MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
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 »
Creation VS Evolution
 Group admin 
One of the most well-known and on-going debates. We know the stories but do we know the facts?

So how did it all begin? Was the universe created in six days or did it take billions of years?
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 6:53 am
Another topic that can never be resolved.

Neither side is inclinded to give ground, and it's magic either way; "let there be light" on one side, and nothing exploding into something on the other.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 7:42 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
One of the most well-known and on-going debates. We know the stories but do we know the facts?

So how did it all begin? Was the universe created in six days or did it take billions of years?

Well, thats a matter of opinion. The universe began at the big bang but how did we get to us? it seems highly improbable that the course of events of the universe forming in an instant and then shaping itself into what it is today would just naturally go towards making us. It also seems fantastical how a tiny speck that has been calculated to just 6 kilograms could spontaneously detonate.
My theory is there is God and he has been watching us from the beginning.
Where is God now since there is a lack of miracles or other proof? You don't think and all powerful being would just spend time on one species do you? Aliens.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 8:00 am
Looking at both sides, Creation is the more logically sound. While Billions of years seems to be enough time, there is no proof of the Universe existing that long. 6000ish years is a more scientifically sound time frame.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 9:51 am
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And 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. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. 23And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so. 31And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thats how it happened and I can beat "other" stuff you think, Like the big bang, ect. I can also prove it too!
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 9:52 am
Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.
What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !
In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the "molecules to man" theory—we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)
F for Fossils
A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.
I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.
As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).
Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.
It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!
Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!
Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).
The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.
A for Assumption
When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.
If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.
In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.
Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.
L for Life
The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.
You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?
To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.
Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.
S for Symbiosis
When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.
A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?
Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.
E for Engineering
All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.
One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?
Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.
Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 9:55 am
Another way is, That the moon gets closer to us every year. So if everything was created over 1000,0000 years ago, the moon would be on top of us. Or, if it started farther away the earth would be a ball floating in space!
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 10:01 am
Quoting Thatch Gears
Looking at both sides, Creation is the more logically sound. While Billions of years seems to be enough time, there is no proof of the Universe existing that long. 6000ish years is a more scientifically sound time frame.

Then why does the fossil record, carbon dating, and a bunch of other scientifically sound methods beg to differ with your time frame?
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 10:29 am
Quoting Thatch Gears
Looking at both sides, Creation is the more logically sound. While Billions of years seems to be enough time, there is no proof of the Universe existing that long. 6000ish years is a more scientifically sound time frame.

Looking at the past; fossils, bones, cave drawings, I could not have been less than Billions of years. Think about this. We KNOW humans have lived for about 40,000 years. The 6,000 year time frame is just a belief made up by religion because they cannot contemplate the actual, real time frame of the earth.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 10:29 am
 Group admin 
I don't think I am going to get too involved with this particular topic, but these are my thoughts:
-I have a religion, that I respect
-Science can explain most natural phenomena
-Evolution
-made you read this

Fact is that we have carbon dating, and fossilized remains, of people LONG before the talk of Christianity, or whatever. Whats more, if there is a god, who is omni-everything, why did he let Jesus die at the time he did? (Just saying', I mean, we have since made a BUNCH of sins.) But thats off topic. Claiming the universe didn't exist before some religious text that was written thousands of years ago is incorrect; the Hubble space telescope proved that.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 1:42 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
the Hubble space telescope proved that.

I am on the side of science, but what if that "omnipotent deity" meddled with the telescope? Of course, this almost directly leads to a one in infinity chance of being right, which ends each debate.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 3:54 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
nothing exploding into something

Third option: endless time.
Fourth option: no time.
Fifth option: quantum time.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 3:56 pm
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
Another way is, That the moon gets closer to us every year. So if everything was created over 1000,0000 years ago, the moon would be on top of us. Or, if it started farther away the earth would be a ball floating in space!

Maybie because you should look at some numbers and lunar composition to know SOMETHING about it.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:07 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears
Looking at both sides, Creation is the more logically sound. While Billions of years seems to be enough time, there is no proof of the Universe existing that long. 6000ish years is a more scientifically sound time frame.

New account; troll.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:07 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Maybie because you should look at some numbers and lunar composition to know SOMETHING about it.

Cool off. This is meant to be a friendly debate, not insulting other people's intelligence.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:11 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Cool off. This is meant to be a friendly debate, not insulting other people's intelligence.

Sorry, that 6000 thing threw me off.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:16 pm
 Group admin 
Alright, folks, let's keep things back on track. As far as I know, the Hubble has only been "messed" with by astronauts, and they were fixing it, so.

I would like an explanation of DNA, by a creation-ist.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 5:27 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Alright, folks, let's keep things back on track. As far as I know, the Hubble has only been "messed" with by astronauts, and they were fixing it, so.

I would like an explanation of DNA, by a creation-ist.

Sorry, cant offer that as I sort of have my own creativolution hybrid theory.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 5:55 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Another topic that can never be resolved.

Neither side is inclinded to give ground, and it's magic either way; "let there be light" on one side, and nothing exploding into something on the other.

It's not "nothing exploded into something". It's: Everything was smaller than the smallest sub-atomic particle. Then it expanded.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 2:13 am
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
It's not "nothing exploded into something". It's: Everything was smaller than the smallest sub-atomic particle. Then it expanded.

Actually, by the latest figures I saw not too long ago, the entire mass of the universe was 6 kilograms before the big bang.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:15 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Actually, by the latest figures I saw not too long ago, the entire mass of the universe was 6 kilograms before the big bang.

How did they.....figure that out?
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:18 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
How did they.....figure that out?

I'm not sure, but that happened to be on a fairly recent (last month) article I read.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:21 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I'm not sure, but that happened to be on a fairly recent (last month) article I read.

Huh, well, anyways. There is plenty of evidence of the Big Bang, or something like it. A creator, ehm.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:23 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Huh, well, anyways. There is plenty of evidence of the Big Bang, or something like it. A creator, ehm.

Are you subtly asking to hear my hybrid creativolution theory?
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:25 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Are you subtly asking to hear my hybrid creativolution theory?

No, but if you wish to explain, please proceed.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:26 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, but if you wish to explain, please proceed.

There is no arguing with science. But there is plenty of unexplained phenomena out there to give the impression of a divine overseer.
My theory is that science is right so far but how did the universe create the one-in-a-million chance of sentient, intelligent life? The answer, it didnt. The universe didnt just do that by itself, it had some supernatural guidance. That's where God came in and took the reins.
Now, I cite the lack of biblical events lately and say where is he? An all powerful God wouldn't spend all his time on just one species, he would make many to watch over. hence, aliens.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:30 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
There is no arguing with science. But there is plenty of unexplained phenomena out there to give the impression of a divine overseer.
My theory is that science is right so far but how did the universe create the one-in-a-million chance of sentient, intelligent life? The answer, it didnt. The universe didnt just do that by itself, it had some supernatural guidance. That's where God came in and took the reins.
Now, I cite the lack of biblical events lately and say where is he? An all powerful God wouldn't spend all his time on just one species, he would make many to watch over. hence, aliens.

I agree with that, actually, as an almost non religion explanation.

It will be interesting to see the science behind this omnipotent man that seems to make everything.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:32 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I agree with that, actually, as an almost non religion explanation.

It will be interesting to see the science behind this omnipotent man that seems to make everything.

The omnipotent deity we call God is not scientifically explainable, therefore why are you asking? That's the religion part of it and since science and religion disagree on pretty much everything, how can science explain religious phenomena?
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:35 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
The omnipotent deity we call God is not scientifically explainable, therefore why are you asking? That's the religion part of it and since science and religion disagree on pretty much everything, how can science explain religious phenomena?

Well it explained weather, some conspiracy theorists argue that science has allowed us to control it. It explained things that most people, in ye olden days, considered miracles, so.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:37 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well it explained weather, some conspiracy theorists argue that science has allowed us to control it. It explained things that most people, in ye olden days, considered miracles, so.

There are things in nature that have a scientific probability of occurrence of almost zero yet they happen anyways. Some call it amazing, a miracle, i call it Divine intervention as the only way to take the extremely unlikely outcome and consistently make it the actual outcome is skew it. We can't see it being skewed and therefore, there must be a force outside the physical universe we know doing it such as God.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
There are things in nature that have a scientific probability of occurrence of almost zero yet they happen anyways. Some call it amazing, a miracle, i call it Divine intervention as the only way to take the extremely unlikely outcome and consistently make it the actual outcome is skew it. We can't see it being skewed and therefore, there must be a force outside the physical universe we know doing it such as God.

A good explanation for now. Science will move farther, and will set these occurrences to bed.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:43 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
A good explanation for now. Science will move farther, and will set these occurrences to bed.

Science is always creating just as many questions as it answers. Right now, we are creating more, extremely complex questions, than we are answering.
Science will never be able to explain everything because it will keep finding explainable things and so far, it has found intricit sub-atomic processes that we cannot even begin to grasp how they work. These are the modern day miracles. Ones that cannot be seen to the average observer, but when we examine our world, we see the artistry with wich it was shaped. And that is something that a chaotic universe could never do alone.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:47 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Science is always creating just as many questions as it answers. Right now, we are creating more, extremely complex questions, than we are answering.
Science will never be able to explain everything because it will keep finding explainable things and so far, it has found intricit sub-atomic processes that we cannot even begin to grasp how they work. These are the modern day miracles. Ones that cannot be seen to the average observer, but when we examine our world, we see the artistry with wich it was shaped. And that is something that a chaotic universe could never do alone.

Well, I am an optimist, so.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:48 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, I am an optimist, so.

That was optimistic. You want pessimistic?
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:50 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
That was optimistic. You want pessimistic?

No, no, I am in a good mood, so.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 11:57 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, no, I am in a good mood, so.

Okay okay, I will with-hold my sinners in the hands of an angry God theories.
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 2:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Okay okay, I will with-hold my sinners in the hands of an angry God theories.

Sure. Any other thoughts going on here?
Permalink
| June 20, 2013, 3:01 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Third option: endless time.
Fourth option: no time.
Fifth option: quantum time.

Or, with less treknobabble: magic.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:36 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Or, with less treknobabble: magic.

Magic = unexplainable, by definition. Once you put it into equation, nobody can say anything that has any wheight because there is always the same counter-argument.

On the other time, there is only one explanation of the universe when time does not exist. And with infinite time, you need little more qualificators to set up a stabile system.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:42 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Magic = unexplainable, by definition. Once you put it into equation, nobody can say anything that has any wheight because there is always the same counter-argument.

On the other time, there is only one explanation of the universe when time does not exist. And with infinite time, you need little more qualificators to set up a stabile system.

Heavily explained magic remains magic.

If a hypothesis can't function without the involvement of unobserved metaphysical shenanigans and doesn't, by its nature, outright require and declare such, it isn't scientific.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:52 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Heavily explained magic remains magic.

If a hypothesis can't function without the involvement of unobserved metaphysical shenanigans and doesn't, by its nature, outright require and declare such, it isn't scientific.

Heavily explained magic is not magic. Do not make stuff up if they are untrue by definition.

And a hypothesis can not function without unobserved shenanigans, true, but a mathematical description of all possible explanations can.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:56 am
Theres no god.
The universe is just on going physics.
Life is a chemical reaction.


Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 5:54 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Heavily explained magic is not magic. Do not make stuff up if they are untrue by definition.

And a hypothesis can not function without unobserved shenanigans, true, but a mathematical description of all possible explanations can.

A mathematical description that remains dependent on magic at some stage in the equation.
Quoting Locutus 666
Theres no god.
The universe is just on going physics.
Life is a chemical reaction.

A: this is the wrong thread for that and B: that's a statement of belief, not fact.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 7:21 am
Quoting Areetsa C
A mathematical description that remains dependent on magic at some stage in the equation.
Quoting Locutus 666
Theres no god.
The universe is just on going physics.
Life is a chemical reaction.

A: this is the wrong thread for that and B: that's a statement of belief, not fact.

The first yes. The last two are fact.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 1:08 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Sorry, that 6000 thing threw me off.


It's ok. I'll explain.

Fossil Record: Flawed. Do you know what 95% of ALL fossils are, and are also found in ALL layers? Clams.

Radio Carbon Dating: A really good idea, but still flawed. You are assuming that the Earth's atmosphere has been the same sense it's existence.

Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 5:51 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears

It's ok. I'll explain.

Fossil Record: Flawed. Do you know what 95% of ALL fossils are, and are also found in ALL layers? Clams.

Radio Carbon Dating: A really good idea, but still flawed. You are assuming that the Earth's atmosphere has been the same sense it's existence.

Carbon 14 exists in teh ground and in living things, not in the air. Its a function of ingestion, which is very predictable and is a near-perfect science.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 5:54 pm
Quoting Seamus M.
Looking at the past; fossils, bones, cave drawings, I could not have been less than Billions of years. Think about this. We KNOW humans have lived for about 40,000 years. The 6,000 year time frame is just a belief made up by religion because they cannot contemplate the actual, real time frame of the earth.


Well then, can you prove that the Earth has existed that long? Your entire line of thinking revolves around that one fact. I would be more than glad to see any evidence of this.

Come sir, Let us Reason.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 5:58 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Carbon 14 exists in teh ground and in living things, not in the air. Its a function of ingestion, which is very predictable and is a near-perfect science.


Carbon-14 is created when cosmic rays from the sun penetrate the atmosphere, which can be stopped by the Earth's magnetic field. The Neutrons created from the sun then collide with Nitrogen-14, making Carbon-14.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 6:12 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears

Well then, can you prove that the Earth has existed that long? Your entire line of thinking revolves around that one fact. I would be more than glad to see any evidence of this.

Come sir, Let us Reason.

There is a layer in the strata of Earth that we know predates humans. It's the iridium layer created by the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs. Foliage decay would never occur rapidly enough to skew the dating on it by more than a few thousand years and when talking about something that happened tens of millions of years ago, that's less than a 1% error margin.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 6:24 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears

Carbon-14 is created when cosmic rays from the sun penetrate the atmosphere, which can be stopped by the Earth's magnetic field. The Neutrons created from the sun then collide with Nitrogen-14, making Carbon-14.

Then plants absorb it at a steady rate, herbivores eat the plants and die, thus putting it in the ground. I can extend or condense the process but we know it ends up in the ground and at a fairly predictable amount in all living things.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 6:28 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
There is a layer in the strata of Earth that we know predates humans. It's the iridium layer created by the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs. Foliage decay would never occur rapidly enough to skew the dating on it by more than a few thousand years and when talking about something that happened tens of millions of years ago, that's less than a 1% error margin.


Well then , how did the light-sensitive ocean dwelling species survive? Also, I'm fairly educated in this theory (Public school) and there is simply to much iridium. To spread THAT far, over the entire earth, would take millions of years, a think no one has been able to prove.

Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 6:36 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Then plants absorb it at a steady rate, herbivores eat the plants and die, thus putting it in the ground. I can extend or condense the process but we know it ends up in the ground and at a fairly predictable amount in all living things.


But, if the Earth's atmosphere had been stronger (and we have observed it happening), we can say that LESS Carbon-14 would have entered the Flora And Fauna of that day.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 6:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears

Well then , how did the light-sensitive ocean dwelling species survive? Also, I'm fairly educated in this theory (Public school) and there is simply to much iridium. To spread THAT far, over the entire earth, would take millions of years, a think no one has been able to prove.

-Public school? I wouldn't be using that as a primary source, no offense or anything.
-So all Dinosaur bones are fake? Is that whats being said? Cause they were around millions of years ago.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 6:43 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
-Public school? I wouldn't be using that as a primary source, no offense or anything.
-So all Dinosaur bones are fake? Is that whats being said? Cause they were around millions of years ago.


The public school thing was a joke, but I forgot to type my tongue smile. (:P) No, I'm home schooled, so I have a lot of down time that I put into reading, and LEGOs.

What I'm saying is that we do know that there would have been LESS C-14 in the past, resulting in the allusion that it has been longer.


Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 7:14 pm
Sorry, ILLUSION.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 7:14 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears

The public school thing was a joke, but I forgot to type my tongue smile. (:P) No, I'm home schooled, so I have a lot of down time that I put into reading, and LEGOs.

What I'm saying is that we do know that there would have been LESS C-14 in the past, resulting in the allusion that it has been longer.


It still wouldn't have skewed the results as much as you were earlier insinuating.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 8:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Theres no god.
The universe is just on going physics.
Life is a chemical reaction.

I'm guessing you believe in the big bang then. Maybe you could explain something to me.
If the condensed matter that is the big bang was out there in a vast nothingness, what caused it to explode?
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 6:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Locutus 666
Theres no god.
The universe is just on going physics.
Life is a chemical reaction.

I'm guessing you believe in the big bang then. Maybe you could explain something to me.
If the condensed matter that is the big bang was out there in a vast nothingness, what caused it to explode?

Firstly, nothing exploded; there was a rapid expansion of, everything. The explosion bit is a very large misconception.
Currently, the Universe is still doing what happened in the Big bang, of course much more slowly; that is, expand. We don't know for sure, but we have theories, such as anti-matter, dark energy, etc.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 10:56 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Firstly, nothing exploded; there was a rapid expansion of, everything. The explosion bit is a very large misconception.
Currently, the Universe is still doing what happened in the Big bang, of course much more slowly; that is, expand. We don't know for sure, but we have theories, such as anti-matter, dark energy, etc.
So what made it start expanding?

Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:03 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Firstly, nothing exploded; there was a rapid expansion of, everything. The explosion bit is a very large misconception.
Currently, the Universe is still doing what happened in the Big bang, of course much more slowly; that is, expand. We don't know for sure, but we have theories, such as anti-matter, dark energy, etc.
So what made it start expanding?

That is what is explainable and requires divine intervention.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
That is what is explainable and requires divine intervention.
You are correct, that is the starting thing, but for evolution to work it actually requires constant divine intervention.
Genetic information is consistently being lost, not gained, exactly the opposite of evolution. So, if a lesser organism was to become something more complex, it would have to receive new information from an intelligent outside source. God.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:09 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
That is what is explainable and requires divine intervention.
Actually for evolution to work it requires constant divine intervention, but you are correct, that is the starting thing. If the bang doesn't bang than God must be the answer.

Point I was trying to make is that something made the bang go bang and since we don't know what, God must be the answer.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:11 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Point I was trying to make is that something made the bang go bang and since we don't know what, God must be the answer.

Wait, so what you are saying is, that whatever we don't know, we should just answer as god? What? With that, you could say that Aircraft fly cause god wants them to. But that's not true.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:16 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wait, so what you are saying is, that whatever we don't know, we should just answer as god? What? With that, you could say that Aircraft fly cause god wants them to. But that's not true.
For evolution to work it actually requires constant divine intervention.
Genetic information is consistently being lost, not gained, exactly the opposite of evolution. So, if a lesser organism was to become something more complex, it would have to receive new information from an intelligent outside source. God.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:18 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wait, so what you are saying is, that whatever we don't know, we should just answer as god? What? With that, you could say that Aircraft fly cause god wants them to. But that's not true.

Thats overextending what I was trying to insinuate. My point was that there are things in the universe that science will not be able to explain ever (or at least a long way off). Such phenomena include why did evolution steer the way it did? Why did the big bang go bang?
A lot of the big why questions may never be answered and this is because they have had divine guidance.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:27 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes This is because they have had divine guidance.
Are you saying God made the world using evolution?

Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:32 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes This is because they have had divine guidance.
Are you saying God made the world using evolution?

Yes! Finaly, someone understands my whole hybrid creativolution theory!
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:33 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
Another way is, That the moon gets closer to us every year. So if everything was created over 1000,0000 years ago, the moon would be on top of us. Or, if it started farther away the earth would be a ball floating in space!
I have heard this before, pretty cool. I will have to read you two longer posts when I have time.

Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:35 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Yes! Finaly, someone understands my whole hybrid creativolution theory!
I'm afraid not. Why would God use such a flawed method as evolution to create everything? And why does the fossil record agree with the Biblical account of a world wide flood?

Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:39 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Yes! Finaly, someone understands my whole hybrid creativolution theory!
I'm afraid not. Why would God use such a flawed method as evolution to create everything? And why does the fossil record agree with the Biblical account of a world wide flood?

We assume it is flawed but how can we understand a plan crafted by an all powerful being? After all, what's to say that we simply don't understand the master plan?
And what's to say the biblical accounts are wrong? I say the world being made in 6 days part is false but I never challenged the rest of it.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:45 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Thats overextending what I was trying to insinuate. My point was that there are things in the universe that science will not be able to explain ever (or at least a long way off). Such phenomena include why did evolution steer the way it did? Why did the big bang go bang?
A lot of the big why questions may never be answered and this is because they have had divine guidance.

...but you also have to prove this Devine Guidance. There is ZERO proof of this. However, science and math seem to figure out a lot. Hmmmmm.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:52 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
...but you also have to prove this Devine Guidance. There is ZERO proof of this. However, science and math seem to figure out a lot. Hmmmmm.

When you have eliminated all other answers, whatever remains, no matter how impossible must be the truth.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 12:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
When you have eliminated all other answers, whatever remains, no matter how impossible must be the truth.

Sherlock Holmes. I believe, though, he used more science than anything. He didn't say that a difficult case was just supernatural. And we haven't ruled out science at all.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 12:10 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Sherlock Holmes. I believe, though, he used more science than anything. He didn't say that a difficult case was just supernatural. And we haven't ruled out science at all.

Okay, use your science to explain why evolution lead to us. Explain why the big bang went bang.
...


...


...


Divine intervention.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 12:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Okay, use your science to explain why evolution lead to us. Explain why the big bang went bang.
...


...


...


Divine intervention.

I can not explain it. I admit that. But at one point, we couldn't explain gravity, or light, or atoms. Does that make them Supernatural?
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 12:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Another topic that can never be resolved.

Neither side is inclinded to give ground, and it's magic either way; "let there be light" on one side, and nothing exploding into something on the other.

Well, I am interested, Areetsa, what do you think?
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 12:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
We assume it is flawed but how can we understand a plan crafted by an all powerful being? After all, what's to say that we simply don't understand the master plan?
And what's to say the biblical accounts are wrong? I say the world being made in 6 days part is false but I never challenged the rest of it.
If God is all-powerful like you said, than why not believe He made the world in 6 days? Why would you eliminate just one part of the Bible and insert something that goes against fact?
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 3:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I can not explain it. I admit that. But at one point, we couldn't explain gravity, or light, or atoms. Does that make them Supernatural?
So, you are willing to believe something with no proof, while a possible answer is right before you? What happens if you're wrong?

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 3:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I can not explain it. I admit that. But at one point, we couldn't explain gravity, or light, or atoms. Does that make them Supernatural?
So, you are willing to believe something with no proof, while a possible answer is right before you? What happens if you're wrong?

Frankly, you don't know if I am wrong. That isn't an answer, by the way. There are holds in the idea of a "divine" spirit. Like, where was this person when 9/11 happened? WWII? Where has the almighty gone?
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 3:18 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
We assume it is flawed but how can we understand a plan crafted by an all powerful being? After all, what's to say that we simply don't understand the master plan?
And what's to say the biblical accounts are wrong? I say the world being made in 6 days part is false but I never challenged the rest of it.
If God is all-powerful like you said, than why not believe He made the world in 6 days? Why would you eliminate just one part of the Bible and insert something that goes against fact?

We have scientific fact proving that a planet, carefully tuned biosphere and solar system, and the delicate balance that is us intelligent beings did not happen in 6 days.
We have watched tiny snippits of planet formation, only a few years, through telescopes. The entire universe was formed in an instant but it has taken well over six days to shape itself and hasnt been around for only ~6000ish years.
The science is sound so I won't argue with that. There is still a lot of extremely complex phenomena that science cant explain (and may never) out there too.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 3:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Frankly, you don't know if I am wrong. That isn't an answer, by the way. There are holds in the idea of a "divine" spirit. Like, where was this person when 9/11 happened? WWII? Where has the almighty gone?
God did not cause any of those things, people did. God gave us a freewill, to take that away would be unjust. A perfect God cannot be unjust. If you want more information you can read A Case For Faith by Lee Strobel, or ask me and I'll do my best to answer.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 3:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
We have scientific fact proving that a planet, carefully tuned biosphere and solar system, and the delicate balance that is us intelligent beings did not happen in 6 days.
How can you believe it couldn't happen in 6 days and then believe in all-powerful God? That's a contradiction.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 3:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
We have scientific fact proving that a planet, carefully tuned biosphere and solar system, and the delicate balance that is us intelligent beings did not happen in 6 days.
How can you believe it couldn't happen in 6 days and then believe in all-powerful God? That's a contradiction.

So in roughly one week, plants that could make oxygen were growing, dinosaurs came and went, and then humans have stuck it out since then? We have artifacts that tell the exact opposite story,
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 5:05 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears

Well then, can you prove that the Earth has existed that long? Your entire line of thinking revolves around that one fact. I would be more than glad to see any evidence of this.

Come sir, Let us Reason.

Let me ask you this. What evidence do you have?
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 6:51 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Yes! Finaly, someone understands my whole hybrid creativolution theory!

Yay heresy!

Millions of years of blood and death are "very good" and an okay foundation for a perfect garden!

I'll bet the Allah Brigade will be thrilled to hear that.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Frankly, you don't know if I am wrong. That isn't an answer, by the way. There are holds in the idea of a "divine" spirit. Like, where was this person when 9/11 happened? WWII? Where has the almighty gone?

It's called "free will". Look it up sometime.
More to the point, it's the theological equivalent of "you got yourself up there, you can get yourself down".
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, I am interested, Areetsa, what do you think?

Magic.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 10:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Yay heresy!

Millions of years of blood and death are "very good" and an okay foundation for a perfect garden!

I'll bet the Allah Brigade will be thrilled to hear that.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Frankly, you don't know if I am wrong. That isn't an answer, by the way. There are holds in the idea of a "divine" spirit. Like, where was this person when 9/11 happened? WWII? Where has the almighty gone?

It's called "free will". Look it up sometime.
More to the point, it's the theological equivalent of "you got yourself up there, you can get yourself down".
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, I am interested, Areetsa, what do you think?

Magic.

Magic. Right. Uhm. Hmm. Like, Penn and Teller? No, joking, don't hit me!

Magic= unexplained science
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 10:24 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So in roughly one week, plants that could make oxygen were growing, dinosaurs came and went, and then humans have stuck it out since then? We have artifacts that tell the exact opposite story,
God created everything in its mature state. What are these artifacts? I have artifacts that proved my story, a human footprint inside a dinosaur print prove both existed at the same time, a fossilize tree extending vertically through multiple layers of rock stratum could only happen if a world wide flood quickly laid down that sediment, and many others.
By the way, you replied to my response to Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, I have to believe in what is most probable. If I'm wrong I die, just like you, but if I'm correct I spend eternity with God. It's a big risk to believe in evolution.
Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 7:01 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C Magic.
How does this magic occur? How is it created and what tells it what to do?
Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 7:10 am
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So in roughly one week, plants that could make oxygen were growing, dinosaurs came and went, and then humans have stuck it out since then? We have artifacts that tell the exact opposite story,
God created everything in its mature state. What are these artifacts? I have artifacts that proved my story, a human footprint inside a dinosaur print prove both existed at the same time, a fossilize tree extending vertically through multiple layers of rock stratum could only happen if a world wide flood quickly laid down that sediment, and many others.
By the way, you replied to my response to Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, I have to believe in what is most probable. If I'm wrong I die, just like you, but if I'm correct I spend eternity with God. It's a big risk to believe in evolution.

I'm not atheist either. I feel no risk, though. It's science. For all we know, the true essence of science is god.

So carbon dating is wrong, right? So are all archaeologists, Dino Dan, in fact most scientists are all wrongs? Even with so much information that proves the theory?
Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 10:49 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Locutus 666
Theres no god.
The universe is just on going physics.
Life is a chemical reaction.

I'm guessing you believe in the big bang then. Maybe you could explain something to me.
If the condensed matter that is the big bang was out there in a vast nothingness, what caused it to explode?

lol dont know.
Seems u belief in god. If so, why didnt he do all that earlier? And who or what created god?
Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 3:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What information? I gave you real artifacts that disprove evolution, look them up.

Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 4:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
lol dont know.
Seems u belief in god. If so, why didn't he do all that earlier? And who or what created god?
I want to be sure what you're asking, why didn't God do what earlier? No one created God, He is eternal.

Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 4:09 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Locutus 666
lol dont know.
Seems u belief in god. If so, why didn't he do all that earlier? And who or what created god?
I want to be sure what you're asking, why didn't God do what earlier? No one created God, He is eternal.
Yes, why didnt God create all that stuff earlier?
If God is eternal, why could the universe not to be eternal? Why u asking what builds up the begining but not asking who created god?


Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 4:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666 Yes, why didnt God create all that stuff earlier?
If God is eternal, why could the universe not to be eternal? Why u asking what builds up the begining but not asking who created god?
Time did not exist before God created the universe, because time is relative to the movement of objects in the universe. Where time does not exist early and late are irrelevant. God is the creator, he has no beginning, that's why He is God. For the universe to work there must be something or someone that has always existed.
Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 6:23 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Locutus 666 Yes, why didnt God create all that stuff earlier?
If God is eternal, why could the universe not to be eternal? Why u asking what builds up the begining but not asking who created god?
Time did not exist before God created the universe, because time is relative to the movement of objects in the universe. Where time does not exist early and late are irrelevant. God is the creator, he has no beginning, that's why He is God. For the universe to work there must be something or someone that has always existed.

U didnt argue consequently. Why does God not need a beginning but the universe does?
Isnt it more logical when it all happend this way: universe created humans created god

Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 6:50 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
U didnt argue consequently. Why does God not need a beginning but the universe does?
Isnt it more logical when it all happend this way: universe created humans created god
The universe can be traced back to a specific point of origin, all scientists agree on that. That is why the universe has a beginning and must come from somewhere. God cannot be traced back, He has no beginning and no end.
Creation and the big bang are attempts to explain where the universe came from. What makes you think that God must have a beginning?
Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 7:33 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
The universe can be traced back to a specific point of origin, all scientists agree on that. That is why the universe has a beginning and must come from somewhere. God cannot be traced back, He has no beginning and no end.

Here, u said it your self: "...and must come from somewhere." The same with god.


Quoting The Object of Legend
Creation and the big bang are attempts to explain where the universe came from. What makes you think that God must have a beginning?

Everything that is there, must have a beginning.
What about the germanian gods? The old greek gods? Romans got some gods too. The egypts? What about them? If you say, god is eternal, then these guys too. What do they do now?
Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 8:14 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Areetsa C Magic.
How does this magic occur? How is it created and what tells it what to do?

Where does magic usually come from?
Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 10:13 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
...I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, I have to believe in what is most probable. If I'm wrong I die, just like you, but if I'm correct I spend eternity with God...

Yyyeah, that isn't exactly a very theologically sound argument.
Quoting Locutus 666
Here, u said it your self: "...and must come from somewhere." The same with god.

Looks to me like you're deliberately misunderstanding what he's saying...
Quoting Locutus 666
Everything that is there, must have a beginning.
What about the germanian gods? The old greek gods? Romans got some gods too. The egypts? What about them? If you say, god is eternal, then these guys too. What do they do now?

