PDA

View Full Version : Creationism vs Darwinism


Pages : [1] 2

C'jais
11-09-2002, 04:10 PM
What are your thought on this?

Did God create the world?
Did He spark the Big Bang?
Did He start with Adam and Eve?
Did He have nothing to do with it at all?

Me, I'm leaning towards the "real science" theory - aka Atheism.

XERXES
11-09-2002, 04:13 PM
right now, im completely confused religion-wise...im just gona see what happens. But im leaning towards darwinism, i also like to joke around about it too....for example i use the phrase "owned by darwinism" a lot...im not going to get into detalil though...im sure it get bashed

Wacky_Baccy
11-09-2002, 04:16 PM
Posted by cjais
Me, I'm leaning towards the "real science" theory - aka Atheism.
Liberalism abounds in Europe, or so it seems ^_^

I'm glad I live here ^_^

Now just to speed up Mr Giscard's plans...

C'jais
11-09-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by yadu
im taking this one on faith!

Why?

Because the Bible told you so?

How do you explain the dinosaurs?

Carbon-14 tests have been run on some geological/palaeolithic materials dating back way before God created the world.

Or, did you mean that God created the Big Bang, and thereafter let things evolve?

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by cjais


Why?

Because the Bible told you so?

How do you explain the dinosaurs?

Carbon-14 tests have been run on some geological/palaeolithic materials dating back way before God created the world.

Or, did you mean that God created the Big Bang, and thereafter let things evolve?

First I do not believe that God made the world only because the bible says so.

Carbon-14 dating is not accurate. Why you ask? First you do not know how much Carbon a object started with thing could happen to change the carbon-14 to carbon-12 faster. All tests were base on the world being millions of years old and that the rate of decay has been the same. So you are uses evolution to prove how old the world is and then useing that to prove evolution??? I think that sounds like a circle don't you?

Dinosaurs
There is nothing to say that they couldn't fit into a biblical view.

Math
Mathmatics is disproving evolution every time. To get a man from a ape by slow change is 3.56X 102304956 then you need of course a male and female to continue the the line so double that number. Oh but then you need a big enough gene pool. So you need about 8 males and 8 females to continue the line. Now add the olds for getting 8 males and 8 female. And then multiply that by the number of animals on the earth.

Genetics
About 99.9% of mutations are harmful or useless to the animimal that has them. Also the animals are steral so they can't reproduce.

Age of the Earth
There is no way anyone can prove how old the earth is as if man wasn't around 2,000,000 years ago how would you know how much Carbon-14s there are in a rock?

Life from a pool of goo.
How is it we get life from a non-living pool? How did the pool get there in the first place? Have vans reporduced living mini-vans?
And also the pool would create left-handed(Toxic) molcules and right-handed(Needed for life).

Complexity
Why is it all thing work so well? Why does your computer work? Why do you work? Why is it that you stay on the ground? And how could this come about by chance. Why aren't boeing 747s being put together in junk yards all the time if we got this complexity by chance?

Evolution
If things evolve why aren't they evolveing today still? Why can't we find missing links?


So when you tell me that this is science. I think you are mistaken. It is just a theory that is being disproven.

C'jais
11-09-2002, 05:04 PM
Hmmm...

Anyone else want to comment on this subject?

So far (:rolleyes:), this thread has only seen people who are pro Darwin...

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 05:05 PM
Look at my post. I have. *Points at prev post*

Jah Warrior
11-09-2002, 05:07 PM
darwin, the creation was must a load of old cobbler sthat the priests came up with to explain what was inexplicable.:rolleyes:

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Jah Warrior
darwin, the creation was must a load of old cobbler sthat the priests came up with to explain what was inexplicable.:rolleyes:

And maby Darwinism was just something that Darwin came up with to mislead the world. See I can say the same about your stuff too.

Elijah
11-09-2002, 05:14 PM
Ok, the carbon testing is totally incorrect, when something is soaked in water for a long period of time the carbon dating becomes useless
Almost EVERY Religion/civilization has a story of a great flood that flooded the earth... how could you ignore a something like that?


Darwin... The man SAID on his death bed that everything he said was pure speculation and was NOT TRUE, the stories by him where published by his wife and soon who got a hold of some fictional stories he made... they where not true and have absolutely no evidence to back them up


On the subject of us being related to monkeys consider this:
We have some 86(or so) genes related to the monkey... 150 to the rat... 200 to the banana... and some 400 to the mushroom
So... you think the most possible thing we *evolved* from was a monkey?

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 05:18 PM
Also did you know when St. Hellens blew here that the magma(edit: I should say lava because it was out side of the earth) caused all the trees to show a much older C-14 dating. And even the one year old trees were showing 1000 years old.

JediNyt
11-09-2002, 05:21 PM
Logic and reason is the way to go. Real science is truth. I stay out of both Creation and Darwin.

Elijah
11-09-2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by JediNyt
Logic and reason is the way to go. Science is truth. I rest my case.
Base you life on Science and you will be disappointed.
I Guarantee it.

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg

Base you life on Science and you will be disappointed.
I Guarantee it.

Not true. I use science and logic to prove my religion. and it works too.

Elijah
11-09-2002, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Not true. I use science and logic to prove my religion. and it works too.

What is your religion may I ask?

And yes. Science is only correct about 50% of the time... and it’s from logic.

I'm saying: do not base your ENTIRE life on it... many points of science are correct and I applaud the people who do what they do… when it’s something worth doing

JediNyt
11-09-2002, 05:37 PM
Dissapointed? Not really. When I die I cease to exist. Oh well thats what happens to everyone. So lets enjoy our lives as much as we can. If I had it my way Id be immortal. But I probably wont get that chance. Id like to believe the Force existed, but it doesnt. Were all in the same boat.

I was very religious at one time. But I was never happy. There was never a good answer. Ya I did the sing to God and raise your hands ****. I thought I was happy, or was supposed to be happy. But I wasnt. I feel better now that Im athiest. Things are explained better now. Less worries. More logic. There still are questions of the universe and there always will be for us. Im still openminded. Its a huge thing. We dont know how far it goes, or if there more than one. But I dont really think too much about that. One galaxy is big enough for me. Logic and reason. But you dont have to agree. I respect you still.

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg


What is your religion may I ask?

And yes. Science is only correct about 50% of the time... and it’s from logic.

I'm saying: do not base your ENTIRE life on it... many points of science are correct and I applaud the people who do what they do… when it’s something worth doing

Christianity.

True Science is correct all the time, but somethings are loosely called or shouldn't be called science. I don't live only on my feeling. I don't live only on my logic. I don't live only on my believes. I live on a combined structure. Because religion benifits from true logic and true logic from belief. Anyways lets get back on subject.

Elijah
11-09-2002, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by JediNyt
When I die I cease to exist. In the end you will find out you where wrong.

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
In the end you will find out you where wrong.

I can agree to that. I find it better to have something to believe in that to go about the earth in pain even if my belief isn't true.

JediNyt
11-09-2002, 05:52 PM
Look if God wanted everyone to believe in "him" why not let everyone know "he" exists? Give everyone the chance to believe. Let them know. If they know then maybe theyll belive. If theres no proof then dont be surprised people are sceptical. If God is all knowing and all powerful, let us know! What about some of those Bhuddist monks who are very peaceful and caring? "Respect all living things." they say. Well too bad they dont believe in God so theyre going to hell.:rolleyes:

As I said Im not all for Darwin either. His theory is full of holes too.

Clem
11-09-2002, 06:10 PM
Evolution

Darwinism IS correct

we evolved from monkeys we share 99.9% of our genes with them (not 86 whoever said that) we share about 80 or 90% with a banana btw.

this all came from proteins which were floating about and happened to make some single cell organisms (im not entirely sure how this works .... im only 17 FFS)

to the person who says we stopped evolving .... WE HAVENT ... on average we are alot taller than people in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries (and all the others 2) we KNOW this ... this is us evolving its not a quick process.

Proof of evolution

Bacteria ... viruses the like .... they procreate so quickly they have many generations in a day ... this enables them to evolve in a matter of months ... they evolve to be resistant to drugs.

Big Bang

Right ... we know this happened ... we can see it we can prove that the universe is expanding from a single point.

ask me if u want me to explain how its a bit long winded and my fingers are falling off

Before the big bang there is room for argument .... this is the only point i could conceed that a god could exist

if u believe in a god thats ok ... u may be right ... but i cant go with that ... religion requires me to believe blindly ... science provides me with proof and talks me thru it till it makes sense

i know which 1 i go with

edit: science (or logic) also explains the origin of religion

humans do not like the idea that they have no real purpose ... that when they die ... they cease to exist. Also alot of people think "why am i here". religion provides answers to these problems

but now science has come along (it takes time to develop stuff) and is providing us with evidence and proof which added to a little logic gives us the answers. its the natural succesor to religion (dont flame me for that)

CagedCrado
11-09-2002, 06:19 PM
I say go with whatever makes you happy, and if you are atheist and must defend yourself from people that have no obvious backing and start flaming, maybe deep down some part of you does believe.

The same goes for you supposed non atheist who choose to defend yourselves, i learned the hard way how to choose your fights on this subject.

Clem
11-09-2002, 06:30 PM
crado i feel ur comment is aimed at me

i will point out that this is one of few arguments i feel strongly enuff about to neva avoid

im not trying to convert people or anything ... i can see how religion works .... it just dont work for me ... it dont make me happy ... it leaves me wanting more ... wanting explanation ... im a scientist what can i say

im not flaming or nething i just think i should at least give a reason and ive met all the arguments be4 so i thought id roll it into 1 post

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-09-2002, 06:40 PM
I can't wait till all you atheists are facing judgement day...where will your precious science be then? We shall see....

Clem
11-09-2002, 06:47 PM
that i take as a threat/flame/insult

i dont knock your religion ... dont knock mine

(science is a religion .... cept this 1 comes with and owners manual that has proofs)

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-09-2002, 06:53 PM
its ok....take it how you want....i'm just letting you know that simple minded people who use science as a belief simply because it benefits what you WANT to believe will find themselves lost when they are in need of guidance.

CagedCrado
11-09-2002, 06:54 PM
Again, dont argue if you dont want somebody with no point to flame you. I think im taking a pretty neutral oppinion here. If you have to work to believe dont waste your time. If you have to fight to defend your belief maybe you should rethink it. If you have no belief you should get one. (not necesarily in a religion or in science, just some belief even if you invent it)

Tyrion
11-09-2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
I can't wait till all you atheists are facing judgement day...where will your precious science be then? We shall see....

And I cant wait until the day you are on your deathbed, weeping because of all that time wasted praying to some non-existant god..:rolleyes:

Clem
11-09-2002, 06:57 PM
@ crado

call it pre-emptive defense from attack :)

this should appeal to americans :P

@ Yoda85

So y do u believe in god then?

explain urself without using the following phrases:

"because i want to" (that would make u no different from the people u just flamed for believing in science)

"because i do" :rolleyes: (this is not an explanation)

"because my parents do" (grow up and think for urself)

"because i was schooled like this" (see above)

etc.

C'jais
11-09-2002, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


First I do not believe that God made the world only because the bible says so.

Carbon-14 dating is not accurate. Why you ask? First you do not know how much Carbon a object started with thing could happen to change the carbon-14 to carbon-12 faster. All tests were base on the world being millions of years old and that the rate of decay has been the same. So you are uses evolution to prove how old the world is and then useing that to prove evolution??? I think that sounds like a circle don't you?

Dinosaurs
There is nothing to say that they couldn't fit into a biblical view.

Math
Mathmatics is disproving evolution every time. To get a man from a ape by slow change is 3.56X 102304956 then you need of course a male and female to continue the the line so double that number. Oh but then you need a big enough gene pool. So you need about 8 males and 8 females to continue the line. Now add the olds for getting 8 males and 8 female. And then multiply that by the number of animals on the earth.

Genetics
About 99.9% of mutations are harmful or useless to the animimal that has them. Also the animals are steral so they can't reproduce.

Age of the Earth
There is no way anyone can prove how old the earth is as if man wasn't around 2,000,000 years ago how would you know how much Carbon-14s there are in a rock?

Life from a pool of goo.
How is it we get life from a non-living pool? How did the pool get there in the first place? Have vans reporduced living mini-vans?
And also the pool would create left-handed(Toxic) molcules and right-handed(Needed for life).

Complexity
Why is it all thing work so well? Why does your computer work? Why do you work? Why is it that you stay on the ground? And how could this come about by chance. Why aren't boeing 747s being put together in junk yards all the time if we got this complexity by chance?

Evolution
If things evolve why aren't they evolveing today still? Why can't we find missing links?


So when you tell me that this is science. I think you are mistaken. It is just a theory that is being disproven.

Carbon-14 dating: Scientists have measured the half-life of Carbon-14. Given available data, C-14 dating is extremely accurate concerning the material in question, and certainly does document the fact that the earth is several billion years old. Of course, you could assume that we do not know how much carbon-14 a material started out with, but then again - this makes my theory just as good as yours. If you do not work from available data, then you could just as well assume the whole world is 5 seconds old.

Math, Genetics, Age Of Earth:

On human development, the theory I read said 8 mil. years - and I'd like to know where you pulled that number from and the time interval that it covers (because you can make the number in question infinitly large if you make the time interval it covers correspondingly small). If, for example, the figure covers the chance of a spontaneus mutation occuring within an hour, then it is entirely useless - we're talking about 4 billion years 'ere. Yes, it is all seemingly impossible that life evolved, but if we're talking about an infinte amount of time then it suddenly becomes very plausible. And if it is plausible, then it could just happen.

Evolution: Aren't things evolving today? Don't let me introduce you to quite a number of bacteriae, that are apparently able to evolve, so they become immune to the anti-biotics being used on them.

Why can't we find missing links? Things decay, you can't expect to find every living organism that ever lived - dead organisms are constantly being recycled. Notice how it is by blind luck that we find some of the dinosaur skeletons - besides, there have been, in fact, found some dino skeletons that resembled a missing link between them and the birds - Feathered dinosaurs yey.

Complexity: You are assuming that objects cannot function if they're missing even a small detail.

1) The eye - the eye is a tremendously complex structure, that cannot operate correctly if we remove even a tiny part of it. Yet there have been found creatures with light-sensitive cells. These creatures are the no-longer-missing-link between eye-less creatures and creatures who possess eyes.

2) A special kind of bacteria dies if exposed to an oxygen-rich environment, but if placed in an oxygen-poor, carbondioxide-rich environment they can evolve into plants over the course of many generations (bacteria generations that is. Some bacteria have a generation time of 20 min. in optimal conditions). Since plants convert carbondioxide to oxygen, we now have an evironment hostile to the original species, yet nonhostile to, and generated by, its descendants. Viola: A system where the whole is greater than the sum of the part, yet the sum did evolve from the parts.

However, I will applaud you for not simply reaching for the Bible, point at it and cry: "Because God made it so".

In scientific terms, a "Theory" is a confirmed hypothesis - the way you use it, it seems as though you think it is merely a hypothesis.

Dath Maximus
11-09-2002, 07:03 PM
ok lets stop with the attacking of each others beleifs, Dark Yoda, Tyrion, and Clem.

atlthough i usually dont get into these philosofical mudslinging arguments, im gonna speak my thoughts in this one.

Darwinism is what i beleive. You dont like it, then great! just dont bug me about it. Period.

Pisces
11-09-2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Clem
(science is a religion .... cept this 1 comes with and owners manual that has proofs)

Some may not think religions have proofs but that's why most religions involve faith. Anyway, I'm going with a halfway perspective. There's a halfway point between creation and evolution.

C'jais
11-09-2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
its ok....take it how you want....i'm just letting you know that simple minded people who use science as a belief simply because it benefits what you WANT to believe will find themselves lost when they are in need of guidance.

I can name several other things that us simple minded creatures benefit from - such as electricity and running water :rolleyes:

BTW White raider, sorry for skipping your post at the beginning, I was making my post as you posted yours.

JediNyt
11-09-2002, 07:06 PM
Me too Im out of this discussion. I expressed mine without flaming people and you cant attack me for that. Out.

Elijah
11-09-2002, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Clem

we evolved from monkeys we share 99.9% of our genes with them (not 86 whoever said that) we share about 80 or 90% with a banana btw.

this all came from proteins which were floating about and happened to make some single cell organisms (im not entirely sure how this works .... im only 17 FFS)

They where just floating about and just kinda made a cell that just kinda made another one and that just kinda kept happening and here we are today.

What the heck? Where did proteins come from? O_o your saying that everything just floated togeather and this happened? if you made a small environment with absolutely no living thing in it, do you really believe that you'll get something out of nothing?


if u believe in a god thats ok ... u may be right ... but i cant go with that ... religion requires me to believe blindly ... science provides me with proof and talks me thru it till it makes sense

and you dont call evolution a blind belief?


humans do not like the idea that they have no real purpose ... that when they die ... they cease to exist. Also alot of people think "why am i here". religion provides answers to these problems

but now science has come along (it takes time to develop stuff) and is providing us with evidence and proof which added to a little logic gives us the answers. its the natural succesor to religion (dont flame me for that)
LOGIC? LOGIC? Your telling me that things floated around and suddenly happened and you are telling me about LOGIC? How ignorant can you possibly be?


Darwinism IS correct

The man said it was all false and totally speculation on his death bed... how can you believe something that the author didnt even believe himself?

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-09-2002, 07:07 PM
I believe in my religion because there have been miracles worked and recorded in history. In addition, as it relates to humans in general, religions ppl tend to be more generous and thoughtful of others. They are role models and live a good life, most of them. Tell me that Mother Teresa was not a great exapmle to the world of how we should live our lives....she gave and gave without a thought of reward. She dedicated herself to helping others and that is enough to make me believe.

Tyrion
11-09-2002, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
Tell me that Mother Teresa was not a great exapmle to the world of how we should live our lives....she gave and gave without a thought of reward. She dedicated herself to helping others and that is enough to make me believe.

So did the budhist monks, but you dont see them believing in god..

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-09-2002, 07:17 PM
whatever you say....

Darth Simpson
11-09-2002, 07:19 PM
The man said it was all false and totally speculation on his death bed

Just curious, where did you hear this?

