MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Creationism vs. Evolutionism Other
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
The Debate
 Group admin 
Let us begin!
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:17 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Let us begin!

All right, if God created the earth over billions of years then explain this:

On day three God created plants on day four he created the sun. If each day was many, many years the plants would all die because the sun would not be there so they could use photosynthesis.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mark Murphy
All right, if God created the earth over billions of years then explain this:

On day three God created plants on day four he created the sun. If each day was many, many years the plants would all die because the sun would not be there so they could use photosynthesis.

Good point, however it comes from a misconception of what I believe, the sun cam before the earth, I think that the creation of plants corresponds to the first organisms, roughly 3.8 billion years ago, and the creation of the sun corresponds to photosynthesis, which started with the first photosynthesizing organisms. I can't remember exactly when that was, but I think it was 3.5 billion years ago.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:11 pm
 Group admin 
My turn to ask
How did the dinosaurs go extinct?
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:17 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Good point, however it comes from a misconception of what I believe, the sun cam before the earth, I think that the creation of plants corresponds to the first organisms, roughly 3.8 billion years ago, and the creation of the sun corresponds to photosynthesis, which started with the first photosynthesizing organisms. I can't remember exactly when that was, but I think it was 3.5 billion years ago.

All right, I am sorry but I don't have the time or patients for this.

If you do believe that The Jesus the son of God died for you to repay for all your sins then you will still go to heaven and whether you believe that the earth is old or not will not matter.

I do recommend that you invite Mitchel Andre, or Ru Corder and ask them what they think about this topic. You will find very convincing arguments from both of them.

I am sorry I wasn't able to let you see what I think is true.

~Mark
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mark Murphy
All right, I am sorry but I don't have the time or patients for this.

If you do believe that The Jesus the son of God died for you to repay for all your sins then you will still go to heaven and whether you believe that the earth is old or not will not matter.

I do recommend that you invite Mitchel Andre, or Ru Corder and ask them what they think about this topic. You will find very convincing arguments from both of them.

I am sorry I wasn't able to let you see what I think is true.

~Mark

Its OK, I understand. Thankyou for at least showing your consideration!
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:25 pm
Quoting Mark Murphy
All right, if God created the earth over billions of years then explain this:

On day three God created plants on day four he created the sun. If each day was many, many years the plants would all die because the sun would not be there so they could use photosynthesis.
But if there was no sun or moon, how could you measure days?

Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:30 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
My turn to ask
How did the dinosaurs go extinct?

Killed off by men. They would have been a threat to crops and livestock, therefor hunted and killed off.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
Killed off by men. They would have been a threat to crops and livestock, therefor hunted and killed off.

I don't see how one could hunt an ankylosaurus without guns.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:35 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I don't see how one could hunt an ankylosaurus without guns.

Well, I'm not necessarily talking about cavemen here. Where do you think dragon myths came from? I believe they came from dinosaurs. And what do you think would be the results of all those dragon slaying quests?
Also, they could have died off as men encroached on there natural habitats.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
Well, I'm not necessarily talking about cavemen here. Where do you think dragon myths came from? I believe they came from dinosaurs. And what do you think would be the results of all those dragon slaying quests?
Also, they could have died off as men encroached on there natural habitats.

I see what you're saying. Good point.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:47 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I see what you're saying. Good point.

I've done some research. ;)
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:50 pm
 Group admin 
The 12 Questions
1. What happened to trilobites and eurypterids?
2. Why does the fossil record show progression?
3. Why do we find transitional fossils (archaeopteryx, hyracotherium, and tiktaalik, for example)?
4. How can we see objects farther than 6000 light years away?
5. If, after the Great Flood, all the animals got off the ark on Mount Ararat, how did the non-flying ones spread to Australia, Antarctica, and the Americas?
6. How come the bone structure is the same in the limbs of a mammals?
7. Way do animals have vestigial organs, such as the eyes on blind fish, your appendix, and the legs on some snakes?
8. In places like the La Brea Tar Pits, we find no dinosaurs. If they lived at the same time as the other animals we find, why not?
9. If we look at things about 6000 light-years away, shouldn't we see Creation?
10. In cave paintings, we see fairly accurate drawings of modern or recently extinct animals, but we see no dinosaurs, or other animals that lived before humans. Wouldn't you think that large and powerful animals like dinosaurs would play a more significant role in cave-man life?
11. Why are closely related animals always found close together?
12. Why don't we ever find fossils of humans or other modern animals with prehistoric animals?

Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 9:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
I've done some research. ;)

You deserve a reward for that.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:01 pm
Well, I'm not an expert on fossils and such, but I can give few answers.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
The 12 Questions
1. What happened to trilobites and eurypterids?
Virus's?<<<<
2. Why does the fossil record show progression?
Like I said, not an expert here. But I think it rarely does, and when it does, it's giant leaps, nothing slightly between two different evolved beasties.<<<<
3. Why do we find transitional fossils (archaeopteryx, hyracotherium, and tiktaalik, for example)?
4. How can we see objects farther than 6000 light years away?The Bible never gives any evidence either way as to when other planets were made. It just accounts for the earth.<<<<

5. If, after the Great Flood, all the animals got off the ark on Mount Ararat, how did the non-flying ones spread to Australia, Antarctica, and the Americas?The continents could have been in different positions? But really, I'd never even though of that. I'll do some research.<<<<
6. How come the bone structure is the same in the limbs of a mammals? Why not? If it works, why would God change it?<<<<
7. Way do animals have vestigial organs, such as the eyes on blind fish, your appendix, and the legs on some snakes? The appendix has recently been found to have use, can't remember what it was, but look it up.<<<<
8. In places like the La Brea Tar Pits, we find no dinosaurs. If they lived at the same time as the other animals we find, why not? Could be that in the flood, large amounts of certain animals were washed some places, while others were washed elsewhere. But I really don't know much on this. <<<<
9. If we look at things about 6000 light-years away, shouldn't we see Creation?No, the Bible gives no account of life elsewhere, while it could exist, it bears no weight in this argument. <<<<
10. In cave paintings, we see fairly accurate drawings of modern or recently extinct animals, but we see no dinosaurs, or other animals that lived before humans. Wouldn't you think that large and powerful animals like dinosaurs would play a more significant role in cave-man life?That is false information. There is a painting of one of those long necked dinos (excuse my ignorance of dino names) in the grand canyon.<<<<
11. Why are closely related animals always found close together? Cause they have similar natural habitats .<<<<
12. Why don't we ever find fossils of humans or other modern animals with prehistoric animals?
Ok, I skipped a couple of those, cause of my ill knowledge of fossils, also it's getting late. I may do same research and give better answers later.

Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:29 pm
^That got a little jumbled. Can you still make since of it?
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:30 pm
I have a question. If science can't prove anything and evolution is based off of science what real proof do you have that evolution exists?
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:43 pm
I'm a firm Christian and a believer in God. I believe that God made things old, and that the Bible doesn't tell us everything there is to no about the creation of our world...
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
I have a question. If science can't prove anything and evolution is based off of science what real proof do you have that evolution exists?

What do you mean, "science can't prove anything"?
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:53 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
^That got a little jumbled. Can you still make since of it?

Yep.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 10:53 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
What do you mean, "science can't prove anything"?

Well science can't prove anything! I mean almost every theory, scientific law etc. is eventually shown to be wrong and then so on and so forth. Therefore science can never really prove anything.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 11:01 pm
Quoting LegoLord .
I'm a firm Christian and a believer in God. I believe that God made things old, and that the Bible doesn't tell us everything there is to no about the creation of our world...

Brava! I for one, DONT really CARE how the world was created. It isn't worth bickering and arguing about hearsay. As a Christian, my beliefs are that God created the world. Whether through evolution, or the literal creation story, I don't know and I don't really care.
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 11:10 pm
Quoting Blake Baer
Brava! I for one, DONT really CARE how the world was created. It isn't worth bickering and arguing about hearsay. As a Christian, my beliefs are that God created the world. Whether through evolution, or the literal creation story, I don't know and I don't really care.

Good point. If it's not a salvation issue, than it's really not worth debating.