...and presuming that the existence of one god means everything else that's ever pretended divinity must be one as well.
Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 12:50 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Looks to me like you're deliberately misunderstanding what he's saying...

No. he said, the universe must have a beginning. Something or someone had it to be created. In my opinion, this must be the same with a god too.
Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 2:21 pm
As evolution vs. creation boils down to god vs. scientific hypotheses, we must ask which is more likely: The instantaneous creation of matter (or time, or whichever other dimensions you fancy), or the instantaneous creation of a tremendously powerful being. I like to believe in god, but instantaneous creation of matter seems most likely.
Permalink
| June 24, 2013, 9:15 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
No. he said, the universe must have a beginning. Something or someone had it to be created. In my opinion, this must be the same with a god too.

Unless, of course, said god also created time.
Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 1:42 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Where does magic usually come from?
It must come from an intelligent source, God.

Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 6:40 am
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
As evolution vs. creation boils down to god vs. scientific hypotheses, we must ask which is more likely: The instantaneous creation of matter (or time, or whichever other dimensions you fancy), or the instantaneous creation of a tremendously powerful being. I like to believe in god, but instantaneous creation of matter seems most likely.
Actually it come down to science vs science. Look at the facts alone (Fossil record, cell structure, etc.) and see where that points. By 'instantaneous creation of matter' do you mean the big bang or the breath of God?
Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 6:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
No. he said, the universe must have a beginning. Something or someone had it to be created. In my opinion, this must be the same with a god too.
Think about it for a second before you reply. The universe obviously has a beginning, it is proven by science. Saying that God must have a beginning is an substantiated and unreasonable guess. God has no beginning and no end. No matter what you believe, there must be something that always existed. Theists say God, atheists say the matter that was the big bang.
Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 6:57 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Locutus 666
No. he said, the universe must have a beginning. Something or someone had it to be created. In my opinion, this must be the same with a god too.
Think about it for a second before you reply. The universe obviously has a beginning, it is proven by science. Saying that God must have a beginning is an substantiated and unreasonable guess. God has no beginning and no end. No matter what you believe, there must be something that always existed. Theists say God, atheists say the matter that was the big bang.

No.
Everything that exist MUST have a beginning. Otherwise it do not exist. The big bang wasnt the beginning but theres no way to find out, what was before.
Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 7:28 am
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
As evolution vs. creation boils down to god vs. scientific hypotheses, we must ask which is more likely: The instantaneous creation of matter (or time, or whichever other dimensions you fancy), or the instantaneous creation of a tremendously powerful being. I like to believe in god, but instantaneous creation of matter seems most likely.

Instantaneous creation of something out of nothing (I mean nothing here: no quantum fluctuations. After all, where did the quantum fluctuations come from?) is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories require laws to exist and operate. I personally find it just as believable that scientific laws are eternal as an eternal Creator God.
The creation vs. evolution debate really boils down to: Should we take religious creation accounts as literal truth or not? For an atheist, the answer is obvious. For religious people, this question makes a good debate.
Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 9:18 am
Quoting Locutus 666
No.
Everything that exist MUST have a beginning. Otherwise it does not exist. The big bang wasn't the beginning, but there's no way to find out what was before.

If everything has a beginning, then it either must have been created out of nothing, or created by something. Obviously, something can't be created out of nothing, so it must have been created by some preexisting thing. Therefore, time must be eternal, because something must have existed before each thing. If time is eternal, by your argument, it must not exist.
Like it or not, that is the logical conclusion from your statement.

Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 9:42 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
No.
Everything that exist MUST have a beginning. Otherwise it do not exist. The big bang wasnt the beginning but theres no way to find out, what was before.
According to you, if something did come before God or the big bang something else would have to come before that, and something else before that, and something else before that, and on and on and on. That doesn't solve anything, there must be something that had no beginning.
Permalink
| June 25, 2013, 11:25 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Locutus 666
No.
Everything that exist MUST have a beginning. Otherwise it do not exist. The big bang wasnt the beginning but theres no way to find out, what was before.
According to you, if something did come before God or the big bang something else would have to come before that, and something else before that, and something else before that, and on and on and on. That doesn't solve anything, there must be something that had no beginning.

Sure. God has a beginning, the day mankind created the first religions.
The universe as we know it began with the big bang. Before that there was something too we dont know. This had a beginning too. etc..
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 2:59 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
If everything has a beginning, then it either must have been created out of nothing, or created by something. Obviously, something can't be created out of nothing, so it must have been created by some preexisting thing. Therefore, time must be eternal, because something must have existed before each thing. If time is eternal, by your argument, it must not exist.
Like it or not, that is the logical conclusion from your statement.

Possible. An an interesting thing. But since Einsteins theory, time is relative and began with the big bang. So its not eternal.
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 3:01 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Sure. God has a beginning, the day mankind created the first religions.
The universe as we know it began with the big bang. Before that there was something too we dont know. This had a beginning too. etc..
There must be a beginning, where all things came from something without a beginning. No scientists say anything created the big bang or God, because that is pointless. If something always did have something else before it, then that cycle would go on forever and ever and ever. How did this cycle start?
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 6:33 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
How did this cycle start?

Why does it have to start?
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 6:44 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible created out of nothing

What if the universe IS nothing?
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 6:46 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Why does it have to start?
Because you are always left with the same problem, where did everything come from. There no evidence for an endless line of creators, if it were true space should be littered with matter from past creations.
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 6:49 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Locutus 666
Sure. God has a beginning, the day mankind created the first religions.
The universe as we know it began with the big bang. Before that there was something too we dont know. This had a beginning too. etc..
There must be a beginning, where all things came from something without a beginning. No scientists say anything created the big bang or God, because that is pointless. If something always did have something else before it, then that cycle would go on forever and ever and ever. How did this cycle start?

I cant say you that. I wasnt there when all began. :D
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 6:49 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Why does it have to start?
Because you are always left with the same problem, where did everything come from. There no evidence for an endless line of creators, if it were true space should be littered with matter from past creations.

Why does anything even have to come from anything?

Also - littered with matter "of past creations"? There is a lot of matter in the universe. Why not?
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 7:13 am
Quoting Locutus 666
Possible. An an interesting thing. But since Einsteins theory, time is relative and began with the big bang. So its not eternal.

But without time prior to the big bang, there is nothing to preclude the existance of something without beginning. After all, having a beginning implies the existence of time.
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 8:59 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Why does anything even have to come from anything?
Because creation of something out of nothing takes as much faith to believe in as it does to believe in God (and it sure is a lot less satisfying).
Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 9:03 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Why does anything even have to come from anything?
Because creation of something out of nothing takes as much faith to believe in as it does to believe in God (and it sure is a lot less satisfying).

I never said something came to be from nothing.

But if you want to know my standpoint so badly, in a dimensional time system with a beginning point, there are exactly two different timelines both stretching into infinity.

Graphic representation:
<<<<<0
>

Permalink
| June 26, 2013, 1:09 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I never said something came to be from nothing.

But if you want to know my standpoint so badly, in a dimensional time system with a beginning point, there are exactly two different timelines both stretching into infinity.

Graphic representation:
<<<<<0
>
Now, why is it that way? What makes it so that there are exactly two timelines? Why does time exist in the first place? Where did it come from?

Permalink
| June 27, 2013, 12:41 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus

Now, why is it that way? What makes it so that there are exactly two timelines? Why does time exist in the first place? Where did it come from?

You know how dimensions work, right? No need to explain why there is a positive and a negative of each number, right?

Anyways, I never said time exists. I said what it would be like if it did.
Permalink
| June 27, 2013, 7:55 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
You know how dimensions work, right? No need to explain why there is a positive and a negative of each number, right?
Yes, I do. But why is time one dimensional? Why do dimensions work?

Whenever you explain something, you have to explain why it works that way, and why the explanation works, and so on. The business of explaining never has an end unless something can explain itself.

Permalink
| June 27, 2013, 11:41 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Yes, I do. But why is time one dimensional? Why do dimensions work?


The question why is something that would take too long to explain (but I do not believe in time to begin with, so that might affect my explanation).

As for the one-dimensionality, it ahs to have at least one to be mathematically applicable to everything, and two (or more, but that would only (ONLY) affect time-travel and nothing else) to have infinite alterante timelines.
Permalink
| June 27, 2013, 2:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Why does anything even have to come from anything?
We live in a physical world, all physical things must have a beginning. By projecting back the universe's rate of expansion, the earth's rotational speed, the moon distance from the earth, etc. we see that these things must have a beginning at some point. Ask almost any scientist, they'll tell you the same thing.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 7:19 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
We live in a physical world, all physical things must have a beginning.

We have no idea if the universe actually had a constant course through its history. Also, in centred dimensional time, before the beginning, there is an infinite negative timeline. Not necessarily exactly mirrored, but definetely infinite.

Ask any mathematitian, almost everyone will confirm this. Well, almost any sufficiently educated one.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 7:24 am
I watched a documentary and it told me that the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago, the earth grew to about it's size now by being pelted
by meteors for years, the oceans were created by a 2 million year rain, the moon was created by a small planet crashing into the earth but getting stuck in earth's gravitational pull, and then life started.
It seems very unlikely to me that they would have this information now, but I do not think that that could have happened in six thousand years.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 8:56 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
We have no idea if the universe actually had a constant course through its history. Also, in centred dimensional time, before the beginning, there is an infinite negative timeline. Not necessarily exactly mirrored, but definetely infinite.

Ask any mathematician, almost everyone will confirm this. Well, almost any sufficiently educated one.
Where did math come from? I've never heard anyone answer that question.

Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 10:26 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
We have no idea if the universe actually had a constant course through its history. Also, in centred dimensional time, before the beginning, there is an infinite negative timeline. Not necessarily exactly mirrored, but definetely infinite.

Ask any mathematitian, almost everyone will confirm this. Well, almost any sufficiently educated one.
In an expanding universe there is only one possible course, out. To suggest that the universe could have had periods when it was stopped or even shank is contrary to all scientific evidence and is proven to be complete impossible. What does an infinite timeline have to do with anything? We are discussing how matter came to be.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 2:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Seamus M.
That didn't happen in six thousand years, it never happened. That's not how the world was created. If earth was pelted with that many meteors, the amount of nickel in the earth should be many times greater than it is.
"Even then, nickel is reactive enough with oxygen so that native nickel is rarely found on Earth's surface, being mostly confined to the interiors of larger nickel–iron meteorites that were protected from oxidation during their time in space."
Also, how could it rain for two million years if water wasn't already on earth?

Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 3:01 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Seamus M.
That didn't happen in six thousand years, it never happened. That's not how the world was created. If earth was pelted with that many meteors, the amount of nickel in the earth should be many times greater than it is.
"Even then, nickel is reactive enough with oxygen so that native nickel is rarely found on Earth's surface, being mostly confined to the interiors of larger nickel–iron meteorites that were protected from oxidation during their time in space."
Also, how could it rain for two million years if water wasn't already on earth?

don't ask me. Ask the professionals.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 4:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Seamus M.
don't ask me. Ask the professionals.
The question was more of poof by reason that the documentary is false, but if I run into these people I'll be sure to ask.

Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 4:44 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Seamus M.
don't ask me. Ask the professionals.
The question was more of poof by reason that the documentary is false, but if I run into these people I'll be sure to ask.

Ok. I'll admit it seems a little weird myself.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 4:49 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
We have no idea if the universe actually had a constant course through its history. Also, in centred dimensional time, before the beginning, there is an infinite negative timeline. Not necessarily exactly mirrored, but definetely infinite.

Ask any mathematician, almost everyone will confirm this. Well, almost any sufficiently educated one.
Where did math come from? I've never heard anyone answer that question.

Synopsis: math literally means "existance".
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 5:04 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
We have no idea if the universe actually had a constant course through its history. Also, in centred dimensional time, before the beginning, there is an infinite negative timeline. Not necessarily exactly mirrored, but definetely infinite.

Ask any mathematitian, almost everyone will confirm this. Well, almost any sufficiently educated one.
In an expanding universe there is only one possible course, out. To suggest that the universe could have had periods when it was stopped or even shank is contrary to all scientific evidence and is proven to be complete impossible. What does an infinite timeline have to do with anything? We are discussing how matter came to be.

Not necessarily an expanding universe. And if you believe it to be so, it is not as much phisical movement as transformation of space. And matted does not have to "come to be". It just is. Far more logical if you know anything about the subject.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 5:08 pm
 Group admin 
Uhm. Sorry. Could someone, like, fill me in on what has been established?

(Surprised the amount of ground that has been progressed in roughly five days).

For the time being: Evolution.
Permalink
| June 28, 2013, 7:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Uhm. Sorry. Could someone, like, fill me in on what has been established?
The only thing that has been established is that evolution can not work. Now we have people saying that there was no beginning at all!
Permalink
| June 29, 2013, 6:42 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Synopsis: math literally means "existence".

Usually, when people say a word "literally means" something, they mean that it comes from a word that means that something. However, in the etymology of mathematics, I can find no words that translate as "existence", so I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.
Permalink
| June 29, 2013, 9:08 am
Well, I wasn't going to say anything here, but now I am. Well, here goes: I believe that there are four possible theories (In descending order of likeliness (two and three are equally as likely)): One: That there isn't a god, that there never was, and that the world, universe, and humanity were all just a big accident, and that life has no meaning (the theory I most support). Two: There once was a god, but, after the events chronicled in the bible (and other such religious texts), said god died (It IS possible. Just because we might think he/she/it was a god doesn't mean it wasn't just another form of life that had huge power and an extreme lifespan), and that we were left with the remnants of that god's creation/protected dominion. Three: God left after the events chronicled in religious texts, leaving to create life elsewhere (are we that special that we get our own god? I don't think so). Four: There is a god, and I'm just blind to it, and will suffer in whatever afterlife there may be. (Least Likely)
Permalink
| June 29, 2013, 5:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Uhm. Sorry. Could someone, like, fill me in on what has been established?
The only thing that has been established is that evolution can not work. Now we have people saying that there was no beginning at all!

Zeno's paradox?! To get anywhere, you must traverse infinity?! Wow.

Okay. Lets see.

There was no beginning?

What.

Anyone how believes this, please explain!
Permalink
| June 29, 2013, 6:05 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Well, I wasn't going to say anything here, but now I am. Well, here goes: I believe that there are four possible theories (In descending order of likeliness (two and three are equally as likely)): One: That there isn't a god, that there never was, and that the world, universe, and humanity were all just a big accident, and that life has no meaning (the theory I most support). Two: There once was a god, but, after the events chronicled in the bible (and other such religious texts), said god died (It IS possible. Just because we might think he/she/it was a god doesn't mean it wasn't just another form of life that had huge power and an extreme lifespan), and that we were left with the remnants of that god's creation/protected dominion. Three: God left after the events chronicled in religious texts, leaving to create life elsewhere (are we that special that we get our own god? I don't think so). Four: There is a god, and I'm just blind to it, and will suffer in whatever afterlife there may be. (Least Likely)
I'm just curious why you support the first theory when it yields you no benefit, and if it happens to be wrong and the fourth correct, you're really in big trouble?

Permalink
| June 29, 2013, 7:16 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Also, how could it rain for two million years if water wasn't already on earth?

Water came out of the earth's crust in volcanic eruptions. Naturally, since volcanoes are so hot, it would be in the form of vapor. Then, the vapor would eventually condense in the air, and fall to the Earth as rain.
Permalink
| June 29, 2013, 7:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate . One: That there isn't a god, that there never was, and that the world, universe, and humanity were all just a big accident, and that life has no meaning (the theory I most support)
It sounds like you believe in evolution and the big bang, is that correct? Supporters of this theory always try to say that it is scientific, when actually it defies science on a number on levels.
1- They say life started with amino acids floating in water that connected into proteins. What they don't tell you is that water dissolves amino acids.
2- If the condensed matter of the big bang was out there in an infinite nothingness, what caused it to start expanding?
3- They say that life started as one celled organisms that became more and more advanced over millions of years. They conveniently forget science has proven that information is always lost as organisms reproduce not gained. So there is no way the little cell could get the new information required to develop into anything more advanced. This is the law of entropy.
4- The fossil record defies the theory with fossilized trees extending vertically through multiple layers of rock stratum and fish fossils on the tops of mountains. These things prove there was a world wide flood.

I'm sorry that you haven't seen God in your daily life, but I assure you that He is here and alive. The Bible says that if you seek Him with your whole heart you will find Him.
Permalink
| June 30, 2013, 6:38 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
1- They say life started with amino acids floating in water that connected into proteins. What they don't tell you is that water dissolves amino acids.
They sometimes give a false impression of how well they know about the origins of life. Really, the don't have a good idea, but they are definitely making progress. (By the way, dissolving in water doesn't break the molecules, it simply separates them.)
Quoting The Object of Legend
2- If the condensed matter of the big bang was out there in an infinite nothingness, what caused it to start expanding?
Cosmologists haven't yet answered that question. Remember: Just because science hasn't explained something doesn't mean it can't.
Quoting The Object of Legend
3- They say that life started as one celled organisms that became more and more advanced over millions of years. They conveniently forget science has proven that information is always lost as organisms reproduce not gained.
I'd like to learn more about that, do you have a reference?
Quoting The Object of Legend So there is no way the little cell could get the new information required to develop into anything more advanced. This is the law of entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. The biosphere is not a closed system, it is constantly bathed with energy from the sun and, to a lesser extent, the Earth.
Quoting The Object of Legend
4- The fossil record defies the theory with fossilized trees extending vertically through multiple layers of rock stratum and fish fossils on the tops of mountains. These things prove there was a world wide flood.

Polystrate fossils prove only that there have been floods, to interpret them as all being formed in one giant flood is quite a leap. As for fossils on top of mountains, those only prove that geology changes. If a flood were to cover those mountains, I seriously doubt that many of the organisms we find fossils of up there would be able to make the trek within the timeframe (about one year) described in the Bible. Many of the fossils we find on mountaintops are slow-moving or sessile animals (like sponges, little, mudcrawling worms, or echinoderms).
Permalink
| June 30, 2013, 11:35 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Water came out of the earth's crust in volcanic eruptions. Naturally, since volcanoes are so hot, it would be in the form of vapor. Then, the vapor would eventually condense in the air, and fall to the Earth as rain.

Huh? Water? From, like, volcanoes? Uhm. Volcanoes spew out magma/lava (they are the same thing, depending on if they are in or out of the volcano), and ash, but water? At the very least, volcanoes couldn't spew out the amount of water that you are claiming, in a few days. Over millions of years, maybe.
Permalink
| June 30, 2013, 2:34 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Huh? Water? From, like, volcanoes? Uhm. Volcanoes spew out magma/lava (they are the same thing, depending on if they are in or out of the volcano), and ash, but water?
Yes. Water vapor is the most abundant volcanic gas in most volcanic eruptions.
Quoting Achintya Prasad At the very least, volcanoes couldn't spew out the amount of water that you are claiming, in a few days. Over millions of years, maybe.
Of course not in a few days. I never said it was in a few days. In the early earth, the seas formed (over several million years) from water brought out of the Earth's interior by volcanic eruptions.

Permalink
| June 30, 2013, 3:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Huh? Water? From, like, volcanoes? Uhm. Volcanoes spew out magma/lava (they are the same thing, depending on if they are in or out of the volcano), and ash, but water?
Yes. Water vapor is the most abundant volcanic gas in most volcanic eruptions.
Quoting Achintya Prasad At the very least, volcanoes couldn't spew out the amount of water that you are claiming, in a few days. Over millions of years, maybe.
Of course not in a few days. I never said it was in a few days. In the early earth, the seas formed (over several million years) from water brought out of the Earth's interior by volcanic eruptions.

No, I was agreeing with you. Scientifically, Earth's water didn't show up in a few days; it took thousands of years.
Permalink
| June 30, 2013, 5:33 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Well, I wasn't going to say anything here, but now I am. Well, here goes: I believe that there are four possible theories (In descending order of likeliness (two and three are equally as likely)): One: That there isn't a god, that there never was, and that the world, universe, and humanity were all just a big accident, and that life has no meaning (the theory I most support). Two: There once was a god, but, after the events chronicled in the bible (and other such religious texts), said god died (It IS possible. Just because we might think he/she/it was a god doesn't mean it wasn't just another form of life that had huge power and an extreme lifespan), and that we were left with the remnants of that god's creation/protected dominion. Three: God left after the events chronicled in religious texts, leaving to create life elsewhere (are we that special that we get our own god? I don't think so). Four: There is a god, and I'm just blind to it, and will suffer in whatever afterlife there may be. (Least Likely)
I'm just curious why you support the first theory when it yields you no benefit, and if it happens to be wrong and the fourth correct, you're really in big trouble?

I'm going down (can't use the H word) anyway, so why bother worshiping?
Permalink
| July 1, 2013, 4:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm going down (can't use the H word) anyway, so why bother worshiping?
You don't have to go down, God has provided a way to be reconciled with Him and to have eternity in heaven. He sent Jesus to live a perfect life so that anyone who believes in him may have eternal life. God loves you and wants to save you, all you have to do is turn to him, repent, and let him be Lord of your life.

Permalink
| July 1, 2013, 6:23 am
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm going down (can't use the H word) anyway, so why bother worshiping?
You don't have to go down, God has provided a way to be reconciled with Him and to have eternity in heaven. He sent Jesus to live a perfect life so that anyone who believes in him may have eternal life. God loves you and wants to save you, all you have to do is turn to him, repent, and let him be Lord of your life.

.....okay. Well. Uh. Thats, kinda one sided, (in terms of religion) but lets get back to the debate.

By the way, I don't see how acknowledging science is against religion. If you believe that one or more omnipotent being(s) created us, did they not also create science?

Anyways, my two cents. Back to creation vs evolution, on the side of which I go to evolution.
Permalink
| July 1, 2013, 11:39 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
By the way, I don't see how acknowledging science is against religion. If you believe that one or more omnipotent being(s) created us, did they not also create science?

Anyways, my two cents. Back to creation vs evolution, on the side of which I go to evolution.
I agree. Simply put: Religion is how we understand God. Science is how we understand God's creation. As they study different things, science and religion can have no conflict just so long as religion doesn't make scientific claims (which would be silly: Religion is to be accepted on faith, whereas science is to be tested brutally against hard evidence) and science doesn't make religious claims (which would also be silly: Religious claims are utterly untestable by scientific means).

Permalink
| July 1, 2013, 12:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Achintya Prasad
By the way, I don't see how acknowledging science is against religion. If you believe that one or more omnipotent being(s) created us, did they not also create science?

Anyways, my two cents. Back to creation vs evolution, on the side of which I go to evolution.
I agree. Simply put: Religion is how we understand God. Science is how we understand God's creation. As they study different things, science and religion can have no conflict just so long as religion doesn't make scientific claims (which would be silly: Religion is to be accepted on faith, whereas science is to be tested brutally against hard evidence) and science doesn't make religious claims (which would also be silly: Religious claims are utterly untestable by scientific means).

Yes, and therefore, evolution is what happened. There is evidence to support it; refuting it on the bases of a one religious text that has been handed down for thousands of years is, well, hard to believe.
Permalink
| July 1, 2013, 2:37 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Simply put: Religion is how we understand God. Science is how we understand God's creation.

I would say, religions fills the gaps where science isnt advanced enough or cant explain. As soon as science advances, religion retreats.
A good example for this is the earth. First they said the earth is a flat disk, science brought evidence that its a ball. Then they said "but the sun moves around the earth", science refute this a.s.o.
There are surely a lot of cases when science could refute religion-stuff. I cant remember that religion could ever refute science.
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 3:05 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Sorry about getting off topic, just trying to answer Reaper.
Anyway, why do you believe in evolution? What evidence do you have?

Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 6:30 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yes, and therefore, evolution is what happened. There is evidence to support it; refuting it on the bases of a one religious text that has been handed down for thousands of years is, well, hard to believe.
I refute it by science alone. I don't know if you saw the four points I gave Reaper, but scroll up and have a look.

Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 6:37 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
I would say, religions fills the gaps where science isnt advanced enough or cant explain. As soon as science advances, religion retreats.
A good example for this is the earth. First they said the earth is a flat disk, science brought evidence that its a ball. Then they said "but the sun moves around the earth", science refute this a.s.o.
There are surely a lot of cases when science could refute religion-stuff. I cant remember that religion could ever refute science.

It makes sense, what you are saying. Like, at one point, a Heliocentric universe was the leading "scientific" theory; thankfully, Galileo and others like him managed to fix that.
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 9:08 am
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Sorry about getting off topic, just trying to answer Reaper.
Anyway, why do you believe in evolution? What evidence do you have?

Okay, well firstly, you need to look at how much DNA and RNA we, as humans, have in common with "apes". Next, we have to look at Carbon Dating, and fossils. Both have shown early humanoid beings, not exactly like humans today, being found in areas with these creatures could live. Maybe you have heard of Wisdom Teeth. These are large teeth in the back of your mouth, and they are starting to not show up in some babies. In short, we are evolving.
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 9:17 am
Quoting Locutus 666
I would say, religions fills the gaps where science isnt advanced enough or cant explain. As soon as science advances, religion retreats.
No, if religion attempts to do this, it is no longer religion. Religion is a excursion into the metaphysical, a realm where science can have no hold.
Quoting Locutus 666
A good example for this is the earth. First they said the earth is a flat disk, science brought evidence that its a ball. Then they said "but the sun moves around the earth", science refute this a.s.o.
This is an example of religion making a scientific claim.
Quoting Locutus 666
There are surely a lot of cases when science could refute religion-stuff. I cant remember that religion could ever refute science.

That is simply because proofs are the basis of truth in the realm of science, so if religion invades science, the claims it makes can be refuted. However, in the realm of religion, proofs and refutations do not dominate, so if science were to make a religious claim, it could not be refuted in a way that science would recognize.
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 11:23 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
No, if religion attempts to do this, it is no longer religion. Religion is a excursion into the metaphysical, a realm where science can have no hold.

For sure yes! Whats the core of all big religions: 1.How everything starts 2.What will be after death, and finally 3.behavior while you live

The first 2 points are topics for scientists. For the 3rd religion isnt essential.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
This is an example of religion making a scientific claim.

No its just religion.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
That is simply because proofs are the basis of truth in the realm of science, so if religion invades science, the claims it makes can be refuted. However, in the realm of religion, proofs and refutations do not dominate, so if science were to make a religious claim, it could not be refuted in a way that science would recognize.

In other words: "If i cant proof something, i just say that its the truth."
And if its refute by scientifial facts, they say something new/different...
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 3:46 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm going down (can't use the H word) anyway, so why bother worshiping?
You don't have to go down, God has provided a way to be reconciled with Him and to have eternity in heaven. He sent Jesus to live a perfect life so that anyone who believes in him may have eternal life. God loves you and wants to save you, all you have to do is turn to him, repent, and let him be Lord of your life.

I'm sorry, but having been devoutly religious only a few short years ago, I see that, because I don't believe, and likely will never believe in any deities, or an afterlife, and I more or less believe life has no purpose, then even if I am a very good person, and God turns out to exist, I go to H3ll simply because I didn't spend my Sundays in a building listening to senile old men tell me how wonderful a magic puff of smoke is, and taking my money and claiming it for religious purposes. Okay, sorry, that last part was very opinionated. But you understand what I mean, yes? And can someone who believes in God please tell me how that's indicative of an all loving, all forgiving God?
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 4:14 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm sorry, but having been devoutly religious only a few short years ago, I see that, because I don't believe, and likely will never believe in any deities, or an afterlife, and I more or less believe life has no purpose, then even if I am a very good person, and God turns out to exist, I go to H3ll simply because I didn't spend my Sundays in a building listening to senile old men tell me how wonderful a magic puff of smoke is, and taking my money and claiming it for religious purposes. Okay, sorry, that last part was very opinionated. But you understand what I mean, yes? And can someone who believes in God please tell me how that's indicative of an all loving, all forgiving God?

I am not super religious (swear like a sailor, can be a total jerk, etc.)
and I can tell you with reasonable certainty that you don't need to be a devout catholic to go to heaven. Now I'm goin to h3ll because I can be an a-- but in your case, unlikely.
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 4:37 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
For sure yes! Whats the core of all big religions: 1.How everything starts 2.What will be after death, and finally 3.behavior while you live
No, that is not the core. The core is what happens in the supernatural, or spiritual realm. Those three things are buds of the core, but not the core itself.

Quoting Locutus 666
The first 2 points are topics for scientists. For the 3rd religion isnt essential.
No, only the first is scientific. The afterlife does not refer to the physical state of a human body after death, it refers to the status of the soul. As for the third point, its true religion isn't essential, but morality has no basis without religion. And if there is no morality, civilization has no basis.

Quoting Locutus 666
No its just religion.
No, it's not. 1: At the time Galileo made his claims, a geocentric universe was scientifically defensible. 2: Religion is an understanding of metaphysical events. It can be used to understand unexplained physical events, but when it does, it is not behaving as a religion. It is postulating a scientific hypothesis.

Quoting Locutus 666
In other words: "If i cant proof something, i just say that its the truth."
No. In religion, there can be no scientific proofs because there can be no scientific evidence. All religious postulates must come either from meditation or experience. To determine truths in the religious world, you have to engage in philosophical discussion, something which science cannot do.

Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 6:26 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm sorry, but having been devoutly religious only a few short years ago
What happened to change that?
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate . I don't believe, and likely will never believe in any deities, or an afterlife, and I more or less believe life has no purpose,...
What a depressing worldview.
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate . ...then even if I am a very good person, and God turns out to exist, I go to H3ll simply because I didn't spend my Sundays in a building listening to senile old men tell me how wonderful a magic puff of smoke is, and taking my money and claiming it for religious purposes. Okay, sorry, that last part was very opinionated. But you understand what I mean, yes? And can someone who believes in God please tell me how that's indicative of an all loving, all forgiving God?
All of your sins are forgiven because of what Christ did. And now, God has opened a path to his kingdom. It's your choice whether or not you accept God's offer of eternity with Him or not. H3ll simply means spending eternity without God, which is a choice you can make.
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 6:58 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yes, and therefore, evolution is what happened. There is evidence to support it; refuting it on the bases of a one religious text that has been handed down for thousands of years is, well, hard to believe.
I refute it by science alone. I don't know if you saw the four points I gave Reaper, but scroll up and have a look.

Did you read my rebuttal? Permalink: http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=89924#comment-1190527
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 7:07 pm
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.
I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites.
Earliest known hard bodied animals is not the same thing as first existing.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found.
Doesn't prove a thing. Over the entire history of the Earth, considerably less than one percent of the species that have ever lived have fossilized. And, Precambrian fossils are particularly rare, so it is within the bounds of reason that a trilobite ancestor could exist without ever fossilizing. Also, the Precambrian organisms Parvancorina and Spriggina bear some similarities to trilobites, so they may be the ancestors of trilobites.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.
As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there.
Your source obviously has never heard of the Ediacara Hills, a definite Precambrian fossil site with several undisputably multicellular fossils.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).
Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve?
Just because evolutionary biologists and paleontologists haven't found the answer does not mean that they are incapable.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.
Right, but it does not follow that that ancestor has fossilized, or that we have found that fossil.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs.
No, the watch is a bad analogy because it does not change over time. No one disputes that life does change (this has been shown conclusively). The question is, how much change has life undergone? And how much is it capable of?
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!
One could also have faith in spontaneous generation.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species.
Simply not true. Whatever hapenned to Archaeopteryx? Tiktaalik? Mesohippus? Ambulocetus? Anchisaurus?
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!
But the fossil record is far from complete. Even so, we have found a handful of transitional species.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux.
It is not continual. Evolution probably happens rapidly in short spurts. Why? Small populations evolve faster than large ones, so if a population becomes isolated, it will evolve rapidly, and then spread out.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair.
If Longisquama actually is a basal dinosaur (which it might be) the elongated scales on its back probably are the change from scales to feathers. Of course, the protofeathers present on many nonavian dinosaurs may not have evolved from scales directly, but instead were put on separately.
Quoting Isaac The Awesome! The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).
Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, this is an unachievable goal.
Permalink
| July 2, 2013, 7:42 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
One of the most well-known and on-going debates. We know the stories but do we know the facts?