Clem
11-09-2002, 07:19 PM
im not attacking yoda (even tho hes attacking me)

im working towards making him realise he believes in god because he WANTS to

we all (above the age of being able to think for ourselves) believe in a religion because we want to .... cos it fits our way of thinking or our experiences

@white raider some of your numbers are just plain wrong (we share 99.9% with apes (not monkeys as most people say) not 80 genes) so id check them all .... otherwise no1 will believe u

@Yoda85 .... i wouldnt trust alot of the ancient recordings ... we know so little of them ... also alot of them are created from stories passed down generations (the bible for instance) and stories change when theyre told

i also believe its better to be nice to people ..... but not cos i want to get into heaven (think about that)

@Zdawg

read cjais' explanation it seems to be much better than mine ...... whats life if not alot of chemicals in 1 place ... in 1 order ... there was alot of chemicals about after the big bang ... it was just dumb luck that they ended up in the right order. im not talking about it taking 15 mins to do it ... it took Millions of years just for the first life to be born from the chemicals

Proof of evolution .... READ MY POST BE4 U KNOCK IT FOOL ... i have provided proof! (if u dont believe the taller proof .... read the bacteria proof)

The man said it was speculation ..... thats what all theories are matey ... they dont become nething more untill u have ALOT of evidence (which we have)

he may also have said that to make people happy .... he was ridiculed and hated etc. IN A BIG WAY

CagedCrado
11-09-2002, 07:21 PM
I figured it out. and have determined these arguments go nowhere.

The oppinions of what are fact are entirely different between the two groups. Group number 1, the darwins want something they can mentally grasp. Group number 2 wants something they can feel with their hearts (not literally your heart but you get the idea darwins) I give the points for this argument to group #1 because group #2 lacks arguments, their arguments in this debate are so poor they couldnt get a priest to side with them.

This is in no way biased, in fact i do believe in god (contrary to posts i made at one time) I just feel that the people posting here have poorly supported what they have said and are flaming.

C'jais
11-09-2002, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
The man said it was all false and totally speculation on his death bed... how can you believe something that the author didnt even believe himself?

The reason that I called this thread "Creationism vs Darwinsism" is because I think many people can relate to it better than "Creationism vs Science".... and some people might have been offended by that thread name. Darwin was the dude that started it all, one might say (he wasn't, really) - but that does not make him some idol people worship. He was very wrong on some points.

ZDawg: See my large post above - things happen, given enough time. We are talking about 15 billion years - not your lifetime.

If aminoacids can be made given an eternity, then it can happen in 20 years too, by chance - the chance may be very, very small, but it's there.

Science/evolution is not a belief - it's the exact opposite. It's seeing, observing, thinking and then seeing again to check.

Clem
11-09-2002, 07:27 PM
this argument is indeed useless

but i wont stand for my beliefs to be attacked

also sumthing i missed

we know how much Carbon 14 is in a substance cos we know the likelyhood of a carbon molecule being carbon 14 (not sure what the number is off by heart) we know how much carbon is in say 10 grams of sumthing .... so we know how many carbon 14s there should be .... we know how long it takes for a carbon 14 to turn into a carbon 12 ..... so we know how old sumthing is

sure ..... it aint a perfect system ... but we come up with the same and similar answers for the age of the earth WHEREVA we test .... u telling me the whole world is useless for carbon dating?! every single bit tainted?! sure whatever

also back on mother teresa .... she wasnt a great person because she believed in god .... she was a great person because she was a great person

david beckham is a great footballer .... he also has a silly haircut (normally) .... does this mean having a silly haircut makes u a good footballer .... no ... QED

Elijah
11-09-2002, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Clem
@Zdawg

read cjais' explanation it seems to be much better than mine ...... whats life if not alot of chemicals in 1 place ... in 1 order ... there was alot of chemicals about after the big bang ... it was just dumb luck that they ended up in the right order. im not talking about it taking 15 mins to do it ... it took Millions of years just for the first life to be born from the chemicals

I dont care if it takes seconds/years/millions it is impossible


Proof of evolution .... READ MY POST BE4 U KNOCK IT FOOL ... i have provided proof! (if u dont believe the taller proof .... read the bacteria proof)
The taller thing? i PROOVED your *proof* incorrect. PERIOD

Bacteria? you call that proof? how does that make a human? or any life?


The man said it was speculation ..... thats what all theories are matey ... they dont become nething more untill u have ALOT of evidence (which we have)

I'm still waiting for this so called *evidence*
and speculation isnt fact... although it ties into theory. but when somone who created it says its false, it than it is no longer speculation but is now just a though and has no PROOF to back it up.

Darth Knight
11-09-2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
I'm still waiting for this so called *evidence*
and speculation isnt fact... although it ties into theory. but when somone who created it says its false, it than it is no longer speculation but is now just a though and has no PROOF to back it up.

give me evidence of how we just appered out of no where then

C'jais
11-09-2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg

I dont care if it takes seconds/years/millions it is impossible


ZDawg: I'm hoping I am not being to offensive here, and I certainly still respect you. But.

Do you know what an insane person is? It's a person who have excluded a lot of options - has narrowed his view of the world down to something set on a rail. His vision of the world is a singular course, and he won't deviate from it.

I'm not calling you insane here, even though this might sound like it - I'm trying to warn you against assuming something is impossible.

God might exist. I don't know, and I haven't seen him yet. If I one day see overwhelming proof of the divine, I might change opinion - but until then, I study, observe my world around me, I calculate and I rely on my brain more than my faith. Thus far, the only thing I've seen is proof that "God" never existed - but I'm keeping my options open.

Clem
11-09-2002, 08:15 PM
Zdawg .... dont just argue ... think ... then argue

1 .. i was referring to bacteria evolving to be immune to drugs

2 .. life from chemicals is not impossible .... its just bloody UNLIKELY ...

say theres a 1 in a billion chance of sumthing happening in a day ... theres been many billions of days since the birth of the earth ... therefore its likely to have happened a few times

3. we ARE taller now ... we know this from buildings and many other things (low ceilings doors etc.) partially this is due to better nutrition but also partly evolution

4. evidence ... skeletons of missing links between men and apes

we find a really old skeleton that looks like an ape ... then a younger 1 that looks a bit more manly then a younger 1 a bit MORE manly ... and so on ... thats proof

if u choose to ignore it ... then so be it .. but dont forget it exists

5. Zdawg stop clinging to darwin saying its false or wrong ... if he was wrong about the theory ... then couldnt he be wrong about being wrong?!

its been proved since darwin .. we dont just believe what he says ... we go out and look

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-09-2002, 08:42 PM
It seems like some people here are viewing theories as proof. Let me remind all you scientists that to prove a theory totally wrong, all that's required is one evidence against it. Then the whole thing crashes down. Be careful to build your lives on such "accepted" theories, you know?

C'jais
11-09-2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Qui-GONE Jinn
It seems like some people here are viewing theories as proof. Let me remind all you scientists that to prove a theory totally wrong, all that's required is one evidence against it. Then the whole thing crashes down. Be careful to build your lives on such "accepted" theories, you know?

<cross reference my above post>

Elijah
11-09-2002, 08:46 PM
I'm not narrow minded, I believe in many possibilities... but this isn’t one.

I find it funny that you guys keep calling us Christians narrow minded and yet your stuck on the fact that evolution is FACT and our Religion is not.

Without wrong there would be no right.


When we die or the earth ends we will just see who is wrong/right…
But until than we all choose our paths of life and mine certainly won’t be spent wondering how I got here or trying to prove it.

Clem
11-09-2002, 08:48 PM
right gone

while it is true that u only need 1 thing to prove a theory wrong if u have a massive weight of evidence (which we have for evolution) and u find sumthing that doesnt fit ... they theory is not likely to be completely wrong .... it probably just needs tweaking

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-09-2002, 08:52 PM
If you "tweak" a theory, then you really create a new one, just to fit the image that you want to have. It's really not evidence then, is it?

CagedCrado
11-09-2002, 08:53 PM
Theories are to be manipulated and edited at will, thats why they are theories and not laws, you are thinking laws qui. If one thing is proven wrong in a theory it is changed or adapted, unless it is a mega thing that is proven wrong (such as finding out what triggered the big bang theory would make the god ideology obsolete [sorry im not helping the cause but its true]), little things being proven wrong, it dosent matter it is just changed, big things will bring theories down though. (such as if a space craft actually found heaven)

Elijah
11-09-2002, 08:55 PM
Ok it’s this simple...

I wont go into all the ways I can prove Evolution wrong, because no matter what I or any other Creationist say you will look at it with a Negative view therefore getting a Negative out-come


-
This is the ZDawg Signing out
Good luck to anyone who wishes to prove you wrong/right.

Rogue15
11-09-2002, 08:56 PM
:rolleyes:

this is bound to become a flame war, so i might as well put my $.02 in.

The only thing that evolves is our way of life.

C'jais
11-09-2002, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
I'm not narrow minded, I believe in many possibilities... but this isn’t one.

I find it funny that you guys keep calling us Christians narrow minded and yet your stuck on the fact that evolution is FACT and our Religion is not.
Without wrong there would be no right.
When we die or the earth ends we will just see who is wrong/right…
But until than we all choose our paths of life and mine certainly won’t be spent wondering how I got here or trying to prove it.

I'm not calling you narrow minded, I'm just saying you should be careful of using the word "impossible". God isn't impossible at all - but all evidence points toward that some higher power did not create the earth.

There's a difference between saying something is a FACT, and saying something is a TRUTH. Fact is scientifically documented, but science does not speak about truth, science speak about what can be detected. Religion speak about some higher truth - science asks how, religion asks why.

By all means, don't stop believing in Christianity.

Clem
11-09-2002, 09:00 PM
take the theory that the earth is flat

It is flat ... i can see its flat ... isnt that great .... next theory

then .... sum1 sails to the edge and fails miserably at falling off

and they suggest its round and this is evidence

new theory argued lots but gradually accepted

we goto space ... see world .... have proof


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is true of evolution ... we have tons of evidence for it ... and little or none against ... theres no reason NOT to believe it ... if sum1 gives me convincing evidence otherwise i may change my mind

i may have used proof in some of my posts wrongly ... we dont have proof of evolution ... we just have £%$"^ lots of evidence

__________________________________________________ _

Zdawg id like to hear ur proof otherwise ... i may not agree .... but id like to hear it

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-09-2002, 09:00 PM
No, really I mean theory, and the way some people perceive theories as proof..


damn, I'm tired now! It's 3 in the night here in Norway, and I've had a bloody long day. miss my gf already..

Clem
11-09-2002, 09:07 PM
its 2 am here

and i miss HAVING a GF

its been too long

oh well

Gone - proof is not defined ... its only the minimum level that you will believe

some people took sailing round the world as proof ... whilst others required more

maybe some require more than space photos ... maybe they need to see it with theyre own eyes

proof is not a definitive word .... it is only "prooved" when its widely accepted

but as 1 of the quotes said "if a million people say a foolish thing ... it is still a foolish thing"

C'jais
11-09-2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Clem


but as 1 of the quotes said "if a million people say a foolish thing ... it is still a foolish thing"

Or: "How many legs does a dog have, if you say the tail is a leg? Four, the tail still isn't a leg".

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-09-2002, 09:11 PM
Hehe, well you know I could technically prove that you were a rooster or something, just by delivering similarities between you and a rooster, for example..

anyone read Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus"? It's kinda related to that topic...

C'jais
11-09-2002, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Qui-GONE Jinn
Hehe, well you know I could technically prove that you were a rooster or something, just by delivering similarities between you and a rooster, for example..

anyone read Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus"? It's kinda related to that topic...

Holberg :D We could argue if he's Danish or Norwegian too, hehehe....

Well, thanks for proving my point any way....

Clem
11-09-2002, 09:19 PM
right ... we cant prove nething ... just provide convincing evidence

Science does it for me ;)

1 last point i will make

if u choose to believe in religion or science ... it must be because this suits YOU ... not yer parents or yer school

thats when it really pisses me off ... when sum1 says science is all rubbish and god created all ... then cant back it up with ne knowledge whatsoever

which leads to my next thread

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-09-2002, 09:21 PM
You're very welcome...

Jeez, I'm too tired now. Got a whole hell of work to do tomorrow as well. And on top of that, I won't see my gf again until Monday! what a miserable existence...

I want to sleep :D

Wasn't Holberg Danish? I haven't really gotten into that part of it, so I won't be able to argue any side of the case!

Anyhow, I'm off to bed. See you all later!

Breton
11-09-2002, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by cjais


Holberg :D We could argue if he's Danish or Norwegian too, hehehe....

Well, thanks for proving my point any way....

Ludvig Holberg was born and grew up in Bergen, and was therefore Norwegian!;)

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-09-2002, 09:26 PM
Gee, thanks! I didn't know! :) good on ya!

But as I said, I'm gone. Goodnight, all!

C'jais
11-09-2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn


Ludvig Holberg was born and grew up in Bergen, and was therefore Norwegian!;)

During the time of Holberg, Norway was being ruled by Denmark. He moved to Denmark when he was around 20 years old.

His views on nature are pretty fooked up though ;)

Breton
11-09-2002, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by cjais


During the time of Holberg, Norway was being ruled by Denmark. He moved to Denmark when he was around 20 years old.

His views on nature are pretty fooked up though ;)

Wrong, he moved to Denmark when he was 34.:eek:

C'jais
11-09-2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn


Wrong, he moved to Denmark when he was 34.:eek:

:xp:

Darn it! :D

Oh well, thanks for info.... ;)

XERXES
11-09-2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
I can't wait till all you atheists are facing judgement day...where will your precious science be then? We shall see.... BTW its : Haduken

Father Torque
11-09-2002, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by JediNyt
Look if God wanted everyone to believe in "him" why not let everyone know "he" exists? Give everyone the chance to believe. Let them know. If they know then maybe theyll belive. If theres no proof then dont be surprised people are sceptical. If God is all knowing and all powerful, let us know! What about some of those Bhuddist monks who are very peaceful and caring? "Respect all living things." they say. Well too bad they dont believe in God so theyre going to hell.:rolleyes:

As I said Im not all for Darwin either. His theory is full of holes too.



You are wrong in some cases see i beleive that jesus ras real because i am a christian. God did let us now he existed throught the bible and he sent jesus down to spread the WORD OF GOD see so really he did tell us about him more than we needed to beleive but some people didnt beleive.

Also Buddhist Monks. They think of stuff like "I use the power and energy to feul my karate skills then i restore it back into mother earth. Well who created energy who created the Buddha Who created the Monks ancestors. See there is a whole noter picture you havent seen. Who started the Big Bang, Who made the space for the Big Bang to occur,How do you know the big bang really existed,Did little monkeys make it?NO i didnt think so

TheWhiteRaider
11-09-2002, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Clem
Evolution

Darwinism IS correct

we evolved from monkeys we share 99.9% of our genes with them (not 86 whoever said that) we share about 80 or 90% with a banana btw.

this all came from proteins which were floating about and happened to make some single cell organisms (im not entirely sure how this works .... im only 17 FFS)

to the person who says we stopped evolving .... WE HAVENT ... on average we are alot taller than people in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries (and all the others 2) we KNOW this ... this is us evolving its not a quick process.

Proof of evolution

Bacteria ... viruses the like .... they procreate so quickly they have many generations in a day ... this enables them to evolve in a matter of months ... they evolve to be resistant to drugs.

Big Bang

Right ... we know this happened ... we can see it we can prove that the universe is expanding from a single point.

ask me if u want me to explain how its a bit long winded and my fingers are falling off

Before the big bang there is room for argument .... this is the only point i could conceed that a god could exist

if u believe in a god thats ok ... u may be right ... but i cant go with that ... religion requires me to believe blindly ... science provides me with proof and talks me thru it till it makes sense

i know which 1 i go with

edit: science (or logic) also explains the origin of religion

humans do not like the idea that they have no real purpose ... that when they die ... they cease to exist. Also alot of people think "why am i here". religion provides answers to these problems

but now science has come along (it takes time to develop stuff) and is providing us with evidence and proof which added to a little logic gives us the answers. its the natural succesor to religion (dont flame me for that)

First where have you been? The big band theory has been thrown out 4-10 years ago. If you are going to defend evolution you better be up to date. And where is your proof? I don't see any. So far it is disproven by science.

we have tons of evidence for it

So where is it? You say you have proof, but I have yet to hear it.

Tyrion
11-09-2002, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


First where have you been? The big band theory has been thrown out 4-10 years ago.

Then why was my science teacher talking about the big bang..?

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 12:04 AM
mods, close this thread, it's going to make me bypass the censor and say some necessary words...

evolutionists need to evolve themselves a brain.

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 12:05 AM
You are wrong in some cases see i beleive that jesus ras real because i am a christian. God did let us now he existed throught the bible and he sent jesus down to spread the WORD OF GOD see so really he did tell us about him more than we needed to beleive but some people didnt beleive.

Ok....let me give you something...

Let's say about 2000 years ago I make a book. It's called,the rible. I am trying to get some power. So I make a book. It's called the rible. So I make it. And people started to believe in it. Now I have some power. So blah blah blah, I died. But people still kept believing in the rible. That could be of the Bible.

Also, who's to say your god is the right god? Cant the greek,egyptian, norse, islamic, or sumerarian god(s) be the true god(s)? They have as much proof as each other.

Christianity is only popular because the english and spanish went on crusades,inquisitions, and journeys to spread it.

Also Buddhist Monks. They think of stuff like "I use the power and energy to feul my karate skills then i restore it back into mother earth. Well who created energy who created the Buddha Who created the Monks ancestors. See there is a whole noter picture you havent seen. Who started the Big Bang, Who made the space for the Big Bang to occur,How do you know the big bang really existed,Did little monkeys make it?NO i didnt think so

Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?

See where I am getting at? You could go on and on. I try not to think of that though. It's hurts my head:D

Rogue15- And thesist need to stop thinking Mr. God is the be-all-and-end-all solution.

Acrylic
11-10-2002, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


And I cant wait until the day you are on your deathbed, weeping because of all that time wasted praying to some non-existant god..:rolleyes:

i respect everyones religions, but i took that as a major insult. I believe that there is one God, who created everything, and that is my beliefs. And when we all die, we will see who is correct. So I think we should stop all this evil flaming and insulting. Its not worth people's time.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 12:30 AM
Ok, I usually stay out of these threads because I have strong minded views, and I am of the opinion that EVERYONE is entitled to their own view on life and existance, and noone should force their own beliefs on someone else...... but, I'll post my thoughts anyway.

I, am an athiest. Many people seem to confuse athiest with antitheist, and attack us for it.

A = No
Theist= God

Anti = Against
Theist = God

Athiests purely wish not to believe in a higher deity. I find life stressful enough without having to worship and appease some god every day. I used to be christian, back in the day when my parents made me attend Sunday School to learn about the christian world. When some of my family members and close friends started dieing long, slow, painful cancerus deaths, I asked myself why.

As I was losing my faith, I asked christian their view. Most of the time they'd respond with a "Noone knows why it happens, but we know it's not god. It's the evilness of satan. But it's all in the master plan. We will find out why when the time comes"

To be honest, I found that quite unsatisfactory. I wanted to know why my family and friends suffered. Good, honest people, who died long before their time.