It is fun though :P
Permalink
| November 5, 2011, 11:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
Well science can't prove anything! I mean almost every theory, scientific law etc. is eventually shown to be wrong and then so on and so forth. Therefore science can never really prove anything.

Not true. Most scientific laws (that are evidence-based) that are 'proven wrong' are modified because of better measuring equipment or new discoveries. For instance Newton's law of gravity has since been modified by Einstein to General relativity.
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 8:17 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Blake Baer
Brava! I for one, DONT really CARE how the world was created. It isn't worth bickering and arguing about hearsay. As a Christian, my beliefs are that God created the world. Whether through evolution, or the literal creation story, I don't know and I don't really care.

I do really care, because dinosaurs and the history of the earth interest me greatly, and it should be fairly obvious that this topic plays a BIG roll in that field. I'm OK with you not really caring, but you're missing out on a lot of interesting science.
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 8:20 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
Well, I'm not an expert on fossils and such, but I can give few answers.

1. Virus's?
Maybe, but it doesn't seem plausible that the roughly 17,200 species of trilobites and euryperids could go extinct from viruses, especially considering that less than 1% of all species fossilize.
Quoting Ru Corder 2. Like I said, not an expert here. But I think it rarely does, and when it does, it's giant leaps, nothing slightly between two different evolved beasties.
Well the best example of progression in the fossil record I have the in horses. Hyracotherium->Mesohippus->Achitherium->Parahippus->Merychippus->Hippidion->Horses. Pretty obvious progression, and I think there are some in that chain that I left out too.
Quoting Ru Corder 4. The Bible never gives any evidence either way as to when other planets were made. It just accounts for the earth.
That's not exactly what I meant, let me rephrase: If the universe is 6000 years old, how came we see galaxies that are so far away that the light would take as much as 13 billion years to reach us.

Quoting Ru Corder 5. The continents could have been in different positions? But really, I'd never even though of that. I'll do some research.
Research might not get you very far, I though t of that dilemma myself, and I'm not sure anyone else has..
Quoting Ru Corder 6. Why not? If it works, why would God change it?
Well, the bone structure of the limbs of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and fish work equally well.
Quoting Ru Corder 7. The appendix has recently been found to have use, can't remember what it was, but look it up.
I'll save you the trouble on this one: The appendix serves a minor function (read about it here: http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose )
But that still does not explain the eyes on blind fish, the legs on boas and pythons, a whale's hind legs, a kiwi's wings, etc.
Quoting Ru Corder 8. Could be that in the flood, large amounts of certain animals were washed some places, while others were washed elsewhere. But I really don't know much on this.
I don't think that's likely, assuming these animals lived in the same places.
Quoting Ru Corder 9. No, the Bible gives no account of life elsewhere, while it could exist, it bears no weight in this argument.
I didn't mean life elsewhere, I meant if we see what light has taken 6000 to reach us, shouldn't we see stars and planets being formed?
Quoting Ru Corder 12. That is false information. There is a painting of one of those long necked dinos (excuse my ignorance of dino names) in the grand canyon.
Actually, it was shown to be a mud stain (http://news.discovery.com/animals/creationism-dinosaur-drawing-cave-110325.html ). And even if it wasn't a mud stain, one drawing world-wide seems nearly as little evidence as none.
Quoting Ru Corder 11. Cause they have similar natural habitats .
True, but similar natural habitats that are far away from each other have very different organisms.


Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 8:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
Good point. If it's not a salvation issue, than it's really not worth debating.

It is fun though :P

True point, I made the group 'cause its fun.
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 8:48 am
Yeah i dont think God wanted the bible to be about how he made us, he wanted it to be about how much he loves us and how he sent his son to die to save us
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 8:52 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Mark Prakash
Yeah i dont think God wanted the bible to be about how he made us, he wanted it to be about how much he loves us and how he sent his son to die to save us

That's a good and true point. I like it.
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 8:54 am
I sorta agree worg Blake. I don't really care how the earth or other galaxies and what not were made and got to where try are now I just know that there is a God up there looking out for us and loving us. Although I have to agree it's fun to debate about this! Thanks for the convo :)
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 9:00 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
I sorta agree worg Blake. I don't really care how the earth or other galaxies and what not were made and got to where try are now I just know that there is a God up there looking out for us and loving us. Although I have to agree it's fun to debate about this! Thanks for the convo :)

Thanks for joining!
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 9:06 am
But I lean more to creationism because that is what the Bible teaches and I don't really think something as complicated as the human body could have started by a chemical reaction.
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 2:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
But I lean more to creationism because that is what the Bible teaches and I don't really think something as complicated as the human body could have started by a chemical reaction.

It didn't, you're right. Only the very simplest of organic chemicals come directly from chemical reactions, then the bond together to make simple life-oid particles which gradually become cells etc.
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 3:56 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
It didn't, you're right. Only the very simplest of organic chemicals come directly from chemical reactions, then the bond together to make simple life-oid particles which gradually become cells etc.

You can't tell me that something as complicated and perfect as the human body gradually formed from a cell!
Permalink
| November 6, 2011, 7:38 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
You can't tell me that something as complicated and perfect as the human body gradually formed from a cell!

You can't tell me that God's creation is perfect! Why then, is it so violent? Why then do some animals have vestigial organs?
Permalink
| November 7, 2011, 9:40 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
Good point. If it's not a salvation issue, than it's really not worth debating.

It is fun though :P

True, it is irrelevant from a religious perspective, however, scientifically, it's very important.
Permalink
| November 8, 2011, 8:43 pm
Quoting Tivo Scabs

However, we can track the progress of a human fetus from it's very beginnings. Also, if the human body was truly perfect, then please explain why millions of people die each year from STD's, cancer, and even influenza?

What about what I just said made you think the human body was perfect? That had nothing to do with what I was talking about!
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 2:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
What about what I just said made you think the human body was perfect? That had nothing to do with what I was talking about!

You said the human body was perfect to some degree, I quote you exactly: "... something as complicated and perfect as the human body..."
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 2:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
Killed off by men. They would have been a threat to crops and livestock, therefor hunted and killed off.

But there are some dinosaurs (and other prehistoric reptiles) inconsistent with that theory:
*Compsognathus (along with other small dinosaurs) - Small enough not to pose a threat to livestock, yet carnivorous so they wouldn't threaten crops, in fact, they might actually be helpful because they'd eat mice and rats and other pests.
*Baryonyx (and its close relatives) - Fish-eating, so it doesn't threaten livestock, crops, or people. Large enough to be very difficult to hunt.
*Marine Reptiles (mossosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc.)- History has been recorded since before the first prolific hunting of marine animals, and shows no evidence of such creatures.
*Pteranodon (and other pterosaurs) - Flying, and thus difficult to hunt. Like Baryonyx, it ate fish, and would not threaten people, crops, or livestock.
*Very large sauropods (e.g. Seismosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Ultrasauros) - So large as to be practically impossible to hunt (even with metal weapons, fire, and gunpowder). Pose no threat to livestock or crops, because they ate only trees.
Quoting Ru Corder Well, I'm not necessarily talking about cavemen here. Where do you think dragon myths came from? I believe they came from dinosaurs. And what do you think would be the results of all those dragon slaying quests?
Also, they could have died off as men encroached on there natural habitats.
In the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa, yes, we are talking about stone-age technology.
But I agree, dragon myths came from dinosaurs, but I think they came from finding dinosaur fossils and using imagination from there.
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 2:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JPfan65 Studios

Finally My Kind Of Question....The Dinosaurs Didn't Totally Go Extinct....Dinosaurs Such As Velociraptor & His Relatives Evolved Into Birds.....But One Of The Main Reasons The Dinosaurs When Into Extinction Is Because Of The Infamous Giant Meteor That Hit The Gulf Of Mexico Sometime Around The Late Cretaceous Period....The Result Was Almost ALl Life On Earth Being Wiped Out...May Other Factors Such As Illness, A Low Amount Of Plant-Life & Many Other Things Ended The Regin Of These Magnificent Animals...