So how did it all begin? Was the universe created in six days or did it take billions of years?

well there is proof that the big bang did happen but how was energy building up or did some other force act upon it?
Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 2:10 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm sorry, but having been devoutly religious only a few short years ago, I see that, because I don't believe, and likely will never believe in any deities, or an afterlife, and I more or less believe life has no purpose, then even if I am a very good person, and God turns out to exist, I go to H3ll simply because I didn't spend my Sundays in a building listening to senile old men tell me how wonderful a magic puff of smoke is, and taking my money and claiming it for religious purposes. Okay, sorry, that last part was very opinionated. But you understand what I mean, yes? And can someone who believes in God please tell me how that's indicative of an all loving, all forgiving God?
None of that is necessary to be saved. God asks only that you believe in him and ask him into your life. Church attendance is not required.
Not everyone who says they're a Christian really is. Ever heard of prosperity preachers? They're false! Pastors are human too, they can became corrupt. It sounds like you've been in some corrupt churches, if you want to know what Christianity really is you have to look in the Bible.
Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 6:12 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Scott Johnson
well there is proof that the big bang did happen but how was energy building up or did some other force act upon it?
Please tell me what this proof is.

Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 6:13 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, well firstly, you need to look at how much DNA and RNA we, as humans, have in common with "apes". Next, we have to look at Carbon Dating, and fossils. Both have shown early humanoid beings, not exactly like humans today, being found in areas with these creatures could live. Maybe you have heard of Wisdom Teeth. These are large teeth in the back of your mouth, and they are starting to not show up in some babies. In short, we are evolving.
Not even evolutionary scientists say we came from apes anymore, because if we did apes shouldn't still be around.
Carbon dating has been proven extremely inaccurate. Look it up.
Do you have a link to these fossils? Speaking of fossils, where are all those transitional species? They should be everywhere! If sedimentary rock was laid down over million of years then how could any fossil extend through multiple layers.
And how exactly does a cell become anything but a cell without receiving new information?
Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 6:24 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Did you read my rebuttal? Permalink: http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=89924#comment-1190527
Yes I did read it. It didn't rebut most of what I said. Amino acid still couldn't combine into anything.
The big bang still could have begun its expansion. We cannot base what we believe of something not yet discovered, we must separate fact from fiction with the information we have.
What 'trek described in the Bible' are you talking about? The animals didn't climb up onto the mountains, the flood waters put them there. That is the only explanation for finding sessile animals in such a region.
Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 6:45 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm sorry, but having been devoutly religious only a few short years ago, I see that, because I don't believe, and likely will never believe in any deities, or an afterlife, and I more or less believe life has no purpose, then even if I am a very good person, and God turns out to exist, I go to H3ll simply because I didn't spend my Sundays in a building listening to senile old men tell me how wonderful a magic puff of smoke is, and taking my money and claiming it for religious purposes. Okay, sorry, that last part was very opinionated. But you understand what I mean, yes? And can someone who believes in God please tell me how that's indicative of an all loving, all forgiving God?
None of that is necessary to be saved. God asks only that you believe in him and ask him into your life. Church attendance is not required.
Not everyone who says they're a Christian really is. Ever heard of prosperity preachers? They're false! Pastors are human too, they can became corrupt. It sounds like you've been in some corrupt churches, if you want to know what Christianity really is you have to look in the Bible.

How do you know that the bible is correct? Its a book noone knows for sure, when and who wrote it.
Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 7:27 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Yes I did read it. It didn't rebut most of what I said. Amino acid still couldn't combine into anything.
The big bang still could have begun its expansion. We cannot base what we believe of something not yet discovered, we must separate fact from fiction with the information we have.
The origins of life and the origin of the big bang are unsolved scientific problems, not unsolvable problems. You can't assume evolution is incorrect because we haven't figured those problems out yet.
Quoting The Object of Legend What 'trek described in the Bible' are you talking about? The animals didn't climb up onto the mountains, the flood waters put them there. That is the only explanation for finding sessile animals in such a region.
How would something as fragile as a sponge survive that trip?

Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 9:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I believe that God is the origin of all things, making creation the solution. The theory of evolution is full of problems, some that can never be explained (Where are the fossils of all transitional species?). The very process of evolution defies modern knowledge (As with the amino acids and lack of new genetic information).
When Charles Darwin came up with the theory it made logical sense, but now it is failing. The more we learn about the world the more outlandish the claims of macro evolution and the big bang become. People hold onto it despite its inconsistencies, however, because they don't want to face the living God. On the other hand, creation remains on the side of science.

By the way, you are the member of the month! Congratulations! You get to be a mod for this month and have your name on the group homepage.
Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 2:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I believe that God is the origin of all things, making creation the solution. The theory of evolution is full of problems, some that can never be explained (Where are the fossils of all transitional species?). The very process of evolution defies modern knowledge (As with the amino acids and lack of new genetic information).
When Charles Darwin came up with the theory it made logical sense, but now it is failing. The more we learn about the world the more outlandish the claims of macro evolution and the big bang become. People hold onto it despite its inconsistencies, however, because they don't want to face the living God. On the other hand, creation remains on the side of science.

By the way, you are the member of the month! Congratulations! You get to be a mod for this month and have your name on the group homepage.

What? Amino acid? Huh? That is science; and the there is even less evidence to prove of a greater god. You have storied, and rumors, but those are hardly facts.
Permalink
| July 3, 2013, 2:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What? Amino acid? Huh? That is science; and the there is even less evidence to prove of a greater god. You have storied, and rumors, but those are hardly facts.
I was talking to Bob about how amino acids could never combine into proteins by floating about in water as evolutionists say because water separates the amino acids. The fact is that there is no evidence against God, which proves that creation agrees with science. Evolution has evidence against it, which means it disagrees with science.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 6:28 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
I believe that God is the origin of all things,...
I do too.
Quoting The Object of Legend ...making creation the solution. The theory of evolution is full of problems, some that can never be explained (Where are the fossils of all transitional species?).
The likelyhood of a species being preserved in the fossil record is minute (Far less than one percent are preserved), so having only very few transitional fossils (and we do have a few) does not show that there were no transitional species.
Quoting The Object of Legend The very process of evolution defies modern knowledge (As with the amino acids and lack of new genetic information).

Quoting The Object of Legend
When Charles Darwin came up with the theory it made logical sense, but now it is failing.
It is not. It is becoming an interesting science (having unanswered questions does not mean a theory is failing. It means either its wrong, contrary to all previous evidence, or it needs to be modified).
Quoting The Object of Legend The more we learn about the world the more outlandish the claims of macro evolution and the big bang become.
Though the claims about about the big bang seem outlandish to someone who doesn't know the subject backword and foreword, they have a ton of evidence backing them up and make a lot of scientific sense.
Quoting The Object of Legend People hold onto it despite its inconsistencies, however, because they don't want to face the living God.
You presume too much. Several people who believe in evolution also believe in a living God (like me, for example).
Quoting The Object of Legend On the other hand, creation remains on the side of science.
It does not. For one thing, creationism has some propositions that can never be explained by scientific means (like God, for example). That doesn't necessitate that it's false, it just means that the theory is beyond the bounds of science.
For another thing, there are inconsistencies with the creationist model. For example, how can we see things that are farther that 6000 lightyears away? Why are there fossils that seem to be transitional fossils? Why did God create some species only to have them go extinct in a very short amount of time? Why did it take God a whole day to make light?
Of course, having inconsistencies doesn't make it anti-scientific, it just means the model needs modification.
Quoting The Object of Legend
By the way, you are the member of the month! Congratulations! You get to be a mod for this month and have your name on the group homepage.
Thanks!

Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 11:07 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
I was talking to Bob about how amino acids could never combine into proteins by floating about in water as evolutionists say because water separates the amino acids.
If there is a high enough concentration of a substance in water, it cannot all dissolve, so some of it will sink or float, hence not being separated. If some of the water was isolated (say, in a little pond), the amino acids would continue forming until they got to dense for them all to dissolve. Only then would they begin forming interesting structures.
Quoting The Object of Legend The fact is that there is no evidence against God, which proves that creation agrees with science.
The existence of God does not prove creation correct.
Quoting The Object of Legend Evolution has evidence against it, which means it disagrees with science.
No, it means that it's not a perfect theory.

Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 11:17 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I'm sorry, but having been devoutly religious only a few short years ago
What happened to change that?
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate . I don't believe, and likely will never believe in any deities, or an afterlife, and I more or less believe life has no purpose,...
What a depressing worldview.
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate . ...then even if I am a very good person, and God turns out to exist, I go to H3ll simply because I didn't spend my Sundays in a building listening to senile old men tell me how wonderful a magic puff of smoke is, and taking my money and claiming it for religious purposes. Okay, sorry, that last part was very opinionated. But you understand what I mean, yes? And can someone who believes in God please tell me how that's indicative of an all loving, all forgiving God?
All of your sins are forgiven because of what Christ did. And now, God has opened a path to his kingdom. It's your choice whether or not you accept God's offer of eternity with Him or not. H3ll simply means spending eternity without God, which is a choice you can make.

What happened to stop me being religious? Well, some very personal things, first and foremost, but also I spent a lot of time thinking and analyzing aspects of Christianity, and came to the realization that it doesn't make sense. Why, if a God is all loving and all forgiving, should he/she/it send me to h3ll (stupid comment filter) simply because I don't believe. I'm still a good person. And what about all those who believe in different things? It is impossible to know if God exists, and what sort of afterlife there is or isn't, and why should those who choose not to believe one thing be punished, when they had no way of knowing what was right?
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 3:07 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
What happened to stop me being religious? Well, some very personal things, first and foremost, but also I spent a lot of time thinking and analyzing aspects of Christianity, and came to the realization that it doesn't make sense. Why, if a God is all loving and all forgiving, should he/she/it send me to h3ll (stupid comment filter) simply because I don't believe. I'm still a good person.
God doesn't send you to h3ll, you send yourself there. God can only let you into his Kingdom if you want to go there. If you refuse, you spend eternity without Gog, which is h3ll.
And it doesn't matter if you're a good person or not. Because of human nature, no-one is meritorious enough to get to heaven on their own, even if they are a good person. The only way to get to heaven is through God's love.
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate . And what about all those who believe in different things? It is impossible to know if God exists, and what sort of afterlife there is or isn't, and why should those who choose not to believe one thing be punished, when they had no way of knowing what was right?
That's a very good question, and unfortunately, I don't have the answer.

Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 4:02 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
If God is all-powerful like you said, than why not believe He made the world in 6 days?
Why not instantaneously?
Quoting The Object of Legend Why would you eliminate just one part of the Bible and insert something that goes against fact?

I would not eliminate it. I would interpret it as having a deeper meaning than just the literal, surface value of the words written. The Genesis creation account doesn't make sense if it's interpreted that way. The chronology of chapter 1 contradicts that of chapter 2, for one thing.
Also, who is God speaking to when he says, "Let there be light"?
Why does it take God a whole day to make light?
What is the firmament in separating the waters below from waters above? Is there water above some solid barrier surrounding the Earth?
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 4:20 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
God created everything in its mature state. What are these artifacts? I have artifacts that proved my story, a human footprint inside a dinosaur print prove both existed at the same time,...
Could I have a link to you reference on that? I can't make a judgement until I know more.
Quoting The Object of Legend ...a fossilize tree extending vertically through multiple layers of rock stratum could only happen if a world wide flood quickly laid down that sediment, and many others.
It could only happen if a flood quickly laid down the sediment, that's true. But it's a big stretch to say that, from a few isolated examples around the world, all polystrates were formed in a single flood.
Quoting The Object of Legend
By the way, you replied to my response to Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, I have to believe in what is most probable. If I'm wrong I die, just like you, but if I'm correct I spend eternity with God.
That's a good point.
Quoting The Object of Legend It's a big risk to believe in evolution.
To be an atheist you mean. I don't see why believing in evolution would have any bearing on your salvation.

Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 4:24 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
What if the universe IS nothing?

By definition, it is not.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 4:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
By definition, it is not.

Well, in this case, nothing is a very loose, very generic term. What exactly is "nothing"? If you mean the absence of anything, than, to us, from what we observe, no.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 4:30 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I don't see why believing in evolution would have any bearing on your salvation.
The human footprint inside the dinosaur print is very well documented, here is the first website up-(http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm)
If you don't believe in creation as recorded in the Bible, than why would you believe in the God of the Bible?
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 5:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Why does it take God a whole day to make light?
What is the firmament in separating the waters below from waters above? Is there water above some solid barrier surrounding the Earth?
Where does the chronology of chapter 1 contradict that of chapter 2?
The passage talks about the water below the earth's crust and the water in the atmosphere, together they created the Flood.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 5:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
And what about all those who believe in different things? It is impossible to know if God exists, and what sort of afterlife there is or isn't, and why should those who choose not to believe one thing be punished, when they had no way of knowing what was right?
God has revealed himself through creation, if you seek Him you WILL find Him. No one will be separated from God without having had a chance to come to know Him. Those who choose to believe in something other than God, have rejected God and thus choose separation from Him.
I encourage you to check out The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, it gives a more in-depth answer to many questions like this.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 5:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible For example, how can we see things that are farther that 6000 lightyears away?
I don't see why this is a problem, God created a big universe and we will never find its end.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Why are there fossils that seem to be transitional fossils? Why did God create some species only to have them go extinct in a very short amount of time?
What are these fossils? God made dinosaurs as an expression of his glory like the rest of creation, but imagine if they were still numerous today. I think God was very calculated in his timing to let the dinosaurs faze out. He told man to be stewards of his creation, how well we do that is up to us.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 6:09 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Where does the chronology of chapter 1 contradict that of chapter 2?
In chapter 2, animals are created after man. In chapter 1, they are created before. Also, in chapter to, there seem to be no land plants until immediately before the creation of man, rather than two days before, as described in chapter 1.
Quoting The Object of Legend
The passage talks about the water below the earth's crust and the water in the atmosphere, together they created the Flood.

It specifically says there is a solid barrier separating the waters below from the waters above, but this barrier cannot be the earth's crust, because the waters below it were then gathered together to make oceans. The places where the water was taken from were the land. Also, the sun, moon, and stars were described as existing in the solid barrier, and the birds were created to fly beneath this barrier.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 6:22 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
The human footprint inside the dinosaur print is very well documented, here is the first website up-(http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm)
I'll do a more detailed look at those later, but for now I'll just say this:
I've always thought it suspicious that every fossil footprint or artifact outside of the layers where it's supposed to be is a human footprint or artifact. They never find prints of dinosaurs outside of Mesozoic rocks or anything like that. I think there are probably two causes of this: 1) Wishful thinking. People see things that vaguely resemble human traces, and then immediately believe that they are human traces. 2) Hoaxes. I'm not blaming the creation scientists themselves here, I don't know who forged the evidence, but the creation scientists see it and then instantly find it as evidence for they're theory.
Also, if people and dinosaurs did coexist, how come humans left no written or pictorial evidence of encounters with dinosaurs? (I know you're probably going to give me a thousand examples of human artifacts that appear like dinosaurs, but I think that hoaxes and wishful thinking probably play a major role here too)
And, if humans and dinosaurs lived together along with modern fauna, what made the dinosaurs go extinct? All the large modern animals (like bears, lions, elephants, hippos, etc.) would be simply unable to compete with the dinosaurian fauna.
Quoting The Object of Legend
If you don't believe in creation as recorded in the Bible, than why would you believe in the God of the Bible?

I believe in the God of the Bible for the same reason you do: He gave me the gift of faith.
I also believe in the creation account of the Bible, just not in the literal sense that the words give if you don't look for deeper meaning. I read through the narrative in Genesis 1 today and I saw two parallel themes that were quite clear (and also occur in evolutionist theory):
1) Separation. God separates light from darkness, earth from sky, land from sea, night from day etc.
2) Increasing complexity. God first creates light (fairly simple), then molds the earth's geography (still fairly simple), then makes plants (pretty complex), then animals (much more complex), then finally human civilization (according to many calculations, this is the most complex thing in the universe).
These to themes clearly run together, as God separates, the complexity increases (eg. light is more complex than darkness). Also, they are very present in the evolutionist creation account.

At the big bang, everything is a smear of matter-energy (the earth is formless and void). Then, the matter-energy separates into radiation and particles (God says, "let there be light". As the universe cools, atoms form, allowing radiation to travel freely (light is separated from darkness). Gravity causes the gases to clump and finally to collapse, forming stars and galaxies (the sea and sky are separated). Planets form from around many stars (sea and land are separated). Life begins to form, by chemical processes, on Earth (God creates forth plants). Photosynthesis evolves (God brings light to the Earth). Multicellular life evolves from colonial organisms (God creates swimming and flying animals). Some of the water-dwelling creatures adapt to a terrestrial environment (God makes the beasts of the earth), and finally, human beings evolve from apelike ancestors (God creates man). The humans are given a spiritual nature (Man is made in the image of God).
That's approximately how the Genesis 1 fits in with the evolution story.
As with any story in the Bible, I believe there is more to this story than just a record of how the Earth was created. It also shows God's power, and the fundamental connection man has to God. Furthermore, it shows that, no matter how chaotic and depressing the world may seem, it was made and is directed by an all-powerful God.

And one final point. If this passage refers to the gradual creation of the universe by God through evolution, it more clearly shows that God is an ongoing force which is still present, not simply a creator.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 7:07 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
I don't see why this is a problem, God created a big universe and we will never find its end.
It takes longer than 6000 years for light from an object more than 6000 lightyears away to reach us. If the universe is only about 6000 years old, how did that light get here?
Also, if God created a big universe, why didn't he create a universe that was old to match?
Quoting The Object of Legend What are these fossils? God made dinosaurs as an expression of his glory like the rest of creation, but imagine if they were still numerous today.
They would completely dominate the ecosystem and outcompete many modern species. So how are dinosaurs, modern fauna, and pre-dinosaurian species supposed to all coexist on the Earth at one time (the creationist model requires that at some point in earth's history, all of these animals coexisted)?
Quoting The Object of Legend I think God was very calculated in his timing to let the dinosaurs faze out.
And when did he do that, if not 65 million years ago?
Quoting The Object of Legend He told man to be stewards of his creation, how well we do that is up to us.
Very true.

Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 7:15 pm
 Group admin 
I don't see how you can just throw away fossils. I mean, do you suppose these animals lived for one day, in the 6 day creation of Earth? It makes no sense.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 7:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible It takes longer than 6000 years for light from an object more than 6000 lightyears away to reach us. If the universe is only about 6000 years old, how did that light get here?
Also, if God created a big universe, why didn't he create a universe that was old to match?
God created the universe in a mature state, but not old. The light was already here, as the Bible says. There is too much evidence against the idea of an old earth.
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible They would completely dominate the ecosystem and outcompete many modern species. So how are dinosaurs, modern fauna, and pre-dinosaurian species supposed to all coexist on the Earth at one time (the creationist model requires that at some point in earth's history, all of these animals coexisted)
The Bible says that they were plant eaters before the flood, and afterward they simply could survive in the changed environment.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 8:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible It takes longer than 6000 years for light from an object more than 6000 lightyears away to reach us. If the universe is only about 6000 years old, how did that light get here?
Also, if God created a big universe, why didn't he create a universe that was old to match?
God created the universe in a mature state, but not old. The light was already here, as the Bible says. There is too much evidence against the idea of an old earth.
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible They would completely dominate the ecosystem and outcompete many modern species. So how are dinosaurs, modern fauna, and pre-dinosaurian species supposed to all coexist on the Earth at one time (the creationist model requires that at some point in earth's history, all of these animals coexisted)
The Bible says that they were plant eaters before the flood, and afterward they simply could survive in the changed environment.

So stuff that are 6,001 or more light years away are, what?
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 9:28 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
God created the universe in a mature state, but not old. The light was already here, as the Bible says. There is too much evidence against the idea of an old earth.
Where does it say that? What would be God's purpose in doing that?
Quoting The Object of Legend
The Bible says that they were plant eaters before the flood, and afterward they simply could survive in the changed environment.
If all animals are plant eaters, the world is not a perfect creation. It's just not ecologically stable for all species to eat only plants.
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 9:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I believe in the God of the Bible for the same reason you do: He gave me the gift of faith.
Very interesting. To answer your other question read Genesis 1:14-20, notice that God created light before He created the sun. God first created an environment, then He created plants to live in it, and then he created the living things that needed to eat the plants. This is the only way it would work, and He did it perfectly. Why would a perfect God use a flawed system to create the universe? Why do you choose to believe in evolution with all the information against it, if an all-powerful God could have done it just the way He said in the Bible?
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 6:52 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible If all animals are plant eaters, the world is not a perfect creation. It's just not ecologically stable for all species to eat only plants.
It was perfectly stable before the Flood. Afterward that no longer worked, which is why God had some of them begin to eat meat.

Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 7:05 am
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I believe in the God of the Bible for the same reason you do: He gave me the gift of faith.
Very interesting. To answer your other question read Genesis 1:14-20, notice that God created light before He created the sun. God first created an environment, then He created plants to live in it, and then he created the living things that needed to eat the plants. This is the only way it would work, and He did it perfectly. Why would a perfect God use a flawed system to create the universe? Why do you choose to believe in evolution with all the information against it, if an all-powerful God could have done it just the way He said in the Bible?

Depends on what you think is flawed. Plenty of things in the universe don't work. You're basing everything off, let bed honest here, on book. How can that refute thousands, if not millions, of bits of evidence?
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 10:53 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
It was perfectly stable before the Flood. Afterward that no longer worked, which is why God had some of them begin to eat meat.
How would that be stable? There is nothing to prevent herbivores from eating their all the plants. Also, how did the flood make a change like that? Specifically what was the difference?
Also, that contradicts what Genesis 2:1-2 has to say: That God had finished creating in the first six days. God would have to create not only weapons for killing in the predators, but also have to completely change their digestive systems and make several modifications to their brains. Also, He would have to give herbivores defense mechanisms to make them not completely helpless in the face of predation. Surely, this is quite a bit more creating, even though the Bible says God had completed His creation.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 11:39 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Very interesting. To answer your other question read Genesis 1:14-20, notice that God created light before He created the sun. God first created an environment, then He created plants to live in it, and then he created the living things that needed to eat the plants. This is the only way it would work, and He did it perfectly. Why would a perfect God use a flawed system to create the universe?
He wouldn't. But the way you described doesn't work because there's nothing to eat the herbivores.
Quoting The Object of Legend Why do you choose to believe in evolution with all the information against it, if an all-powerful God could have done it just the way He said in the Bible?
I could rephrase this question slightly and ask it to you: Why do you choose to believe in creation with all the information against it, if an all-powerful God could have done it just the way He said in all the evidence He put in the universe?
The evidence for evolution is far more plentiful and far more compelling than the evidence for creation.
I ask you this: If there really was more evidence for creation, why would nearly all scientists (of which, about half are Christian) follow the evolutionary viewpoint?
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 11:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting The Object of Legend
It was perfectly stable before the Flood. Afterward that no longer worked, which is why God had some of them begin to eat meat.
How would that be stable? There is nothing to prevent herbivores from eating their all the plants. Also, how did the flood make a change like that? Specifically what was the difference?
Also, that contradicts what Genesis 2:1-2 has to say: That God had finished creating in the first six days. God would have to create not only weapons for killing in the predators, but also have to completely change their digestive systems and make several modifications to their brains. Also, He would have to give herbivores defense mechanisms to make them not completely helpless in the face of predation. Surely, this is quite a bit more creating, even though the Bible says God had completed His creation.

Agreed, the bible often contradicts itself. Explain that, for us.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 11:46 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Agreed, the bible often contradicts itself. Explain that, for us.

I have a simple explanation: The Bible has much deeper meanings and ideas than just the value of the words interpreted literally. Sometimes, there are contradictions in the surface value of the words, but the deeper meaning has no contradictions. It is the deeper meaning, not the words, that is the Word of God.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 11:49 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Depends on what you think is flawed. Plenty of things in the universe don't work. You're basing everything off, let bed honest here, on book. How can that refute thousands, if not millions, of bits of evidence?
As I have told you many times that I'm not basing it a book, I'm basing my opinions on science. Evolution contradicts science in a number of respects, and I can't find those bits of evidence you're talking about. Where are they?
You always say that there is so much evidence but never have much to show me and cannot answer my questions.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 11:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible The evidence for evolution is far more plentiful and far more compelling than the evidence for creation.
I ask you this: If there really was more evidence for creation, why would nearly all scientists (of which, about half are Christian) follow the evolutionary viewpoint?
Then tell me what this evidence is, because I have pointed out many things that evolution fails to explain or contradicts. I have found that creation has the compelling evidence. Did you read about the human footprint inside the dinosaur print?
The number of evolutionary scientists, is to be expected since liberal colleges teach evolution as if it were law. If both sides of the argument were presented then you would get both kinds of scientists, that's the way it works. Presently it is a very one-side system.
You might be interested in reading The Case for a Creator. Also check out the film "Expelled: No intelligence allowed".
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 12:18 pm
I'll put forward some of the reasons to believe in evolution rather than creation here:
1. The huge timescales required by evolution more closely match the mind of God. This concept was elegantly put by Richard Forrest on Plesiosaur.com, "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?"
2. Creation is not science. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be able to change with changing evidence, or be discarded if it is proven false. However, because the hypothesis of creation is taken from a religious text, it cannot be changed or discarded.
3. Transitional Fossils. Several fossils seem to be transitions between one group and another. While these can be explained by the creationist model (God created some species that looked like that), they fit in much more naturally with an evolutionary model. Some of the more convincing transitional fossils are Mesohippus, Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, Archaeopteryx, Amphistium, Ambulocetus, Anchisaurus, Gerobatrachus, or even Eomola.
4. Distant starlight problem. I've mentioned this above, that we can see things over 6000 lightyears away suggests that those things have been there for over 6000 years. Of course, this can be explained by the creationist model, but it fits in much more naturally with the evolutionist model (just like the transitional fossils).
5. There are no human records of living, non-avian dinosaurs. According to the creationist model, humans and dinosaurs coexisted at some point, but humans have left no records of this. One would think, given the huge size of dinosaurs, that people would be much more interested in painting them than anything else (who'd care about puny little elephants when Brachiosaurus was over 6 times as big?).
6. The dinosaurs (more specifically, sauropod dinosaurs) wouldn't fit on the Noah's Ark. The Bible clearly states that there were two of every non-bird species on the ark. Also, they must at least be sexually mature, because the pair is a male and its mate. Sauropods would have been around 50-75% adult body size (in linear dimension). Even if they're only half adult body size, the ark is going to get pretty crowded when you have 2 Amphicoeliases, 2 Bruhathkayosaurus, 2 Argentinosauruses, 2 Puertasauruses, 2 Futalognkosauruses, 2 Antarctosauruses, 2 Paralititans, 2 Yunmenglongs, 2 Supersauruses, 2 Sauroposeidons, 2 Hudiesauruses, and 2 Turiasauruses. (all of those are probably over 100 feet long and weighed over 35 tons at adult size). Also, the food requirements for those sauropods would have been enormous, and it'd be a lot of trouble to git rid of all their waste.
7. It is an interesting coincidence that if you try to estimate the age of the universe by backwards extrapolation of the current expansion rate until everything is in the same place, you get an age very close to the amount of time it would take for light from the cosmic background background radiation (CMB) to get here. The big bang model predicts the existence of a CMB that would have formed near the beginning of the universe, so this makes perfect sense in (indeed, fills the predictions of) the big bang model. In the creationist model, there is no explanation for this (in fact, there is no explanation of the existence of CMB at all).
8. Vestigial organs. Vestigial organs are organs that have little or no function in a species, but are similar to fully functional organs of their ancestors. Some examples are the eyes on golden moles, the hind legs on boas, the pelvis and hind limbs of whales, or the third metacarpal of Tyrannosaurus.
9. Homologies. Sometimes, two related species have organs with similar structure, but very different function (for example, the hand of a human has the same bones as the wing of a bat, the flipper of a whale, or the paw of a cat). These are predicted by the assumption that these species all evolved from a common ancestor with that organ, so, even though the modern species have very different uses for that organ, the structure of that organ is similar to the that of common ancestor's. Like the transitional fossils or the distant starlight problem, these do not directly contradict the creationist model, but they seem to fit much more naturally in the evolutionary model.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 1:45 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Did you read about the human footprint inside the dinosaur print?

I looked at your link (http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm).
First off, the website's scientific credibility is questionable because of what they say about C-14 dating. C-14 dating is only supposed to work on things younger than a couple tens of thousands of years old, so its no surprise the C-14 dating technique yeilded a date contradicting the date suggested by the dinosaur tracks. Secondly, C-14 dating can only work on organic objects. Where, in a site full of fossil footprints, did they find organic matter to date?
However, it's not their credibility that matters, but their claims and evidence. The Laetoli footprints were made by a non-human hominin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli). Because of the similar structure of hominin feet to our own, it's no surprise Dr. Robbins found them to be human.
The Paluxy human tracks are all fakes or deformed examples of ordinary, dinosaur prints (Look at http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm for a complete discussion).
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 2:46 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
The number of evolutionary scientists, is to be expected since liberal colleges teach evolution as if it were law. If both sides of the argument were presented then you would get both kinds of scientists, that's the way it works. Presently it is a very one-side system.
Very true. I see your point.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 2:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Depends on what you think is flawed. Plenty of things in the universe don't work. You're basing everything off, let bed honest here, on book. How can that refute thousands, if not millions, of bits of evidence?
As I have told you many times that I'm not basing it a book, I'm basing my opinions on science. Evolution contradicts science in a number of respects, and I can't find those bits of evidence you're talking about. Where are they?
You always say that there is so much evidence but never have much to show me and cannot answer my questions.

What? For the longest of time, science was suppressed thanks to religion. And science is a way t explain phenomena in our world. God, according to you, cannot be explained. He himself is a contradiction to science.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 4:35 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And science is a way t explain phenomena in our world. God, according to you, cannot be explained. He himself is a contradiction to science.

