complexity of the universe make it rational to have an intelligent creator?
Well, it isnt, but people like to think that there is an order in the universe.
If everything is random, it tends to make people feel uneasy about their own self determination, or lack thereof.
Holy God. Zerk, you expect us to explain how the universe started? And BJ, you expect us to explain how these bodies were preserved? ****ing genius scientists don't know yet. How the hell are we supposed to know the answers? Sure, it's cool to argue over, but the beginning of the universe won't be determined on VGC by Vampiro (maybe in some other Internet, however) or any other member, for that matter.
...now that I got that out of the way.
BJ, I saw this show on the NG channel a couple months ago that showed some very well preserved and elastic bodies from thousands of years ago. Nobody knows how they were preserved exactly, or if any method was used at all other than wrapping them up, but they're there and that's that until someone figures out the secret.
excuse my grammar/spelling/whathaveyou, I'm not feeling good right now :(
Stop beating me to my ideas, Dreadnought. :/
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.:/ Until Curie did her work with radium, there wasnt any evidence of radiation, but that doesnt mean it didnt exist.
Granted, I still think religion is silly, but thats my belief, and I recognize it as such.
I don't think that in our present state that we can know for certain, and if we could, perhaps we were'nt meant to (assuming the existence of a higher power).
Cuz we got science and can explain things ;)
[quote]Since we know so little, it really comes down to a question of personal belief and opinion. Can't we agree to disagree?
But arguing is just so much more fun :P even though in the end everyone tends to be angry and no one's opinion has changed in the least bit. Low to no-grade entertainment!!
And technically speaking, the Bible is not really evidence of God existing, and I don't believe Christians even try to use that as evidence. It would be rather pointless to use it as proof; circular logic. It's hard to explain really, if you hate God and all things religion then you'll have a very hard time seeing any evidence that God does exists. The Christian could examine something, like the immense complexity of the human eye, and say "There's no way that could have just happened.", whereas the evolutionist can just say "The odds were 1 in 5 billion, hey, it happened."
And that's another thing I find hard to believe about evolution, how complex everything in the world is, and it supposedly all happened by chance. When a guy studies science he can start getting a grasp on how incredibly complex everything is, even down to stuff we take for granted, like being able to breathe.
~~~
I looked at transitonal fossils on google and came up with a large google article. Of the 3 reasons they gave for their 'not being' many transitional forms, they've got:
(1) "The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous."
(2) The fossils haven't been found yet. (like wow!)
and (my favorite) (3) "There's a third, unexpected reason that transitions seem so little known. It's that even when they are found, they're not popularized."
In a time when evolutionists parade all sorts of things they find, they somehow don't feel like telling us about the thousands of transitional fossils they find? I believe that!!!!!
I also find it entertaining that evolutionists will construct entire skeletons based on one bone they might find... if I recall correctly, they once made some half man-ape thing (Nebraska man) out of a tooth they found. Then later some guy figured out the tooth was just a tooth of some kind of extinct pig. (which were later alive found in Patagonia) whoops!! And assuming that they are digging our some transitional forms... since the earth is billions of years old, and evolution occurs so slowly, shouldn't we be finding multitudes upon multitudes of fossils of fish-frogs and reptile-birds? Dig a little here, dig a little there, transitional forms everywhere! Instead I see evolutionists scrambling for transitional forms, using things, like I mentioned above, pig teeth.
For example, alot of the supposed transitional fossils that I read about are things like "Upper Silurian - first little scales found." How can one construct an entire fish out of some scales? or "Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet." amusing the way it's written.. ideally we'd like a whole skeleton... but limb fragments do just fine... How does a paleontologist construct an entire skeleton out of something like fish scales or limb fragments? I don't quite understand how that would be possible. I suppose they must use some sort of scientific system?
Are you freaking serious? Part of your thing against evolution is that we havent found all the missing links?
