PDA

View Full Version : Evolution vs Creationism - a Reasoned Debate


Pages : [1] 2

C'jais
11-14-2002, 12:36 PM
I'd like the mods to reply before the real posting begins.

This thread is created as a follow up on the "evolution thread" that died recently - something I'm very displeased with.

I know a few (unnamed) people went ballistic in then end of it, and it was the mod's right to close it as such. However, I'm asking if it's possible to simply edit or delete the offending posts when it comes to such a matter - it gets the point across to the offender and won't sadden everyone by closing a good topic.

Another idea is to temporarily ban the offender - if they can't debate without resorting to flaming or name calling, they need a severe reprimand. I know this is Yoda's Swamp and most everything goes, but I simply won't stand for this. In all respect, sometimes the swamp is a bit too tolerant, only resorting to locking threads, not doing anything against the people who killed them in the first place.

As a sidenote, I think it speaks volumes that the flaming was one-sided. Most (if not all) of the immature name calling came from the creationist side of this debate, leaving me to question why they needed to resort to this.

Mods, with your permission I'll gladly continue this thread but with a warning this time: If you can't debate this matter in a mature and polite way, don't even start. If you choose to delete or lock this thread immediately, I'll get the point and stop bothering you, the mods.

The evolution thread was one of the most interesting ones to date, I'm very sad that there'll only be "game threads" left now - something I personally hate.

Wacky_Baccy
11-14-2002, 12:41 PM
For the most part, I agree with you, cjais... I went digging for an excellent 'serious discussion' thread that we had in the Swamp a fair while ago (Vestril's return reminded me of it), and it was good to read it again... If we could keep it like that one was (mostly mature, well-formed and thought-out arguments), then these newer ones would be much better... I never did get a response from obi-wan 13 in that old thread :p :D

Elijah
11-14-2002, 12:46 PM
I really would like to see where we called you guys names or "flamed" you...

Pad
11-14-2002, 12:55 PM
last night i had a discussion about the thread on msn with grets sirob. and although we thought completly different on things we didnt start calling each other names or somethin like that. its totally immature not to accepts other ppl opinion.
so i suggest u keep it open to discussion but just delete/edit the immature posts. i really think it was a good discussion.

and as for all the ppl, accept it that other ppl may think different on things!!!
we r open to debate, not to flamin.;)

Elijah
11-14-2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Padanime
the immature posts. i really think it was a good discussion.

and as for all the ppl, accept it that other ppl may think different on things!!!
Basicly they will consider anything they dont agree with to be a "flame"...

C'jais
11-14-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
I really would like to see where we called you guys names or "flamed" you...

I won't name any names here, but look through the thread again and you'll see.

It's a very relevant debate, and not at all one where everyone feels we aren't moving anyone - I refer to the one person who at least changed his view on things dramatically.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg

Basicly they will consider anything they dont agree with to be a "flame"...

I take that by "them", you're referring to non-creationists - where do you find that this has happened?

FatalStrike
11-14-2002, 01:43 PM
Folks I tried to tell you before this subject makes people angry. If you decide to talk about this be prepared for insults, since telling someone that their core beliefs are wrong is more then a simple insult.

Having said that I will go onto the topic at hand.

We did not evolve from monkeys. We have found HUMAN fossil hundreds of thousands of years old. Now because we have found these fossils we must assume that the evolution of this imaginery ape happed hundreds of thousands of year before the last known human fossil. Thus LOGIC would beg the question....

If some apes evolved MILLIONS of years ago., why have no other apes evolved similar traits?

Before you shout "evolution takes MILLIONS of years" remember these other apes had MILLIONS of years and ALL evolved in similar ways. So out of ALL the HUNDREDS of species of monkeys and apes NOT ONE evolved traits similar to our own? I find that hard to believe, but evolutionists take this part on....yuppers....FAITH.

Also please ask yourselves this. Why is it that we find so many ealry mammels that were tiny, disosaurs no bigger then house cats that are millions of years old, yet we have so much trouble finding early humans, or our direct ancestors? Gee its almost like we just sprang up isn't it........

I welcome your arguements, I have had this very discussion before and am more then prepared to illustrate the faith that evolution demands of its believers.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 02:31 PM
As told, I will not proceed arguing this matter until it has been deemed fit by the mods. Don't worry though, I will adress your points when I've been given the green light.

ShadowTemplar
11-14-2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike
Folks I tried to tell you before this subject makes people angry. If you decide to talk about this be prepared for insults, since telling someone that their core beliefs are wrong is more then a simple insult.

When I last checked the meaning of the word fundamentalist it was along the lines of: Person who bases his entire belief system on religious documents.
I am not saying that anyone around here is fundamentalistic, but his/her own posts will, as you said, reveal whether it is the case.

Originally posted by FatalStrike
Having said that I will go onto the topic at hand.

I thought that cjais posted that the actual topic was not to be debated until the MODs had cleared it.

STTCT
11-14-2002, 02:37 PM
guys come on...the topic was debated and ran into the ground. Really - what do you try and accomplish by debating those threads. Its good to read others opinions on the subject but when you guys start arguing and quoting and what have you. It gets rather old...really fast. Not to mention...I loose interest about halfway through the posts.

I personally think that the thread had worn out its welcome and was due for a lock. You guys got your points across no need to continue on.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by STTCT
guys come on...the topic was debated and ran into the ground. Really - what do you try and accomplish by debating those threads. Its good to read others opinions on the subject but when you guys start arguing and quoting and what have you. It gets rather old...really fast. Not to mention...I loose interest about halfway through the posts.

I personally think that the thread had worn out its welcome and was due for a lock. You guys got your points across no need to continue on.

We never got our point across, according to WhiteRaider. I was still not finished debating this before it was closed.

And I'm not forcing you to participate. For me, it's the only really interesting thread at the moment.

The same can be said for those silly "battle-threads" - they've worn out long ago IMHO.

EDIT - Groovy, should I take that as a sign that it's alright to debate this further but you're just expecting it to turn out just as bad? Or, if you feel like it should be locked or deleted, please just do so instead of posting that picture. I like a clear message.

BTW: Read my comments on editing/deleting ugly posts instead of locking the entire thread - and my idea to temporarily ban the offender.

EDIT nr 2 - Oh, I see you've deleted your post Groovy. What does that mean? Does it mean anything? Oh, I'm starting to get philosophical here :D

STTCT
11-14-2002, 02:46 PM
I didn't participate in the thread in discussion. I did read through the first portion and the end where it got ugly. I don't participate in the battle thread either. To each their own :) . I don't think that you could argue whiteraider into believing what you believe.

Darth Groovy
11-14-2002, 02:48 PM
First of all I think you guys are getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too out of hand, you should take some advice from STTCT's comment.

Second of all I hate heated debates, it is quite obvious you are just looking to start another one. If that's your cup of tea, that's fine by me since I have no jurisdiction here, and as long as no rules get broken, i'm pretty easy. Either way, this thread is going to get very ugly, I can just tell.:(

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=1002076

Rogue Nine
11-14-2002, 02:50 PM
Ugly as Michael Jackson?

*readies hose and thread-closing rifle*

C'jais
11-14-2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by STTCT
I didn't participate in the thread in discussion. I did read through the first portion and the end where it got ugly. I don't participate in the battle thread either. To each their own :) . I don't think that you could argue whiteraider into believing what you believe.

Good point, but that does not make it a less interesting topic.

And I did actually change someone's opinion on this matter to my big surprise :D

Groovy - Don't hate the heated debates, hate the people who heat up because of debating. If people can't handle debating in a calm and serious manner, they shouldn't even start.

Skate Boy
11-14-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
I hate heated debates


I have to agree with you on that, I don't like mindless Spam but, always fighting gets under my skin.

ShadowTemplar
11-14-2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
First of all I think you guys are getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too out of hand, you should take some advice from STTCT's comment.

Second of all I hate heated debates, it is quite obvious you are just looking ot start another one. If that's your cup of tea, that's fine by me since I have no jurisdiction here, and as long as no rules get broken, i'm pretty easy. Either way, this thread is going to get very ugly, I can just tell.:(

That is why we have MODs on the forums IMO. If those who are to clean up the mess (i.e. those who moderate this forum) judge that they will be spending too much time on any thread, they should just close it down, end of story. What cjais was complaining about was the lack of explanation. At least that's what I think.

BTW: Is this post your personal opinion, your MOD opinion or both?

Jedi_Monk
11-14-2002, 03:03 PM
As a sidenote, I think it speaks volumes that the flaming was one-sided. Most (if not all) of the immature name calling came from the christian side of this debate, leaving me to question why they needed to resort to this.
Dude, just saying "the Christian side of the debate" is way too broad. I'm a Christian and, really, this whole evolutionist/creationist thing doesn't impact my core beliefs in the least, and there are millions of Christians who feel the same way. I see Genesis as God telling Moses a parable (just like Jesus told when He was on earth). Moses (and the Jews) might have just not been ready, at that time, for the insanely complicated, headspinning scientific explanation... so God used a parable to explain to Moses the one fundamental Truth: I created everything and that's all you need to know :D

But anyway, don't just say "the Christian side of the debate", because there are varied views. Call it the Creationist side, or the Fundamentallist side, please.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

STTCT
11-14-2002, 03:04 PM
i thought this thread was about why the debate was closed...not a continuation of that debate........


:mad:

C'jais
11-14-2002, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike

We did not evolve from monkeys. We have found HUMAN fossil hundreds of thousands of years old. Now because we have found these fossils we must assume that the evolution of this imaginery ape happed hundreds of thousands of year before the last known human fossil. Thus LOGIC would beg the question....

If some apes evolved MILLIONS of years ago., why have no other apes evolved similar traits?

Before you shout "evolution takes MILLIONS of years" remember these other apes had MILLIONS of years and ALL evolved in similar ways. So out of ALL the HUNDREDS of species of monkeys and apes NOT ONE evolved traits similar to our own? I find that hard to believe, but evolutionists take this part on....yuppers....FAITH.

Also please ask yourselves this. Why is it that we find so many ealry mammels that were tiny, disosaurs no bigger then house cats that are millions of years old, yet we have so much trouble finding early humans, or our direct ancestors? Gee its almost like we just sprang up isn't it........


Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and more are our ancestors, we didn't just spring up from nowhere.

Also, no human fossiles have been found - only human bones.

Why no other apes have evolved into some "human-like" race? Well, for a time, humans and neanderthals lived side by side, but eventually Neanderthals died because they couldn't stand the competition - Humans outresourced and outlived them. Chimps have local wars and political games that resemble humans in terrifying detail.

We didn't evolve from monkeys nor apes - we simply have a common ancestor - which was, an ape :rolleyes: - but the difference is important.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk

Dude, just saying "the Christian side of the debate" is way too broad.

Yes it was - and I deeply apologize. What I meant to say was "The Creationist side".

Once again, sorry - I've edited the original post.

FatalStrike
11-14-2002, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by cjais


Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and more are our ancestors, we didn't just spring up from nowhere.

Also, no human fossiles have been found - only human bones.

Why no other apes have evolved into some "human-like" race? Well, for a time, humans and neanderthals lived side by side, but eventually Neanderthals died because they couldn't stand the competition - Humans outresourced and outlived them. Chimps have local wars and political games that resemble humans in terrifying detail.

We didn't evolve from monkeys nor apes - we simply have a common ancestor - which was, an ape :rolleyes: - but the difference is important.

Once again why did only one species of man live on? You must realize that not all of this evolution would happen in the same area. By the evolutionary theory different species of man should have flourished in different areas. However only man remains. Also why did one species of man cause all other to die out, yet one species of ape did not do the same for other apes.

Basically what I am saying is that the evolutionary theory has a great deal of wholes that are pugged up by the fiath you have in science. I have no problem with that.

Also when I said we sprang up I didn't mean in our modern from. Also you have still failed to account for the exceeding difficulty in finding human bones even though they are larger and stronger then bones we keep finding that predate them by millions of years. The very core of evolution, which is to say humans are a relatively young species on this planet should make finding our bones intact and in good shape fairly easy.

Also I still do not believe life results from a mix of chemicals. I saw an article that they had figured it out but they only made amino acids. There is still no infomation that I have seen explaining what would cause these amino acids to suddenly grow a coating of some kind and come to life.



----

This debate should be allowed as long as people do not insult eachother. For example Cjais and myself are clearly and politely discussing a very complex topic. It can be done as long as people do not let emotion result in insult.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike


Once again why did only one species of man live on? You must realize that not all of this evolution would happen in the same area. By the evolutionary theory different species of man should have flourished in different areas. However only man remains. Also why did one species of man cause all other to die out, yet one species of ape did not do the same for other apes.

Basically what I am saying is that the evolutionary theory has a great deal of wholes that are pugged up by the fiath you have in science. I have no problem with that.

Also when I said we sprang up I didn't mean in our modern from. Also you have still failed to account for the exceeding difficulty in finding human bones even though they are larger and stronger then bones we keep finding that predate them by millions of years. The very core of evolution, which is to say humans are a relatively young species on this planet should make finding our bones intact and in good shape fairly easy.


Humans spread rapidly across the planet - they would very soon have conquered the planet and outevolved the primitive neanderthals.

Human bones aren't fossilized yet and they're made of organic material. Look at the pyramids - made of stones and several thousand years old. They're not in good shape, they're slowly decaying and eroding. Now, compare that to bones that are at least 5000 years older than the pyramids and not made of stone - you'll see it's very difficult to find them, but not impossible.

Bones decay easily over time, you can't expect archeologists to dig up intact bones or fossils from every race that lived.

[edit] - Mods, please change the thread name to "Evolution vs Creationism".

FatalStrike
11-14-2002, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by cjais


Humans spread rapidly across the planet - they would very soon have conquered the planet and outevolved the primitive neanderthals.



I still don't see it happening. Why would the humans cause the neanderthals to die out? It doesn't make sense.

Also human bones are younger then dinosaur bones and bigger and stronger then many bones that we have found of smaller dino's. If we can find them, then we should have no problems finding humans remains.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike


I still don't see it happening. Why would the humans cause the neanderthals to die out? It doesn't make sense.


Same habitat, same diet - It does make sense IMHO.

Dinosaurs lived for far longer than humans and it was a myriad of different races - altogether this creates a HUGE number of individuals, leaving us with many chances to find fossils. Also, a lot of the dino fossils we find are encapsulated in ash, mud or some other material that have made them very protected, and very hard to find. Our ancestors bone's were dug recently and they were far less in number than compared to the dinos. The fact that they had no big geological mishaps to protect them, and thus were laid open in an area subject to rapid erosion means they most were pulverized and scattered by the wind.

Many dino fossils/species are still awaiting to be found, and some will not stand the test of time.

obi
11-14-2002, 05:25 PM
I have no porblem with good discussion. That's why this place was built in the first place.

However, I have a better solution then youy, Cjais.

Everyone stop acting like nogs and discuss things seriously, debating each side with valid points.

Anyway, carry on. ;)

Darth Groovy
11-14-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar


That is why we have MODs on the forums IMO. If those who are to clean up the mess (i.e. those who moderate this forum) judge that they will be spending too much time on any thread, they should just close it down, end of story. What cjais was complaining about was the lack of explanation. At least that's what I think.

BTW: Is this post your personal opinion, your MOD opinion or both?

I think I explained that I do not mod here, but for the record, my opinion reflects what I believe as both mod and forum user. Believe me I am interested in being a mod here as well, but that is not up to me. That is up to the big LF Gods of Olympus!:p

Mandalorian54
11-14-2002, 06:44 PM
The only thing that is known for sure about evolution is that it should not be taught in schools.

and that was said by an evolutionist.

a frog turning into a prince instantly is a fairytale but a frog turning into a prince over millions of years is evolution.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
a frog turning into a prince instantly is a fairytale but a frog turning into a prince over millions of years is evolution.


That sounds pretty reasonable, no? :confused:

In what context did this evolutionist say that it shouldn't be taught at schools? I'm curious...

Mandalorian54
11-14-2002, 06:53 PM
If a shetland pony and a clidsedale and a donkey and a buch of other horses died in an avalanch and were burried for a thousand years, and by that time horses were extict, And some sientists dug them up they would see all the different varieties of horses and conclude that evolution can be proven because here is an example of all the different stages of horses. But in reality they all existed at the same time and didnt evolve.

this is a story I was told at a confrence, it's not entirely accurate but it will have to do.

Breton
11-14-2002, 06:57 PM
The only thing that is known for sure about evolution is that it should not be taught in schools.

Why not?

It is a proven fact (it is), at least much more proven (and likely) than for example beliving in God.

Not that I am saying it is "wrong" to belive in God, personally I respect every persons belief. A lot of people gains comfort in their beliefs, and that is a good thing.

But what annoys me quite a bit is the people that just say "the way I belive is EXACTLY the way it really is! If you belive ANYTHING else, then you are totally wrong and YOU WILL BE SLOWLY TORMENTED IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNETY!!!!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I am not saying it is any of you, I am just saying that those kind of people excists. Unfortunatly.

C'jais
11-14-2002, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
If a shetland pony and a clidsedale and a donkey and a buch of other horses died in an avalanch and were burried for a thousand years, and by that time horses were extict, And some sientists dug them up they would see all the different varieties of horses and conclude that evolution can be proven because here is an example of all the different stages of horses. But in reality they all existed at the same time and didnt evolve.


However, through various dating means, you would see that all the horses lived and died at the same time, and because they were all found at the same place you'd say with a fair amount of reason that they weren't different stages of horses.

Tyrion
11-14-2002, 07:18 PM
I still don't see it happening. Why would the humans cause the neanderthals to die out? It doesn't make sense.

It's like the job buisness. Here's tom, a Neanderthal. He does he work ok. Then, someone new comes in, Pete the Homo-Sapien-Sapien. Pete can do everything better than Tom can. Thus, tom get's fired(extinct).

That's what happend.

P.S. the reason why they have so much trouble finding human bones is because they didnt fall in tar pits.:p

TheWhiteRaider
11-14-2002, 10:16 PM
P.S. the reason why they have so much trouble finding human bones is because they didnt fall in tar pits.

Oh and that is the only way for a fossil to be made? There are other ways. It just needs to be covered from the elements of decay. So there is more.

It is a proven fact (it is), at least much more proven (and likely) than for example beliving in God.

It is still a theory. If it is to be teached in school it should be know that it is a theory.

.I really would like to see where we called you guys names or "flamed" you...

There was someone who started name calling which I thought was out of line. Anyways if you start the debate again here it will be off topic and get closed as well. So go back to debating if the thread should be closed or not.

Elijah
11-14-2002, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
There was someone who started name calling which I thought was out of line. Anyways if you start the debate again here it will be off topic and get closed as well. So go back to debating if the thread should be closed or not.

I never saw any of the creationists doing the name calling... and i dont remember saying anything, if i did it was unintentional.

Tyrion
11-15-2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg


I never saw any of the creationists doing the name calling... and i dont remember saying anything, if i did it was unintentional.
"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. "

I did flip out at Krillin though. Sorry bout that.

TheWhiteRaider
11-15-2002, 01:19 AM
I think the hardest part of a debate is keeping your cool. If you blow it any point you make will often be useless even if they were good points.

TheWhiteRaider
11-15-2002, 01:37 AM
I never saw any of the creationists doing the name calling... and i dont remember saying anything, if i did it was unintentional

I can't remember you doing any. There was one.

I did flip out at Krillin though. Sorry bout that.

It is ok. Just becareful in the future.

As a sidenote, I think it speaks volumes that the flaming was one-sided. Most (if not all) of the immature name calling came from the creationist side of this debate, leaving me to question why they needed to resort to this.

Don't judge us all from one person. I can't judge everyone from Denmark because one person was a jerk.

TheWhiteRaider
11-15-2002, 02:29 AM
"Why do you look at foot steps here to find out what they are like a mile from here?"

That was what one Creationist said(I can't spell his name it is from some other country.). We can only know 100% that the world is at least 4,000-6,000 years old. Past that we can not say with 100%. We can try, but we can not be sure. We are looking at the present to find the past. Though something may be true(Like that dinosaurs lived) that does not mean each and everyone is true.

Have you guys ever heard of fossil beds?

C'jais
11-15-2002, 03:17 AM
First of all, it is not off topic to continue the discussion in this thread - read what I wrote in the first post - I'd like the name of the thread to change, but the mods apparently didn't see it.

There were more than Krillin who "flamed" - I can look back if you want but it really is pointless.

WhiteRaider, you cannot even be sure the world is 400 years old.

Tyrion
11-15-2002, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
First of all, it is not off topic to continue the discussion in this thread - read what I wrote in the first post - I'd like the name of the thread to change, but the mods apparently didn't see it.

There were more than Krillin who "flamed" - I can look back if you want but it really is pointless.

WhiteRaider, you cannot even be sure the world is 400 years old.

No,no.

Krillian didnt flame,DarthYoda flamed, and I flamed Krillian because of a ignorant comment he made.

TheWhiteRaider
11-15-2002, 03:55 AM
WhiteRaider, you cannot even be sure the world is 400 years old.

And if you talk like that how do you know that it is 15 billion?


And also do you know about fossil beds? Please at least anwser that.

TheWhiteRaider
11-15-2002, 04:38 AM
I read the old thread through from page one. Both sides flamed. Two small flames on the Creation. Two on the Darwinist.

ShadowTemplar
11-15-2002, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by FatalStrike

Also I still do not believe life results from a mix of chemicals. I saw an article that they had figured it out but they only made amino acids. There is still no infomation that I have seen explaining what would cause these amino acids to suddenly grow a coating of some kind and come to life.

The "coating" that you refer to will be created spontaneously: The lipids (certain aminic acids) that form the outer layer of the cell will spontaniously form into a ball: They have a hydrofile (mixable with water) end and a hydrophobe (shunning water) end, meaning that the configuration that has the least energy will be a ball. There's your cell membrane.

Thanks for the correction cjais.

ShadowTemplar
11-15-2002, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
It is still a theory. If it is to be teached in school it should be know that it is a theory.

All science is theory. Any serious Science teacher should be more than willing to tell you that. The concept of accepting the models that are the least unlikely is at the heart of science. That means that science is never true, which is why it is so useful.

That science is made of models cannot be stressed enough.

That science is never true cannot be stressed enough.

That science is the most powerful tool that Humanity has ever posessed cannot be stressed enough.

IMO.

Tyrion
11-15-2002, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I read the old thread through from page one. Both sides flamed. Two small flames on the Creation. Two on the Darwinist.

Excuse me? The two flames on the Creation were as bad, if not worse than the Darwinist flames.

ShadowTemplar
11-15-2002, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
We can only know 100% that the world is at least 4,000-6,000 years old. Past that we can not say with 100%. We can try, but we can not be sure. We are looking at the present to find the past. Though something may be true(Like that dinosaurs lived) that does not mean each and everyone is true.

We can never be sure (see above), but the existence of petrified dinosaurs means that the earth is millions of years old, simply because empirical evidence shows that petrification must require that kind of timespan.

acdcfanbill
11-15-2002, 05:40 AM
Carbon Dating ;)


I always wonder if the creationist scientists go to church... :D

ShadowTemplar
11-15-2002, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Have you guys ever heard of fossil beds?

You are talking about places with large amounts of fossiles, right?. I heard about a fossile bed once where a colony of flying dinosaurs had been buried in tar. I did a search on www.sciam.com and it came up with two related articles. You ought to tjeck them out (the "Search" function is in the upper left corner, and pretty hard to spot at first sight IMO).

C'jais
11-15-2002, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar


The "coating" that you refer to will be created spontaneously: The lipids (certain aminic acids) that form the outer layer of the cell will spontaniously form into a ball: They have a hydrofile (mixable with water) end and a hydrophobe (shunning water) end, meaning that the configuration that has the least energy will be a ball. There's your cell wall.

Just a small correction Templar, what you're reffering to is the cell membrane - the wall is made of peptidoglykanes (in danish), and is made amino acids, which were there in the first place. On plants it is made of celulosis.

What Templar said about science and models is good wisdom - pick the model that depicts reality in the most probable way. Do you think creationism resembles the probable reality in the most likely way, or does that honor belong to evolution?

C'jais
11-15-2002, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


And if you talk like that how do you know that it is 15 billion?


We don't - we calculate and make use of tools to prove that it is, but we will never know for sure.

I simply used sarcasm to make you understand that the world could have been created 1 second before you were created and with planted evidence (matrix-like :D), you'd never know. This ties in well with what you say - that someone created reality and we will never know for sure - IE God.

C'jais
11-15-2002, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Don't judge us all from one person. I can't judge everyone from Denmark because one person was a jerk.

Aimed at me, or one of the 2 other Danes in the old thread? Regardless, you just made a flame.

Regarding C-14 tests, they are not as inaccurate as you say. While it is true that the C-14 dating will vary the further back in time you go, which is why a correctional graph has been made btw, it will still prove that things are far older than 6000 years.

Paraphrasing Templar, if Dinosaurs existed alongside humans, then how come their bones have fossilized and ours have not?

Again, how come there have existed "sub-humans" such as homo erectus and habilis that are now extinct - the bible mentions none of these.

EDIT - Moderators, please change the name to "Evolution vs Creationism" - as stated in the first post, it was all the time meant as a way to continue the debate (not fight).

C'jais
11-15-2002, 04:12 PM
*BUMP*

Something worth noticing: God wanted Man to be made. To want is to have an unfulfilled desire. God is complete, therefore he cannot have any unfulfilled desires. Then why did God create Man?

lllKyNeSlll
11-15-2002, 04:23 PM
the ultimate question...


during the big bang, the small compacted neutrino object with reletively infinite density expanded and grew exponentially to form the universe; however, how did the compacted mass materialize?

ShadowTemplar
11-15-2002, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by lllKyNeSlll
the ultimate question...


during the big bang, the small compacted neutrino object with reletively infinite density expanded and grew exponentially to form the universe; however, how did the compacted mass materialize?

This is a mindboggling question to even think about, let alone comprehend. I cannot explain it to you, but I have a link that may:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C55B5-C29B-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=4

Or, if you want more articles on the subject visit:

http://www.sciam.com

and run a Search on Big Bang.

I also encourage browsing the site. It is very informative on a great many subjects.

Pierre the Frog
11-15-2002, 07:59 PM
All of you so-called creationist seem to agree with the Darwinists to some extend, or did the dinosaures and the zebras live in one big happy unity once?

Acording to the bible (http://www.bible.com/bible/Bcreate.html) God created the "Beasts" all at once so if the zebra didn't live at the same time as the Triceratops some kind of evolution must have occured.

If that is so why cant you accept that humans might also have evolved?

And if the zebra lived at the same time as the dinosaure why haven't we found any traces of them?

StormHammer
11-16-2002, 01:16 AM
Feel free to debate the issue in a reasoned fashion.

Any posts bearing any perceived insults will be deleted as a matter of course, regardless of other content. So try to be mindful of other members of these forums, that everyone is entitled to disparate points of view, and profer them due respect. :cool:

BTW, good point, Pierre. ;)

BCanr2d2
11-16-2002, 03:06 AM
What I can't seem to understand is that many people, or at least some, can't see that both Creationism and Evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive, i.e. if one exists the other doesn't. There are those that believe both can co-exist, and they believe the Bible was written as a parable, since that was how the Jews wrote at that time in history.

How many of you know that it is the Roman Catholic church is responsible for the interpretation of the Bible as literal, and not metaphorical?

As for dinosaur bones, it is commonly believed that a major geological event, either asteroid, or massive eruption, lead to the downfall of the dinosaurs. Either of these events will leave conditions conducive to creation of fossils, a lot of light ash and dust is able to cover the bones.
As for neanderthals and homo-sapiens, use the alternative name for Darwinism - Survival of the Fittest. If homo-sapiens use the same resources a lot better, ie developed better hunting skills and got the available food, forcing Neanderthal man to hunt in different areas not so rich in food, with no competition, then no doubt Neanderthal man will have died as a result.

I want to know how Creationists, some of them, can not believe in one form of science to explain the world, yet believe almost all others without any shadow of a doubt? How they can believe Physics, Chemistry and Biology amongst many scientific fields, yet not Evolution?

When it comes to science, amongst other things, did any one realise that the time period of recorded temperatures ISN'T long enough to prove whether the increase in temperature is due to man-made reasons, or due to natural reasons.

I believe in science, but I also do not take everything at face value.

Redwing
11-16-2002, 05:19 AM
meep. I've been not paying attention here ^^;

I'm just gonna reply to stuff that's been posted since cj bumped it. ^_^

Something worth noticing: God wanted Man to be made. To want is to have an unfulfilled desire. God is complete, therefore he cannot have any unfulfilled desires. Then why did God create Man?

Aah! But complete means Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire. Which God is. ^_^ Besides, he thinks nothing like us. It's like a bug wondering why the mean ole human is squashing it (except in reverse ^_~) How could the bug understand?

Regarding C-14 tests, they are not as inaccurate as you say. While it is true that the C-14 dating will vary the further back in time you go, which is why a correctional graph has been made btw, it will still prove that things are far older than 6000 years.

Yes. ^_^ Actually among creation scientists there's a general agreement that the earth is more than ten thousand years old.

did the dinosaures and the zebras live in one big happy unity once?

Yup. ^_^

Acording to the bible God created the "Beasts" all at once so if the zebra didn't live at the same time as the Triceratops some kind of evolution must have occured.

Buh? Oh, you mean because they were found in different layers. Well see, creation scientists believe that they lived in different habitats, and were layered like they are during the Flood (rather than being layed down over time.)

And if the zebra lived at the same time as the dinosaure why haven't we found any traces of them?

Maybe they were less common. ^_^ Or lived in a place where they couldn't have gotten fossilized. Remember, according to the Creation model, a whole heckuva lotta stuff got fossilized during the Flood.

What I can't seem to understand is that many people, or at least some, can't see that both Creationism and Evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive, i.e. if one exists the other doesn't. There are those that believe both can co-exist, and they believe the Bible was written as a parable, since that was how the Jews wrote at that time in history.

But Genesis, when it was written, was taken as history at the time. The Bible was written by many different people over a very very large amount of time. ^_^

By the way, I agree with you. I believe evolution happens. I just believe that God created the template.

How many of you know that it is the Roman Catholic church is responsible for the interpretation of the Bible as literal, and not metaphorical?

No, just responsible for the interpretation of the whole thing as literal ^.^ (i.e. Last Supper celebration bread really turns into bits of Jesus' body when you eat it, and Last Supper celebration wine really turns into Jesus' blood when you drink it!)


As for dinosaur bones, it is commonly believed that a major geological event, either asteroid, or massive eruption, lead to the downfall of the dinosaurs. Either of these events will leave conditions conducive to creation of fossils, a lot of light ash and dust is able to cover the bones.


