All the Christians I know personally use this thing called “The Theory of Evolution” to explain the evolution of man.
Lissa, if you want actual information about “Odin worship”, search on “Asatru” or “Asatruar” (one being the term for Norse reconstructionist religion, the other being a term for the practitioners thereof). It has no more to do with white supremacy than Christianity has to do with the KKK.
tomndebb, even though the bible seems ancient in the way it’s written, there are many scientific thoughts expressed in the bible. You have to remember who the bible was originally written for in ancient times and how they talked. If it was written today by the almighty, the almighty might chose a different writing style that would speak to the modern man. But that does not nullify it’s accuracy.
I bet none of them are Scotsmen, either…
**
Nor does the Bible support the existence of North America. Surely you aren’t of the impression that if it isn’t in the Bible, it doesn’t exist / can’t happen?
**
And who, exactly, claims otherwise?
**
“The evolutionist” says nothing of the sort. I’d wager you’ve yet to actually read anything that was written by “the evolutionist”, and as a result have absolutely no idea what “the evolutionist” really claims.
And, just as a point of clarification, you’re the one arguing for miracles here, not “the evolutionist”.
**
You have the statistical analysis to back those numbers up, right? Seeing as how we’re here to fight ignorance and all, and I’m sure you wouldn’t make such outrageous claims without any real evidence…
**
You’re quite good at attacking those strawmen. You really show them who’s what!
You’ve got the basics down as far as rote memorization of creationist websites, I’ll grant you that. But your arguments are superficial at best. Even the Institute for Creation Research at least tries to gussy up its oft-debunked arguments with something substantial.
I say bring 'em on! Boggle my mind!
Allow me to make a prediction.
This thread will demonstrate conclusively that:
a) Holy Scripture is not Scientific Evidence; and
b) Scientific Evidence is not Holy Scripture.
Anything else will be demonstrated, but mostly unlearned by all except onlookers.
webman, just out of curiosity, which version of the Genesis creation story do you believe is the correct one?
I do not find “the way it’s written” to be “ancient.” I do find that it is simply not written as an historical tract.
“Many scientific thoughts”? Those would, I am sure, include the facts that
I am not some nitpicking person who denies the truth of Scripture because we can find “scientific” details that are in error. On the other hand, I am not so foolish as to hold up Scripture as a scientific text when it so clearly contains those errors, reflecting the unscientific understanding of the people who wrote the works eventually collected into the bible.
The bible simply makes no mention of North America. That does not mean the bible said it never existed.
Now you are just speaking into the air and pushing around absolute ignorance on your part to help solidify your standing. You do not know me so how can you even claim such things about me—very arrogant of you.
I’m very confused by your comment here. Where out of thin air did you pull this one out of??
I have done my studying in the past. I’m working off of memory right now and quoting what I remember and I remembered those statistics. I could very well spend a few hours refreshing my memory on all the details, but I fear that it would be somewhat a waste of time. No matter how much I reasoned, many of the evolutionists here would balk at all the overwhelming evidence and statistics I could provide.
Bottom line, Evolutionist need more faith than I do. 
more empty arguments…
If memory serves me, that mind boggling number that I could share had to do with the probability of all the necessary amino acids and proteins coming together at the right time to form a one celled organism. I believe it was a ratio like 1:10(50,000) a number with 50,000 zeroes. I would have to go back and look up the information to confirm the figure and what it had to do with precisely. It was some humongous number (basically impossible).
The bible does not say any of that nor claim the ratio of PI. The book of Isaiah (if that’s the right book) says the earth hangs upon nothing and indeed it does hang upon nothing because it’s in outerspace which is a vacuum.
Diogenes, I should first ask what you are referring to precisely?
Lies, damned lies, etc etc etc…
The probability of anything happening after it has already happened is 1.
In other news:
Say that the probability was 1:10^(510^4) as you say. This means that we would expect such an event to happen once every 10^(510^4) events, on average.