Many of my friends are strongly christian. I dont flame them for it. I accept that other people have views... however, it may be a generalization, but something I've noticed is that out of all the religions of our world, the one that seems to force itself onto people time and time again is christianity. I used to attend many young group nights with my friends, as theyd be invited to bring someone along every week or 2. We'd all get talking about stuff, and then the group would ask me my faith. So, I was honest with them. I told them I didnt believe in god, and I was happy that way. These normally benign, friendly people quickly turned almost hostile and were fast in telling me I was wrong, and the next hour or 2 was a "Try and convert Ian into a god-loving christian"-fest.

(Note to all, I'm not flaming christians or their religion. I'm telling my observations. Feel free to post your opinion on what I'm saying. Just don't attack me with unjustified insults or objections)

I've encountered many religions in my travels, and I'm intrigued by them and compelled to learn more about them. Not necessarily to follow them, but to learn how these people think and live. Most religions I have found, have an open mind to other religions, and are not quick off the trigger to point the gun at them and say they are blatently wrong.

But, I have found many christians to be guilty of this (if this is not you, dont take it personally. It's a personal observation, not an attack). Many people of the christian faith consider their religion to be the ONLY correct religion, and that all who do not believe in and pray to the christian god are going to hell..

Now, pardon me for noticing, but this oh-so-common view seems to say that all non-christians are doomed to a fiery eternity. Isn't far less than half the worlds population actually christian. Half the worlds population alone is in china/india. Is that to say that all these people, who may never have been EXPOSED to christianity, are condemned to hell forever? Is it their fault they never learned the christian way of life? Certainly you cant say they deserve what is supposedly coming to them.

Back on the evolutionary front, I have this wonderful document I found a long time back. But before I post a fe quote from it, lets be sure we know the difference between creationists and everyday christians.

Creationists believe the bible as the word of god, right down to the biblical creation. They disregard any scientific view on creation, and believe that all rules for life and truths have been laid out for us by god, in the bible.

Christians need not fit into this category. They can love their god, worship him in hope that an eternity of happiness in the end. They need not take the bible as truth word for word, but they can believe many parts, such as the existance of jesus, and take on morals and lessons from the book.

Anyway, the document... Someone mentioned the perfection of the human eye, and how it could come about in a choatic world.

First, creationists trot out that old saw about how nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all. Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development", from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes.
Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier?

I quite like that one :)

"In our image"
That's how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he's better off not asking such things.
The first is whom the One and Only God meant by "our"--but that's really a theological question, not related directly to creationism. The second question, however, is right on target: If man was made "in [God's] image", then Adam must have looked just like God--right? But wait--it gets more confusing. Man is immediately referred to as "them", so maybe it's not just Adam who looks like God. Then to further confound literal-minded youngsters, "...in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If God is male (the assumption of 97.83% of all creationists), then how could a female be made in His image?
Let's grant the general creationist assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong): God is male; men are made "in [His] image" in only a general way (maybe even Adam didn't look exactly like Him); and women were made with necessary differences to enable reproduction. Still a load of embarrassing questions arise. Much has been made of Adam's navel, and why he would have one, having never been attached to a placenta. I want to know if God has one. I want to know if He has a digestive tract. If so, why? Does He eat? If so, what, and why would He need to? Does He excrete? Where? What happens to it? Does He have lungs? Why would He need them? Does He have sweat glands? And naughty stuff: does He have genitals? Why would He need those? Does He even have two legs, and feet, and toes? Why would He need them, unless He's bound by gravity, as we are?
Childish questions? Of course, but only because they arise from a literal (i.e., childish) reading of Genesis. But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't. If He does, why, and what does He use them for? If He doesn't, then made "in [His] image" has no literal meaning. (For those creationists tempted to inform me that the human soul was what was made in God's image, let me save you the trouble and thank you ahead of time for backing up my point: the phrase has no literal [physical] meaning. I would point out that a great many generations of Judaeo-Christians have taken the phrase to mean physical resemblance, and that most fundamentalist believers still do. Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form? Let me also direct you to the section of Exodus wherein Moses is covered with God's hand, and then allowed to view His backside. Note also numerous other biblical references to God's hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts. One of my favorites is Jacob's wrestling match with God, in which Jacob didn't recognize the Lord of All Creation until later, and God couldn't win until He cheated by using magic!)


Truth
This isn't about the things creationists are just wrong about, like how old the Earth is, but about things that I suspect a good many know are not true, or gross distortions of the truth. The general one is that there is a great debate among scientists about whether species have evolved. A joyous update is that only a few die-hards still believe in the Big Bang. There are plenty of other amusing examples:
• human footprints alongside dinosaurs
• human artifacts found among dinosaur bones
• a geological column that is almost never in the "proper" order described by geologists
• proof from all over the world of a worldwide Flood
• the "NASA computer" that revealed the "extra day" when the sun stopped to give the Israelites more time to conquer Jericho
• the deep hole geologists drilled and then had to fill in hurriedly when they heard the screams from Hell
• Darwin's "deathbed recantation" (the "Lady Hope" story)
Nothing seems too silly or too obviously wrong to pass along.


As far as I'm aware, Darwin calling his work a falacy on his death bed is a crock of you know what.

Beetles
Does God have a beetle fixation? Why else would He create so many different kinds? Maybe He loves them more than man. After all, can a beetle sin?
--Noah Riggins


An amusing point, but one to think about :)

Here's one for the 747 comments
Tornadoes, Junkyards, and 747's
It used to be a pocket watch that "proved" evolution can't happen. Now that lame creationist analogy has apparently evolved to demand that it be possible for a tornado to assemble a 747 out of a junkyard before we can admit the possibility of evolution.
What the creationist always conveniently leaves out of the analogy is the power of NON-random selection on repeated events. Allow a little leeway here for differences between mechanical assembly and natural systems (chemistry and life). Have the tornado roar through repeatedly, several times an hour (representing the speed of chemical reactions, or of cells multiplying). Allow selection pressures to "favor" parts or accidental assemblies that could function as part of a 747 (they're allowed to "survive", i.e. not torn apart). Let the experiment run a few million years and you will have your wide-body jet.
Admittedly, that's still a pretty lame analogy, but it represents evolution way better than the creationists' single windstorm. This would make it even closer to evolution: Don't demand a specific product at the end (like a plane or a human). Instead, "favor" any chance assembly that would be useful for any purpose. Allow assemblies to reproduce with occasional random changes. Select the most useful. Hey, that is evolution. Give it some time and you will have some amazingly "well-adapted" and useful mechanisms. Granted, the chances of one being a 747 are effectively zero (unless it was intentionally selected for), but no biologist I know of ever claimed that evolution "intended" to produce a person


If anyone has any quotes, like about Darwin on his deathbed, please source them, so that we may read these for ourself :)

I like my life. It has its ups and downs. Everyone has ups and downs. The rollercoaster way of life is so prevalent now that we accept it as 'life'. The world isn't perfect, people have their own views. We're not all the same. That's what makes this place so damn interesting. That's why we travel. To experience others and their culture. If you're of a faith, by all means, think what you want about the poor souls who dont agree with you, but dont try and change them, no matter what your god tells you to do.

"Spread the word of god" by all means, but dont shove it down people's throats and change their way of life by force. If someone's happy how they are, let them be.

And lets not attack people personally :) I'd like to keep this thread open long enough for Kurgan to get his ass in here. He's actually studying theology I believe, and he's a great guy to talk to for a logical debate.

Keep openin the worm cans :)

GonkH8er.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar


i respect everyones religions, but i took that as a major insult. I believe that there is one God, who created everything, and that is my beliefs. And when we all die, we will see who is correct. So I think we should stop all this evil flaming and insulting. Its not worth people's time.

Well, I'd consider what he said to be a viable comeback to a prior post, stating that someone else cant wait til we Evolutionists and Atheists are at our death beds or being judged by god and sentenced to hell. He was simply retorting in a manner that echoed the post that insulted us.

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar


i respect everyones religions, but i took that as a major insult. I believe that there is one God, who created everything, and that is my beliefs. And when we all die, we will see who is correct. So I think we should stop all this evil flaming and insulting. Its not worth people's time.

It was all in response towards Darth Yoda. No harm meant towards you.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15
mods, close this thread, it's going to make me bypass the censor and say some necessary words...

evolutionists need to evolve themselves a brain.

Rogue, I'd expect better from you. The thread is staying open, as long as it's respectable, but words that like will get it closed quick smart, or at least posts edited. I've never had to edit another mod's posts... but I'm willing if they contain material like that.

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 12:39 AM
Tyrion, there's more evidence in the Bible than evolution...

I believe the ruins of babylon, the ark (not sure, but it could be..), and some other artifacts that are known were in the Bible, and there's alot of evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth. As well as dinosaurs in the bible (read last chapters of Job).

*drags redwing in here to finish you off*

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-10-2002, 12:41 AM
i agree with rogue

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15
Tyrion, there's more evidence in the Bible than evolution...


there's alot of evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth.




source it and we'll believe you :)

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15
Tyrion, there's more evidence in the Bible than evolution...

Does the bible explain about Australiopithicas,Homo-Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, and Homo Sapien Sapiens?

We evolutionist/anagontists/anthesits have our "bibles" too.:)

Elijah
11-10-2002, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion

Then who made that god?
If God was created than would he be God?
What comes before beggining?

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Then why was my science teacher talking about the big bang..?

Teachers are 1-20 or more years behind. They don't keep up to date.

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er


Rogue, I'd expect better from you. The thread is staying open, as long as it's respectable, but words that like will get it closed quick smart, or at least posts edited. I've never had to edit another mod's posts... but I'm willing if they contain material like that.

i was just kidding. :/


All these atheists are asking for PROOF that god exists. well, if the anti-christ showed up and started doing all kinda of ****, they'd believe he was god and end up going to hell.

just something for u atheists to think about...

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 01:02 AM
So you're willing to say that god is eternal and always has been, but you blatently deny the possibility of a creational point in the universe where everything came to be, without the aid of a supernatural force?

What exactly was god doing in that eternity before he made man?

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg

If God was created than would he be God?
What comes before beggining?

But who created him. He could not have created himself, because he was non-existant before he created himself. And, if he did create himself, then why did he take so ass long to make humans?

Edit- Oh god, me and Gonk-H8ter are thinking alike!

Double-edit- Hmm Rouge 15? Maybe we -could- think of him as god. Heck,for all you know the Anti-Christ could be coming here faking as god and would you be the wiser?

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Does the bible explain about Australiopithicas,Homo-Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, and Homo Sapien Sapiens?

We evolutionist/anagontists/anthesits have our "bibles" too.:)

and they're not 'Holy' :p ;)

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er


What exactly was god doing in that eternity before he made man?

he was inventing the blueprints of man. duh. :D

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Teacher are 1-20 or more years behind. They don't keep up to date.

Up to date with what? Christianity? Is the bible being updated with new christian evidence? Am i missing something here?

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15


he was inventing the blueprints of man. duh. :D

rofl.

" No no,you see. That part cannot go there, or else the babies would look like ants! damnit luther,go to hell!"

:D

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 01:10 AM
Does the bible explain about Australiopithicas,Homo-Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, and Homo Sapien Sapiens?

Do you have proof that they ever were here? Most so called "Missing links" we fake. Piltdown man was too much of a hoax as fossilize chewing gum was in one of his tooth cavitys. There is no proof. Untill you guys come up with some you have no case.

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


But who created him. He could not have created himself, because he was non-existant before he created himself. And, if he did create himself, then why did he take so ass long to make humans?

Edit- Oh god, me and Gonk-H8ter are thinking alike!

Double-edit- Hmm Rouge 15? Maybe we -could- think of him as god. Heck,for all you know the Anti-Christ could be coming here faking as god and would you be the wiser?

the first question is a good one if you're tired and don't want to sleep.

The second one is: The Holy Spirit will let me know if it's God or not. think of the Holy Spirit as a Holy Jiminey Cricket, i'm tired and don't want to embarrass myself trying to spell that C word.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er


Up to date with what? Christianity? Is the bible being updated with new christian evidence? Am i missing something here?

I am talking about their fields. And heck some teachers are so stupid that they shouldn't be in there in the first place. I know of a teacher in Denver that could even spell and he was teaching grammar.

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15

The second one is: The Holy Spirit will let me know if it's God or not. think of the Holy Spirit as a Holy Jiminey Cricket, i'm tired and don't want to embarrass myself trying to spell that C word.

Wouldnt the holy spirt let me also know if it was god or not? Hey, I have my ears open for god,only problem is he aint givin back no detail.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Wouldnt the holy spirt let me also know if it was god or not? Hey, I have my ears open for god,only problem is he aint givin back no detail.

He could be in this debate. You may not have seen it yet.

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Wouldnt the holy spirt let me also know if it was god or not? Hey, I have my ears open for god,only problem is he aint givin back no detail.

maybe you're not listening to what god has to say to you. and maybe he's waiting for a response back from you, but you're so blind and deaf that you're not seeing or hearing clearly.

no offense meant.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er
So you're willing to say that god is eternal and always has been, but you blatently deny the possibility of a creational point in the universe where everything came to be, without the aid of a supernatural force?

What exactly was god doing in that eternity before he made man?

Tell me something. How did time start? How are we moving forward in time if time was not planned?

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 01:27 AM
*steals one of redwing's quotes*

How do you know that God is bound by time?

Elijah
11-10-2002, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
Wouldnt the holy spirt let me also know if it was god or not? Hey, I have my ears open for god,only problem is he aint givin back no detail.

Might I quote myself again? "If you look at something with a negative view your ALWAYS going to get a negative out-come"

God has a completely different view of time... we are simple minded humans who base our life around time... God created time so he has been there how ever the heck long he wants to be.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 01:47 AM
I for the most part don't like rubbing anything in, but.

Oh, Darwinist I am waiting for the anwser!!!

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 01:56 AM
Hmmm?

I have found this debate tireing and pointless. I admit I am losing the argument, but I'd rather show off my matrixed avatar instead of arguing.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 01:59 AM
I'd rather show off my matrixed avatar instead of arguing.

Then please go somewhere else to do that. This is for people that are debating. And at least you admited to loseing for that I respect you.

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Then please go somewhere else to do that. This is for people that are debating.

I was responding to your "Oh, Darwinist I am waiting for the anwser!!!".

Just so I dont leave you in the cold.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


I was responding to your "Oh, Darwinist I am waiting for the anwser!!!".

Just so I dont leave you in the cold.

I edited my prev post. Take a look at the new part.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Tell me something. How did time start? How are we moving forward in time if time was not planned?

If god has supposedly been forever, then can something as simple as time have not been forever also? Darwinism doesn not explain the origin of the universe. Darwinism explains the 'origin of the species'. If you could go back and ask darwin how the universe came to be, and how we are moving in time, he wouldnt have the slightest clue. The whole origin of the universe debate really kicked off in the 20th century with physicists.

Universal creation is the realm of physicists, not biologists. How life came to be can be explained easily by biologists. Physicists are still working on universal creation. Give it some time :)


Before one finds answers about time, one must understand what time really is. Some say it's the 4th dimension, some say its a constant and we're the ones moving, others say the opposite. Some say the universe is expanding forever, some say it's shrinking back, some say its expanding then giong to shrink back into the ball of plasma it began as, then expand again, making a new universe.

Perhaps there have been infinite universi prior to this one, and this one just happened to spawn remotely intelligent life in one area. When you think of the odds in a situation like that, its more than likely for some proteins and amino acids and nucleic acids to get together in a primordial soup and go "Hey, lets make something".


Dont ask darwinists about that. Ask a physicist.

Oh, and I didnt respond coz I was washing my car.


Physics is attempting to explain it. How does god explain it? What the word from the big man himself on time?

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er


If god has supposedly been forever, then can something as simple as time have not been forever also? Darwinism doesn not explain the origin of the universe. Darwinism explains the 'origin of the species'. If you could go back and ask darwin how the universe came to be, and how we are moving in time, he wouldnt have the slightest clue. The whole origin of the universe debate really kicked off in the 20th century with physicists.

Universal creation is the realm of physicists, not biologists. How life came to be can be explained easily by biologists. Physicists are still working on universal creation. Give it some time :)


Before one finds answers about time, one must understand what time really is. Some say it's the 4th dimension, some say its a constant and we're the ones moving, others say the opposite. Some say the universe is expanding forever, some say it's shrinking back, some say its expanding then giong to shrink back into the ball of plasma it began as, then expand again, making a new universe.

Perhaps there have been infinite universi prior to this one, and this one just happened to spawn remotely intelligent life in one area. When you think of the odds in a situation like that, its more than likely for some proteins and amino acids and nucleic acids to get together in a primordial soup and go "Hey, lets make something".


Dont ask darwinists about that. Ask a physicist.

Oh, and I didnt respond coz I was washing my car.


Physics is attempting to explain it. How does god explain it? What the word from the big man himself on time?

How did those soups get there in the first place? Physics explains it.... you know how? It tells that this is too complex for even all the brain power of all the world put together couldn't even start to explain it. You know what is so amazing about the simple cell.... IT ISN'T SO SIMPLE! The DNA code is complex and if you took all the software ever made and put them together the DNA code would still be about 9 times bigger. So why weren't video games made in that soup? The human brain is the most complex computer ever known and yet it is the lightest computer ever made. And also here is something. 93% of all mutation cause the new born to be steral. And Why aren't things still changeing today? If you say it takes billions of years... well I think a billion years has past as you guys say. And here is something do you guys think that JK2 came about by chance? I bet not. And also Evolution is not science. And you guys might have a better case if I see a amemba come from a bunch of acids and goo.

-s/<itzo-
11-10-2002, 02:34 AM
I've gone to church and read the bible here and there. Yet I do not understand why we shun science. Science is a wonderful thing that has brought us out of the stone age. Lets face it the bible was written by man not a god. The time that this book was written was the same time that we thought the world was flat, the same time we thought the sun revolved around us. As far as values the bible is a great book that should be held of the highest importance however as far as facts there are none in this book. We know that the dinosaurs are millions of years old to say that they are only but a couple thousand years old is one of the biggest displays of ignorance since the crusades. If people consider Evolution a fairy tail and rubbish should we not just laugh at the whole idea and turn our heads? No we get defensive and stubborn not because we believe that it is not true but because it conflicts with the bible. Religion has been proved wrong many times however Science only a few. It is key to live by values and to be kind to each other however it is more important to be open minded and let ignorance be a thing of the past. We have no problem with science as everyone on this message board is cleary using a tool created with science, a computer. We drive cars ride planes listen to the weather report. Yet as soon as science states something that just might conflict with the bible people discard it as a tool of the devil. We must also remember who wrote this bible, a primitive man with a primitive mind. We know that the people who lived in that day and age were ignorant to so many, the people who lived in that day and age killed thousands of muslims why? because our god is better than their god thats why. We need to stop being so close minded and wake up to how the world really works, stop forcing our beliefs on other people. That is just horrible. I love the bible for its values and morals but not for its logic because there is none.