Or an enormous greenhouse layer collapsing to flood the entire planet. ^_^ Which would also create great conditions for fast fossilization.

As for neanderthals and homo-sapiens, use the alternative name for Darwinism - Survival of the Fittest. If homo-sapiens use the same resources a lot better, ie developed better hunting skills and got the available food, forcing Neanderthal man to hunt in different areas not so rich in food, with no competition, then no doubt Neanderthal man will have died as a result.

That is the Darwinist theory. Just for completion, I'll mention that among creation scientists, Neanderthals are considered to be, simply, human; a race that developed and then ceased to exist.

I want to know how Creationists, some of them, can not believe in one form of science to explain the world, yet believe almost all others without any shadow of a doubt? How they can believe Physics, Chemistry and Biology amongst many scientific fields, yet not Evolution?

I don't believe Evolution started the world. I believe God did. Besides, Evolution is a theory. I happen to believe it happens, but there are scientists (nonreligious, too!) who happen to believe it doesn't exist. You can't fault them for that. Theories, after all, are just people's fantasies. Maybe in a few hundred years, our descendants (I almost said 'ancestors' :D) will have come up with a new and better theory to replace evolution. They will look back and say to their friends "Can you believe those silly people back in the twenty-first century? Believing in made-up things like evolution, and photons, and brainwaves." And they'll be as assured as us that their science is impeccable. And maybe, just maybe, in another hundred years they'll be laughed at too. Keep that in mind, when you're so furiously arguing. ^_^

Pierre the Frog
11-16-2002, 04:23 PM
Buh? Oh, you mean because they were found in different layers. Well see, creation scientists believe that they lived in different habitats, and were layered like they are during the Flood (rather than being layed down over time.)

You've found fossils of dinosaures where Zebras amongst others live today, did all of those animals migrate to africa after the flood? That would mean that none of the animals we see today lived in America, Africa or some parts of Asia.

Sometimes you find "modern" animals above dinosaures (in different layers), how do the creationist scientists account for that? (Keep in mind the "modern" animals where still buried in stone)

C'jais
11-16-2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
Or an enormous greenhouse layer collapsing to flood the entire planet. ^_^ Which would also create great conditions for fast fossilization.

That is the Darwinist theory. Just for completion, I'll mention that among creation scientists, Neanderthals are considered to be, simply, human; a race that developed and then ceased to exist.

As far as I know, that greenhouse layer was called the firmament - or heaven. When it came crashing down on earth, did that mean heaven was gone/destroyed? Also, where is the trace of this layer found nowadays - such a massive amount of water must have caused everything to perish. Fast fossilization? It would have smashed every living thing on earth, leaving only fine dust beneath the huge waves.

Did neanderthals simply cease to exist for some reason? Why would God have created them in that case?

And regarding the analogy about God and the beetle - Why did God create Man in the first place, if he then later decided to "flood the laboratory" - And God even predicted this?

EDIT - Oh, btw: Thanks for changing the name :thumbsup:

Elijah
11-16-2002, 06:53 PM
Arguing evolution isn’t relevant to me... I'm here and I believe in God. I don’t care how I got here, or how long it took.

Luc Solar
11-16-2002, 07:20 PM
All I really want to know is:

(sorry for being a party-pooper)

How excatly do the creationists argument their case?

'cause the Bible says so?

Is that it?

That's all?

.........................oukei-doakie.................. :rolleyes:

BCanr2d2
11-16-2002, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Arguing evolution isn’t relevant to me... I'm here and I believe in God. I don’t care how I got here, or how long it took.

Just asking a polite question, so you don't question your beliefs about how you got here? You have blind faith?

What people like me want to know, or at least understand, is how you believe in the Bible and how it concerns you about the beginning of the Earth. A lot of what we have had given to us is "We think, therefore we are" arguements, without backing it up, what makes you believe.
With Evolution, we CAN use imperical evidence to show why we believe it to be true, many of the counter punches on the Creationist side are trying to debunk science and evolution, rather than explaining their beliefs...

Some of what is being thrown up here is very much delving into the field of philosophy.

Elijah
11-16-2002, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2


Just asking a polite question, so you don't question your beliefs about how you got here? You have blind faith?


Its not that i dont question it, its that there are more important things at hand to worry about, and frankly its this simple: I'm here, the time is now, and i must make use of the time that is given to me.

Redwing
11-16-2002, 11:45 PM
Sometimes you find "modern" animals above dinosaures (in different layers), how do the creationist scientists account for that? (Keep in mind the "modern" animals where still buried in stone)

The Flood rearranging things, for the most simplistic explanation ^.^ (Because I'm too lazy to look up the whole thing ^_~)

Also, some modern animals wouldn't have existed yet. There's also a theory that because the Earth was alot healthier then, creatures could adapt much faster. ^.^

As far as I know, that greenhouse layer was called the firmament - or heaven. When it came crashing down on earth, did that mean heaven was gone/destroyed? Also, where is the trace of this layer found nowadays - such a massive amount of water must have caused everything to perish. Fast fossilization? It would have smashed every living thing on earth, leaving only fine dust beneath the huge waves.

Heavens" was a figurative word for it - they didn't have 'greenhouse layer' or 'atmosphere' back then. As for the traces, they are the layers. If the earth is young, they had to have gotten there fast.

Eh? No O.o It "broke" not came crashing down, making it rain hard. "

Did neanderthals simply cease to exist for some reason? Why would God have created them in that case?

They died out. If everyone from Asia (bearing the physical characteristics of an Asian native) eventually intermarried so much that they ceased to exist the way we know "them" now, would we question why they existed in the frist place? Besides, God gave man free will. Man is running the show to some extent by man's choices.

And regarding the analogy about God and the beetle - Why did God create Man in the first place, if he then later decided to "flood the laboratory" - And God even predicted this?

You're thinking of God as if he was a man. I refer to my ant analogy ^.^

Besides, he didn't kill off man. We're here aren't we? If we have souls, then our physical bodies mean alot less. Same with earth itself.

What people like me want to know, or at least understand, is how you believe in the Bible and how it concerns you about the beginning of the Earth. A lot of what we have had given to us is "We think, therefore we are" arguements, without backing it up, what makes you believe.
With Evolution, we CAN use imperical evidence to show why we believe it to be true, many of the counter punches on the Creationist side are trying to debunk science and evolution, rather than explaining their beliefs...

Faith. I'm only trying to explain creation's position. Personally, if God existed as in the Bible, I think it makes sense that he would have created the Bible to let us know. I have faith that he did...and I'm not trying to force my faith on anyone.

The thing is, most people here are just using their arguments to debunk creation. I am trying to show why it doesn't work, which puts things on a level playing ground. ^.^

Mandalorian54
11-18-2002, 06:48 PM
However, through various dating means, you would see that all the horses lived and died at the same time, and because they were all found at the same place you'd say with a fair amount of reason that they weren't different stages of horses.


The dating methods evolutionists and other sientists use to find out how old a fossil is are extremely inaccurate.

They get anything from 100 billion years to 10 years. This I leared in sience class.

C'jais
11-18-2002, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54



The dating methods evolutionists and other sientists use to find out how old a fossil is are extremely inaccurate.

They get anything from 100 billion years to 10 years. This I leared in sience class.

Oh well.

Even if they are that inaccurate, you could tell by the layers which they are buried in: If it was caused by an avalanche, all the horsies would be found on the same layer.

C'jais
11-18-2002, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Redwing


The Flood rearranging things, for the most simplistic explanation ^.^ (Because I'm too lazy to look up the whole thing ^_~)

Also, some modern animals wouldn't have existed yet. There's also a theory that because the Earth was alot healthier then, creatures could adapt much faster. ^.^

Even if the flood rearranged things, they would still be on the same layer, or level. And I would still like to see some proof of a great flood occuring in our history.


Heavens" was a figurative word for it - they didn't have 'greenhouse layer' or 'atmosphere' back then. As for the traces, they are the layers. If the earth is young, they had to have gotten there fast.

Eh? No O.o It "broke" not came crashing down, making it rain hard. "

What did this greenhouse layer protect back in the day? As far as I know, we have enough greenhouse layer problems now in our time.

They died out. If everyone from Asia (bearing the physical characteristics of an Asian native) eventually intermarried so much that they ceased to exist the way we know "them" now, would we question why they existed in the frist place? Besides, God gave man free will. Man is running the show to some extent by man's choices.

Yes they died out, but God would be able to predict this, using simple logic - he would have realized that since man was so much superior, the neanderthals and other different races of humans would have a sealed fate. Which leads me to the question as to why he even bothered creating them in the first place.



Redwing, do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve?

This debate has grinded to a halt since you all seem to agree that every dating means is inaccurate as hell, unreliable and worthless.

Fossilization takes a great deal of time - if certain dinosaur bones are fossilized and human's aren't, then we must have come after the dinosaurs, no?

Mandalorian54
11-18-2002, 07:34 PM
I didn't understand redwing he talks strange and is difficult to understand. I didn't read all of what he said but I'm just not concerned whith that.

I think I heard at a confrence or somthin that human fossils have been found, even whith dinosaur fossils, in the same sediment layer, but you don't learn that in school.

C'jais
11-18-2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
I think I heard at a confrence or somthin that human fossils have been found, even whith dinosaur fossils, in the same sediment layer, but you don't learn that in school.

A creationist conference mayhaps?

Nope, I didn't learn that at school, and neither did I learn anything about creationism or christianity at school.

Clem
11-18-2002, 07:48 PM
not everything we know comes from school ... or church (which i take to be the creationist equivalent)

C'jais
11-18-2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Clem
not everything we know comes from school ... or church (which i take to be the creationist equivalent)

Very true - I didn't learn anything about evolution in school either, except that it was true and was never debated.

TheWhiteRaider
11-18-2002, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Cjais


Aimed at me, or one of the 2 other Danes in the old thread? Regardless, you just made a flame.

Regarding C-14 tests, they are not as inaccurate as you say. While it is true that the C-14 dating will vary the further back in time you go, which is why a correctional graph has been made btw, it will still prove that things are far older than 6000 years.

Paraphrasing Templar, if Dinosaurs existed alongside humans, then how come their bones have fossilized and ours have not?

Again, how come there have existed "sub-humans" such as homo erectus and habilis that are now extinct - the bible mentions none of these.

EDIT - Moderators, please change the name to "Evolution vs Creationism" - as stated in the first post, it was all the time meant as a way to continue the debate (not fight).

It was not aimed at you or anyone on this forum. I have seen someone from Denmark that was a total jerk. Do not act like every thing is pointed at you.

And the reason I asked about Fossil beds is because there was some found over in the Middle East where they found fossilized dinosaurs with other animals that were suppose to evolve after the time of dinosaurs. I would show you the picture if my dumb scanner was working.

not everything we know comes from school ... or church

Same here.




Also the reason I don't trust the dating methods is that we do not have anything which we know(Outside of dating methods) is 1 million years of age. Our dating methods could be like a pistol. Fine for small ranges, but it can be bad for long ranges. So some may be good for a few thousand years, but we have no way of showing that it can work over long amounts of time.

Also did you know that the layers(Jurrasic,ect.) in the earth have one interesting. All the layers are not there in all parts of the world. As in other words. Some areas have all, but Jurrasic. Others only have 6 of the layers missing. There is not a single place in the world that has all of them. And there are some places that the layers goes from (Top to bottom) oldest layer to youngest insted of youngest to oldest.

Pierre the Frog
11-19-2002, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Redwing


The Flood rearranging things, for the most simplistic explanation ^.^ (Because I'm too lazy to look up the whole thing ^_~)

[1] Also, some modern animals wouldn't have existed yet. There's also a theory that [2] because the Earth was alot healthier then, creatures could adapt much faster. ^.^



1: Acording to the bible. God created the beasts on the same day.

2: Aparrently you do belive in "survival of the fittest"

ShadowTemplar
11-19-2002, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by Redwing
Aah! But complete means Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire. Which God is. ^_^ Besides, he thinks nothing like us. It's like a bug wondering why the mean ole human is squashing it (except in reverse ^_~) How could the bug understand?

Ok, it was a rather cheap shot anyway IMO.

Originally posted by Redwing
Maybe they were less common. ^_^ Or [the zebras] lived in a place where they couldn't have gotten fossilized. Remember, according to the Creation model, a whole heckuva lotta stuff got fossilized during the Flood.

The whole Flood hypothesis would, logically, mean that traces of a worldspanning flood could be found. Until such evidence turns up, it is a moot point. Besides: Your timespan is still off. Big time.

Originally posted by Redwing
But Genesis, when it was written, was taken as history at the time. The Bible was written by many different people over a very very large amount of time. ^_^

By the way, I agree with you. I believe evolution happens. I just believe that God created the template.

Your logic is faulty: Empirical evidence points towards the "template" being single celled organisms (or rather even more primitive ones). God(s) can thus be eliminated from the equation.

Originally posted by Redwing
No, just responsible for the interpretation of the whole thing as literal ^.^ (i.e. Last Supper celebration bread really turns into bits of Jesus' body when you eat it, and Last Supper celebration wine really turns into Jesus' blood when you drink it!)

We aren't really debating what Catholecism is responsible for, but I could name a few more important things on its roll of (dis)honour

Originally posted by Redwing
Or an enormous greenhouse layer collapsing to flood the entire planet. ^_^ Which would also create great conditions for fast fossilization.

1: There is no such thing as "fast fossilization" and 2: See above on the "Worldwide Flood" -hypothesis.

Originally posted by Redwing
That is the Darwinist theory. Just for completion, I'll mention that among creation scientists, Neanderthals are considered to be, simply, human; a race that developed and then ceased to exist.

Well, Neanderthals are, genetically not human.

Besides: I have a problem with your continued referrence to "creationists" as "creation scientists". "Creation Science" is an oxymoronic term. For a full explanation click http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00002A2D-B02B-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Originally posted by Redwing
I don't believe Evolution started the world. I believe God did. Besides,

Originally posted by Redwing
Evolution is a theory. I happen to believe it happens, but there are scientists (nonreligious, too!) who happen to believe it doesn't exist. You can't fault them for that. Theories, after all, are just people's fantasies.

1: Source those scientists. 2: Theories are, as you have previously posted yourself, investigated hypothesises. In science an investigated hypothesis is elevated to theory if found consistent and least improbable, and reduced to fantasy if found inconsistent or less probable than other theories governing the same problem. Therefore theories are more than fantasy by far and away. For a full explanation go http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2.

Originally posted by Redwing
Maybe in a few hundred years, our descendants (I almost said 'ancestors' :D) will have come up with a new and better theory to replace evolution. They will look back and say to their friends "Can you believe those silly people back in the twenty-first century? Believing in made-up things like evolution, and photons, and brainwaves." And they'll be as assured as us that their science is impeccable. And maybe, just maybe, in another hundred years they'll be laughed at too. Keep that in mind, when you're so furiously arguing. ^_^

You base the above on the false asumption that scientists think of theories as true and impeccable. I have already made a post dealing with that subject, but it is one that I will gladly repeat:

In short: People who claim that science is truth should be hit hard and repeatedly with a blunt instrument (in a manner of speaking, of course, noone should hit anyone with anything over that). Science is reductionistic, and therefore can never be true. Scientific theories are continually being tested and refined in a process that will never end (save with the extinction of science (and of course I cannot be sure, since I only know the science of today)). This is why they can incorporate every veryfiable piece of knowledge, making science the ultimate way to describe the world about us (please note that I talk about "science" not the currently standing "scientific theories", which are merely the, at the moment, least improbable ones.

P.S.: Before someone rolls out the "second law of thermodynamics" -point again, and makes a fool of himself, realise that it concerns itselves with isolated systems only, and that Terra is not an isolated system, which means that the point is moot.

C'jais
11-19-2002, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar


Ok, it was a rather cheap shot anyway IMO.


Cheap shot yes, but it does raise an interesting pont: In the bible, God is personified several places - Ezekiel (I think) sees God himself, God moves over the face of the waters, "God sees me", Adam and Eve hides from God and God has human traits.

Why is God portrayed as a man, when he clearly can only exist as some supernatural "force"? Do you Christians believe in him as a person, or as a force of nature?

If he did indeed create everything, he must have some sort of motive - whether or not we understand it is irrelevant. What will God do when mankind no longer exists, or has developed into a race we cannot even imagine? What role did we then play in God's grand scheme of things?

Pierre the Frog
11-19-2002, 07:35 AM
This is way of subject - if we're going to discuss why God can't exist or how he exists, create a new thread and I'll be glad to join in, but let it rest here!

BTW. Are you skipping school today?

BCanr2d2
11-19-2002, 07:54 AM
Can I throw another log onto the fire of debate....

What we are discussing here is TRANSLATED texts that make up the current accepted version, King James, is believed to be the most accurately translated version. There are more than one version of the Bible, all coming from the same text, which one is more believable than others?

To me that just makes me think that they can't even get the translation correct, but are willing to say that this version is the correct one. I assume that unless you can read Hebrew, then there is an English slant on the text, that due to the way the Bible was written and how English is structured, that it may not be giving the message as it was delivered.............

Is the current version just the work of the richest monarch who decided to get it translated?

As for being off-subject, I think there are a few of us here, trying to probe those that believe in Creation as to a few inconsistencies in their belief, as they do to science. I think both sides have raised valid points, that neither side of the arguement/discussion is bullet proof. It's just that the people discussing Evolution are spending a little more time structuring their response, finding some weaknesses, and asking those that believe in Creation to respond...

C'jais
11-19-2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Pierre the Frog
This is way of subject - if we're going to discuss why God can't exist or how he exists, create a new thread and I'll be glad to join in, but let it rest here!

BTW. Are you skipping school today?

We're discussing God in this thread too, it's the same topic - disprove God and you disprove creationism. But I shall let it rest for the sake of peace.

Nej, jeg havde to "fritimer" (hyg/undervis jer selv, ligesom jer) så jeg tog bare hjem for at læse lektier i stedet :rolleyes:
PS: nogle af dine indlæg er skrevet midt i en time ;)

edit - ahaaa.... jeg ser i også bare fik lov til at hygge jer selv :rolleyes:

ShadowTemplar
11-19-2002, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54



The dating methods evolutionists and other sientists use to find out how old a fossil is are extremely inaccurate.

They get anything from 100 billion years to 10 years. This I leared in sience class.

Two words: Source it!

ShadowTemplar
11-19-2002, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Redwing


The Flood rearranging things, for the most simplistic explanation ^.^ (Because I'm too lazy to look up the whole thing ^_~)

Also, some modern animals wouldn't have existed yet. There's also a theory that because the Earth was alot healthier then, creatures could adapt much faster. ^.^

There is no empirical evidence suggesting that.

Originally posted by Redwing
They died out. If everyone from Asia (bearing the physical characteristics of an Asian native) eventually intermarried so much that they ceased to exist the way we know "them" now, would we question why they existed in the frist place? Besides, God gave man free will. Man is running the show to some extent by man's choices.

Se my above post on Neanthertals and realise that being different species means being incapable of interbreeding (not inbreeding, that's different).

ShadowTemplar
11-19-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
I didn't understand redwing he talks strange and is difficult to understand. I didn't read all of what he said but I'm just not concerned whith that.

I think I heard at a confrence or somthin that human fossils have been found, even whith dinosaur fossils, in the same sediment layer, but you don't learn that in school.

See above on sourcing.

ShadowTemplar
11-19-2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Clem
not everything we know comes from school ... or church (which i take to be the creationist equivalent)

That last part is a flame IMO. Everyone on this thread has to be very careful if we are to keep this open.

ShadowTemplar
11-19-2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
And the reason I asked about Fossil beds is because there was some found over in the Middle East where they found fossilized dinosaurs with other animals that were suppose to evolve after the time of dinosaurs. I would show you the picture if my dumb scanner was working.

What animals are we talking about exactly?
Were the theories adjusted? (the earliest appearence of many species is rutinely adjusted as more specimen are found from earlier periods).
Were in the Middle East?
Source it all, please.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Also the reason I don't trust the dating methods is that we do not have anything which we know(Outside of dating methods) is 1 million years of age. Our dating methods could be like a pistol. Fine for small ranges, but it can be bad for long ranges. So some may be good for a few thousand years, but we have no way of showing that it can work over long amounts of time.

The halflives of longlived radioactive isotopes are well documented.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Also did you know that the layers(Jurrasic,ect.) in the earth have one interesting. All the layers are not there in all parts of the world. As in other words. Some areas have all, but Jurrasic. Others only have 6 of the layers missing. There is not a single place in the world that has all of them. And there are some places that the layers goes from (Top to bottom) oldest layer to youngest insted of youngest to oldest.

If all geological layers were found in the same place in the correct order, it would be well and truely incredible. The geological layers are upside-down because of tectonic activity. The time at which the layers were made can be identified be combining the order of the layers, fossile records, polar turns ect. in a HUGE (understatement of the year) puzzle.

A simpler version of this can be done with wooden poles. If you have two trees, both cut down, and you know when the first was cut down, but not when the second was, and they are found to have overlapping yearrings, you can figure out when the second lived and died. (this was one of the methods employed to figure out when the Mesa Verde dwellings were deserted).

Pierre the Frog
11-19-2002, 04:24 PM
Damnit ShadowTemplar you just took all the fun out of the discussion (Good Points BTW)

Jeg synes dog at kræve documentation og samtidig ikke selv documentere alt dit er et billigt knep - men det behøver de andre ikke vide!

Jaja Christian fri - time... mmmhh... jeg tror på dig

C'jais
11-19-2002, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Pierre the Frog
Jaja Kristian fri - time... mmmhh... jeg tror på dig

mmm hmmm? :)

Det hedder også: Klassen underviser sig selv :D

Og det er Christian med "ch" og det hele, tak :p

Breton
11-19-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Pierre the Frog

Jeg synes dog at kræve documentation og samtidig ikke selv documentere alt dit er et billigt knep - men det behøver de andre ikke vide!


Synes jeg også, enkelte...kreasjonister eller hva nå enn man kaller det....krever bevis for evolusjon, de får bevisene, de sier at bevisene ikke er 100 prosent sikre, og sier derfor at det er feil og deres egen tankegang er riktig, uten å bevise det selv.

Men nå får vi slutte å baksnakke resten av folket, and rather start to talk English again.

Clem
11-19-2002, 05:32 PM
or we could all speak in what i can only assume is danish and no1 will understand

:)

:eyeraise:

Breton
11-19-2002, 05:36 PM
I never spoke danish!

That was a very mean insult, Clem!



j/k;) (but I actually didn't spoke danish)

C'jais
11-19-2002, 05:36 PM
Skide nordmænd.... :D

BEWARE THE DANISH MAFIA!!!! muahahahahahah!

The problem is, we have to disprove God, and they have to prove him. If creationists start to disprove science as a whole or evolution which belongs to science it starts to get "murky".

Mandalorian54
11-19-2002, 06:57 PM
I like the way shadow templar asks for sources. It is the only way to truly know.

I cannot source it perfectly unfortunatly but it was told to me by a scientists, creation scientists that is. I have never heard an evolutin scientist though I do know evolutionists.

You can not prove evolution, this is what evolutionists tell me, at least the ones who are willing to admit it. The only reason they believe in evolution is because they don't want to believe in creation.

Do you ever ask an evolutionist to source his material? It's kinda like when you want to buy a car, they tell you all these technical things that you cant understand and those are supposed to prove stuff.

It passes me why anyone would want to believe evolution. Just don't believe anything if you must. It's really that simple.

I can't speek for other creationists hear but I don't mind if you "Prove" creation is false. I want the truth not to feel good about the bad things I do.

Clem
11-19-2002, 07:02 PM
proof is only a level of evidence that will make u believe in something

there is enuff evidence for evolution to prove it to me

you however will never have enuff evidence to believe in it ... cos u dont want to

ckcsaber
11-19-2002, 07:15 PM
Yup. People try to hang on to what they have, w/evidence or w/out evidence.

Elijah
11-19-2002, 10:45 PM
I havnt read the new posts, but i'm going to quote a freind of mine.

**
Creationism

Evidence Against Evolution

Since the creationists feel that evolution is an incorrect account of life on this planet, they have composed many arguments that attempt to disprove the theory of evolution; a complete coverage of all the arguments would be a daunting task that is beyond the scope of this article. Despite this fact, there are many arguments that provide a foundation for the creationist's position against the theory of evolution. One such argument attempts to deride the evolutionist's explanation of the process that supposedly led to the creation of life on our planet. The process describes life as developing out of basic chemicals that were present on the earth. The mechanism for the metamorphasis from molecules to life is not explained by evolutionary theory. The creationists see this lack of an explaination for the beginning of life as a major fault with evolutionary theory; the creationist theory does not have this problem given that at the heart of their theory they assert that god is the creator of all life. The reason this is such an important problem for evolutionists is that if there is no definite mechanism for the origins of life, then life must have occured because of chance circumstances. In his book Evolution From Space, Sir Fred Hoyle states:

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. ... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect... higher intelligences... even to the limit of God... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident."

Although Hoyle is not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination, he provides statistical evidence against evolution. This evidence is what the creationists agree with. In his book entitled Mathematics of Evolution Hoyle provides a statistical analysis of the evolutionary account of how life began. His findings point out how improbable the spontanious formation of life is.

Another problem that creationists point out with the theory of evolution is the lack of adequate transitional fossils. The creationists claim that if evolutionary theory is correct then there would be billions of fossils from intermediate species fullfilling the stages of evolution. This claim comes from the fact that evolution is supposed to be a continuous and gradual change; this implies that there would be many intermediate species between, for example, humans and our ancient ancestors. Duane Gish points out a specific case where evolutionary ancestors appear to be vacant from the fossil record. He points out that

"...there are many fossils of very complex creatures that are soft-bodied, believed to be, originally to be jellyfish and things like that. It has been shown by the German paleontologist Seilacher, as confirmed by Stephen Jay Gould, that those creatures are very, very different from these Cambrian animals, they cannot possibly have been the ancestors of these creatures."

Gish concludes that since there are no evolutionary ancestors found for these creatures, they must have been created as they appear in fossils. Gish also adds that this is just one piece of empirical evidence against the theory of evolution that stems from an incomplete transitional fossil record.

Evidence For Creationism
For the creationist, the major source of evidence for their theory comes from the story of creation as told in the Bible. This story explains how god created the earth and all life that exists on it. The creation of life took about one day according to the Bible and no evolutionary processes took place. Since most creationists believe the Bible provides an accurate historical record, proving the Bible correct is not as important as showing that evolution is incorrect. This is reflected in the fact that a large portion of creationist literature focuses on disproving evolution rather than proving the claims of creationism.

If the creationists theory is correct then empirical evidence should agree with what the theory claims. If the creationists theory is correct then the earth should be about 10,000 years old. There is a plenty of claims the creationists provide that agree with this prediction; here is sampling of some empirical evidence the creationists often use to forward their young earth claim:

Magnetic Field Decay - The earth's magnetic field is declining. If this decline is extrapolated backwards then approximately 20,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been too strong for the earth to exist.
Dust Deposit - Interstellar dust is building up on the earth at at a rate that implies that there should be about 16 feet of nickle rich dust covering the earth.
Dissolved Metals - The rate at which many elements (like copper, gold, and lead) enter the oceans is very rapid when compared to the current concentration of these elements presently in the oceans. There is not a concentration of these elements that is representative of their rapid influx into the ocean, therefore the earth must be much younger that a million years.
Rapid Cooling - The earth would have cooled to it's present temperature in a time period that is much less than billions of years.
Young Comets - Comets within our solar system have a life span of about 10,000 years due to collisions with our sun and other planets. Since there are still comets in existence, our solar system and it's contents must be about 10,000 years old.
If this evidence is valid then it also provides evidence against the theory of evolution. This is because evolution would require a longer period of time than 10,000 years in order to create the complex life that exists on the earth today.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources

Gert Korthof summaries Fred Hoyle's viewpoints concerning the improbability of life occuring by chance on http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm.
Duane Gish describes evidence against the theory of evolution, including a discussion about transitional fossils, in a transcript from a debate on http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html
In the online book found on http://www.creationscience.com/, members from the Center for Scientific Creation discuss evidence for a young planet earth.

**

TheWhiteRaider
11-20-2002, 02:16 AM
The halflives of longlived radioactive isotopes are well documented.

First you you need to know how much you started with, you need to know that the rate of decay has been constant, and there can only so much C-14 to decay so it could not be used pass a certain date. This is great for small ranges, but over longer times it becomes less accurate.

And also I think you quin-posted Shadow. Oh well I don't care.


Oh no they are bringing out the Danish. HIDE! j/k

Ich versteche Danish nicht.

C'jais
11-20-2002, 12:32 PM
ZDawg: Does your friend write articles, since you like to quote some of them?



The link to the Saladin vs Gish discussion does all the work for us, as Gish's theories is picked neatly apart if you dare scroll lower down. I suggest you all read it, and especially read what Ken Saladin says in rebuttal at the bottom. He also explains why Hoyle's theory is merely an assumption.

Regarding all your extrapolations: You cannot extrapolate backwards that way unless you have the necessary timeframe. If, for example, we found that the last 200 years, the magnetic field has been decaying, some people would assume that it has always been decaying that way, when in fact, it's just fluctuating with the current period being a decrease. If you do have the necessary timeframe, you have already proven the earth is way older than 10k years.

Another example: If I carefully observed, over the course of 6 months, that all my garden plants withered and died, I could extrapolate backwards and say that God must have a hand in this, otherwise all plants would have withered a long time ago.

This is paramount to understand before you begin toying with those theories - if you do not understand, notify me and I will explain in other ways (or Templar will jump to the rescue).

Some things I'd like you creationists to understand:

-Transitional fossiles have been found.
-Evolution has been proven to occur, even in our short timespan as humans.
-The chance that life could have spawned from amino acids or life was seeded from outer space in form those very same amino acids or backteria is not impossible, and very plausible.
-Please leave the second law of Thermodynamics out of this, it'll do you no good.
-You cannot simply take a fluctuating or non-steady variable and then extrapolate it backwards and assume it holds true.
-It is pointless to question what happened before the Big Bang, or created it, since time or the laws of physics did not exist before then - it would be like questioning who created God.

C'jais
11-20-2002, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


First you you need to know how much you started with, you need to know that the rate of decay has been constant, and there can only so much C-14 to decay so it could not be used pass a certain date. This is great for small ranges, but over longer times it becomes less accurate.


You do know that halflife means the matter will continually become halved? It can never become 0.

Needless though, there are other ways to prove the earth is way older - take a look at the stars: The light they shine is millions of years old, light travels at a speed, it is not instant.