Thanks for your response (in fact, it's very descriptive and well done), but I was looking for the creationist explanation of that.
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 3:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JPfan65 Studios

Well...Not To Sound Like That Guy But..What Side Would A Athiest Be On? Evolutionism..I Mean I Belive In Evolution.. (In My Mind, Science Is Key...If It Can't Be Explained By Science, It Basically Dosen't Exist...Well Not Totally, But You Get The Point...) I'll Leave If It's A Problem...I Just Needed To Answer That...

I am a Christian (as you may know), but in my mind, science is very important, and thus contrary to the mainstream Christian belief, I believe in evolutionism. And I do agree, the existence (or nonexistence) cannot be proven by science.
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 3:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JPfan65 Studios

I'll Leave If It's A Problem...I Just Needed To Answer That...

Oh, and no its not a problem, its better to have more on my side in this debate.
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 3:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

Gods creation was perfect when he created it so your argument is null. It became imperfect at the fall of man.

One animal nullifies that argument: The hagfish.
The hagfish lives by the death of other animals, and because of its extreme depth, it literally could not eat plants. Because of the way its mouth and skull are built, it could not eat the chemosynthetic bacteria that live at that depth without being a different kind of animal entirely.
(Oh, and as a side note, I know you believe that all animals were herbivores before The Fall, but why is it less evil to kill a plant than to kill and animal?)
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 11:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre
Bob the Incocevibly Invincable,

I have replied to you in the 7 above comments (disregard the one directed towards sam) I think you will find I am a bit more ready to debate you or anyone for that matter. Um I am way too busy to do this often so when you ask questions PLEASE ask one at a time.

Fine by me.
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 11:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

You belive in evolutionism, though you are a Christian. When God says in the Bible that He made man in his image doesn't that mean that he created man as he is? not as an ape-like creature which evolved.


(Sorry, but I just have to respond to this one too) God didn't write that, Moses did. Moses didn't know very much about the history of the earth, so, stringing together his superb knowledge of God, and tradition, he wrote the story we see in the Bible. (Moses did know a TON about all the other things he wrote about, so I believe him everywhere else, same story with the rest of the Bible too)
Permalink
| November 9, 2011, 11:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam "The legoman" Knavel
Ugh, the usual, first of all, I am learning about evolution and natural selection, I am logical and let it be a mystery. This is why I am against groups like these, especially Christian groups, please keep mocpages secular, keep religion out, debates out, this is why some people quit using this website. let it be a mystery, like Blake said, he doesn't care how it was created.

You don't have to join this group if you don't like these debates!
Permalink
| November 10, 2011, 9:57 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam "The legoman" Knavel
I'm done, I can't stand these arguments, and really mad a these "Christians" denying the first amendment right of freedom of religion, there is none on mocpages.

What? What are we doing that's making you mad? How are we denying your first amendment rights?
Permalink
| November 10, 2011, 9:57 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam "The legoman" Knavel
No, I'm tired of all the fighting and speculating.

Oh, I see. Well, I've tried to make the debate as little like fighting as possible, and as much like a scientific debate as possible.
Permalink
| November 10, 2011, 4:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

1st that fish survives the way God intended it to regardless if it has all of these "flaws".
How could it survive before there was death in the world?

Quoting Mitchell Andre
It is less "evil" to kill a plant because they have no conscious awarness of themselves.

The vast majority of animals have no conscious awareness too (approximately 97%), and besides, by that argument you could say that it's not evil to kill someone in a coma, or someone who is stunned, because they have no 'conscious awareness'.
Permalink
| November 10, 2011, 11:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre
Oh on the contrary. God did write that "For all scripture is given by inspireation of God

Deuteronomy, right? Moses wrote that one too, and he was right: The scriptures are given by the INSPIRATION of God, not written by God himself.
Quoting Mitchell Andre and is profitable for correction, instruction, and reproof in righteousness".
Yes, correction, instruction, and reproof IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.
That means that the scripture is meant to be used as correction, instruction, and reproof in spiritual terms, not as science.

Oh, and I also doubt that you really believe all the bible is literal truth, after all, in Genesis 1:6-8 it says that the sky is a solid barrier (firmament). Yes, I know in the NIV it says 'Expanse' but the Hebrew word used there means a solid barrier (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=07549 ).
I don't think you believe that the sky really is a solid barrier.
Permalink
| November 10, 2011, 11:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

Actualy though animals do not have a soul they have a brain and if they were not mentaly aware (i realiaze they have instinct) dogs that have had cruel owners (for exampe) would not do things such as flinch when people in general try to pet them.
The percent that I gave above (97%) is roughly the percent of animals that do not have a brain.
Quoting Mitchell Andre
And no you couldnt say that because plants have never had a conscious awarness of themseves and wil never have an awareness of themselves, but the humman in a comma did at one point and it is possible that could regain awarness.
I see.

Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 3:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre
1st that fish survives the way God intended it to regardless if it has all of these "flaws".

How could it survive before there was death in the world?

Because it ate vegetables. The Bible says in genisis that he gave for every living thing herb for meat (meat meaning substance)
Hagfish live so deep under the water that not enough sunlight for plants to survive reaches to that depth.

Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 3:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

(BTW not in Deteronomy) 1st when the Bible says that it was al scripture is inspired by God that means that though God didn' physicaly write it the people who did were given the words to speak by God.
Oh, whoops. Yes! That's what I believe too! But when Moses was divinely inspired and given words, he wrote down the creation account as a metaphorical description of Earth's creation, he didn't know the real method of its creation, so he wrote that based off his knowledge of of God's love, humanity's imperfection, and traditions of creation that had been around before him.
Quoting Mitchell Andre
When it says "in righteousness" it means that it is to corrected (in this passage the term correct means literally tried or proofed) in righteousness or in other words (for lack of a better term) unbias.
Like I said above, Moses didn't know the scientific truth of the creation, so he can't say (logically) that it's fact, he never investigated evidence or anything like that.
Quoting Mitchell Andre
Also I went to that site and it also said "b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)" if you read my other comments above you will see that I already expressed that. Also, when God inspired Moses to write that Moses more than likely for lack of a better term to describe some thing that retaind watter, he said firmiment.
Sorry, I didn't read that comment..

P.S. Are you saying that I can't be Christian and evolutionist at the same time, or saying my views contradict the bible?

Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 3:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre
6. How come the bone structure is the same in the limbs of a mammals?

I assume you mean why is our bone structure the same as to mammals?
No I mean, in all mammals (such as the wing in bats, the flipper of a whale, the hoof of a horse, and the paw of a lion, yes it would include humans too, but my best points apply to bats and whales).

Quoting Mitchell Andre
1st the bone structure is not the same it is similar.
True.
Quoting Mitchell Andre And actually it is the other way around. We were designed in Gods image. God is forever; animals are not. Ergo animal bone structure is similar to OUR bone structre.
But the animals were created first. But like I said above, its the structure of the animals that I'm more concerned about here than human hand structure.

Quoting Mitchell Andre
Uh, animal bone structure is similar to ours because it best fits them for their environment. Before you say what about the otters they live in the water etc. Let me say hummans can swimm and otters do go on land.
Yes, but cats can't swim, and whales can't go on land.
Quoting Mitchell Andre So if an animal like the otter did NOT have "humman" like bone structure but instead had a less versitial bone structure like a fish they would die.
Or they could live like whales...
Quoting Mitchell Andre The same goes for all mammals if they had any less versitial of a bone structure they would die.
Bats wouldn't die if they had wings like bird wings instead of hands like monkey hands.
Quoting Mitchell Andre So in short because of the versitility of our bone structure it makes it ideal for mammals which do particular things that require versitility ie swimming climbing trees (all things that humans do). Mammals don't have the same bone structure as fish because fish can only swimm. They cant climb trees of go on land for long efficient periods of time.
Like I said before, whales can only swim as well, so that nullifies you contrast with fish.

Quoting Mitchell Andre
You are going to have to be more challenging than this. I haven't even had to use science yet just common sense and the Bible.

Yes, you haven't answered what I consider to be my more challenging questions, numbers 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12. Probably, I'll have more difficult ones later on, too.
Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 3:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre
1. What happened to trilobites and eurypterids?

Uh, they died. Virus, predeters, the flood, keep in mind even enough water can dround a fish. (that was an analgy) in other words even though these were water dwelling creatures, a flood the magnitude of the one in noah's day would be enough to kill them. Keep in mind it didn't drizzle 40 days and nights it POURED, and water exploded from the ground.