Do you have any idea how difficult it is for fossils to form? If one thing in l;ike a hundred goes wrong in about a million years a fossil will not form. Think about it. how many TRILLIONS of dinosaurs do you think that there were during that age? DO think that the few thousand we have found is enough to make up for the like 200+ MILLION years that they were alive for? ALso, what the hell do you think that coal and oil are? Dead dinos. They died, and the carbon in their bodies was over time converted.
The fact that we havent found every single little link is not a strikew against evolution. Thats about as intelligent as the guy I saw on local cable public access that said that dino bones were put oin earth by satan to distract true believers.:/
Some thingqs you should realise:
1) Science isn't trying to stop you believing in your religion, it just doesn't give a f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]ck. It's not trying to disprove God or the Bible, just if that happens then so be it.
2) You are not a scientist, and neither are evangelicals.
3) If at any point an evangelical makes an attempt to disprove a widely believed and supported theory based on a single peice of evidence, the incompleteness of the theory or the views of a disagreeing scientist then you should automatically be suspicious. The way they think isn't based around logic; the very foundation of science. The exact opposite is true for a scientist, because to be a scientist you have to be logical and completely objective. This probably sounds insanely unfair, as if religion has no chance whatsoever of decently explaining how the universe works. Well that's the point, because that's not religion is for, otherwise you'd be able to question it and amend it. The exact same thing applies to science in that science cannot be used as a kind of ethical guide, that's not what it is for.
4) It's perfectly possible to be both religious and a scientist, as most of the time they don't clash. The only times they do clash are if you're stupid enough to geniunely believe the world is 3000 years old, dinosaurs are a worldwide conspiracy or the entire human race came from one inbred family then you're taking your religion far too literally and you're not objective, and thus a crappy scientist.
[quote=Lord of Spam]Are you freaking serious? Part of your thing against evolution is that we havent found all the missing links?
Do you have any idea how difficult it is for fossils to form? If one thing in l;ike a hundred goes wrong in about a million years a fossil will not form. Think about it. how many TRILLIONS of dinosaurs do you think that there were during that age? DO think that the few thousand we have found is enough to make up for the like 200+ MILLION years that they were alive for? ALso, what the hell do you think that coal and oil are? Dead dinos. They died, and the carbon in their bodies was over time converted.
The fact that we havent found every single little link is not a strikew against evolution. Thats about as intelligent as the guy I saw on local cable public access that said that dino bones were put oin earth by satan to distract true believers.:/
Actually, coal is just really old trees. Oil is dead plankton, and natural gas is gas thats risen from said coal.
But otherwise you're quite right. I mean, there are still 4000 people missing from World War 1, that was less than a century ago.
Zerk, I'm guessing you heard all this stuff about evolution from your local pastor or from somebody religious, because, like the world being several thousand years old, your premises about evolution are bull****. Either you are avoiding the facts, or are woefully ignorant. Either way, please visit this site about the misconceptions of evolution theory, as it says everything much better than I can. > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html I hope that after you look it over, you'll realize you've fallen victim to a typical theologist 'strawman fallacy,' in which the anti-evolutionist sets up a weak set of arguments, which don't actually represent those of his opponent, or a 'strawman,' and then procedes to knock the 'strawman' down.
for those who are bringing up religion, I'm not saying anything about religion. Sure, I may be religious, and I may know religious people, but they aren't populating my mind with humble jumble, making me come here and spout off silly statements. (I do that on my own :P) And sure, I know I'm not a scientist, and yes, I know I don't know all too much about evolution, which is why I'm asking these questions. Some of you seem to feel that getting angry and telling me I'm stupid will solve the problem; well I dunno about that.