Elijah
11-20-2002, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
could extrapolate backwards and say that God must have a hand in this, otherwise all plants would have withered a long time ago.
There is what is know as a "seed" most plants/trees drop them in their life and once they die the "seeds" that fell to the ground now produce a new tree/plant.... an endless cycle, there is no great evolution involved.

TheWhiteRaider
11-21-2002, 01:50 AM
You do know that halflife means the matter will continually become halved? It can never become 0.

You got that wrong.

A half-life is how long it takes for something to reach 50% of what you started with. It's full-life is how long it takes to decay completely. If you have a pound of Carbon-14 and it takes 100 years to get a half pound the half-life is 100 years. You can not have a fraction of C-14.

-Transitional fossiles have been found.

Ok where and what?

C'jais
11-21-2002, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg

There is what is know as a "seed" most plants/trees drop them in their life and once they die the "seeds" that fell to the ground now produce a new tree/plant.... an endless cycle, there is no great evolution involved.

That example was not intended to prove evolution in any way.

I can only hope you understood the example, otherwise, I'll happily provide a new one.

C'jais
11-21-2002, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Ok where and what?

Fossiles, while I'm no expert on this subject, there've been found fossiles that prove the connection between flying and flightless insects, amphibian creatures that ere neither fish nor landwalking creatures, the archeopteryx and between fish and invertebrates.

Pierre the Frog
11-21-2002, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

A half-life is how long it takes for something to reach 50% of what you started with. It's full-life is how long it takes to decay completely. If you have a pound of Carbon-14 and it takes 100 years to get a half pound the half-life is 100 years. You can not have a fraction of C-14.


C-14 has an exponentiel graph, so when we talk about half-life, the time it takes to half the amount of C-14, sorry dude, the other guys right!

Pierre the Frog
11-21-2002, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg

The creationists see this lack of an explaination for the beginning of life as a major fault with evolutionary theory; the creationist theory does not have this problem given that at the heart of their theory they assert that god is the creator of all life.
[QUOTE]

That I would say is the biggets flaw of the theory

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZDawg

The reason this is such an important problem for evolutionists is that if there is no definite mechanism for the origins of life, then life must have occured because of chance circumstances.

Yep.
There's an ongoing discussion on whether space is infinite, if we assume it is, the following happens:

The number of planets is infinite.
The number of planets with the ability to sustain life as our own is infinite.
The chance of a planet sustain life like us is going towards 100%
(going towards means as close as you can possibly get to)

Originally posted by ZDawg

For the creationist, the major source of evidence for their theory comes from the story of creation as told in the Bible. This story explains how god created the earth and all life that exists on it. The creation of life took about one day according to the Bible and no evolutionary processes took place. Since most creationists believe the Bible provides an accurate historical record, proving the Bible correct is not as important as showing that evolution is incorrect. This is reflected in the fact that a large portion of creationist literature focuses on disproving evolution rather than proving the claims of creationism.

If the creationists theory is correct then empirical evidence should agree with what the theory claims. If the creationists theory is correct then the earth should be about 10,000 years old. There is a plenty of claims the creationists provide that agree with this prediction; here is sampling of some empirical evidence the creationists often use to forward their young earth claim:


A guy in the 17th century used the bible to calculate the age of the earth, using Noahs family tree. He found that the earth was about 4.000 years old.

So the 2 statements above can't be true at the same time

C'jais
11-21-2002, 11:01 AM
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/morris-zindler.html

"...but that at that time Mt. Ararat was only about ten to twelve thousand feet high. Now if all the water came down in forty days and drowned all the mountains of the world, that would require the rain to come down at about eleven and a half feet per hour. John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic mining! Everything would have been swept off the surface of the continents. The continents would be absolutely denuded down to crystalline rocks. All the sedimentary rocks would have been deposited in the ocean basins. Now clearly, that's not the pattern that we see... and it would certainly imply... that does away with Noah's flood!

I suggest you all read this debate (even if it's flaming personified), it gives some very valid points as to why Noah's flood (or Noah's ark for that matter) could not exist.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

This guy proves that God cannot have created the Big Bang, and even that God cannot exist.

griff38
11-21-2002, 11:37 AM
Instead of trying to prove to Christians( creationist or traditional) how or why evolution is a more likely way to come into existance. It is much easier to point out the gaping holes in Christanity.

I will do just 1 of many here.

The Earth never flooded completely. It can't. If the ice caps melted and all the locked up water in the world entered the oceans it would only raise the oceans 400 ft. So even though large parts of the world would be flooded, any place on Earth above 400 ft would still be dry. That's alot of dry land Noah.
To a fairly logical person this should be proof that the flood story is a mistake or at least exagerated.

The flood story comes from a real event that occured about 7000 years ago. But it happened in a small area, the story passed on and became exagerated. So some guy who writes 1 of the gospels retells and old story in the context of his beliefs and time and I am supposed to believe this is proof that a god nobody has ever seen kills sinners? PLEASE!

C'jais
11-21-2002, 11:43 AM
Oh, you're absolutely right Griff, but you have to remember one thing:

Creationists aren't assuming it's the ice caps melting, but instead that it is heaven itself that rains down on earth (some sort of firmament)...

griff38
11-21-2002, 12:02 PM
Yes Cjais, those who use faith to make important descisions are not deterred by pesky facts.


I think you can seperate this debate into 1 of 2 camps.

Those who use faith and belief to make up their minds and those who use facts, and are willing to discard outdated ideas.

Christians claim that the constant changing, correction and updating of evolution science is proof that it's wrong. But that updating only makes science stronger and stronger. Admitting you made a mistake and moving on is something Christianity just can't do.

C'jais
11-21-2002, 12:15 PM
Well said Griff.

Also, check out this article on a "missing" link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00003F75-5EEC-1CE1-9EEC809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=4

ShadowTemplar
11-21-2002, 12:46 PM
ZDawg: I would appreciate if you posted sources in english. Remember to check that the link is valid: I failed to find one of your sources. You may want to copy-paste the relevant text into a .doc/.txt-file to ensure that it doesn't disappear (the WWW is an everchanging place).

Pierre: Jeg mener ikke at have posted noget der går ud over hvad man burde have lært i folkeskolen. Hvis jeg skulle fremvise kildeangivelser for hele mit folkeskolepensum ville jeg stå over for en uoverkommelig opgave.

Originally posted by ZDawg
I havnt read the new posts, but i'm going to quote a freind of mine.

**
Creationism

Evidence Against Evolution

Despite this fact, there are many arguments that provide a foundation for the creationist's position against the theory of evolution. One such argument attempts to deride the evolutionist's explanation of the process that supposedly led to the creation of life on our planet. The process describes life as developing out of basic chemicals that were present on the earth. The mechanism for the metamorphasis from molecules to life is not explained by evolutionary theory. The creationists see this lack of an explaination for the beginning of life as a major fault with evolutionary theory

For one thing the Theory of Evolution does not seek to explain how life got there in the first place. Only what happened afterwards. Shoot at Molecular Biologi instead.

For another God is actuall less probable: Since there is no evidence of Her existance at all, She is infinitly improbable. As stated below, there is a chance, however slim (which it is actually not (see below)), of life springing from a protoearth. This means that the "Life-from-protoearth" -theory is infinitly more probable than Genesis.

Originally posted by ZDawg
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd

His findings point out how improbable the spontanious formation of life is.


Life is made up of O, C, H, P, S, and marginal amounts of other things (not including "Soul" (you have to search long and hard to find it among the elements). For each mg of one of those atoms there are:

1*10^-3 g * 6.02*10^23 1/mol / x g/mol
= 6.02*10^20 / x

atoms (where 6.02*10^23 is Avogadro's (probably misspelled) constant and x is the molar weight of the element in question (found on the Periodic Table of the Elements, which can be found in most reference books on Chemestry)). And that is pr. milligram.

You were saying what about probability? BTW you still have not specified the timespan that that probability take into account.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Another problem that creationists point out with the theory of evolution is the lack of adequate transitional fossils. The creationists claim that if evolutionary theory is correct then there would be billions of fossils from intermediate species fullfilling the stages of evolution. This claim comes from the fact that evolution is supposed to be a continuous and gradual change; this implies that there would be many intermediate species between, for example, humans and our ancient ancestors. Duane Gish points out a specific case where evolutionary ancestors appear to be vacant from the fossil record. He points out that

"...there are many fossils of very complex creatures that are soft-bodied, believed to be, originally to be jellyfish and things like that. It has been shown by the German paleontologist Seilacher, as confirmed by Stephen Jay Gould, that those creatures are very, very different from these Cambrian animals, they cannot possibly have been the ancestors of these creatures."

Gish concludes that since there are no evolutionary ancestors found for these creatures, they must have been created as they appear in fossils. Gish also adds that this is just one piece of empirical evidence against the theory of evolution that stems from an incomplete transitional fossil record.

I will not even bother to answer that. I have here provided a link that will adequadly explain my point: See page 5 # 13, but you will want to check out the rest of the article too.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Originally posted by ZDawg
Evidence For Creationism
Since most creationists believe the Bible provides an accurate historical record, proving the Bible correct is not as important as showing that evolution is incorrect.

What the #### is this guy trying to do? In that one sentence he states a blanket disregard of every scientific method!

Originally posted by ZDawg
Magnetic Field Decay - The earth's magnetic field is declining. If this decline is extrapolated backwards then approximately 20,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been too strong for the earth to exist.

But the Poles are also moving, which indicates a Polar Shift. We are actually overdue for one, and its effects on the magnetic field would be... interesting.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Dust Deposit - Interstellar dust is building up on the earth at at a rate that implies that there should be about 16 feet of nickle rich dust covering the earth.

Exept that the surface of the Earth is not a static place. Erosion, eg, will deposit alot of stuff in the sea, which leads directly to my next point.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Dissolved Metals - The rate at which many elements (like copper, gold, and lead) enter the oceans is very rapid when compared to the current concentration of these elements presently in the oceans. There is not a concentration of these elements that is representative of their rapid influx into the ocean, therefore the earth must be much younger that a million years.

Sedimentation, Black Smokers, and hydrothermal mineral deposits can explain that.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Rapid Cooling - The earth would have cooled to it's present temperature in a time period that is much less than billions of years.

The surface would, yes, but the core? I think not. We are talking about energies so vast that they could wipe out God herself.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Young Comets - Comets within our solar system have a life span of about 10,000 years due to collisions with our sun and other planets. Since there are still comets in existence, our solar system and it's contents must be about 10,000 years old.

New comets are continually created in the rim of our solar system.

As an endpoint to my "age-of-earth" reply: Geologists have been able to locate vast, and I do mean vast, suplies of minerals using the models that you are shooting at. The availability of those models was an enourmous leap from having to go scratching the earth everywhere. This improvement suggests that the standing theories are correct.

Originally posted by ZDawg
If this evidence is valid then it also provides evidence against the theory of evolution. This is because evolution would require a longer period of time than 10,000 years in order to create the complex life that exists on the earth today.


But your evidence is not valid (at least not in the present form), for the reasons that I have just pointed out.

BTW: There is still no such thing as "Creation Science". For a full explanation read through the link I provided.

ShadowTemplar
11-21-2002, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


First you you need to know how much you started with, you need to know that the rate of decay has been constant, and there can only so much C-14 to decay so it could not be used pass a certain date. This is great for small ranges, but over longer times it becomes less accurate.

And also I think you quin-posted Shadow. Oh well I don't care.


Oh no they are bringing out the Danish. HIDE! j/k

Ich versteche Danish nicht.

The amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant (there is a slight variation, but that is inconsequensial and correctable). New C-14 is being brought to the atmosphere continously. Radon-222 is another good example: It constantly seeps up from the underground.

The rate of decay is constant. As are the halflives of all radioactive isotopes.

"Quin-posted"? What does that mean (I am a NOOB around here, remember)?

The Danish aren't scary. At all. We have lost every war that we have been involved in for the past 2-3 centuries if not longer (not counting the Slesvigian War, which was just the matter of crushing a rebellion, or WWII, where we were conquered for an extended period of time (though we were on the victor's side, of course)). Nice German BTW.

ShadowTemplar
11-21-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Regarding all your extrapolations: You cannot extrapolate backwards that way unless you have the necessary timeframe.

Extrapolating from what you have is at the core of science. The creationists' problem is that they have false facts and faulty logic (from what I have evidenced so far).

Originally posted by Cjais
Some things I'd like you creationists to understand:

-Transitional fossiles have been found.
-Evolution has been proven to occur, even in our short timespan as humans.
-The chance that life could have spawned from amino acids or life was seeded from outer space in form those very same amino acids or backteria is not impossible, and very plausible.
-Please leave the second law of Thermodynamics out of this, it'll do you no good.
-You cannot simply take a fluctuating or non-steady variable and then extrapolate it backwards and assume it holds true.
-It is pointless to question what happened before the Big Bang, or created it, since time or the laws of physics did not exist before then - it would be like questioning who created God.

Concerning extrapolation: See above.

Concerning the "what-was-before-the-big-bang"-question: It is certainly a most legitimate question, but it doesn't legitimize dismissal of Evolution: The Theory of Evolution says nothing about Big Bang. Besides: It is in the nature of science (at least the science of today) to always have an outer, unexplored frontier. Science, contrary to theology, has so far opened more questions with each answer that it brings. And when the day is done and the dust has settled, it would be wise to remember that science has only been around for two centuries (one of which was spent trying to persuade overzealous priest to refrain from tying scientists to sticks and burning them alive).

About the rest: Nothing. I just found it worthy of repetition.

ShadowTemplar
11-21-2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Cjais


You do know that halflife means the matter will continually become halved? It can never become 0.

Needless though, there are other ways to prove the earth is way older - take a look at the stars: The light they shine is millions of years old, light travels at a speed, it is not instant.

Empirically, though, it will reach zero. The exponential decrease comes about because of a set percentile chance that each of the unstable nuclei decaying.

I am NOT going into interstellar arguments, as I know preciously little about that field, but this one does seem sound.

C'jais
11-21-2002, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar


Extrapolating from what you have is at the core of science. The creationists' problem is that they have false facts and faulty logic (from what I have evidenced so far).

Empirically, though, it will reach zero. The exponential decrease comes about because of a set percentile chance that each of the unstable nuclei decaying.

I stand corrected.

However, what I meant with exponential decrease is that it will take a heck of a long time to reach zero :p Long time that will show the earth is older than some thousand years.

ShadowTemplar
11-21-2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


You got that wrong.

A half-life is how long it takes for something to reach 50% of what you started with. It's full-life is how long it takes to decay completely. If you have a pound of Carbon-14 and it takes 100 years to get a half pound the half-life is 100 years. You can not have a fraction of C-14.

C'jais is more right than you are: Half-life is, apart from a hugely successful computer game, a value associated with exponential decrease. You, on the other hand, are assuming linear decrease. And while you can't have a faction of C-14, you can certainly have a faction of a mol of C-14, as a mol is 6.02*10^23#.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Ok where and what?

I have supplied a link:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A87F9-9FD8-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1

Quotation
11-21-2002, 02:49 PM
Hmm....With this "exponential decrease" concept, are you referring to Carbon Dating? I'm not familiar with his Scientific Jargon, could somene please explain?

ShadowTemplar
11-21-2002, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Quotation
Hmm....With this "exponential decrease" concept, are you referring to Carbon Dating? I'm not familiar with his Scientific Jargon, could somene please explain?

It is actually math, not science (big difference, but i'll explain that some other time if you like). It is a group of functions, called f(x)=a^x*b, where a and b are constants and x is the independent variable. Basically this means that if you increase x by a set amount f(x) will increase or decrease by a set percentage (reversible of course: If you decrease x by the same amount you, respectively, decrease or increase f(x) by the same set percentage): For example: You start out with a set amount of C-14, and wish to know how much you will have when x days have passed. Then the number of mols (1 mol = 6.02*10^23 atoms) of C-14 will be f(x) and the number of days passed will be x. C-14 has a half-life of 5k-something- years, which means that if you increase x by those 5k-something times 365.25 (since x is in days) f(x) will decrease by 50% (ie be halved, hence the name).

Hope this helped.

If it didn't, or you want the full definition (I don't have my reference book on me right now), send me a PM.

EDIT: Your bank accounts/loans work in the same way (only f(x) (your saldo) increases with increasing x (time passed)).

TheWhiteRaider
11-22-2002, 12:26 AM
By the way Shadow what background do you have in chemestry?

Besides you still have to know how much you started with and the rate of decay has been a constant there can be alot that change the rate of decay(Oh such as a flood).


false facts and faulty logic

I have seen a lot of darwinist with the same.

I find a single celled animal coming from a bunch of goo, know how to survive and maintain itself from death, know how to create more single cell animals, turn into a multi-celled animal, and do this with out any help what so ever to be unlogical. Also that the DNA code which is one of the biggest code ever known came about by 15 billion of years of error. And untill one of the following is done by random chance I will not even start to believe darwinist.

Boeing 767
Computer
Monkey typeing Genisis 1-12
An award winning video game
Color copier
Fax machine
PCI 10/100 Ethernet card
Playstaion 1 or 2
Game Cube
X-Box
And just about any electrical device.

"Quin-posted"? What does that mean

Posted five messages in a row which the mods would get on your case. I am expecting StormHammer or some to come in and talk about the Edit button. I get mods on my case for posting two times in a row. Try not to post so many times.

The Danish aren't scary............Nice German BTW.

I know they are not. And thank you.

Tyrion
11-22-2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Boeing 767
Computer
Monkey typeing Genisis 1-12
An award winning video game
Color copier
Fax machine
PCI 10/100 Ethernet card
Playstaion 1 or 2
Game Cube
X-Box
And just about any electrical device.


If the universe is infinite, then I assure you that they ALL have been made. Just because it's a very low chance of occuring,doesnt mean it's not possible. Hell, there could be an excact copy of you!:eek:

TheWhiteRaider
11-22-2002, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


If the universe is infinite, then I assure you that they ALL have been made. Just because it's a very low chance of occuring,doesnt mean it's not possible. Hell, there could be an excact copy of you!:eek:

We do not know that the universe is infinite and right now there is no way to tell. So I do not buy that.

Tyrion
11-22-2002, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


We do not know that the universe is infinite and right now there is no way to tell. So I do not buy that.

Meh.

Then again,there's no way to prove god either,so...

ShadowTemplar
11-22-2002, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
By the way Shadow what background do you have in chemestry?´

Translating educational standards internationally is a pain. We have a Public School, mandatory 9 years (+2 optional buff-years). Then we have a lot of 3-year-long stuff, optional (that would be like High School, I guess). And then (I think) you can elect to go to university (spanning 4-9 years). In Public I had two years of Physics/Chemestry, but Public is of very varying quality, due to lack of external control. I finished with 11 (meaning, oficially, that I had more than 90-95% right (give or take alot, due to aforementioned lack of control). I am 1½ year into an optional 3-year, with Chemestry on all three years. I haven't got my grades for the first ½year of the 2nd year yet, but I finished the 1st with 11.

Anyway, the calculations that I have presented could have been done by any reasonable able and smart student 3 months into the first year.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Besides you still have to know how much you started with and the rate of decay has been a constant there can be alot that change the rate of decay(Oh such as a flood).

No known factors effect the rates of decay of radioactive isotopes.
The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant. It is a part of a Radon family (I think. I'm not quite sure), and Radon constantly seeps into the atmosphere.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I have seen a lot of darwinist with the same.

So have I, unfortunatly. However, I have also seen people who advocated evolution with sound points, whereas that has so far been absent from creationism. No offence intended.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I find a single celled animal coming from a bunch of goo, know how to survive and maintain itself from death, know how to create more single cell animals, turn into a multi-celled animal, and do this with out any help what so ever to be unlogical. Also that the DNA code which is one of the biggest code ever known came about by 15 billion of years of error. And untill one of the following is done by random chance I will not even start to believe darwinist.

Boeing 767
Computer
Monkey typeing Genisis 1-12
An award winning video game
Color copier
Fax machine
PCI 10/100 Ethernet card
Playstaion 1 or 2
Game Cube
X-Box
And just about any electrical device.

But you are referring to stuff that is imnensly much more complicated than the first living cells. The necessary plasmides (DNA) are not inanly complicated, and the lipids will, as I stated above, form the cellular membrane all by themselves, if left on their own. Essecially, therefore, the first cells would have to be able to produce said lipids, a few simple proteins, and new DNA. As you will see from my above post, there were plenty of atoms to choose from.

I have provided a link:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catID=2

Go to point seven.

*Calls in C'Jais to back claims*

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Posted five messages in a row which the mods would get on your case. I am expecting StormHammer or some to come in and talk about the Edit button. I get mods on my case for posting two times in a row. Try not to post so many times.

I'll try to keep that in mind. The messages that you refer to, however, are replies to different posts.

Originally posted by TyrionIf the universe is infinite, then I assure you that they ALL have been made. Just because it's a very low chance of occuring,doesnt mean it's not possible. Hell, there could be an excact copy of you!

I know where you got that: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams. A book that should certainly be read, but which, alas, does not provide a lot of info on the universe.

BTW: What does the little black dot on the envelope next to the thread mean? It doesn't appear in the legend at the bottom.

Wacky_Baccy
11-22-2002, 09:59 AM
Posted by ShadowTemplar
BTW: What does the little black dot on the envelope next to the thread mean? It doesn't appear in the legend at the bottom.
That same thing puzzled me for ages too... It's there to show you which threads you have and haven't posted in - black dot = you've posted in that thread :)

Keep the discussion going, guys - it's a very interesting read :D :thumbsup:

ShadowTemplar
11-22-2002, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Wacky_Baccy

That same thing puzzled me for ages too... It's there to show you which threads you have and haven't posted in - black dot = you've posted in that thread :)

Keep the discussion going, guys - it's a very interesting read :D :thumbsup:

Thanks. On both counts.

C'jais
11-22-2002, 10:58 AM
*Calls in C'Jais to back claims*

Wha? Who summoned me? :p

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I find a single celled animal coming from a bunch of goo, know how to survive and maintain itself from death, know how to create more single cell animals, turn into a multi-celled animal, and do this with out any help what so ever to be unlogical. Also that the DNA code which is one of the biggest code ever known came about by 15 billion of years of error. And untill one of the following is done by random chance I will not even start to believe darwinist.

Boeing 767 etc...


The boeing 747 argument is bad - it'd be like me requiring a direct divine intervention, right now. Besides, you cannot compare how long it took for the first nucleic acids to appear, to a boeing 747 (which is endlessly more complicated) being created in junk yards. For the first cells to appear took a hideously long time, maybe even more than one universe's lifetime.

By "15 billion years of error", I assume you mean mutations. Mutations are not errors, they are changes. Natural changes even. On another note, some mutations won't even change anything - it'll result in a switch from one aminoacid to another, but this switch needn't be vital, since they can code for the same thing. Also, saying that mutated creatures are sterile, isn't true at all.

In the first cells on earth, there wasn't any DNA in them - there were RNA (as in some virii). RNA can replicate itself, it can be made bigger, and it can have an enzyme like function. Given time, a short RNA string could produce a short protein string, which would help immensely in cell creation. Don't jump to cells at the first stage, "life" started out as reproducable RNA strings which is created by C, H, N, O and P. Nothing else.

DNA code as you know it has evolved tremendously, it can now code for 50.000 different proteins, but the first life didn't even need to code for one.

TheWhiteRaider
11-22-2002, 10:17 PM
And you know that the first cell was not complex how?

I'll try to keep that in mind. The messages that you refer to, however, are replies to different posts.

You can still do that in one post. Just take a look at Redwing's post

whereas that has so far been absent from creationis/

Both sides have people that are unlogical. I even get on Christain's cases for useing the kind wrong argument.

C'jais
11-22-2002, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
And you know that the first cell was not complex how?

You can still do that in one post. Just take a look at Redwing's post


Regarding cells, they were nearly not as complex as our eurkaryote's are today, and they evolved from something very simple.

Redwing's posts are very tiresome to respond to, since you have to edit the whole thing before you can reply to him. I'd appreciate it if he didn't divide other people's posts up like that, IMHO.

The reason that Evolution, and not Creationism, should be teached at school is that evolution can be proved. Creationism is based on beliefs - we could also teach voodoo magic to people studying medicine, but I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Or maybe put some aboriginal shamanistic religion into the mix while we're at it.
We should not start mixing religion with science - if people go and get an interest in that stuff afterwards, fine with me, but let's give them a neutral starting point at first.

All the time, you have to remind yourself that Christianity is a religion, not the religion - when you do that, your views will truly be open.

TheWhiteRaider
11-23-2002, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Cjais


Regarding cells, they were nearly not as complex as our eurkaryote's are today, and they evolved from something very simple.


You still did not anwser my question. How do you know they were not as complex?

Redwing
11-23-2002, 04:04 AM
*walks in*

*chokes*

so...much...to...reply...to...

x.x

Is it just me, or is this whole debate unfairly weighted on this forum? Considering the number of people on each side...

Cheap shot yes, but it does raise an interesting pont: In the bible, God is personified several places - Ezekiel (I think) sees God himself, God moves over the face of the waters, "God sees me", Adam and Eve hides from God and God has human traits.

Why is God portrayed as a man, when he clearly can only exist as some supernatural "force"? Do you Christians believe in him as a person, or as a force of nature?

A person, of course. God is clearly not a man. He made man.

If he did indeed create everything, he must have some sort of motive - whether or not we understand it is irrelevant. What will God do when mankind no longer exists, or has developed into a race we cannot even imagine? What role did we then play in God's grand scheme of things?

According to the Bible, that won't happen. Our souls will exist eternally, while this world along with our human bodies will eventually come to an end. We won't have the chance to develop into something else.

What we are discussing here is TRANSLATED texts that make up the current accepted version, King James, is believed to be the most accurately translated version. There are more than one version of the Bible, all coming from the same text, which one is more believable than others?

It's NOT. Not even the King James version is completely accurately translated, which really bugs me. But that's another debate entirely.

To me that just makes me think that they can't even get the translation correct, but are willing to say that this version is the correct one. I assume that unless you can read Hebrew, then there is an English slant on the text, that due to the way the Bible was written and how English is structured, that it may not be giving the message as it was delivered.............

They can get it almost correct. You realize there are people who read Hebrew and Greek, right? (However, with too many translations, they didn't DO IT CORRECTLY but again that's a different subject and doesn't generally apply to the texts being discussed here)

We're discussing God in this thread too, it's the same topic - disprove God and you disprove creationism. But I shall let it rest for the sake of peace.

You can't disprove God, and I'm willing to stake everything on that. In fact, I already have ^.^

Se my above post on Neanthertals and realise that being different species means being incapable of interbreeding (not inbreeding, that's different).

If creation theory is correct, they weren't a different species (the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it)

If all geological layers were found in the same place in the correct order, it would be well and truely incredible. The geological layers are upside-down because of tectonic activity. The time at which the layers were made can be identified be combining the order of the layers, fossile records, polar turns ect. in a HUGE (understatement of the year) puzzle.

Without completely accurate dating, you simply delve into circular reasoning. Besides, an immense flood could have created the layers.

The problem is, we have to disprove God, and they have to prove him. If creationists start to disprove science as a whole or evolution which belongs to science it starts to get "murky".

Can't, and can't. I'm not trying to prove God exists, notice. ;)

-Transitional fossiles have been found.

You don't understand - the argument is that no "mistakes" have been found. I won't explain more because I dont support the argument anyway ^_~

-Evolution has been proven to occur, even in our short timespan as humans.

I don't disagree, although I'm surprised to hear that [are you sure about it?]

-The chance that life could have spawned from amino acids or life was seeded from outer space in form those very same amino acids or backteria is not impossible, and very plausible.

But where did they, the "seeds", come from?

-You cannot simply take a fluctuating or non-steady variable and then extrapolate it backwards and assume it holds true.

True.

-It is pointless to question what happened before the Big Bang, or created it, since time or the laws of physics did not exist before then - it would be like questioning who created God.

Except according to creation theory, God was not created. Really though, that's an incredibly arbitrary statement. And it blurs the line very rapidly in this argument; if you appeal to the existence of something else that created the Big Bang, why are you arguing that God doesn't exist in the first place?

-meep! I can't finish this. I have to leave. ^^;; *posts and runs*

Rad
11-23-2002, 08:12 AM
I do not have much tine, so I will only make a short post:

quote:

Se my above post on Neanthertals and realise that being different species means being incapable of interbreeding (not inbreeding, that's different).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If creation theory is correct, they weren't a different species (the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it)



I think I should just specify what a species is. In order to fulfil the requirements to be a species, then you have to be able to produce fertive offspring. For example, you can make a lion and a tiger have sex, but the offspring would be sterile and not capable to have "children" thenselves. Or you could say that every species can be grandparents.

And Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) is a different species than Neanthertals and Homo Erectus and other extingt humanlike beings.

That is the newest science I known concerning especially that topic, but of course you can be right in:

the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it

But I do not think so.;)

C'jais
11-23-2002, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


You still did not anwser my question. How do you know they were not as complex?

What do you mean with complex? They certainly weren't as complex as our cells are today, not by a long shot.

You assume the first life on earth just popped up in shape of a fully functional cell. It evovled from building blocks of life, much more simple and created from elements that were already present on the old earth: H, O, N, C, S, P.

C'jais
11-23-2002, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Redwing
(A)According to the Bible, that won't happen. Our souls will exist eternally, while this world along with our human bodies will eventually come to an end. We won't have the chance to develop into something else.

(B)You can't disprove God, and I'm willing to stake everything on that. In fact, I already have ^.^

(C)Without completely accurate dating, you simply delve into circular reasoning. Besides, an immense flood could have created the layers.

(B) Can't, and can't. I'm not trying to prove God exists, notice. ;)

(D)You don't understand - the argument is that no "mistakes" have been found. I won't explain more because I dont support the argument anyway ^_~

(E)I don't disagree, although I'm surprised to hear that [are you sure about it?]

(F)But where did they, the "seeds", come from?



(A)Regarding the old doomsday argument, I'll keep that in mind for future reference. We already are developing into something else - we're getting taller, losing body hair, our brain is improving, and if we eventually go to live in outer space our bodies will shape and evolve to fit that: extra lungs, our feet evolving to be as manipulative as our hands since we won't need them for walking, tougher skin to adapt to low pressure, and our nose and mouth will loser their function as breathing mechanisms. Eventually, our future race will appear as superhumans compared to us.

(B)While you can't disprove God, you can prove he hasn't made any divine intervention yet, therefore he can be ruled out. If he hasn't done anything yet, then why do we need him? He must be irrelevant. In other words: You can't disprove God, but you can prove we don't need him to to exist, therefore we have no real reason to believe in him.