Now as far as creation vs evolution nobody here knows what happened way back when you were not there. However I think we should take what facts we find and base our conclusion on that. The bible is not fact it is a book written a long time ago by MAN. There are facts supporting evolution yet if you are a creationist you will discard these facts why? Because it opposes your belief not because it is not true.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 02:41 AM
And how do you know that dinosaurs are millions of years old? And please C-14 dating is off big time. There is a couple that made a fossil that was only a month old and it was said to be 7,123 years old.

Father Torque
11-10-2002, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by -s/&lt;itzo-
. Lets face it the bible was written by man not a god.


Ya but God spoke the words of the bible to John and the other four tellers of Jesus and the other chapters. See the Bible is not just a book its a history book of god and his words to the beleivers and followers he talked too.

BCanr2d2
11-10-2002, 02:56 AM
How come people make religion and science totally mutally exclusive? This is where this post has headed down, the "if one is true, the other isn't" debate.

There are scientific Christians out there, that the Bible ISN'T literal, but seems to fit a lot nicer to "ages" in the development of the world, rather than actual events. Some believe that creation is describing the 6 stages of evolution - they are in the correct order of what is generally accepted.

Another point is that there is no proof of the Bible for approx 70-100 years AFTER the death of Jesus. Considering in those times it would be at least 2 or 3 generations removed from those that would've witnessed it.

There is plausible evidence that Jesus did exist, and the Bible isn't literal - after all the Jews did write it and they are known to write in parables, rather than literally.

So, stop trying to disprove each other, when if some of you look hard enough at the situation, that there is room for both, and they don't necessarily conflict each other...


As for Carbon-14 dating, please get some facts before trying to describe it!
First of all, Carbon usually has 12 atoms in the nuclei, Carbon-14 has two more. What they are measuring is the amount of radiation given off, to work of where in the Carbon14 halflife it is. They have measured the radiation, and half life of Carbon14, so, when they measure the radiation given off, they can say with some accuracy how old something is.
A tree covered in ash from a volcanic burst is like trying to carbon date a chimney - full of ash, which is pure carbon. That is trying to describe something as inaccurate when the situation is known to lead towards misleading results.

Redwing
11-10-2002, 02:57 AM
Buh? *unexpectedly dragged in* ^^;;

Oh wow...this argument...it's been forever since I've debated about this...I guess I'd better start from the top ^.^


How do you explain the dinosaurs?


:confused: What do you mean? Dinosaurs don't fit with the Bible? Huh?

Carbon-14 tests have been run on some geological/palaeolithic materials dating back way before God created the world.

No one knows when God created the world. As per the Bible, the Earth existed, without form and void (empty), for who knows how long. Life existed for an unknown amount of time; there are geneologies in the Bible that some people use to get approximate dates, but for all we know the genealogies could have only the 'important' members listed. Besides that, Carbon-14 dating does not work after the span of a few ten thousand years. As there is no more accurate dating method, it is impossible to accurately date the world. The best people can do is use educated guesses to create a timeline. There are two prevailing theories: old Earth and young Earth. Old Earth is billions of years old. Most evolutionists ascribe to this theory because simply, it makes more sense for life to have evolved over an enormous period of time than a small amount. Most creationists tend to ascribe to young Earth. However, neither can be scientifically proved, lacking a completely accurate dating method.

*scrolls further down*

Uhhh. WhiteRaider just said all that. I should probably read the thread all the way first. :animelol:


darwin, the creation was must a load of old cobbler sthat the priests came up with to explain what was inexplicable.

What? Creationism existed before priests did.

Darwin... The man SAID on his death bed that everything he said was pure speculation and was NOT TRUE, the stories by him where published by his wife and soon who got a hold of some fictional stories he made... they where not true and have absolutely no evidence to back them up

Buh? O.o Since when?

Darwinism IS correct

we evolved from monkeys we share 99.9% of our genes with them (not 86 whoever said that) we share about 80 or 90% with a banana btw.

How do you know that doesn't mean we were just created by the same designer? ^_^

to the person who says we stopped evolving .... WE HAVENT ... on average we are alot taller than people in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries (and all the others 2) we KNOW this ... this is us evolving its not a quick process.

You are right. Although it cannot be proved without the passage of much more time - evolution - as defined a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. does fit with a Biblical creation model. Especially when you consider that Earth's original form was encased in what is called the firmament, a greenhouse layer of water around the atmosphere. The firmament collapsing is what caused the Flood. (Which is why the Flood could not be duplicated.) The climate, obviously, drastically changed, causing mass extinctions. The only things that survived were those that could adapt. This requires evolution. (Also, the Ark would have only held representatives of major species - subspecies would have had to branch off afterwards.)

Note that I only refer to evolution as I defined above. ^.^


Proof of evolution

Bacteria ... viruses the like .... they procreate so quickly they have many generations in a day ... this enables them to evolve in a matter of months ... they evolve to be resistant to drugs.

What I said above. ^_^ I believe when others here in this thread have argued against evolution, they mean all the other theories associated with it as well; popular science theory as a whole ^.^

Big Bang

Right ... we know this happened ... we can see it we can prove that the universe is expanding from a single point.

Why does that require a Big Bang to have created the universe?



And I cant wait until the day you are on your deathbed, weeping because of all that time wasted praying to some non-existant god..:rolleyes:

O.o Tyrion, that was very mean...^^;;

I can assure you that has never happened...but the reverse has happened with dying atheists...I'm not saying that proves anything, it just is...


Carbon-14 dating: Scientists have measured the half-life of Carbon-14. Given available data, C-14 dating is extremely accurate concerning the material in question, and certainly does document the fact that the earth is several billion years old.

C-14 does not accurately document the earth as being several billion years old, like I said earlier. ^.^ The datings become less accurate as age goes up. (they become inconsistent with each other)

Of course, you could assume that we do not know how much carbon-14 a material started out with, but then again - this makes my theory just as good as yours.

True. Except we have faith. If you cannot prove either evolution nor creation, then we are on a level ground. ^_^

Math, Genetics, Age Of Earth:

On human development, the theory I read said 8 mil. years - and I'd like to know where you pulled that number from and the time interval that it covers (because you can make the number in question infinitly large if you make the time interval it covers correspondingly small). If, for example, the figure covers the chance of a spontaneus mutation occuring within an hour, then it is entirely useless - we're talking about 4 billion years 'ere. Yes, it is all seemingly impossible that life evolved, but if we're talking about an infinte amount of time then it suddenly becomes very plausible. And if it is plausible, then it could just happen.

But so could God. I believe evolution happens, but I believe God created the world and everything in it, and set up his creations with the ability to change to suit their surroundings. I don't believe in spontaneous generation - that something came from nothing. (And I mean NOTHING, because in popular science, where did empty space come from?)

Viola: A system where the whole is greater than the sum of the part, yet the sum did evolve from the parts.

But where did it start? Where did the parts come from?

In scientific terms, a "Theory" is a confirmed hypothesis - the way you use it, it seems as though you think it is merely a hypothesis.[/quote]

What? No it isn't. ^.^ A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. In other words, an investigated hypothesis. Not a confirmed hypothesis.



im not attacking yoda (even tho hes attacking me)

:eyeraise: :eyeraise:

I'm sorry, but that quote is great :D

im working towards making him realise he believes in god because he WANTS to

As you do not, because you want to. Humans are defined by their free will. It is how thing are. ^_^

we share 99.9% with apes (not monkeys as most people say) not 80 genes

Like I said earlier, how do you know it just doesn't point to one designer?

whats life if not alot of chemicals in 1 place ... in 1 order ... there was alot of chemicals about after the big bang ... it was just dumb luck that they ended up in the right order. im not talking about it taking 15 mins to do it ... it took Millions of years just for the first life to be born from the chemicals

But if life -> chemicals, and chemicals -> Big Bang, then Big Bang -> what?

Proof of evolution .... READ MY POST BE4 U KNOCK IT FOOL ... i have provided proof! (if u dont believe the taller proof .... read the bacteria proof)

The idea of evolution does not disprove the idea of creation. ^_^

also back on mother teresa .... she wasnt a great person because she believed in god .... she was a great person because she was a great person

This doesn't relate to the argument, but....huh?? :confused:


Do you know what an insane person is? It's a person who have excluded a lot of options - has narrowed his view of the world down to something set on a rail. His vision of the world is a singular course, and he won't deviate from it.

I'm not calling you insane here, even though this might sound like it - I'm trying to warn you against assuming something is impossible.

Well that was...odd...I don't remember insane meaning...*goes to check Handy Online Dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=insanity) ^_^

Insanity: Persistent mental disorder or derangement. No longer in scientific use.

Ummmm...what were you talking about? :confused:

I'm not calling you narrow minded, I'm just saying you should be careful of using the word "impossible". God isn't impossible at all - but all evidence points toward that some higher power did not create the earth.

No it doesn't. What do you mean? Show me something, anything, that means God does not exist, please.

take the theory that the earth is flat

It is flat ... i can see its flat ... isnt that great .... next theory

then .... sum1 sails to the edge and fails miserably at falling off

and they suggest its round and this is evidence

new theory argued lots but gradually accepted

we goto space ... see world .... have proof

LOL! Okay, this doesn't fit into my argument, but that was really funny :D

First where have you been? The big band theory has been thrown out 4-10 years ago. If you are going to defend evolution you better be up to date. And where is your proof? I don't see any. So far it is disproven by science.


Well it hasn't been disproven per se ^.^

Ok....let me give you something...

Let's say about 2000 years ago I make a book. It's called,the rible. I am trying to get some power. So I make a book. It's called the rible. So I make it. And people started to believe in it. Now I have some power. So blah blah blah, I died. But people still kept believing in the rible. That could be of the Bible.

That's a nice theory, but no one person or group of persons created the Bible ^.^

Christianity is only popular because the english and spanish went on crusades,inquisitions, and journeys to spread it.

*!?!?!* I think you have Catholicism mixed up with Christianity as a whole.

Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?

See where I am getting at? You could go on and on. I try not to think of that though. It's hurts my head

Rogue15- And thesist need to stop thinking Mr. God is the be-all-and-end-all solution.

You don't understand. Having a beginning and an end would not be required if time did not exist. God created time, and thus doesn't need a beginning or end.


Now, pardon me for noticing, but this oh-so-common view seems to say that all non-christians are doomed to a fiery eternity. Isn't far less than half the worlds population actually christian. Half the worlds population alone is in china/india. Is that to say that all these people, who may never have been EXPOSED to christianity, are condemned to hell forever? Is it their fault they never learned the christian way of life? Certainly you cant say they deserve what is supposedly coming to them.

I don't. I have faith that God, being an all-powerful Supreme Being, will somehow give everyone who wants to a chance to find out about him.

Creationists believe the bible as the word of god, right down to the biblical creation. They disregard any scientific view on creation, and believe that all rules for life and truths have been laid out for us by god, in the bible.

Creationists believe the Bible is the word of God, yes. That doesn't mean they disregard any scientific view on creation! In fact, why bother being a creationist (creation scientist) if you're going to ignore science? Creationism is simply believing that God created us.



Anyway, the document... Someone mentioned the perfection of the human eye, and how it could come about in a choatic world.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, creationists trot out that old saw about how nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all. Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development", from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes.
Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Eh? I don't understand why the author decides the human eye is a mistake, considering how well it works and all. I doubt the author investigated the human eye, so I don't know if his idea of rearranging it would work better. Science is an ever-changing field of knowledge - how does he know that eliminating the blind sport would make the human eye better?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In our image"
That's how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he's better off not asking such things.
The first is whom the One and Only God meant by "our"--but that's really a theological question, not related directly to creationism. The second question, however, is right on target: If man was made "in [God's] image", then Adam must have looked just like God--right? But wait--it gets more confusing. Man is immediately referred to as "them", so maybe it's not just Adam who looks like God. Then to further confound literal-minded youngsters, "...in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If God is male (the assumption of 97.83% of all creationists), then how could a female be made in His image?
Let's grant the general creationist assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong): God is male; men are made "in [His] image" in only a general way (maybe even Adam didn't look exactly like Him); and women were made with necessary differences to enable reproduction. Still a load of embarrassing questions arise. Much has been made of Adam's navel, and why he would have one, having never been attached to a placenta. I want to know if God has one. I want to know if He has a digestive tract. If so, why? Does He eat? If so, what, and why would He need to? Does He excrete? Where? What happens to it? Does He have lungs? Why would He need them? Does He have sweat glands? And naughty stuff: does He have genitals? Why would He need those? Does He even have two legs, and feet, and toes? Why would He need them, unless He's bound by gravity, as we are?
Childish questions? Of course, but only because they arise from a literal (i.e., childish) reading of Genesis. But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't. If He does, why, and what does He use them for? If He doesn't, then made "in [His] image" has no literal meaning. (For those creationists tempted to inform me that the human soul was what was made in God's image, let me save you the trouble and thank you ahead of time for backing up my point: the phrase has no literal [physical] meaning. I would point out that a great many generations of Judaeo-Christians have taken the phrase to mean physical resemblance, and that most fundamentalist believers still do. Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form? Let me also direct you to the section of Exodus wherein Moses is covered with God's hand, and then allowed to view His backside. Note also numerous other biblical references to God's hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts. One of my favorites is Jacob's wrestling match with God, in which Jacob didn't recognize the Lord of All Creation until later, and God couldn't win until He cheated by using magic!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's a very lame argument. Anyone who understands art (artist right here ^_^) knows that "image" can mean alot. A piece of wood can be made to look like a lizard, for example. How does the author know Adam had a navel? Does the Bible ever say so? The author has a valid point with the male/female thing, but like I said earlier, "image" can mean alot. As for - "But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't" - that's a foolish statement considering we have no idea what God's makeup is. As for - "Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form?" - what on earth is that supposed to prove? Is the Bible illustrated? "Note also numerous other biblical references to God's hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts" - hence the in his image part.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth
This isn't about the things creationists are just wrong about, like how old the Earth is, but about things that I suspect a good many know are not true, or gross distortions of the truth. The general one is that there is a great debate among scientists about whether species have evolved. A joyous update is that only a few die-hards still believe in the Big Bang. There are plenty of other amusing examples:
• human footprints alongside dinosaurs
• human artifacts found among dinosaur bones
• a geological column that is almost never in the "proper" order described by geologists
• proof from all over the world of a worldwide Flood
• the "NASA computer" that revealed the "extra day" when the sun stopped to give the Israelites more time to conquer Jericho
• the deep hole geologists drilled and then had to fill in hurriedly when they heard the screams from Hell
• Darwin's "deathbed recantation" (the "Lady Hope" story)
Nothing seems too silly or too obviously wrong to pass along.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*scratches head* I don't see how using obviously silly arguments used by the rather...odd...section of the opposite side disproves the idea of the other side as a whole. I thought this was a debate on science? (Although a couple of those examples might be correct - like the Paluxy River footprints which may or may not have been human - I notice the author lists that there without saying it has been proved wrong, assuming his target audience will "know" it is ridiculous)


As far as I'm aware, Darwin calling his work a falacy on his death bed is a crock of you know what.

Yes. Note that I found this out from a creationist magazine.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beetles
Does God have a beetle fixation? Why else would He create so many different kinds? Maybe He loves them more than man. After all, can a beetle sin?
--Noah Riggins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



An amusing point, but one to think about

That's not even an argument. ^_~

Here's one for the 747 comments

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tornadoes, Junkyards, and 747's
It used to be a pocket watch that "proved" evolution can't happen. Now that lame creationist analogy has apparently evolved to demand that it be possible for a tornado to assemble a 747 out of a junkyard before we can admit the possibility of evolution.
What the creationist always conveniently leaves out of the analogy is the power of NON-random selection on repeated events. Allow a little leeway here for differences between mechanical assembly and natural systems (chemistry and life). Have the tornado roar through repeatedly, several times an hour (representing the speed of chemical reactions, or of cells multiplying). Allow selection pressures to "favor" parts or accidental assemblies that could function as part of a 747 (they're allowed to "survive", i.e. not torn apart). Let the experiment run a few million years and you will have your wide-body jet.
Admittedly, that's still a pretty lame analogy, but it represents evolution way better than the creationists' single windstorm. This would make it even closer to evolution: Don't demand a specific product at the end (like a plane or a human). Instead, "favor" any chance assembly that would be useful for any purpose. Allow assemblies to reproduce with occasional random changes. Select the most useful. Hey, that is evolution. Give it some time and you will have some amazingly "well-adapted" and useful mechanisms. Granted, the chances of one being a 747 are effectively zero (unless it was intentionally selected for), but no biologist I know of ever claimed that evolution "intended" to produce a person

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The whole argument comes down to whether spontaneous generation occured, to begin evolution.

Does the bible explain about Australiopithicas,Homo-Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, and Homo Sapien Sapiens?

We evolutionist/anagontists/anthesits have our "bibles" too.

Buh? Australopithecus wasn't human. I don't know what Homo Habilis is - will someone please explain? The others all fit into the category of human.

So you're willing to say that god is eternal and always has been, but you blatently deny the possibility of a creational point in the universe where everything came to be, without the aid of a supernatural force?

What exactly was god doing in that eternity before he made man?

"Before" is a term that indicates time. Since God created time, that's a pointless question.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ZDawg

If God was created than would he be God?
What comes before beggining?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But who created him. He could not have created himself, because he was non-existant before he created himself. And, if he did create himself, then why did he take so ass long to make humans?

You're thinking inside of time again. God doesn't need a creation without time. "Long" is another term that requires time.

YAY! I'm done! I hope no one posted another argument while I was typing this. ^_^;;;

Father Torque
11-10-2002, 03:05 AM
Redwing i agree with you 100% on everything you posted i respect that:)

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 03:06 AM
........that was awesome Redwing......

I dont even care you said that what I said was mean.

:D

(actually, what I said was mostly me being pissed at Darth Yoda ^_^)

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 03:07 AM
As for Carbon-14 dating, please get some facts before trying to describe it!

I have. There are some rare cases that C-14 will become C-13 or C-11 or becoming a free radical causeing it to change the half-life of the C-14. And you have to know how much C-14 you started with.

That is trying to describe something as inaccurate when the situation is known to lead towards misleading results.

DUH! And what about that meteor, flood, blizard, or stuff like that?
You just shot yourself in the foot there.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 03:26 AM
I'll answer your questions as best I can, 1 by 1

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


How did those soups get there in the first place?

The world was created 4 billion or so years ago. The primordial world came about after matter swirled into a spherical shape. Silod matter formed, gases became the atmosphere. It was a stormy, watery, incredibly volcanic world, with electrical charges present from the large amount of lightning, different temperatures within the ocean and an environment full of the basic molecules that make up building blocks of life, so it wouldnt be hard for things to come about. Simple carbohydrates, water, proteins even, but most important of all, nucleic bases.