Lets just consider the trilobites for a second. I might ask, "Why trilobites and not crustaceans?" There are roughly 17,000 known species of trilobites. Less than one percent of species fossilize, thus the figure of trilobites that have ever lived comes to about 1,700,000. Almost 2 million. Now compare that to crustaceans: 50,000, less than a thirtieth the number of trilobites. And don't try to use ecological arguments, because trilobites have been known to fill every ecological niche that crustaceans fill today. It seems far more likely that crustaceans would be extincted than that more than thirty times as many trilobites.
Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 3:30 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre
Bob the Inconcevible Invincable said "Why does the fossil record show progression?"


It doesn't show progression; it shows variety. There's a difference.

It does, like the example I cited above: Hyracotherium to Mesohippus to Achitherium to Parahippus to Merychippus to Hippidion to Horses.
Or if you want a less well mapped one, how about: Feathered dinosaurs to Archaeopteryx to Toothed birds lacking wing claws (ichthyornis, for example) to modern birds. Or: Eusthenopteron to Panderichthys to Tiktaalik to Acanthostega to Ichthyostega to Amphibians.
And even so, it shows a general progression from simple sponges to the animals we see today.
Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 3:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

In the Bible it says that He divided the fimiment from the firmiment. So the ocean is seperated from the waters in the sky. ie Water in the form of humidity rain in the clouds etc.
The Bible also says that dew watered everything and there was no rain before the flood. So the climate was more than likely tropical - lots of vegetation. When the flood occured all of this "held in water" was let go. After the flood without that "canopy" of water, there was : less humidity & it was warmer.
Wait, less humidity when there's more water? Forgive my if I misunderstand, but that doesn't quite make sense.
Quoting Mitchell Andre
Now keep in mind after the flood much vegetation would have been destroyed. I realize most dinosaures were the size of chickens; however, the ones that were big most likely the sudden change in climate and the lack of things to eat to killed them off. Also I'm sure that the smaller ones were killed by humans or animal preditors for food. Is it so outragous to think that dinosaures were killed for food like many animals are today?
No, I see what you're saying, but here's a tougher one: What about marine reptiles? Like Ichthyosaurs, Plesiosaurs, Mosasaurs, Metriorhynchids (marine crocodiles), etc.
Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 3:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

There is no true evidence that even suggest progression. The places that you are getting this information is more than likely from a biased.

What sources am I getting this from... Friend, I have so many I can't even think of them all...
I'll just list a few:
*The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia if Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals
*The Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia
*http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
*Biology fifth Edition by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece and Lawrence G. Mitchell (That, by the way, is a college textbook)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse & its sources
*Nature Encyclopedia The essential reference guide to the World of Plants and Animals
*Encyclopedia of Science

Just to name a few, there are several others. Just search Google for, "Evolution of Horse" and you'll get more sources than you could ever use.

Oh, and don't use the evidence some people have used that all those fossils were found in different places around the world, ALL of the protohorses I listed came from North or South America.
Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 7:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Kaiser Pharaoh Cliffe
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp2vx4WUJg1qaod8z.jpg
ALIENS.

???
Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 7:51 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
???

I believe in evolution, but only with the inclusion of ALIENS. Aliens who helped us evolve and made us who we are today. There was a point in time in which the human brain grew three times its size suddenly and developed a lot of somewhat unnatural traits. That's the point in which they came.

Trololo. Ancient Astronaut Theory.
Permalink
| November 11, 2011, 8:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre
I don't have time for this, it seams so repetative. I've had the same conversation with Deus_ who is an athiest several times. So, I'm done for now. However, when I become more interested, you can be sure I'll debat with you.
OK, I understand.
Quoting Mitchell Andre
You seem like you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, because you think it has to meat some kind of "scientific" criteria.
That's the only part of the bible I don't interpret literally.
Quoting Mitchell Andre You know, there are some things in the Bible that cannot be explained by science, logic, or math.
Yes, I know. But science cannot prove if God exists or not, it can prove that the universe is about 13,700,000,000 years old.
Quoting Mitchell Andre For if the nature of God could be explained entirely by human-kinds limited knowledge of science, logic, and math He could not be God.
Like I said above, God is irrelevant to science, and my belief in Him stands outside my scientific beliefs.
Quoting Mitchell Andre Furthermore, if you are thinking while reading this "He just can debate me because I'm smarter than him." you'd be wrong.
Well, I wasn't thinking that, but its smart of you to precaution yourself against it.
Quoting Mitchell Andre I am reletively knowledgable in astronomy, chemistry, physics, philosophy ect.
It didn't pop up in the debate, but I'm not reallly surprised.
Quoting Mitchell Andre This being said, It was a pleasure debating with you!
Same here!
Quoting Mitchell Andre
Remember, once you start picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible, it leaves room to question what else is "not true", and once you do that you might question the whole Bible compleately.
I try to limit my figurative interpretations to just those chapters. The real boundary is the New Testament, and I'm not going to carry my metaphorical interpretation their, I don't want to hurt my faith. ..And anyway, those few chapters are the only part of the bible that is in direct contradiction with science (yes, I know, those miracles don't contradict. Why? Because, as I said above, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an almighty God.)
Quoting Mitchell Andre
God bless,
Mitchell Andre
God bless you too.
You seem like a nice person Michell, and I really enjoy having discussions with people who are both knowledgeable and friendly. Thankyou.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 8:53 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Kaiser Pharaoh Cliffe
I believe in evolution, but only with the inclusion of ALIENS. Aliens who helped us evolve and made us who we are today. There was a point in time in which the human brain grew three times its size suddenly and developed a lot of somewhat unnatural traits. That's the point in which they came.

Trololo. Ancient Astronaut Theory.

That's an interesting hypothesis... ;)
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 8:54 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Mitchell Andre

Do you know what they all have in common they're all non-Bible believing,secular,biased etc...or at least one of those three.

Yes, they are all 'biased', but this is what I was talking about when I said "The fossil record shows progression". An unbiased look at those fossils will show, very plainly, progression. There's no way to logically argue with it, those fossils do show progression. (That doesn't prove your theory wrong, because you could argue that the progression shown is just a coincidence, or something like that, but you can't argue that the fossil record does not show progression, 'cause it does.)
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:33 am
We are all biased towards our own upbringing. Part of growing up is atempting to see the world through an objective lens. I am aware that this cannot fully be done, but I see God in the sheer size of the known universe. All of that matter had to come from somewhere, right?
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting LegoLord .
We are all biased towards our own upbringing. Part of growing up is atempting to see the world through an objective lens. I am aware that this cannot fully be done, but I see God in the sheer size of the known universe. All of that matter had to come from somewhere, right?

I see God in it too, its just how He created it that's in dispute here. But I do think that an unbiased look at those fossil says "Progression!"
If you bias it toward evolutionism, it say "Evolutionary progression!"
If you bias it towards Creationism, it says "It just seems to show progression!"
Like I stated above, you can't argue about whether or not the fossil record shows progression, but you can argue about the interpretation of that progression.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:50 am
Quoting LegoLord .
We are all biased towards our own upbringing. Part of growing up is atempting to see the world through an objective lens. I am aware that this cannot fully be done, but I see God in the sheer size of the known universe. All of that matter had to come from somewhere, right?

Exactly,the fact that we came from "nothing" is inconceivable. The fact is...bth evolution and Creation are faiths. Neither should be considered science. Now I am creationist my self, making me biased, but Creation has SEVERAL proofs against Evolution. Theres so many Proofs hat I don't feel like posting them until I find an avid evolutuionist
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:00 pm
Quoting Chris Stone
I have a question. If science can't prove anything and evolution is based off of science what real proof do you have that evolution exists?

Evolution isn't based on science,it's faith,just like Creation! And science DOES prove things. Everything factual we know today can be attributed to science.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:13 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
You can't tell me that God's creation is perfect! Why then, is it so violent? Why then do some animals have vestigial organs?