(D)What's a mistake? a mutation? You're assuming that we're developing into a fixed goal, a final race. Mutations aren't errors or mistakes in this, they're simpy changes, because there is no final race that we strive towards.

(C)See my Great Flood argument and link. If the great flood did happen, all life would have been wiped out, and it would need a Noah's ark to keep it alive. Since Noah's ark is a physical improbabilty in many ways, the flood did not occur. Noah cannot carry the entire world's biosphere on a big boat.

Completely accurate dating? While nothing will ever be completely accurate, C-14 test have already shown the world to be at least 50k years old. The light from the stars are millions of years old.

(E)Evolution does occur - new bacteria strains are being formed as we speak, bigger races are changing to fit the environment (eg - birds), and we ourselves are changing compared to ancient humans. We've found fossils of the entire evolution of horses and their hooves. In old times, people hought that the hippo was close to a pig - modern genetics have shown it resembles a whale in genes, and a transitional fossil have been found to prove this - basically it was once a whale who got too close to the shore and evolved crude legs to support it. There have been found several dinosaur fossils with feathers, not just one or two. While I do not believe this can be debated in any way, you are free to try.

Faith and religion too, can be proved with evolution: Maybe people with a sense of faith and belief that a higher power holds them dear fights better and thus is more able to produce offspring. Maybe a tribe with a belief in religion have a vastly increased sense of community, and it binds the individuals closer together.

(F)The seeds you are talking about - elements - were created from the matter released in the Big Bang, electrons and stuff.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html
But if we stop, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? ... By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be god; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy

Take a close look at this- Why do we need some higher power? If God is unemployed, then why do we need to believe in him?

What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up.

I highly suggest you all read this article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00002A2D-B02B-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=1&catID=2
It deals with why most creationists use the "God of the gaps" tactic, why Creationism isn't science and why it wouldn't result in proving creationism if evolution was disproved.

Redwing
11-23-2002, 05:14 PM
x.x notimeforthisdebatejustgonnareplytolastpost - pleasedon'thateme?

Why do I believe in God? Simply, what I have seen in my life convinces me that something has to be controlling it. Also, my belief in God has changed my life. You'll have to leave it at that, because my private life isn't going to be put down here. ^_~

A) We're still completely human. By the way -how do you know our brain is improving? As for the rest, that's as arbitrary as you think the Bible is. ^.^ So get back to me when it comes true ;)
B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^
D) [Whoa! Where's "C"?] Nooooooooooo. I mean, evolutionary changes that didn't produce a viable product. I haven't assumed anything ;)
C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^

They have? ^.^ Last I heard they'd only proved it to be over 10k.

Light from stars could have easily been altered by God. I mean, by definition. ^.^

E) Oh, that. Certain creationists just say that's 'adaption'. Besides, I said I didn't disagree. ^_^ (Although I'm not convinced of some of those details)

You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.

F) Exactly. That is where all the arguments here become pointless.
Technically, God would be an all-powerful alien. Something we cannot understand. Supernature. Because nature is really only what we currently understand.

Take a close look at this- Why do we need some higher power? If God is unemployed, then why do we need to believe in him?

Umm, what does that have to do with the article? Besides, how can you simply state "God is unemployed" without omnipotence?

God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding!

As for the article: I agree with most of it. I will comment on something to clarfy it, though:

"Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith."

Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.)

Oh! Almost forgot!

"What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up. "

A) Yes.

B) ...meh? That isn't my fault. Why don't you ask them? ^_~

edit: Finished reading the article.

Certainly there are legal and scientific problems with the teaching of intelligent-design creationism. But perhaps of most concern, it misrepresents science as an inherently antireligious enterprise, and evolution as the first step down this slippery slope. This is no way to improve science literacy in America


Hey! I agree. In fact, that's what I was just saying to refute an earlier part of the article. *points up*

Breton
11-23-2002, 06:43 PM
It is impossible to prove anything 100% (exept your own existence), nor can you disprove anything 100%. Everything is possible.

TheWhiteRaider
11-23-2002, 11:23 PM
How did the single cell animal survive? Tell me that.

Tyrion
11-24-2002, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
How did the single cell animal survive? Tell me that.

I dont know,go ask history!

:p

TheWhiteRaider
11-24-2002, 02:02 AM
Mutations aren't errors or mistakes in this, they're simpy changes,

The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. The only mutations I see are

Extra fingers or toes
Siamese twins
Deformed faces
Unable to reproduce
And many more

I fail to see how this helps. And don't give me that wait a million years. There should be changes happening right now. We should be different at least in one way from people 3-4 thousand years ago. You know it would not happen all at once.

One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law?

Elijah
11-24-2002, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
Then again,there's no way to prove god either,so... Is there any way to prove he doesn't exist? I didn't think so.

While you can't disprove God, you can prove he hasn't made any divine intervention yet, therefore he can be ruled out. If he hasn't done anything yet, then why do we need him? He must be irrelevant. In other words: You can't disprove God, but you can prove we don't need him to to exist, therefore we have no real reason to believe in him. Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science.

Tyrion
11-24-2002, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Is there any way to prove he doesn't exist? I didn't think so.

Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science.

What you may think are miracles maybe are just coincidences...

Even notice how a christian say that if someone lives it's a miracle, but when someone dies it's because of god's master plan?

Doesnt that undermime the importance of miracles?

Breton
11-24-2002, 06:28 AM
One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law?

Because if we didn't, the community wouldn't work out.

Is there any way to prove he doesn't exist? I didn't think so.

We must assume that he doesn't exist until there is reason to belive that he do.

C'jais
11-24-2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
How did the single cell animal survive? Tell me that.

What should kill it?

"God of the Gaps" problem: if the direct hand of God explained unknown natural phenomena, once a natural explanation was discovered for it, God was left with one fewer gap to fill, reducing His majesty.
Pennock details how intelligent-design creationists zero in on currently unsolved problems, such as the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion of invertebrate phyla, and declare them to be "too complex" to be explained by natural cause, requiring explication by an unnamed "intelligent agent." Theologically, you're still stuck with the God of the Gaps, and scientifically, you're confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable.

This is what you do, Raider - you, are confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable.

The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. I fail to see how this helps.
And don't give me that wait a million years. There should be changes happening right now. We should be different at least in one way from people 3-4 thousand years ago. You know it would not happen all at once.

One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law?

Raider, you are calling it an error in the DNA code, when it is really a change - there are no "errors" in nature, only good or bad changes. You are calling it an error because you think as a human, you assume nature is working towards some set goal or race.

And I will tell you to wait a million years, when it comes to human changes. Why? Do you really think a deformed face is going to win over a non-deformed one? No, people are not going to breed with that human, and the mutation will die.

What law are you referring to? Are you thinking of some specific law, or law as a whole? If you think of it as a whole, then the answer is: "Because people need laws" - you cannot run a society without laws, and God has absolutely nothing to do with this.

C'jais
11-24-2002, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science.

Will you be so good as to mention some of the things God has done?

C'jais
11-24-2002, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Redwing
A) We're still completely human. By the way -how do you know our brain is improving? As for the rest, that's as arbitrary as you think the Bible is. ^.^ So get back to me when it comes true ;)

It is not as arbitrary as the bible, it is a fact the ancient people had more bodily hair to protect themselves from the elements without clothes. Humans are considerably smarter than they were thousands of years ago, based on brain size. Once I prove it is true, will you then lose your faith? ;)


B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^

I cannot prove it, because you think God is something that operates out of the established laws of physics - but tell me where you think he did a miracle, and I will explain that with science.

D) [Whoa! Where's "C"?] Nooooooooooo. I mean, evolutionary changes that didn't produce a viable product. I haven't assumed anything ;)

Evolutionary changes rarely does produce a viable product, but out of millions of bad changes, a good one will occur that subsequently will prove to be useful. Increased brain size and very manipulative hands are two of them.


C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^

You do not understand how nature works together. Every creature works in a symbiose with every other - if you remove just one creature, another will die. It would take billions of years to develop the current biosphere if he only took a few samples, because life would have to start all over again, if he killed a few races and we have those races today. For example, if he only took 2 samples of each race, it'd result in inbreeding and the race would suffer from it. How would he feed the animals, how would he take care of their natural habitat, how could he possibly build a ship big enough? There are a billion of questions pointing at the falsity of Noah's fabled ark.

Light from stars could have easily been altered by God. I mean, by definition. ^.^

Why would he want to do that? So he can give you evidence for the negative?

You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.
Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so".

F) Exactly. That is where all the arguments here become pointless.
Technically, God would be an all-powerful alien. Something we cannot understand. Supernature. Because nature is really only what we currently understand.

You got it! God could prove to be a bunch of aliens experiementing with our planet and lives, and this is why it is folly to think so, unless we have proof of it. By all means, go on and believe what you will, but you can only prove the negative, not the positive.

God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding!

"Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith."

Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.)

What you quoted said that science actually rules out the supernatural. In science, there is no supernatural, there is only the natural. Show me where it said that science cannot rule out the supernatural.

Oh! Almost forgot!

"What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up. "

A) Yes.

So, since you believe everything in the bible, word for word, once science has proven that there was no great flood, your belief will fall. It is dangerous to think that way.

Elijah
11-24-2002, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Will you be so good as to mention some of the things God has done? In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale.
We must assume that he doesn't exist until there is reason to belive that he do. Sense when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe?

C'jais
11-24-2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale.

Since when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe?

Were you Christian before that incident? I'm sorry to hear that, by the way :(

If it had happened to another person, he might have thought it was a pink squirrel named Xquoilzoq, living on a planet light years away, who had sent his little alien helpers to cure his legs. Not very reasonable, but just as valid as if God had cured him. What makes you believe in God/the bible compared to old Norse mythology/Allah/Scientology?

Tyrion
11-24-2002, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale.
Sense when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe?


What about the other million or so people who are crippled still? Did they recieve a "miracle"?

SkinWalker
11-24-2002, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. The only mutations I see are

Extra fingers or toes
Siamese twins
Deformed faces
Unable to reproduce
And many more

I fail to see how this helps.

The changes in DNA could very well be errors, but their continuation means that the lineage beyond the "error" survived it's environment. During the time of the Black Plague, about 700 years ago, there were those who were immune to the bacteria's, Yersinia pestis, effects. Research has isolated the reason: an "error" in the DNA, which they refer to as the Delta-32 Deletion.

Interestingly enough, the blood-line of these individuals who survived the plague are also extremely resistant, if not immune, to the HIV virus.

This mutation in DNA structure has given a significant percentage of the population the resistance to two major epidemics of man. I'd say that is helpful.

One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law?

You mean man's laws, or god's? In any group dynamic, you'll see norms develop which become the "rules" of the group. Take this thread for instance. Societies are but mega-groups that have mega-norms we have established into laws so that consequences can exist to govern our behavior. Violate the law, pay the consequence.

SkinWalker

C'jais
11-24-2002, 02:30 PM
Very well expressed Skin! :thumbsup:

Once and for all: A change in the DNA code isn't an "error" - it's just that, a change. It may be a good or bad change (mostly bad), but it is false to assume it's a mistake on life's part.

SkinWalker
11-24-2002, 02:35 PM
Man! I go away for a couple of weeks and Cjais starts a thread on evolution -v- creation without me! :p

** Stands at Cjais' back: "got you covered here, Bro!"


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

I noticed in going through this thread (took a while, whew!) that there was some typical "dating methods" arguments being made. I'd like to point out that Carbon dating is but one method that scientists use to date a find.

Many times this can be done by merely examining the geologic strata that the find was located in. For instance, if I go behind my house, I'll find clam shells that are between 60 - 90 million years old. I know this is the case, because the Limestone formation here, known as the Austin Chalk, is that old.

If I needed to be more specific, I could use many other techniques:

Carbon 14 - works best on wood and plant material, less well on animal remains, such as bone. This is because it measures the amount of carbon-14 isotope remaining in the sample. C-14 has a half-life of 5, 570 years, making the identification a matter of mathematics. However, this is limited to artifacts of less than 70, 000 years.

Potassium / Argon dating - Potassium 40 decays into argon gas at a known rate. When a volcano erupts lava the lava cools forming mineral crystals. The argon gas is trapped in the crystals. The relative proportions of Potassium 40 and argon gas are measured. From this the time since the lava was formed can be calculated.


Uranium / Lead dating - Uranium decays into other elements at a known rate. There are intermediate elements produced which eventually decay into the final elements. There are two main atomic isotopes U235 and U238. They decay at different rates and go through different intermediate steps. These rates are constant. The different rates of decay act as a cross-checking mechanism to make sure the dating is consistent. The range of this dating method can be used to date geological deposits over 4 billion years of age.

There are many other methods as well... Fission Track, amino racemization, Thermoluminescent dating, and paleomagnatism. The latter being where one would examine the alignment of magnetic molecules in relation to the magnetic north. Basically, mag north changes and by matching alignments with those of known dates one can determine the local date.

Most of these methods are used in conjunction with each other. Frequently, specimens are dated by comparing to specimens above and/or below the specimen in the strata it was found. Scientist take into account tectonic and glacial movements as well as other factors.

Scientists make mistakes... but they hold each other accountable by posting their findings in peer-reviewed journals and get "flamed" in public for being sloppy with research, so that helps keep them accountable. When mistakes are noted or found, their theories are revised.

I forget what the fundalmentalist claim is for the age of the planet, but it is ridiculously low in that it doesn't account for the massive amount of time the Earth needed to get to the point it is Geologically.

If you were to make a scale chart of the geologic timeline in which the time of man was the width of a dime, the chart would rival the tallest buildings of many cities. In geology, nothing happens fast. Even earthquakes are the result of millions of years of tension and stress.

I can source most of this if anyone wants it (I typed most from memory, some from a set of notes I had from a class).

Hope this helps ;)

SkinWalker

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar


The amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant (there is a slight variation, but that is inconsequensial and correctable). New C-14 is being brought to the atmosphere continously.

I checked on this subject. It turns out that C-14 is created by N-atoms, which are destabilized by neutron bombardment from the solar wind (mainly, though cosmic radiation also comes from elsewhere).

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-24-2002, 04:10 PM
Evolution: No
Creationism: Yes

Ada, ada, ada...thhhhat's all folks!!

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
You can still do that in one post. Just take a look at Redwing's post

Redwing's posts are, with all due respect, a pain replying to. Gee, C'Jais already said so... Well, great minds think alike (joking).

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Both sides have people that are unlogical. I even get on Christain's cases for useing the kind wrong argument.

My point was: I have yet to see any good creationistic points. No offense intended, by I just haven't seen anything viable. Little point to this subdebate, so I say we kill it.

BTW: Why did you want to know my Chem background? Just curious.

And C'Jais: I still have seen no proof of science. I've seen scientific proof. There is a big difference IMO.

DiRtY $oUtH™
11-24-2002, 04:21 PM
My point was: I have yet to see any good creationistic points. No offense intended, by I just haven't seen anything viable. Little point to this subdebate, so I say we kill it.

You suffer from narrow-mindedness...but whatever, I don't want to start an argument..when the time comes to die, then we will each have our chance to discover the truth.

Tyrion
11-24-2002, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85


You suffer from narrow-mindedness.... \

Oh yes,and "Evolution: No.Creationism: Yes." is just bursting with broad-mindedness... :rolleyes:

SkinWalker
11-24-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Darth Yoda85


You suffer from narrow-mindedness...but whatever, I don't want to start an argument..when the time comes to die, then we will each have our chance to discover the truth.

Just for the record: what are the creationists' points? I'm assuming that science is valid only until it tries to explain the 4.6 billion years of the earth and how life came to be. Meaning: "sure, science is cool to give us technology that we can use in computers, cell phones and weapons of mass destruction, but it really doesn't know beans about Earth History."

The idea that creation was initiated by a god is one that came to be when men drowned heretics because they were left-handed or autistic. It was a time when the church refused to accept that the Earth was not the center of the solar system and that there were other satellites like ours in it.

I think creationists would stand on better ground if they would be less rigid in their beliefs and accept the possibility that those who penned the bible did so with a limited understanding of the world around them.

As for proving science, Shadow, I was always under the assumption that "science" was synonamous with "study." To prove this, one merely has to browse a college catalog. The hypothoses, theories, and laws that come into being due to scienctific research can certainly (and quite often are) be challenged.

This may be all off the subject, but I was serious when I asked if those on the creationist side of the debate could summarize their points.... the thread is getting lengthy. :-)

SkinWalker

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
Is it just me, or is this whole debate unfairly weighted on this forum? Considering the number of people on each side...

The number of people don't matter. Only the strength of the arguments made. Someone said something like this: "Even if a thousand people said that something wasn't stupid, when it was, it would not make it any less stupid."

Originally posted by Redwing
According to the Bible, that won't happen. Our souls will exist eternally, while this world along with our human bodies will eventually come to an end. We won't have the chance to develop into something else.

The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right.

Originally posted by Redwing
You can't disprove God, and I'm willing to stake everything on that. In fact, I already have ^.^

God doesn't exist. That is a fact (before anyone starts flaming, however, I would like to point out that "fact" only means "scientific fact", but since it is normally assumed that everybody knows that, it is normally abbreivated. One has to remember the limits of science. No offense intended).

[i]Originally posted by Redwing
If creation theory is correct, they weren't a different species (the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it)

1: There is no such thing as "creation theory". It is a hypothesis, at most.

2: If I am not mistaken, speciciation has also occurred when animals from different branches refuse to interbreed. I may be wrong on that, though.

Originally posted by Redwing
Without completely accurate dating, you simply delve into circular reasoning. Besides, an immense flood could have created the layers.

As for your "imnense flood" mantra:

"ZINDLER:...created on the third day of creation week, [ 14] along with the ocean basins, but that at that time Mt. Ararat was only about ten to twelve thousand feet high. Now if all the water came down in forty days and drowned all the mountains of the world, that would require the rain to come down at about eleven and a half feet per hour. John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic mining! Everything would have been swept off the surface of the continents. The continents would be absolutely denuded down to crystalline rocks. All the sedimentary rocks would have been deposited in the ocean basins. Now clearly, that's not the pattern that we see... and it would certainly imply... that does away with Noah's flood!"

Courtesy of: www.infidels.org (more specifically: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/morris-zindler.html. BTW: Thanks for that link, ZDawg).

Also, you need to notice that fully half of the aquatic habitats would have been destroyed, because species adapted to salt-water conditions cannot survive fresh water, and vice versa. Also, pressure at the bottom of the oceans would increase rapidly, thus destoying the only habitable biosphere for a great number of species, which Noah couldn't possibly save, since he couldn't create non-hostile conditions for them.

Originally posted by Redwing
You don't understand - the argument is that no "mistakes" have been found. I won't explain more because I dont support the argument anyway ^_~

'Tis good to see that you don't support that "point". To those who do support it: Mistakes are rare in the extreme compared to specimen where it has gone "right". Keyword: Compared.

Originally posted by Redwing
I don't disagree, although I'm surprised to hear that [are you sure about it?]

Dead sure: Human skin colour. In the last (or second-last) issue of Scientific American (great magazine BTW) there was an article called "The evolution of skin colour".

Originally posted by Redwing
But where did they, the "seeds", come from?

You can keep pushing the borders of science. I have given a more thorough explanation in one of my above posts.

Originally posted by Redwing
True.

It is one of my fundamental belifs that nothing is "true".

Originally posted by Redwing
Except according to creation theory, God was not created. Really though, that's an incredibly arbitrary statement. And it blurs the line very rapidly in this argument; if you appeal to the existence of something else that created the Big Bang, why are you arguing that God doesn't exist in the first place?

There is still no such thing as "creation theory" (see above). You also ask why God couldn't have started BB. Well, for all we know, he could. More than likely, though, he didn't (judging by the number of times that science has found a natural explanation where zealots have cried "God"). Additionally, accepting that an omnious, unprovable, alien, uncommunicating, omnipotent, and thoroughly illogical ETI (ie: A god (or a pantheon of gods)) started the show, would be a useless explanation (please read on before you jump to conclusions and start flaming), even if it was a viable one, as it would not give us any additional tools, with which to understand and manipulate the world. Science doesn't care how we came about, save as an object of curiosity, but now that we are here it cares about what we can do to make ourselves comfortable. In a manner of speaking. God, therefore, is a bad explanation, as He doesn't add anything useful to our toolbox.

You may start flaming (of course you can't: 1: It is prohibited by forum code of conduct and 2: It will get this thing closed real quick, but it's a manner of speaking).

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
Why do I believe in God? Simply, what I have seen in my life convinces me that something has to be controlling it. Also, my belief in God has changed my life. You'll have to leave it at that, because my private life isn't going to be put down here. ^_~

Glad to see that I am not the only one who values privacy. As someone once said (don't remember who, but I think that I saw it in an issue of Sciam): "In the future we will not all have fifteen minutes of fame, we will all have fifteen minutes of privacy." More power to you (in a manner of speaking)!

Originally posted by Redwing
B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^

We can prove it scientifically. Mainly because science only concerns itself with what is useful.

Originally posted by Redwing
C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^

Two words: Time span.

Originally posted by Redwing
They have? ^.^ Last I heard they'd only proved it to be over 10k.

Na. See my above posts on the subject.

*sees that Skinwalker has explained it much better*

Gah! See Skinwalkers post instead.

Originally posted by Redwing
You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.

Hate to break it to you, but you've got that one wrong. Big time. The Bible says that God said it. Keyword: The Bible.

The Bible isn't the word of God (not even according to the Bible). It is the word of those who have heard the word of God. And they have always been alone. And it has been written in a time where those to whom it was written were in need of inspiration.

Furthermore it has been handed down for generations before it was put to paper. People forget. People exaggerate. People retell biassed stories. In short: The storage medium (ie: Man) was faulty.

Originally posted by Redwing
Umm, what does that have to do with the article? Besides, how can you simply state "God is unemployed" without omnipotence?

What I think C'Jais meant was: God can be eliminated from all the equations, and they would be no worse for it. Thus "we" (meaning scientific theories) don't need God. This is demonstrated through a "real life analogy".

*Asks C'Jais to back me up on this*

Originally posted by Redwing
God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding!

An interesting paradox. Basically science doesn't care if God exists or not.

Originally posted by Redwing
As for the article: I agree with most of it. I will comment on something to clarfy it, though:

"Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith."

Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.)

I have a few VERY good reasons why science should be taught in schools! You are sitting in front of one of them. Of other things: Not having to go to the well every morning to get fresh water. Being able to take a hot shower in the morning. Having my own bed in a house that is isolated against the cold. Being able to go to a hospital to get rid of malevolent tumors and other diseases.

If you go through your daily routines I am sure that you can find a heckuvalot more good reasons.

Oh, and I almost forgot: Not having to use flint and steel to get light or cook my dinner.

Originally posted by Redwing
Oh! Almost forgot!

"What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up. "

A) Yes.

B) ...meh? That isn't my fault. Why don't you ask them? ^_~

Hey! I agree. In fact, that's what I was just saying to refute an earlier part of the article. *points up*

One kinda has to get used to the fact that Sciam uses a "shotgun" approach to refuting creationism (or rather: A "nuke" approach). What they say is sound enough though.

Qui-Gon: While everything is possible, not everything is plausible.

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. The only mutations I see are

Extra fingers or toes
Siamese twins
Deformed faces
Unable to reproduce
And many more

I fail to see how this helps. And don't give me that wait a million years. There should be changes happening right now. We should be different at least in one way from people 3-4 thousand years ago. You know it would not happen all at once.

Few mutations are beneficial. Some are. The beneficial mutations accumulate. That's the point. As a matter of fact (and apart from the bacteria you have all around you), studies are currently underway concerning a parasite that does funny things to insects' mating habits. The bugs are in the process of speciciation. I'll try to find it. Watch this space...

*fails to find the link*

Again it's a Sciam article. But they don't post everything on the www (for obvious reasons), and it's protected by copyright law.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law?

"We hold these rights to be self-evident..." does that ring any bells?

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science.

Science doesn't give a flying Yoda about miracles. And I'll tell you why: When I am terminally ill with cancer, knowing that somebody has experienced a miraculous cure for cancer, doesn't help fetch my heathen bacon out of the fire.

Seriously, though, miracles are "one-shot". Unique. Science wants to be able to make plans for the future. Reliable plans, at that. Therefore science needs reproducable effects, which makes miracles irrellevant (if they were reproducable they would not be miracles).

Miracles also don't prove God. They might as well be sent by Tzeentch. Or just be freaks of nature.

Tyrion
11-24-2002, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
They might as well be sent by Tzeentch.

Just for reference,in Warhammer or Warhammer 40k Tzeentch is a God of Trickery and Change.

C'jais
11-24-2002, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Just for reference,in Warhammer or Warhammer 40k Tzeentch is a God of Trickery and Change.

He is also evil, mind you. Pretty important point.

Tyrion
11-24-2002, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Cjais


He is also evil, mind you. Pretty important point.

No. In the game, you cant really say who is evil and who is not. To quote something.

"There are no absolutes, only shades of gray."

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale.

I know of (through reliable sources that I trust, but which I alas cannot reveal as it would make me too easily identifiable (akin to what Redwing said above)) someone who was run over by a truck. Keyword: Truck. She is currently being rehabilitated. She will walk again. She was lucky. But luck alone didn't save her. God didn't save her. Science did (in the form of a hospital). And what's more: God won't make her walk again. Luck certainly won't either. But science will, probably.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Since when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe?

It's funny that you mention "innocent-until-proven-guilty" (though indirectly). That is Montesque's (how do you spell him (he's french)) invention. Or one of his colleques'. And most of them were a hair's breath from being lynched by the church. Along with people like Gallilei and Copernicus.

I'm not trying to flame your faith, I would just like to point out that those high and mighty ideals of yours came about (and were allowed to survive, for surely they have always existed) when said faith had a loaded musket at its temple. A fact that many faithful are unfortunatly unaware of.

To answer your question: See above on what science bothers to care about.

C'jais
11-24-2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Tyrion


No. In the game, you cant really say who is evil and who is not. To quote something.

"There are no absolutes, only shades of gray."

Oh, but in this game, Chaos and it's Gods are working on enslaving and killing mankind and it's emperor - Mankind is (of course) good (with the emperor being über good), so that means Chaos is without a doubt evil :p

Of course, if you assume mankind isn't good in the slightest (see where I'm going?), then you can call everything a shade of gray...

Tyrion
11-24-2002, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Cjais

Of course, if you assume mankind isn't good in the slightest (see where I'm going?), then you can call everything a shade of gray...

Excactly. Space marines arent good, for example them killing a whole town for a heretic inside there:p

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 07:52 PM
@SkinWalker

[Big thumbs up]:thmbup1: Great to have someone around who knows what he's doing. Thing is, though, the reason why we have so far been reasonably sloppy is that even just one of them will disprove creationism's dating, so we only need one for this purpose. But don't get me wrong. I really appreaciates that someone (being in this case you) does some thorough groundwork. :thmbup1:[/Big thumbs up]

Wait...

[undo: [/Big thumbs up]]

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
As for proving science, Shadow, I was always under the assumption that "science" was synonamous with "study." To prove this, one merely has to browse a college catalog. The hypothoses, theories, and laws that come into being due to scienctific research can certainly (and quite often are) be challenged.

Our posts must have crossed in the uploading. I have, throughout this debate, held that everything is challengeable. That science has realised this is what makes it so incredibly powerful.

ShadowTemplar
11-24-2002, 08:13 PM
@Tyrion, @C'Jais: You are on the edge of the deep bottomless pit that is called: Thread closed due to spamming, IMO. I'm sorry that I even started this.

SkinWalker
11-24-2002, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
I really appreaciates that someone (being in this case you) does some thorough groundwork. :thmbup1:[/Big thumbs up]



I just call it as I see it. Actually, I'm glad my college money didn't go to waste :p

I haven't discounted the possibility of a Creator or God.... but I won't be surprised if, after I'm deceased and my molecules a breaking down to be shared with the environment (maggots, coyotes, groundwater, soil, etc.), that I find that the sum total of humanity as a unit was God. That our individual "souls" made up the whole of the Creator.

But while I'm here, on this Earth, I don't really have time to bother with that. I'm just trying to do my part as honorably as I can. If that does or doesn't count for something after my time here is done.... well, what good does it do to worry about it?

In the meantime, I believe what I and others can demonstrate through scientific method. Religion has it's place.... I understand group dynamics and social interaction. Faith and purpose serve to create "reason" and "justification" for individuals to interact well with one-another. When they don't, chaos and fear rule.

Unfortunately, it appears that religion as an institution is failing society. (Or perhaps it's the other way around. Perhaps society if failing religion): the Catholic preist sex scandals; islam used in the name of terror; cathoics -v- protestants in N. Ireland; and those damned "Watchtower" magazines I keep finding on my doorstep ;)

Still, I have to marvel at the good that I see in organized religion. Churches in my area consistently help the less fortunate in the community without regard to their religious beliefs. I give regularly to a local church that accepts clothing donations because I know that they will GIVE it back to the community free of charge.

My one point with this thread is that Science and Religion can co-exist. However, both must be willing to revise their hypotheses on a regular basis as new information and understandings are received. I think Science does this... logic and peer accountability ensure it. Religion is slow to do so, but does. At least herecy isn't a capital crime anymore.

Cheers.... and may the Creator and Hydrogen be with you ;)

SkinWalker

C'jais
11-24-2002, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
@Tyrion, @C'Jais: You are on the edge of the deep bottomless pit that is called: Thread closed due to spamming, IMO. I'm sorry that I even started this.

While everyone may not understand it, the warhammer example is a good analogy, and if put into context with our world, can serve as a good reminder.

The humans in the 40k universe act like greedy, selfish pigs, and their emperor can only live because he cannibalizes human souls. As Tyrion said, there are no "good" races in this universe, although humanity think of themselves as good, and always try to put themselves at the center of the universe...

...I'm sure you see where I'm getting at now, but I'm going to let this little spin off die now.

SkinWalker
11-24-2002, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar


Our posts must have crossed in the uploading. I have, throughout this debate, held that everything is challengeable. That science has realised this is what makes it so incredibly powerful.

Sorry.. I definately got that out of context... :D

Good night and I look forward to checking this thread tomorrow afternoon.

SkinWalker

By the way.... if you all didn't know, SkinWalkers is on PBS tonight... I haven't read the book yet, but I plan to check this out.