No, God lies outside the realm of science. He does not contradict it, as science makes no predictions about God.
Permalink
| July 5, 2013, 5:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I'll put forward some of the reasons to believe in evolution rather than creation here:
I'll answer a few in the time I have now.
1-Now let's think about. The Bible says that we are here today and gone tomorrow. If the world was that old, it would seem like it would last forever, but in reality Christ could return at any moment and our world will be consumed by fire. The Bible also says that creation declares his handiwork, but something that evolves by random chance doesn't declare God's handiwork at all. Creation fits the mind of God, not evolution.
2- Creation is science, it simply hasn't needed to be 'changed or discarded' as does evolution. Doesn't that sound more like how an unchanging God would want it?
3- As for your transitional fossils, many of them are hoaxes and the rest may be simple variations of other animals. I will included two references in the next post, but please look up the rest as well.
We are talking about macro-evolution (Change from one thing to another) not micro-evolution (Change within species).
4- It fits creation just as good because you're assuming that everything goes back to the big bang, but God made a complete universe.
5- It may surprise you to know that there are many drawings and carvings of dinosaurs, just punching it into google will show you that. There is a link in the next post.
6- Noah didn't take full size dinosaurs onto the ark. This may have attributed to them not surviving long afterward. A few did though, and there are stories of people seeing and even shooting down flying dinosaurs.
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 7:31 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Transitional fossil hoaxes.
A fossil hoax is one that was forged deliberately (example, the Piltdown Man), not one that was misinterpreted (example, Hesperopithecus). The argument that Archaeopteryx is a hoax I believe has been thoroughly refuted (read Wikipedia's discussion of the authenticity of Archaeopteryx).
Quoting The Object of Legend
Tiktaalik article
This one is easy enough to deal with. I quote from the description paper of Tiktaalik "Three specimens
(NUFV 108–110) preserve skulls, pectoral girdles and fins in articulation." So, no the postcranial remains were not taken from a different animal. Also, the skull is clearly not an alligator skull. Notice that alligator skulls have complex systems of holes behind the eyes, which are completely different from the two small notches present in Tiktaalik. Also, alligator skulls have holes in the sides of the jawbones, which Tiktaalik lacks.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Archaeopteryx article
This article reports the finding that Archaeopteryx might not actually be a bird. I think it doesn't help your case if the transition between dinosaurs and birds is so smooth they have trouble telling what's over the line (If Archaeopteryx was not a bird ancestor, it was certainly similar in morphology to one). Futhermore, a recent reanalysis found Archaeopteryx to be a bird and Xiaotingia to be a Troodontid.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Ancient dinosaur drawings.
First off, I'll deal with the Ica Stones. I think they're obviously fake, and here's why: Not a single Ceratopsid dinosaur fossil has ever been found in the Southern hemisphere, yet the Ica stones clearly depict large Ceratopsions living in Peru. The Ica stones also depict technologically advanced medical procedures. I find it highly unlikely that the ancient Peruvians possessed the technology to perform those procedures, but then mysteriously lost it by the time the Spanish came.
The other engravings also seem to be misinterpretations or fakes.
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 10:36 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
6- Noah didn't take full size dinosaurs onto the ark.

The dinosaurs must have been sexually mature, because the flood narrative says that the pair was a male and its mate. If a dinosaur is not sexually mature, how can it have a mate? Sauropod dinosaurs would have been 50 to 75 percent adult body length at sexually maturity. So, assuming a each sauropod is half adult body length, and its width is 8% body length (similar to Supersaurus - that's being generous, Supersaurus was very slender by Sauropod standards), lets do some calculations with the 40 of the largest known dinosaurs:
Amphicoelias fragillimus (190 ft)
Argentinosaurus (110 ft)
Supersaurus (110 ft)
"Seismosaurus" (105 ft)
Sauroposeidon (100 ft)
Puertasaurus (115 ft)
Futalognkosaurus (115 ft)
?Antarctosaurus giganteus (100 ft)
Bruhathkayosaurus (135 ft)
Turiasaurus (125 ft)
Paralititan (95 ft)
Daxiatitan (100 ft)
Hudiesaurus (100 ft)
Ruyangosaurus (90 ft)
Giraffatitan (75 ft)
"Huanghetitan" ruyangensis (90 ft)
Brachiosaurus (85 ft)
“Brachiosaurus” nougaredi (95 ft)
Traukutitan (85 ft)
Yunmenglong (100 ft)
Apatosaurus (85 ft)x4 (4 known Apatosaurus sp.)
Fusuisaurus (80 ft)
Lusotitan (70 ft)
Argyrosaurus (80 ft)
Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (85 ft)
Lourinhasaurus (85 ft)
Elaltitan (75 ft)
Drusilasaura (70 ft)
Galveosaurus (70 ft)
"Titanosaurus" falloti (85 ft)
Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (70 ft)
Mamenchisaurus jingyanensis (75 ft)
Diplodocus (85 ft)x3 (3 known Diplodocus sp.)
Amphicoelias altus (85 ft)
Jobaria (65 ft)
If lined them up side to side and head to tail, those sauropods would take up about 185x75 feet of the ark. However, if you take into account the fact that they might well be over 50% adult size, their widths are probably over 8% their length, and the fact that you don't want to overcrowd them, those 40 species alone might take up all the space on one deck of the ark. The rest of the known sauropods might take up all the space on the next deck. Those sauropods all have to be fed, and you've got to deal with all their waste, and they're pretty heavily crowded.
Quoting The Object of Legend This may have attributed to them not surviving long afterward. A few did though, and there are stories of people seeing and even shooting down flying dinosaurs.
Even at 50% adult body size, large sauropods would have been larger than all modern terrestrial animals.
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 12:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Why would the dinosaurs have to be mature? They just needed one male and one female.
I cannot read your above comment, the words extend outside the box.

Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 12:06 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Why would the dinosaurs have to be mature? They just needed one male and one female.

They have to be sexually mature because an animal can't have a mate unless it is sexually mature.
Quoting The Object of Legend
I cannot read your above comment, the words extend outside the box.
Argh. I hate it when that happens.

Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 12:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Argh. I hate it when that happens.
If you move the links to a separate post it will work.
The dinosaur doesn't need a mate, it will mate with the other dinosaur of its kind when it matures.
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 2:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Argh. I hate it when that happens.
If you move the links to a separate post it will work.
The dinosaur doesn't need a mate, it will mate with the other dinosaur of its kind when it matures.

Wait, wait, wait. So, in the bible, you are now saying that dinosaurs ARE included?
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 2:08 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Argh. I hate it when that happens.
If you move the links to a separate post it will work.
The dinosaur doesn't need a mate, it will mate with the other dinosaur of its kind when it matures.

Even if. Dinosaurs are too old for that. also, what did the animals eat?

And with the millions of species just amongst those that are known, how large would the ship be?

How about degeneration?

And microorganisms?

Rare local species?

Plants?

Fish?
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 2:31 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
What happened to stop me being religious? Well, some very personal things, first and foremost, but also I spent a lot of time thinking and analyzing aspects of Christianity, and came to the realization that it doesn't make sense. Why, if a God is all loving and all forgiving, should he/she/it send me to h3ll (stupid comment filter) simply because I don't believe. I'm still a good person.
God doesn't send you to h3ll, you send yourself there. God can only let you into his Kingdom if you want to go there. If you refuse, you spend eternity without Gog, which is h3ll.
And it doesn't matter if you're a good person or not. Because of human nature, no-one is meritorious enough to get to heaven on their own, even if they are a good person. The only way to get to heaven is through God's love.
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate . And what about all those who believe in different things? It is impossible to know if God exists, and what sort of afterlife there is or isn't, and why should those who choose not to believe one thing be punished, when they had no way of knowing what was right?
That's a very good question, and unfortunately, I don't have the answer.

So, if it ends up that God exists, I can still choose to go to heaven? Hmm.
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 4:11 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
So, if it ends up that God exists, I can still choose to go to heaven? Hmm.

No, you make your choice here on Earth.
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 5:20 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
I cannot read your above comment, the words extend outside the box.
Did you mean the one about dinosaurs on the ark or the one about transitional fossils?

Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 5:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Even if. Dinosaurs are too old for that. also, what did the animals eat?

And with the millions of species just amongst those that are known, how large would the ship be?

How about degeneration?

And microorganisms?

Rare local species?

Plants?

Fish?

Not sure if you are on Creation or Evolution's side, so, I can't really remark. But, I mean, for people on Creation side, are you saying that all science involving evolution is wrong, and made up?
Permalink
| July 6, 2013, 6:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting The Object of Legend
I cannot read your above comment, the words extend outside the box.
Did you mean the one about dinosaurs on the ark or the one about transitional fossils?
The one about the transitional fossils. If you move the links it will return to normal size.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 6:22 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wait, wait, wait. So, in the bible, you are now saying that dinosaurs ARE included?
I never said they weren't.

Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 6:24 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
So, if it ends up that God exists, I can still choose to go to heaven? Hmm.
As long as you figure that out while you're still on earth, and accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 6:30 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
The dinosaur doesn't need a mate, it will mate with the other dinosaur of its kind when it matures.

The Bible very clearly says that the pairs of animals were mates when they were taken onto the Ark. I don't see how they can be mates if they haven't mated.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 12:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wait, wait, wait. So, in the bible, you are now saying that dinosaurs ARE included?
I never said they weren't.

But, uh, how would dinosaurs fit in the 6 day Earht creation mentioned in the bible?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 12:22 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
I'll answer a few in the time I have now.
1-Now let's think about. The Bible says that we are here today and gone tomorrow. If the world was that old, it would seem like it would last forever, but in reality Christ could return at any moment and our world will be consumed by fire.
Our world does not encompass the entire universe, which is vast and complex beyond our understanding. I believe the universe will survive after Christ's second coming, but humanity shall not.
Quoting The Object of Legend The Bible also says that creation declares his handiwork, but something that evolves by random chance doesn't declare God's handiwork at all.
Only atheists believe in random chance. Random chance is simply a name we give to things God does that we can't predict. It declares God's handiwork even better, because out of the chaos comes order.
Quoting The Object of Legend
2- Creation is science, it simply hasn't needed to be 'changed or discarded' as does evolution.
It must be capable of change, in the face of some hypothetical evidence contradicting it, in order to be a scientific theory. That doesn't mean that it has to have changed.
Quoting The Object of Legend Doesn't that sound more like how an unchanging God would want it?
If God wanted things not to change, then why do they change so much?
Quoting The Object of Legend
3- As for your transitional fossils, many of them are hoaxes and the rest may be simple variations of other animals. I will included two references in the next post, but please look up the rest as well.
They are not. I'll explain more 'bout that later, I have to go to church soon.
Quoting The Object of Legend
We are talking about macro-evolution (Change from one thing to another) not micro-evolution (Change within species).
There is no sharp boundary between the two. Macroevolution is simply microevolution on a large scale.
Quoting The Object of Legend
4- It fits creation just as good because you're assuming that everything goes back to the big bang, but God made a complete universe.
How is it not a complete universe if there are things far enough away that we can't see them?
Why would God make the universe so big, but not with a huge timescale to match? The creationist model requires a time-span which is within the human scale, but a spacial expanse which is vast and unimaginable. This seems a little unsatisfying. Wouldn't it be more natural for it to be small in both space and time, or huge in both space and time?

Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 12:35 pm
The comment to end the conversation:
There is no way of absolutely proving either theory. Both have elements that make them seem more likely, and both have elements that seem ludicrous. I have made my view on this clearly known. In the end, it comes down to what each individual either wants to believe, or sees as most logical.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 4:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
But, uh, how would dinosaurs fit in the 6 day Earht creation mentioned in the bible?
They were created, that's how they fit in. What is your point?

Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 7:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
But, uh, how would dinosaurs fit in the 6 day Earht creation mentioned in the bible?
They were created, that's how they fit in. What is your point?

The point is this. In six days, the first amoeba an bacteria were created, and then the dinosaurs, all of them, and then they were killed off, and then more life that evolved from dinos began to roam the Earth, and then humans came along. All in six days. How?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 7:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
The comment to end the conversation:
There is no way of absolutely proving either theory. Both have elements that make them seem more likely, and both have elements that seem ludicrous. I have made my view on this clearly known. In the end, it comes down to what each individual either wants to believe, or sees as most logical.
If you look at what has been discussed in this thread you will see that God is the only valid option for the beginning of our world. What is being debated now is weather He simply created it, or use evolution to do so.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 7:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The point is this. In six days, the first amoeba an bacteria were created, and then the dinosaurs, all of them, and then they were killed off, and then more life that evolved from dinos began to roam the Earth, and then humans came along. All in six days. How?
Where did evolution come into the Biblical account? The dinosaurs didn't die in six days, many survived long after the Flood. This is why we have human and dinosaur fossils in the same rock stratum, human drawings of dinosaurs, and stories of dinosaur sightings even in more resent times. God created everything in six days, everything didn't evolve in six days.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 8:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The point is this. In six days, the first amoeba an bacteria were created, and then the dinosaurs, all of them, and then they were killed off, and then more life that evolved from dinos began to roam the Earth, and then humans came along. All in six days. How?
Where did evolution come into the Biblical account? The dinosaurs didn't die in six days, many survived long after the Flood. This is why we have human and dinosaur fossils in the same rock stratum, human drawings of dinosaurs, and stories of dinosaur sightings even in more resent times. God created everything in six days, everything didn't evolve in six days.

Wa---- You mean Neanderthals, the predecessors to humans, drew pictures of Mammoths. And that, my friend, is evolution.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 8:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible There is no sharp boundary between the two. Macroevolution is simply microevolution on a large scale.
You have given me a lot of opinions, but I feel this one needs to be addressed. There is a huge difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution has been observed, macro has not. Micro-evolution is possible, whereas macro ignores the fact that new information cannot be obtained.
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Why would God make the universe so big, but not with a huge timescale to match?
Why would He? Besides, a huge timescale isn't possible in the world we live in. If the earth was around as long as you believe, there should be many times more meteoric material on it and especially the moon, and all the star clusters would have separated. Also if the earth's rotational speed and the distancing of the moon were projected back as far as you believe, the earth's mantel would have separated from the core and the moon would have to have started inside the earth to be were it is now.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 8:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wa---- You mean Neanderthals, the predecessors to humans, drew pictures of Mammoths. And that, my friend, is evolution.
Interesting story, but no, I mean humans and these drawing are clearly not mammoths. Click on the link I included in my above post. Have you been reading this thread? If so you should see that atheistic evolution has been destroyed.

Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 8:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wa---- You mean Neanderthals, the predecessors to humans, drew pictures of Mammoths. And that, my friend, is evolution.
Interesting story, but no, I mean humans and these drawing are clearly not mammoths. Click on the link I included in my above post. Have you been reading this thread? If so you should see that atheistic evolution has been destroyed.

I haven't been too active here; it seems that Bob and you are at it, so. Atheist, eh? Sure. I dunno. Why would God, this almighty creator, install us with a brain that could come up with a thought that would, "overthrow" him, and not ignore his greatness?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 8:36 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible There is no sharp boundary between the two. Macroevolution is simply microevolution on a large scale.
You have given me a lot of opinions, but I feel this one needs to be addressed. There is a huge difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution has been observed, macro has not.
Very true. Macro-evolution is an extrapolation.
Quoting The Object of Legend Micro-evolution is possible, whereas macro ignores the fact that new information cannot be obtained.
I'm not certain it's necessary for new information to be obtained. The old information could be replicated and changed enough so that it's no longer recognizable.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Why would God make the universe so big, but not with a huge timescale to match?
Why would He? Besides, a huge timescale isn't possible in the world we live in. If the earth was around as long as you believe, there should be many times more meteoric material on it and especially the moon, and all the star clusters would have separated. Also if the earth's rotational speed and the distancing of the moon were projected back as far as you believe, the earth's mantel would have separated from the core and the moon would have to have started inside the earth to be were it is now.

Unfortunately, I can't respond to those points until I know about the calculations backing them up. Could you give me some links?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 8:46 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wa---- You mean Neanderthals, the predecessors to humans, drew pictures of Mammoths. And that, my friend, is evolution.

They weren't really predecessors though - they coexisted with our species and eventually died out despite their (theorized) superior intellect. Not to say that they couldn't have interbreed with us though.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 9:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
They weren't really predecessors though - they coexisted with our species and eventually died out despite their (theorized) superior intellect. Not to say that they couldn't have interbreed with us though.

Hmm, yes. Its important to note, though, that there isn't anywhere written in these caves that the pictures ARE dinos. They could very much be species that may are common to us today, or, maybe an ancient version of Jurassic Park.....
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 9:07 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
I never said they weren't.

Were aquatic species included?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 9:07 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
If you look at what has been discussed in this thread you will see that God is the only valid option for the beginning of our world. What is being debated now is weather He simply created it, or use evolution to do so.

Really? But where did God come from? This is like when ancient people thought that the world was supported on a turtle's back. "What does the turtle stand on? Another turtle. Well, what about that turtle? You can't fool me, sonny, it's turtles all the way down!"
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 9:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
The comment to end the conversation:
There is no way of absolutely proving either theory. Both have elements that make them seem more likely, and both have elements that seem ludicrous. I have made my view on this clearly known. In the end, it comes down to what each individual either wants to believe, or sees as most logical.
If you look at what has been discussed in this thread you will see that God is the only valid option for the beginning of our world. What is being debated now is weather He simply created it, or use evolution to do so.

How can you throw away science for another theory that is based off a book, and speculation, that is, speculation based on science? Like I said earlier, if god is so powerful, and the creator, and didn't want anyone to deviate from his faith, why make us with this, flaw, that allowed us to make scientific advancements that are starting to make some sense out of evolution?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 9:13 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Hmm, yes. Its important to note, though, that there isn't anywhere written in these caves that the pictures ARE dinos. They could very much be species that may are common to us today, or, maybe an ancient version of Jurassic Park.....

Dinos? I must have missed something... I don't believe that they had any dinosaur drawings, I was just pointing out that they weren't a step of our evolution.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 9:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Dinos? I must have missed something... I don't believe that they had any dinosaur drawings, I was just pointing out that they weren't a step of our evolution.

....I was basing this off what The Object said. I wasn't sure myself that that was true, as it is based off how you interpret things.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 9:18 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Really? But where did God come from?

Why does God have to come from somewhere? If God came from somewhere, would he still be God?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 10:12 pm
About Ambulocetus. This is a supposed transitional fossil representing the intermediate between land animals and whales. It had shortened limbs and enlarged hands, as well as certain pelvic features that would have helped it swim (its limb proportions are similar to those of a sea otter). Also, its tail vertebrae are robust, indicating a muscular tail (also like a sea otter). It had eyes on top of its head (like a hippo or crocodile). However, the limbs and pelvic bones were capable of supporting Ambulocetus. All of this evidence points towards an amphibious species. Many of the characteristics of the skull of Ambulocetus resemble those of Archaeocete whales, and the limbs and pelvis seem to show a mix of whale and non-whale characteristics, which is why it's thought to be a primitive whale.
Anyway, what do creation scientists say about this remarkable animal?
Well, most of their arguments hinge on the point that Ambulocetus's pelvis is not preserved, so we really can't tell if it was amphibious or not. It is true that the first discovered Ambulocetus skeleton lacked a pelvis, but since then they have found much better remains, which do include a pelvis.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 10:13 pm
whether you believe in creation or evolution, you all believe the same thing. 1 creation dictates that "god" first created light because there was nothing, the big bang claims that a ball of energy exploded and the energy slowly formed stars. 2 creation claims that god then formed land, the big bang says that as stars died they created nebula's which formed solid matter. 3 creation tells us that next "god" created oceans, water was formed in the big bang the same way we have all the elements on the periodic table and compounds (stars). 4 "god" creates plants, the conditions on the earth creates bacteria the bacteria evolve into plants and animals. 5 "god" creates animals, animals evolve from bacteria. 6 "god" creates man, man evolves from apes.

basically evolution/the big bang theory and creationism are two ways of telling the same story.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 5:02 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Why does God have to come from somewhere? If God came from somewhere, would he still be God?

Would he exist?
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 6:43 pm
Quoting Taile of the verdent pyre...
whether you believe in creation or evolution, you all believe the same thing. 1 creation dictates that "god" first created light because there was nothing, the big bang claims that a ball of energy exploded and the energy slowly formed stars. 2 creation claims that god then formed land, the big bang says that as stars died they created nebula's which formed solid matter. 3 creation tells us that next "god" created oceans, water was formed in the big bang the same way we have all the elements on the periodic table and compounds (stars). 4 "god" creates plants, the conditions on the earth creates bacteria the bacteria evolve into plants and animals. 5 "god" creates animals, animals evolve from bacteria. 6 "god" creates man, man evolves from apes.

basically evolution/the big bang theory and creationism are two ways of telling the same story.

Creationists and evolutionists may believe similar stories, but there are major differences. For one thing, evolution hinges on gradual change, whereas creation hinges on abrupt change. Also, evolution requires much larger timescales than creation.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 9:56 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Would he exist?

Would he exist if what?
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 8:39 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
The comment to end the conversation:
There is no way of absolutely proving either theory. Both have elements that make them seem more likely, and both have elements that seem ludicrous. I have made my view on this clearly known. In the end, it comes down to what each individual either wants to believe, or sees as most logical.
If you look at what has been discussed in this thread you will see that God is the only valid option for the beginning of our world. What is being debated now is weather He simply created it, or use evolution to do so.

The fact that you said that demonstrates a level of stubborn close-mindedness and absolute and blind devotion that I have hitherto encountered only in works of fiction. However, by that I mean no offence. I meant only to note that that comment is as foolish as one made by someone claiming evolution to be the only possible answer. As I have previously stated, my views on this matter have been made, in no uncertain terms, known.
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 4:45 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Really? But where did God come from?

By nature, God is without beginning or end. So, if he had a beginning, he would not be God.
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist This is like when ancient people thought that the world was supported on a turtle's back. "What does the turtle stand on? Another turtle. Well, what about that turtle? You can't fool me, sonny, it's turtles all the way down!"
If you can accuse God-believers of being primitive, then I can accuse atheists as being downright bestial: Not believing in God is like being an animal who doesn't believe in anything supernatural.
Obviously, those points are going to get us nowhere fast. Let's stick to logical and scientific ideas, rather than comparing people to ancient cultures.
Permalink
| July 10, 2013, 10:52 am
I have thought it through over the course of a decade or so, revisiting the idea again from time to time. My conclusion follows. It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, find something else.

A: I like the scientists to tell me how a physical, measurable phenomenon happens. God is not explainable by scientific method. If you attempt to measure something that is not measurable, you always get zero.

B: I like for the various preachers to tell me how to treat my fellow humans and how to get into heaven. That is their job, not to explain the physical phenomena observed by astronomers and cosmologists.

The account of the creation in genesis is a non-scientific thing. In the time before measurements it was a way to try to explain how things came together. Creation stories are common to all religions. The genesis story appears to be divinely inspired, as if God was attempting to explain how He put it together to a cave person, and had to break it down into simple terms.

Now evolution. The existence of natural selection is a fact. I use it myself when raising chickens. Evolution is real. It is not an adequate explanation for the origin of life. The fact that living things change due to mutation and natural selection has been added to and screwed around with by people who want to turn the theory of evolution into a new religion. They already have all the trappings of religion: ideas that one must not question, non-believers labeled as heretics, their own creation myth, various officials whose word is THE TRUTH. The idea of the diversity of life arising as a series of mutations spread out over a few billion years only tells the scientific part of the story.

Perhaps the fact that we have minds that can ask whether or not there is a creator is a sort of signature by that creator.
Permalink
| July 10, 2013, 9:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258
I have thought it through over the course of a decade or so, revisiting the idea again from time to time. My conclusion follows. It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, find something else.
Welcome to the group, JWG 258.
Very interesting, so what is your take on the origin of matter?
Permalink
| July 12, 2013, 2:15 pm
For the "how it happened" I like the singularity theory that the scientists give. There is also merit to the "brane" theory. For who made it happen, it was the God who calls himself I AM, who put that singularity together and applied the force to make it explode.
Permalink
| July 12, 2013, 4:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258
For the "how it happened" I like the singularity theory that the scientists give. There is also merit to the "brane" theory. For who made it happen, it was the God who calls himself I AM, who put that singularity together and applied the force to make it explode.

For all we know, though, this "brane" theory is just a description of dark matter, or anti-matter, or dark energy, or something like that.
Permalink
| July 12, 2013, 4:11 pm
The most important thing for you to remember is to question the answers. People who go around with answers are usually trying to sell you something or take something from you. They are in the creationism vs. evolutionism debate at large out in the world. Both extremes of the argument are wrong. The creationists who claim that the universe was created in its present form instantaneously over the course of a week are wrong. That argument is merely a re-run of old roman catholic church disinformation. The evolutionists who claim that the entire universe and everything in it is a product of chance and mutation are also wrong. The likelihood of us evolving reasonable minds that are capable of debating which theory is superior is zero. We don't need these large brains to survive. Those people intend to create their own religion in which they are a sort of pope who decides which theory is right or wrong, mostly making up things that will give them political power and then designing fake experiments to "prove" that they are right.

You will need to examine all the evidence for yourself. Always ask why something is so. Do not accept an explanation that involves you giving up any part of your fortune or liberty. Those explanations are nothing but lies.
Permalink
| July 13, 2013, 8:00 pm
Both :P God created the universe, then plants and animals evolved a bit
Permalink
| July 13, 2013, 8:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258
You will need to examine all the evidence for yourself. Always ask why something is so. Do not accept an explanation that involves you giving up any part of your fortune or liberty. Those explanations are nothing but lies.
I wonder what made up your mind not to believe creationism?

Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 4:19 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting JWG 258
You will need to examine all the evidence for yourself. Always ask why something is so. Do not accept an explanation that involves you giving up any part of your fortune or liberty. Those explanations are nothing but lies.
I wonder what made up your mind not to believe creationism?
The extremists presented their propaganda which disagreed with what I observed to be true. They tried to make me believe in a static universe which does not change. I rejected their theory. First, the various doctrinal knowitalls cannot see father than their own noses. They are so self absorbed that they cannot observe anything. Second, it is the same propaganda that the pope put out several hundred years ago in order to make it look like the church had all the answers and the pursuit of scientific truth was folly. Third, I always trust my own observation and my own mind before anyone elses. The observable universe is moving in circles within circles like a giant machine, the different natural forces of gravity and entropy balancing each other to make the universe move and expand, to create new atoms within the stars and renew the cycle of creation with each supernova. The entire system is too elegant to be the product of some random explosion, and the God who created it is too great to make an uninteresting, one week universe.

Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 9:55 pm
Quoting JWG 258
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting JWG 258
You will need to examine all the evidence for yourself. Always ask why something is so. Do not accept an explanation that involves you giving up any part of your fortune or liberty. Those explanations are nothing but lies.
I wonder what made up your mind not to believe creationism?
The extremists presented their propaganda which disagreed with what I observed to be true. They tried to make me believe in a static universe which does not change. I rejected their theory. First, the various doctrinal knowitalls cannot see father than their own noses. They are so self absorbed that they cannot observe anything. Second, it is the same propaganda that the pope put out several hundred years ago in order to make it look like the church had all the answers and the pursuit of scientific truth was folly. Third, I always trust my own observation and my own mind before anyone elses. The observable universe is moving in circles within circles like a giant machine, the different natural forces of gravity and entropy balancing each other to make the universe move and expand, to create new atoms within the stars and renew the cycle of creation with each supernova. The entire system is too elegant to be the product of some random explosion, and the God who created it is too great to make an uninteresting, one week universe.

Well said!
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 11:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258 The entire system is too elegant to be the product of some random explosion, and the God who created it is too great to make an uninteresting, one week universe.
You seem to share the opinions of a number of people in this group, however they are merely opinions.
Only micro-evolution has been observed. Macro-evolution has not.
Why would the universe be any less interesting if created in one week versus millions or billions of years?
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 6:46 am
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting JWG 258 The entire system is too elegant to be the product of some random explosion, and the God who created it is too great to make an uninteresting, one week universe.
You seem to share the opinions of a number of people in this group, however they are merely opinions.
Only micro-evolution has been observed. Macro-evolution has not.
Why would the universe be any less interesting if created in one week versus millions or billions of years?

The universe is estimated to be about 13.7 Billion lights years across. HOW can it be created and be some where near, say, 8-10 Billion light years across when it was first made? (I am assuming that the universe has expanded since the week of creation). You can't create something out of nothing (Law of Conservation of Mass), but that is what you are suggesting in this week long creation of the universe.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 11:25 am
It very well could have been created within a week. But it was not created in the form that it is today and the stars are not fixed in their places as the propaganda would have you believe. If a person is telling you something that you could believe to be true, but is connecting that statement to things you do not know to be true, and is connecting the second statement to some requirement that you must believe all that they say, then you should regard that person as a liar.

Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 6:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258
It very well could have been created within a week. But it was not created in the form that it is today and the stars are not fixed in their places as the propaganda would have you believe. If a person is telling you something that you could believe to be true, but is connecting that statement to things you do not know to be true, and is connecting the second statement to some requirement that you must believe all that they say, then you should regard that person as a liar.
Of course, we live in an expending universe. I believe God created it that way so no one could rationally say that the universe had no beginning. How did this lead you to believe in theistic evolution, as opposed to the Genesis creation?
Permalink
| July 17, 2013, 6:56 am
It is because the "experts" in the area of "genesis creation" don't stick to Genesis. They add a bunch of made up garbage to it. They take a non scientific creation story, a nice general way that things came together in six distinct steps, read too much into it, add their personal opinions, and try to pass it off as God's truth and themselves as prophets.
Permalink
| July 17, 2013, 7:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258
It is because the "experts" in the area of "genesis creation" don't stick to Genesis. They add a bunch of made up garbage to it. They take a non scientific creation story, a nice general way that things came together in six distinct steps, read too much into it, add their personal opinions, and try to pass it off as God's truth and themselves as prophets.
This is true with many so-called experts, but there are a few that stick to the facts. Let me see if I understand what you are saying, because you found these untrustworthy experts prompting a false rendition of Genesis creation you abandoned that possibility completely instead of testing its merits for yourself?
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 7:02 am
Genesis is a very important part of how I think the universe was formed. Two very important questions: WHO, and WHY are answered by it. The doctrinal types demand that I also take their word for HOW and WHEN it was formed. So I must reject their theory and use my own. The same goes for the church of evolution. They present theories as fact and ignore the creator. These are often the same people who are rudely anti-theist. So I must reject their theory as well.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 5:04 pm
ok, I did nt read all that,
I ll just share my opinion,
men are nt evolved enough to know all there
is to know yet.

because the universe is based, or can be
played with mathematics, it suggests
a highier intelligence at work,

because of similarities in all religions,
it hints at some kind of fundamental truth,
because historical men messed with it,
we re left with a nightmarish puzzle,
of wich mankind clearly has nt matured enough
yet to figure the whole.

in short...we re not ready!
we re in infancy, if we behave,
we just might survive our childhood!
so, peace and love to all of you brothers!!!

Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 4:04 am
I believe in what I call 'divinely manipulated evolution'. I'm a catholic and therefore believe in God. The Catholic Church has openly accepted the theory of evolution, provided that we (Catholics) believe that God had a hand in it. The idea that a series of random mutations lead to all life as we know it is crazy. The amount of chance is just too high. I believe that yes, we did evolve from lower forms of life, but that God had a hand in ensuring we (humans) came to be.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 9:22 pm
Quoting Jack K
I believe in what I call 'divinely manipulated evolution'. I'm a catholic and therefore believe in God. The Catholic Church has openly accepted the theory of evolution, provided that we (Catholics) believe that God had a hand in it. The idea that a series of random mutations lead to all life as we know it is crazy. The amount of chance is just too high. I believe that yes, we did evolve from lower forms of life, but that God had a hand in ensuring we (humans) came to be.