How many “events” of the type liable to produce amino acids and proteins etc do you suppose happen in a billion years over the surface of the Earth?
If you wait around for long enough, anything even remotely probable can happen. That’s the nature of probability.
Oh, and also, before I leave this thread to its own, no doubt hilarious, consequences, might I make mention of Ring Species?
McDuff, that still doesn’t lend anything to support evolution. How can all that happen at the same exact time in the exact same place in precisely the right conditions?
… Answer … IT CAN’T!
It had to be created by someone. Could you take a few hunks of metal and expect to get a carberator molded out of them by shaking them up and banging the hunks of metal together? NO! So how can anyone believe that all this got here by accident? This wonderful universe in all it’s organization must have had an organizer. To believe otherwise is to be illogical. You can’t put logic to it. It takes way more faith to believe this all happened by accident than to believe a super intelligent being created all this.
…Just like the Bible never makes mention of the fact that we evolved from apes, as it happens…
**
On the contrary: your comments are quite indicative that you know little of actual evolutionary theory. You hide behind arguments of probability without showing how you arrived at those numbers, while also demonstrating an apparent ignorance of statistics while you’re at it. You’ve dodged Ben’s request, and now you are dodging mine. These are tactics of which those who have no real evidence to support their claims are fond.
**
From here:
I say again: you are arguing for the miraculous circumstances, not the “evolutionists”.
**
Quite possibly because those statistics are a) erroneous, and b) irrelevant. You see, if you had actually studied anything about evolution, you would realize that it is not, in fact, a random process. That is nothing more than a creationist strawman which they seemingly never tire of building up and knocking down. Heck, I’ll knock it down with you! Evolution is not a random process.
**
I agree: such would, indeed, be a humongous number. Now, please find one evolutionist who has ever actually made such a claim. No one claims that the first cell was formed whole cloth from the primordial soup. However, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that that is what is claimed. Now, by what logic can you reasonably state that such an occurance had one and only one opportunity to occur? Even given near-zero probabilities, multiple occurances dramatically increase the probabilities of an occurance. What are the odds against someone winning the lottery? Yet, it happens frequently.
Why mention ring species?
You can’t even remotely prove that all the right building blocks could come together at the right time to make a one celled organism and then add that first the universe had to be here as it is before that one celled organism to come together under the right conditions. The chances of all that happening must be just astronomically impossible. Perhaps a number with 10 billion zeroes following? How impossible is that??
No thanks. It’s more probable that an intelligent being created it all. But alas, I believe the God of the heavens will have to come down here and say it is so before you’ll believe.
False analogy. The structure of a carburator is not determined by natural laws. DNA, on the other hand, cannot exist any other form but the one it is in (with the exception of the helix twisting in the opposite direction). As such, The structure of DNA is dictated by natural forces between molecules. It is virtually the antithesis of an “accident”.
Since you’re stuck on this probability nonsense, how about telling us what the exact probability of an intelligent being creating “it all” is? And please include how you arrived at that number.
Ah, that old trick. That of not reading the statement.
Here’s the deal. You said, the probability of something happening was 1:10^(510^4). You made the claim that such a probability was “basically impossible.” I pointed out that, if such a probability existed, you would EXPECT that, if you did something that many times, it would occur once. I also asked a simple question - on the atomic level, how many times would you expect 10^(510^4) things to happen?
The deal is, you claim that a huge probability against something proves it could never have happened. You forget, however, exactly what scale of time and space we’re dealing with, here. In the entire universe, over a period of a billion or so years, such probabilities, astronomical as they may seem, actually pale into insignificance compared with the number of atomic events occurring. Probability-wise, according to your numbers, one would say that the random emergence of amino acids from nothing was, in fact, a certainty, or as near as dammit one. All those zeroes cancel out, you see 
So? Supposing that this suggestion was true, can you give me a reason to believe that this is a bad thing?