Purines and Pyramidines.
http://users.erols.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Purines.gif http://users.erols.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Pyrimidines.gif

Chemically speaking, they arent very complex, and only a fairly simple seires of chemical reactions would need to take place for them to come about.

You've got your 5 carbon sugars floating round (Ribose and Deoxyribose)... Cross them with your base and youve got a nucleosides. DNA and RNA are both constructed from tri-phosphate nucleosides. Throw in some phosphates with your NS's and let it sit.

Give it some time (We're talking billions of years. Life didnt happen straight away), you've suddenly got a small string of nucleic acid.

What then you ask? A membrane just might form around this little glob of NA. You've pretty much got a Prokaryote at this point.

Prokaryotic cells lack subcellular "organelles" within their membrane, but may contain membrane systems inside a cell wall. Evolution later lead to Eukaryotes, which had their characteristic membrane bound organelles. How did these mutations into higher forms of life occur? At fairly high frequencies, spontaneous mutations can occur, altering the very nature of the lifeform, much of the time only in a gender altering way, but often other mutations occur. That was one of the most prevalent alterations that occurred.


You know what is so amazing about the simple cell.... IT ISN'T SO SIMPLE! The DNA code is complex and if you took all the software ever made and put them together the DNA code would still be about 9 times bigger.

Actually, the very first NA strands werent very complex at all. They didnt have to code for physical features, like in more evolved species. All they had to code for was

A) Replication, often mitosal
B) Obtaining nutrients for survival

and occaisionally C) Transportation, as many single celled organisms have tails for movement.

Over time, the NA's got more complex.


So why weren't video games made in that soup?

Video games require computer programming to be interpretted by electrical machines. Hey, maybe they were made, but the soup just wasnt skilled enough to make a medium to place the games onto, or a method of burning them onto that medium. Go ask the soup.

The human brain is the most complex computer ever known and yet it is the lightest computer ever made.

Well gee, you'd expect something after a few million years of humans evolving.

93% of all mutation cause the new born to be steral.

So? as far as I know, that helps our argument, not yours :)

And Why aren't things still changeing today? If you say it takes billions of years... well I think a billion years has past as you guys say.

Billions of years HAVE passed, but not billions of years of human evolution. We havent been around that long at all in terms of Earth. Only a few million years. Things ARE still changing. We're losing more hair generation by generation as we get further away from our hirsuite primate ancestors. Maybe in 100,000 years we'll have no hair on our heads. Just don't expect change overnight. It is happening.

And here is something do you guys think that JK2 came about by chance? I bet not.

Actually, yes. It was purely chance that the events in Lucas's life lead him to think at one exact moment an idea which he did. Every little tiny thing that has occurred in his life lead to the creation of star wars, and hence, jk, then jk2. If when he was 9 years old, a mosquito had bitten him 1 second later than it did, the world may be very different. The butterfly effect is all around us. Chaos exists.

Evolution is not science.

You are correct. Evolution is a theory. Evolutionary science is a science based around that theory.

And you guys might have a better case if I see a amemba come from a bunch of acids and goo.

Have you got a high tech lab and a few million years to wait and watch? Didn't think so.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 03:36 AM
So? as far as I know, that helps our argument, not yours

How? I am saying that they can't reporduce.


Billions of years HAVE passed, but not billions of years of human evolution

And what other animals stop changing after a new ones is made?

Have you got a high tech lab and a few million years to wait and watch? Didn't think so.

And you do? And why do I need a high tec lab? Acording to you it happended in nature.

And nice imagnation, but were is the proof? You have yet to give me that.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by Redwing

That's a nice theory, but no one person or group of persons created the Bible ^.^


Really? I thought it was a bunch of people. Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and all those dudes. Who wrote it then?

And Redwing, I respect everything you said, but you must remember that in todays society, creationists are not those who study creation, but those who take the word of the bible as gospel and disregard science. Afaik this is a widely accept term.

Christians may not have problems with certain things, like yourself, but creationsists would.


Oh, and the eye argument is in fact correct, strangely enough. I'll get some more references.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider




And what other animals stop changing after a new ones is made?



And you do? And why do I need a high tec lab? Acording to you it happended in nature.


No animals stop changing. They either die out, or continue changing. Sometimes separate paths are taken, and new species evolve, but the old ones keep evolving.

And no, i dont have a high tech lab, but to simulate the environment of the soup we'd need one.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 03:44 AM
Really? I thought it was a bunch of people. Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and all those dudes. Who wrote it then?

They did, but they only wrote 4-7 books. There were alot of people who wrote it. And some were before Jesus.

TheWhiteRaider
11-10-2002, 03:50 AM
No animals stop changing. They either die out, or continue changing. Sometimes separate paths are taken, and new species evolve, but the old ones keep evolving.



So why can't you find missing links?


And no, i dont have a high tech lab, but to simulate the environment of the soup we'd need one.

Also with the so called soup Right-handed molecules and Left-handed molecules are what come out of this. The right-handed is what is needed for life, but the left-handed is toxic to life. This type of goo would make both of them.

And I am still waiting for proof. You have given theorys, but no proof.

Jah Warrior
11-10-2002, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


And maby Darwinism was just something that Darwin came up with to mislead the world. See I can say the same about your stuff too.

lol but darwin actually makes sense and has proof to back it up rather than "god" running round with his magic wand creating a myriad of slightly different creatures and plants...

Redwing
11-10-2002, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er


The world was created 4 billion or so years ago.

[trunc.]



I understand evolutionary theory. ^.^ (Personally, I believe it's too implausible that evolution extended that far back, to the prelevel of single cells - life - coming from primordial sludge, but I can't prove that any more than you can prove that it's not too implausible.) But what about what happened first? Where did all this stuff come from? The Big Bang? What caused that?

Originally posted by GonkH8er


The world was created 4 billion or so years ago.

Really? I thought it was a bunch of people. Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and all those dudes. Who wrote it then?

And Redwing, I respect everything you said, but you must remember that in todays society, creationists are not those who study creation, but those who take the word of the bible as gospel and disregard science. Afaik this is a widely accept term.

Christians may not have problems with certain things, like yourself, but creationsists would.


Oh, and the eye argument is in fact correct, strangely enough. I'll get some more references.

According to the educated guess that are still, unfortunately, guesses. Until we find a completely, unarguably accurate dating method that works as well as Carbon 14 for long periods of time. ^.^

Nah, they just wrote the Gospels. ^_^ There's 66 books in the Bible, with a few sharing authors.

Bah! I refuse to fit in someone else's box. ^_^ But I do take the word of the Bible as gospel. But no way do I disregard science - I am a Christian because I believe they coincide. If someone can prove that Christianity is scientifically wrong, then I would certainly give it up.

*goes to Handy Online Dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=creationist)*

cre·a·tion·ism
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cre·ation·ist adj. & n.

Bah...well I don't really like tha definition. It doesn't say it all. I suppose "creation scientist" would be more accurate. Hmph. I always considered the two terms synonymous. ^.^

I dun understand what you mean about the eye argument?

C'jais
11-10-2002, 07:26 AM
Wow.... this has sure gotten a lot of responses over night :D

Imagine if our universe was constantly expanding and contracting itself, to start again with a new big bang - there'd be no need for a God to have created it all.

Or maybe, two universes pushing and pulling at each other with each collision resulting in a new big bang, that sends the two universes flying away from each other again.

If God could always have existed, then the universe could also always have existed. Asking us to explain from where the universe came from, is like me asking you to explain where God came from. The difference between the two groups is that while we are constantly searching for an answer, you trust in your faith alone.

Redwing, you are saying that God just sparked the universe for some reason. Why?
Did he want to create man?
How do you define man, if the species are constantly evolving? Why did he create man, if he knew that the planet they live on is going to die because the sun explodes in a few billion years? What makes man so much over and above other species if we were evolved from them?
Where is the defining line between "man" and "ape"?
What makes your religion so much more true than, say, islam, taoism, ancient greek religion or even the shamanistic religions?
What is to convince you that the Bible is more true than the Koran?

Why do we need God if he was just the one that started it all and then decided to take a long break from it all - if we remove God from the equation in every creationist theory, then we'll just end up with a system that can just as well work and thrive without him.

You're all saying that it's impossible that life could have evolved from no where. GonkH8er presented a theory in which the chance is there - granted, it's small, very very very small, but it's there. And if you factor in 4 billion years, then it could easily happen. However small a chance is, as long as it's there it will happen, given enough time. And life have had more than enough time.

GonkH8er
11-10-2002, 09:40 AM
Just got home from a date. Glad theres not heaps of posts to rifle through. Just thought I'd add something before I head off to bed.

Redwing, just a question. Do you take the genesis creation word for word, as what actually happened. This on day 1. This on day 2. etc... That's the type of creationist I'm talking about. Those who deny any scientific involvement in creation.

Personally, I believe there's only 1 way to prove or disprove the existance of a god, and that way is for the god to reveal himself.

Don't get all weird on me and go "But look around. He has revealed himself in everything. Marvel at his glory"

I mean actually REVEAL himself in a sense where we dont have to look into things. A physical sense where even those who are nto as clued on as others could see.

Other than that, we've got an ant's scrots chance of proving something either way.

So, it's either gonna be up to him, or we sit here arguing for the rest of our lives about it, each content in the fact that we think what we believe is truth.

Personally, I hope we're all wrong. I don't want some people rubbing it in everyones face.

I know my view on life is bleak and cold, and I hope its not the truth, but I honestly cannot believe that there's anymore to it. What is, is, in my opinion.

*raises glass*

Here's hoping that it's not meaningless chance, but until I find somethign better, meaningless chance will do me just fine.

Goodnight all.

griff38
11-10-2002, 10:13 AM
CJAIS I love you.

I have done it all, I was raises by devout christians so thats all I knew for many years. Eventually I discovered "Master Darwin" and many others who show more likely ways we could come into existance.

Remember good science does not deny the existance of a god.
(THE ABSCENCE OF EVIDENCE, IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSCENCE)

translated into redneck: (JUS CUZ YA CANT SEE IT DONT MEAN IT AINT THAR)

So I am in the Darwin camp, with respect to those who are still motivated by fear and worship a religion.

MORE TO COME.............................

C'jais
11-10-2002, 10:23 AM
Creationists, I'd like to hear your version of history/reality instead of just bashing ours. If you're saying (as gonkH8 hinted at) that the world is only, say, 4000 years old, that adam and eve were the first humans etc - then I will argue against that.

However, if you're saying that evolution is a fact, and that God just sparked the big bang and then let everything develop from there, I'm partly with you. No, I can't disprove that God does not exist if we're working from that standpoint - after all, he could have made the big bang (or whatever started it all). Then the only difference that seperates scientists and creationists is that scientists does not stop at some point during their research on the origin of the universe and say: "Well, I don't really need to research further, because I know God made it like that, and I'll settle for that explanation."

If God created the earth, why did he create lifeless gas giants such as Jupiter as well?

Redwing: Yes, God could have made it all - we do not know yet, because there have been no proof yet. All that creationists really do is go back one step from the genereally accepted theory, and then explain that with God. EG, people once believed that the earth was flat, when it was disproved they said that, "Ok, the earth isn't flat but God still made it round". When the big bang theory became accepted they took a step back and said "Ok, it all started from the big bang, but God started the big bang!".
You're saying that everything was put in place by the same designer and then everything was just allowed to evolve and adapt as they saw fit - God retired, you could say. Not to mention that this would be utterly pointless, this theory does agree with the fact that humans evovled from apes.

Evolution is a fact: Look at bacteria, humans and other creatures.
God may or may not exist, but so far - no evidence.

When science one day does prove that the earth is billions of years old (which I think will happen), are you then going to adapt your religion to that? When science proves that there have never been any sort of firmament, are you then going to agree? When science proves that there have been life on other planets, are you then going to realize? I'm saying "science" here, because creationists obviously don't have the motivation to search for those things. If science as we know it wasn't invented in 19 century, we wouldn't have electricity, cars or space shuttles.

Griff - You hit the nail on the head with that sentence (not the redneck one :D)...

Breton
11-10-2002, 10:38 AM
Karl Marx had some really good points about religion.

I guess I am 15 percent Darwinist, 15 percent Marxist, and 70 percent me...

Elijah
11-10-2002, 11:04 AM
The funny thing about evolutionists is that they cant make up thier minds about how old earth is... onesays "4000000000 Mllion" the other "904392390 Trillion and so on a so forth... Creationists dont care how *old* the earth is but how it got here... well at least i dont.


If God is GOD does he need science to prove it?


Gonk8... I'm a Christian and a Creationist, Although i know Christians who believe in Evolution... its all a matter of opinion


Redwing, Good say... I Agree with alot of what you said.

C'jais
11-10-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
If God is GOD does he need science to prove it?


If God is GOD, what is GOD?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Divine Spirit
11-10-2002, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by cjais


If God is GOD, what is GOD?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

DOG backwards

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-10-2002, 11:45 AM
Yes, God could have made it all - we do not know yet, because there have been no proof yet. All that creationists really do is go back one step from the genereally accepted theory, and then explain that with God. EG, people once believed that the earth was flat, when it was disproved they said that, "Ok, the earth isn't flat but God still made it round". When the big bang theory became accepted they took a step back and said "Ok, it all started from the big bang, but God started the big bang!".


Is this some sort of accusation? You guys do exactly the same thing! When one of your theories gets evidence against it, all you do is twist this evidence around, so that it fits the image you're trying to create.

What you must understand, is that the Bible was created a long time ago, and made to be understood by kinda ignorant people. It is not a book to be taken literally, and I think we all understand that the world isn't 4000 years old. The Bible, when written, was constructed so that it could be understood by the "contemporaries" at that time. You must take height for that when you read the Bible in our time, and not take everything literary.
The genesis is a comparison, kinda, a simplification of reality so that the contemporaries could understand.
Don't ditch religion just because "science" tells you that everything that's in the religion can't be true. The Bible talks in images, and it does require some intelligence to look beyond that.

I find you narrowminded, Cjais... How will your precious science prove the lack of firmament?
You can't talk about adapting our religion, because you have to see the 2000 yeras old writings in context with your own reality. Don't you realize?

C'jais
11-10-2002, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Qui-GONE Jinn


Is this some sort of accusation? You guys do exactly the same thing! When one of your theories gets evidence against it, all you do is twist this evidence around, so that it fits the image you're trying to create.

What you must understand, is that the Bible was created a long time ago, and made to be understood by kinda ignorant people. It is not a book to be taken literally, and I think we all understand that the world isn't 4000 years old. The Bible, when written, was constructed so that it could be understood by the "contemporaries" at that time. You must take height for that when you read the Bible in our time, and not take everything literary.
The genesis is a comparison, kinda, a simplification of reality so that the contemporaries could understand.
Don't ditch religion just because "science" tells you that everything that's in the religion can't be true. The Bible talks in images, and it does require some intelligence to look beyond that.

I find you narrowminded, Cjais... How will your precious science prove the lack of firmament?
You can't talk about adapting our religion, because you have to see the 2000 yeras old writings in context with your own reality. Don't you realize?

Ok, we all agree that the bible is not to be taken literally, or do we - Redwing seems to be hinting at the opposite. It's version of reality and history is complete gibberish, is that it?

Yes, science twists it's own ideas and make new ones because that is the heart of science - there are no truths.
I don't quite understand your point of view: You seem to think that no matter how deep we look, no matter far back in time we go, no matter what science discovers - God is always there. But why? Why can't we just remove some higher power from the equation and still achieve the same result? You seem to believe in evolution, scientific theories and the whole package Qui, why do you need to believe in God?

Firmament, I can only say I'm a firm believer in that there's still water in the atmosphere.

Narrowminded yes - but even though I have the imagination to make God real, I do not - why should I do so?

Arreat
11-10-2002, 12:03 PM
well... since im catholic im leaning more towards my catholic faith other than some scientific theories

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-10-2002, 01:07 PM
It's version of reality and history is complete gibberish, is that it?

No, but when it says that the universe was created in six days, you shouldn't take it literary. I'd expect more from you, Cjais, surely you understand!

You seem to believe in evolution, scientific theories and the whole package Qui, why do you need to believe in God?
Because I do believe in God, and science isn't enough for me. When I look at the sky full of stars, and see the marvels of the universe, I can't believe that all happens by chance, and that we are worthless. I believe that God is the designer behind all this, and that he loves his creation. My point of view.

I do believe science as well, you know. I do believe that the world is round, and that the moon isn't a green cheese, so to speak. That's because I believe that science confirms the excistence of god, and that there is really an existence for us after death.

C'jais
11-10-2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Qui-GONE Jinn


No, but when it says that the universe was created in six days, you shouldn't take it literary. I'd expect more from you, Cjais, surely you understand!


Yes, Qui, I understand. And sorry for talking that way about the Bible - low, yes.

However, when I gaze at the stars, marvel at the complexity of the world and stand in righteous awe of nature, I do not feel alone - I feel as a part of it. I am my own universe you could say, and the wonder of it is beautiful.

When everything has no beginning and no end, when everything works together as it does - that is when my God shows itself.

An existence after death? Maybe - but simply knowing that I played a role in this universal theater is enough for me.

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 02:15 PM
about the time thingy....

Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

there, that disproves that time existed before God. but of course you could say it's in revelations, therefore it's not to be taken literally,etc, etc, etc. :rolleyes:

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 02:16 PM
I still want to know why your christian god is the one god instead of the norse,greek,egyptian,isreal,jewish,and sumerian god(s).

Their stone tablets and stuff has as much proof as your book.

(Gonk H8ter dragged me back in:p)

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 02:45 PM
ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me."

God himself wrote that it on stone tablets, also called teh 10 Commandments.

eugh, read the Bible or go to sunday school. you poor person, you. ;) :p at LEAST read Genesis and Exodus at www.bible.com it's more than worth your time. :)

C'jais
11-10-2002, 02:51 PM
Rogue15, why do you put your trust into a book you have not written yourself?

Wisdom is to be found within.

Tyrion
11-10-2002, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Rogue15
Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me."


:rolleyes:

That doesnt solve a thing. It still is just a sentence in the book,but you only it is right because you proboly are too close-minded to think that it *gasp* could be wrong....

I could make a book,and say that a true but really fictionous god says"you shall not worship any other gods".

Does that mean that that god is the true and one god? No.

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 03:09 PM
I'm not losing anything by believing it, am I?

And just cause I believe most of what the Bible says, does not make me close-minded to everything, it makes me more focused on the God who created you, me, everything and everybody. There's ALOT of wisdom in the Bible, read the book of Proverbs, the best book in the entire Bible, IMO, and a great source of wisdom lies there.