#1 Creation is "violent" because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, But since you don't seem to believe in Creation, then You probaly don't believe that,right? #2 No organ is vestigial, scientists just haven't discovered their purpose.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:16 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I am a Christian (as you may know), but in my mind, science is very important, and thus contrary to the mainstream Christian belief, I believe in evolutionism. And I do agree, the existence (or nonexistence) cannot be proven by science.

Hmmm, how can you be a Christian,and yet not believe the Bible? It specifically states the God made the world in 6 days.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:19 pm
Quoting Mitchell Andre
Bob the Inconcevible Invincable said "Why does the fossil record show progression?"


It doesn't show progression; it shows variety. There's a difference.

Yes. AND it doesn't show progression. The gological record and archaelogical(spelling?) discoveries are at war, with the discoveries wining. Because The geological record is speculation,while the discoveries are facts.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:21 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
What sources am I getting this from... Friend, I have so many I can't even think of them all...
I'll just list a few:
*The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia if Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals
*The Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia
*http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
*Biology fifth Edition by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece and Lawrence G. Mitchell (That, by the way, is a college textbook)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse & its sources
*Nature Encyclopedia The essential reference guide to the World of Plants and Animals
*Encyclopedia of Science

Just to name a few, there are several others. Just search Google for, "Evolution of Horse" and you'll get more sources than you could ever use.

Oh, and don't use the evidence some people have used that all those fossils were found in different places around the world, ALL of the protohorses I listed came from North or South America.
Hey you do know that the Number of ribs in the Eohippus horses and all the rest varied in "progression" right? Plus they were found contradictory to the fossil record

Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:30 pm
Quoting Sam "The legoman" Knavel
I'm done, I can't stand these arguments, and really mad a these "Christians" denying the first amendment right of freedom of religion, there is none on mocpages.

Dude, it's not like we're banning you for expressing your beliefs. You're just mad because we have overwhelming evidence and YOU don't.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:32 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Mitchell Andre

You belive in evolutionism, though you are a Christian. When God says in the Bible that He made man in his image doesn't that mean that he created man as he is? not as an ape-like creature which evolved.


(Sorry, but I just have to respond to this one too) God didn't write that, Moses did. Moses didn't know very much about the history of the earth, so, stringing together his superb knowledge of God, and tradition, he wrote the story we see in the Bible. (Moses did know a TON about all the other things he wrote about, so I believe him everywhere else, same story with the rest of the Bible too)

You can't call yourself a Christian. IF you were. You would know that God wrote THROUGH the appx 40 men of God that wrote the Bible,it wasn't fantasy. Or fairy tales. No matter how much you want to reject it's truth
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:35 pm
Quoting Sam "The legoman" Knavel
No, I'm tired of all the fighting and speculating.

Then leave.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:37 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
The vast majority of animals have no conscious awareness too (approximately 97%), and besides, by that argument you could say that it's not evil to kill someone in a coma, or someone who is stunned, because they have no 'conscious awareness'.

Actuallly,NO animals have what I think you are referrinf=g to as a soul. They have a brain,and instinct but no soul.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:39 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
What sources am I getting this from... Friend, I have so many I can't even think of them all...
I'll just list a few:
*The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia if Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals
*The Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia
*http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
*Biology fifth Edition by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece and Lawrence G. Mitchell (That, by the way, is a college textbook)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse & its sources
*Nature Encyclopedia The essential reference guide to the World of Plants and Animals
*Encyclopedia of Science

Just to name a few, there are several others. Just search Google for, "Evolution of Horse" and you'll get more sources than you could ever use.

Oh, and don't use the evidence some people have used that all those fossils were found in different places around the world, ALL of the protohorses I listed came from North or South America.

Doesn't matter, they ARE biase sources.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 9:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
#1 Creation is "violent" because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, But since you don't seem to believe in Creation, then You probaly don't believe that,right? #2 No organ is vestigial, scientists just haven't discovered their purpose.

So you're telling me that my five blind cave tetras (yes, I do own these fish, and have examined them closely) have a use for their eyes? It is completely obvious that they can't see, they bump into the sides of the fishtank and the other fish all the time. If you look carefully at the sides of their heads, you can see little black dots where you'd expect eyes, and so I looked it up, those black dots are eyes, but the fish cannot see at all.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
You can't call yourself a Christian. IF you were. You would know that God wrote THROUGH the appx 40 men of God that wrote the Bible,it wasn't fantasy.
I can say the first few chapters of the Bible a metaphorical without rejecting the whole thing. Tell me, how do you define a Christian?
As someone who believes that a loving God sent his son, Jesus into the world to be killed as a sacrifice to forgive our sins, and then rise again and conquer death? 'Cause that's exactly what I believe.
Quoting Eragon3443 . Or fairy tales. No matter how much you want to reject it's truth
And yet you give no evidence to support that.

Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Actuallly,NO animals have what I think you are referrinf=g to as a soul. They have a brain,and instinct but no soul.

Then why is it more evil to kill an animal than to kill a plat?!?
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Hey you do know that the Number of ribs in the Eohippus horses and all the rest varied in "progression" right? Plus they were found contradictory to the fossil record

What do you mean, "Contradictory to the fossil record"? They were found IN the fossil record.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Yes. AND it doesn't show progression. The gological record and archaelogical(spelling?) discoveries are at war, with the discoveries wining. Because The geological record is speculation,while the discoveries are facts.

Give an example.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Evolution isn't based on science,it's faith,just like Creation! And science DOES prove things. Everything factual we know today can be attributed to science.

It is based purely off of science!
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Exactly,the fact that we came from "nothing" is inconceivable. The fact is...bth evolution and Creation are faiths. Neither should be considered science. Now I am creationist my self, making me biased, but Creation has SEVERAL proofs against Evolution. Theres so many Proofs hat I don't feel like posting them until I find an avid evolutuionist
Give me your best proof.

Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Hmmm, how can you be a Christian,and yet not believe the Bible? It specifically states the God made the world in 6 days.

It also specifically states that the sky is a solid barrier above the earth, and that the earth has four corners. Do you ask me to believe that?
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:21 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Doesn't matter, they ARE biase sources.

Give me an unbiase source describing those animals then.
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Dude, it's not like we're banning you for expressing your beliefs. You're just mad because we have overwhelming evidence and YOU don't.

I don't like your tone...
Permalink
| November 12, 2011, 10:23 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Then why is it more evil to kill an animal than to kill a plat?!?

It's not. I never said it was. BUT Plants don't have a Consiousness of surroundings, a brain, and insticts like the animals.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 9:29 am
I don't have time ATM to reply to these. Will do in a few hours.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 9:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
It's not. I never said it was. BUT Plants don't have a Consiousness of surroundings, a brain, and insticts like the animals.

You know, you have instincts too.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 9:45 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
I don't have time ATM to reply to these. Will do in a few hours.

That's fine by me.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 9:46 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I don't like your tone...

So? IDC.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:13 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
So you're telling me that my five blind cave tetras (yes, I do own these fish, and have examined them closely) have a use for their eyes? It is completely obvious that they can't see, they bump into the sides of the fishtank and the other fish all the time. If you look carefully at the sides of their heads, you can see little black dots where you'd expect eyes, and so I looked it up, those black dots are eyes, but the fish cannot see at all.

How do you know they can't see? Besides,eyes arent vestigial.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:17 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Eragon3443 .
You can't call yourself a Christian. IF you were. You would know that God wrote THROUGH the appx 40 men of God that wrote the Bible,it wasn't fantasy.
I can say the first few chapters of the Bible a metaphorical without rejecting the whole thing. Tell me, how do you define a Christian?
As someone who believes that a loving God sent his son, Jesus into the world to be killed as a sacrifice to forgive our sins, and then rise again and conquer death? 'Cause that's exactly what I believe.
Personally yes I gess that's what a Christian is,but you are pretty mixd up at best.
Quoting Eragon3443 . Or fairy tales. No matter how much you want to reject it's truth
And yet you give no evidence to support that.

What evidence do you want? I could give it to you,most likely, but I need to know what you want!
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:21 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
What do you mean, "Contradictory to the fossil record"? They were found IN the fossil record.

My bad, I meant Geological Column! :S
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:25 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
You know, you have instincts too.

No, I have a brain.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:26 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Give an example.