Exactly my thoughts as well!
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 10:59 pm
so what i'm guessing this debate is,is did god or science make us...

i say that he made the universe and science. he created the scientific processes we know of.
he said let their be light, and the big bang happened.

tell me what you think
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 11:30 pm
Quoting TRON 117
so what i'm guessing this debate is,is did god or science make us...
Haha! That's what some people want to make it into. The debate really is: Did God make us with science or not?
Quoting TRON 117
i say that he made the universe and science. he created the scientific processes we know of.
he said let their be light, and the big bang happened.
Yep, that's what I think too.

Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 10:11 am
Quoting Jack K
I believe in what I call 'divinely manipulated evolution'. I'm a catholic and therefore believe in God. The Catholic Church has openly accepted the theory of evolution, provided that we (Catholics) believe that God had a hand in it. The idea that a series of random mutations lead to all life as we know it is crazy. The amount of chance is just too high. I believe that yes, we did evolve from lower forms of life, but that God had a hand in ensuring we (humans) came to be.

Totally. You are right.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 1:44 pm
Quoting Jack K
I believe in what I call 'divinely manipulated evolution'. I'm a catholic and therefore believe in God. The Catholic Church has openly accepted the theory of evolution, provided that we (Catholics) believe that God had a hand in it. The idea that a series of random mutations lead to all life as we know it is crazy.

Before I go on, might I just say that I'm very impressed with the level of maturity you are displaying. It's nice to see.
Now: Crazy, you say? I don't see how it's any more crazy than the concept that a random being of supreme power just decided to make humans for the fun of it, and then just watched what happened.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 3:17 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Before I go on, might I just say that I'm very impressed with the level of maturity you are displaying. It's nice to see.
Now: Crazy, you say? I don't see how it's any more crazy than the concept that a random being of supreme power just decided to make humans for the fun of it, and then just watched what happened.

I see what you mean. I think a better way to express my point would be 'the odds are crazy', I looked at the sentence and realized I changed my mind half way through, originally it was going to be about the idea of evolution being well baked and then I got distracted and started to write a sentence about the odds of our existence.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 4:52 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Before I go on, might I just say that I'm very impressed with the level of maturity you are displaying. It's nice to see.
Now: Crazy, you say? I don't see how it's any more crazy than the concept that a random being of supreme power just decided to make humans for the fun of it, and then just watched what happened.


I can see where you are coming from; I have asked myself those questions.

So basically, the big bang theory states this:
Many, many, many years ago the universe began to expand rapidly. Atoms and the elements that were produced by the expansion coalesced through gravity to form the galaxies that we have today.

Then the creation theory basically says this:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and everything on the earth in 6 days. Simply, a supernatural being put together the perfect environments for humans to live in.

I can see how people can be skeptical about both.

But this is how I, and many creationists view it:
This environment that is on the earth, with the perfect amount of gases for us to prosper, and the food for us to eat, and simply the beauty of our planet, with that said, I find it easier to believe it was created by a thoughtful, masterful God, instead of it all happening by chance, though spoke as fact.


Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 6:39 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible

...Its true religion isn't essential, but morality has no basis without religion. And if there is no morality, civilization has no basis.

Not true. It is entirely possible to have morality without religion. As proof, look at any religion (besides your own) with a code of behavior. I think you and I can both agree that said religion is untrue. So, someone must have made it up right? Therefore, if the religion wasn't divinely inspired, whoever made it up must have had some idea of morals WITHOUT any need of a god to give them to them.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 7:49 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Not even evolutionary scientists say we came from apes anymore, because if we did apes shouldn't still be around.
Sure they can; the group that evolved into humans was in a different environment from the apes. In other words, where the apes were, being an ape was perfectly OK. But in some regions, the natural pressures required something more.


Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 7:53 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
As I have told you many times that I'm not basing it a book, I'm basing my opinions on science. Evolution contradicts science in a number of respects, and I can't find those bits of evidence you're talking about. Where are they?

Yeah, you say that a lot. But it's interesting how you can sit here and insist that science disproves evolution while not bothering to support your own view with legitimate scientific principles. Where is the evidence to suggest the existence of a divine being of any sort?
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:03 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
Not true. It is entirely possible to have morality without religion. As proof, look at any religion (besides your own) with a code of behavior. I think you and I can both agree that said religion is untrue. So, someone must have made it up right? Therefore, if the religion wasn't divinely inspired, whoever made it up must have had some idea of morals WITHOUT any need of a god to give them to them.
Morality is possible without religion. But it has nothing to support it. Also, other religions are not completely false. They are just further from the truth. It makes perfect sense that they would have similar moral codes, because God gave humans a basic understanding of morality. But if you have no religion, there is no real reason for you not to be immoral.

Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:05 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
Quoting The Object of Legend
Not even evolutionary scientists say we came from apes anymore, because if we did apes shouldn't still be around.
Sure they can; the group that evolved into humans was in a different environment from the apes. In other words, where the apes were, being an ape was perfectly OK. But in some regions, the natural pressures required something more.


Actually they no longer have the whole 'man came form apes' theory. The current theory is that we have a common ancestor that split into us and apes. Therefore, the idea of a 'missing link' is irrelevant, so they stopped looking. The idea is that these tow groups, prehumans and apes evolved differently to their environment, we went with brains, apes went with brawn.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:05 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
Where is the evidence to suggest the existence of a divine being of any sort?
Where is the evidence to suggest nonexistence?
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:08 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
They weren't really predecessors though - they coexisted with our species and eventually died out despite their (theorized) superior intellect. Not to say that they couldn't have interbreed with us though.

They actually did: http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals#.Ui-1CcZ_68o
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:10 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Medieval Guy
Where is the evidence to suggest the existence of a divine being of any sort?
Where is the evidence to suggest nonexistence?

Where is the evidence I am not god?
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:13 pm
Sorry to everyone I replied to that had a really old comment. I just read this entire thread and replied to what I thought was interesting.


Also, can a creationist please explain the existence of vestigial structures in so many different organisms today?
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:15 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Where is the evidence I am not god?

You make spelling errors.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:28 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Morality is possible without religion. But it has nothing to support it. Also, other religions are not completely false. They are just further from the truth. It makes perfect sense that they would have similar moral codes, because God gave humans a basic understanding of morality. But if you have no religion, there is no real reason for you not to be immoral.

Just because you don't think you'll be punished doesn't make it okay. I for one try to live my life as a good person, and in a way that makes people enjoy being around me.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:31 pm
Quoting Jack K
Actually they no longer have the whole 'man came form apes' theory. The current theory is that we have a common ancestor that split into us and apes. Therefore, the idea of a 'missing link' is irrelevant, so they stopped looking. The idea is that these tow groups, prehumans and apes evolved differently to their environment, we went with brains, apes went with brawn.

I was considering the common ancestor to still be classified as an ape. Is that not the case?
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:32 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Where is the evidence to suggest nonexistence?

That is not a logical challenge. Where is the evidence that suggests that this reality even exists, or that Santa isn't real?
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:34 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
I was considering the common ancestor to still be classified as an ape. Is that not the case?

No, it's not technically an ape, like a pseudoape or something. It sounds counterintuitive, but it makes sense when someone with a college education says it. Sorry I can't remember all the details right now.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 8:52 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Where is the evidence I am not god?

you don't have power over things that happen in the world, or in space for that matter.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 9:21 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
Also, can a creationist please explain the existence of vestigial structures in so many different organisms today?

Evolutionists believe that vestigial structures are the remnants of body parts that our ancestors had, and are proof that intelligent design didn't happen. But in fact many of these supposedly vestigial parts do have functions. And even if they were useless, (as some don't have discovered functions) that's not evidence for evolution, and it's not evidence against creation. Say if a vestigial part used to have a function but no longer does, that's not an improvement, it's degeneration. It's loss of information. Not evolution. And biblical creation supports degeneration - the world has been degenerating since the fall. The world wasn't created as we see it today, things have happened, like a world-wide flood and a fall, which very much changed the Earth. Variations do and have happened within species, but it's always a loss of information. Simple organisms can't evolve into complex organisms, because they can't gain or create new information, only lose it. Most organs in the body have several uses, and some are much more specialized and carry out simpler tasks which are not necessary for the overall function of the body. If these organs degenerate and no longer have a use, they're not an imperfection in design, they're simply degeneration since the fall.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 9:58 pm
Quoting LWC guy
Evolutionists believe that vestigial structures are the remnants of body parts that our ancestors had, and are proof that intelligent design didn't happen. But in fact many of these supposedly vestigial parts do have functions. And even if they were useless, (as some don't have discovered functions) that's not evidence for evolution, and it's not evidence against creation. Say if a vestigial part used to have a function but no longer does, that's not an improvement, it's degeneration. It's loss of information. Not evolution. And biblical creation supports degeneration - the world has been degenerating since the fall. The world wasn't created as we see it today, things have happened, like a world-wide flood and a fall, which very much changed the Earth. Variations do and have happened within species, but it's always a loss of information. Simple organisms can't evolve into complex organisms, because they can't gain or create new information, only lose it. Most organs in the body have several uses, and some are much more specialized and carry out simpler tasks which are not necessary for the overall function of the body. If these organs degenerate and no longer have a use, they're not an imperfection in design, they're simply degeneration since the fall.


Thank you! I know the truth about Creation and God, just I can't put it into words. Thank you for doing so.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 10:09 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting TRON 117
so what i'm guessing this debate is,is did god or science make us...
Haha! That's what some people want to make it into. The debate really is: Did God make us with science or not?
Quoting TRON 117
i say that he made the universe and science. he created the scientific processes we know of.
he said let their be light, and the big bang happened.
Yep, that's what I think too.

thank you. good to know i had the right debate
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 10:14 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
you don't have power over things that happen in the world, or in space for that matter.

How do you know that?
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 7:09 am
Quoting LWC guy
degeneration

Degeneration = evolution.

We may have all the food we could ever need, but in nature, losing an organ could save you a lot of energy.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 7:12 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
How do you know that?

Come on. That argument has so little proof or data to back it up. Okay, come to my house this instant. And bring all your lego this instant. Then I might consider starting to nearly half-believing that you might possibly almost be a god.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 8:53 am
Quoting Alex Rode
Come on. That argument has so little proof or data to back it up. Okay, come to my house this instant. And bring all your lego this instant. Then I might consider starting to nearly half-believing that you might possibly almost be a god.

I do not need to prove I am god. You have to prove I am not.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:17 am
Quoting Medieval Guy
Just because you don't think you'll be punished doesn't make it okay. I for one try to live my life as a good person, and in a way that makes people enjoy being around me.

I'm not talking about individuals. A nonreligious person can be very moral, and a religious person can be immoral. However, I think that in a society without religion, the morals will gradually decay and disappear, because they have no root.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 10:06 am
Quoting LWC guy
Evolutionists believe that vestigial structures are the remnants of body parts that our ancestors had, and are proof that intelligent design didn't happen. But in fact many of these supposedly vestigial parts do have functions. And even if they were useless, (as some don't have discovered functions) that's not evidence for evolution, and it's not evidence against creation. Say if a vestigial part used to have a function but no longer does, that's not an improvement, it's degeneration. It's loss of information. Not evolution. And biblical creation supports degeneration - the world has been degenerating since the fall. The world wasn't created as we see it today, things have happened, like a world-wide flood and a fall, which very much changed the Earth. Variations do and have happened within species, but it's always a loss of information. Simple organisms can't evolve into complex organisms, because they can't gain or create new information, only lose it. Most organs in the body have several uses, and some are much more specialized and carry out simpler tasks which are not necessary for the overall function of the body. If these organs degenerate and no longer have a use, they're not an imperfection in design, they're simply degeneration since the fall.

Just want to point out: vestigial doesn't mean completely functionless, it only means mostly functionless. For example, the hind limbs on boas and pythons are not completely useless: they are used to stimulate the female during mating. However, this is nowhere near as useful for them as legs are for walking animals. Most snakes don't even have vestigial legs.
This is just a terminology issue, I'm not trying to refute what you said.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 10:11 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Just want to point out: vestigial doesn't mean completely functionless, it only means mostly functionless. For example, the hind limbs on boas and pythons are not completely useless: they are used to stimulate the female during mating. However, this is nowhere near as useful for them as legs are for walking animals. Most snakes don't even have vestigial legs.
This is just a terminology issue, I'm not trying to refute what you said.

Ok, that's interesting. Thanks for that.


Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Degeneration = evolution.

We may have all the food we could ever need, but in nature, losing an organ could save you a lot of energy.

Degeneration = Natural Selection.

Natural Selection happens, but it's not Evolution. Sure, losing certain parts or abilities can be very helpful, it can save your life. But it's degeneration, and degeneration isn't Evolution. For us to have developed from simple organic compounds would require a whole lot of new information. It may seem like an improvement, but it's just losing information to better fit its habitat.

Say you have two dogs, and these dogs have medium-length fur. Their offspring will have either have long fur or short fur. But then an ice age comes, and all the dogs with short and medium length fur are driven away or die. The long-furred dogs survive, and their offspring will develop long fur.

Natural selection has selected the long-furred dogs and they have survived. But that species already had the genes to produce long fur, and now they've lost the genes to produce short fur. So like I said, degeneration is natural selection, or simply degeneration.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 4:20 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I do not need to prove I am god. You have to prove I am not.


Alright, answer all of the following.

Q: What's my real name?

Q: How many members are in my family?

Q: What was the first large mountain I climbed?

Q: What's my best friend's name?

See how silly this is? Look, we all know you are not a god, and if you are, you have no intention of proving it. So, why even bring it up?
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 6:08 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears

Alright, answer all of the following.

Q: What's my real name?

Q: How many members are in my family?

Q: What was the first large mountain I climbed?

Q: What's my best friend's name?

See how silly this is? Look, we all know you are not a god, and if you are, you have no intention of proving it. So, why even bring it up?

Thank you so much!! To argue that one is a god is simply foolish. Thank you for this post.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 8:55 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears

Quoting Alex Rode

I think Deus's point is that it's illogical to ask someone to prove that something is not real without first giving evidence that it is. He wasn't actually saying that he's God.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:00 pm
Quoting LWC guy
I think Deus's point is that it's illogical to ask someone to prove that something is not real without first giving evidence that it is. He wasn't actually saying that he's God.


That's what I thought... Ah I see now. I just thought this was an elaborate hate-is-good scheme. :P
No offense to Deus. We can debate that at a latter time.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:05 pm
Quoting LWC guy
So like I said, degeneration is natural selection, or simply degeneration.

Yeah... But no.


"Losing information" is an absurd concept because your argument seems to imply that viruses do not exist.
Permalink
| September 12, 2013, 1:26 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Yeah... But no.


"Losing information" is an absurd concept because your argument seems to imply that viruses do not exist.

Explain?
Permalink
| September 12, 2013, 3:55 pm
Quoting LWC guy
Explain?

Even IF less DNA = less genes (which is wrong), viruses are a popular idea about how evolution began.


Basically:
Boring old bacteriae dies. Its genetic material goes around and is pretty much useless
but then it meets a bubble of cell membrane and enters it. Super safe! Now a bacteria wants to eat that bubble. But little does it know that the bubble contains DNA! So what? Well... The bacteria wants to divide. So it is making its boring old identical DNA and a stupid enzyme gets a "brilliant" idea of just bringing the whole dead cell's DNA to the new one and fuses it in. Whoopsie! That DNA is now so much larger and especially different!

Now you might be saying:
"This happens like once in a million years!"

Well... Kind of. The ancient seas are said to have been crawling with life, which expands the statistical probability of that happening. Then there is the fact that the bacteriae had BILLIONS of years of time to do that. Have you any idea what billions of years means?
Permalink
| September 12, 2013, 4:06 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus

Though you might be right (or wrong, I honestly don't know), I would like to point something out.
In your example, (if I understand correctly) something small gets a little bit bigger. Congratulations, but if you are attempting to use this to prove evolution, that would mean the universe would have to have started from something small and eventually would have gotten bigger. The error being, supposedly nothing came from something. All you've "proven" is that something came from something smaller.

Please forgive me and ignore this comment if it is out of context or if I have misunderstood your example.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 2:21 pm
Quoting Caleb R

ignore this comment if I have misunderstood your example.

NO!!!

Anyways, I was not talking about the universe.
The universe may be losing information, but you have no idea how much information there was to begin with.

If you think "the universe started from something tiny", you are not really all taht right. Even if you accept the popular theory of big bang, that thing everything originates from may seem to have been tiny, but it had more energy than the universe would now if all matter decayed.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 3:13 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Then why does the fossil record, carbon dating, and a bunch of other scientifically sound methods beg to differ with your time frame?

Carbon dating does not work at all. Allow me to give an example. Mount Saint Helens erupted sometime in the 80's. It's lava later hardened into rock. A scientit carbon dated the rock, and guess what time it said the rock was formed. 3. million years ago! And it was a brand new rock! Explain that.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 7:36 pm
Allow me to add my thoughts. I have been reading a lot of theology and have some points to add to this. Get ready for a long talk. The point of Evolution is this. No point. Humanity existence is pointless. If the scientists are right than it proves that you are nothing. You are a speck that will dissapear and never live again. It means you have no point in life. You could end poverty, and for what? To die some day? And what is evolution. Allow me to summarize it. 1.5 billion years ago there was a huge unexplainable expansion of space. Then a small little rock got hit by a bunch of meteors and got bigger and bigger. Then another planet flew by and got caught in thie balls gravity. Then water magically appeared on the earths surface. Then it evaporated because a star appeared our of nowhere and made it evaporate. Then it rained for a long time. And then there were oceans. And then one day, THERE WAS LIFE! A small little microbe came out of nowhere and grew into a big microbe and then it grew fins and split in half. Then when there were a lot of fish in the sea another fish decided to grow legs and start walking on the land. Then they walked on land and found out they liked it and then decided to eat the green things that had grown from nothing. Then they changed into salamanders and then dinosaurs who ate each other and then a big space rock hit the Earth and a dust cloud killed the dinosaurs. Then mammals started to appear out of nowhere. Then they grew into apes. And then into humans. And the humans drew funny pictures on rock walls and then started wearing clothes and now they have figured out how everything happened. So probable huh? Now the truth. Before the beginning there was no time. And there was God and the Son and Holy spirit were with him. And before time God created Angels to be company for him. But Satan, the greatest of the angels, was jealous of God, and attempeted to overthrough him. But God knew of his scheme and threw him into the void of nothing, for time did not yet exist. And then there was the creation, were God created the Earth, and the Son and the Holy Spirit were with him. And God created man in his image. And He created a garden on Earth for the man. Then he created a woman for the man, and they were happy in the garden. But Satan had entered Earth and he tempted the woman, and she did the one thing God had not told her to do, she ate of the forbidden tree. And then she gave some of the fruit to the man so that he may eat of it. And he ate of it. Then God, knowing what they had done, banished them from the garden of Eden. This is how God created the world. I however looked over the comments in this thread, and saw a question that needs to be answered. Someone asked why there had not been anymore miracles since Jesus had ascended to Heaven. Read the last chapter of Revalation. It states that Jesus will not appear on Earth or aid in any miracles until the worlds end. This is what I believe. You might find an arguement against this, but I doubt it will be well reasoned. I hope this changes your minds on some perspectives, Zach.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 8:39 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Carbon dating does not work at all. Allow me to give an example. Mount Saint Helens erupted sometime in the 80's. It's lava later hardened into rock. A scientit carbon dated the rock, and guess what time it said the rock was formed. 3. million years ago! And it was a brand new rock! Explain that.

Do you know what carbon dating is? All living things have a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 which they maintain their entire life. However, when they die the carbon-14 decays, and is not replaced. Therefore, the ratio of C-12 to C-14 allows you to estimate the date of death. As the eruption of a volcano would not imbue the rock with any carbon-14, your statement makes no sense.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:26 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
And God created man in his image. And He created a garden on Earth for the man. Then he created a woman for the man, and they were happy in the garden.

I'm not going to argue against the rest of this, because it is either false, fact, or already addressed many times. However, I find this sentence interesting.
Does Christianity suggest that females are the possession of men, solely meant for their pleasure? 'Cause that's what it's looking like here.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:30 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Do you know what carbon dating is? All living things have a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 which they maintain their entire life. However, when they die the carbon-14 decays, and is not replaced. Therefore, the ratio of C-12 to C-14 allows you to estimate the date of death. As the eruption of a volcano would not imbue the rock with any carbon-14, your statement makes no sense.

In his defense, I think that a lot of people are very pathetically uninformed when it comes to carbon-dating. Not just Christians, Athiests as well.

I have been in too many arguments where someone says something along the lines of "the fossils proves evolution," and the Christian, retors, "that stuff doesn't work" and then the conversation no longer has anywhere to go but childish, "yes it does!" and "no it doesn't!"

I'm grateful you actually seem to know something about it.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:44 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I'm not going to argue against the rest of this, because it is either false, fact, or already addressed many times. However, I find this sentence interesting.
Does Christianity suggest that females are the possession of men, solely meant for their pleasure? 'Cause that's what it's looking like here.

No. Woman was made to be a companion for man. But woman was also meant to be subjective to man. Man was meant to be the laborer and leader, woman was created to be in man's power, but also to be respected. Woman is not an item of pleasure or slavery to man. Woman are meant to aid the man in the affairs of the home. Got it?

Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:45 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I'm not going to argue against the rest of this, because it is either false, fact, or already addressed many times. However, I find this sentence interesting.
Does Christianity suggest that females are the possession of men, solely meant for their pleasure? 'Cause that's what it's looking like here.

Heh, that kinda looks like it from what the guy said. But not quite, I think that it was likely because he was lonely and extremely sad because every other species had a counter-part, but he did not. I think it was more to fill a void in Man's life, not add some pleasure to it.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:46 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
No. Woman was made to be a companion for man. But woman was also meant to be subjective to man. Man was meant to be the laborer and leader, woman was created to be in man's power, but also to be respected. Woman is not an item of pleasure or slavery to man. Woman are meant to aid the man in the affairs of the home. Got it?

Ummmm. Dude, you might want to rephrase that,

"woman was also meant to be subjective to man."

Just saying, it kinda does make women sound like slaves.

"Woman are meant to aid the man in the affairs of the home."
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:49 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
No. Woman was made to be a companion for man. But woman was also meant to be subjective to man. Man was meant to be the laborer and leader, woman was created to be in man's power, but also to be respected. Woman is not an item of pleasure or slavery to man. Woman are meant to aid the man in the affairs of the home. Got it?

Righto... Thanks for the answer.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:52 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Ummmm. Dude, you might want to rephrase that,

"woman was also meant to be subjective to man."

Just saying, it kinda does make women sound like slaves.

"Woman are meant to aid the man in the affairs of the home."

Fixing it.

Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:53 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Righto... Thanks for the answer.

I sense a hint of mockery ;)
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:54 pm
Quoting Caleb R
I sense a hint of mockery ;)

Me? Never...
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 9:55 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Me? Never...

Hahah, of course not, that would be ridiculous! By the way, I tried my best to clarify what I think Zach meant.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 10:04 pm
Quoting Jack K
I believe in what I call 'divinely manipulated evolution'. I'm a catholic and therefore believe in God. The Catholic Church has openly accepted the theory of evolution, provided that we (Catholics) believe that God had a hand in it. The idea that a series of random mutations lead to all life as we know it is crazy. The amount of chance is just too high. I believe that yes, we did evolve from lower forms of life, but that God had a hand in ensuring we (humans) came to be.

Though you may think that you just made a win-win comment by saying that God and evolution are true, you have actually made a lose-lose comment.

Think of it this way, if you think God created the big bang, then you have to discredit the Bible when it says that the world was created in 7 days. If you discredit the beginning of the Bible, then what is to say that the rest of the Bible is true at all? Genesis is at the beginning of the Bible for a reason; it is the foundation of the Bible. If you discredit it, the whole thing crumbles.

On the other hand, the core of evolution is atheism, and by say God created evolution means that you are NOT atheistic, and have now taken the core out of evolution.

In summary, you (or whoever originally thought of this theory) tried to mix to opposite beliefs to please both sides. The end result is that neither side agrees with you, and you are on a strange middle-ground.
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 10:20 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Though you may think that you just made a win-win comment by saying that God and evolution are true, you have actually made a lose-lose comment.

Think of it this way, if you think God created the big bang, then you have to discredit the Bible when it says that the world was created in 7 days. If you discredit the beginning of the Bible, then what is to say that the rest of the Bible is true at all? Genesis is at the beginning of the Bible for a reason; it is the foundation of the Bible. If you discredit it, the whole thing crumbles.

On the other hand, the core of evolution is atheism, and by say God created evolution means that you are NOT atheistic, and have now taken the core out of evolution.

In summary, you (or whoever originally thought of this theory) tried to mix to opposite beliefs to please both sides. The end result is that neither side agrees with you, and you are on a strange middle-ground.

I see where you are drawing your argument from. However, you say that I discredit the story of genesis, this story is meant to be taken as metaphor, not historical fact. The Catholic church has openly accepted evolution and the big bang theory. As for your comment about evolution, I accept the theory as a theory. I'm not sure about your idea about the atheistic aspect of evolution, I've always understood it as an explanation, not an atheistic argument against creationism.

So yes, in a way I'm in the middle, I'm not trying to please both sides, I'm just stating what I believe. I honestly don't care if people disagree with me.

For reference:
-http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholics-accept-evolution-guided-by-god-7632/
-http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 11:27 pm
Quoting Jack K
I see where you are drawing your argument from. However, you say that I discredit the story of genesis, this story is meant to be taken as metaphor, not historical fact. The Catholic church has openly accepted evolution and the big bang theory. As for your comment about evolution, I accept the theory as a theory. I'm not sure about your idea about the atheistic aspect of evolution, I've always understood it as an explanation, not an atheistic argument against creationism.

So yes, in a way I'm in the middle, I'm not trying to please both sides, I'm just stating what I believe. I honestly don't care if people disagree with me.

For reference:
-http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholics-accept-evolution-guided-by-god-7632/
-http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution


There is something that you are missing that is very important: context.

The book of proverbs is not meant to be taken literally, this is because they are proverbs. Think of it this way, there is a popular non-christian proverb that goes like this "early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise." Or something like that. This proverb is not meant to be taken literally, as is the same with Biblical proverbs.

However, the book of genesis is presented as a HISTORY, not a metaphor. I must ask, even if it WAS a metaphor, what in the world would it be a metaphor for?

Also, if the book of genesis is a metaphor, then Noah's ark, the garden of Eden, the genealogies, are they all metaphors?

If they are not, what makes the 7 day creation a metaphor but not the rest of the book?

If they are, I will say to you this, there is way to much scientific evidence to say there has been no such global flood. This included fish and shells being found places that fish and shells could never have been, such as on a gigantic mountains. Also, there are MANY cultures that have stories of global floods, including Chinese, Islamic, Indian, and others.

I'm sorry I cannot provide sources for this one, since I have to go to bed =(
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 10:01 am
Quoting Caleb R


The garden of eden and the creation story are, like all creation stories, and attempt to explain how the world came to be. The Catholic Church says that the creation story is not literal, but open to broader interpretations.

This is how I see the creation metaphor...
First 1 'day' is not 24 hours, it could be far longer, since the story is told from the view of God.
Secondly, every thing is created is the 'correct' order, light (big bang), then the earth and the cosmos (planets forming), next sea and land 'earth cooling', the the sun and moon (collision with the big astroid thing), and then lower life, fish and plants (first life forms) and in the same 'day' there are 'sea monsters' (prehistoric creatures, like megalodon, plesiosaurs, etc...), then higher life (large land mammals, birds), and finally, us humans.
Third, the garden of eden is a symbol for harmony with God, when we defy him, we are 'cast out' of the 'garden', or in other words, we lose our harmony with God. (Catholic teaching says that we can return to harmony though)

You must have confused my wording though, the story of creation in genesis is a metaphor, not the entire book of genesis. I referred to the creation story as 'genesis' several times, since that is what a lot of people call it, I'll be more specific to avoid confusion. And yes, I know about the scientific evidence for a great flood, as well as the multiple stories of it.

reference
-http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 10:26 am
Quoting Jack K

Firstly, why is it that only the 7-day creation is a metaphor but not the rest of genesis? This makes no sense.

Secondly, why would God say that he created the world in seven days if he did not create them in seven HUMAN days? The book was meant for HUMANS to read.

Thirdly, there is not anything that I am aware of anywhere in the Bible that says it is a metaphor, which means you are interpreting the Bible how you want, which is a dangerous thing to do.

Fourthly, why would God make a history book of the Bible, but make some of it a metaphor for no reason in particular.

Fifthly, why would he make it a metaphor at all?

Sixth, why do you believe God created big bang?

Think of it this way, suppose I send you a letter telling you a story of when I was coming home from school. The story goes like this

"So on the way home, I decided to take a short-cut, but I ended up getting lost. So I had to back-track to my starting point, and go back the normal way. Then after that, I saw some of my friends, and they asked me to go play soccer, but I knew I had homework, so I went home instead. But later on, I stop to buy some fruit, even though I need to get home soon. But after I eat the fruit, my stomach hurt a lot. So I had to walk really slowly the rest of the way home."

I have given you a story. I have given you no implications that this story is inaccurate or anything. Then you start to think of it, and you think about it more and more. And you think, "this is a metaphor."

"What really happened is that he tried to take the short cut in life and get rich quick by stealing. But he got caught and sent to jail for a few years. Then, some friends tried to influence him and make him steal again, but he decided not to. Then after that, he was living a good life, but then he saw an opportunity to cheat his way into getting a raise. But then, after he did, he felt bad and his life was full of guilt."

I never told you this story. You took my story and changed it and believed it to be a lesson on how to live your life, when really, I was telling you what actually happened to me.

I feel like this is what you have done. I know, there are some holes in my analogy, I'm sure you can find them, but do you get my over all point? That God gave us exact and specific details on how he created the world and that you are trying to say that it was meant to be a metaphor, when there is no indication that it is, and that there is not even a good reason for it to be?