Redwing
11-24-2002, 10:11 PM
I'm sorry my posts are a 'pain to reply to' ;p

Originally posted by Cjais
A) We're still completely human. By the way -how do you know our brain is improving? As for the rest, that's as arbitrary as you think the Bible is. ^.^ So get back to me when it comes true ;)

It is not as arbitrary as the bible, it is a fact the ancient people had more bodily hair to protect themselves from the elements without clothes. Humans are considerably smarter than they were thousands of years ago, based on brain size. Once I prove it is true, will you then lose your faith? ;)

Bodily hair isn't what I was talking about. ;) I should also point out that brain size does not equate intelligence, and that human's don't actively use most of their brains, and we have no idea what it's there for. And obviously, the human race was generally shorter "back then". Shorter means less of everything ^_~


B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^

I cannot prove it, because you think God is something that operates out of the established laws of physics - but tell me where you think he did a miracle, and I will explain that with science.

I know for certain you can't do that. ;) Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations ;)

D) [Whoa! Where's "C"?] Nooooooooooo. I mean, evolutionary changes that didn't produce a viable product. I haven't assumed anything ;)

Evolutionary changes rarely does produce a viable product, but out of millions of bad changes, a good one will occur that subsequently will prove to be useful. Increased brain size and very manipulative hands are two of them.

In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so.


C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^

You do not understand how nature works together. Every creature works in a symbiose with every other - if you remove just one creature, another will die. It would take billions of years to develop the current biosphere if he only took a few samples, because life would have to start all over again, if he killed a few races and we have those races today. For example, if he only took 2 samples of each race, it'd result in inbreeding and the race would suffer from it. How would he feed the animals, how would he take care of their natural habitat, how could he possibly build a ship big enough? There are a billion of questions pointing at the falsity of Noah's fabled ark.

You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything.

It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated.


Light from stars could have easily been altered by God. I mean, by definition. ^.^

Why would he want to do that? So he can give you evidence for the negative?

Well, no...so we would have stars, silly. ;p

You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.
Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so".

Exactly. ^_~


F) Exactly. That is where all the arguments here become pointless.
Technically, God would be an all-powerful alien. Something we cannot understand. Supernature. Because nature is really only what we currently understand.

You got it! God could prove to be a bunch of aliens experiementing with our planet and lives, and this is why it is folly to think so, unless we have proof of it. By all means, go on and believe what you will, but you can only prove the negative, not the positive.

I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong. Why is it folly to believe in something? We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about. You may be convinced but you really can't ever be sure. You can't even be sure our very existence isn't the product of your fantasy, or the mental engineering of Super Termites from Planet Una, any more than I can be sure God exists. But you're sure, right? To the point where it affects your existence as a person? ^_~


[quote]God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding!

"Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith."

Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.)

What you quoted said that science actually rules out the supernatural. In science, there is no supernatural, there is only the natural. Show me where it said that science cannot rule out the supernatural.

Supernatural - as in "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces" is only what science cannot explain. if science could theoretically eventually explain everything, supernatural would have no definition. And God would be explained by science, which like I pointed out above, is impossible because human understanding couldn't possibly fathom God.

Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural.

What I was talking about in the article - the article showed that science doesn't explain everything, and "When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy". Thus you can't rule out supernatural, because you can't explain everything with science.


So, since you believe everything in the bible, word for word, once science has proven that there was no great flood, your belief will fall. It is dangerous to think that way.

That wasn't an argument. Appealing to future theoretical events doesn't count. ^_~

The number of people don't matter. Only the strength of the arguments made. Someone said something like this: "Even if a thousand people said that something wasn't stupid, when it was, it would not make it any less stupid."

I know, silly. ^_^ It's just that I don't have the time to be mostly carrying one side of the debate. In fact, I should be doing my art homework right now.

The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right.

Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^

God doesn't exist. That is a fact (before anyone starts flaming, however, I would like to point out that "fact" only means "scientific fact", but since it is normally assumed that everybody knows that, it is normally abbreivated. One has to remember the limits of science. No offense intended). [If anyone wants a more thorough explanation of "science" ask a Science teacher, look it up, or post here. Watch this space.]


But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition. You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~

Also, without time travel, you can't prove the world came into being on its own steam. Therefore I could say "All your theories of evolution did not happen. That is a fact." Because neither you nor science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is truth. Actually, by your usage nothing known to us as fallible humans is a fact. And now I'm babbling.

1: There is no such thing as "creation theory". It is a hypothesis, at most.


1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^

As for your "imnense flood" mantra:

"ZINDLER:...created on the third day of creation week, [ 14] along with the ocean basins, but that at that time Mt. Ararat was only about ten to twelve thousand feet high. Now if all the water came down in forty days and drowned all the mountains of the world, that would require the rain to come down at about eleven and a half feet per hour. John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic mining! Everything would have been swept off the surface of the continents. The continents would be absolutely denuded down to crystalline rocks. All the sedimentary rocks would have been deposited in the ocean basins. Now clearly, that's not the pattern that we see... and it would certainly imply... that does away with Noah's flood!"

Courtesy of: www.infidels.org (more specifically: http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...is-zindler.html. BTW: Thanks for that link, ZDawg).

I think they're confused as to where the water is supposed to have come from. From "the fountains of the deep" and the "firmament" breaking and raining down. They obviously haven't read the Bible they're trying to refute. Not all that flood water was rain. It says so right there.


Also, you need to notice that fully half of the aquatic habitats would have been destroyed, because species adapted to salt-water conditions cannot survive fresh water, and vice versa. Also, pressure at the bottom of the oceans would increase rapidly, thus destoying the only habitable biosphere for a great number of species, which Noah couldn't possibly save, since he couldn't create non-hostile conditions for them.

He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation.

Dead sure: Human skin colour. In the last (or second-last) issue of Scientific American (great magazine BTW) there was an article called "The evolution of skin colour".


Oh, well that doesn't exactly prove the point I thought it was supposed to prove (the evolution of a completely new species from an old). But you don't need to argue that with me, because I believe it does happen.

There is still no such thing as "creation theory" (see above).

Yes there is ;p (see above) ^_~

You also ask why God couldn't have started BB. Well, for all we know, he could.

Didn't ask that.

More than likely, though, he didn't (judging by the number of times that science has found a natural explanation where zealots have cried "God"). Additionally, accepting that an omnious, unprovable, alien, uncommunicating, omnipotent, and thoroughly illogical ETI (ie: A god (or a pantheon of gods)) started the show, would be a useless explanation (please read on before you jump to conclusions and start flaming), even if it was a viable one, as it would not give us any additional tools, with which to understand and manipulate the world.

Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you?

Science doesn't care how we came about, save as an object of curiosity, but now that we are here it cares about what we can do to make ourselves comfortable. In a manner of speaking. God, therefore, is a bad explanation, as He doesn't add anything useful to our toolbox.

Why then are you trying to use science to disprove an explanation of how we came into existence? Again, what good does it do you?

You may start flaming (of course you can't: 1: It is prohibited by forum code of conduct and 2: It will get this thing closed real quick, but it's a manner of speaking).

But...but...I've never flamed :(

We can prove it scientifically. Mainly because science only concerns itself with what is useful.

But that isn't proving. Proof is "the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true".

Two words: Time span.

Well now. How do you know how long a biosphere takes to develop in what must have been totally different conditions?

Hate to break it to you, but you've got that one wrong. Big time. The Bible says that God said it. Keyword: The Bible.

The Bible isn't the word of God (not even according to the Bible). It is the word of those who have heard the word of God. And they have always been alone. And it has been written in a time where those to whom it was written were in need of inspiration.

The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us.

Furthermore it has been handed down for generations before it was put to paper. People forget. People exaggerate. People retell biassed stories. In short: The storage medium (ie: Man) was faulty.

Books from the Bible have been found from about the time they were written with only a few word's difference from what they are now. Besides, the current books of the Bible were put through a serious grinder and what was to be "accepted". Or the Bible would be thousands of book long, instead of 66.

What I think C'Jais meant was: God can be eliminated from all the equations, and they would be no worse for it. Thus "we" (meaning scientific theories) don't need God. This is demonstrated through a "real life analogy".

"We" are not scientific theories. My belief is that we need God, as in "we" - "people". ^_~

An interesting paradox. Basically science doesn't care if God exists or not.

Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist.

I have a few VERY good reasons why science should be taught in schools! You are sitting in front of one of them. Of other things: Not having to go to the well every morning to get fresh water. Being able to take a hot shower in the morning. Having my own bed in a house that is isolated against the cold. Being able to go to a hospital to get rid of malevolent tumors and other diseases.

If you go through your daily routines I am sure that you can find a heckuvalot more good reasons.

Oh, and I almost forgot: Not having to use flint and steel to get light or cook my dinner.

You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~

It's funny that you mention "innocent-until-proven-guilty" (though indirectly). That is Montesque's (how do you spell him (he's french)) invention. Or one of his colleques'. And most of them were a hair's breath from being lynched by the church. Along with people like Gallilei and Copernicus.

I'm not trying to flame your faith, I would just like to point out that those high and mighty ideals of yours came about (and were allowed to survive, for surely they have always existed) when said faith had a loaded musket at its temple. A fact that many faithful are unfortunatly unaware of.


Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to.


One last thing...I'm not arguing about the dates of the Earth because, a) I don't know and b) it isn't relevant to my argument. ^_^

Cheers.... and may the Creator and Hydrogen be with you ;)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Elijah
11-25-2002, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
I know of (through reliable sources that I trust, but which I alas cannot reveal as it would make me too easily identifiable (akin to what Redwing said above)) someone who was run over by a truck. Keyword: Truck. She is currently being rehabilitated. She will walk again. She was lucky. But luck alone didn't save her. God didn't save her. Science did (in the form of a hospital). And what's more: God won't make her walk again. Luck certainly won't either. But science will, probably.
Dude listen up, when your being crushed by a tractor and you hear the bones in your fingers snap along with your leg and parts of your arm science doesn’t mean jack to you. My friend, when I looked up I saw an ANGEL, ANGEL (angelic being). It was no flash of light or dilutions, it’s was an ANGEL, Do you get my point? What I saw was there! Standing next to me, I don’t need any friggin science to try and prove anything, I saw what I saw and the Creator of the earth HEALED me.
Can you tell I don’t care about science?

Were you Christian before that incident? No, I had heard about "God" and "Jesus" and like you I tried to prove it was just some lame story made up by people in desperation for something to hold on to.


What makes you believe in God/the bible compared to old Norse mythology/Allah/Scientology?Eh? Just as you would say God hasn’t done anything for you, why should you believe? I Say, mythology/Allah/Scientology hasn’t done anything for me, Yet God has, And so… I Believe.

C'jais
11-25-2002, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg

Can you tell I don’t care about science?

Eh? Just as you would say God hasn’t done anything for you, why should you believe? I Say, mythology/Allah/Scientology hasn’t done anything for me, Yet God has, And so… I Believe.

So, science is all fine and good when it saves your life on the hospital, gives you internet, computers and warm clothes on your body - but when it comes to explaining strange vision, it's just not good enough? And who is to say that it was a higher entity known as "God" that saved you, when it was in fact an angel that stood next to you, how do you connect the two?

And maybe that angel incident was just some "crazy story for people in desperation to hang on to"? Did you know that your brain is virtually flooded with endorphins when you're in extreme pain, which can easily cause you to see weird visions. Much like people in near death experiences, which may explain a part of what you saw, if not everything.

The last part didn't make any sense to me, Allah is God as well, and he has angels too - maybe Allah saved you?

One last thing: Why doesn't God reveal these angels to everyone on earth, so that there can be no dispute over whether he's real or not? Sounds like a pretty strange tactic to use, IMHO.

C'jais
11-25-2002, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Redwing
Bodily hair isn't what I was talking about. I should also point out that brain size does not equate intelligence, and that human's don't actively use most of their brains, and we have no idea what it's there for. And obviously, the human race was generally shorter "back then". Shorter means less of everything ^_~

Brain size has a whole lot to do with intelligence - though it doesn't always work correctly (retarded persons). It does equate intelligence, and if you disagree, I'd like you to source that claim. My claim is sourced in every half-way decent biology book.

Regarding the "We're only using a small part of the brain" argument - Not true. It's a common myth, but neurobiologists all agree that we use the entire brain's full potential, there are simply some undiscovered parts of it that we don't know what does. Like in the time of Columbus, if you asked the man on the street about whether the earth was round or flat, he'd of course say "flat", but if you asked Columbus he'd say that of course it was round. Compare this to modern times: If you ask the average Joe whether we use the brain's full potential, he'd say "Doh, we only use 10%" - if you ask a neurobiologists he'd say we use nearly everything, we just don't know what some of it does.

Evolution happens, everything points towards that conclusion - fossiles, current studies of species, bacteria and genetic research. What the bible says is completely irrelevant in this case, unless it's based on scientific research.

I know for certain you can't do that. Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations

For explanation on miracles, see ShadowTemplar's post.

Look at ZDawg's miracle. It does not reveal anything about God saving him, it reveals something about him being influenced by myths of angels saving people - his brain makes up this "excuse" for saving him with a huge dose of naturally produced euphoric drugs. I'm not saying ZDawg is mad in the slightest - I'm saying his brain is using his knowledge of angels and God to excuse his natural response to the immense pain. If Zdawg had not heard about God or angels, do you think he really would have seen one at that moment? :confused: :confused:


In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so.

What proof? The Bible? When you begin to postulate that "God did it", without substantiated scientific proof, then you're leaving the realm of reason and into blind faith.

Don't make up your own meaning of "proof" and "fact".

You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything.

It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated.

What shows the world is degenerating?

Let us say that God created Adam and Eve. He put them in the Garden of Eden. He tested them. They failed. God is all-knowing. Why should he put someone to a test knowing that they will fail? Then you could say that we have not failed yet. That leads us to the point where we are today, but as you say the world is degenerating, so why did God create man if he knew that they would die in the long run?

And no, the animals could not have hibernated, it's very few animals that could have done that, and even if you postulate that they could "at that time", why can't they do it anymore? Another concern is inbreeding: if only a few "samples" were taken from each race, it'd result in immense inbreeding, and if you tried to crossbreed your way to new races, you have to remember that when you crossbreed, the offspring becomes sterile.

Well, no...so we would have stars, silly. ;p

Then why does calculations reveal stars are a very long distance away, and that their light (which isn't instant) are being sent millions of years ago from now. See SkinWalker's "Guide to dating methods".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.
Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. ^_~

And what makes you think the Bible sounds plausible? You believe in it, just because it "feels right"?

I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong. Why is it folly to believe in something? We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about. You may be convinced but you really can't ever be sure. You can't even be sure our very existence isn't the product of your fantasy, or the mental engineering of Super Termites from Planet Una, any more than I can be sure God exists. But you're sure, right? To the point where it affects your existence as a person? ^_~

Yes, the world could have been created just 200 years ago, and then some higher power left evidence pointing at a much older age, but why would he do that? What you are doing is postulating, without sticking to scientific facts.

Supernatural - as in "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces" is only what science cannot explain. if science could theoretically eventually explain everything, supernatural would have no definition. And God would be explained by science, which like I pointed out above, is impossible because human understanding couldn't possibly fathom God.

Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural.

What I was talking about in the article - the article showed that science doesn't explain everything, and "When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy". Thus you can't rule out supernatural, because you can't explain everything with science.

You are confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable with the unexplained. If, for example, God showed himself he'd immediately be categorized as a natural law in science - because, in science there's no supernatural, only natural. You can always say that God is a supernatural, without proof of it, but then you're once again leaving the realm of reason.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Also, it says that humans and every creature on the earth lived together at once, which scientific (fossil) evidence reveals is untrue. Unless God masked the evidence for some strange reason, it is very plausible that the bible is false on this account.

But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition. You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~

Once again, you are saying we're trying to disprove God. No, we're trying to prove that we do not need him. All scientific facts points towards God being unemployed. You postulate we need God, and that he created the earth, when no scientific means can prove, verify or agree with this. What you're doing here is proving the negative.

1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^

Your definition of "Theory" is not the scientific one, it is the commonly mistaken one.

He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation.

If all the sea creatures died as you said, then why are they here today?

Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you?

For the umteenth time, he is not trying to disprove God, he is trying to prove that we do not need him, and that believing in him doesn't solve any of the world's mysteries.

Well now. How do you know how long a biosphere takes to develop in what must have been totally different conditions?

Where is your proof of those totally different conditions? If all you rely on for facts is the Bible, then it isn't scientific facts - it is postulated "facts".

The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us.

You're aren't believing in God, you're believing in a book written by man, that compels you to believe in God. You can postulate whatever you like, but without proof, why should the world believe you? Surely the world nowadays isn't as gullible as it was when the Bible was invented?

Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist.

People are using science to prove that we do not need God. Oh, he may exist, but where is the proof, and why do we need him? We seem to be doing just fine all by ourselves.

You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~

Yes, "This is what we think happened, and it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's". Science isn't truth, remember that, it's just that, a theory - but a much more plausible one that the Bible's.

Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to.


One last thing...I'm not arguing about the dates of the Earth because, a) I don't know and b) it isn't relevant to my argument. ^_^

It is very relevant. See SkinWalker's dating explanations. If, for example, we found that humans have only existed for the last 10.000 years, whereas dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago, then the Bible must be irrelevant, as it isn't true.

Redwing, regardless of what you say, this debate isn't postulation vs postulation - Evolutionists have proof of their theories, whereas creationists have no scientific proof at all, only postulated proof. This makes the evolutionist's theory endlessly more plausible and leaves the odd question hanging of why we should believe in the bible. There is scientific proof that the dinosaurs and man are spread apart by a huge timespan, there is no trace of a great flood and there is no proof of God - yet he can still be there yet it doesn't sound very plausible. You aren't trying to prove creationism, you are trying to disprove evolution.

By all means, people should believe what they want, but they can't just walk around saying their beliefs are true and force them upon others, dictate their lives and scare them, unless they have scientific proof of it.

Now that we've established that there's no scientific reason to believe in God, I'd like everyone comment on this (perhaps tell me why I'm wrong) and discuss the implications of this.

Sith Maximus
11-25-2002, 01:35 PM
Science and common sense has proved there is no "God". But you never know the experiment might slip off the table and our whole universe could go in a puff of smoke as an alien life form says "da@m" , or something to the effect, in his own language.

Organized religion is the biggest farce in all of human history...had to add this in. Religion has also done more harm then good. Look at the state of the world today and ask yourself this:

If we had no religion for the last + years what could have changed?

I think this:

Not so many people would have died at the hands of the Nazi political party...remember 11 million died (including the 6 million people of Jewish origin) in the camps...perhaps the numbers would have been far far less?

The holy crusades?

Muslim and Jewish hate crimes?

Religious officials would not have had the as many chances to rape and damage small children. Granted those people would always do those things but perhaps it would not be as easy for them.

These are just a few examples. Make up your own mind. And do not spout all of the "good" religion has done. People still starve on the streets as so-called "religious" people spend every Sunday (or whatever day the worship) in a grand building. If the Catholic Church were on the fortune 500 list where do you think they would be…at the bottom…NOT!

Use your brain...not someone else’s comments or belief system. Remember Hitler wrote a book too....but did that make him right?

SkinWalker
11-25-2002, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Cjais


Now that we've established that there's no scientific reason to believe in God, I'd like everyone comment on this (perhaps tell me why I'm wrong) and discuss the implications of this.

I've participated in many Sweat ceremonies in which one sits in a Sweat Lodge that has a small hole dug to allow for red hot rocks on which the person pouring the sweat applies water to create steam. In one of these Sweats, I began to see visions, which I won't go into detail. My friend Dan Old-Elk says that this is the Creator's way of giving me information and that I am to examine the visions to find my path.

Now.... I don't discount the possibility of the Creator's hand, but I also recognize that, when stressed, the mind can play tricks and cause hallucination (sometime Peyote helps ;)). Either way, these are visions that relate to thoughts and/or feelings that already existed in my subconscious. The value is in my self-examination and what I discern from it to help guide my actions.

I can't disagree that there is no scientific explaination or reason that supports a reason to believe in god. I also can't discount Man's need to have God. Spiritual development and health are very related to mental health.

I do disagree with most of the creationist points of view, however, as they do not accept the facts as they are established by science. Man used the "Creation Theory" (sorry shadow... ) to explain what he could not via science, since Man's scientific ability was limited by technology and understandings of the time. As science improved, explained the universe (chemistry, physics, et al), established theories and laws, and revised both as needed, the "Creation Theory" remained rigid and unchanging.

When God created the Earth in 6 days... what was the reference that God used to measure a day? Current measurement relies on one Earth rotation in relation to the vector of the Sun's radiation. Man created this reference. Could God, an alleged omnipotent being, have a different reference?.... perhaps a millenia? More? These are but a few questions that I think can be applied here. Creation and Evolution are two ideas that can exist together. Faith doen't have to be blind. It can occur with eyes wide open (and minds).

In short: I agree with Cjais in that there is "no scientific reason to believe in God" (that I've seen to date). But I think there is a social reason to believe in God. It gives us purpose, senses of right and wrong, and a sense of connectedness with the rest of society and nature.

Another thing Dan Old-Elk used to tell me: "The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to her."

SkinWalker

Elijah
11-25-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
So, science is all fine and good when it saves your life on the hospital, gives you internet, computers and warm clothes on your bodyCjais, when your about to die, all the things you ever believed about science becomes useless and you realize how foolish it is to only believe somthing that can be proven with all the tools of our time.


And maybe that angel incident was just some "crazy story for people in desperation to hang on to"? Did you know that your brain is virtually flooded with endorphins when you're in extreme pain, which can easily cause you to see weird visions. Much like people in near death experiences, which may explain a part of what you saw, if not everything.Did i tell you it was not Dilutions? What i saw, I SAW and not matter what you say or try to prove you will not convince me what i saw and felt was not real, EVER.


The last part didn't make any sense to me, Allah is God as well, and he has angels too - maybe Allah saved you? Allah is the Arab word for God.


One last thing: Why doesn't God reveal these angels to everyone on earth, so that there can be no dispute over whether he's real or not? Sounds like a pretty strange tactic to use, IMHO. I Dunno, Ask God about that.


Look at ZDawg's miracle. It does not reveal anything about God saving him, it reveals something about him being influenced by myths of angels saving people - his brain makes up this "excuse" for saving him with a huge dose of naturally produced euphoric drugs. You people are proving my point, you all think that these things must be proven with science.

I'm not saying ZDawg is mad in the slightest - I'm saying his brain is using his knowledge of angels and God to excuse his natural response to the immense pain. God took the pain away, it was no excuse.

If Zdawg had not heard about God or angels, do you think he really would have seen one at that moment? Yes.

Breton
11-25-2002, 03:52 PM
In nearly all cultures there has been gods; Norse, greek, egyptian, babylonian, jewish, chinese and so on. The reason for this was Man has always looked at themselfes higly, and all knowing. The problem was however, that they actually knew very little. Because of this, gods were created. If someone asked themselves "Why does it rain?", no one knew, therefore people solved all these mysteries by simply saying "God made it".
Belief in gods was never a product of knowledge, it was a product of lack of knowledge. And each time there was something a culture didn't know, they just continued to say "God made it". But gods were also a product of need of comfort. Life wasn't very easy then, but it was very easy to think "When I die, I go to heaven and live happily for all eternity". A lot of ancient cultures needed such, for example it would have been much harder to get Vikings to fight, if they wasn't having the belief of "If I fight bravely and fall in battle, I will go to Valhall ("heaven"), if I die a natural death, I will go to Helheim ("hell")."

The lack of knowledge was very important to maintain for the church, or else there would be hard to belive in it. Nicolas Copernicus got killed for a discovery he made that was against what the church belived. Søren Kirkegaard (a Danish philosopher) meant that knowledge was really bad, it gave Man an understanding that it should not have had.

But the knowledge came, and most questions Man asked himself earlier, are now answered. You no longer need a god to explain why it rains. Most of the holes in knowledge, that the gods were based on, are filled. But the things that are still unknown strengthens the belief in God, for example "Why is ZDawg still able to walk?" Something that also remains is the comfort of belief, especially since people are really afraid to die these days, it is more comforting if you belive that there is an afterlife.

But there is still little need of a god today, tradition is keeping it alive.

Mandalorian54
11-25-2002, 06:09 PM
Thats not what they'd say if you told them that, they would have a good explanation you know.

If you could solve it just like that , that easy, no doubt they would have.

But they really had thier reasons.

I only believe in one God. And I believe for many reasons and that just aint one, sorry.

You don't need a God to explain why it rains? how do you explain it?

C'jais
11-25-2002, 06:35 PM
JM Qui, very well expressed.

Skin, your "religion" is a different one than Christian's or monotheistic one's. Forgive me for using a star wars anology, but this it makes sense : If you consider the force, it's viewed as a force of nature that hasn't been fully explored and examined yet (notice they refer to midiclorians etc). They view the force as something that's all around them, right there and then - not something that will punish or reward you in the hereafter. You could personify the force, but it wouldn't make any sense. The force would still be there if no jedi existed. The force is just that, a force of nature, a natural law of science that hasn't been fully discovered yet. They don't refer to it as a creator, because it is but one force of nature - the sum of it all creates.

This I think, is closer to what Skin believes in (correct me if I'm oh so wrong, btw) - I think it's called an apantheistic point of view.

ZDawg, I'm not saying that you did not see an angel. I'm saying that there's probably a more plausible scientific reason that you saw it. When I was in a near death situation, I certainly neither didn't think about science - I thought about the natural reactions, results, limits and acted accordingly. In other words: In other words - I made an instinctive decision of what I should naturally do in that situation to avoid getting myself killed, and acted upon. I certainly didn't think about science or God, and neither did I expect some Creator to hold his hand over me in this instant, I just did.

54, without being too technical, assume that rainclouds are steam that is getting too condensed and thus liquify themselves into raindrops. Compare it too steam in your bathroom and notice how it turns to water on the walls. I'm sure someone can give you a much better explanation, but I'm too lazy to look it up in my book :(

Mandalorian54
11-25-2002, 06:56 PM
Yes I know but I asked so you would answer what I knew you would to go on to somthin else.

Where does the water cycle come from?

C'jais
11-25-2002, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
Yes I know but I asked so you would answer what I knew you would to go on to somthin else.

Where does the water cycle come from?

Eh? :eyeraise:

You asked because you knew I "would to go on to somthin else"? What has this to do with Evolution vs Creationism? I did not say anything about the water cycle.

The water cycle came into being the moment there were water. It's like the old chicken or egg question.

Mandalorian54
11-25-2002, 07:29 PM
The guy above me did.

Well he said that we don't need an explanation for why it rains and so there should be no need to believe in gods. But we do need an explanation for why it rains it's just more like why thers rain not why it rains. you know

Tyrion
11-25-2002, 07:40 PM
The water cycle came from natual conincidences. It took billions of years to make, since it needed ALOT of hydrogen and oxygen molecules to combine.

Also, if you believe in god,why stop there? Why dont you believe that an invisible pink elephant(if anyone can get the oxymoron there,have a cookie) is the cause of you falling? Or that when you jump it's because of a mixture of the force and physical ability? Or what about if there are ghosts? Or that the devil or main evil made us,while god is trying to exterminate it?


Edit- Also, since we are prepared to die die when we die, we have lower expantations.

Elijah
11-26-2002, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Cjais

ZDawg, I'm not saying that you did not see an angel. I'm saying that there's probably a more plausible scientific reason that you saw it. I Understand what your saying, but science cannot prove what I saw or give an explanation, nor do I need one.

When I was in a near death situation, I certainly neither didn't think about science - I thought about the natural reactions, results, limits and acted accordingly. In other words: In other words - I made an instinctive decision of what I should naturally do in that situation to avoid getting myself killed, I didn’t have time to think about Anything... I just turned around and BAM! it happened. There where 25 year veteran paramedics that said that there was no reason I should have lived.
I certainly didn't think about science or God, and neither did I expect some Creator to hold his hand over me in this instant Neither did I... but he did, and if he hadn't I wouldn’t be talking to you right now.

SkinWalker
11-26-2002, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
an invisible pink elephant(if anyone can get the oxymoron there,have a cookie)

You have faith that it is pink? :p

Skin

TheWhiteRaider
11-26-2002, 01:58 AM
The water cycle came from natual conincidences

Man you guys will believe anything is from chance.

By the way if there is no evil. Then what the terrorist did on 9/11 was ok right?


I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old.
(If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.)



And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof.

Ever hear about substitution in algebra?

If you have a equation like

2X * Y = 100

You can not get a true anwser without a second equation. It can be a infinite amount of anwsers.

Like this

Y = 4 + 1

So now you put (4 + 1) in place of (Y).

2X * (4 + 1) = 100

2X * 5 = 100

Which from here is easy.

X = 10

So one source can be false.

It took billions of years to make, since it needed ALOT of hydrogen and oxygen molecules to combine

And you know this how?

Tyrion
11-26-2002, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


Man you guys will believe anything is from chance.

By the way if there is no evil. Then what the terrorist did on 9/11 was ok right?


I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old.
(If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.)



And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof.

Ever hear about substitution in algebra?

If you have a equation like

2X * Y = 100

You can not get a true anwser without a second equation. It can be a infinite amount of anwsers.

Like this

Y = 4 + 1

So now you put (4 + 1) in place of (Y).

2X * (4 + 1) = 100

2X * 5 = 100

Which from here is easy.

X = 10

So one source can be false.



And you know this how?

1. Evil can exist without having a god. Also, evil is more of an opinion than anything else...

2. Well, oxygen and hydrogen combining must take alot of chance and time. Yes, it is just a big coincidence. Stop thinking we are the center and reason of the universe,we might just be a coincidence(A big one,but a coincidence nonetheless).

3. Chance is well,chance. We did come from a single celled organism(Ask evoulution, just like you tell us to ask god) or maybe not. Maybe something else,something from another dimension, or maybe gods(note gods,not god) or something else. With all these different gods and religions,how do you know which is right?

4. Antagontisthesim has actually been better to me than worshiping in god. When I was little,I started to think of cuss words(part of growin up!). So I thought of thinking cuss words at god. So I got frightend, thinking he knew my thoughts and would punish me. But of course i couldnt stop thinking them,because by the time I thought I shouldnt think it,it was thunk:D So,after I became an antagontists,all those fears went away. I think I have an soul though...just that something else created me instead of a god.

SkinWalker
11-26-2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by Cjais

Skin, your "religion" is a different one than Christian's or monotheistic one's. ..... This I think, is closer to what Skin believes in (correct me if I'm oh so wrong, btw) - I think it's called an apantheistic point of view.(

I had no idea that the idea of Apatheism (http://lonestar.texas.net/~dionysos/apatheist.htm) existed... interesting, but I was more interested in a link from that page to Gnostism.