The least I can say about this thread is that it has made me think more about how great God is.

C'jais
11-10-2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Rogue15
I'm not losing anything by believing it, am I?

And just cause I believe most of what the Bible says, does not make me close-minded to everything, it makes me more focused on the God who created you, me, everything and everybody. There's ALOT of wisdom in the Bible, read the book of Proverbs, the best book in the entire Bible, IMO, and a great source of wisdom lies there.

The least I can say about this thread is that it has made me think more about how great God is.

Rogue, why did God create man? Was he not pleased with himself? Can God not fail? Can God make a stone that he cannot lift?

I've always wondered about those questions really... curiously.

Rogue15
11-10-2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by cjais


Rogue, why did God create man? Was he not pleased with himself? Can God not fail? Can God make a stone that he cannot lift?

I've always wondered about those questions really... curiously.

pretty tough question, that first one...anyways this is what the Bible says about it:

." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Maybe God wanted something to please/worship/praise Him?

I don't know the answers, the Bible does give some hints to possible answers to questions we have. I'm not saying to take everything the Bible says as an answer, just a possible answer, and maybe an answer that only applies to you. That's what makes the Bible so fun to read.

Luc Solar
11-10-2002, 04:38 PM
Uh...*sigh* I didn't read but a few posts but... These debates always seem to go to the same direction.

-->


The "Darwinists" give dozens of RATIONAL reasons why Creationism is total BS.

Then the Creationists go: "Yea, well, how do you explain that, like...when stars explode and, umm..that the universe expanding and the black holes and...umm.. how did life start in the first place huh?! And how come some people are lefties? Explain that!"

Darwinist: "Well, gee, I don't really know.."

Creationist: HA! GOTCHA! I WIN! You can't explain everything so that proves me right! God created Eve from Adam's rib!

:disaprove

Btw - since Adam and Eve were the first two people, doesn't that mean that they had to resort to incest in order to keep the human race going?
I guess the Bible says incest is a-okay, then...? :rolleyes:

Breton
11-10-2002, 04:49 PM
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

"The criticism of religion disillusions man to make him think and act and shape his reality like a man who has been disillusioned and has come to reason, so that he will revolve round himself and therefore round his true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long as he does nor revolve around himself."

C'jais
11-10-2002, 04:51 PM
Well said Luc...

Don't force me to use this (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) against you.... :(

Pisces
11-10-2002, 05:00 PM
Okay, this may have already been asked but I am through no means looking back through the full thread.

This question I ask is a legitimate question not meant to put down the beliefs of anyone:

If Darwinism is the study of how all life evolved from simpler organisms, then how did the first, single-celled, organism ever come into existence?

I'm told we evolved from apes and birds evolved from dinosaurs and such, but how did the first organism ever come around?

Pedantic
11-10-2002, 05:03 PM
Why can't evolution be true? The Second Law of Thermodynamics, that's why. Things never get better. They always get worse and more disordered.

Oh, and BTW, nowhere is it said that evolution is fact. It is a theory.

Luc Solar
11-10-2002, 05:12 PM
LOL! Great link cjais, thanks! :thumbsup:


Check it out! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/absurdities.htm)

A few excerpts:

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program. 1:6-8

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16

"And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." Really? Then why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from earth? Under the best conditions, no more than five thousand stars are visible from earth with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies. Yet this verse says that God put the stars in the firmament "to give light" to the earth. 1:17

All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God. But, of course, we now know that there were carnivorous animals millions of years before humans existed. 1:30

God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep.) After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-20

God's clever, talking serpent. 3:1

God walks and talks (to himself?) in the garden, and plays a little hide and seek with Adam and Eve. 3:8-11

God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before -- by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they? 3:14

God curses the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. 3:17-18

God kills some animals and makes some skin coats for Adam and Eve

:D

C'jais
11-10-2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Pedantic
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, that's why.

Eh? :confused:

I'd like to see that theory....

Glad you liked the link, Luc! :D

NeoDios:

May I present - GonkH8ter's post:

The world was created 4 billion or so years ago. The primordial world came about after matter swirled into a spherical shape. Silod matter formed, gases became the atmosphere. It was a stormy, watery, incredibly volcanic world, with electrical charges present from the large amount of lightning, different temperatures within the ocean and an environment full of the basic molecules that make up building blocks of life, so it wouldnt be hard for things to come about. Simple carbohydrates, water, proteins even, but most important of all, nucleic bases.

Purines and Pyramidines.

Chemically speaking, they arent very complex, and only a fairly simple seires of chemical reactions would need to take place for them to come about.

You've got your 5 carbon sugars floating round (Ribose and Deoxyribose)... Cross them with your base and youve got a nucleosides. DNA and RNA are both constructed from tri-phosphate nucleosides. Throw in some phosphates with your NS's and let it sit.

Give it some time (We're talking billions of years. Life didnt happen straight away), you've suddenly got a small string of nucleic acid.

What then you ask? A membrane just might form around this little glob of NA. You've pretty much got a Prokaryote at this point. A prokaryote is a cell (the other kind is eukaryote).

griff38
11-10-2002, 05:34 PM
The 3 western religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that God existed. (THEN GOD MADE MAN). Hard to accept for the above average mind.

However, some Eastern religions believe if you think about god then he does exist. (THEN MAN MADE GOD).

In the west we greet by shaking hands, some parts of the east you put your palms together and bow. This is worshiping the God in You. YOU are God.

So, if you use the western version I don't believe in God, if you use the eastern version I believe in God.

C'jais
11-10-2002, 05:38 PM
Man created God, very true.

Religion is a tool for those in power to use and abuse.

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by griff38
CJAIS I love you.

I have done it all, I was raises by devout christians so thats all I knew for many years. Eventually I discovered "Master Darwin" and many others who show more likely ways we could come into existance.

Remember good science does not deny the existance of a god.
(THE ABSCENCE OF EVIDENCE, IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSCENCE)

translated into redneck: (JUS CUZ YA CANT SEE IT DONT MEAN IT AINT THAR)

So I am in the Darwin camp, with respect to those who are still motivated by fear and worship a religion.

MORE TO COME.............................

It is not just a abscence of evidence. Every branch of science day by day is disproving evolution. In fact if you talk privately with most scienctist they will say that they would destroy the theory of evolution if it wasn't so popular. Also try this on for size. The earths magnetic field losses 3%-7% of its power each each 1,000 years due to wear and tear along with solar winds. Now if the earth was only 6,000-10,000 years old the field would be at
0.016(Repeating)% now take it if it was 1,000,000,000 years old. 1 X 10 to the -07th power. At that point it would not be in any place to protect us. And now try 15 billion.

Religion is a tool for those in power to use and abuse.

Oh realy? Communism was made as a anti-religion and yet it was used to control people. Goverment has been abused and yet we still have it. And here is a question if there is no god why must we obey the law? Religion may have had some bad uses in the past, but that doesn't mean that it is only useable in that way. And when was the last time a Christain used religion as power and control? (Other than Cathloc church. We have a different system.)

Hard to accept for the above average mind.

Hard to accept. HA. Hey I am about the average and yet I still accept it. In fact science goes to prove religion more and more, but evolutionist will not tell you about that. I wonder why.

ET Warrior
11-11-2002, 12:20 AM
This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

Now don't quote me, as i'm not an expert on this subject, but according ot the bible wasn't the great flood caused the the breaking of the firmament over earth and allowing the waters above to crash down, covering all the earth in water?

Tyrion, all your arguments in this entire debate have irritated me, not to sound incredibly rude....but all you say is "I could make something like the bible and say it's true" But do you think you could write a story that speaks so deeply to our souls that thousands of years later people will believe what you wrote and will be willing to live their lives by it? And not just a few people, millions and millions of people believe it. I dont think you could.


I still want to know why your christian god is the one god instead of the norse,greek,egyptian,isreal,jewish,and sumerian god(s).
Because that is what our religion tells us, and we believe in our religion, because we have faith. Why do you go to bed at night? What if the sun doesn't come up the next morning if you are sleeping? Because you have faith in the sun and it's consistancy. I follow what the bible tells me because i have faith in God and what he wants.

And to those who have said that our religion damns all those who don't follow it to hell, i don't believe that. I believe that my God is the one true God, but God also understands that there are people who have never been given the chance to know him and when they die he reveals himself to them and tells them that he is the one true God and if they want to follow him they can join him in heaven. I will never regret having spent my time devoted to God, it gives meaning and purpose to my life.

mswanmmiv
11-11-2002, 12:27 AM
I did not read everything that was posted, but I will say this... I live by faith, and I don't need to explain this to anyone. I believe, no I know, that God, the one and only, created the world through his divine will. He created science, but humans have warped it to tell them what they want to hear. If you look into the Bible deeply, then you would realize that it doesn't matter how it was created, that is a basic spiritual understanding. The point of the Bible is not to get people caught up in this, but to present the love of God and Jesus Christ to all men.

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 12:56 AM
Also would you like me to tell about the complexity of the bible.

Age

The age of the books Bible can be told by what is in it. The old testiment told about Nebuchadnezzar. Evolutionist said "We have not seen and histroy books or ruins dug up that talk about him so he could have not exsisted." Well not to long after there was a ruin dug up that had over one thousand artifacts that told of king Nebuchadnezzar. So we know that the last books or the old testiment were writen long before the Roman,Medo-Persin, or Greek empires.

I can dig up more if you guys want. I will be happy to. ;)

I still want to know why your christian god is the one god instead of the norse,greek,egyptian,isreal,jewish,and sumerian god(s).

The Jewish God is our God. The Jews were the people which God set aside so that Jesus could come from them. In fact the
old-testiment is the Jewish writings.

GonkH8er
11-11-2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15

Maybe God wanted something to please/worship/praise Him?


Am I the only one who finds this....... odd? searching for a better word. maybe someone could help me out.

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er



Am I the only one who finds this....... odd? searching for a better word. maybe someone could help me out.

Hey how would you know. And if you are talking about a four letter word I could say the same about your baseless theory.

GonkH8er
11-11-2002, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Hey how would you know if that statement. And if you are talking about a four letter word I could say the same about your baseless theory.

Apart from the difficulty I had in understanding your post, I'd like to inform you that I dont have to resort to certain 4 letter words to get my points across.

I was thinking more like.... selfish? greedy? something along those lines.


And I think that you'll find my theory isn't baseless. In fact, it has a whole lot of base. Maybe you should go read up on evolutionary theory.

Tyrion
11-11-2002, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

The Jewish God is our God. The Jews were the people which God set aside so that Jesus could come from them. In fact the
old-testiment is the Jewish writings.

That still doesnt explain the others(And faith gives no truth to christianity,though).

Edit- I will go on,but let's just look at this.

We cant win. Nether of us have enough overwhelming proof to unprove the other. We cannot say there is no god, but they cant say there is a god or evolution is not real.It is mindless arguing.

Still,it's great fun! :D

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


That still doesnt explain the others(And faith gives no truth to christianity,though).

Edit- I will go on,but let's just look at this.

We cant win. Nether of us have enough overwhelming proof to unprove the other. We cannot say there is no god, but they cant say there is a god or evolution is not real.It is mindless arguing.

Still,it's great fun! :D

That may change with time. Though it is fun I do agree.:D Though it is not mindless.

For the most part I am fighting evolution on science not faith(Though a bit does get in here and there) so I am useing math, physics, chemistry, and others to prove my case. The thing with evolution is that it is a ince thought, but nothing to back it up. You come up with a complex system and can't even prove step one. I here how it so called "Happened", but no science to back it up. In fact no one in this thread has told me any proof yet.

A note for furture arguments. Don't explain theory I know it. Explain proof.

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er


Apart from the difficulty I had in understanding your post, I'd like to inform you that I dont have to resort to certain 4 letter words to get my points across.

I was thinking more like.... selfish? greedy? something along those lines.


And I think that you'll find my theory isn't baseless. In fact, it has a whole lot of base. Maybe you should go read up on evolutionary theory.

Sorry about the grammar.

Ok what is the base then?
Oh and I have read it I used to believe that stuff. And I own all of Darwin's books.

Tyrion
11-11-2002, 02:09 AM
Well here's something.

There is possibly an infinite amount of planets in existance. So, let's say the chance of human life(Environment/chemicals) is 1 in a 100000000000000000000000000000000000000. But,since there are infinite amount of planet/solar systems, it is plausible that it the chance happend. And we,incidently, are the product. Since it had infinite chances, it is made. Since anything sort of infinte can be made with infinite chances.

:D

(although the debate of wether or not there are infinite planets/solar systems is another debate intirely).

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 02:22 AM
Since it had infinite chances, it is made. Since anything sort of infinte can be made with infinite chances.

There are no infinite chances just low, average, or high ones.


Try this how do you move forward in time with out a starting point? A line can go on forever a two dirrection, but how do you go forward on a line without a point to start with? Can you walk forward on a rail road track without starting from a point on that track?

Think about it.

Possible or not? I think not.

Tyrion
11-11-2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


There are no infinite chances just low, average, or high ones.


Try this how do you move forward in time with out a starting point? A line can go on forever a two dirrection, but how do you go forward on a line without a point to start with? Can you walk forward on a rail road track without starting from a point on that track?

Think about it.

Possible or not? I think not. '

Then how can something make itself out of nothing? Where did god start from?

And dont give me that "outside of time" bull****.

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
'

Then how can something make itself out of nothing? Where did god start from?

And dont give me that "outside of time" bull****.

Strange the how can something make itself out of nothing tends to go against Darwinist as you need it to have your theory work even start to work.

Outside of time is where.:D It is outside of our understanding. That is the best I can tell you.

GonkH8er
11-11-2002, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


There are no infinite chances just low, average, or high ones.


Try this how do you move forward in time with out a starting point? A line can go on forever a two dirrection, but how do you go forward on a line without a point to start with? Can you walk forward on a rail road track without starting from a point on that track?

Think about it.

Possible or not? I think not.


That's assuming time is a constant that we are moving along, rather than we being the constant and time changing.

I find the existence of a supreme being watching over everything without making himself known much less plausible than the idea that time has been around forever, and will continue to exist.

Tyrion
11-11-2002, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Strange the how can something make itself out of nothing tends to go against Darwinist as you need it to have your theory work even start to work.

Outside of time is where.:D It is outside of our understanding. That is the best I can tell you.

Maybe evolution is out of our understanding too?

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er



That's assuming time is a constant that we are moving along, rather than we being the constant and time changing.

I find the existence of a supreme being watching over everything without making himself known much less plausible than the idea that time has been around forever, and will continue to exist.


Hey at least it can make sense.

There are 5 know dimentions in this world and 1 more in theory.

Space,Time, Lenth, Width, and Hight.

1 in theory is Spirit.

You know atoms are there though you can't see them with the unaided eyes. You know micro-animals are there, but you can't see them either. So God can be looking you in the face and yet you can't see him with your eyes.

GonkH8er
11-11-2002, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider



Hey at least it can make sense.

There are 5 know dimentions in this world and 1 more in theory.

Space,Time, Lenth, Width, and Hight.

1 in theory is Spirit.

You know atoms are there though you can't see them with the unaided eyes. You know micro-animals are there, but you can't see them either. So God can be looking you in the face and yet you can't see him with your eyes.


Afaik, space isnt a dimension.... space consists of the 1st 3 dimensions....


We all know the quote "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world believe he didnt exist"

Why would a loving god hide himself in the same way?

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er



Afaik, space isnt a dimension.... space consists of the 1st 3 dimensions....


We all know the quote "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world believe he didnt exist"

Why would a loving god hide himself in the same way?

First when I say space I mean stuff Like matter. Many people called it that.

Maby even if he did you would still doubt him. I may not know. Also you might light up like a Christmas tree if you saw him.

I know of a lady who wanted to ban guns even after a gun saved her life.

Eldritch
11-11-2002, 02:49 AM
Oooh boy. Here we go. I knew someone would eventually bring this argument into the Swamp, so it's time for me to weigh in with my thoughts.

First, let me preface everything by saying that the reason we have developed science and religion (yes, religions have evolved too... they weren't always exactly as they are now) was to explain all sorts of things we observed in our lives. So you might say that the goal of science and religion is to find the "truth." To discredit or disbelieve (or believe) anything without first examining it is counter-productive. Let me also say that I am neither a scientologist (person who believes in science as a sort of religion) or a religious person. I consider myself a spiritual person - I think the way to live is to be the best person I can be... if I do that, I will have a rewarding life (and possible afterlife).

However, there are certain things that have been said in this thread that are incorrect or have been misrepresented that should be cleared up.

1) Science acknowledges, accepts, and respects Creationism as a official theory of how we got here. Scientists themselves have their own individual opinions, but don't let them give you the image that Science thinks Creationism is false, because to not accept Creationism is to deny a possibility, and that would limit the search for "truth." Strange that [most] Religion does not accept Scientific Theory, but Religion deals with Beliefs (which are hard to change) while Science deals with Ideas (which are easy to change).

2) I've seen quite a butchering of scientific ideas in this thread... many people do not have all the facts. The most frequent one that I see has to do with Carbon-14. Carbon-14 is NOT used to date very old things, because it's half-life is far too short to date things that are millions or billions of years old. Carbon dating is used for things that are within 30,000 years old - mostly for archeological digs of our ancestors, not dinosaurs or really old artifacts. Different elements are used depending on how old they think the item is and what elements it contains. So long as there is a sufficient amount of the element, you can test it because the half-lives of elements do not change. What can screw up tests is if more of the element of a different age was introduced (due to volcanic eruption, for example).
Spontaneous Generation (i.e. the "life from nothing" theory) is another one that got knocked a lot. There are many theories on how it could've happened, and Religion is the first to knock it because it threatens them. I won't go into all the different theories about it, but someone wondered how you could get proteins out of it. To this person, I suggest they read a book on organic chemistry. There are many different kinds of proteins that can be created using only the most basic of the elements.
I think that if you're going to knock this theory, you should at least learn about it first, and not discredit it immediately because it contradicts your Religion. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but how can you say something's wrong if you don't know about it? It's like saying you don't like something before you've tried it.

3) Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. One person in particular keeps saying that he "recanted on his deathbed." I think you're misinterpreting what you've heard (I doubt you've actually read the books on him). If you can tell me where I can read your words, i'll check it out. However, I do know that at the time Darwin died, he believed in his theory (and he wasn't even the first one to come up with it) but could not prove it with the current technology. He was a scientist, and he knew better than to say something was true without proving it and testing it. So when you say "he even said it wasn't true," you're interpreting the part where he says, "I can't prove it to be true." There's a big difference.

4) The Big Bang. Someone mentioned a continuous flow of expansion/contraction over and over again, so there's no need for a "God" who started it all, right? Well, that fits with the old information we had that has to do with the gravity of the universe... eventually it would expand to a certain (large) size, couldn't support itself, and would begin contraction back into itself. But as Science has a way of doing, new information has come in that now states that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down as was previously thought. What this translates to is the fact that it most likely will never get so heavy that it contracts upon itself.