The actual fossils in the earth's crust are not arrnaged in a strict evolutionary progression but are sorted mostly by habitat and mobility.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:30 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
It is based purely off of science!

Nooo, it's not!The philosophy of evolution is based upon ASSUMTIONS that cannot be scientificlly verified. Have you SEEN evolution happen? NO.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:32 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Exactly,the fact that we came from "nothing" is inconceivable. The fact is...bth evolution and Creation are faiths. Neither should be considered science. Now I am creationist my self, making me biased, but Creation has SEVERAL proofs against Evolution. Theres so many Proofs hat I don't feel like posting them until I find an avid evolutuionist
Give me your best proof.

The #1 Proof is this. Evolution is based on simple creatures evolving into more complex creatures,right?Meaning the fossil evidence of transitional forms would be overwhelming. I think that the fact NONe have been found is hihly suggestive.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:35 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Give me an unbiase source describing those animals then.

The point is, there are no completely unnbiased sources.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:36 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
It also specifically states that the sky is a solid barrier above the earth, and that the earth has four corners. Do you ask me to believe that?

I belive you recently spoke of metaphorical syings in the Bible,right? Well these are more examples. BTW could you give me the passages where these were found? I'd like to see for myself
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:38 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I see God in it too, its just how He created it that's in dispute here. But I do think that an unbiased look at those fossil says "Progression!"
If you bias it toward evolutionism, it say "Evolutionary progression!"
If you bias it towards Creationism, it says "It just seems to show progression!"
Like I stated above, you can't argue about whether or not the fossil record shows progression, but you can argue about the interpretation of that progression.

The fossil record doesn't show progression.

Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 5:53 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
The #1 Proof is this. Evolution is based on simple creatures evolving into more complex creatures,right?Meaning the fossil evidence of transitional forms would be overwhelming. I think that the fact NONe have been found is hihly suggestive.

Wow, this is easier than I thought..
No definitely not meaning the fossil transitional forms would be overwhelming, less than a percent of species fossilize, and which ones do is based purely off of chance, in fact its surprising that we DO find transitional forms.
Its simply false that none have been found, after all, then what a Archaeopteryx? Tiktaalik? Ambulocetus? Gerobatrachus?

Next proof please.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 10:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
I belive you recently spoke of metaphorical syings in the Bible,right? Well these are more examples. BTW could you give me the passages where these were found? I'd like to see for myself

Sure, for the firmament of the sky (called an expanse in the NIV, but the Hebrew word means pretty much 'solid barrier')
Genesis 1:6-7
Ezekiel 1:22-26
Daniel 12:3
Psalm 19:1 , 150:1

The Earth having four corners:
Isaiah 11:12
Revelation 7:1, 20:8
Not so much there, but it still is stated clearly in the Bible.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 10:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
The point is, there are no completely unnbiased sources.

Mm.. I see.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 10:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
The fossil record doesn't show progression.

Depends on how you look at it..
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 10:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Nooo, it's not!The philosophy of evolution is based upon ASSUMTIONS that cannot be scientificlly verified. Have you SEEN evolution happen? NO.

Actually, evolution of fruit flies has been observed in the laboratory. (Granted, no new species of fruit flies have been bred, but still, evolution is there.)
And evolutionary science is like paleontology, the science is based on looking at evidence and figuring out the based way to explain it, rather than experiments, because both are nearly impossible to observe in a human scale.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 10:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
No, I have a brain.

Yes, you do, but you also have instincts. Ever have to think "Oops, I forgot to digest my lunch" or "Beat, heart, beat!!" or "OK, I'd better shrink my pupils, its getting bright" or "I'd better sweat, its so hot!"
Those are instincts that your mind doesn't take care of.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 11:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
What evidence do you want? I could give it to you,most likely, but I need to know what you want!

Any evidence you can think of.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 11:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
My bad, I meant Geological Column! :S

OK, I was a little confused for a sec.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 11:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
The actual fossils in the earth's crust are not arrnaged in a strict evolutionary progression but are sorted mostly by habitat and mobility.

True, it is rare that fossils of more than one layer are preserved in the same places. But sorted by habitat and mobility makes sense under either theory, because in both the animals of similar habitat live close together.
Permalink
| November 13, 2011, 11:04 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Yes, you do, but you also have instincts. Ever have to think "Oops, I forgot to digest my lunch" or "Beat, heart, beat!!" or "OK, I'd better shrink my pupils, its getting bright" or "I'd better sweat, its so hot!"
Those are instincts that your mind doesn't take care of.
No those are voluntary mucsles.

Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 8:00 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Actually, evolution of fruit flies has been observed in the laboratory. (Granted, no new species of fruit flies have been bred, but still, evolution is there.)
And evolutionary science is like paleontology, the science is based on looking at evidence and figuring out the based way to explain it, rather than experiments, because both are nearly impossible to observe in a human scale.
no thats not evolution of fruit flies,thats genetics.

Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 8:01 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Yes, you do, but you also have instincts. Ever have to think "Oops, I forgot to digest my lunch" or "Beat, heart, beat!!" or "OK, I'd better shrink my pupils, its getting bright" or "I'd better sweat, its so hot!"
Those are instincts that your mind doesn't take care of.
No those are voluntary mucsles.

Your brain tells you to sweat, but you don't think about it. No muscles involved
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 9:50 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Actually, evolution of fruit flies has been observed in the laboratory. (Granted, no new species of fruit flies have been bred, but still, evolution is there.)
And evolutionary science is like paleontology, the science is based on looking at evidence and figuring out the based way to explain it, rather than experiments, because both are nearly impossible to observe in a human scale.
no thats not evolution of fruit flies,thats genetics.

You're thinking of a different experiment then I am.
Here's the one I'm thinking of:
An initial population of fruit flies was separated into two different containers. In each container there was a different supply of food. After just 8 generations, the fruit flies were brought back together and showed mating preference. Just 8 generations! Imagine in the wild, fruitflies from a single population could be separated for hundreds, thousands of generations! Don't you think that could make new species?
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 9:51 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Wow, this is easier than I thought..
No definitely not meaning the fossil transitional forms would be overwhelming, less than a percent of species fossilize, and which ones do is based purely off of chance, in fact its surprising that we DO find transitional forms.
Its simply false that none have been found, after all, then what a Archaeopteryx? Tiktaalik? Ambulocetus? Gerobatrachus?

Next proof please.

Archaeopteryx are seperate species/kinds from the dinosaurs. Genetics studies have determined that it is fully a bird. As for the others,,I've never heard of those.
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 5:32 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
You're thinking of a different experiment then I am.
Here's the one I'm thinking of:
An initial population of fruit flies was separated into two different containers. In each container there was a different supply of food. After just 8 generations, the fruit flies were brought back together and showed mating preference. Just 8 generations! Imagine in the wild, fruitflies from a single population could be separated for hundreds, thousands of generations! Don't you think that could make new species?

"Don't you think?" That's speculation, not fact. Also mating preference doesn't mean evolution.
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 5:34 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Your brain tells you to sweat, but you don't think about it. No muscles involved

Yes, but where's the instinct?
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 5:35 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
True, it is rare that fossils of more than one layer are preserved in the same places. But sorted by habitat and mobility makes sense under either theory, because in both the animals of similar habitat live close together.

Yeah but you won't find any supposed "mising links" in there order. I don't really get what you're syaing there anyway.
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 5:37 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Any evidence you can think of.

Sorry,I forgot what evidence I'm supposed to get. :S
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 6:22 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Sure, for the firmament of the sky (called an expanse in the NIV, but the Hebrew word means pretty much 'solid barrier')
Genesis 1:6-7
Ezekiel 1:22-26
Daniel 12:3
Psalm 19:1 , 150:1

The Earth having four corners:
Isaiah 11:12
Revelation 7:1, 20:8
Not so much there, but it still is stated clearly in the Bible.

Thanks,I'll get to you with those
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 6:23 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Depends on how you look at it..

No it doesn't. The fossil record doesn't show progression,period. It even probes the existence of a worldwide flood!
Permalink
| November 14, 2011, 6:32 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
"Don't you think?" That's speculation, not fact. Also mating preference doesn't mean evolution.