That's all getting too organized for me :-) I've always admired the simplicity of Native American beliefs. They give thanks to Father Sky and Mother Earth, pray to their Ancestors and work to honor their ancestors with good, honest, hard-work. To do otherwise is a waste of your lineage and all of your ancestors ended with you for nothing.

As to the Star Wars analogy.... you have to remeber: George Lucas is a Man of Earth... a human who probably grew up exposed to many different cultures and religions (like most of us) and probably questioned much of what he saw. His "Jedi Knights" and the "Force" are all products of our cultures on Earth. I see a new an interesting thread topic emerging here ;)

ZDawg.... We're all glad you survived your accident. But you have to admit: there's as much a probability that your experience was coincidence along with a mental reaction to enormous stress and shock as it is divine intervention. But please, don't think that you have to change what you choose to ultimately believe in. Whichever makes you a more complete person is what you should stick with.

If there is a God, and he did, indeed, create us in his own image, then perhaps our innate desire to seek knowledge, ask questions, and seek self-actualization as a society is a reflection of that image. Perhaps science is following the will of God.

Either way, science will need to have the freedom to teach what it knows in the education of the masses so that others can build upon this and continue to ask questions.

I think a ways back in the thread, someone was postulating that the Earth was only a few millenia old and that "all of the creatures of the Earth lived the same time as man...." or something similar. Is this still a point of the "debate." If not, I don't see what still remains to be addressed. I'm too sleep deprived at the moment to back track within the thread... so are there any "creationist" points left to acknowledge?

SkinWalker

Redwing
11-26-2002, 03:28 AM
Well, since we aren't debating whether Creation is possible, and I have no intention of justifying my belief in this forum, I guess I don't need to make any more of those immense posts that annoy you all so much. ^_~

I agree that there is no scientific reason that you should believe in God. But science is not everything.

edit: Gah! I was wroong...x.x

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Redwing
Bodily hair isn't what I was talking about. I should also point out that brain size does not equate intelligence, and that human's don't actively use most of their brains, and we have no idea what it's there for. And obviously, the human race was generally shorter "back then". Shorter means less of everything ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Brain size has a whole lot to do with intelligence - though it doesn't always work correctly (retarded persons). It does equate intelligence, and if you disagree, I'd like you to source that claim. My claim is sourced in every half-way decent biology book.

Regarding the "We're only using a small part of the brain" argument - Not true. It's a common myth, but neurobiologists all agree that we use the entire brain's full potential, there are simply some undiscovered parts of it that we don't know what does. Like in the time of Columbus, if you asked the man on the street about whether the earth was round or flat, he'd of course say "flat", but if you asked Columbus he'd say that of course it was round. Compare this to modern times: If you ask the average Joe whether we use the brain's full potential, he'd say "Doh, we only use 10%" - if you ask a neurobiologists he'd say we use nearly everything, we just don't know what some of it does.

I'm sorry, I had no idea. I should have checked. ^_^;;;; But I stick to what my point: we aren't superior to our ancestors. Even if we become such, it won't matter.

Evolution happens, everything points towards that conclusion - fossiles, current studies of species, bacteria and genetic research. What the bible says is completely irrelevant in this case, unless it's based on scientific research.

It's relevant because you're arguing the validity of a Biblical-based theory. I think. I might have got lost again. ^.^


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know for certain you can't do that. Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For explanation on miracles, see ShadowTemplar's post.

Look at ZDawg's miracle. It does not reveal anything about God saving him, it reveals something about him being influenced by myths of angels saving people - his brain makes up this "excuse" for saving him with a huge dose of naturally produced euphoric drugs. I'm not saying ZDawg is mad in the slightest - I'm saying his brain is using his knowledge of angels and God to excuse his natural response to the immense pain. If Zdawg had not heard about God or angels, do you think he really would have seen one at that moment?

I have heard of people who have seen things without knowing anything of angelic descriptions that somehow fit the explanations, since you asked. Of course they could be lies. But I'm not arguing in that area. In fact, I even said I could come up with explanations such as Shadow has ;) and I never said miracles can prove God exists for the world to see.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What proof? The Bible? When you begin to postulate that "God did it", without substantiated scientific proof, then you're leaving the realm of reason and into blind faith.

Don't make up your own meaning of "proof" and "fact".

I should have worded it: "If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so - None."

It doesn't matter what I've postulated. The fact remains that until either of us sees the evolution of the cosmos/creation, we both have no proof.

Buh? Are you referring to my definitions? They were all taken from the Handy Online Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/) and www.dictionary.com! Don't insult me. If you were, that is. ^_^


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything.

It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What shows the world is degenerating?

Let us say that God created Adam and Eve. He put them in the Garden of Eden. He tested them. They failed. God is all-knowing. Why should he put someone to a test knowing that they will fail? Then you could say that we have not failed yet. That leads us to the point where we are today, but as you say the world is degenerating, so why did God create man if he knew that they would die in the long run?

Our souls will live forever. As for the failing, I don't know. God, if he exists as I believe, certainly doesn't think like a human - so how could I know? [Note the use of lazy-man's/woman's way out ;)]

And no, the animals could not have hibernated, it's very few animals that could have done that, and even if you postulate that they could "at that time", why can't they do it anymore? Another concern is inbreeding: if only a few "samples" were taken from each race, it'd result in immense inbreeding, and if you tried to crossbreed your way to new races, you have to remember that when you crossbreed, the offspring becomes sterile.

I should have added the all-important clause: "God did it." Remember, I'm not using science to explain everything. Before you say that's invalid, think about it - can science explain everything now?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no...so we would have stars, silly. ;p
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then why does calculations reveal stars are a very long distance away, and that their light (which isn't instant) are being sent millions of years ago from now. See SkinWalker's "Guide to dating methods".

You said that in the beginning. I said: God manipulated the light so it reached Earth immediately. You said: Why? So he could give evidence against his existence? I said: Well, no, so we could have stars.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.
Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And what makes you think the Bible sounds plausible? You believe in it, just because it "feels right"?

I have no intention of justifying my beliefs in this forum - it'll take too long! Besides, you wouldn't listen - I wouldn't if I was in your place ^_^

Plus there's this lil thing called privacy *grumble* :xp:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong. Why is it folly to believe in something? We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about. You may be convinced but you really can't ever be sure. You can't even be sure our very existence isn't the product of your fantasy, or the mental engineering of Super Termites from Planet Una, any more than I can be sure God exists. But you're sure, right? To the point where it affects your existence as a person? ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, the world could have been created just 200 years ago, and then some higher power left evidence pointing at a much older age, but why would he do that? What you are doing is postulating, without sticking to scientific facts.

My belief in the existence of God was not spawned directly from a scientific fact. Therefore why would I stick to them? I'm only trying to show that my belief in God does not contradict science. Besides, most scientific fact is greatly informed postulating anyway ^_~


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supernatural - as in "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces" is only what science cannot explain. if science could theoretically eventually explain everything, supernatural would have no definition. And God would be explained by science, which like I pointed out above, is impossible because human understanding couldn't possibly fathom God.

Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural.

What I was talking about in the article - the article showed that science doesn't explain everything, and "When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy". Thus you can't rule out supernatural, because you can't explain everything with science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable with the unexplained. If, for example, God showed himself he'd immediately be categorized as a natural law in science - because, in science there's no supernatural, only natural. You can always say that God is a supernatural, without proof of it, but then you're once again leaving the realm of reason.

How do you know what is unexplainable? Wouldn't it just be the "unexplained at this time"? And according to your definition, the word "supernatural" has no use because to exist in reality is to be natural. I've been fudging a bit because it's confusing me that we even have that word if your definition is the right one ^_~


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Also, it says that humans and every creature on the earth lived together at once, which scientific (fossil) evidence reveals is untrue. Unless God masked the evidence for some strange reason, it is very plausible that the bible is false on this account.


Not in the same place. For a very, very long time humans lived only in Mesopotamia. Maybe even before the Flood (I can't recall)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition. You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Once again, you are saying we're trying to disprove God. No, we're trying to prove that we do not need him. All scientific facts points towards God being unemployed. You postulate we need God, and that he created the earth, when no scientific means can prove, verify or agree with this. What you're doing here is proving the negative.

You do not need him or science does not need him? Also I disagree with your third statement. God created the universe and may or may not be interfering with how it's run. But he certainly is employed in the lives of his people. I can't prove that to you in this debate, of course. ^_~


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your definition of "Theory" is not the scientific one, it is the commonly mistaken one.

Meh? Okay. All six definitions of theory:

the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. 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.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I used the first one. Which are you referring to?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If all the sea creatures died as you said, then why are they here today?

-.-* I never said they all died. I said he didn't try to save them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For the umteenth time, he is not trying to disprove God, he is trying to prove that we do not need him, and that believing in him doesn't solve any of the world's mysteries.

It's only the umpteenth because you're still quoting in the same post :p

I already wrote my reply up there. *points*


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well now. How do you know how long a biosphere takes to develop in what must have been totally different conditions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where is your proof of those totally different conditions? If all you rely on for facts is the Bible, then it isn't scientific facts - it is postulated "facts".

That was quite a shabby argument, I admit. But you're missing my point - you don't know.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're aren't believing in God, you're believing in a book written by man, that compels you to believe in God. You can postulate whatever you like, but without proof, why should the world believe you?

How do you know that? You think that. I never (consciously) tried to convince you that I was right, only that I wasn't wrong. That is my chosen direction. I choose to stick to it. ^_^

Surely the world nowadays isn't as gullible as it was when the Bible was invented?

Mmmmmmmmmm. Perhaps it's just blinder now?

Besides, the separate books were written over centuries.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



People are using science to prove that we do not need God. Oh, he may exist, but where is the proof, and why do we need him? We seem to be doing just fine all by ourselves.


They're doing a lovely good job of it aren't they. ^_^ Besides, only a social scientist should be doing that, because God is more concerned with man than the universe he created, destined to end in fire. We're doing just fine all by ourselves? How can you say that, not knowing whether God is involved?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, "This is what we think happened, and it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's". Science isn't truth, remember that, it's just that, a theory - but a much more plausible one that the Bible's.

Saying "it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's" is opinion and shouldn't be taught as fact.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to.


One last thing...I'm not arguing about the dates of the Earth because, a) I don't know and b) it isn't relevant to my argument. ^_^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is very relevant. See SkinWalker's dating explanations. If, for example, we found that humans have only existed for the last 10.000 years, whereas dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago, then the Bible must be irrelevant, as it isn't true.

I missed his post. He didn't list any nearly 100% accurate dating methods except the old C-14. Of course I am well aware that it is not the only possible method.


Redwing, regardless of what you say, this debate isn't postulation vs postulation - Evolutionists have proof of their theories, whereas creationists have no scientific proof at all, only postulated proof.

*sigh* This is getting tiring. -.- Proof - "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." You only have evidence that doesn't prove.

This makes the evolutionist's theory endlessly more plausible and leaves the odd question hanging of why we should believe in the bible.

Refer to others' statements - I am not arguing this.


There is scientific proof that the dinosaurs and man are spread apart by a huge timespan, there is no trace of a great flood and there is no proof of God - yet he can still be there yet it doesn't sound very plausible. You aren't trying to prove creationism, you are trying to disprove evolution.

*sigh* Again, I am not trying to do either...


By all means, people should believe what they want, but they can't just walk around saying their beliefs are true and force them upon others, dictate their lives and scare them, unless they have scientific proof of it.

Ummm, I haven't done any of those... :( (And they shouldn't do that whether they have "scientific proof" or not!)


Now that we've established that there's no scientific reason to believe in God, I'd like everyone comment on this (perhaps tell me why I'm wrong) and discuss the implications of this.

Back to the start except considerably less high-spirited...

:(

SkinWalker
11-26-2002, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old.
(If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.)


Not really... the source is obviously flawed. Mt. Everest was formed about 60 million years ago. We know this because the tectonic rate of the Indian subcontinent can be calculated at about 15 cm/year. That's extremely fast in geologic terms... in otherwords, the Indian Subcontinent "slammed" up against the EuroAsian continent, creating a massive upheavel.

Now I know what your going to say: How do we know? In short, much geologic field research has mapped the geologic strata in the region and examination of unconformities in the region show where normally horizontal terrain or strata has been lifted to vertical (or even inverse!) position. There is actually a "beach" that has been discovered far above sea level that is "upside-down."

We know this all occured millions of years ago, because even the fastest tectonic rates (which are still in that region) would take millions of years to occur. I'm not as good at math as I'd like to be, but 15 cm/year divides into 8, 848 m about 17, 696 times. 8, 848 is the number of meters high Everest is. So the collision had to take at least 58, 986 years to raise a mountain!

But that's not all: dating methods put the whole event (Indian Continent moving away from Australian Continent to the making of Everest) at between 250 million years ago to 60 million years ago.

These dating methods aren't exclusively (or even mostly) Carbon-14. C14 dating is but *one* tool available to date rocks. (see my earlier post). One of the more fascinating methods involves examination of the magnetic changes in different rock strata over the years.

Somewhere near the center of the Atlantic Ocean runs the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is where sea-floor spreading occurs (new crust being formed and pushed away in opposite directions). By doing some sea-floor measurements with magnatometer, it can be noted that there are regular changes in magnetic resonance that correlate with the Earth's regular polar reversals.

By examing a specimen of rock and getting an approximate date by K-Ar method (not C-14), it is possible to determine a more exact date by examining the microscopic iron particles to determine their alignment. The key to this "code" is on the oceanfloor in the pattern of polar reversals, which left their evidence in bands that run parellel to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Science relies on not one look, not even two... but multiple looks at the same evidence from as many points of view as possible. Methods are carefully spelled out for peers to review and attempt to duplicate. Science does NOT make assumptions, but rather states what is observed. Only after a hypothesis has been tested and re-tested with consistent results does it become a theory. Only a theory that withstands the test of time and more testing can become a law. And when a flaw is discovered in a scientific law it is revised, rewritten or scrapped altogether in favor of the new information.

Creationist "theory" doesn't hold to the same principle. It remains unyielding, blind "faith." In the end, if creationists refuse to update their ideas, it will die the death of all superstitions, and become as quaint an idea as throwing salt over one's shoulder.

That, in my opinion, will be a sad day. Society stands to gain much from spiritual beliefs that are relevant.

Good night, and may the Creator and Hydrogen keep you. ;)

[And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof.


Dude... I'm too tired... Go Here. (http://www.c14dating.com/int.html)

Good night, and may the Creator and Hydrogen (or Carbon) keep you. ;)

Redwing
11-26-2002, 03:34 AM
Only saying one...two things, I promise.

Mt. Everest was formed about 60 million years ago. We know this because the tectonic rate of the Indian subcontinent can be calculated at about 15 cm/year.

Remember what the counter argument for Earth's rapid magnetic field decay was? Just because that's what it is now doesn't mean that's what it's always been.


We know this all occured millions of years ago, because even the fastest tectonic rates (which are still in that region) would take millions of years to occur.

The Flood could have created them. And see above.

*runs away*

Rogue15
11-26-2002, 03:34 AM
Man created Science.
Science did not create Man.

God created man in his own image
Man sins
Man creates god in his [sinful] image

Tyrion
11-26-2002, 03:44 AM
Also, why does god need to put his information in a book? Why doesnt he just put it in our heads and let us decide?

Rogue15
11-26-2002, 03:51 AM
we wouldn't get any satisfaction in finding out ourselves?

:confused:

:confused: @90 second time limit

Tyrion
11-26-2002, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Rogue15
we wouldn't get any satisfaction in finding out ourselves?

:confused:

:confused: @90 second time limit

Why would you need satisfaction? Knowing that it is real would be enough sactisfaction for me...

Elijah
11-26-2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
1. Evil can exist without having a god. Also, evil is more of an opinion than anything else...
Oh really? last time I checked, the meaning of Evil was "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant."... I Dunno about you but that doesn't sound like it has ANYTHING to do with God.

Antagontisthesim has actually been better to me than worshiping in god. have you honestly worshiped God?

When I was little,I started to think of cuss words(part of growin up!). Little? as in younger that 12? and sense when was creating cuss words part of growing up? I didnt... even before i was a christian.

So I thought of thinking cuss words at god. So I got frightend, thinking he knew my thoughts and would punish me. But of course i couldnt stop thinking them,because by the time I thought I shouldnt think it,it was thunk So,after I became an antagontists,all those fears went away. I think I have an soul though...just that something else created me instead of a god. God Isnt going to punish you for your thoughs.... Forgiveness really is a great thing :)

Why would you need satisfaction? Knowing that it is real would be enough sactisfaction for me... Thats where Faith comes into play. and No, Faith is not a "God thing"

Tyrion
11-26-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Oh really? last time I checked, the meaning of Evil was "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant."... I Dunno about you but that doesn't sound like it has ANYTHING to do with God.

That's what I just said...o.O

Edit- And by cuss words,I mean damn,bas****,b*tch.

Stuff like that that I learned from my friends.

C'jais
11-26-2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Oh really? last time I checked, the meaning of Evil was "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant."... I Dunno about you but that doesn't sound like it has ANYTHING to do with God.


Evil is entirely subjective - you have your set of morals and I have mine. To one man, it is immoral to kill another man, to yet another man, it is survival. There is no such thing as universally wrong or right. Your opinion is God, mine is just a set of principles. Even if you convinced the entire world that it'd be wrong to kill people, it still wouldn't, in the universal view of things. God is not on your side here, because he is formed of your opinion.

BTW, if God can forgive everything, why do we need to follow some absurd code if we're going to heaven anyway?

If he can't forgive anything, then show me what he refuses to forgive, and I will invent my own, better God...

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 01:04 PM
[Force:Absurdlylongpost]

Originally posted by Redwing
I know for certain you can't do that. Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations

Your point being? BTW: You still have failed to produce examples.

Originally posted by Redwing
In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so.

You have made a grave mistake here. Very grave indeed. Evolution does nothing. I repeat for clarification: Evolution does nothing.

There, everyone can breathe again.

Evolution is a model. Keyword: Model. That means that it is a way to describe what we see. And what we see is this: Life on Earth changes slowly over the cause of millions of years. There are no rapid changes (rapid meaning over the cause of one or two generations), and the changes that do occur result in specialisation, the occupation of a new niche, or adaption to a new environment (actually a class of microorganisms capable of engineering their DNA code has been found, these could produce rapid changes, but the engineering is entirely biological). The model that best fits this is the Theory of Evolution. Why? The result and rate of the changes would indicate that the those who are best able to survive in any given environment survive to pass on their genes. Beneficial gene combinations accumulate, because the rest are removed. That is the most logical conclusion.

Originally posted by Redwing
You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything.

It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated.

1) You have failed to account for the survival of infectous, disease-causing parasites such as Cholera, the Black Plague, Hepatitis B, ect. Survival of these species would seem incompatible with human survival when every human being on the face of the planet was huddled inside an Ark.

2) The aquatic biospheres would still be destroyed. Anything that needed to be remotely near the seabed for some reason would be squashed by the increasing pressure. And all life adapted to salt/fresh conditions (ie: Half the number of aquatic species) would be utterly destroyed. The presence of these brances today cannot possibly be explained through "adaption".

3) On what grounds do you say that the world is degenerating?

4) Inbreeding.

5) Where did all the water go then?

Originally posted by Redwing
Well, no...so we would have stars, silly. ;p


Now you are the one who is being silly. If She wanted us to have stars (why would She want that BTW?) She could just place them there, end of story (this is actually a theological debate, making it irrellevant).

Originally posted by Redwing
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.
Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. ^_~

See my above post on the credibility of the (Un)Holy Bible. Quite apart from that, it seems that you are taking a fundamentalistic veiwpoint. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I last checked fundamentalism was the chief cause of the Crusades, Apartheid, and the 11/9-01 incident.

Originally posted by Redwing
I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong.

But since Evolution hasn't been proved wrong either, and there is a ton of evidence for Evolution, and none at all for God, Evolution is the best model.

Originally posted by Redwing
Why is it folly to believe in something?

Because you have to belive it. Also see above on fundamentalism.

Originally posted by Redwing
We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about.

SkinWalker had an exelent point about science being peer-reviewed. So we don't "blindly trust others to be telling the truth".

Originally posted by Redwing
You may be convinced but you really can't ever be sure. You can't even be sure our very existence isn't the product of your fantasy, or the mental engineering of Super Termites from Planet Una, any more than I can be sure God exists. But you're sure, right? To the point where it affects your existence as a person? ^_~

Which is the exact reason for working empirically. Se my above post on what science wants.

Originally posted by Redwing
Supernatural - as in "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces" is only what science cannot explain. if science could theoretically eventually explain everything, supernatural would have no definition. And God would be explained by science, which like I pointed out above, is impossible because human understanding couldn't possibly fathom God.

Science neither wants, needs, nor claims to be able to explain everything. It can 'only' explain everything relavant.

Originally posted by Redwing
Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural.

You are raping the English language. And yet your mistake is quite simple: THEORIES AREN'T FANTASIES. Check Fifteen Answers To Creationist nonsense (this link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF) for a full explanation, as I grow increasingly tired of repeating myself over that mistake. No lines are blurry. If it is veryfiable, it's science. If not: It's useless.

Originally posted by Redwing
What I was talking about in the article - the article showed that science doesn't explain everything, and "When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy". Thus you can't rule out supernatural, because you can't explain everything with science.

See above.

Originally posted by Redwing
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^

Well, for one thing, there is the Flood. For another Genesis has more holes in it that puff-stone. A third: Jesus was militant, not pacifist.

Originally posted by Redwing
But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition.

I was not aware that there are multiple definitions.

Originally posted by Redwing
You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~

You are wrong on all accounts save the last one.

Everything that can be documented is factual. Anything else is infactual, and therefore, fictional (at least it was that way last time I checked).

It is a fact that God doesn't exist. Keyword: Fact.

While absense of evidence does not signify evidence of absense, it does signify absence of relavance.

I still have seen no evidence (I'll get back to you, ZDawg, in short order) that God exists.

And lastly: I didn't intend to make anything inflammable. I intended to raise awareness of the definition of a commonly used word, in this case through an example. Sorry if I stepped on some toes.

Originally posted by Redwing
Also, without time travel, you can't prove the world came into being on its own steam. Therefore I could say "All your theories of evolution did not happen. That is a fact." Because neither you nor science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is truth. Actually, by your usage nothing known to us as fallible humans is a fact. And now I'm babbling.

Neither I nor science need to prove that Evolution happened "beyond a shadow of doubt". I, and science, only need to prove that it is the most probable.

Originally posted by Redwing
1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^

Exerpt from "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (link here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF)
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Creation fails the "well-substatiated"-criterium. It is therefore a hypothesis at best.

Originally posted by Redwing
I think they're confused as to where the water is supposed to have come from. From "the fountains of the deep" and the "firmament" breaking and raining down. They obviously haven't read the Bible they're trying to refute. Not all that flood water was rain. It says so right there.

[...]

He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation.

That still leaves alot of problems with the Flood 'model' (see above).

Originally posted by Redwing
Oh, well that doesn't exactly prove the point I thought it was supposed to prove (the evolution of a completely new species from an old). But you don't need to argue that with me, because I believe it does happen.

A newly-discovered bacterium affects the mating behavior and gender of the insects that it infects. The result of this is, in short, that at least one species of insects is currently splitting into two (I can source that if you want, it's Sciam stuff, but I don't have my 'collection' at hand right now).

Originally posted by Redwing
Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you?

[...]

Why then are you trying to use science to disprove an explanation of how we came into existence? Again, what good does it do you?

[...]

Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist.


All of this can be boiled down to the following:

I do not try to disprove anything. I try to prove that something is most probable, and therefore should be used in reasoning.

I think that the reason for pro-scientific people trying to disprove religious belifs stem from the fact that most people refuse to reason based on the best model available, so you need to show them that the model that they reason by is wrong. Also religion has a nasty history of burning works of math and science (eg the Great Library of Alexandria) along with their writers (19th-century scientists).

Originally posted by Redwing
But...but...I've never flamed

Hence the "start". Seriously, though, it was nothing but a manner of speaking.

Originally posted by Redwing
But that isn't proving. Proof is "the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true".

Then what constitutes proof is dependent on the gullibility of the listener. Clearly that is useless when debating matters scientific. I suggest that you find a science sourcebook.

Originally posted by Redwing
Well now. How do you know how long a biosphere takes to develop in what must have been totally different conditions?

You need to define "totally different conditions" in a more exact way. A rainforest, for example, is totally different, in many ways, from an arctic tundra, yet the two are totally similar in the sense that the basic laws of nature work the same way in both places.

See above for more problems with the Flood.

Originally posted by Redwing
The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us.

[...]

Books from the Bible have been found from about the time they were written with only a few word's difference from what they are now. Besides, the current books of the Bible were put through a serious grinder and what was to be "accepted". Or the Bible would be thousands of book long, instead of 66.

The entire Bible is debatable in the sense that its credibility is questionable. And since it is not credible it is a bad source for knowledge.

Every text is biassed. The author will always twist the story to his own ends or belifs, wether he knows it or not (save when he will get his butt flamed off for it, but since all the 'profets' went manno-a-manno with God, there were no-one to check that they did it right).

Also, the Bible is, mainly, a chronicle. This means that it will be fit to the agenda of the person writing it (as was the case with the chronicles of Saxo eg).

Originally posted by Redwing
"We" are not scientific theories. My belief is that we need God, as in "we" - "people". ^_~

Hence the "...".

Originally posted by Redwing
You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~

Science proves, scientifically, that God doesn't exist. As long as people understand the abilities and limitations of science, there is no problem. Until then it is preferable that they accept the scientific explanation as truth (though it isn't) for a wide varity of reasons, such as the ones that I stated in my original post.

Besides: Religion doesn't show science the same favor, so your statement is rather hypocritical.

Originally posted by Redwing
Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to.

The differences in dogma, belif structure, organisation, ect. is academic. Besides, while Protestantism didn't react as violently against science as Catholicism (mainly because it lacked the resources) the better part of the witch burnings were a protestant passtime. Protestantism also clearly has a great deal of responsability when it comes to the extermination of the aboriginal cultures of Africa, North and South America, and Australia. So Protestantism and Catholecism have no basis for critisizing each other IMO.

*Delivers a dressing-down from C'Jais*

[/Force:Absurdlylongpost]

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Dude listen up, when your being crushed by a tractor and you hear the bones in your fingers snap along with your leg and parts of your arm science doesn’t mean jack to you. My friend, when I looked up I saw an ANGEL, ANGEL (angelic being). It was no flash of light or dilutions, it’s was an ANGEL, Do you get my point?

Near-death-experience research has documented that the mind, when under conditions of extreme stress, creates hallucinations based on a combination of hope, fear, memory, belif, and imagination. It also releases large doses of anaesthetics that could have hallucinogenic effects. In short: It overloads, causing people to see thing that aren't there. Can anyone confirm your sighting.

Originally posted by ZDawg
What I saw was there! Standing next to me, I don’t need any friggin science to try and prove anything, I saw what I saw and the Creator of the earth HEALED me.

The 'Creator' healed you? Does that mean that there were no paramedics? No ambulances? No hospital? No rehab center? No nothing? How much time did your healing take BTW.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Can you tell I don’t care about science?

I kindda get the picture. Yet you are using its products. That's bigotry IMO.

*Sees that C'Jais said almost the same already*

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
By all means, people should believe what they want, but they can't just walk around saying their beliefs are true and force them upon others, dictate their lives and scare them, unless they have scientific proof of it.

And if they worked scientifically, they would never claim that their theories were truth, rendering this point academic.

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 01:42 PM
@Sith Maximus: I have been thinking along very similiar lines. But I think that Hitler would just have found some other group to scapegoat. What you really need to ask yourself is: What could he have done with Al Qaida or the modern equivelant of the Knights Templar at his back?

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
But I think there is a social reason to believe in God. It gives us purpose, senses of right and wrong,

Which is exactly what makes it addictive and dangerous. "purpose, senses of right and wrong" ect. were the driving forces behind 11/9-02.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Another thing Dan Old-Elk used to tell me: "The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to her."

Which is typically the difference between religion and spiritism/shamanism. This alternate center of the world (the world being the master, and Man a part of it, instead of Man mastering the world) means that shamanism will typically be less militant, selfish, dogmatic, and fundamentalistic than religion.

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
I Understand what your saying, but science cannot prove what I saw or give an explanation, nor do I need one.

"Has your vaunted religion really made you so blind?" -Zeratûl.

C'Jais and I have provided more than adequate explanations.

Originally posted by ZDawg
I didn’t have time to think about Anything... I just turned around and BAM! it happened. There where 25 year veteran paramedics that said that there was no reason I should have lived.

You have to be more specific still. "No reason" that you should have survived could just mean that they thought that you were filthy lucky that it wasn't your chest that was run over, or that survival chances in that kind of crashes are, figurativly speaking, one in a million.

BTW: I am sure that they would appreaciate a little more gratitude for helping fetch your bacon from the bonfire.

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
The guy above me did.

Well he said that we don't need an explanation for why it rains and so there should be no need to believe in gods. But we do need an explanation for why it rains it's just more like why thers rain not why it rains. you know

*Failed to accept your point due to the following error(s) of logic:

God-of-the-gaps error.

OR

Purpose-assumed-relevant error.*

Purpose is entirely irrellevant to the debate. Empirically nature works fine without a purpose. Therefore, lack of purpose does not disprove a model.

ShadowTemplar
11-26-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Man you guys will believe anything is from chance.

'We guys' don't belive at all. That's the point. When there is no evidence whatsoever it is simply more logical to say "we don't know yet, so we assume that it just happened", that saying "some intangible, unseen, unfelt, unheard, unproved, omnipotent (did I miss anything?) ETI did it".

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
By the way if there is no evil. Then what the terrorist did on 9/11 was ok right?

Three words: Point of View.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the 11/9 sonsofmotherlessgoats were acting on direct orders from Allah, were doing the right thing, and had all the justification that they needed. From their own (religious I might add) point of view.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old.
(If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.)

Still too young. By far shot.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof.

Ever hear about substitution in algebra?

I know how to solve two equations with two unknowns each, thank you very much.

Trick is, though: Here there is only one variable: The amount of C-14 in a piece of wood depends on the following factors:

How much C-14 was in it to begin with, the rate of decay and the time passed. The percentage of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant, as C-14 is created by cosmic bombardment. The rate of decay is also constant. That leaves us with how many variables?

Aaand the answer is: 1

BTW: You still haven't told me why you wanted to know my backing in Chemistry.