This is long, I know, so bear with my grammar mistakes ad I am sure there are some
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 10:51 am
Quoting Caleb R

Well first not only the creation story is metaphor, my memory of the bible is a bit rusty right now so I'm not going to sight stuff and make a fool of myself.
All scripture was divinely inspired, meaning that God somehow gave someone the knowledge to write the story, God did not dictate word for word to the writer (at least in the Bible). The writer could write whatever they received, and how they wrote it is up to the writer. Look at the Gospels, four totally different accounts of the same life. The three 'synoptic Gospels' (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are mostly historical style accounts. John however, writes in a more poetic and stylized way. I know that this isn't about the agreement, but I just want to show how facts can be poeticized.
Please notice my source for your third point.
Fourth and fifth points, refer to my second point.
I believe that God influenced the big bang's results so that we (humans) and earth could come to exist. If you look at the odds that earth and all life came from the chaos of the big bang, they are way too high to be chance.
As for your story example, I see what you mean. I respect your agreement and opinion. Again, please cite my reference. I base all my arguments off official church teaching, I don't claim to be an expert of theologian, so I may make errors from time to time.
Alos, I'm interested to know, what is your religious standing, Atheist, Christian, Jewish, etc...?
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 11:17 am
Quoting Caleb R
Think of it this way, if you think God created the big bang, then you have to discredit the Bible when it says that the world was created in 7 days.
I don't discredit the Bible at all. I just say that it's meant to be a book about God, not about science. The creation account
Quoting Caleb R If you discredit the beginning of the Bible, then what is to say that the rest of the Bible is true at all? Genesis is at the beginning of the Bible for a reason; it is the foundation of the Bible. If you discredit it, the whole thing crumbles.
You're right, and that's why I don't discredit Genesis. How can I believe in evolution and Genesis at the same time? I believe Genesis is a story about God and man, not about the prehistory of Earth. The Genesis account tells us that God made the earth, and what he put in it. This is the foundation of the Bible, not the statement that it happened in seven days. What does seven days mean? It means seven stages of creation, the fact that it says 'days' I don't think really matters that much. After all, there is no difference between a day, or a thousand years, or a billion years when they are compared to God. The Genesis creation account, I believe, describes God laying out the blueprint of Creation. This is why, in Genesis 1, God first says it, then it happens. God is giving orders to the universe, and then what God said happens. This is exactly what the theistic evolution model predicts: God says it, then it happens. The universe unfolds simultaneously according to God's instructions and according to the laws of physics. The only time when it cannot be explained by science is at the very beginning. Similarly, in Genesis 1, the only time God did not speak before he created was at the very beginning.
Quoting Caleb R
On the other hand, the core of evolution is atheism, and by say God created evolution means that you are NOT atheistic, and have now taken the core out of evolution.
This is simply not true. Evolution is a scientific theory and makes no claim about the existence of God.
Quoting Caleb R
In summary, you (or whoever originally thought of this theory) tried to mix to opposite beliefs to please both sides. The end result is that neither side agrees with you, and you are on a strange middle-ground.
No, I don't try to pleas both sides. I don't care whether both sides are pleased with my view or not. I try to find out what is true.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 11:31 am
Quoting Caleb R

Okay that's weird, I posted a reply yo you, it said 'your comment has been added to the conversation', and now its gone.
I'll summarize it then, please cite my reference link. I mean to say that creation, not all of genesis is a metaphor. The books of the bible are divinely inspired, not dictated, and I see your point.

Also, I'm curious as to your religious background (Jewish, Christina, Atheists, etc...)
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 11:53 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible

I will admit one thing here to start with. The core of evolution is not atheism, but the other way around. Evolution is the core of atheism. My bad on that, I am glad you pointed that out.

" I believe Genesis is a story about God and man, not about the prehistory of Earth."

These are your own words. Let me put something out there.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

That is clearly not about God and man. That is stating how the earth was created. Granted, it doesn't say how yet, it just said that God created it.

"What does seven days mean? It means seven stages of creation, the fact that it says 'days' I don't think really matters that much."

I want you to take a look at Genesis 1 with me for a second. This is at the end of each "day" of creation.

"And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
...
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."
...
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."
...
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

"And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day."
...
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

It cannot be ANY more clear that this is a real, 24 hour day.

"After all, there is no difference between a day, or a thousand years, or a billion years when they are compared to God."

God did not write this book for himself, now did he? He wrote it for us. Tell me, why would he say day over and over again if he did not mean day? To confuse us? I think not.

"The Genesis creation account, I believe, describes God laying out the blueprint of Creation. This is why, in Genesis 1, God first says it, then it happens. God is giving orders to the universe, and then what God said happens. This is exactly what the theistic evolution model predicts: God says it, then it happens. The universe unfolds simultaneously according to God's instructions and according to the laws of physics."

Let me point out that God is not limited by physics. Also, if God where laying out the blueprints, then why would the verses be ordered like this,

"God speaks, it happens."

"God speaks again, something else happens."

And not

"God speaks, then speaks some more, then everything happens,"?

Once again, please try to see past grammatical errors.




Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 11:54 am
Quoting Jack K
Okay that's weird, I posted a reply yo you, it said 'your comment has been added to the conversation', and now its gone.
I'll summarize it then, please cite my reference link. I mean to say that creation, not all of genesis is a metaphor. The books of the bible are divinely inspired, not dictated, and I see your point.

Also, I'm curious as to your religious background (Jewish, Christina, Atheists, etc...)


One question you do not seem to want to answer is this:

What makes creation a metaphor and not anything else in genesis?

and also

What indication in the Bible, anywhere, is there that God meant it to be a metaphor.

By "cite me link" do you mean check it out? If so, I don't think I will. Simply because this argument stay on MOCpages. If you wish to summarize what the page says, I would be very happy to read that.

My background. Hmmm. That's still in development. I'll get back to on that in a few years ;)
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 11:58 am
Quoting Caleb R
" I believe Genesis is a story about God and man, not about the prehistory of Earth."

These are your own words. Let me put something out there.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

That is clearly not about God and man. That is stating how the earth was created. Granted, it doesn't say how yet, it just said that God created it.
That is about God and man. It's telling us that God made the earth.
Quoting Caleb R
"What does seven days mean? It means seven stages of creation, the fact that it says 'days' I don't think really matters that much."

I want you to take a look at Genesis 1 with me for a second. This is at the end of each "day" of creation.

"And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
...
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."
...
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."
...
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

"And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day."
...
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

It cannot be ANY more clear that this is a real, 24 hour day.
Actually, it could be more clear. The space between evening and morning is a period of roughly 12 hours which we call night, not day. The Hebrew words translated as 'evening' and 'morning' could also be translated as 'chaos' and 'order', respectively. The Hebrew word translated as 'day' can also mean 'age'.
Quoting Caleb R
"After all, there is no difference between a day, or a thousand years, or a billion years when they are compared to God."

God did not write this book for himself, now did he? He wrote it for us. Tell me, why would he say day over and over again if he did not mean day? To confuse us? I think not.
God did not write this book at all. According to tradition, Moses wrote it.

Quoting Caleb R
"The Genesis creation account, I believe, describes God laying out the blueprint of Creation. This is why, in Genesis 1, God first says it, then it happens. God is giving orders to the universe, and then what God said happens. This is exactly what the theistic evolution model predicts: God says it, then it happens. The universe unfolds simultaneously according to God's instructions and according to the laws of physics."

Let me point out that God is not limited by physics. Also, if God where laying out the blueprints, then why would the verses be ordered like this,

"God speaks, it happens."

"God speaks again, something else happens."

And not

"God speaks, then speaks some more, then everything happens,"?
It pairs up what God says with what happens. It's important to understand that God is not bound by physics, he doesn't exist within time. Thus "God speaks, it happens."

"God speaks again, something else happens." and

"God speaks, then speaks some more, then everything happens," are equivalent.

I've got to go to church now, so this was a little rushed.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:07 pm
Quoting Caleb R

One question you do not seem to want to answer is this:

What makes creation a metaphor and not anything else in genesis?

and also

What indication in the Bible, anywhere, is there that God meant it to be a metaphor.

By "cite me link" do you mean check it out? If so, I don't think I will. Simply because this argument stay on MOCpages. If you wish to summarize what the page says, I would be very happy to read that.

My background. Hmmm. That's still in development. I'll get back to on that in a few years ;)

Well all the bible is divinely inspired, meaning that the writer was somehow given knowledge by God. How the writer recorded this knowledge is up to the writer, God never dictated His word. Example being the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record the life of Jesus very historically and factually. John on the other hand writes poetically, still the same information, just in a different form.

You are correct in saying that no where in the Bible (to my knowledge at least) does it mention the story as a metaphor.

The pages I cite are all statements from either the Church and officials of it, or respected theologians. The Pope has discussed the topic numerous times and many respected theologians say that it is a metaphor, how they come to this conclusion I don't know.

I'm glad that this debate between you and me has remained civilized.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:09 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible

"That is about God and man. It's telling us that God made the earth."

It's also about God and his creation, which is the whole universe, not just man.

"God did not write this book at all. According to tradition, Moses wrote it."

Let me point out that God had him write, it and it was under God's supervision that Moses wrote it.

"All scripture is God breathed and useful."

"It pairs up what God says with what happens. It's important to understand that God is not bound by physics, he doesn't exist within time. Thus "God speaks, it happens."

"God speaks again, something else happens." and

"God speaks, then speaks some more, then everything happens," are equivalent."

That is extremely far fetched and illogical. God created humans to live inside of time, and he would know that we think chronologically, and would thus write it chronologically. If what your saying is true, it would have written like this:

"God speaks about all of his creation, then it comes to be."

"Actually, it could be more clear. The space between evening and morning is a period of roughly 12 hours which we call night, not day. The Hebrew words translated as 'evening' and 'morning' could also be translated as 'chaos' and 'order', respectively. The Hebrew word translated as 'day' can also mean 'age'."

Nearly two thousand times the word yom (day in Hebrew)is in the Old Testament, rarely is it used to refer to a time period longer than twenty-four hours, it is mostly used for a specific day. However, when a numerical adjective is attached to the word "day" it means exactly what the number states, the context shows it has to be interpreted this way for it to be consistent with the rest of the Scripture.

Also, I would like to point out the Jesus and Paul BOTH REFERENCED GENESIS AS HISTORICAL FACTS. (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 15:21–22 15:45 1 Timothy 2:13–14)


This has been really interesting, but sadly I have to get up in 4 hours. So I am going to sleep now. Please still respond to this, I will get to replying it when I have finished traveling tomorrow.


Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:25 pm
Quoting Jack K
Well all the bible is divinely inspired, meaning that the writer was somehow given knowledge by God. How the writer recorded this knowledge is up to the writer, God never dictated His word.

I understand this, but God still ensured that it was not written falsely, so it doesn't really matter.

Quoting Jack K
You are correct in saying that no where in the Bible (to my knowledge at least) does it mention the story as a metaphor.

So why do you think that it is a metaphor?

Quoting Jack K
The pages I cite are all statements from either the Church and officials of it, or respected theologians. The Pope has discussed the topic numerous times and many respected theologians say that it is a metaphor

I really do not care. The reason for this: there are just as many respected people that don't believe it is a metaphor. There are just as many people that are respected that do not believe in a deity at all. This does not make it true.

Quoting Jack K
how they come to this conclusion I don't know.

Then how can you believe them? I DO know how other theologians and I have come to the conclusion that God created the earth in 24-hour days.

Quoting Jack K I'm glad that this debate between you and me has remained civilized.

Agreed. Although it seems more like an argument between Bob and you against me. But I need to sleep now =P
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:34 pm
Just curious, how old are you guys?
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:43 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Just curious, how old are you guys?

I'm 16.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:47 pm
Quoting Jack K
I'm 16.

Nice, I am 15.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:57 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Nice, I am 15.

You've been a lot more mature in this discussion than a lot of 17 and 18 year olds I know. I've been pleasantly surprised so many times by the maturity and civility in this group.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 2:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Caleb R
Agreed. Although it seems more like an argument between Bob and you against me. But I need to sleep now =P
So, what's going on here? last time this debate was active evolution was completely destroyed.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 4:01 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Caleb R
Agreed. Although it seems more like an argument between Bob and you against me. But I need to sleep now =P
So, what's going on here? last time this debate was active evolution was completely destroyed.

That's interesting, I thought it was the other way round. Personal bias makes it impossible to judge the outcome of a debate you participated in.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 7:56 pm
Quoting Caleb R
It's also about God and his creation, which is the whole universe, not just man.
But man is the focus, not the rest of the universe. The Bible is not meant to be a science book, but a religion book.
Quoting Caleb R
"God did not write this book at all. According to tradition, Moses wrote it."

Let me point out that God had him write, it and it was under God's supervision that Moses wrote it.
"All scripture is God breathed and useful."
This is true.
Is it more useful for us if Genesis 1 is interpreted as scientific fact or if it is showing us truths about God?

Quoting Caleb R
"It pairs up what God says with what happens. It's important to understand that God is not bound by physics, he doesn't exist within time. Thus "God speaks, it happens."

"God speaks again, something else happens." and

"God speaks, then speaks some more, then everything happens," are equivalent."

That is extremely far fetched and illogical. God created humans to live inside of time, and he would know that we think chronologically, and would thus write it chronologically. If what your saying is true, it would have written like this:

"God speaks about all of his creation, then it comes to be."
There is no chronology, because God exists outside of time. The scripture is written chronologically, with chronology pairing the instruction God gave to what He instructed. This makes sense because it makes the connection between God's words and what is happening much more clear. It shows that God is active in our world, and has been since its beginning. Even though it would be equivalent (from God's time frame) to phrase it the way you suggested, the meaning is more clear if it written the way the scripture has it.
Quoting Caleb R

"Actually, it could be more clear. The space between evening and morning is a period of roughly 12 hours which we call night, not day. The Hebrew words translated as 'evening' and 'morning' could also be translated as 'chaos' and 'order', respectively. The Hebrew word translated as 'day' can also mean 'age'."

Nearly two thousand times the word yom (day in Hebrew)is in the Old Testament, rarely is it used to refer to a time period longer than twenty-four hours, it is mostly used for a specific day. However, when a numerical adjective is attached to the word "day" it means exactly what the number states, the context shows it has to be interpreted this way for it to be consistent with the rest of the Scripture.
OK, point taken. But I think the fact that it's saying evening-to-morning days (or chaos-to-order days, if you like), is much more important than how long those days are. Does it really matter if they're really exactly 24-hour days or not?
Quoting Caleb R
Also, I would like to point out the Jesus and Paul BOTH REFERENCED GENESIS AS HISTORICAL FACTS. (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 15:21–22 15:45 1 Timothy 2:13–14)
It's true that Genesis is fact. But it's written to tell us about God, not to give a scientific account of the creation of Earth. Notice that Paul and Jesus are referencing the relation of Creation to humanity, they're pointing out aspects of the creation of man and the introduction of sin (which is spiritual death) into the world by man, not about the creation of the rest of the world. For the rest of the world, it's not important (to us) how or when God did it, only that he did.

Quoting Caleb R
This has been really interesting, but sadly I have to get up in 4 hours. So I am going to sleep now. Please still respond to this, I will get to replying it when I have finished traveling tomorrow.

Thanks for the heads up.

Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 8:21 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
That's interesting, I thought it was the other way round. Personal bias makes it impossible to judge the outcome of a debate you participated in.
I was speaking of traditional evolution. Last time it came down to you with theistic evolution vs me with simple creation, and we couldn't get anywhere beyond that. Evolution as it is most often thought of was torn apart, mainly by the two of us.

Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 8:29 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
That's interesting, I thought it was the other way round. Personal bias makes it impossible to judge the outcome of a debate you participated in.
I was speaking of traditional evolution. Last time it came down to you with theistic evolution vs me with simple creation, and we couldn't get anywhere beyond that. Evolution as it is most often thought of was torn apart, mainly by the two of us.
OK, yeah. I agree with that. (But of course, I have my biases)
Evolution without God makes about as much sense as creation without God; it just pushes the question of the creator further back in time.

Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 8:33 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Basically:

I'm not going to object to the legitimacy of that idea, because I honestly don't know if it's correct. What I will object to is the likelihood of that happening. You say to consider the huge amounts of time and the seas which were supposedly teeming with life, which make it more likely to happen. But even if new information can come about, (which I don't think is possible) for chance to create the complex organisms we have today from raw ingredients is impossible.

Say you have a huge pile of lego on the floor. It is all lifted up and dropped. It doesn't matter how many times you do this, it's not going to drop and form one Sean Kenney's masterpieces. For humans to develop from such simplicity requires a huge amount of these small changes, and no matter how much time you have, it's not going to happen.

Sorry for how long it took me to reply. Looks like I have some catching up to do with this thread...
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 9:01 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Carbon dating does not work at all. Allow me to give an example. Mount Saint Helens erupted sometime in the 80's. It's lava later hardened into rock. A scientit carbon dated the rock, and guess what time it said the rock was formed. 3. million years ago! And it was a brand new rock! Explain that.

I don't know if I believe that story, do you have a source? First of all, carbon dating only works on organic matter. Secondly, carbon dating does not yield dates older than about 60,000 years.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 9:07 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
The point of Evolution is this. No point. Humanity existence is pointless. If the scientists are right than it proves that you are nothing. You are a speck that will dissapear and never live again. It means you have no point in life. You could end poverty, and for what? To die some day?
This is true only if you assume there is no God.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. And what is evolution. Allow me to summarize it. 1.5 billion years...
13.7 billion years, actually.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. ...ago there was a huge unexplainable expansion of space.
Unexplained is very different from unexplainable. Just because nobody has yet explained inflation doesn't mean it's not possible to explain.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. Then a small little rock got hit by a bunch of meteors and got bigger and bigger. Then another planet flew by and got caught in thie balls gravity. Then water magically appeared on the earths surface. Then it evaporated because a star appeared our of nowhere and made it evaporate.
Actually, the star came first.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. Then it rained for a long time. And then there were oceans. And then one day, THERE WAS LIFE! A small little microbe came out of nowhere and grew into a big microbe and then it grew fins and split in half. Then when there were a lot of fish in the sea another fish decided to grow legs and start walking on the land. Then they walked on land and found out they liked it and then decided to eat the green things that had grown from nothing.
A bit of an oversimplification, but basically that's right.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. Then they changed into salamanders and then dinosaurs who ate each other and then a big space rock hit the Earth and a dust cloud killed the dinosaurs. Then mammals started to appear out of nowhere.
Mammals first appeared at almost the same time as dinosaurs, actually. They just didn't get very big until later.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. Then they grew into apes. And then into humans. And the humans drew funny pictures on rock walls and then started wearing clothes and now they have figured out how everything happened.
Another oversimplification, but basically right.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. So probable huh? Now the truth. Before the beginning there was no time. And there was God and the Son and Holy spirit were with him. And before time God created Angels to be company for him. But Satan, the greatest of the angels, was jealous of God, and attempeted to overthrough him. But God knew of his scheme and threw him into the void of nothing, for time did not yet exist. And then there was the creation, were God created the Earth, and the Son and the Holy Spirit were with him. And God created man in his image. And He created a garden on Earth for the man. Then he created a woman for the man, and they were happy in the garden. But Satan had entered Earth and he tempted the woman, and she did the one thing God had not told her to do, she ate of the forbidden tree. And then she gave some of the fruit to the man so that he may eat of it. And he ate of it. Then God, knowing what they had done, banished them from the garden of Eden. This is how God created the world. I however looked over the comments in this thread, and saw a question that needs to be answered. Someone asked why there had not been anymore miracles since Jesus had ascended to Heaven. Read the last chapter of Revalation. It states that Jesus will not appear on Earth or aid in any miracles until the worlds end.
This has no contradiction with evolution.

Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 9:20 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
This is true.
Is it more useful for us if Genesis 1 is interpreted as scientific fact or if it is showing us truths about God?

Scientific fact without a doubt. God knew we would face doubters who would not believe his creation. Do you think God would try to make it even more difficult to explain by making it a metaphor? And honestly, what in the Bible could possibly make you think it is a metaphor?

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
There is no chronology, because God exists outside of time. The scripture is written chronologically, with chronology pairing the instruction God gave to what He instructed. This makes sense because it makes the connection between God's words and what is happening much more clear. It shows that God is active in our world, and has been since its beginning. Even though it would be equivalent (from God's time frame) to phrase it the way you suggested, the meaning is more clear if it written the way the scripture has it.

So you're saying that based on the syntax of Genesis 1, it makes sense that it would be written NOT in chronological order? Or at least not in DIRECT chronological order?

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
OK, point taken. But I think the fact that it's saying evening-to-morning days (or chaos-to-order days, if you like), is much more important than how long those days are. Does it really matter if they're really exactly 24-hour days or not?

Yes. It matters because you believe the earth evolved after the big bang in billions of years, not 7 days. And you just admitted it most likely means 24 hour day, which means it could not have been billions of years.
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
It's true that Genesis is fact.

Then God created the world in 7 days.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible But it's written to tell us about God, not to give a scientific account of the creation of Earth.

Firstly, you have STILL failed provide any Biblical text supporting your hypothesis that God meant Genesis 1 to be taken metaphorically. I have given you several quotes indicating it is not meant to be.
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
For the rest of the world, it's not important (to us) how or when God did it, only that he did.

God said Adam was created out of the dust and that he breathed life into him, is this metaphorical as well? When will the metaphors end?


One final thought for you. Do you believe man was made in the image of God? If you do, then why do you suppose he evolved us that way instead of instantly doing so? Also, how do we know that we are not still evolving? How do we know we still aren't QUITE in the image of God yet? Maybe we have to evolve a bit more to understand yet another aspect of God.

Note, that last argument I totally just made up on the spot, but I think it makes sense.

Also, why has no one addressed my-super-epic- story-of-me-walking-home-from-school metaphor?

And once again, I have to go to sleep. I have been traveling all day 0_o
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 7:35 am
Quoting Jack K
You've been a lot more mature in this discussion than a lot of 17 and 18 year olds I know. I've been pleasantly surprised so many times by the maturity and civility in this group.

Thanks, Jack! I have always enjoyed debate, and have learned over the years that getting angry and throwing insults does does not help.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 7:40 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
So, what's going on here? last time this debate was active evolution was completely destroyed.

I think I am holding my own here. If you are implying that I am losing against the theological evolutionists, I think you should look again, it's been pretty much neck and neck this whole time.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 7:42 am
And why do I feel like I am still the only one arguing 7-day creation?

Also, a question for everyone, will you guys actually be willing to admit that the other person is probably right? Because I feel that if not, this whole debate group is just practicing debating and not actually useful for anything else.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 7:43 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Caleb R
And why do I feel like I am still the only one arguing 7-day creation?
It's an old debate, I guess everyone else is tired of it. As for your other question, the people here are very stubborn. Even though traditional evolution was taken completely apart people still believe it because they don't want to accept that there is a God.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 7:58 am
Quoting The Object of Legend

That may be. Think of it this way though, if someone proved to you ALMOST without a doubt that there was no God, would you change your views?
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 8:06 am
Quoting LWC guy
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Basically:

I'm not going to object to the legitimacy of that idea, because I honestly don't know if it's correct. What I will object to is the likelihood of that happening. You say to consider the huge amounts of time and the seas which were supposedly teeming with life, which make it more likely to happen. But even if new information can come about, (which I don't think is possible) for chance to create the complex organisms we have today from raw ingredients is impossible.

Say you have a huge pile of lego on the floor. It is all lifted up and dropped. It doesn't matter how many times you do this, it's not going to drop and form one Sean Kenney's masterpieces. For humans to develop from such simplicity requires a huge amount of these small changes, and no matter how much time you have, it's not going to happen.

Sorry for how long it took me to reply. Looks like I have some catching up to do with this thread...

You may be forgetting that, even though as LEGO bricks, molecules and atoms have the ability to fit together, the latter have a tendancy for that. Not only a tendancy, it is far simpler for them to form certain seemingly complex structures. We are the path of least resistance.


You are forgetting that there are unimaginable multitudes of planets with incomprehensible amounts of time for life to get it right. It just so happens for it to be here.

What you are saying is pretty much like winning the lottery and questioning whywe did.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 8:10 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Caleb R
That may be. Think of it this way though, if someone proved to you ALMOST without a doubt that there was no God, would you change your views?
Probably, but that's impossible. I've seen way too much evidence for God.

Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 8:13 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Caleb R
That may be. Think of it this way though, if someone proved to you ALMOST without a doubt that there was no God, would you change your views?
Probably, but that's impossible. I've seen way too much evidence for God.

Which may be just lies to turn you away from another religion's god by that other religion's anti-god.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:06 pm
Quoting Caleb R
And why do I feel like I am still the only one arguing 7-day creation?

Also, a question for everyone, will you guys actually be willing to admit that the other person is probably right? Because I feel that if not, this whole debate group is just practicing debating and not actually useful for anything else.

You are so right. We're supposed to be debating, which we are, but also determining truth.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:12 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
also determining truth.

So what you are saying is that this is not a club in which everyone is equally intellectualy enriched, but rather a place to fundamentally change the ideologies we were brought up with?
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:16 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
So what you are saying is that this is not a club in which everyone is equally intellectualy enriched, but rather a place to fundamentally change the ideologies we were brought up with?

Sigh . . . does my little comment seem that big of a deal to you? It's a place for both. While we develop our knowledge on certain subjects through debating, we may come across points that might change our mind about those certain subjects.

Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:19 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
we may change our mind

False hope. It seems you expect too much from internet debates. They are fun, but hardly "do" anything or "change" anyone's mind about anything.

I find this group to be more like a place to see what other people think, honing my skills a bit and also to make people a little mad.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:23 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
False hope. It seems you expect too much from internet debates. They are fun, but hardly "do" anything or "change" anyone's mind about anything.

I find this group to be more like a place to see what other people think, honing my skills a bit and also to make people a little mad.

How you find this group to be sounds great; I should start to view it that way. But I hope you don't enjoy making people a little mad.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:37 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
False hope. It seems you expect too much from internet debates. They are fun, but hardly "do" anything or "change" anyone's mind about anything.

I find this group to be more like a place to see what other people think, honing my skills a bit and also to make people a little mad.
It is good that way. Fortunatly I am the patient type.

Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:42 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Scientific fact without a doubt.
So essentially, you think knowing about the world is more important than knowing about God.
Quoting Caleb R God knew we would face doubters who would not believe his creation. Do you think God would try to make it even more difficult to explain by making it a metaphor? And honestly, what in the Bible could possibly make you think it is a metaphor?
The purpose of Genesis is to tell us about God, not about science. It is not metaphorical, it is a story about God. The seven days are days on God's timescale, not on ours. Why is the Bible written like that? To make it easier for humans to understand. By putting the creation story on human timescales instead of the incomprehensibly large billions of years timescale, God makes it more relevant to us and easier for us to grasp.
Quoting Caleb R
So you're saying that based on the syntax of Genesis 1, it makes sense that it would be written NOT in chronological order? Or at least not in DIRECT chronological order?
God exists outside of time, so there is no correct chronological order. Genesis 1 was written with the most logical chronology.

Quoting Caleb R
Yes. It matters because you believe the earth evolved after the big bang in billions of years, not 7 days. And you just admitted it most likely means 24 hour day, which means it could not have been billions of years.
Really? Why does it matter? I admitted that my point was invalid, not that the word day means a 24-hour day. After all, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years. (2 Peter 3:8)" You'll probably say, "but Genesis 1 was written for humans to read, so why shouldn't it be written in human days?" Well, because there were no humans before they were created, so before then, it really doesn't matter if time is tracked on human scales or on God scales. Also, the huge timescales proposed by science are far to large for the human mind to grasp, so dividing it up into seven days puts it on a human scale so that humans can understand it.
Quoting Caleb R
Then God created the world in 7 days.
Seven human-days or seven God-days?

Quoting Caleb R
Firstly, you have STILL failed provide any Biblical text supporting your hypothesis that God meant Genesis 1 to be taken metaphorically. I have given you several quotes indicating it is not meant to be.
That's because I don't think it's really a metaphor. It's a story about God, and as such, it's written with vast periods of time made to seem short, because they are short compared to God.
Quoting Caleb R
God said Adam was created out of the dust and that he breathed life into him, is this metaphorical as well? When will the metaphors end?
No. You'll note that created out of the dust is the creation of something organic from something inorganic, which is exactly what happens in evolution. I actually don't think that Genesis 1 is a metaphor in the strict sense, only that the days are God-days, not human-days.

Quoting Caleb R
One final thought for you. Do you believe man was made in the image of God?
Yes, I do.
Quoting Caleb R If you do, then why do you suppose he evolved us that way instead of instantly doing so?
I don't know. Is it really important how God did it?
Quoting Caleb R Also, how do we know that we are not still evolving?
We know that we are still evolving. Evolution is an unstoppable process.
Quoting Caleb R How do we know we still aren't QUITE in the image of God yet?
Because the Bible said that we were made in God's image.
Quoting Caleb R Maybe we have to evolve a bit more to understand yet another aspect of God.
Maybe.
Quoting Caleb R
Note, that last argument I totally just made up on the spot, but I think it makes sense.
It does. Good job. It's just, I don't think it really runs contrary to evolution.

Quoting Caleb R
Also, why has no one addressed my-super-epic- story-of-me-walking-home-from-school metaphor?
I think I did, but my comment went through moderation.

Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 7:32 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
make people a little mad.

I don't get mad at people I don't know.

Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 7:38 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Thanks, Jack! I have always enjoyed debate, and have learned over the years that getting angry and throwing insults does does not help.

Glad that someone gets it.

Interestingly, I had the exact debate we have here in my theology class. We were divided about 50/50 on creation vs. evolution, and literal genesis vs. symbolic genesis. The teacher then explained quite a bit. He said that, though it is never directly said, there are many clues to the symbolism of the story.

The first is that there are two creation accounts, if it were a history, why would there be two totally different accounts?
Next, parts of the story are just weird, talking snakes, trees of knowledge and eternal life, and things like that.
His last statement was that the church's official teaching is that the creation story of genesis is not 'history', but a 'story'.
The idea is that it is a story to explain a truth, we are of God, and he created us with free will. God makes us in him image, and then we choose to eat the fruit, thereby defying God's command, and choosing to leave the garden.

Sorry I've been lagging in my responses, I think we're in different time zones, and I've also had a ton of home work.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 8:24 pm
Quoting Caleb R
That may be. Think of it this way though, if someone proved to you ALMOST without a doubt that there was no God, would you change your views?

I'd like to think not, but I don't know, I've had people try to disprove the existence of God but they never gave what I considered 'good' evidence. Their main argument was that there is no proof there is God, which can simply turned to there is no proof there isn't.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 8:28 pm
Quoting Jack K
The first is that there are two creation accounts, if it were a history, why would there be two totally different accounts?

I am only aware of one...

Quoting Jack K
Next, parts of the story are just weird, talking snakes, trees of knowledge and eternal life, and things like that.

Have you READ the Bible?? The Bible is FULL of stuff like this. It is in no way unique to Genesis. And just because it is weird doesn't mean it is not true. Hitler killed millions of people, that's not only weird, but brutal, yet it remains true. God used a donkey to talk to people in the Bible, that is REALLY weird but still true. Unless that was a metaphor ;)
Quoting Jack K
His last statement was that the church's official teaching is that the creation story of genesis is not 'history', but a 'story'.

Maybe for his denomination. You realize that there are dozens of different "official churches" right? There is an "official church" that believes everything bad in the world is because of bad actions. For example, they believe that if your son goes to war in Afghanistan and dies, it is because America is turning away from God. Just because an "official church" teaches and believes it, does not mean it is true.
Quoting Jack K
Sorry I've been lagging in my responses, I think we're in different time zones, and I've also had a ton of home work.


No worries, I have tons of homework as well.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 10:19 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I just spent about an hour replying to everything you said, then MOCpages logged me out and Chrome decided not to save my cookies. So now everything got deleted. I had everything written so perfectly. I am SO INCREDIBLY FRE@KING MAD!!!!!

Sorry. I am done complaining. I am also not going to rewrite this. Sorry Bob, I am glad we got to have this debate. I think we both realize we would never relent. This argument would never end, in fact, it has only gotten bigger since it began.

I had some really good points, and I SO wish there was a way to get them back, but I have school and I am not taking another hour.