Surely, having faith is one of the tenets of Christianity, yet you are here claiming that faith is a bad thing. I have faith in many things, among which is the belief that scientific method is a reasonable guess at explaining certain bits of the universe. Can you explain to me why this faith, which is based on countless years of experience by greater men than I, including Godly men such as Sir Isaac Newton, should be less worthy of respect than your faith?
webman, with all due respect, you’re in a forum called “Great Debates.” If you don’t want to debate, then why are you here? If you do want to debate, then you are going to be expected to back up factual assertions with some kind of evidence. If you’re going to cite statistics, then you really should provide your source for those statistics or you won’t be taken seriously.
This is a tougher forum than you may be used to. If you don’t have a pretty solid basis for your arguments, you will get your ass handed back to you in a bucket, no matter what side of the fence your on. A stupid polemic against Christianity will get ground up just as quickly as one against evolution. It’s a fair forum. You aren’t going to be judged on your faith but on your arguments.
So far, you’ve made some assertions but haven’t really bothered to support anything with evidence. You need to take some time and get your ammo together before you start firing.
I feel I should warn you that the Dopers you’ve chosen to engage in this debate are not exactly amatuers. They haven’t even really started swinging yet. They’re sizing you up. I’ve seen this happen before. If you’re going to argue evolution with the likes of Ben and Darwin’ Finch you really need to get your ducks in a row. Even then, I think you’re going to get pummeled. Good luck and welcome to the boards.
On preview, i see that you’re asking about my previous question. well, it’s simple. The Book of Genesis contains two distinctly different and contradictory accounts of the creation. Which one do you subscribe to?
So, in your opinion, Isaiah does not believe in the truth of Genesis? It says very clearly that God created the firmament by dividing the waters. Genesis later says (in the story of the Flood) that the waters below the earth sprung up to add to the flood.
It is really a shame that you are denying Scripture.
As to your “probabilities,” you do realize that you are being dishonest in several regards with the claimsyou have made?
First off, you have conflated evolution (speciation among existing creatures) with abiogenesis (the creation of life from non-life). The two studies are not the same and attacking abiogenesis does not refute evolution, since even if God put the first critter on the earth in an act of creation, the evidence indicates that all the subsequent species of plants and animals arose through the well-documented phenomenon of evolution.
However, even with your abiogenesis claim, you are being dishonest. First, you really have not shown how you made up your “1:10(50,000) a number with 50,000 zeroes” number, and without looking at the hijinks necessary to arrive at that number it is not possible to evaluate whether those hijinks were realistic. However, that is not the truly dishonest aspect of your claim. The real act of dishonesty is in implying that any proponent of abiogenesis (not evolution) has ever proposed that a living cell sprang forth from some random mixture of amino acids.
The process that has been proposed is quite different. It has been proposed that some strings of chemicals will, under certain conditions, assume “self-ordering” properties. Not only have such events been replicated in a laboratory, but, similar events have been observed in nature (none of them leading to the emergence of new life, of course). Since this event has actually been reprodiuced, the probability of that event is 1.
Beyond that, the hypothesis is that some self-ordering chemicals have traits that allow them to re-order, using new materials, when they have been broken. I believe that this has been observed in the lab, but not in nature, but its probability is, now, also 1. The speculation then goes that extended chains of these self-ordering chemicals could have become increasingly complex until they took on the characteristics that we would now identify as cell division. We know that a virus (which is more proto-life than one-celled animal) can do this now. Gradually, successively more complex actions would occur until we would identify the result as life. This chain of events could take several millions of years. Therefore, no one has proposed that any single celled animal would ever spring into life and existence from a random collection of chemicals, and all the made up numbers for probability are irrelevant to the discussion.
If you knew what Ring Species were, you’d know exactly why I mention them.
See, I can be a sanctimonious smart-alec too!
link pulled at random off google because, well, research in this thread strikes me as being likely to be fruitless