Elijah
11-26-2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar


Near-death-experience research has documented that the mind, when under conditions of extreme stress, creates hallucinations based on a combination of hope, fear, memory, belif, and imagination. It also releases large doses of anaesthetics that could have hallucinogenic effects. In short: It overloads, causing people to see thing that aren't there. Can anyone confirm your sighting.

My 2 Brothers and my dad Saw it, let me explain: When I was run over, The Tractor was backing up at a 45 Degree angle and I was behind it next to a brick wall. The Tractor turned straight and the bucket smashed me (several thousand pounds) into the brick wall... Now, the size I was at the time I was about chest high to the top of the bucket... Anyways, before the bucket hit me, something PICKED ME UP (apx) 4 feet in the air and the bucket didn’t hit my chest or head... what picked me up? I would like that question answer, if it was just pain/stress that I saw an Angle please do tell me what lifted me 4 feet in the air before the tractor hit me?


The 'Creator' healed you? Does that mean that there were no paramedics? No ambulances? No hospital? No rehab center? No nothing? How much time did your healing take BTW.

Paramedics picked me up and took my to the hospital, I Quote the paramedic "What the hell?! Its a Miracle this kid Is Not Dead", the doctor said the same... he told me the chances were very very high that I wouldn’t walk again, and even if I did I'd have extreme knee problems... Ironic that after friends and family prayed for me I was on crutches at just 6 weeks. (Although I do have knee problems, but that’s from something different)

...they thought that you were filthy lucky that it wasn't your chest that was run over As I said, the bucket would have hit my chest and crushed it falt... Somthing picked me up into the Air, Explain how this happens... please, do tell :)

C'jais
11-26-2002, 04:59 PM
Impressive story ZDawg.

Maybe your family weren't in a position to see exactly what happened? Did they see you get lifted up as well?

Regardless, that incident does not prove God: It might just be some natural law/phenomena that we haven't discovered yet.
That your family didn't see the angel is something to consider as well.

BTW, why didn't my friend get saved when he got killed by a car as he was lying on the road? Until every person in a near death situation escapes it that way, I will not begin to believe.

Mandalorian54
11-26-2002, 06:18 PM
The water cycle came from natual conincidences. It took billions of years to make, since it needed ALOT of hydrogen and oxygen molecules to combine.

Wow tyrion you sure did catch evrythin that evolutionist said during class... cept the last little bit... that evolution is impossible and not true!

That's right I've said it before evolutionists say evolution is not true.

If anyone should be believing in a pink elephant it should be you.
A pink elephant is more probable than evolution.

This is not made to offend you Tyrion and I dont mean to be insulting if you took it that way.

Tyrion
11-26-2002, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54


Wow tyrion you sure did catch evrythin that evolutionist said during class... cept the last little bit... that evolution is impossible and not true!

That's right I've said it before evolutionists say evolution is not true.

If anyone should be believing in a pink elephant it should be you.
A pink elephant is more probable than evolution.

This is not made to offend you Tyrion and I dont mean to be insulting if you took it that way.

Actually..it isnt more proboble.

Because for an elephant to breed new ones into an Pink elephant,it needs to elvove it's genes to get a pink DNA thing.

:p

Elijah
11-26-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Maybe your family weren't in a position to see exactly what happened? Did they see you get lifted up as well?
Yes, they saw it all, every bit of it.

Regardless, that incident does not prove God: It might just be some natural law/phenomena that we haven't discovered yet. You people never sease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before you eyes and just because you chose not to believe in God you make up some lame story.


That your family didn't see the angel is something to consider as well. What? If you read my post above they DID see the angle, as clear as I saw it.


BTW, why didn't my friend get saved when he got killed by a car as he was lying on the road? Until every person in a near death situation escapes it that way, I will not begin to believe. Often have I asked the same question when friends have died before my very eyes... Its a questions I cannot answer yet I wish I could.

Redwing
11-27-2002, 01:45 AM
This argument is becoming far too hostile for my tastes. This will probably my last ultralong post. ^.^ So I'll try not to say too much that needs replies (that I would need to answer).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
I know for certain you can't do that. Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your point being? BTW: You still have failed to produce examples.

My point was that I wasn't going to bother producing examples, and I was explaining why. ;)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You have made a grave mistake here. Very grave indeed. Evolution does nothing. I repeat for clarification: Evolution does nothing.

There, everyone can breathe again.

Evolution is a model. Keyword: Model. That means that it is a way to describe what we see. And what we see is this: Life on Earth changes slowly over the cause of millions of years. There are no rapid changes (rapid meaning over the cause of one or two generations), and the changes that do occur result in specialisation, the occupation of a new niche, or adaption to a new environment (actually a class of microorganisms capable of engineering their DNA code has been found, these could produce rapid changes, but the engineering is entirely biological). The model that best fits this is the Theory of Evolution. Why? The result and rate of the changes would indicate that the those who are best able to survive in any given environment survive to pass on their genes. Beneficial gene combinations accumulate, because the rest are removed. That is the most logical conclusion.

I understand this. I just didn't feel like spelling it out. -.- I understand what evolution is ^_~ I'm sorry. :xp:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything.

It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1) You have failed to account for the survival of infectous, disease-causing parasites such as Cholera, the Black Plague, Hepatitis B, ect. Survival of these species would seem incompatible with human survival when every human being on the face of the planet was huddled inside an Ark.

2) The aquatic biospheres would still be destroyed. Anything that needed to be remotely near the seabed for some reason would be squashed by the increasing pressure. And all life adapted to salt/fresh conditions (ie: Half the number of aquatic species) would be utterly destroyed. The presence of these brances today cannot possibly be explained through "adaption".

3) On what grounds do you say that the world is degenerating?

4) Inbreeding.

5) Where did all the water go then?


1) Dead bodies. Dormant in live ones. C'mon, you could think of an explanation for that really easily if you believed it.

2) But it can possibly be explained through evolution. If you read any of my earlier responses instead of just assuming everything about me you would have known that.

3) It's an assumed part of creation theory - "the world used to be better". Besides, even if it wasn't, Man is certainly doing the degenerating himself right now.

4) I answered this.

5) Um, the seas? The space in the fountains of the deep would still have been there, even when broken up. Volcanic activity would have caused cracks in the earth to appear for water to drain.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Well, no...so we would have stars, silly. ;p

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



Now you are the one who is being silly. If She wanted us to have stars (why would She want that BTW?) She could just place them there, end of story (this is actually a theological debate, making it irrellevant).

(Sheheit. I'm not one of those people who care, in fact I think God personified himself as a male to alleviate male arrogance ;))

I don't know. Why would he want to make us? Why would he want to want us to have...raccoons? Fish? Besides, the stars are beautiful. That's not a valid scientific reason, but God is a person.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.
Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



See my above post on the credibility of the (Un)Holy Bible. Quite apart from that, it seems that you are taking a fundamentalistic veiwpoint. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I last checked fundamentalism was the chief cause of the Crusades, Apartheid, and the 11/9-01 incident.

I've heard the arguments about the incredibility of the Bible and they're all based on conjecture. And you are VERY VERY VERY WRONG. I'll let it slide for ignorance because I am lazy *snicker* Note: "Fundamentalism" is one of the most misused terms ever. Technically I am taking a extremely fundamentalist viewpoint, but anyone who knew me that YOU (I assume) would term a fundamentalist would say I am so liberal I don't deserve to call myself a Christian.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But since Evolution hasn't been proved wrong either, and there is a ton of evidence for Evolution, and none at all for God, Evolution is the best model.

A) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

B) You aren't counting people's lives or testimonies as evidence. I am.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Why is it folly to believe in something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because you have to belive it. Also see above on fundamentalism.

You believe what you are told. Everything you have been taught could be a lie. How do you know? You cannot honestly say that you don't have to believe in everything you think exists to accept it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SkinWalker had an exelent point about science being peer-reviewed. So we don't "blindly trust others to be telling the truth".

How do you know that? You can't see your peers.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are raping the English language. And yet your mistake is quite simple: THEORIES AREN'T FANTASIES. Check Fifteen Answers To Creationist nonsense (this link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...E49809EC588EEDF) for a full explanation, as I grow increasingly tired of repeating myself over that mistake. No lines are blurry. If it is veryfiable, it's science. If not: It's useless.

You are crossing the line to flaming. Please stop. I'm not even going to give your post the time of day if you can't keep it insult free. Sorry ^.^


Well, for one thing, there is the Flood. For another Genesis has more holes in it that puff-stone. A third: Jesus was militant, not pacifist.

Post proof.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I was not aware that there are multiple definitions. [/quote[

Check out a dictionary.

[quote]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are wrong on all accounts save the last one.

Everything that can be documented is factual. Anything else is infactual, and therefore, fictional (at least it was that way last time I checked).

It is a fact that God doesn't exist. Keyword: Fact.

While absense of evidence does not signify evidence of absense, it does signify absence of relavance.

I still have seen no evidence (I'll get back to you, ZDawg, in short order) that God exists.

And lastly: I didn't intend to make anything inflammable. I intended to raise awareness of the definition of a commonly used word, in this case through an example. Sorry if I stepped on some toes.

I find that hard to believe considering your replies earlier. You're implying that you can prove that God does not exist, which is not something you yourself are able to prove.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Also, without time travel, you can't prove the world came into being on its own steam. Therefore I could say "All your theories of evolution did not happen. That is a fact." Because neither you nor science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is truth. Actually, by your usage nothing known to us as fallible humans is a fact. And now I'm babbling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Neither I nor science need to prove that Evolution happened "beyond a shadow of doubt". I, and science, only need to prove that it is the most probable.

To what end?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exerpt from "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (link here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...49809EC588EEDF)
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Creation fails the "well-substatiated"-criterium. It is therefore a hypothesis at best.

According to their definition. Which is modified from what can be found in the dictionary. How convenient. Purely psychological, I admit, but cheap nonetheless.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
I think they're confused as to where the water is supposed to have come from. From "the fountains of the deep" and the "firmament" breaking and raining down. They obviously haven't read the Bible they're trying to refute. Not all that flood water was rain. It says so right there.

[...]

He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That still leaves alot of problems with the Flood 'model' (see above).

See above.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you?

[...]

Why then are you trying to use science to disprove an explanation of how we came into existence? Again, what good does it do you?

[...]

Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist.

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



All of this can be boiled down to the following:

I do not try to disprove anything. I try to prove that something is most probable, and therefore should be used in reasoning.


I think that the reason for pro-scientific people trying to disprove religious belifs stem from the fact that most people refuse to reason based on the best model available, so you need to show them that the model that they reason by is wrong.

I accept that. The reason I am debating is to defend against that.

Also religion has a nasty history of burning works of math and science (eg the Great Library of Alexandria) along with their writers (19th-century scientists).

Jerks. Don't blame me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
But...but...I've never flamed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hence the "start". Seriously, though, it was nothing but a manner of speaking.

What? I have flamed exactly once in my forum life, and I deeply regret it. I read that as inflammatory.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
But that isn't proving. Proof is "the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then what constitutes proof is dependent on the gullibility of the listener. Clearly that is useless when debating matters scientific. I suggest that you find a science sourcebook.

We are not debating matters scientific alone here.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us.

[...]

Books from the Bible have been found from about the time they were written with only a few word's difference from what they are now. Besides, the current books of the Bible were put through a serious grinder and what was to be "accepted". Or the Bible would be thousands of book long, instead of 66.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The entire Bible is debatable in the sense that its credibility is questionable. And since it is not credible it is a bad source for knowledge.

Every text is biassed. The author will always twist the story to his own ends or belifs, wether he knows it or not (save when he will get his butt flamed off for it, but since all the 'profets' went manno-a-manno with God, there were no-one to check that they did it right).

Prophets.

They only wrote part of the Bible.


Also, the Bible is, mainly, a chronicle. This means that it will be fit to the agenda of the person writing it (as was the case with the chronicles of Saxo eg).

There were many agreeing authors often totally unrelated to one another and would have never met.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
"We" are not scientific theories. My belief is that we need God, as in "we" - "people". ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hence the "...".

?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Science proves, scientifically, that God doesn't exist. As long as people understand the abilities and limitations of science, there is no problem. Until then it is preferable that they accept the scientific explanation as truth (though it isn't) for a wide varity of reasons, such as the ones that I stated in my original post.

Science has not "established the truth or validity of [God's nonexistence] by presentation of argument or evidence". I'm not sure what you mean by scientific - clarify. Because most people do not understand the abilities and limitations of science, there is a problem.

"Until then it is preferable that they accept the scientific explanation as truth" Only to you. That's extraordinarily unfair...



Besides: Religion doesn't show science the same favor, so your statement is rather hypocritical.

I am not religion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The differences in dogma, belif structure, organisation, ect. is academic. Besides, while Protestantism didn't react as violently against science as Catholicism (mainly because it lacked the resources) the better part of the witch burnings were a protestant passtime. Protestantism also clearly has a great deal of responsability when it comes to the extermination of the aboriginal cultures of Africa, North and South America, and Australia. So Protestantism and Catholecism have no basis for critisizing each other IMO.

They are NOT only academic. Protestantism is not a whole mass like Catholicism. (That's because "we" have no Pope)

I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the extermination of people? To be equally fair, you should point out that the Australian Aboriginies were legally murdered because they were "scientifically" found to be "evolutionarily lower" than Homo sapiens - so they were considered animals and hunted down and killed like them. Museums paid fat bounties for Aborigine skins for their displays. Almost all the Aborigines were wiped out.

Now that has nothing to do with the argument. But neither did what you said.

*sighs*

Stopping now.

SkinWalker
11-27-2002, 02:45 AM
Read all the way through to see how I prove that Creationists should teach Evolution in order to please God.

Originally posted by ZDawg

You people never sease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before you eyes and just because you chose not to believe in God you make up some lame story.

Or the other way to say it would be:

"You people never cease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before your eyes and just because you can't explain it, you make up some lame god."

In looking at human history, in nearly every culture, man uses a deity to explain that which he cannot. Man relies on a deity to ease his fear of the unkown: "what happens when I die? where will I go? Is this all there is?"

Answer: "No my son. To live forever, you only need to believe. Now, don't you feel better? God loves you."

How's that for a self-esteem boost?

God, gods, deities, angels, little gray men.... these are all man's attempts to aleviate his own fear. Religion is ultimately an anomaly of the human reaction to fear. Thousands of years ago, if lightning struck a tree near you, it had to be a sign that a god was angry. Today, a golfer gets struck on the golf course and we all agree that the stupid bastard should have used a wood instead of an iron.

If there is a god, then she is right to stay hidden from man. Lest she get credit for the the decimation of millions of people and hundreds of civilizations on the North American Continent. Or the traumatization of hundreds (if not more) little boys by priests who said "fu*k chastity." Or the Nigerian government's fatwa (death sentance) issued for a journalist who spoke her mind recently.

How many people in history and currently have died and are dying or suffering in the name of god?

True... one could argue that religion does much good. It promotes family values, moral decisions, ethical conduct and kindness to our fellow man.... all just as equally as it does the opposite mentioned above.

But all of these... good or bad, are products of man. Not god. Not religion. Man decided to hurt or help. Man decided to rape or protect, kill or preserve.

God is a cultural anomaly. Nothing more. If christianity were more significant, why did god only reveal him/her self to a few folks in the Middle-East? Why not to a Sioux warrior or Hopi farmer? Why not to a Mayan mother or an Eskimo fisherman?

Had any of these cultures advanced further and faster than Anglo-Saxon or Middle-Eastern ones, we might be smoking peace-pipes or dancing on a Medicine Circle on Sundays.

Instead of marginalizing so many people as Christians and Islamics have throughout history, it's time for man to awaken from his stupor and evolve. Creationist ideas no longer fit in society. They are counter-productive. For religion to survive, it must adapt or it will be cast aside.

To see the failure of the christian superstition, one need only look at modern teenagers. They are by and large exploring wicca and paganism... gothic cliques and hip-hop/urban behaviors are common as well. Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet... and many representatives of this superstition advocate the killing of innocent people as a way to heaven. Israel takes land from Palestinians then proclaims them terrorists for fighting back (many are... but the point is, neither is side is right).

Spiritualism should be personal. It should be a journey that one does not impose upon others. Gather with like-minded people and discuss what you each have learned. Gather with opposite-minded people and learn what they discuss.

Education and knowledge should be based upon established observations of fact. The best current explainations of observed evidence suggests that:

* The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

* Dinosaurs appear to have gone extinct after a collision of Earth with and asteroid about 65 million years ago, which impacted in modern day Belize and marks the end of the Cretaceous Period.

* Man has been on the planet beginning about 200, 000 to 30, 000 years ago.

Someone argued earlier (and it was probably not a serious point, but rather a suggestion of a possibility) that perhaps God planted evidence that we observe to make things appear as they are. If this is the case, wouldn't it be God's will that Evolutionary Theory be favored over Creationist dogma?

SkinWalker

Elijah
11-27-2002, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
"You people never cease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before your eyes and just because you can't explain it, you make up some lame god."
Its better to make up God than make up some lame story that non-life can make life and that everything happened by chance and that we have no purpose.

and no, I'm not saying we made up God.

Tyrion
11-27-2002, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Its better to make up God than make up some lame story that non-life can make life and that everything happened by chance and that we have no purpose.

and no, I'm not saying we made up God.

By creation, it seems like we also have no purpose,also it seems like we are slaves to god in a sense..

And no,I am not saying that there is an god.

Elijah
11-27-2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


By creation, it seems like we also have no purpose,also it seems like we are slaves to god in a sense.. Would that not be a purpose?

Tyrion
11-27-2002, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Would that not be a purpose?

Strike one...

But still,I'd rather feel like I have control over my life rather than feel I am predestined and used only as a minor pawn in some master plan...

Elijah
11-27-2002, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
But still,I'd rather feel like I have control over my life rather than feel I am predestined and used only as a minor pawn in some master plan... Who said we dont have Control of our lifes? the reason we are in the mess we are today was because God gave man a choice.

C'jais
11-27-2002, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg
Its better to make up God than make up some lame story that non-life can make life and that everything happened by chance and that we have no purpose.

and no, I'm not saying we made up God.

Purpose hmm?

Only once we realize that we have no purpose will we be truly free. Only then can we pursue whatever purpose we deem fit.

No matter how you look at it, your views are coloured by your belief in God. You are constantly influencing yourself and others around you by your belief.

And yes, you did make up God - the nervecells in your brain is your counsciousness, without them you wouldn't be and neither would your God. God exists, but only for you and others who believe in him. Once you start saying that God exists for me as well, it will be forever false until I start personally believing in him.

C'jais
11-27-2002, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Redwing
[B]





3) It's an assumed part of creation theory - "the world used to be better". Besides, even if it wasn't, Man is certainly doing the degenerating himself right now.

Really? Quite the contrary I would say - we're no longer as ignorant as we used to be, and there's certainly less unjustified killing going on, in the name of God.



(Sheheit. I'm not one of those people who care, in fact I think God personified himself as a male to alleviate male arrogance ;))

He personified himself? You are saying someone actually saw him? Otherwise, It's up to each of us all to determine God's visage.

but God is a person.

How can you say that with certainty? I'm saying God is a elephant - have you got anything against that?


A) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Let's get something straight:

There's no scientific evidence of God.
Everything thus far has proved that God does not exist - nothing has done the contrary, unless you count beliefs as evidence.


You believe what you are told. Everything you have been taught could be a lie. How do you know? You cannot honestly say that you don't have to believe in everything you think exists to accept it.

I say we keep the Matrix'esque ideas out of this - yes, the world could have been created by God - Yes, everything could have been created 10 seconds before you were born - yes, the entire world could merely exist in your mind alone - yes, God could be a product of your mind.

Fact is, those who tell me something that I believe use sound calculations and research that has nothing with belief to do.

According to their definition. Which is modified from what can be found in the dictionary. How convenient. Purely psychological, I admit, but cheap nonetheless.

Listen, the scientific meaning of "Theory" was the original one. Then the common man stole the term and broadened it without asking the creators of it.

I accept that. The reason I am debating is to defend against that.

To what end? To save your postulated beliefs and views of the world?



Jerks. Don't blame me.

We don't. We blame Christianity, not you.


We are not debating matters scientific alone here.

This is the crux of the debate. If we aren't, then whatever I postulate will be just as good as the rest of you.

In fact we are: This debate is about the plausibility of God creating the earth. And we are using scientific methods to prove it - if we weren't, then there'd be no debate as whatever you say would be just as true as whatever I say.


I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the extermination of people? To be equally fair, you should point out that the Australian Aboriginies were legally murdered because they were "scientifically" found to be "evolutionarily lower" than Homo sapiens - so they were considered animals and hunted down and killed like them. Museums paid fat bounties for Aborigine skins for their displays. Almost all the Aborigines were wiped out.

While science as a tool does not include built-in beliefs, religion does. That those people murdered aboriginals was pure personal opinion. That millions of people died in the crusades were the will of God - they weren't jerks since God was with them.

SkinWalker
11-27-2002, 11:03 AM
You know.... it occurs to me that the basis of Creationist ideology is that the Bible establishes how man came to be... and that Evolution is wrong.

In this "Bible" it mentions that Joshua commanded the Sun to be still so that he could lengthen a day. Question: did the Sun orbit the Earth back then? If not, then in order to stop the sun from moving, he would have had to make the Earth still. What consequences would arise from doing this?

The "Bible" also states that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, stayed there for three days, the was spewed forth onto land. WTF?

Where did Cain's wife come from? Were there other people at the time?

Just my $.02 worth...

SkinWalker

C'jais
11-27-2002, 04:54 PM
Creationists base their life on assumptions. I'm not saying that it is wrong, and it actually may be true assumptions.

Nothing shows that God exists, yet you project him into everything - why? If you assume that you need God, then you do need him.

I'm not assuming anything, trusting solely what I can sense and calculate. You OTOH, are assuming God exists and putting him into the equation all the time. If you could only stop for a moment, and try to remove God from your world, you'd find that it exists fine by itself, and that the belief of God is a phantom nowhere to be seen.

You assume God is here, you assume you need God, you assume God created the earth, humans and animals - but that is nowhere to be seen nor calculated or scientifically proven. Science deals with what is, not what could be.

You assume, we sense - God exists in you, and nowhere else.

Elijah
11-27-2002, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Creationists base their life on assumptions.And your telling me that Evolutionist do not? WHAT THE HECK?! You assume that your Carbon dating is correct, how on earth do you know that that thing is really 15 million years old? Because your tests tell you? How do you know that the carbon dating is correct? How do you know that what the tests saying 15 million years old could really be only 15 years? At MT. St Helens they dated the fossils of dead deer they found under the lava to be around 15-20 millions years, when in fact it was only 15-20 years old. The eruption created canyons that people would assume to be millions of years old, however it is only 20.
Ironic how your little tests prove nothing but how false they are.

C'jais
11-27-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
And your telling me that Evolutionist do not? WHAT THE HECK?! You assume that your Carbon dating is correct, how on earth do you know that that thing is really 15 million years old? Because your tests tell you? How do you know that the carbon dating is correct? How do you know that what the tests saying 15 million years old could really be only 15 years? At MT. St Helens they dated the fossils of dead deer they found under the lava to be around 15-20 millions years, when in fact it was only 15-20 years old. The eruption created canyons that people would assume to be millions of years old, however it is only 20.
Ironic how your little tests prove nothing but how false they are.

Yet they have shown to be correct (nearly) all the time.

See, "scientists" don't just use one type of dating method to determine the age of something, they use several in conjunction to get the most accurate result. See Skinwalker's post on dating.

This isn't a fight against science, it's a fight versus two models: Evolution and Creation

Not just c-14, but several dating means have shown that the earth is a lot older than a mere 10k years. That there are sometimes anomalies and weird errors is a fact, but that does not explain how they are apparently correct in every other instance.

If the earth was eventually proven to be 6000 years old, it would not reveal that creationism, or the Christian world view is correct - it'd result in science making up a better model than the one they're currently using but it most definately would not prove God. If science arrived at the following conclusion: Everything race was created at the same time - people would begin to search for aliens that produced and placed these lifeforms on the earth, because that hypothesis is still far more plausible than accepting the notion of an assumed God creating it. Of course, it could result in revealing that your God are those aliens. As I said, creationists can't get evidence for the positive.

If you're saying that you do not need evidence for God, then you are merely proving my point: You base your life on assumptions.

Elijah
11-27-2002, 06:40 PM
And how would you assume that these aliens came to be?

Evolutions Is just as hard to believe as a God creating you.

Mandalorian54
11-27-2002, 06:45 PM
You evolutionists say you want to believe you have a purpose rather than to just be a slave to God.

That doesn't make any sens, your contradicting yourselves.
You say your an accident, what purpose is there than, you say theres no right or wrong it's just oppinions, well than whats wrong with slavery? hun?

I don't think were slaves to God, saying that just proves how ignorant you are.

We were created to Please God, everything that is good pleases God, when we do wrong we displease God.

Those who do not believe and obay God will go to hell after they die and those who believe and obay will go to heaven.

What do you believe will happen when you die? Fade into non existance?

If doing good and serving God isn't pupose I don't know what is.
If making the world a better place isn't a purpose what else can be.

Sex?

Murder?

Drugs?

Evolution is just an excuse to do wrong and not feel guilty.

C'jais
11-27-2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
And how would you assume that these aliens came to be?

I don't. I was using it as an example of what would happen if scientists proved that everything was created at once, and if the earth was found to be 10k years old.



Evolutions Is just as hard to believe as a God creating you. [/B]

Not just as hard - it is harder. It is all too easy to simply make up a God each time you encounter something currently unexplained.

It requires a conscious effot to realize that there is only you, that no higher power loves and protects you and that your existance could have been created from pure coincidence.

Elijah
11-27-2002, 06:53 PM
You must realize you guys sound just as Insane to us as we do to you.

Your not going to understand why we believe God unless you want to. and you, clearly do not. and I clearly, Dont NEED to believe evolution. for the simple reason that God supplies me with all my needs and I need not ask why and how I got here, Its as simple as this: I'm Here, The Time Is Now... I Shall Do What I May With The Time That Is Given To Me.

C'jais
11-27-2002, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
You evolutionists say you want to believe you have a purpose rather than to just be a slave to God.

That doesn't make any sens, your contradicting yourselves.
You say your an accident, what purpose is there than, you say theres no right or wrong it's just oppinions, well than whats wrong with slavery? hun?

We are a coincidence, not an accident. And no, we have no great purpose. What's right or wrong? That's personal opinion. I happen to think slavery is wrong. Saying that we have no sense of right and wrong is false in the extreme.


We were created to Please God, everything that is good pleases God, when we do wrong we displease God.

Those who do not believe and obay God will go to hell after they die and those who believe and obay will go to heaven.

Which is exactly why religion is dangerous. Those opinions are clearly defined by an ancient book and they dictate your life. How far will you go to make certain you please God? Insult me? Insult non-believers? Burn the heretics? You're exemplifying the danger of religion here, 54.

What do you believe will happen when you die? Fade into non existance?

I don't know, but since our brain no longer works, we will probably feel nothing. Like sleeping, except there'd be no dreams and you won't ever wake up. I'd like it to be that way, but I can't ever be 100% sure can I?

Evolution is just an excuse to do wrong and not feel guilty. [/B]

Really? Christianity is just an excuse to insult, injure and kill non-believers.

C'jais
11-27-2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
You must realize you guys sound just as Insane to us as we do to you.

Your not going to understand why we believe God unless you want to. and you, clearly do not. and I clearly, Dont NEED to believe evolution. for the simple reason that God supplies me with all my needs and I need not ask why and how I got here, Its as simple as this: I'm Here, The Time Is Now... I Shall Do What I May With The Time That Is Given To Me.

You never sounded insane to me, and I hope I didn't get across as insane to you guys. I respect your beliefs, and I can even understand why you believe in God. I could actually picture myself in your place - I simply chose not to believe in God.

And you may of course believe what you want, unless you're starting to harm those whose beliefs do not coincide with yours. Since I can't see you as the type who'd do that, I have faith in you :)

Elijah
11-27-2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Really? Christianity is just an excuse to insult, injure and kill non-believers. I dont know where you got that info but christians are to love everyone no matter what they believe.

Tyrion
11-27-2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
I dont know where you got that info but christians are to love everyone no matter what they believe.

So the crusaders and inquisition love the non believers so much that they killed them?

And also 54,I didnt mean we did have a purpose since we are a coinincidence,I mean we didnt have a purpose because we are a coincinidence.

Also,if god is perfect,why didnt he make us believe him?

And yes,he'd make it so we were happy we believed them.

And also,gods were mostly made so that dictators and power hungry men would follow them,would you honestly follow god if he said you'd go to hell anyway?

Redwing
11-27-2002, 08:45 PM
Really? Quite the contrary I would say - we're no longer as ignorant as we used to be, and there's certainly less unjustified killing going on, in the name of God.

There's less of that, which is a good thing. But I meant the state of the world, not the state of men.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Sheheit. I'm not one of those people who care, in fact I think God personified himself as a male to alleviate male arrogance )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



He personified himself? You are saying someone actually saw him? Otherwise, It's up to each of us all to determine God's visage.

One third of the "trinity" is personfied genderless. One third was personified linguistically as a "father". One became a human male - Jesus.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but God is a person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How can you say that with certainty? I'm saying God is a elephant - have you got anything against that?

If what I believe is true, God is a person. ;)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Let's get something straight:

There's no scientific evidence of God.
Everything thus far has proved that God does not exist - nothing has done the contrary, unless you count beliefs as evidence.

Refer to "B" of my original quote. Beliefs alone mean...little.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe what you are told. Everything you have been taught could be a lie. How do you know? You cannot honestly say that you don't have to believe in everything you think exists to accept it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I say we keep the Matrix'esque ideas out of this - yes, the world could have been created by God - Yes, everything could have been created 10 seconds before you were born - yes, the entire world could merely exist in your mind alone - yes, God could be a product of your mind.

Fact is, those who tell me something that I believe use sound calculations and research that has nothing with belief to do.

That was actually in others' defense. Some people were questioning Christian's view of reality...why aren't they questioning their own?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to their definition. Which is modified from what can be found in the dictionary. How convenient. Purely psychological, I admit, but cheap nonetheless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Listen, the scientific meaning of "Theory" was the original one. Then the common man stole the term and broadened it without asking the creators of it.

Really? Can I have a source? (If you can't, it's fine, I'm just curious.)

Well, as the purpose of being able to use the word "Theory" is to strengthen the case towards the common man, then it should be used as the common man understands it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept that. The reason I am debating is to defend against that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To what end? To save your postulated beliefs and views of the world?

Not totally, but essentially. Isn't that...essentially...what you are doing? If not, what is the point of this debate? ^.^



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerks. Don't blame me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We don't. We blame Christianity, not you.