I call stalemate, good debate, sorry it had to end like this =(
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 11:01 pm
Quoting Jack K
I'd like to think not, but I don't know, I've had people try to disprove the existence of God but they never gave what I considered 'good' evidence. Their main argument was that there is no proof there is God, which can simply turned to there is no proof there isn't.

Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 6:06 am
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
What do you think the universe is?
<<<< Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Sin.
<<<< Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far) What do you think of Israel, Him sending His son to die, and the prophets?
<<<< Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either) Who do you think Jesus is?
<<<< Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence) There are hundreds of acounts of the great Flood in other manuscripts. American Indian legends, Babalonian writings, Greek Mythology, all have stories of a great all destroying Flood.
<<<< Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some fame?" We don't. But we believe in the Bible's truth.
<<<< Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?" For an ex-Catholic you sure don't know the Bible very well. In Genesis, God give's man dominion over the Earth. If the world is messed up it's are fault, not his.
<<<< Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?" Who said we are made to?
Had fun answering these questions!

Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:05 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

First: God shows Himself through physical healing. This happens a lot. Just a week ago at my church we prayed for a woman who had cancer, stage 4. Now the doctors don't know what happened because, boom, she's healed. That's God.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:25 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

Second: Ah, why does God allow suffering? One of the most popular questions that try to shoot down the Creator. First of all, Jesus said that it would happen in John 16. Aside from our free will, if you ask me why a recent disaster happened, I would truthfully say to you: I don't know. Humans have a finite perpsective on the world around us.
But let me set something straight: God absolutely did NOT create pain and suffering. God created a world, in fact, that was perfect, when humans lived in perfect harmony with God. It didn't have pain or suffering. There is moral evil that happens when we don't choose the right path, but you don't like that argument. Then there is natural evil, like storms, wild fires, and so on. Those just happen.
God created the potential for evil to enter the world: us; our independence in thought and action. But then some people ask, why isn't he just taking away evil completely, if he's God?
He hasn't yet, but that doesn't mean he won't. Dude, there will be a day. Glorious day. The reason He isn't doing it yet, is because he is waiting on us. He wants more people to be saved before he makes the final judgement. That's how much he loves us.

Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:25 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

Third: Do you mean that God is neglecting humanity? Really? He is working through lives. He has been changing my own life. I used to struggle with things, (I will not say here) but then one Sunday at Church I came to tears because He told me that's not what He wanted me to be doing. Many people, MANY, I repeat, have testimonies in how God is currently and actively working through their lives.

Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:25 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

Fourth: Why doesn't he show Himself? You mean, a physical representation of Himself? He is Holy, so big, so perfect, that it would be too much for us. When Moses talked to God face to face, he had to come down from the mountain on which the conversation happened with a veil on his face. His face was radiant, because he had seen God. But if you mean God doesn't show himself through his actions, then there is easy data to disprove that. God has healed so much, because he has been called on by the faithful.

Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:26 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

Fifth: If all the Bible details are true, why is there so little evidence? Well, the followers of God believe the Bible is true, partly by Faith. In second Timothy, the Bible itself states that it is correct. Well, also, within the Bible, there are many predictions. In some early sections in the Bible, there are prophecies, and later on in the Bible, and many years later, they come true. But for evidence, I'll tell you what happened in 1958. Donald Wiseman, an archaeologist and Professor of Assyriology at the University of London estimated that there were more than 25,000 discoveries that had confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible. That's a lot of discoveries. The Bible gives examples of items people in the Bible have used. Archaeologists have dug up some of those items, and they have been clearly identified as items mentioned in the Bible.

Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:26 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

Sixth: How do we know Jesus wasn't just after fame? Easy answer. Jesus took special interest in the poor. Now, someone wanting to become famous wouldn't do that, right? They'd dwell with the rich and do things that would make people like them. Jesus didn't do that. On one occasion, Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling. People wouldn't appreciate that, would they? The pharisees and religious officials even dislike Jesus, because Jesus rightfully forgave sins. Wait, only God has the power to forgive sins! I see a connection!He did become famous, but if his only goal was to become famous, He wouldn't have sacrificed his own life for his followers.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:27 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

Seventh: If God exists, has he been a good custodian of the world? Well, God never said he'd keep the world clean. Therefore, he doesn't keep the world clean. It's not his job. He gave the world to us, and it's in our responsibility. Not God's.

Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:28 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go:
First is the "No proof for" argument, which you've heard before
Second is the "if God is so great, why is there death, war, famine, pestilence, etc.", which is usually countered by the "God gave us free will" counter. That's not actually a response, so please don't try it.
Third is the "Why would God create humanity, and then, metaphorically speaking, go to the pub and never come back?" argument (no counter for this so far)
Fourth is the "If God exists, why doesn't he ever show himself?" argument (No good counter for that one either)
Fifth: "If all that the bible details is true, why is there so little evidence?" (Please note I said little evidence, not no evidence)
Sixth: "How do we know that Jesus wasn't just after some yobbo/bogan/redneck/person (delete whichever is inappropriate) fame?"
Seventh: "If god exists, has he been a good custodian of the world?"
Eighth: "Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to?"

Eighth: Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to? It is better to do the right thing because you choose to. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make through this question, but it's obvious that it's better to do the right thing not because of peer pressure or something like that. We all have the choice. It's better to do the right things.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:29 pm
I hope my past 8 comments help, and explain a bit. I hope through them God will be praised.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:30 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Sixth: How do we know Jesus wasn't just after fame? Easy answer. Jesus took special interest in the poor. Now, someone wanting to become famous wouldn't do that, right? They'd dwell with the rich and do things that would make people like them. Jesus didn't do that. On one occasion, Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling. People wouldn't appreciate that, would they? The pharisees and religious officials even dislike Jesus, because Jesus rightfully forgave sins. Wait, only God has the power to forgive sins! I see a connection!He did become famous, but if his only goal was to become famous, He wouldn't have sacrificed his own life for his followers.

Actually, you look at most famous people, and they make a big point of giving to the poor. I don't really understand why, but then, left to be, we'd have a global population of only 3.5 billion. Look, we cannot prove either way that Jesus was the son of God. Maybe he was, maybe he believed that he was, who knows. The Bible is like a Wikipedia article. Minimal reliability and a lot of questionable (but possibly true) information.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:37 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Eighth: Is it not better to do the right thing because you choose to, not because you are made to? It is better to do the right thing because you choose to. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make through this question, but it's obvious that it's better to do the right thing not because of peer pressure or something like that. We all have the choice. It's better to do the right things.

Exactly my point. Religion forces you to act a certain way, in the same manner that peer pressure does. And if you act a certain way becasue someone or something tells you you should, that calls into question your moral character.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:38 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Actually, you look at most famous people, and they make a big point of giving to the poor. I don't really understand why, but then, left to be, we'd have a global population of only 3.5 billion. Look, we cannot prove either way that Jesus was the son of God. Maybe he was, maybe he believed that he was, who knows. The Bible is like a Wikipedia article. Minimal reliability and a lot of questionable (but possibly true) information.

Well, if you believe that firmly, I guess we'll all find out on the day when He comes back.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:39 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Exactly my point. Religion forces you to act a certain way, in the same manner that peer pressure does. And if you act a certain way becasue someone or something tells you you should, that calls into question your moral character.

Religion doesn't force me to act a certain way. "Christianity." A religion based on Christ himself. Jesus is not peer pressure. I understand that he is wiser than I can imagine, and decide it would be smart to follow His instructions.

Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:40 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Well, if you believe that firmly, I guess we'll all find out on the day when He comes back.

I don't believe anything very firmly. I am almost entirely non-committal. My real purpose here was not to convert anyone from Christianity (though I would have been thrilled if I had done so), I'm really just here to make the staunch believes see the other side. If the bulk of the people here had been atheists, I would have provided arguments for god's existence. I prefer to think that there isn't a god, but if there is, well, okay.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:42 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I don't believe anything very firmly. I am almost entirely non-committal. My real purpose here was not to convert anyone from Christianity (though I would have been thrilled if I had done so), I'm really just here to make the staunch believes see the other side. If the bulk of the people here had been atheists, I would have provided arguments for god's existence. I prefer to think that there isn't a god, but if there is, well, okay.


Ah, that explains a lot. Thank you for that. So you are pretty much neutral in belief. You prefer to think that a god does not exist, but if there is one, then that is okay with you. So that's kind of atheism, kind of not. I wonder if one day that'll become a religion . . . okay, rabbit trail there. Sorry. It is our choice to believe what we want, but I sincerely hope and pray that someday you will find God.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:45 pm
Quoting Alex Rode

Ah, that explains a lot. Thank you for that. So you are pretty much neutral in belief. You prefer to think that a god does not exist, but if there is one, then that is okay with you. So that's kind of atheism, kind of not. I wonder if one day that'll become a religion . . . okay, rabbit trail there. Sorry. It is our choice to believe what we want, but I sincerely hope and pray that someday you will find God.

Thank you. I hope I haven't come across as a fanatic atheist. I don't like fanatics. I don't like a lot of things.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 3:50 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Actually, you look at most famous people, and they make a big point of giving to the poor. I don't really understand why, but then, left to be, we'd have a global population of only 3.5 billion. Look, we cannot prove either way that Jesus was the son of God. Maybe he was, maybe he believed that he was, who knows. The Bible is like a Wikipedia article. Minimal reliability and a lot of questionable (but possibly true) information.

Throughout the gospels, Jesus makes it a point to keep his work low-key. He often tells those he heals to not tell anyone who healed him, or not to even tell anyone they were healed. When large crows came to see Jesus, he went away, like on the ocean. If he wanted fame, then he would have stood in the town centers and announced, "I'm Jesus and I want to heal you." Instead, he did his miracles often quietly and anonymously. Yes, I know there are exceptions.
Permalink
| September 17, 2013, 5:26 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I just spent about an hour replying to everything you said, then MOCpages logged me out and Chrome decided not to save my cookies. So now everything got deleted. I had everything written so perfectly. I am SO INCREDIBLY FRE@KING MAD!!!!!
Oof. I hate it when that happens.
Quoting Caleb R
Sorry. I am done complaining. I am also not going to rewrite this. Sorry Bob, I am glad we got to have this debate. I think we both realize we would never relent. This argument would never end, in fact, it has only gotten bigger since it began.
Sure, that's fine. I wasn't really trying to win the argument, only to show that my beliefs really are consistent and logical.
Quoting Caleb R
I had some really good points, and I SO wish there was a way to get them back, but I have school and I am not taking another hour.
I understand.
Quoting Caleb R
I call stalemate, good debate, sorry it had to end like this =(


Permalink
| September 18, 2013, 9:10 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Also, a question for everyone, will you guys actually be willing to admit that the other person is probably right? Because I feel that if not, this whole debate group is just practicing debating and not actually useful for anything else.

Actually, I've found that by participating is these debates, I formulate my beliefs more carefully, and strengthen my faith in God.
Permalink
| September 18, 2013, 9:15 pm
Quoting Caleb R
Quoting Jack K
The first is that there are two creation accounts, if it were a history, why would there be two totally different accounts?

I am only aware of one...
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Quoting Caleb R
Quoting Jack K
Next, parts of the story are just weird, talking snakes, trees of knowledge and eternal life, and things like that.

Have you READ the Bible?? The Bible is FULL of stuff like this. It is in no way unique to Genesis. And just because it is weird doesn't mean it is not true. Hitler killed millions of people, that's not only weird, but brutal, yet it remains true. God used a donkey to talk to people in the Bible, that is REALLY weird but still true. Unless that was a metaphor ;)
I agree, that stuff doesn't necessitate that the creation account is metaphor.
Permalink
| September 18, 2013, 9:17 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Caleb R
Quoting Jack K
The first is that there are two creation accounts, if it were a history, why would there be two totally different accounts?

I am only aware of one...
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Quoting Caleb R
Quoting Jack K
Next, parts of the story are just weird, talking snakes, trees of knowledge and eternal life, and things like that.

Have you READ the Bible?? The Bible is FULL of stuff like this. It is in no way unique to Genesis. And just because it is weird doesn't mean it is not true. Hitler killed millions of people, that's not only weird, but brutal, yet it remains true. God used a donkey to talk to people in the Bible, that is REALLY weird but still true. Unless that was a metaphor ;)
I agree, that stuff doesn't necessitate that the creation account is metaphor.

I'm currently skimming through the official catholic catechism for the ruling. I'll have what it says some time this week. So far all I've got is that the church accepts science and evolution.

I'm aware that the Bible is full of strange stories and events, in my original post I said this is what my teacher said, I never said I agreed with him, I was just telling the story of how I had the same debate with other people (who were substantially less mature, civilized, and informed.)
Permalink
| September 18, 2013, 9:25 pm
Quoting Jack K
(who were substantially less mature, civilized, and informed.)

Is that a complement to us or an insult to them?
Permalink
| September 18, 2013, 9:43 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Is that a complement to us or an insult to them?

Both, considering they are 16 and 17 years old.
Permalink
| September 18, 2013, 9:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
I'm currently skimming through the official catholic catechism for the ruling. I'll have what it says some time this week. So far all I've got is that the church accepts science and evolution.

What do you mean?
Permalink
| September 18, 2013, 10:19 pm
Quoting Michael K.
What do you mean?

Okay, the catechism is the book of every single roman catholic teaching and doctrine. It doesn't prove that creation or evolution happened, but it may say whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphors, and what the teaching on evolution is. It written very formally and somewhat convolutedly, so getting to the point takes some time.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 7:04 am
It also only applies to the Catholics.

Much the same as rooting through the Koran or Book of Mormon; finding something that supports your theories in a heretic's filing cabinet doesn't mean you suddenly have a discussion ending superweapon.

Unless you're dealing with the heretic himself, of course.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 8:40 am
Quoting Areetsa C
It also only applies to the Catholics.

Much the same as rooting through the Koran or Book of Mormon; finding something that supports your theories in a heretic's filing cabinet doesn't mean you suddenly have a discussion ending superweapon.

Unless you're dealing with the heretic himself, of course.

Well put.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 8:55 am
Instead of looking at Evolution and creation from the "Christian point of view," let's look at it from the "evolution point of view."

So, it all started with the "Big Bang." The universe was a bare, empty, space. Nothing existed. Then, the universe heated up and cooled down very quickly, causing neutrons, protons, and electrons to form. Over eons and eons of time, these three "substances," so to speak, started combining and making the different elements....

Okay, with this first part of evolution, there are three MAJOR problems.

1. The universe existed. Who created the universe?

2. What caused the universe to heat up? If there is absolutely nothing, how can something heat up and cool down.

3. The theory makes something out of nothing. This is exactly what we mean with creation. God made something out of nothing. How can you make something out of nothing if there is no God?

Anyone willing to take me up?
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:04 am
Quoting Mark McPeek
Instead of looking at Evolution and creation from the "Christian point of view," let's look at it from the "evolution point of view."

So, it all started with the "Big Bang." The universe was a bare, empty, space. Nothing existed. Then, the universe heated up and cooled down very quickly, causing neutrons, protons, and electrons to form. Over eons and eons of time, these three "substances," so to speak, started combining and making the different elements....

Okay, with this first part of evolution, there are three MAJOR problems.

1. The universe existed. Who created the universe?

2. What caused the universe to heat up? If there is absolutely nothing, how can something heat up and cool down.

3. The theory makes something out of nothing. This is exactly what we mean with creation. God made something out of nothing. How can you make something out of nothing if there is no God?

Anyone willing to take me up?

You are so right. Even if, sure, it all expanded and formed the universe, then . . . The earth is the perfect environment for humans to prosper the perfect amount of gasses for us to breath, there is water, there is food, a totally intricate living system.

Okay, okay, that just formed itself with no forethought. Right.

Even if it did, look at the animals on this planet. Take bacteria, which is as simple as life forms get, and still is so complex and confusing. And that's as simple as it gets? It just got made with no forethought?

The evidence points directly to a creator, a thoughtful, loving creator.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:32 am
Quoting Alex Rode
You are so right. Even if, sure, it all expanded and formed the universe, then . . . The earth is the perfect environment for humans to prosper the perfect amount of gasses for us to breath, there is water, there is food, a totally intricate living system.

Okay, okay, that just formed itself with no forethought. Right.

Even if it did, look at the animals on this planet. Take bacteria, which is as simple as life forms get, and still is so complex and confusing. And that's as simple as it gets? It just got made with no forethought?

The evidence points directly to a creator, a thoughtful, loving creator.

You, in turn, are so right.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 11:29 am
Quoting Alex Rode
You are so right. Even if, sure, it all expanded and formed the universe, then . . . The earth is the perfect environment for humans to prosper the perfect amount of gasses for us to breath, there is water, there is food, a totally intricate living system.

Okay, okay, that just formed itself with no forethought. Right.

Even if it did, look at the animals on this planet. Take bacteria, which is as simple as life forms get, and still is so complex and confusing. And that's as simple as it gets? It just got made with no forethought?

The evidence points directly to a creator, a thoughtful, loving creator.

Agreed! Another point is this. Evolution thrives on mutation, where the DNA in an animal is changed through a genetic error thus making a better animal. The only problem is this. Mutations destroy DNA, and always either kill or destroy a creature, it has never been shown to be good for an animal. And please do not confuse this with adaptation. Adaptation is an animal changing to fit its surroundings, and this ability was entered into the genetic code by GOD. How is this different from Evolution? You might ask. It is different because in adaptation animals stay the same, while only there appearence changes. Adaption does not enable a dog to turn into a cat. Evolution says that mutations change an animal into another animal and says that a dog CAN turn into a cat over a million years. This has never been proven true. Look at this example. Most animals that live in northern Canada and Alaska will grow white hair during the winter. When summer comes around there hair will grow in a different color, thus ADAPTING to the summer suroundings. If this was Evolution then they would eventually turn into penguins or something like that. They however stay as the same animal, but only ADAPT to fit there suroundingd. This shows more evidince for a Creator than random consequence.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 2:27 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Instead of looking at Evolution and creation from the "Christian point of view," let's look at it from the "evolution point of view."

So, it all started with the "Big Bang." The universe was a bare, empty, space. Nothing existed. Then, the universe heated up and cooled down very quickly, causing neutrons, protons, and electrons to form. Over eons and eons of time, these three "substances," so to speak, started combining and making the different elements....

Okay, with this first part of evolution, there are three MAJOR problems.

1. The universe existed. Who created the universe?

2. What caused the universe to heat up? If there is absolutely nothing, how can something heat up and cool down.

3. The theory makes something out of nothing. This is exactly what we mean with creation. God made something out of nothing. How can you make something out of nothing if there is no God?

Anyone willing to take me up?

Okay, here we go. I don't know why I keep doing this:

It doesn't start with nothing. It starts where everything is the smallest it could possibly be. Under "normal" circumstances, nothing would have happened. We wouldn't be here. However, there was a slight imbalance in the amount of matter and antimatter, which caused everything to expand very quickly, and since when antimatter and matter come into contact with one another they destroy each other, massive amounts of energy and heat were produced. As i said, there was an imbalance, more matter than antimatter, so the matter "won", and what was left formed the universe. Since the was nothing to offer any resistance, the universe continued to expand, and objects formed as particles were drawn together, or accidentally collided. Billions of years later, here we are, a freak accident.

I know this still leaves the question "Where did the tiny universe come from?" and the simple answer is "No clue". There are a number of theories, but none of them conclusively answer the question. So humans invented gods to provide a quick answer, becasue people don't like not knowing.

Anyway, this doesn't actually relate to the Evolution debate, this is more of an "Origin of the Universe" debate, which would be about as pointless as this one.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 4:52 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Agreed! Another point is this. Evolution thrives on mutation, where the DNA in an animal is changed through a genetic error thus making a better animal. The only problem is this. Mutations destroy DNA, and always either kill or destroy a creature, it has never been shown to be good for an animal. And please do not confuse this with adaptation. Adaptation is an animal changing to fit its surroundings, and this ability was entered into the genetic code by GOD. How is this different from Evolution? You might ask. It is different because in adaptation animals stay the same, while only there appearence changes. Adaption does not enable a dog to turn into a cat. Evolution says that mutations change an animal into another animal and says that a dog CAN turn into a cat over a million years. This has never been proven true. Look at this example. Most animals that live in northern Canada and Alaska will grow white hair during the winter. When summer comes around there hair will grow in a different color, thus ADAPTING to the summer suroundings. If this was Evolution then they would eventually turn into penguins or something like that. They however stay as the same animal, but only ADAPT to fit there suroundingd. This shows more evidince for a Creator than random consequence.

Okay:
Evolution is not the DNA of an animal mutating. That's cancer.
Evolution is, at a basic level, adaption unrolled and expanded over thousands of years. An animal might, over time, decide that it's in sufficiently warm surroundings not to warrant fur, so it naturally sheds it unconsciously. It passes this lack of fur on to its' children. They, in turn, decide they can walk on only two legs. They pass this on to their children. Those children start developing larger brains, better motor skills, etc. These traits are passed on. (You can see where I'm going here, can't you?) After many generation, we begin to see something of a human, an intelligent, hairless, bipedal animal.

There.
Have fun
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 4:58 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay:
Evolution is not the DNA of an animal mutating. That's cancer.
Evolution is, at a basic level, adaption unrolled and expanded over thousands of years. An animal might, over time, decide that it's in sufficiently warm surroundings not to warrant fur, so it naturally sheds it unconsciously. It passes this lack of fur on to its' children. They, in turn, decide they can walk on only two legs. They pass this on to their children. Those children start developing larger brains, better motor skills, etc. These traits are passed on. (You can see where I'm going here, can't you?) After many generation, we begin to see something of a human, an intelligent, hairless, bipedal animal.

There.
Have fun

That is true, sort. Animals will shed fur to change to there suroundings. But what you are saying is that animals can make basic desisions using human logic. Allow me to explain. Animals have not been shown to change walking, eating, or thinking habits. They have always been shown to live out there natural lives without changing at all. The only time this is not true is when they move from one element to another and adapt to there new suroundings. This is not evolution because there genes kick in and make them change. They are not reasoning.

I have been enjoying this conversation very much. It helps me to hone my skills and defend my faith. Thanks.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:16 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
That is true, sort. Animals will shed fur to change to there suroundings. But what you are saying is that animals can make basic desisions using human logic. Allow me to explain. Animals have not been shown to change walking, eating, or thinking habits. They have always been shown to live out there natural lives without changing at all. The only time this is not true is when they move from one element to another and adapt to there new suroundings. This is not evolution because there genes kick in and make them change. They are not reasoning.

I have been enjoying this conversation very much. It helps me to hone my skills and defend my faith. Thanks.

Sorry, I shouldn't have implied the reasoning:
Over time, as the environment changes, the animal's body naturally performs these changes.
It's still evolution, it works, I can't really see how you can argue with it without simply saying "God made it happen"
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
Okay, the catechism is the book of every single roman catholic teaching and doctrine.

I am Catholic, I know that.
Quoting Jack K
It doesn't prove that creation or evolution happened, but it may say whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphors, and what the teaching on evolution is. It written very formally and somewhat convolutedly, so getting to the point takes some time.

Our belief is what Genesis says. Catholics have not ruled out, however, that God used "evolution" of some sort or a "big bang". "And God said "Let there be light"" is kind of a vague description of creating a universe, for all we know, He could have used some sort of "big bang". Catholic teaching doesn't say that's definitely what happened, only that it isn't ruled out. Like I said, we weren't there.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:43 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Sorry, I shouldn't have implied the reasoning:
Over time, as the environment changes, the animal's body naturally performs these changes.
It's still evolution, it works, I can't really see how you can argue with it without simply saying "God made it happen"

I hate to be harsh with you, but this needs to be said. Evolution says that life came out of non-life, a CLEAR breaking to the scientific law that says "LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE" so were did life come from? Aliens? Then were did they come from? Natural elements forming together to form life giving molecules? This sounds good and all, but allow me to explain something. The elements that make up life giving molecules will actually destroy each other. This means that life giving molecules would not be able to form, even if the conditions were exactly right. Then the world would have to have an EXTREME climate change, so that all the water went into the sky, forcing animals out of the sea, but the problem with that is that there would be little water in the world and animals would die like crazy. By the time that was all over a HUGE meteor would crash into the Earth and kill all the dinosaurs and yet plenty of other animals would survive. A phenonomon that killed the kings of the Earth and yet didn't harm any of th other species? Sorry about this but give me a break. And then there was the ice age which made the apes brains grow and get this! There hair receded! In the age of ice? As you can see there an INCREDIBLE amount of holes in the Evolutionary theory. Agreed?
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:55 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Our belief is what Genesis says. Catholics have not ruled out, however, that God used "evolution" of some sort or a "big bang". "And God said "Let there be light"" is kind of a vague description of creating a universe, for all we know, He could have used some sort of "big bang". Catholic teaching doesn't say that's definitely what happened, only that it isn't ruled out. Like I said, we weren't there.

If you read what I've said earlier, that's what I believe too. That's what I got out of the catechism after reading the creation part. I'm also catholic, but I didn't know if you were so I explained what the catechism was just to be sure.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 6:08 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
I hate to be harsh with you, but this needs to be said. Evolution says that life came out of non-life, a CLEAR breaking to the scientific law that says "LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE" so were did life come from?
It's actually not, because there's no clear dividing line between life and proto-life. Also, scientific laws are not 100% of the time, absolute rules, but describe trends.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. This sounds good and all, but allow me to explain something. The elements that make up life giving molecules will actually destroy each other.
They will? Where did you here that?
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. This means that life giving molecules would not be able to form, even if the conditions were exactly right. Then the world would have to have an EXTREME climate change, so that all the water went into the sky,...
I guess that might be a logical conclusion of your assumption, but you have no sources and what you're saying is rather vague.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. forcing animals out of the sea, but the problem with that is that there would be little water in the world and animals would die like crazy.
The first life was certainly not animals.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. By the time that was all over a HUGE meteor would crash into the Earth and kill all the dinosaurs and yet plenty of other animals would survive.
We have a crater, so there certainly was a meteor.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. A phenonomon that killed the kings of the Earth and yet didn't harm any of th other species?
Didn't harm any other species? That's crazy. Just ask an ammonite or North American marsupials. Or even a plankton.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. Sorry about this but give me a break.
Actually, it makes sense if you think about it: It a mass-extinction time, food is more scarce, so larger animals don't survive. Thus, we get the extinction of non-Avian Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, Mosasaurs, Plesiosaurs, etc., but not of mammals or amphibians or birds.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. And then there was the ice age which made the apes brains grow and get this!
Actually, apes started getting bigger brains long before the ice age.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. There hair receded! In the age of ice?
In the tropics of an ice age, it's still pretty hot and sunny. Technically, we're in a glacial age right now.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. As you can see there an INCREDIBLE amount of holes in the Evolutionary theory. Agreed?

In your understanding of the Evolutionary theory. However, I can see that you really don't know much about it.
It's only natural for you not to believe something you don't understand.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 6:50 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
In your understanding of the Evolutionary theory. However, I can see that you really don't know much about it.
It's only natural for you not to believe something you don't understand.

That is fairly true. I am basing most of my facts off of older data. However the fact still stands, God exists and getting away from that is impossible.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 6:57 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
That is true, sort. Animals will shed fur to change to there suroundings. But what you are saying is that animals can make basic desisions using human logic. Allow me to explain.
LaMarckian evolution has been refuted.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. Animals have not been shown to change walking, eating, or thinking habits. They have always been shown to live out there natural lives without changing at all.
Actually adaption does occur if the environment a species lives in changes.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. The only time this is not true is when they move from one element to another and adapt to there new suroundings. This is not evolution because there genes kick in and make them change. They are not reasoning.
This is certainly evolution. Adaption to a new environment is the most prominant form of evolution. It's completely correct that a species cannot will itself to evolve and does not evolve (or at least, evolves minimally) in an unchanging environment. Biologically, evolution is defined to be a change in the gene pool of a population. I know, kind of boring, and definitely something that happens.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
I have been enjoying this conversation very much. It helps me to hone my skills and defend my faith. Thanks.
I glad you enjoy it.

Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 7:01 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
That is fairly true. I am basing most of my facts off of older data. However the fact still stands, God exists and getting away from that is impossible.

I believe in God and I am a Christian.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 7:01 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay:
Evolution is not the DNA of an animal mutating. That's cancer.
Evolution is, at a basic level, adaption unrolled and expanded over thousands of years. An animal might, over time, decide that it's in sufficiently warm surroundings not to warrant fur, so it naturally sheds it unconsciously. It passes this lack of fur on to its' children. They, in turn, decide they can walk on only two legs. They pass this on to their children. Those children start developing larger brains, better motor skills, etc. These traits are passed on. (You can see where I'm going here, can't you?) After many generation, we begin to see something of a human, an intelligent, hairless, bipedal animal.

There.
Have fun
Lamarckian evolution, eh?
That's been refuted for a long time.
Actually, mutation in an animal's DNA is the driving force behind macroevolution.

Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 7:04 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I believe in God and I am a Christian.

Glad to know that. Your answers made me think and of which I am glad. I uderstand theology much better than Evolution though.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 7:09 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay, here we go. I don't know why I keep doing this:

It doesn't start with nothing. It starts where everything is the smallest it could possibly be. Under "normal" circumstances, nothing would have happened. We wouldn't be here. However, there was a slight imbalance in the amount of matter and antimatter, which caused everything to expand very quickly, and since when antimatter and matter come into contact with one another they destroy each other, massive amounts of energy and heat were produced. As i said, there was an imbalance, more matter than antimatter, so the matter "won", and what was left formed the universe. Since the was nothing to offer any resistance, the universe continued to expand, and objects formed as particles were drawn together, or accidentally collided. Billions of years later, here we are, a freak accident.

I know this still leaves the question "Where did the tiny universe come from?" and the simple answer is "No clue". There are a number of theories, but none of them conclusively answer the question. So humans invented gods to provide a quick answer, becasue people don't like not knowing.

Anyway, this doesn't actually relate to the Evolution debate, this is more of an "Origin of the Universe" debate, which would be about as pointless as this one.

I just love these type of answers.

The fact of the matter is that there was "matter" and it was created by someone.
Since evolutionists can't explain this, they say, like you, "Anyway, this doesn't actually relate to the Evolution debate, this is more of an "Origin of the Universe" debate, which would be about as pointless as this one."
I just have to laugh...

Ok, if you don't consider this "evolution," I will take you up on a topic of your evolution. Name it, and I'll debate it with you.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 8:24 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Okay:
Evolution is not the DNA of an animal mutating. That's cancer.
Evolution is, at a basic level, adaption unrolled and expanded over thousands of years. An animal might, over time, decide that it's in sufficiently warm surroundings not to warrant fur, so it naturally sheds it unconsciously. It passes this lack of fur on to its' children. They, in turn, decide they can walk on only two legs. They pass this on to their children. Those children start developing larger brains, better motor skills, etc. These traits are passed on. (You can see where I'm going here, can't you?) After many generation, we begin to see something of a human, an intelligent, hairless, bipedal animal.

There.
Have fun


Err...Humans have hair... ;) The first of you mistakes.

Now, if what you said above did happen, why don't we have any geological evidence of it?