Doesn't it? Do you really understand what evolution means?
Permalink
| November 15, 2011, 9:26 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Yes, but where's the instinct?

Instinct is when your brain tells your body to do something without you thinking about it.
Permalink
| November 15, 2011, 9:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
No it doesn't. The fossil record doesn't show progression,period. It even probes the existence of a worldwide flood!

No, it shows no evidence of a worldwide flood, it shows evidence that there where once oceans in some places where there is land now.
Tell me, what evidence do you have to show that the fossil record doesn't show progression?
Permalink
| November 15, 2011, 9:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Yeah but you won't find any supposed "mising links" in there order. I don't really get what you're syaing there anyway.

Sedimentary rocks are layed down in layers over very long periods of time, commonly, fossils will only be found in one of the layers, because only at that time were the conditions good for fossilization. You won't find "Missing links" in order 'cause you won't find them in the same rocks, but if you date the rocks, you find that they make sense chronologically.
Permalink
| November 15, 2011, 9:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Doesn't it? Do you really understand what evolution means?

Actually, just forget about the fruit flies a moment.
Evolution has been observed in viruses.
Permalink
| November 17, 2011, 8:09 pm
Quoting Eragon3443 .
Nooo, it's not!The philosophy of evolution is based upon ASSUMTIONS that cannot be scientificlly verified. Have you SEEN evolution happen? NO.

THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Permalink
| November 23, 2011, 7:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Evolution has been observed in viruses. And in the fossil record.
Permalink
| November 23, 2011, 7:39 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Actually, just forget about the fruit flies a moment.
Evolution has been observed in viruses.

Example that has visual evidence?
Permalink
| November 23, 2011, 7:43 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Evolution has been observed in viruses. And in the fossil record.

But if humans evolved from apes why do we still see apes now? Why aren't they starting to turn human? Why aren't we evolving anymore?
Permalink
| November 23, 2011, 7:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
Example that has visual evidence?

Well, since viruses are microscopic, there's no visual evidence there...
In the fossil record, however, we see evolution, for instance: https://www2.bc.edu/~evansjx/images/evolution.jpg ~ All of those have been found as fossils (as well as several other protohorses), and it's hard to say that that's not evolution.
Permalink
| November 23, 2011, 7:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
But if humans evolved from apes why do we still see apes now?

You know, that is like asking, "If Christianity developed from Judaism, why are their still Jews?" It's pretty easy to answer: Not all apes evolved into humans, most stayed in the trees and stayed apes.
Quoting Chris Stone Why aren't they starting to turn human?
'Cause a species only evolves once, its ancestor can't churn out an identical species again.
Quoting Chris Stone Why aren't we evolving anymore?
How can you tell we're not?
Permalink
| November 23, 2011, 7:57 pm
Christianity didn't "develop" from Judaism. Christ came and made Christianity. Also how can you tell we are still evolving?
Permalink
| November 23, 2011, 11:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Stone
Christianity didn't "develop" from Judaism. Christ came and made Christianity. Also how can you tell we are still evolving?

True, it didn't quite 'develop' but I think the analogy makes the same point.
No, I can't actually tell we're still evolving, but I also can't tell that we're not.
Permalink
| November 24, 2011, 12:18 pm
Quoting Eragon3443 .
No it doesn't. The fossil record doesn't show progression,period. It even probes the existence of a worldwide flood!


I've seen copies of the horse fossil progression. It's obvious that there's evolution going on there.
Permalink
| November 24, 2011, 1:32 pm
Three Points:
First: God created the sun and moon on the fourth day. From a human's viewpoint, the sole definition of "day" relies on the sun. Therefore, the first two days could be a day, or a week, or six billion years.

Second: I haven't ever heard a coherent refutation of the point that if the Earth is six thousand years old, then how can we see objects that are more than six thousand light years away.

Third: If God wants for us to interpret the story of creation literally, then why would he also create so much counter-evidence? To test us? But what is the point in testing us?
Permalink
| November 24, 2011, 1:41 pm
Also, Bob's earlier points about hagfish seem rather difficult to refute.
Permalink
| November 26, 2011, 2:16 am
 Group admin 
1. Why did God create the universe so that it is expanding?
2. Evolution has been observed in viruses.
3. How did trilobites go extinct?
4. If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren't there any cave paintings of dinosaurs? Or historical records? You'd think such large and powerful animals would be very significant to early humans.
5. How can we see objects farther than 6000 light-years away?
6. Why would God give boas and pythons vestigial hind legs, but not give any to other snakes?
7. It says in Genesis 1:11 "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so." When did God create non-seed bearing plants? You know, like ferns, mosses, and horsetail.
8. Did God create amphibians with the aquatic animals or with the land animals?
9. Genesis 2:18-19 "And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name." But wait a second, it said in chapter 1 that the animals were created first!
10. Why would God create the diverse array of jawless fish we see in fossil records, if He knew they couldn't compete with modern fish?
11. What happened to the placoderms?
12. If we look 6000 light-years away from the earth, shouldn't we see stars, galaxies, and planets being created?
13. How come there are no dinosaurs in the La Brea Tar Pits?
14. What happened to the dinosaurs?
15. If all animals were herbivorous before Adam sinned, what did deep-sea animals that live so far underwater that photosynthesis is not possible eat?
16. Genesis 2:20 "So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him." How long did it take him to name all those animals? And "...Adam gave names to all cattle, ..." suggests that he wasn't just naming the species but each individual. Just doing that could take millions of years!
17. Why are there so few species of nautiloids left? On the subject of shelled cephalopods, hod did Ammonites go extinct?
18. Why don't we ever find fossils of humans and pre-human animals together?
19. Genesis 2:4 "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," This is in clear contradiction to the first chapter of Genesis, in which it describes the creation of Earth in six days, not one.
20. Where did all the water go after the Great Flood?
21. Consider whales for a moment. Wouldn't it be so much more logical to make them breath water? And wouldn't it be more logical to have them either have hind flippers or else not give them a pelvis? Why is the arrangement of their flipper bones so much like land mammals' feet? Why not make the flippers like fish fins instead? In fact, why not make whales fish?
22. Why wasn't God more creative in his creation, for instance, why not give some fish feathers? Or two-headed snakes, that would be exciting. Or maybe he could have created six legged mice? Or green mammals? Why not?
23. If, after the flood, all the animals were in the mountains of Ararat, how did non-flying or swimming animals come to the Americas, Australia, and Antarctica?
24. How did Pterosaurs go extinct?
25. Genesis 1:6-7 "Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so." Where is that firmament? No, it is certainly not a sphere of water around the Earth that collapsed to make Noah's flood, it is mentioned later in the Bible, for instance Daniel 12:3 "Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever."
26. What about Archaeopteryx, you can't deny that it looks like a halfway between dinosaurs and birds, especially considering that most small dinosaurs had feathers.
27. Look at the following fossil animals: Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Kalobatippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Hipparion, Pliohippus, Dinohippus, Plesippus, and the modern horse. Doesn't that look like evolutionary progression?
28. While we're on the subject, why do we find transitional fossils at all?
29. Why do blind fish have eyes?
30. Why did God make Cosmic Background Radiation?
31. How did marine reptiles go extinct? They could easily survive the Flood, and would be very difficult to hunt.
32. Before Darwin published his Origin of the Species, Christian scientists had to come up with different theories of Earth's history than what is seen in the Bible to explain how old the Earth looked. All new evidence gathered since Darwin's book has supported the Earth being much older than 6000 years and species gradually changing over the course of Earth's history.
33. Why did God create mammal-like reptiles (synapsids, no they're not really reptiles) like a half-way between mammals and reptiles, rather than making the more mammal like of them mammals and the more reptile like of them reptiles?
34. Why did God make almost all native mammals to Australia marsupials?
35. Fish are enormously common today, and live practically everywhere in the ocean. How come none are found in the Burgess Shale?
36. Several small dinosaurs had feathers and wings similar to birds (most of them could not fly, some could glide but most just had the wings for display, Microraptor however actually could fly). Some examples are Velociraptor, Anchiornis, Protarchaeopteryx, and Pedopenna (Pedopenna also had leg structure remarkably similar to birds).
37. If God really wanted us to believe the Genesis creation account literally, why would he put so much evidence against it in the world? Why would he make it self-contradictory?