Christianity? That's like saying "I blame the continent of Africa for the pyramids!"

Christians do not all share the same beliefs. We have a few shared basic beliefs.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not debating matters scientific alone here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is the crux of the debate. If we aren't, then whatever I postulate will be just as good as the rest of you.


Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not arguing about plausibility of God, I'm arguing that God and what the Bible says is a possibility. That's all I've done from the start. ^.^

In fact we are: This debate is about the plausibility of God creating the earth. And we are using scientific methods to prove it - if we weren't, then there'd be no debate as whatever you say would be just as true as whatever I say.

Well...I'm using science to argue that what the Bible says is not impossible, which has been continually stated here in one form or another. I believe plausibility is subjective to the person...am I wrong?


While science as a tool does not include built-in beliefs, religion does. That those people murdered aboriginals was pure personal opinion. That millions of people died in the crusades were the will of God - they weren't jerks since God was with them.

God was not with them. The government was with them. You realize most of them probably never read the Bible? It all went through those in power. What they said was law. This is why we have separation of church and state.

Tyrion

So the crusaders and inquisition love the non believers so much that they killed them?


*sigh* Read what I said earlier.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were created to Please God, everything that is good pleases God, when we do wrong we displease God.

Those who do not believe and obay God will go to hell after they die and those who believe and obay will go to heaven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which is exactly why religion is dangerous. Those opinions are clearly defined by an ancient book and they dictate your life. How far will you go to make certain you please God? Insult me? Insult non-believers? Burn the heretics? You're exemplifying the danger of religion here, 54.

The dangers of human nature. Not the danger of Christianity.

"Clearly defined?" Nothing to do with the argument, but you'd be surprised, if you read the Bible, how much is not...the stuff that is not is the stuff maniacs twist for their own ends. Also just-this-side-of-accurate translations...but I'll stop before I start ranting ^_~

(By the way, whoever posted that is wrong. According to basic Christianity (I'm not referring to Catholisicm note, where it IS based on how good you are), believe Jesus died to save you and he will.)

C'jais
11-28-2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
There's less of that, which is a good thing. But I meant the state of the world, not the state of men.

What are you referring to? :confused:

The world is doing fine - oh, it'll of course not last forever, but it is thriving right now. How do you measure "world health"?


One third of the "trinity" is personfied genderless. One third was personified linguistically as a "father". One became a human male - Jesus.

If what I believe is true, God is a person. ;)

But that is simply another human's idea of God - he has yet to show himself, no?

Not totally, but essentially. Isn't that...essentially...what you are doing? If not, what is the point of this debate? ^.^

My beliefs and views aren't postulated - they're what I can sense, prove and calculate, they're fact.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not arguing about plausibility of God, I'm arguing that God and what the Bible says is a possibility. That's all I've done from the start. ^.^

Oh, everything is possible if you put it that way. The bible might possibly be true, God might be possible - neither are plausible.

Well...I'm using science to argue that what the Bible says is not impossible, which has been continually stated here in one form or another. I believe plausibility is subjective to the person...am I wrong?

If it's subjective, it's a postulate. It's like me saying: "I find it very plausible that Bush is being mindcontrolled by blue bunnies..." - Possibility and plausibility are two very different things.

The dangers of human nature. Not the danger of Christianity.

Yes, but without Christianity, it wouldn't have given them the mandate to do such things, and neither would they be allowed to gather so many people under a common cause.

God was with the people on the crusades - they fervently believed so. Are you to think that you have interpreted the bible better? You might have, but when so many people become zealots of God in their own mind, they can do some pretty nasty things. Religion acts like a drug that can cause you to do anything for God - which is why I secretly fear overly religious persons.

(By the way, whoever posted that is wrong. According to basic Christianity (I'm not referring to Catholisicm note, where it IS based on how good you are), believe Jesus died to save you and he will.)

Is it so difficult to imagine that without religion, there can still be good morals? Many non-believers are fine people, with morals as healthy as Christian's.

TheWhiteRaider
11-28-2002, 03:57 PM
Is it so difficult to imagine that without religion, there can still be good morals? Many non-believers are fine people, with morals as healthy as Christian's.

And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of?

How many Christains kill themsleves?

How many Christains go into a life of crime?

C'jais
11-28-2002, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of?

I could name quite a few. The crusades, inquisition etc...

How many Christains kill themsleves?

9/11, need I say more? Even though they were muslims, it's the same deal - they did it for God. Usually however, religious people are far too scared of killing themselves because they think they'll go to hell for it - leaving them to live out their lives in misery.

How many Christains go into a life of crime?

A life of crime? I honestly have no idea, since I live in heathen Denmark. But history shows a lot of people killing and maiming in order to preserve their skewed traditions and views (Galilei, Kopernicus).

Also, may I add - How religious a country is, is usually reverse proportional with how well they take care of their weak. Examples include Iran, USA, states in South America and Afghanistan.

Redwing
11-29-2002, 05:59 AM
Limiting replies here to what I originally set out to debate. Short on time. Not very interested in trying to make stalemates...staler. Someone else can answer for me, or not ^.^

What are you referring to?

The world is doing fine - oh, it'll of course not last forever, but it is thriving right now. How do you measure "world health"?

Ummmm...I think I was tired when I wrote that, because it now makes no sense to me x.x


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One third of the "trinity" is personfied genderless. One third was personified linguistically as a "father". One became a human male - Jesus.

If what I believe is true, God is a person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But that is simply another human's idea of God - he has yet to show himself, no?

Eh? Jesus WAS God, according to the Bible. ^.^


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well...I'm using science to argue that what the Bible says is not impossible, which has been continually stated here in one form or another. I believe plausibility is subjective to the person...am I wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If it's subjective, it's a postulate. It's like me saying: "I find it very plausible that Bush is being mindcontrolled by blue bunnies..." - Possibility and plausibility are two very different things.

Everything is subjective. Ridiculous as your statement sounds, it's subjective to our point of view.

Hee.

:D


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dangers of human nature. Not the danger of Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[quote]
Yes, but without Christianity, it wouldn't have given them the mandate to do such things, and neither would they be allowed to gather so many people under a common cause.

They would have found something else. They always have and always will.


God was with the people on the crusades - they fervently believed so. Are you to think that you have interpreted the bible better? You might have, but when so many people become zealots of God in their own mind, they can do some pretty nasty things. Religion acts like a drug that can cause you to do anything for God - which is why I secretly fear overly religious persons.

I actually read the Bible, which is kind of better. Everything the Crusaders did violated everything Jesus said.

I secretly fear some 'overly religious' people too. (If you mean what I think you mean.)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(By the way, whoever posted that is wrong. According to basic Christianity (I'm not referring to Catholisicm note, where it IS based on how good you are), believe Jesus died to save you and he will.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is it so difficult to imagine that without religion, there can still be good morals? Many non-believers are fine people, with morals as healthy as Christian's.

I am well aware of that. o_O Why did you point it out?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I could name quite a few. The crusades, inquisition etc...

Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing. They would have called themselves Christians (Catholics, actually). But what they did was explicitally against Christianity.

To all the rest of the comments: You can't lump all religions into one little ball and say "They're all the same." Here's an analogy of what you're doing, in different terms. "Insects. They're all the same. Better exterminate those butterflies before they start infesting our food, bite us, suck our blood, or give us infectious diseases. It's the same deal - they're still insects."

(Are you arguing that the human race does not need religion? Or creation vs. evolution? Maybe you should make a new thread ;))

edit: Usually however, religious people are far too scared of killing themselves because they think they'll go to hell for it - leaving them to live out their lives in misery.

No wonder you're scared of religious people. If I was like that, I know I would be scared of me!

BCanr2d2
11-29-2002, 08:33 AM
I think some of us here have stumbled across what some people now persecute the Muslims for, fundamental belief in religion. The fact that Christianity is about 500 yrs older than Muslim, puts it not too far off being about that far behind in thinking. Wasn't it during the Middle Ages that the Spanish had their inquisitions, and the Roman's went on Crusades, under the guise of Catholics?

For religions that have almost the same beliefs, prophets, how are they so antagonistic? For the same supposed God, why is it these two religions that seem so much at each others throat?

For those that do not believe too much in science, then why use a PC, or anything that is not from the hands of God? It is most likely a heathen that has created the things that you use in such everyday activities. Isn't that selective ignorance of what to believe in, that you believe the Bible, yet will ignore the others that have created the things that you take for granted.....

C'jais
11-29-2002, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Redwing
Eh? Jesus WAS God, according to the Bible. ^.^

Hmm... I always thought he was the son of God...

Even if he was, he's dead now and God is probably in another form - where should he reside, and how would he survive?



Everything is subjective. Ridiculous as your statement sounds, it's subjective to our point of view.

Yes.... Everything is subjective, everything a state of mind.

But we really do need to draw a line somewhere - I suggest we define it as what everyone can sense and prove.

I actually read the Bible, which is kind of better. Everything the Crusaders did violated everything Jesus said.

As are America right now - killing other people to protect their country, lying stealing etc. I suppose none are real Christians from your POV unless they do exactly as is written in the Bible? Or what?

I am well aware of that. o_O Why did you point it out?

Can't remember who said it, but someone uttered that without religion we would have many more killings and no morals at all.

Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing. They would have called themselves Christians (Catholics, actually). But what they did was explicitally against Christianity.

And so are the Afghanistan bombings - regardless, I was under the notion that God forgives everything.

To all the rest of the comments: You can't lump all religions into one little ball and say "They're all the same." Here's an analogy of what you're doing, in different terms. "Insects. They're all the same. Better exterminate those butterflies before they start infesting our food, bite us, suck our blood, or give us infectious diseases. It's the same deal - they're still insects."

But Islam operates under much the same law - no killing, lying, cheating, many of the same virtues.

And as ZDawg said: The Christian God is the Islamic God and vice versa - which is the better religion now?

(Are you arguing that the human race does not need religion? Or creation vs. evolution? Maybe you should make a new thread ;))

I have honestly no idea :)

I'm making this up as I go :D

Tyrion
11-29-2002, 12:34 PM
Also,why arent we seeing big miracles today? I mean,why arent we seeing an ocean splitting in two? Or the three plagues? Or why isnt jesus here, helping and saving a ton of people?

SkinWalker
11-29-2002, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of?

Jim Jones.... remember Guyana?

How many Christains kill themsleves?

See above.

How many Christains go into a life of crime?

Jerry Falwell; Jim Jones; anti-apartheid cleric Allan Boesak; (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4194318,00.html) Rev. Dennis B. O'Neill (http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/ev/11-28-02-police.html) (bottom of the page); James William Bell; (http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2002/11/21/2002112131974.htm) Episcopalians; (http://www.wfn.org/2002/11/msg00236.html) Rev. John Alexander; (http://www.whtm.com/showstory.hrb?f=n&s=62232&f1=loc&f2=loc&z=0) religious reform school exploitation; (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/19A198F289D44C0C86256C7400738FB3?OpenDocument&headline=Reform+schools+find+a+haven+here) Baptist Foundation of Arizona; (http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/complaint_form_baptist.html) etc., etc.,

SkinWalker

ShadowTemplar
11-29-2002, 04:04 PM
[Force:Obscenelylongpost] [Force:Replytoobscenelylongpost]

originally posted by RedwingI should have worded it: "If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so - None."

It doesn't matter what I've postulated. The fact remains that until either of us sees the evolution of the cosmos/creation, we both have no proof.

We have provided you with more than accurate proof. I'll deal with your definition of 'proof' below.

originally posted by RedwingI should have added the all-important clause: "God did it." Remember, I'm not using science to explain everything. Before you say that's invalid, think about it - can science explain everything now?

I take it that by that you mean that science will be useless until it can explain everything. Well, when it claims that it can, it will cease to be scientific, and therefore, to be science.

I have thought about this. At great length. You are falling back on the God-of-the-Gaps view. The problem with the God-of-the-Gaps concept is that it impedes scientific research, as it encourages priests to discourage it (even more than they do already) in order to hold on to their power.

originally posted by RedwingYou said that in the beginning. I said: God manipulated the light so it reached Earth immediately. You said: Why? So he could give evidence against his existence? I said: Well, no, so we could have stars.

Then God would have to continue teleporting the light to the Earth, or black out the stars for several hundred million years.

This means that the stars that we see now must be the ones that are still out there, making any space projects beyond the imidiate neighbours of the Sol system moot, as they would be hostile to human life.

You asked before why I want to disprove your ideas. This is one example. If your hypothesises aren't disproven (and they have been) NASA could go seriously underfounded. Thus: Our perception of the past has effects on the present.

originally posted by RedwingMy belief in the existence of God was not spawned directly from a scientific fact. Therefore why would I stick to them? I'm only trying to show that my belief in God does not contradict science. Besides, most scientific fact is greatly informed postulating anyway ^_~

"Greatly informed postulating" my back! Scientific fact is always backed by every available external reference.

originally posted by RedwingHow do you know what is unexplainable? Wouldn't it just be the "unexplained at this time"? And according to your definition, the word "supernatural" has no use because to exist in reality is to be natural. I've been fudging a bit because it's confusing me that we even have that word if your definition is the right one ^_~

The words "unexplainable" and "supernatural" have become synonymus with "as yet unexplained". But they have only been so for a few centuaries: Science emerged in the 19th centuary (and spent most of it trying like to avoid being burned at the stick for heresy).

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

This really has nothing to do with my post, but I think that it is such a great site that I wanted to advocate it again.

[i]originally posted by RedwingMeh? Okay. All six definitions of theory:

the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. 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.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I used the first one. Which are you referring to?

I am referring to the first one too. But you are obviously not: Creationism hasn't been "devised to explain [...] facts or phenomena", nor is it useful in making "predictions about natural phenomena". Therefore it falls short of that definition.

originally posted by Redwing-.-* I never said they all died. I said he didn't try to save them.

See above on the destruction of seabed biospheres (for new readers my point revolves around the fact that the biospheres that depend on the seabed and a specific pressure would be destroyed by the increased pressure from the extra water, and be unable to regenerate without evolution so extensive that every other creationistic 'point' becomes moot).

originally posted by RedwingThat was quite a shabby argument, I admit. But you're missing my point - you don't know.

By making that 'point' you just showed, no offence inteded, that you have not understood anything that we have previously said.

originally posted by RedwingMmmmmmmmmm. Perhaps it's just blinder now?

Besides, the separate books were written over centuries.

[...]

They're doing a lovely good job of it aren't they. ^_^ Besides, only a social scientist should be doing that, because God is more concerned with man than the universe he created, destined to end in fire. We're doing just fine all by ourselves? How can you say that, not knowing whether God is involved?

I don't really see what you are getting at.

BTW: I think that 'social science' is but a shabby copy of real science.

originally posted by RedwingSaying "it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's" is opinion and shouldn't be taught as fact.

Wrong. According to www.yourdictionary.com 'fact' means, among other things:

"Knowledge or information based on a real occurance." That is the definition that I have used throughout this thread. Since God does not fullfil that criterium, he must be unfactual, and therefor it is a fact that he does not exist.

originally posted by RedwingI missed his post. He didn't list any nearly 100% accurate dating methods except the old C-14. Of course I am well aware that it is not the only possible method.

SkinWalker doesn't need accuracy in order to make his point. At least one of the methods he speaks of can date objects up to several millions of years back. Even if you substract the entire inaccuracy, it will still give results that are incompatible with creationistic dogma.

originally posted by Redwing*sigh* This is getting tiring. -.- Proof - "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." You only have evidence that doesn't prove.

Not right, but not all wrong either: According to www.yourdictionary.com 'proof' means, among other things:

"The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions."

Realise that this is the definition that should be used when debating wether something is proven or not. Because it is verifiable (ie: You can check if the criteria are fulfilled).

originally posted by Redwing*sigh* Again, I am not trying to do either...

Well you are doing your level best, even if it isn't your intention.


Some of what I have said here may overlap what other people have already said, as I am too lazy to read the entire thread before beginning to reply.

[/Force:Replytoobscenelylongpost]

ShadowTemplar
11-29-2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
Remember what the counter argument for Earth's rapid magnetic field decay was? Just because that's what it is now doesn't mean that's what it's always been.

That, Redwing, is called "selective quoting" or, if I am to say my flat opinion, manipulative quoting. The outcome of that debate was that science extrapolates from the current situation. The current situation shows, however, that there has been several polar turns, and that we are overdue for one as of now. Therefore, the magnetic field decay is entirely compatible with the method of extrapolating from current material. It is therefore entirely justified when SkinWalker concludes that tectonic activity can be read from current signs in the crust (for details, ask SkinWalker himself; I don't know enough about it).

Originally posted by Redwing
The Flood could have created them. And see above.

I think that I have already dealt with the Flood. At lenght. With diagrams.

ShadowTemplar
11-29-2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Rogue15
Man created Science.
Science did not create Man.

God created man in his own image
Man sins
Man creates god in his [sinful] image

Your point being?

ShadowTemplar
11-29-2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by ZDawg
let me explain: When I was run over, The Tractor was backing up at a 45 Degree angle and I was behind it next to a brick wall. The Tractor turned straight and the bucket smashed me (several thousand pounds) into the brick wall... Now, the size I was at the time I was about chest high to the top of the bucket... Anyways, before the bucket hit me, something PICKED ME UP (apx) 4 feet in the air and the bucket didn’t hit my chest or head... what picked me up? I would like that question answer, if it was just pain/stress that I saw an Angle please do tell me what lifted me 4 feet in the air before the tractor hit me?

No offence intended, but you have a rather broad definition of approximate. If someone throws a dagger at an 11-years old kid's neck, he'll have to jump 2' straight into the air to have it pass between the middle of his thighs. At most.

I am 6'4'' tall, give or take a little. Neck to mid-thigh on me is 3' give or take a little. That gives a factor of (3*12)/(6*12+4)=36/76=2-point-something.

Take your height at the time of the accident and divide it by two. This would give you roughly the height that you would need to clear in a standing jump in order to avoid the tractor. You do the math, but 4' is clearly inconsistent with the rest of your story.

Also you can factor in anything between appr. .5 and 1.5 for your estimate of the height of the tractor at that time, from what you have told us now, and the tractor would still have killed you had you not moved. Which means that, from your story so far, you would at best have to jump about 1/4 of your height and at worst have to jump about 3/4 of your height.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Paramedics picked me up and took my to the hospital, I Quote the paramedic "What the hell?! Its a Miracle this kid Is Not Dead", the doctor said the same... he told me the chances were very very high that I wouldn’t walk again, and even if I did I'd have extreme knee problems... Ironic that after friends and family prayed for me I was on crutches at just 6 weeks. (Although I do have knee problems, but that’s from something different)

When paramedics talk like that they usually refer to the aforementioned one-in-a-million chance.

BTW: If it wasn't for technological advancement, and therefore science, your family could never afford a six-week prayer vigil. Besides it sounds as if you were religious at the time, contrary to what you told us previously.

PS: I think that I forgot to tell you before: I do feel sorry for your accident.

Redwing
11-29-2002, 07:33 PM
x.x I replied to this already and the stoopid forum ate it :(

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Eh? Jesus WAS God, according to the Bible. ^.^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm... I always thought he was the son of God...

Even if he was, he's dead now and God is probably in another form - where should he reside, and how would he survive?

God is a Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons in one.

God created nature. So he would have to be able to exist outside of it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything is subjective. Ridiculous as your statement sounds, it's subjective to our point of view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes.... Everything is subjective, everything a state of mind.

But we really do need to draw a line somewhere - I suggest we define it as what everyone can sense and prove.


But not everyone can sense God, and no one can prove God. So if we draw the line there, this debate has no point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually read the Bible, which is kind of better. Everything the Crusaders did violated everything Jesus said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As are America right now - killing other people to protect their country, lying stealing etc. I suppose none are real Christians from your POV unless they do exactly as is written in the Bible? Or what?

No. I already defined what makes a "real" Christian. Look earlier ;)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing. They would have called themselves Christians (Catholics, actually). But what they did was explicitally against Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And so are the Afghanistan bombings - regardless, I was under the notion that God forgives everything.

If they're defending innocent people, I don't see how that parallels the Crusades. Besides, I don't need to defend others' actions, especially when they don't represent those of my side ^.^

God doesn't automatically forgive everything. Only if the person repents and asks for forgiveness.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all the rest of the comments: You can't lump all religions into one little ball and say "They're all the same." Here's an analogy of what you're doing, in different terms. "Insects. They're all the same. Better exterminate those butterflies before they start infesting our food, bite us, suck our blood, or give us infectious diseases. It's the same deal - they're still insects."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But Islam operates under much the same law - no killing, lying, cheating, many of the same virtues.

Really? How much do you know about these religions anyway? Virtues like that are held in many places in everyday society, too. But everyday society isn't necessarily Christian, nor is morality, as you or someone else pointed out.


And as ZDawg said: The Christian God is the Islamic God and vice versa - which is the better religion now?

According to Islam, Jesus was not God, just a prophet. But the basic concept is the same - all-powerful creator of nature.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingI should have worded it: "If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so - None."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It doesn't matter what I've postulated. The fact remains that until either of us sees the evolution of the cosmos/creation, we both have no proof.

That's exactly what I said, except worded differently yet again.


We have provided you with more than accurate proof. I'll deal with your definition of 'proof' below.

I'm beginning to suspect something here. Proving it to yourself doesn't prove it to me, you know.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingI should have added the all-important clause: "God did it." Remember, I'm not using science to explain everything. Before you say that's invalid, think about it - can science explain everything now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I take it that by that you mean that science will be useless until it can explain everything. Well, when it claims that it can, it will cease to be scientific, and therefore, to be science.

Straw Man alert! I never said that and I certainly don't believe it. The use of science has done many great and invaluable things. It's a tol for understanding nature. From my position, why would God have put it there, and given humankind our insatiable curiosity, if he didn't want us to use it?


I have thought about this. At great length. You are falling back on the God-of-the-Gaps view.

Clarify. I don't remember. I suspect a Straw Man in use again...

The problem with the God-of-the-Gaps concept is that it impedes scientific research, as it encourages priests to discourage it (even more than they do already) in order to hold on to their power.

Firstly: Belief in God does not and should not impede scientific research. Secondly: Priests? I think you're referring to Catholicism. So I digress, because I'm not Catholic.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingYou said that in the beginning. I said: God manipulated the light so it reached Earth immediately. You said: Why? So he could give evidence against his existence? I said: Well, no, so we could have stars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then God would have to continue teleporting the light to the Earth, or black out the stars for several hundred million years.

I might be missing something important, but I don't see where you got that conclusion from ^.^


This means that the stars that we see now must be the ones that are still out there, making any space projects beyond the imidiate neighbours of the Sol system moot, as they would be hostile to human life.

Huh? Er....see above.


You asked before why I want to disprove your ideas. This is one example. If your hypothesises aren't disproven (and they have been) NASA could go seriously underfounded. Thus: Our perception of the past has effects on the present.

Really. It seems to me that's just your hypotheses would result in that affect.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingMy belief in the existence of God was not spawned directly from a scientific fact. Therefore why would I stick to them? I'm only trying to show that my belief in God does not contradict science. Besides, most scientific fact is greatly informed postulating anyway ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Greatly informed postulating" my back! Scientific fact is always backed by every available external reference.

That's the greatly informed part.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingHow do you know what is unexplainable? Wouldn't it just be the "unexplained at this time"? And according to your definition, the word "supernatural" has no use because to exist in reality is to be natural. I've been fudging a bit because it's confusing me that we even have that word if your definition is the right one ^_~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The words "unexplainable" and "supernatural" have become synonymus with "as yet unexplained". But they have only been so for a few centuaries: Science emerged in the 19th centuary (and spent most of it trying like to avoid being burned at the stick for heresy).

So there you go. That's what I was trying to say when someone accused me of raping the English language...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingMeh? Okay. All six definitions of theory:

the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. 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.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I used the first one. Which are you referring to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am referring to the first one too. But you are obviously not: Creationism hasn't been "devised to explain [...] facts or phenomena", nor is it useful in making "predictions about natural phenomena". Therefore it falls short of that definition.

Yes it has. Simplified version - Why is the world here and how did it get here? God did it. The second part has an especially clause in there, so it doesn't always have to fit it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Redwing-.-* I never said they all died. I said he didn't try to save them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



See above on the destruction of seabed biospheres (for new readers my point revolves around the fact that the biospheres that depend on the seabed and a specific pressure would be destroyed by the increased pressure from the extra water, and be unable to regenerate without evolution so extensive that every other creationistic 'point' becomes moot).

Okay, I think I'll do my first "argument steal from an outside source" here because I have limited time ^.^

If such a flood [as Noah's Flood] took place, it would have laid down multiple layers of mud full of the remains of plants and animals which died in the Flood. These layers would be widespread (since the Flood was global) and give evidence of having been laid down rapidly.

While we can't be certain of the exact nature of the Flood, it certainly involved tsunamis (sometimes called tidal waves)—incredibly energetic shock waves in the ocean, traveling at the speed of sound, which pummeled the land with towering walls of water. Likewise, it involved underwater mudflows, which even today are known to flow at up to 100 miles per hour, following an underwater earthquake or other disturbance. Volcanism, tectonism, erosion, redeposition, etc., occurred at rates, scales, and intensities far beyond similar processes occurring today.

[...] Noah and his family, and two representatives of each "kind" of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal (seven of each "clean" kind), were protected and preserved on board Noah's Ark. Outside, "all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" (Genesis 7:22).

But what about the fish and other marine creatures? Obviously, they weren't taken on board the Ark. How could they survive, particularly both fresh and salt water forms? As a matter of fact, most of them didn't survive. Over 95 percent of all fossils are marine creatures. They died, and are fossilized, by the trillions. Many are buried in great fossil graveyards, tightly packed together, choked with sediments, buried before they had time to decay. Obviously, they didn't live in the environment in which they died. But how could any have survived?

In the complex of events and conditions that made up the Flood, certainly there were pockets of fresh and/or clean water at any one time. Remember, it was raining in torrents, and we can expect that the rain was fairly fresh water. Many studies have shown that waters of various temperatures, chemistries, and sediment loads do not tend to mix; they tend to remain segregated into zones. It would be unlikely for any one area to retain such zones for very long during the tumult of the Flood, but on a worldwide scale, some such segregated zones would have existed at any given time. Furthermore, we don't know the tolerance levels of pre-Flood fish for sediment, salt, and temperature. Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish were even more adaptable.

There is also the possibility that great amounts of vegetation were dislodged from the pre-Flood continents and remained intertwined during the Flood as floating mats. Many creationists feel that the decay and abrasion of these mats are responsible for our major coal seams, but underneath these mats, the turbulence of the surface would have been lessened. Perhaps many fish found shelter and nutrition under them, as insects may have, on the mats themselves.

- From www.icr.org because if I had written all that, it would have taken at least two hours


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingSaying "it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's" is opinion and shouldn't be taught as fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrong. According to www.yourdictionary.com 'fact' means, among other things:

"Knowledge or information based on a real occurance." That is the definition that I have used throughout this thread. Since God does not fullfil that criterium, he must be unfactual, and therefor it is a fact that he does not exist.

That isn't quite the argument. Any production of the world shouldn't be taught as absolute fact because it cannot be duplicated or observed.

fact
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
[i]Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Interesting.

Your argument is wrong very simply because according to other definitions of fact, God IS a fact. Because it doesn't fit the definition you picked, that means he isn't a fact to you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by RedwingI missed his post. He didn't list any nearly 100% accurate dating methods except the old C-14. Of course I am well aware that it is not the only possible method.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SkinWalker doesn't need accuracy in order to make his point. At least one of the methods he speaks of can date objects up to several millions of years back. Even if you substract the entire inaccuracy, it will still give results that are incompatible with creationistic dogma.

Then do so.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Redwing*sigh* This is getting tiring. -.- Proof - "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." You only have evidence that doesn't prove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not right, but not all wrong either: According to www.yourdictionary.com 'proof' means, among other things:

"The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions."

Realise that this is the definition that should be used when debating wether something is proven or not. Because it is verifiable (ie: You can check if the criteria are fulfilled).

Well, can you check to see how the world came into existence? Got a time machine? Got pocket lin---*cough*---never mind that part :D


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Redwing*sigh* Again, I am not trying to do either...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well you are doing your level best, even if it isn't your intention.

No, I am not. I have checked up on something exactly once in this entire debate, when the best I could do is check ever possible source, rather than relying on my memory. I am not trying to argue every facet of the debate, because I don't feel like it. My best would be to do so. This is a very informal debate by nature, you realize? ;)

ShadowTemplar quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
Remember what the counter argument for Earth's rapid magnetic field decay was? Just because that's what it is now doesn't mean that's what it's always been.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That, Redwing, is called "selective quoting" or, if I am to say my flat opinion, manipulative quoting. The outcome of that debate was that science extrapolates from the current situation. The current situation shows, however, that there has been several polar turns, and that we are overdue for one as of now. Therefore, the magnetic field decay is entirely compatible with the method of extrapolating from current material. It is therefore entirely justified when SkinWalker concludes that tectonic activity can be read from current signs in the crust (for details, ask SkinWalker himself; I don't know enough about it).

I didn't intend to do so. You are free to disregard my appeal to SkinWalker, so now it's my argument. My apologies to SW ;)

But what I see you doing is called "the red herring argument" - introducing irrelevant material to push aside the argument ;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redwing
The Flood could have created them. And see above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think that I have already dealt with the Flood. At lenght. With diagrams.

All of which I have answered. At length. With diagrams. (Stolen diagrams, but diagrams nonetheless ;))

C'jais
11-29-2002, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
But not everyone can sense God, and no one can prove God. So if we draw the line there, this debate has no point.

Yes, but that would be assuming and not sticking to what we sense - why should we draw the line there? To "prove" your beliefs?



No. I already defined what makes a "real" Christian. Look earlier ;)

But the people in the middle ages thought they were real christians too. WHo are you to judge them? Some day, the people in the future will look at you and say that you weren't any better than them, IMHO. Views changes, but in the present, it's all for real.




If they're defending innocent people, I don't see how that parallels the Crusades. Besides, I don't need to defend others' actions, especially when they don't represent those of my side ^.^


Yet killing is wrong, no matter what, no? Am I wrong here? :confused:

BTW, I'm glad that you do not condone that act.

Really? How much do you know about these religions anyway? Virtues like that are held in many places in everyday society, too. But everyday society isn't necessarily Christian, nor is morality, as you or someone else pointed out.

Exactly my point. We do not need religion for morals, nor society.

However, modern society is in fact built on Christian dogmas. You can ask the people against abortion for evidence :p