5) It's not a scientific idea, but I want to comment on it anyway. Someone said, "...a story [the Bible] that speaks so deeply to our souls that thousands of years later people will believe what you wrote and will be willing to live their lives by it?" First of all, Christianity is one of the youngest religions, being around just about 2,000 years. Second, the Jewish people that you've adapted your religion from don't even accept you, and believe that you [the Christians] will not enter heaven (the Jews don't believe in hell, it's a Christian concept) because you believe and practice the wrong faith. Christianity tells us that those who do not worship or believe in [the Christian] God are going to hell. This I find absolutely crazy. What about all the really good, kind people that aren't (or weren't) Christian, like Ghandi? Do you honestly believe they go to hell when they die? If you don't, you've already questioned your faith. My point is this: Religion and its followers have a way of selecting what things they want to believe and condemning others. Christianity especially has evolved to accept several different scientific ideas over the years... it just takes a really long time for the Church to get around to it.

I'm tired, so i'm going to wrap it up for tonight, but in closing, I wonder why everyone feels compelled to say, "I'm right, you're wrong" and then try and back it up with proof? Why not just say, like I do, that anything is a possibility and that eventually it all comes down to faith (either in Science or Religion)? I can't prove The Big Bang occured anymore than a Religious person can prove that God exists - it's all faith.

There shouldn't be a right or wrong in this debate... there should only be an exchange of ideas. Stop trying to change peoples beliefs, and stop pointing out inconsistancies, because there's PLENTY for both Science and Religion.


Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Hey at least it can make sense.

There are 5 know dimentions in this world and 1 more in theory.

Space,Time, Lenth, Width, and Hight.

1 in theory is Spirit.

Einstein said that Space and Time are one and the same. Ever heard of Space-time (If you're a Sci-Fi fan, i'm sure you have)? He also said Matter and Energy were one and the same (he called that Matter-energy... inventive, huh?). Einstein was also a strong believer in God... can you believe that? A religious scientist? Marrying the best ideas of science and religion to try and explain the world around him? Perhaps it's something we all should aspire to be, but most religious people are notoriously close-minded (something that, strangely enough, their religions preach against).

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 03:05 AM
the Jews don't believe in hell

There are tons times hell has been said in Jewish writeings. I can't help it if the Jews don't even read their own stuff. Also there are tons of times the Jewish writeing talk about a savoir to come and save the world from condemation.

I guess if the end times do happen who every is in charge is Isreal at the time will have to ask Jesus at the mount "Welcome is this your first time here?":D

I just think that everything is just too complex to just have "happened" Almost the 15 times the same odds as someone winning the lotto 15 times in 2 years. Guess that is what I left that stuff. I just could find any reason.

Elijah
11-11-2002, 03:13 AM
*Note: I have not read the new posts*

Science doesn’t really prove anything... Science has so many flaws that it’s hard to believe it...

The laws of Aero Dynamics: A Bubble Bee Cannot Fly... We'll IT DOES!

The laws of Aero Dynamics: A Humming Bird Cannot Fly... We'll IT DOES!

The laws of Science: A Horse Cannot Stand... We'll IT DOES!
Many things can’t be explained… your just going to have to except that you can not and will not understand everything you want to.

Oh, and who ever said that all us Creationists believe in the “big bang” has some messed up info… because I for one do not.

Eldritch
11-11-2002, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


There are tons times hell has been said in Jewish writeings. I can't help it if the Jews don't even read their own stuff. Also there are tons of times the Jewish writeing talk about a savoir to come and save the world from condemation.

In the Torah, which is the ONLY thing the Jewish faith is based on, there is absolutely NO mention of hell. The Torah is what Jews believe, not Jewish writings from later times. Ask any Jewish person - they'll tell you there's no hell in the Torah.

I don't see what the second part of your comment has to do with anything, though. A SAVIOR (not Savoir) is written about, but they don't believe he has come yet, because Jews don't believe in Jesus, and Jesus was the Christian Savior. This is all very basic knowledge... stuff you should know before you go running your mouth like that.

:EDIT:
ZDawg, nothing you said made a damn bit of sense. If you're trying to make a point, back it up with some info, because right now it just looks like you're stating your own sorely misinformed opinion.
:/EDIT:

Tyrion
11-11-2002, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
*Note: I have not read the new posts*

Science doesn’t really prove anything... Science has so many flaws that it’s hard to believe it...

The laws of Aero Dynamics: A Bubble Bee Cannot Fly... We'll IT DOES!

The laws of Aero Dynamics: A Humming Bird Cannot Fly... We'll IT DOES!

The laws of Science: A Horse Cannot Stand... We'll IT DOES!
Many things can’t be explained… your just going to have to except that you can not and will not understand everything you want to.

Oh, and who ever said that all us Creationists believe in the “big bang” has some messed up info… because I for one do not.

The laws of science are proboly wrong in some cases. Hey, we are just humans anyway,our laws of science may be wrong.. Just because our science is wrong in some cases,doesnt mean that there has to be a god.

Elijah
11-11-2002, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by JEDI_Anakin_S

ZDawg, nothing you said made a damn bit of sense. If you're trying to make a point, back it up with some info, because right now it just looks like you're stating your own sorely misinformed opinion.


I was gone all day... just got back and didnt read the new(er) posts... i was going back to everyone trying to prove things by science.

get my point?

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 03:27 AM
First the Torah is the law set in the Penitute. There are writen words of the prophets (Danel, Habakuk, ect.) with they do believe in(If you want I can pull someone over here that is a Messianic Jew to come prove you wrong.). That is what tells them about the end times. There is the book of the Proverb, Psalms, Song of Solomon, ect. that they believe in. So that is where you are wrong. There is more. But the basic law is the Torah.

(Sorry about the spelling I am about to drop from lack of sleep after this post I am off to bed. It is 12:00 AM here)

Eldritch
11-11-2002, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg

get my point?

No. You kept mentioning various laws of science, then named some seemingly random thing (i'm sure you had a point)... The Laws of Aerodynamics and a Bumblebee Can't Fly... I don't follow you there. Don't follow any of your other examples either. Can you word it differently?

A horse does stand because it has muscles and bones that are strong enough to resist gravity.

Speaking of gravity, somebody (think it was TheWhiteRaider) spewed some nonsense about solar wind "blowing away" part of our gravitational field. It's absolutely untrue... i'm wondering where you guys get your science facts, because a lot of it sounds like it comes from tabloid magazines.

Eldritch
11-11-2002, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
First the Torah is the law set in the Penitute. There are writen words of the prophets (Danel, Habakuk, ect.) with they do believe in(If you want I can pull someone over here that is a Messianic Jew to come prove you wrong.).

I know. But nowhere does it say there's a hell.

Sorry about the double post.

Luc Solar
11-11-2002, 03:43 AM
Believing in god, whther it is the biblical one or some more advanced race that looks out for us or whatever in between is just fine IMHO.

What I can't understand is people who throw common sense out of the window and insist on things like:

"God took Adam's rib and made Eve. The communion wine really suddenly turns into the BLOOD OF JESUS when people drink it. (Ewww...gross!) God made the universe in exactly seven days."

Believing is one thing. It does not mean that you can't use your brain while doing it.

Let's not take the Bible literally. Just focus on the real message instead.

Is our loving god really like this psycho here?! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html)
(great link cjais...it just gets better and better :) )

Eldritch
11-11-2002, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Luc Solar
Believing is one thing. It does not mean that you can't use your brain while doing it.

Let's not take the Bible literally. Just focus on the real message instead.

Is our loving god really like this psycho here?! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html)
(great link cjais...it just gets better and better :) )

Good point. The message is what's important, not the story (some of which is obviously metaphorical... anyone remember Jonah and the whale?).

BCanr2d2
11-11-2002, 03:58 AM
As I have said before, who is to say that belief in religion and science is mutually exclusive?
Why does one have to be believed and not the other?
Why are other areas of science being attacked, and not the theory of evolution, upon which this argument is really based?

I think with the comment about horses, is that their ankles are so high from the ground, that against most other animals, they are well out of position.

Luc Solar, you are spot on there, remembering that the Jewish style of writing of the time around Jesus was of parables, rather than of direct literal writing, not everything in the bible is literal.

After all, Western society is in general based upon Catholicism and Christianity, and yet we hate those of the Islam faith. Those that have a common belief, that Jesus was a prophet from God, they just have Mohammed as the prophet who wrote the Koran...

Luc Solar
11-11-2002, 04:15 AM
In case someone is interested, I happened to find this link: (didn't read it myself yet, though)

Here (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bible.htm)

Elijah
11-11-2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by JEDI_Anakin_S


No. You kept mentioning various laws of science, then named some seemingly random thing (i'm sure you had a point)... The Laws of Aerodynamics and a Bumblebee Can't Fly... I don't follow you there. Don't follow any of your other examples either. Can you word it differently?

Ok...
According to the LAWS of Aerodynamics’, a BUMBLE BEE CANNOT FLY, Yet... it does!

This is example enough of how reliable Science is, or a lack there of.

BCanr2d2
11-11-2002, 04:33 AM
Why just state it? Give us some of the proof as to why it SHOULDN'T be able to fly, rather than just rant "It can't fly, but it does"

Here is one link to debunk that theory - it is more of a mistaken assumption of certain things......
Bumblebee's Debunked @ NASA (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/wellman/bumblebee.html)

Here os another, in regards to the same topic

Bumblebee II (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_Wang.hrs.html)

If you read, just a case of ignoring something important, and thinking it was of no consequence, because it was with FIXED WING aircraft............

C'jais
11-11-2002, 05:46 PM
I'd like all Creationists, or whatever you choose to call youself, to state exactly how they view the world:

Do you take the "genesis" for good reason and actuality, word for word?

Do you believe that God merely sparked the big bang, and then everything there after went as science theorized - IE: evolution, first life created in pool of electrified amino acids and whatnot?

So far, all you've done is gun down our view of the world with semi-divine, blurry mixes of science and faith.

In other words: What is your view of the world and the universe?

Pad
11-11-2002, 05:57 PM
i havent posted in here before so here it goes.
i dont believe in god, adam/eva part.

in my opinion all those things can be explained with science.

TheWhiteRaider
11-11-2002, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by JEDI_Anakin_S


I know. But nowhere does it say there's a hell.

Sorry about the double post.

Try looking in the very first book of the penitute. It tells about it in there.

Speaking of gravity, somebody (think it was TheWhiteRaider) spewed some nonsense about solar wind "blowing away" part of our gravitational field

Magnetic field. It is true that the field has weakened over time because of solar wind(Hey it is what helps protect us.). Though not gravity. Gravity can't change unless the world gets smaller some how.

Elijah
11-12-2002, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by cjais

Do you take the "genesis" for good reason and actuality, word for word?
Yes.


Do you believe that God merely sparked the big bang, and then everything there after went as science theorized - IE: evolution, first life created in pool of electrified amino acids and whatnot? No.


Simple enough?

Woodrodius
11-12-2002, 02:46 AM
Simple rule that undermines the entire biblical writings on the creation of man and animals. Dinosaurs, where are they? Adam and eve were around to name all the animals, yet dinosaurs and men are spaced by 65 million years. Maybe god put all those bones their to test us, riiiigggghhhhttttt........

TheWhiteRaider
11-12-2002, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Woodrodius
Simple rule that undermines the entire biblical writings on the creation of man and animals. Dinosaurs, where are they? Adam and eve were around to name all the animals, yet dinosaurs and men are spaced by 65 million years. Maybe god put all those bones their to test us, riiiigggghhhhttttt........

First the age of the world is not fixed. Evolutionist say it is billions others say only thousands. We have no way of proving. And it talks in the bible about dinosaurs.

Woodrodius
11-12-2002, 03:11 AM
Unless your bible comes with a free copy of Dinotopia, your wrong about the dinosaurs. Enlighten us all with where it speaks of them. And no way to prove how old the earth is? You must have been home sick when they invented carbon dating. I don't mean to be rude, but your post is simply ludacris.

TheWhiteRaider
11-12-2002, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by Woodrodius
Unless your bible comes with a free copy of Dinotopia, your wrong about the dinosaurs. Enlighten us all with where it speaks of them. And no way to prove how old the earth is? You must have been home sick when they invented carbon dating. I don't mean to be rude, but your post is simply ludacris.

Carbon dateing is a theory based on a theory. You use the theory that the earth is billions of years old to find out how much carbon is there to sart with(Yes you do have to know how much to start with) and that the half-life of C-14 has always been the same(Which is a theory). And use that to prove how old the world is.

So the theory that world is billions of years old is used to prove carbon dating's accuracy and then that is used to prove how old the bones are which is then used to prove world is billions of years old. Is that a circle or what?

Edit: Also Dinotopia is pure imagination. There is no way someone would know that.

GonkH8er
11-12-2002, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

And it talks in the bible about dinosaurs.


Quote? Reference? I'd love to see this :)

TheWhiteRaider
11-12-2002, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er



Quote? Reference? I'd love to see this :)

Fine! I will get them later. I am off to bed for now I got a bad headace from all the smoke in the air over here. I shall post them though.

BCanr2d2
11-12-2002, 04:59 AM
White Raider, why do u try and debunk every other form of science, isn't that dragging in other sciences into what is Evolution v Creation, not Science v Religion.

So, where is your belief of science when you step inside that of a 747, and what holds it up, strings? Science is a load of hogwash, according to all of your anti-science posts........................

GonkH8er
11-12-2002, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
So, where is your belief of science when you step inside that of a 747, and what holds it up, strings?


God of course :D

Pnut_Man
11-12-2002, 07:57 AM
Hmm..this thread brings back bad memories...
One of my friends last year was an Athiest..and the majority of my other friends had a religion...
We got into big arguements over God vs Science...

I do believe some things in the bible were bs..like Adam and Eve did not exactly happen...it was a representation of what God really did do. At the time the bible was written the people had no form of advanced science...meaning they had no way of explaining the true events of the bible. I still cannot see how humans were created by chance; by a few thousand hydrogen atoms in our old sun exploding out into the galaxy....
There were too many factors that went into our creation; no way we were created by chance.
And no matter what a science teacher may tell me...symetrical beings are not simply a product of our gravitation pull..

ShadowTemplar
11-12-2002, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
I believe in my religion because there have been miracles worked and recorded in history.

Miracles are not interesting: They are spontaneous, one-time effects, that cannot be predicted. Even if they do exist, which I doubt, I cannot see why they are relevant to anyone at any time, save the person(s) that they happen to at the exact time that they happen.

Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
religions ppl tend to be more generous and thoughtful of others. They are role models and live a good life, most of them.

You ought to read the history of the Middle East.

ShadowTemplar
11-12-2002, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Qui-GONE Jinn
It seems like some people here are viewing theories as proof. Let me remind all you scientists that to prove a theory totally wrong, all that's required is one evidence against it. Then the whole thing crashes down. Be careful to build your lives on such "accepted" theories, you know?

The trick here is: 1) When iconsistencies are found, scientists alter or scrap their theories and replace them with better ones.

2) You have to be even more careful when you base your life on faith, because you can use observation and logic in that order, mind to judge theories, whereas you have to rely on priests to judge faith. And priests can do some pretty nasty things, when backed by enough zealots.

ShadowTemplar
11-12-2002, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15
As well as dinosaurs in the bible (read last chapters of Job).


Still, I have seen no plausible account of how the dinosaur skeletons managed to petrify in the six mere millenia (or something like that) that the Bible operates with. That's not possible, save through a Flesh-to-Stone-spell so big and ugly that it has never been observed. Even Medusa would have her work cut out for her.

C'jais
11-12-2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Yes.

[B] No.


Simple enough?

Yes, very good.

So, now, if we find some way to make you believe the fact that the earth is a lot older than the bible gives account for (a million years old fx), or to prove that evolution does exist and new species are evolving this very day - you will believe us?

Whiteraider, show me an evolutionist sane enough to state that the earth is only around 6 thousand years old, please...

TiE23
11-12-2002, 10:49 AM
6,000 years old???!!!
no, it is more like 64,000,000 years old

TiE23
11-12-2002, 10:54 AM
uh oh, I think we are all decendants from Barney!!!! , AHHHHH!!!!!:D :D :D

Woodrodius
11-12-2002, 12:53 PM
Creationlists are not a logical bunch of people as you may have noticed. It's impossible to win, or really even to carry, and argument with them because arguments are based partially on the application of logic, of which creationalists have none. Once you start making valid points, they need only to fall back on "faith", or "Well, your going to hell." If they want to believe a big book full of myths and legends, written by men sillier then they are, more power to them.

Pnut_Man
11-12-2002, 02:20 PM
See....sometimes Athiests can be downright nasty..some times religious people can be nasty...

This thread is just Religion vs Athiesim...
Impossible to settle anything....
Only results of these arguements will be chuckles for the Athiests..

And...btw...You could say i was an Athiest last year...started thinking alot about all the crap i had been taught in church, and in my catholic group for grammar school...
I think science actually reinforced my faith in God...It's just really hard to explain; I chose my path, I'd rather believe in something that could possibly be untrue...then believe in nothing and argue about people who believe in something...

TheWhiteRaider
11-13-2002, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
White Raider, why do u try and debunk every other form of science, isn't that dragging in other sciences into what is Evolution v Creation, not Science v Religion.

So, where is your belief of science when you step inside that of a 747, and what holds it up, strings? Science is a load of hogwash, according to all of your anti-science posts........................

Who says I debunk them? I am useing science in all my post. Just because it is not your science doesn't mean it is not science. You guys are the ones who think I am "Anti-science". You are judgeing that I am anti-science because of my belief. Stop IT!!!! I know science is real!

I drag them in because they are part of the debate. Chemicals last time I check are needed to get a life form right? So those are part of it. I don't disprove it all I only try to disprove those that are not proven.

Lift holds the plane up. I believe in science. I believe that God made it. So why do you think it is anti-science? You are the ones trying to seperate the two. Heck I don't even need to bring religion into the matter I could fight you guys completely on science alone.

Math alone does not agree with you guys. Odds of the first micro animal(5.34 X 10/13 power) happening even over 15 billion years are very small that even to get one evolution is a rare event. And yet you guys expected millions? How does math prove your theory there? You guys are forgeting to prove how to do this. You must prove each step in order for it to be true. And yet you have yet to prove even one.

And how is asking questions when your stuff does not fit into science "Anti-science"?

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Carbon dateing is a theory based on a theory.

Maybe regligion is too a theory?