If you haven't heard of any of the above mention critters, feel free to ask!
Permalink
| December 2, 2011, 8:49 pm
 Group admin 
"Consider this: Your beliefs describe a the model of a small, brief universe in which mankind under God has a central role. The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God? " ~From plesiosaur.com
Permalink
| December 3, 2011, 8:44 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Mitchell Andre

You belive in evolutionism, though you are a Christian. When God says in the Bible that He made man in his image doesn't that mean that he created man as he is? not as an ape-like creature which evolved.


(Sorry, but I just have to respond to this one too) God didn't write that, Moses did. Moses didn't know very much about the history of the earth, so, stringing together his superb knowledge of God, and tradition, he wrote the story we see in the Bible. (Moses did know a TON about all the other things he wrote about, so I believe him everywhere else, same story with the rest of the Bible too)


Well Bob, you invited me. I will do everything I can in the time that I have, and I'm jumping right in. First this disclaimer: what I say is not meant to be offensive, it is merely meant to probe, and to prove. So picture me saying what I do with a straight face and zero emotion. Like a scientific debate should be. :)

Now, you are not a Christian. If you were, you would have to take all of the Bible literally and at face value. You would have to believe that the Scriptures are 100% correct and completely inerrant.

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

Look at the John reference. We know that God = Perfection. John says God = Bible. Bible = Perfection. So if you believe the Bible is flawed, then you believe God is flawed, and you are not a Christian.

I'll get into the other meaty stuff later, but I wanted to clear this up first. :)

Permalink
| December 3, 2011, 1:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mudskipper 4

Well Bob, you invited me. I will do everything I can in the time that I have, and I'm jumping right in. First this disclaimer: what I say is not meant to be offensive, it is merely meant to probe, and to prove. So picture me saying what I do with a straight face and zero emotion. Like a scientific debate should be. :)

Now, you are not a Christian. If you were, you would have to take all of the Bible literally and at face value. You would have to believe that the Scriptures are 100% correct and completely inerrant.

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

Look at the John reference. We know that God = Perfection. John says God = Bible. Bible = Perfection. So if you believe the Bible is flawed, then you believe God is flawed, and you are not a Christian.

I'll get into the other meaty stuff later, but I wanted to clear this up first. :)

Hm... (revises beliefs slightly) :D (lightbulb goes on) OK, forget what I said earlier, I don't believe the scriptures are flawed, I believe its metaphorical in some minor places. I'm sure there are places where we can both agree the bible is speaking t us in metaphor (for instance Revelation 7:1-8) Look up Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Don't judge whether I'm Christian or not, that's up to God. What we're here to decide is the scientific truth.

OK, let's just get around that and go for the purpose of this group.
Permalink
| December 3, 2011, 4:20 pm
Quoting Mudskipper 4

Well Bob, you invited me. I will do everything I can in the time that I have, and I'm jumping right in. First this disclaimer: what I say is not meant to be offensive, it is merely meant to probe, and to prove. So picture me saying what I do with a straight face and zero emotion. Like a scientific debate should be. :)

Now, you are not a Christian. If you were, you would have to take all of the Bible literally and at face value. You would have to believe that the Scriptures are 100% correct and completely inerrant.

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

Look at the John reference. We know that God = Perfection. John says God = Bible. Bible = Perfection. So if you believe the Bible is flawed, then you believe God is flawed, and you are not a Christian.

I'll get into the other meaty stuff later, but I wanted to clear this up first. :)

For one thing, "Word" doesn't have to mean "Bible". For another thing, the Greek word "logos" has multiple translations, including "Word" and "Way of the Universe".

As for the Timothy verse, of course all scripture is inspired by God. That doesn't mean that God literally told these people exactly what to write down.

Also, I don't think that you get to define Christian. It used to be that unless you weren't part of the Roman Catholic Church, you were defined as being incapable of salvation. Then Luther came along and reiterated the concept of salvation by faith alone. Now you say that we cannot be Christians if we don't believe in the Bible as strict literal truth. Recall that the Bible was written by men. Men are inherently flawed and incapable of perfection. Therefore the works of men are also incapable of true perfection.

One final point: How is it impossible to believe in a flawed God and yet to be a Christian?
Permalink
| December 3, 2011, 5:00 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
"Consider this: Your beliefs describe a the model of a small, brief universe in which mankind under God has a central role. The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God? " ~From plesiosaur.com

I'd like to see a response to this one...
Permalink
| December 3, 2011, 5:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rachmaninoff Reincarnated
For one thing, "Word" doesn't have to mean "Bible". For another thing, the Greek word "logos" has multiple translations, including "Word" and "Way of the Universe".

As for the Timothy verse, of course all scripture is inspired by God. That doesn't mean that God literally told these people exactly what to write down.
True.
Quoting Rachmaninoff Reincarnated
Also, I don't think that you get to define Christian. It used to be that unless you weren't part of the Roman Catholic Church, you were defined as being incapable of salvation. Then Luther came along and reiterated the concept of salvation by faith alone. Now you say that we cannot be Christians if we don't believe in the Bible as strict literal truth. Recall that the Bible was written by men. Men are inherently flawed and incapable of perfection. Therefore the works of men are also incapable of true perfection.
Also nowadays 76% of Catholics believe in evolution with God's guidance. I hope you don't reject all of them as non-Christian.

Quoting Rachmaninoff Reincarnated
One final point: How is it impossible to believe in a flawed God and yet to be a Christian?
I hope that you don't believe in a flawed God.

Permalink
| December 3, 2011, 8:17 pm
Quoting Rachmaninoff Reincarnated
For one thing, "Word" doesn't have to mean "Bible". For another thing, the Greek word "logos" has multiple translations, including "Word" and "Way of the Universe".

As for the Timothy verse, of course all scripture is inspired by God. That doesn't mean that God literally told these people exactly what to write down.

Also, I don't think that you get to define Christian. It used to be that unless you weren't part of the Roman Catholic Church, you were defined as being incapable of salvation. Then Luther came along and reiterated the concept of salvation by faith alone. Now you say that we cannot be Christians if we don't believe in the Bible as strict literal truth. Recall that the Bible was written by men. Men are inherently flawed and incapable of perfection. Therefore the works of men are also incapable of true perfection.

One final point: How is it impossible to believe in a flawed God and yet to be a Christian?


If God's not perfect, He's not God, and Scripture is a lie. Perhaps you should reread my argument? "All Scripture is inspired by God" means that it is not flawed. Check it out for yourself all throughout the New Testament. :)

Permalink
| December 3, 2011, 11:54 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Hm... (revises beliefs slightly) :D (lightbulb goes on) OK, forget what I said earlier, I don't believe the scriptures are flawed, I believe its metaphorical in some minor places. I'm sure there are places where we can both agree the bible is speaking t us in metaphor (for instance Revelation 7:1-8) Look up Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Don't judge whether I'm Christian or not, that's up to God. What we're here to decide is the scientific truth.

OK, let's just get around that and go for the purpose of this group.


Alright, focus on. It's too late tonight, but I am planning on writing a definitive work - uh, I'm planning on ANSWERING all your long list of questions, starting tomorrow. I started a new thread since this one was getting really long, and I'll answer you there. :)

Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 12:00 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Mudskipper 4

Alright, focus on. It's too late tonight, but I am planning on writing a definitive work - uh, I'm planning on ANSWERING all your long list of questions, starting tomorrow. I started a new thread since this one was getting really long, and I'll answer you there. :)

I'll move it over there for the convenience of other members.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 4:16 pm
Quoting Mudskipper 4

If God's not perfect, He's not God, and Scripture is a lie. Perhaps you should reread my argument? "All Scripture is inspired by God" means that it is not flawed. Check it out for yourself all throughout the New Testament. :)

I do not see why "All scripture is inspired by God" means that it cannot be flawed. Also, as I previously mentioned, John says that God is the same as that which is represented by the Greek word logos, not Scripture.
Permalink
| December 5, 2011, 10:36 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
« The Debate
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Creationism vs. Evolutionism Other


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use