I read Cynic's link; and in fact that was the site I had visited earlier in my little foray for transitional fossils.. So it is true that there are transitional fossils, so where are they? Museums? or are they just written about in logs; IE (oct 23rd, dug up alot of dirt today, also found some scales of an upper Silurian.. hoping to find a skeleton soon) It would certainly be interesting in seeing them; because right now it's just people saying they found them. (I can do that) To be frank, It generally takes more to win me over than to simply be told something. (though not always) At least, when it comes to evolution, I'm cynical. Much like many of you would be when it comes to religion. When I read an evolutionist article, I don't really believe it. Same for you guys, (I would expect) when you read the Bible; you think it's bogus. I can't change you, and you can't change me. I won't flock to the evolutionists side just because they say something; I like to see proof.
Here's something that Cynical's article confused me on... in the topic about "evolution has never been observed", near the bottom it mentions that a frog has never been seen changing into a cow.. well that's obvious. But way back when(correct me if I'm wrong) , doesn't evolution say that fish changed to amphibeans, amphibeans to reptiles, and then reptiles to birds. (among other things) What the article didn't address, is why we don't see such things like that now. Why is there not a fish-frog swimming around? or a turtle-bird? Don't get angry and call me ignorant, this is a valid question that I am curious about.
And another thing I'm curious about... how do paleontologists (or whoever do the skeleton creation from a few bones) come up with the entire skeletons, when all they've got is just some fragments? I don't really understand how that'd work; it seems it be like solving an algebra problem when all you're given is 2 of the 300 numbers.
Reading this post made me head hurt.
Zerk, if you're really only curious, I have a Q and A site for you to read.
http://www.nsta.org/pbsevolution4
There are several other Q and A parts of that same site, if that link doesn't answer your question.
Just going on what LoS said, its like when creationists cite the example of the human eye as disproof of evolution. They say that, according to the theory of evolution, at some point there must have been half of an eye which is no use.
The refutation is the same. Nothing will have ever had half of an organ (barring radical mutations or vestigal limbs); just a more primitive one. Organisms would have gradually developed patches of photosensitive tissue, which would have (via mutation, adaptation and natural selection) become more complex and efficient towards the tasks demanded for survival in a particular environment.
The basic point that needs to be made is if you're not a scientist, don't start fucking questioning scientists. They know more than you by default. Read up on it yourself.
yes sir, mr. speedo!
[COLOR="Cyan"]I see Christianity as the only true religion and a powerful force on the human mind. Reading the bible, going to church to sing songs about God, and listening to the pastor's lectures about people's behaviour about good and evil in this world, makes one feel very strong and confident and able to face challenges in life whether at work or study. I wouldn't waste time finding out the origin of God knowing that the prophecy in Revelations in the bible that Jesus will return one day to answer everyone's FAQs. [/COLOR]:eek:
You don't "know" that the prophecy in Revelations is true, that's half the bloody point. If you knew it wouldn't be a matter of faith.
I am an atheist. Not because I don't beleive in religion, but because I KNOW religion is not real. I'm one of the few smart people on this planet who know there's no such thing as a god.
With that said I am also anti-Christian. Nazis had jews and I have a prejudice against Christians. It comes from trying to be brainwashed into devoting my life to Jesus and the Church by schools, tv and people.
I really do hope that was sarcasm...
Well, we did get Bible bashers coming in to school assemblies and hijacking them. I wish I knew then that I would've been able to walk straight out.
some good reading supporting the theory of evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html tracability through the human genome
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm short essay outlining the basics
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=439 discusses newly evolved antibiotic resistant organisms
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html makes reference to transitional forms
not that evolution has anything to do with the original topic of [URL="http://www.livingmiracles.net/Incorrupt.html"]incorruptibles[/URL].... my opinion on some of the issues i noticed in that article:
as for why g0d would choose to preserve the bodies of these saints when it is merely the soul of the individual that is important, humans are stupid. as its already been stated numerous times in this thread alone, without physical proof that someone can see with their own eyes, they dont believe it.
[quote]"From the beginning the phenomenon was seen as tangible proof of the sacredness and purity of a saint. The incorruptible bodies were therefore not buried but placed into sumptuous reliquaries and exposed above or behind the altar for everyone to see."
[quote]It hasn