TheWhiteRaider
11-13-2002, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Woodrodius
Creationlists are not a logical bunch of people as you may have noticed. It's impossible to win, or really even to carry, and argument with them because arguments are based partially on the application of logic, of which creationalists have none. Once you start making valid points, they need only to fall back on "faith", or "Well, your going to hell." If they want to believe a big book full of myths and legends, written by men sillier then they are, more power to them.

Oh realy? What is logical about evolution? The fact that almost all branches of science disproves it makes it logical? Math disproves it and Biology has almost completely disproven it.

Once you start making valid points

And what points are those? You give me stuff with no back up. So what makes them valid?

anyone remember Jonah and the whale

A man over in India was eaten by a whale and spit out 3 days later. His skin was pure white from the acids and he was very weak, but still living.

Maybe regligion is too a theory?

Ah, but at least I try to prove it. No one here has given me proof that things did evolve.

C'jais
11-13-2002, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Oh realy? What is logical about evolution? The fact that almost all branches of science disproves it makes it logical? Math disproves it and Biology has almost completely disproven it.


Show me some proof here, as to which scientists and biologists disprove the theory of evolution. I want names.

Math alone does not agree with you guys. Odds of the first micro animal(5.34 X 10/13 power) happening even over 15 billion years are very small that even to get one evolution is a rare event.

You still have not explained where you got that figure from, nor what time interval it covers.

GonkH8er
11-13-2002, 07:59 AM
Whiteraider, youre spitting out all this stuff about dinosaurs in the bible, science disproving evolution, christianity having solid scientific evidence, evolution having no base...... but wheres YOUR proof?

You keep asking for proof from us. I gave you some. we all did. I explained the beginning of life. You disregarded it with no reason.


Cut us some slack man. How bout you acknowledge that we've been holding up our side of the debate pretty well, and you show us some backup for all your bs claims.

Qui-GONE Jinn
11-13-2002, 02:07 PM
This is going nowhere... both parts are just saying "proof", then "re-proof" then "proof" again. We're not going anywhere.

Just a point here, does being a evolutionist mean that you can't have a religion? Is being a creationist mean that you can't believe anything that science has proved?
All I'm saying is... when reading for example the Genesis, you are allowed to use your good sense. much in the bible is metaphorically written

And you can't believe that everything in the genesis is true, to the letter? I view the entire genesis as a metaphor, to explain uneducated people the might of god. or something along those lines, I'm tired..;)

C'jais
11-13-2002, 03:43 PM
Oh, this is going somewhere. Shadowtemplar and I will do a thourough proof search when we get the time - this isn't finished, especially not when whiteraider says we haven't even presented any real proof yet :rolleyes:

If the genesis, or even the bible as a whole, was written as a metaphor, then why did everyone believe it was a written fact? Every Christian believed the genesis and everything else was pure truth - just until recently.

Breton
11-13-2002, 05:33 PM
If you do not belive in evolution

then how can you explain that few bacteria grows resistant to antibiotics?

(this is not a theory, this is a proven fact)

Almost all of them dies when you use anti-bacteria stuff, but a very few manages to get resistant against it, and they are really dangerous.

How can you explain this without evolution?

Mandalorian54
11-13-2002, 05:46 PM
I read the first post and a few others but I'll put in my 2 cents.


The only thing sure about evolution is that it shouldn't be taught in schools!!!!!!!!!!!!



I can't stress that enough!


I believe in Creation.

did you know the sun shrinks five feet every day. Well logically if you add five feet every day you would know how big the sun was at a certain point in time.

If you add five feet to the sun's diamiter every day for a few million years the sun would have been so big it would have melted all the planets in this solar system.


Science does not prove evolution, evolutionists get alot of numbers when performing the tests to determin how old somethin is and they pick the numbers they want. Science? you call that science? Hell I could do that and I'm no scientist.


nuff said.


by the way, for all you evolutionists, how do you tell what time period a fossil is from?

Pisces
11-13-2002, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master

This thread is just Religion vs Athiesim...

Only results of these arguements will be chuckles for the Athiests..

Not necissarily (I hate spelling that word!) I'm Catholic, most of my friends see me as a pretty religious one, and I still believe in evolution. God, created us (and all other forms of life). He just took a very long time. Most people (with science-based beliefs) call it evolution.

And, I don't know, I'm getting quite a few laughs out of this myself.

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
The only thing sure about evolution is that it shouldn't be taught in schools!!!!!!!!!!!!

by the way, for all you evolutionists, how do you tell what time period a fossil is from?

Evolution is the accepted belief, it's science and even religious people believe in science, although some may view it as evil.

Scientists can tell how old a fossil is from how far down it is in the rock and the type of rock that surrounds it. And that's just one of the simplest ways.

Kururin
11-13-2002, 06:01 PM
Darwinism is crap

C'jais
11-13-2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
did you know the sun shrinks five feet every day. Well logically if you add five feet every day you would know how big the sun was at a certain point in time.

If you add five feet to the sun's diamiter every day for a few million years the sun would have been so big it would have melted all the planets in this solar system.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot now.

Where did you get this very important piece of information from? Scientists maybe? Maybe even scientists who worked their arse off, so you could use their work to argue that all they do is pick numbers?

If all science is, is picking numbers, then you'd still be living in the stone age my friend.

Pisces
11-13-2002, 06:10 PM
Yep, gonna agree there. Your info came from scientists. The same people who believe in evolution (generally). If you believe their sun thoery, why not evolution?

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
The only thing sure about evolution is that it shouldn't be taught in schools!!!!!!!!!!!!


Along with any other religions.

But yeah, I have been wondering something.

How do we know that evolution isnt god's way of creating us? I mean,it's logical, he could've givin us the chance to be created.
It'd be his way of making us. I am against religion mostly because they focus on what a un-proven book says and dont try to question thier faith(if you dont question your faith,then that's being a little ignorant).

And as for Krillian, Religion is crap too.;)

Pisces
11-13-2002, 06:22 PM
Hey, Ty. Don't slam religions. Yell at him in P.M. please. :D

And I'm with the theory that evolution is God's way of creating us.

C'jais
11-13-2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Kururin
Darwinism is crap

Of course it is.

I'm sitting here reading biology, and it strikes me - do you know that your entire belief in God is caused by nerve cells, and their success in drugging your brain?

Mandalorian, tell me why evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, please.

Evolution (or whatever you want to call it) does happen. I refer to the countless of posts on bacteria and countless experiements with animals so small you could watch the evolution unfold right before your eyes during their short generations.

Ok, so now that we know evolution happens, tell me why darwinism is crap and why you think the human race has always existed as it is with no change.

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-13-2002, 06:27 PM
Darwinism IS crap!!

You darwinist's are full of ****. Let me tell you this...why do you believe in that crap? By doing so, you are just simply believing what other HUMANS have created as a belief. It's a blind path to follow. At least God has proven himself through miracles that have been recorded as a part of history. Check your history books...you will see.

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
Darwinism IS crap!!

You darwinist's are full of ****. Let me tell you this...why do you believe in that crap? By doing so, you are just simply believing what other HUMANS have created as a belief. It's a blind path to follow. At least God has proven himself through miracles that have been recorded as a part of history. Check your history books...you will see.

By history books..do you mean your Bible?

Please give us some proof and the names of the books.

(You cant really convert other people to your religion by flaming thier belief...)

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-13-2002, 06:34 PM
i'm not trying to convert. You want the name and editions? Fine. I'll give you my current history book. Its made by Boyers called "The American Nation" Copyright 1998. By the way, the Bible is a history book. So double check your info before criticizing.

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
i'm not trying to convert. You want the name and editions? Fine. I'll give you my current history book. Its made by Boyers called "The American Nation" Copyright 1998. By the way, the Bible is a history book. So double check your info before criticizing.

The bible,frankly, is as much BS as Evolution.

Miracles are merely coincidences...

Also, why does god let good honest people suffer Cancer and other horrible deseases?

C'jais
11-13-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by NeoDios
And I'm with the theory that evolution is God's way of creating us.

Very juicy.

If God created us, he knows the human race is going to die eventually, leaving us with the question of why he did it in the first place.

Why isn't God appliable to animals too, then, since humans are nothing more than animals as well. Just as humans nowadays compare the early monkey-humans to animals - so too will the human race in 10.000 years compare us to animals.

Maybe God's intention is to create one, final super race that can truly understand God's infinity, but then it raises a whole new ethical question of whether it's morally justifiable that we, humans, are just used as a tool to spawn a new level of evolution. Just like the one celled organisms giving way to the multi celled ones (eukaryote). If you reply with a resounding "no" - that none can use our race as a way to furthering a goal, leaving it used and useless when we're done with - then I can warmly suggest making an end of mankind right here and now ;)

If you truly think that we, right now, are at the peak of evolution, that we are now created in "God's own image" - then I truly do not understand your immoral way of thinking.

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-13-2002, 06:43 PM
Just cuz God is good does not mean that he has to do what we want him to do. Its like saying: "Why does the President allow murder?" God gave humans the free will to do what they wish but that they would have to know the consequences and rewards of their actions. "The last shall come first and the first shall come last"

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
Just cuz God is good does not mean that he has to do what we want him to do. Its like saying: "Why does the President allow murder?" God gave humans the free will to do what they wish but that they would have to know the consequences and rewards of their actions. "The last shall come first and the first shall come last"

Yeah! Humans have free will of getting cancer or not!

:rolleyes:

It's in their genes, they were born to die.

P.S. God in the bible is supposed to be all-powerful. If he is so perfect and he could create us, then why cant he stop something so petty as murder(which causes innocent lives to be lost)?

C'jais
11-13-2002, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85
Darwinism IS crap!!

You darwinist's are full of ****. Let me tell you this...why do you believe in that crap? By doing so, you are just simply believing what other HUMANS have created as a belief. It's a blind path to follow. At least God has proven himself through miracles that have been recorded as a part of history. Check your history books...you will see.

Evolution isn't a belief, nor a religion of any sort. We do not need belief when we're dealing with theories and calculations.

A "religion" has to do with a God of some sort - science has none.

The bible is a history book yes, but it so biased it's practically worthless - Could Jesus walk on water? Did moses split the red sea?

EDIT - DarthYoda, please adress my points and posts - and do so without resorting to name calling please.

C'jais
11-13-2002, 07:00 PM
In regards to heaven and hell, you should know that your brain starts to decompose when you die - which means there'll be no way you could register that you were now in heaven or hell, nor any way you affect that environment or receive pain or pleasure from it.

Or, maybe atoms and cells don't even exist eh? :eyeraise:

And who is to judge what is right and wrong - the persons who wrote the bible? Do you put your faith into evolution and science to trust that there even lived some people 200 years ago?

Maybe the world is a hoax, and the world was created 150 years ago with God as it's creator?

BTW, another strong point for evolution: When people breed, the offspring recieves some of the traits of the parents - try for yourself, compare people to their parents and siblings.

Pad
11-13-2002, 07:12 PM
as for god im thinkin this. i dont think there is 1. its a thought some1 came up with a long time ago and in a weird way, ppl start believin in it.
mostly when ppl r in trouble they start believin in somethin (like god) so thats maybe it all started.

and i lay evrything beside u like cell and atoms u lay science beside u. and u think science almost can explain evrything.
im a great believer in science so it rules out god for me.

AOL User
11-13-2002, 07:50 PM
Wow! Metaphysics! Um-? Whats the point of this thread? Someone elighten me so I don't have to read it from page one.

Kururin
11-13-2002, 08:53 PM
I know i didnt evolve from a stupid monkey and wheres the proof a stupid monkey skull cant change my mind about God creating everthing

and what does nerve cells have to do with this?


BTW was your school having Debate on this cause mine did tuesday.

TheWhiteRaider
11-13-2002, 09:07 PM
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass like an ox." Job 40:15

That one of the parts where the bible talks about dinosaurs. There are more.

The math figuers are the chances(from Gregory Parker) out of a big soup to get the favorable reations and the chances that a living cell that comes out of it knows how to survive without being taught what to do, the body funtions know how to keep the cell alive, and know how to reproduce all at once. And how do you explain the sudden change to the earth to allow it to to support life just at the right time.

There is such a thing a evolution, but it is mirco not macro. So far there have only been changes with breed. Sure we have different types of dogs, but are they not still dogs? And why isn't there missing links alive today? If they don't stop evolving why aren't there some that are mid-way through today?

And how does time go forward if we did not have somewhere to start?

Oh and C-14 dateing could only be accurate up to 33,000 year acording to someone who posted a while back. That is assumeing that the bone has been untouched by some forces. And we do not have something that every side can agree is a million years old.

Evolution isn't a belief, nor a religion of any sort. We do not need belief when we're dealing with theories and calculations.

You come closer than you think. You try telling us how we got here, how the world was made, and your view that their is no god. I think that is a belief is it not?

Humans have free will of getting cancer or not!

In most cases they do. Cancer is for the most part gained from the type of life style a person leads(Smokeing, takeing bad care of themselves, ect.) For the most part they don't get it for stupid reason.

Besides that is not what he was talking about.

tell me why evolution shouldn't be taught in schools

It is not that it shouldn't not, but you do not teach the debate.

BTW, another strong point for evolution: When people breed, the offspring recieves some of the traits of the parents - try for yourself, compare people to their parents and siblings.

And does that make a new super-human? I think they are still human are they not?

Whats the point of this thread?

To debate.

I explained the beginning of life

You showed me how it could of happened not that it did happen.

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Kururin
I know i didnt evolve from a stupid monkey and wheres the proof a stupid monkey skull cant change my mind about God creating everthing .

Yes,you couldnt have evolved from a monkey, since a monkey would be smarter than you considering that statement...

:rolleyes:

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

In most cases they do. Cancer is for the most part gained from the type of life style a person leads(Smokeing, takeing bad care of themselves, ect.) For the most part they don't get it for stupid reason.

Besides that is not what he was talking about.


So?

I still want to know why God lets innocent children get cancer even though they didnt do anything wrong?

They didnt smoke, they didnt do drugs, they didnt do any bad, yet they still get a very painful desease.

Pisces
11-13-2002, 09:18 PM
Original sin. Everyone's born with it. According to creation, we could've had paradise, but humans ruined it for themselves. The way things are in the world now, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Tyrion
11-13-2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by NeoDios
Original sin. Everyone's born with it. According to creation, we could've had paradise, but humans ruined it for themselves. The way things are in the world now, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Not true.

All the humans did was simply inherit the sins of the father, which is very un-moral and un-fair so god proboly wouldnt do that.

Pisces
11-13-2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Not true.

All the humans did was simply inherit the sins of the father, which is very un-moral and un-fair so god proboly wouldnt do that.

No. It's Original Sin. Everyone has it. I don't know why, they just do. But everyone gets absolved of it when/if they get baptized. That's just my religion. Hey, I myself am a little copnfused on the part why children suffer. A large portion of the time people brign it on themselves and their children. The other times, I don't know.

AOL User
11-13-2002, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


The math figuers are the chances(from Gregory Parker) out of a big soup to get the favorable reations and the chances that a living cell that comes out of it knows how to survive without being taught what to do, the body funtions know how to keep the cell alive, and know how to reproduce all at once. And how do you explain the sudden change to the earth to allow it to to support life just at the right time.


More info please....

mikestg
11-14-2002, 12:52 AM
1. if there is a god, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good.
2. an omnipotent and omniscient god can do anything logically possible
3. it is logically possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to rid the world of all evil
4. an all good being does everything logically possible to prevent evil that does not bring about some greater good
5. there exists in the world instances of unnecessary suffering and evil.
so 6. there is no omnipotent, omniscient, all good god

there is an argument against the existence of god. it commits no fallicies and is valid. stick to sabers little eve, your out of your league

Elijah
11-14-2002, 01:56 AM
With out suffering there would be no compassion.

God loves us so much he gives us a choice.

Bad things have happened in my life and it only brings me to realize how much I really need God.

ShadowTemplar
11-14-2002, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
The DNA code is complex and if you took all the software ever made and put them together the DNA code would still be about 9 times bigger. So why weren't video games made in that soup? The human brain is the most complex computer ever known and yet it is the lightest computer ever made. And also here is something. 93% of all mutation cause the new born to be steral. And Why aren't things still changeing today? If you say it takes billions of years... well I think a billion years has past as you guys say. And here is something do you guys think that JK2 came about by chance? I bet not. And also Evolution is not science.

You need to tell the rest of the world what DNA you are talking about. I'm not an expert in these fields, by no means, but I do know that certain bacteria have amacingly simple DNA strings (plasmides).
Video games weren't made because video games can't reproduce.
As for your 7% chance of a survivable mutation: It is probably lower than that, but if you factor in 4 billion years and a generation time of one day (which is a long generation time for bacteria), you see why evolution is consistent.
And evolution IS science. Two of the important criteria for when a theory is science are: It must be founded on observation or been able to predict observations, and it must be, theoretically, disprovable (and not yet disproved). The theory of evolution fullfill BOTH above criteria. Thus it is science.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
And you guys might have a better case if I see a amemba come from a bunch of acids and goo.

See above comment on probability.

GonkH8er
11-14-2002, 07:25 AM
This thread has sunk down to mindless science-bashing on behalf of some individuals who continue to make up information, and present no other reasons against evolution other than "The bible says so".

None of the supposed disproven scientific facts have been referenced or linked.

Honestly people, this is why I'd be a lot happier if there was NO religion in the world. Religion is one of, if not THE most prolific cause of wars and terrorist attacks throughout history.


Either present some arguments that arent based on mindless slander and blind faith, or prepare to have the whole thread closed, which is what I'm leaning to.


I've tried presenting theories, information and scientific facts on these theories, links to sites, but some people insist on calling me an idiot for thinking differently to themselves, due to their blind faith in their god and their intensly closed mind.

I believe that there is no god, but I'm open to other opinions. I dont shoot down every thing that religious people post. I'm open minded. I love to see why other people choose to believe in what they do.

What I dont like to see is mindless bashing of other peoples beliefs, such as "DARWINISM IS A LOAD OF CRAP AND HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BORN" or "ALL YOU ATHIESTS WILL BURN IN HELL. YOU'RE ALL STUPID IDIOTS".

Honestly, grow up. You guys are mature enough to uphold a sensible conversation and acknowledge that we're presenting reasonable facts, arent you? I hope so.

Pnut_Man
11-14-2002, 07:36 AM
I'm not really sure what we're trying to prove here anymore but I guess ill just state some facts

Like I said before: The Bible is not to be taken word for word. The Genesis for example contains alot of symbolism, lots of representation. If something is not in the Bible that does not mean that it never existed. When god first spoke with the people his intention was not to make a book of history. He wished to create a book to pass on the Tradition of Christainity/Jeudism.
Remember, this book was written 2000 years ago. The people had no idea things called "Dinosaurs" even existed.

Just get my point; if something isn't in the bible then that doesn't mean Religion thinks it's fake/never existed.