Scientist have spent many, many years looking at fossils, yet they cannot find a single transitional specimen between an ape and a human. True, they did find "Lucy," but I have enough evidence to dismiss her forever after. Want to hear it?
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 8:33 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Sorry, I shouldn't have implied the reasoning:
Over time, as the environment changes, the animal's body naturally performs these changes.
It's still evolution, it works, I can't really see how you can argue with it without simply saying "God made it happen"


Again, why don't we have any transitional fossils?

Also, can everyone please remember that Macroevolution is an "UNCONFIRMED HYPOTHISIS." We does everyone act as if it's a Scientific law? The evidence for it is nil.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 8:37 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
I just love these type of answers.

The fact of the matter is that there was "matter" and it was created by someone.
Since evolutionists can't explain this, they say, like you, "Anyway, this doesn't actually relate to the Evolution debate, this is more of an "Origin of the Universe" debate, which would be about as pointless as this one."
I just have to laugh...

Ok, if you don't consider this "evolution," I will take you up on a topic of your evolution. Name it, and I'll debate it with you.

Hmmm. If I was 5 years old, I might fall for that.

The origin of the universe is not evolution

I admitted I don't know how the universe came to be

I don't like the idea of a god, I choose not to believe

I can't win a debate against you becasue you refuse to accept even the possibility of there not being a god
That's why I say this and an "Origin of the Universe" debate would be pointless


Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 8:51 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Hmmm. If I was 5 years old, I might fall for that.

The origin of the universe is not evolution

I admitted I don't know how the universe came to be

I don't like the idea of a god, I choose not to believe

I can't win a debate against you becasue you refuse to accept even the possibility of there not being a god
That's why I say this and an "Origin of the Universe" debate would be pointless


Yes, this debate is pointless. The answer is so obvious, that to debate it is really silly. I know that God exists, and I'm truly sorry that you don't believe in Him. I pray that you may one day have a change of heart.

If you would like to take me up on the Macroevolution debate, I would be more than happy to accept.


Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 9:05 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Hmmm. If I was 5 years old, I might fall for that.

The origin of the universe is not evolution

I admitted I don't know how the universe came to be

I don't like the idea of a god, I choose not to believe

I can't win a debate against you becasue you refuse to accept even the possibility of there not being a god
That's why I say this and an "Origin of the Universe" debate would be pointless


Okay, let's say I vehemently and strongly believe that there is no god. Never. No god has ever, or will ever exist.

I'd be ashamed to say that. Ashamed because, looking around me, I would easily draw a conclusion that there must have been some sort of forethought that went into this environment.

Then, looking at earth's animals, I'd really wonder is there is a master creator.

Then, looking at the stars, and what little men know about our universe, I'd be perplexed and ask myself "What have I been believing all this time?"

But that, of course, is providing I am not stubborn and obstinate. Providing I am open-minded.

Give it a chance. Is there a Bible anywhere around you? If there is, just give it a chance, man. Read it! Have patience!

If you don't, then try talking to God, even if you believe that He simply doesn't exist. Look around you. Learn about the animals on our planet. Learn about the complex functions that occur in them.

Try church once, if there is a church near you. Give it a chance. If you have any Christian friends nearby, start a conversation with them about God.

If that doesn't work, then a divine intervention will be needed. But I believe that if you do all of those things, then you'll come to a very different conclusion compared to your current mind set.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 9:05 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Okay, let's say I vehemently and strongly believe that there is no god. Never. No god has ever, or will ever exist.

I'd be ashamed to say that. Ashamed because, looking around me, I would easily draw a conclusion that there must have been some sort of forethought that went into this environment.

Then, looking at earth's animals, I'd really wonder is there is a master creator.

Then, looking at the stars, and what little men know about our universe, I'd be perplexed and ask myself "What have I been believing all this time?"

But that, of course, is providing I am not stubborn and obstinate. Providing I am open-minded.

Give it a chance. Is there a Bible anywhere around you? If there is, just give it a chance, man. Read it! Have patience!

If you don't, then try talking to God, even if you believe that He simply doesn't exist. Look around you. Learn about the animals on our planet. Learn about the complex functions that occur in them.

Try church once, if there is a church near you. Give it a chance. If you have any Christian friends nearby, start a conversation with them about God.

If that doesn't work, then a divine intervention will be needed. But I believe that if you do all of those things, then you'll come to a very different conclusion compared to your current mind set.

Of course, providing you do those things with an open mind.

By the way, check out Lee Strobel's story. He went from atheist to strong Christian simply by checking out the facts.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 9:09 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Of course, providing you do those things with an open mind.

By the way, check out Lee Strobel's story. He went from atheist to strong Christian simply by checking out the facts.

I'm very open minded. Give me some of these facts.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 9:34 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I'm very open minded. Give me some of these facts.

Bacteria example. It's as simple as life gets, yet it's still very complex and hard to understand. Our earth. This planet has the perfect amount of gasses for us to breath and prosper, and we haven't found another one like this in space. Simply the wonder in our home planet, the beasts, the producers, everything is so intricately designed. This environment just made itself with no forethought. Then humans. They are fearfully and wonderfully made. Our brain is astounding, the processes that occur. By chance, mind you.

No god was part of this, just chemical reactions and lots of time.

Let's look at Lee Strobel's story.

He was an atheist because he saw the some experiments, and asked Christians things like "why is there so much suffering in the world?" So, he was living an immoral lifestyle, and didn't want to be held accountable. If there is no god, he decided he wouldn't be held accountable for his actions.

Shortly after he got married, his wife became a Christian, which troubled him. But when he saw positive changes in her attitude, he was intrigued.

For the next 2 years he went in-depth to science, philosophy, and history. All the evidence he collected pointed to a divine creator. He realized that if he was to stay an atheist, he'd have to believe that nothing created everything.


Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:13 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I'm very open minded. Give me some of these facts.

I'm glad you are! Most people aren't...
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:19 pm
Let's say I'm an atheist. No god has ever or will ever exist. Ever.

My mindset would be something like this: "There is no god. I can do what I want because there is no greater power (besides the law) to punish me for my actions after death."

I guess that would be that, and I'd go through life, successful or not, believing that there is no god.

Wouldn't life be kind of empty? I mean, being alone? Sure, there are humans to talk to, but I think it's more reassuring if you look at it like this:

There is a loving creator. He exists and he wants you, so you can love him. He died for you, and wants a closer relationship with you. You can go to Him and feel peace and hope, and He's always with you.

I don't know. . . my opinion as a 14 year old is not so large . . . I've grown up Christian, so I know directly what it's like, not what it's like being an atheist. I guess I just do my best to love God.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:20 pm
Sorry, Luke, but it's my bed time, so I won't be able to carry on this conversation right now. I'll be back later, though. Thanks for the debate; it'll grow me in my faith.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:22 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Yes, this debate is pointless. The answer is so obvious, that to debate it is really silly. I know that God exists, and I'm truly sorry that you don't believe in Him. I pray that you may one day have a change of heart.

If you would like to take me up on the Macroevolution debate, I would be more than happy to accept.


Wow. Just wow. This is a debate. You're meant to actually acknowledge the other side as being plausible, as I have done.

I would take you up on your debate, but I have a life to get on with. One that is not ruled by a being whose existence cannot even be conclusively proven by rational debate

Goodbye
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 11:54 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek

Again, why don't we have any transitional fossils?
Actually, we do. Yes, they are rare and there are only a handful of truly good examples, but this is expected. The probability that a given species will fossilize is minute (like, way less than 1 percent), so the fossil record is patchy at best. Also, most fossils are highly fragmentary and that makes them difficult to interpret. Even so, there are several known transitional fossils. Like Ambulocetus, Aardonyx, Archaeopteryx, Amphistium, Australopithecus, Hyracotherium and the horse series, Aetiocetus, Gerobatrachus, Eupodophis, Ichthyostega and the other primitive tetrapods, and Eomola.
Quoting Mark McPeek
Also, can everyone please remember that Macroevolution is an "UNCONFIRMED HYPOTHISIS." We does everyone act as if it's a Scientific law? The evidence for it is nil.
You make a bold statement like that, when in fact, I think paleontology would make only minimal sense if you took away macroevolution.

Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 12:04 am
Quoting Mark McPeek
Yes, this debate is pointless. The answer is so obvious, that to debate it is really silly. I know that God exists, and I'm truly sorry that you don't believe in Him. I pray that you may one day have a change of heart.
You know, if the answer was so obvious, there wouldn't be people on the other side.
I believe that unless you see with the Holy Spirit, it is not obvious that God exists.

Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 12:11 am
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Wow. Just wow. This is a debate. You're meant to actually acknowledge the other side as being plausible, as I have done.
That's probably right.
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
One that is not ruled by a being whose existence cannot even be conclusively proven by rational debate
Actually, it is. After all, I could not even conclusively prove that you exist by rational debate, so how much harder would it be to prove that God exists?
Well, I'm going to bed now. Perhaps I'll take a crack at it tomorrow.


Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 12:15 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Mark McPeek

Again, why don't we have any transitional fossils?
Actually, we do. Yes, they are rare and there are only a handful of truly good examples, but this is expected. The probability that a given species will fossilize is minute (like, way less than 1 percent), so the fossil record is patchy at best. Also, most fossils are highly fragmentary and that makes them difficult to interpret. Even so, there are several known transitional fossils. Like Ambulocetus, Aardonyx, Archaeopteryx, Amphistium, Australopithecus, Hyracotherium and the horse series, Aetiocetus, Gerobatrachus, Eupodophis, Ichthyostega and the other primitive tetrapods, and Eomola.
<<<<
Like I mentioned above, though it fossilization usually takes ages, it can also happen overnight in a natural disaster. The Best example is Mount St. Helen's, but there are more. Also, my apologies for saying that there were no transitional fossils. I meant not many. Even evolutionists are shocked at the lack of transitional fossils.
Quoting Mark McPeek
Also, can everyone please remember that Macroevolution is an "UNCONFIRMED HYPOTHISIS." We does everyone act as if it's a Scientific law? The evidence for it is nil.
You make a bold statement like that, when in fact, I think paleontology would make only minimal sense if you took away macroevolution.

Actually, it's not my statement. It is a generally not know fact about Evolution. It is only PART theory, the Macroevolution part it considered an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Paleontology makes more sense, in my opinion, when you remove Macroevolution. There explanations sometimes make me feel sick. Don' you agree?
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 8:44 am
Quoting Mark McPeek
Actually, it's not my statement. It is a generally not know fact about Evolution. It is only PART theory, the Macroevolution part it considered an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Really? I'd like to read more, do you have a source?
Quoting Mark McPeek
Paleontology makes more sense, in my opinion, when you remove Macroevolution. There explanations sometimes make me feel sick. Don' you agree?
I've studied paleontology and I can't see where your coming from with that. First of all, if you line up the fossils in chronological order, you often get nice transitions from one group of animals to another. Second of all, you get a different mix of organisms during different eras. But the biggest issue with the creationist model is the timescale: Firstly, 10000 years really isn't long enough for so many fossils to form. Fossil formation takes a super long time is conditions are exactly perfect (which is exceedingly rare in nature). 10000 year timeline also requires all the fossil organisms and modern organisms to coexist. This just doesn't work, because many extinct species (yes, I'm thinking of dinosaurs) are far larger and stronger than our modern species; modern mammals would be completely out-competed.
There are other problems, but I've got to eat breakfast now.

Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 9:57 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
<<<<
Yep, one of my Biology textbooks. Unfortunately, it's not on the internet. Want more details?

I'd really like to keep debating with you, but I'm out of time. How about tomorrow?
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 11:08 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Yep, one of my Biology textbooks. Unfortunately, it's not on the internet. Want more details?
Yes, I would.
Quoting Mark McPeek
I'd really like to keep debating with you, but I'm out of time. How about tomorrow?

Sounds good.
Permalink
| September 21, 2013, 12:26 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Sounds good.

Ok, I will be gone this morning, but it should work this afternoon. See you then!
Permalink
| September 21, 2013, 10:15 am
what about texas wanting to put creation insted of evolution in textbooks?

big fight in austin!

what do you think will happen
Permalink
| September 21, 2013, 10:46 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Sounds good.

Hey man,

Sorry I didn't get back to you.

My day kinda fell apart...

Ok, so...The textbook: Dr. Wile and Dr. Durnell: Exploring Creation with Biology

The debate: First, do you believe in evolution?
Permalink
| September 22, 2013, 7:23 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Hey man,

Sorry I didn't get back to you.

My day kinda fell apart...

Ok, so...The textbook: Dr. Wile and Dr. Durnell: Exploring Creation with Biology

The debate: First, do you believe in evolution?

Oh, cool! I'm doing that textbook too this year!
Permalink
| September 22, 2013, 10:24 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Hey man,

Sorry I didn't get back to you.

My day kinda fell apart...
I know what that's like..
Quoting Mark McPeek
Ok, so...The textbook: Dr. Wile and Dr. Durnell: Exploring Creation with Biology
Thanks. I don't have access to a copy, but based on the title, I'd guess it's a creationist book, right?
Quoting Mark McPeek
The debate: First, do you believe in evolution?

Yes, I do believe in evolution.
Permalink
| September 22, 2013, 11:10 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Oh, cool! I'm doing that textbook too this year!

Nice!! It was part of my Biology and natural science course last year. Good stuff...
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 5:49 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Nice!! It was part of my Biology and natural science course last year. Good stuff...

Weird. I am doing Wiles physical science this year.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 6:01 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Weird. I am doing Wiles physical science this year.

Great! I'm doing Chemistry.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 7:43 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Great! I'm doing Chemistry.

Cool!
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 7:52 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Yes, I do believe in evolution.

Yes, It's a "Creationist" book.

Why do you believe in Evolution?

Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 8:41 pm
Quoting Mark McPeek
Yes, It's a "Creationist" book.
That explains it. Creation scientists tend to be somewhat ignorant about evolutionary theory, I've noticed.
Quoting Mark McPeek
Why do you believe in Evolution?

Because that's where the evidence points. The really convincing stuff, I've found not to be evolution in the strict sense (though there's plenty of that too), but cosmology. Which is a little unfortunate, considering I know more about biological evolution and paleontology.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 12:40 am
Quoting TRON 117
what about texas wanting to put creation insted of evolution in textbooks?

big fight in austin!

what do you think will happen

If they did that, I would actually leave the planet.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 1:47 am
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
If they did that, I would actually leave the planet.

I think that's an overreaction.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 9:06 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I think that's an overreaction.

No, no I don't think it is
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 4:24 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Because that's where the evidence points. The really convincing stuff, I've found not to be evolution in the strict sense (though there's plenty of that too), but cosmology. Which is a little unfortunate, considering I know more about biological evolution and paleontology.

If you honestly believe in evolution, yet call yourself a Christian, you are being terribly inconsistent. Christianity points to a young earth whereas evolution points to an extremely old earth. A Christ-believer should absolutely NOT believe in evolution, man.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 5:58 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
No, no I don't think it is

Maybe not an overreaction, just being foolish.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 5:59 pm
Calvin is a great debater. I will upload Calvin.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 6:03 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
If you honestly believe in evolution, yet call yourself a Christian, you are being terribly inconsistent. Christianity points to a young earth whereas evolution points to an extremely old earth. A Christ-believer should absolutely NOT believe in evolution, man.

Christianity does not point to a young earth any more than evolution points to atheism. Those are just things people read into a belief or idea that aren't there.
Christianity points us to Christ. Other than that, nothing really matters. The point of the Genesis creation account is to point us to God, not to scientific truth. Scientific truth is something for science to determine, not religion.

If anything, Christianity points to an extremely old earth, to match the extremely large universe and to reflect the eternity of God. But, that, just like saying it points to a young earth, is reading to much into it.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 7:06 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Christianity does not point to a young earth any more than evolution points to atheism. Those are just things people read into a belief or idea that aren't there.
Christianity points us to Christ. Other than that, nothing really matters. The point of the Genesis creation account is to point us to God, not to scientific truth. Scientific truth is something for science to determine, not religion.

If anything, Christianity points to an extremely old earth, to match the extremely large universe and to reflect the eternity of God. But, that, just like saying it points to a young earth, is reading to much into it.

Yeah . . . I'd seek God about this; see what he thinks.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 7:23 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Christianity does not point to a young earth any more than evolution points to atheism. Those are just things people read into a belief or idea that aren't there.
Christianity points us to Christ. Other than that, nothing really matters. The point of the Genesis creation account is to point us to God, not to scientific truth. Scientific truth is something for science to determine, not religion.

If anything, Christianity points to an extremely old earth, to match the extremely large universe and to reflect the eternity of God. But, that, just like saying it points to a young earth, is reading to much into it.

Are you saying God does not have the power to create the universe in 6 days? God wrote the Bible for man. Don't you think it would mean 6 days instead of 6,000,000 years? And if it was 6,000,000 years it would mean that animals had been living and dying millions of years before sin entered the earth.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 7:39 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Are you saying God does not have the power to create the universe in 6 days?
No. Are you saying He doesn't have the power to create the universe in 6 seconds?
It takes more power to make it over 13.7 billion years than in 6 days. Just think about it. Not only does God create all of the complex order we have today, but he creates a starting point (which appears relatively simple) which, just by following laws God put in place, would yield the modern universe. God not only has to make everything, but He also has to plan out how it is to be made.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. God wrote the Bible for man. Don't you think it would mean 6 days instead of 6,000,000 years?
God did not write the Bible. Yes, the Bible was written by people filled with the Holy Spirit, and much of it is quoted directly from God. However, because it was written by and for man, so the timescale in the Genesis creation account is a human timescale. This makes it easier for humans to understand.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. And if it was 6,000,000 years it would mean that animals had been living and dying millions of years before sin entered the earth.
Yes, where is the problem with that? Is it sinful to eat meat? No. Then it is not sinful to kill an animal, and there does not have to be sin for an animal to die. Sin is death of the spirit, not of the body.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 8:00 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Yeah . . . I'd seek God about this; see what he thinks.
I already have. God does not reveal scientific truths to us, he lets us discover them for ourselves.

Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 8:01 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Alex Rode
Yeah . . . I'd seek God about this; see what he thinks.
I already have. God does not reveal scientific truths to us, he lets us discover them for ourselves.

I think God has revealed scientific truths to us, but at the same time we have figured many out ourselves. He's the creator of the universe, and He knows it inside out. But I haven't asked Him about scientific truths a lot, because I haven't been very interested in them due to my interest in sports. Maybe I'll start asking God about science and whatnot. Hey, that's a great idea, actually.

Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 10:33 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
No, no I don't think it is

So, leaving the planet isn't an overreaction... Where would you get the money?
The equipment?
Why not just move to another country?
Why am I so worried about this when it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand?
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 10:43 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
I think God has revealed scientific truths to us, but at the same time we have figured many out ourselves. He's the creator of the universe, and He knows it inside out. But I haven't asked Him about scientific truths a lot, because I haven't been very interested in them due to my interest in sports. Maybe I'll start asking God about science and whatnot. Hey, that's a great idea, actually.

It looks like a great idea, but it's not. Science is based on observation, data collection, and repeatable experiment, not on revelation.
So if you ask God for a scientific truth, and He gives you one, it's not scientific until you collect data supporting what God said.
By the way, in what instance has God revealed scientific truth to us?
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 10:47 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
It looks like a great idea, but it's not. Science is based on observation, data collection, and repeatable experiment, not on revelation.
So if you ask God for a scientific truth, and He gives you one, it's not scientific until you collect data supporting what God said.
By the way, in what instance has God revealed scientific truth to us?

So you are saying we should forget asking God about the world around us and try to figure it out only by ourselves? That doesn't sound quite right. God wants us to have child-like faith, and I think that simply asking Him whatever we want to know is good. If He answers our question directly, then awesome! If we feel He wants us to figure it out ourselves, awesome. If He wants us to put the request on the back burner, awesome.
And also, if God has told me something, I'd be a skeptic with little faith not to believe it. If I know it's from God, I'm believing it in a heartbeat.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 9:49 am
Quoting Alex Rode
So you are saying we should forget asking God about the world around us and try to figure it out only by ourselves? That doesn't sound quite right. God wants us to have child-like faith, and I think that simply asking Him whatever we want to know is good. If He answers our question directly, then awesome! If we feel He wants us to figure it out ourselves, awesome. If He wants us to put the request on the back burner, awesome.
And also, if God has told me something, I'd be a skeptic with little faith not to believe it. If I know it's from God, I'm believing it in a heartbeat.

What he means is that you can ask God for truths regarding info typically discovered scientifically, but they aren't considered scientific truths. Even though they can be considered truth.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 9:57 am
Quoting Halhi 141
What he means is that you can ask God for truths regarding info typically discovered scientifically, but they aren't considered scientific truths. Even though they can be considered truth.

That's it! I get it now. Not exactly "scientific truths" that come from prayer and asking God, but simply truths that God gives us about the world around us, not necessarily scientific truths. Just truths. That makes sense now.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 10:37 am
Quoting Areetsa C
*Calling lots of people heretics, including Catholics*

Presumably you are some sort of protestant Christian, which means that your religion is derived from the Catholic faith. It did not precede it, it branched from it. So the closest thing to "true Christianity" would be Catholicism, no? So I'm lost as to how they are heretical but your version of their religion is OK.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 6:26 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
You are so right. Even if, sure, it all expanded and formed the universe, then . . . The earth is the perfect environment for humans to prosper the perfect amount of gasses for us to breath, there is water, there is food, a totally intricate living system.

Clearly the life forms evolved to their environment. If it was hotter, or there was less water, or more, then evolution would have obviously taken a different path.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 6:28 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
You don't think and all powerful being would just spend time on one species do you? Aliens.

lolwut.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 6:42 pm
I'm not going to get into some big argument over what I think is wrong, and what someone else thinks is right. All I know is, that one day, everyone will know what's what.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 6:47 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Are you saying God does not have the power to create the universe in 6 days?
No. Are you saying He doesn't have the power to create the universe in 6 seconds?
It takes more power to make it over 13.7 billion years than in 6 days. Just think about it. Not only does God create all of the complex order we have today, but he creates a starting point (which appears relatively simple) which, just by following laws God put in place, would yield the modern universe. God not only has to make everything, but He also has to plan out how it is to be made.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. God wrote the Bible for man. Don't you think it would mean 6 days instead of 6,000,000 years?
God did not write the Bible. Yes, the Bible was written by people filled with the Holy Spirit, and much of it is quoted directly from God. However, because it was written by and for man, so the timescale in the Genesis creation account is a human timescale. This makes it easier for humans to understand.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. And if it was 6,000,000 years it would mean that animals had been living and dying millions of years before sin entered the earth.
Yes, where is the problem with that? Is it sinful to eat meat? No. Then it is not sinful to kill an animal, and there does not have to be sin for an animal to die. Sin is death of the spirit, not of the body.

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this. I felt that your points were well grounded and required prayer and thought. So here I go.
1. I see it one way, you another. The Bible says "in the space of six days." I see that as six days, not millions of years.
2. So the Holy Spirit inspired man to decieve? God has limits. He cannot go against his nature. And inspiring man to lie would be going against his nature.
3. Then Jesus' dying on the cross was pointless. His spirit never died. It went to heaven to be with his Father. Are souls do not die, the live forever, either in heaven or heII.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 6:50 pm
Quoting Freeling .
I'm not going to get into some big argument over what I think is wrong, and what someone else thinks is right. All I know is, that one day, everyone will know what's what.

Agreed.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 6:52 pm
Quoting Freeling .
I'm not going to get into some big argument over what I think is wrong, and what someone else thinks is right. All I know is, that one day, everyone will know what's what.

I agree. I've mentioned that a bit, that on the day of judgement . . . A lot of people's minds will be changed.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 7:10 pm
Quoting Freeling .
I'm not going to get into some big argument over what I think is wrong, and what someone else thinks is right. All I know is, that one day, everyone will know what's what.

That is not the point of an on-line debate.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 7:52 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
So you are saying we should forget asking God about the world around us and try to figure it out only by ourselves?
No, I'm saying that God won't tell us about scientific truths directly. After all, the answer is written into creation, we just have to know how to read it. Spiritual truths are not, so we have to ask God, or consult texts by those that have consulted God (e.g., the Bible).
Quoting Alex Rode That doesn't sound quite right. God wants us to have child-like faith, and I think that simply asking Him whatever we want to know is good.
But not science. God wants us to have child-like faith in Him, not in scientific truths.
Quoting Alex Rode If He answers our question directly, then awesome! If we feel He wants us to figure it out ourselves, awesome. If He wants us to put the request on the back burner, awesome.
This is true. Thinking about it more, I feel like figuring out a scientific question by observation and experimentation sort of is God telling it to us, through his creation, not through 'direct revelation' as you might call it.
Quoting Alex Rode
And also, if God has told me something, I'd be a skeptic with little faith not to believe it. If I know it's from God, I'm believing it in a heartbeat.
Absolutely. I agree. The trouble is convincing other people. After all, in science, you can't just say, "God said it, so it must be right."

Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 8:48 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
That's it! I get it now. Not exactly "scientific truths" that come from prayer and asking God, but simply truths that God gives us about the world around us, not necessarily scientific truths. Just truths. That makes sense now.

Yeah, that's about it..
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 8:50 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Alex Rode
So you are saying we should forget asking God about the world around us and try to figure it out only by ourselves?
No, I'm saying that God won't tell us about scientific truths directly. After all, the answer is written into creation, we just have to know how to read it. Spiritual truths are not, so we have to ask God, or consult texts by those that have consulted God (e.g., the Bible).
Quoting Alex Rode That doesn't sound quite right. God wants us to have child-like faith, and I think that simply asking Him whatever we want to know is good.
But not science. God wants us to have child-like faith in Him, not in scientific truths.
Quoting Alex Rode If He answers our question directly, then awesome! If we feel He wants us to figure it out ourselves, awesome. If He wants us to put the request on the back burner, awesome.
This is true. Thinking about it more, I feel like figuring out a scientific question by observation and experimentation sort of is God telling it to us, through his creation, not through 'direct revelation' as you might call it.
Quoting Alex Rode
And also, if God has told me something, I'd be a skeptic with little faith not to believe it. If I know it's from God, I'm believing it in a heartbeat.
Absolutely. I agree. The trouble is convincing other people. After all, in science, you can't just say, "God said it, so it must be right."

I think we have kind of figured this out. God has left scientific truths for us to discover so we can learn more about Him. Like you said, not really through direct revelation. Awesome. This has helped me grow in my faith, and that's crucial for me at my age.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 8:52 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
I think we have kind of figured this out. God has left scientific truths for us to discover so we can learn more about Him. Like you said, not really through direct revelation. Awesome. This has helped me grow in my faith, and that's crucial for me at my age.

I am so glad that this has helped you grow in faith. (It's helped me too)

What you said in this comment is much simpler and easier to understand than what I said. I think I understand it better too, now.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 9:36 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
That is not the point of an on-line debate.

True. I'm not trying to ruin the debate or anything. I'll stay out of this one.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 10:58 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this. I felt that your points were well grounded and required prayer and thought. So here I go.
1. I see it one way, you another. The Bible says "in the space of six days." I see that as six days, not millions of years.
The Genesis creation account is meant to teach us about God, not about science. So, these six days are meant to teach us something about God, not to tell us that the world was created in a space of six days.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
2. So the Holy Spirit inspired man to decieve? God has limits. He cannot go against his nature. And inspiring man to lie would be going against his nature.
True, but the creation account was not written to deceive but to teach. You are so focused on the six-days part that I wonder, can you see the lessons that this story holds? Genesis 1, like all other Biblical stories, is meant to teach us about God, not scientific truths.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. 3. Then Jesus' dying on the cross was pointless. His spirit never died. It went to heaven to be with his Father. Are souls do not die, the live forever, either in heaven or heII.
There is a connection between the human body and soul which I don't claim to understand that probably explains this.
But the death of an animal is certainly not evil, if no sin caused it. That's my point.

Permalink
| September 26, 2013, 8:28 am
What does the theory of evolution need to explain?

If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must be also be able to explain how the following came into being.

1. The sun and the earth (Without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (Without the first cell there can be no other life.)

3. The formation of all other living things

In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes. Random, mindless, blind and unguided processes never achieve anything.

In natural selection, the environment affects the gene frequency in a population. Even so, natural selection is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations which are random, mindless and blind.

Evolution (which is mindless and blind) will never achieve anything.

Which you will see here, in my arguments it does not.

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”11

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".14

The universe cannot have created itself!

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

EVIDENCE 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." 9

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …"7

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.


EVIDENCE 3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!


EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory. Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!


EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." 2


EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!


EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"5

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”10

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

Let's now put this in its larger context. Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

And with that I leave you gentlemen!

Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 2:59 pm
I think we came from Aliens!
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 4:27 pm
Quoting Luke the Swift
What does the theory of evolution need to explain?

If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must be also be able to explain how the following came into being.

1. The sun and the earth (Without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (Without the first cell there can be no other life.)

3. The formation of all other living things

In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes. Random, mindless, blind and unguided processes never achieve anything.

In natural selection, the environment affects the gene frequency in a population. Even so, natural selection is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations which are random, mindless and blind.

Evolution (which is mindless and blind) will never achieve anything.

Which you will see here, in my arguments it does not.

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”11

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".14

The universe cannot have created itself!

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

EVIDENCE 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." 9

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …"7

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.


EVIDENCE 3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!


EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory. Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!


EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." 2


EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!


EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"5

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”10

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

Let's now put this in its larger context. Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

And with that I leave you gentlemen!

Well done. This is truth; I totally agree with you.
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 4:43 pm
I still think we're aliens. Where THEY came from, I don't know.
Permalink
| October 1, 2013, 5:03 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Well done. This is truth; I totally agree with you.

Thank you sir!
Permalink
| October 2, 2013, 10:04 am
Quoting Luke the Swift
What does the theory of evolution need to explain?

If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must be also be able to explain how the following came into being.

1. The sun and the earth (Without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

Quoting Luke the Swift
2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (Without the first cell there can be no other life.)
There's lots of scientists around the world working on that question. Remember, just because it hasn't been solved yet doesn't mean that it cannot be solved.
Quoting Luke the Swift
3. The formation of all other living things
Just mutations and natural selection. Once you've got the first one, it goes simply from there.
Quoting Luke the Swift
In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes.
No, only the atheistic model. God designed our universe perfectly to foster the formation of those objects under natural laws (which he, of course, set in place).
Quoting Luke the Swift Random, mindless, blind and unguided processes never achieve anything.
Aren't all things possible with God?
Quoting Luke the Swift
In natural selection, the environment affects the gene frequency in a population. Even so, natural selection is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations which are random, mindless and blind.

Evolution (which is mindless and blind) will never achieve anything.
Evolution, mutation, and natural selection are mindless and blind tools in the hand of mindful and seeing God.

Quoting Luke the Swift
EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.
I believe he meant that the universe would create itself from empty space. Of course, empty space isn't quite nothing.
Quoting Luke the Swift
Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”11

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13
True, I agree.
Quoting Luke the Swift
In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".14

The universe cannot have created itself!
True.
Quoting Luke the Swift
b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.
The first law does not say that there is a finite amount of energy, it only says that energy cannot neither be created nor destroyed. If there's an infinite amount of energy available, it will always decrease, but it will still remain infinite. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is possible for the universe to have existed forever.
Quoting Luke the Swift
THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.
Logical perhaps, but not scientific, because the outside intelligence must have a source (from the scientific view), and thus cannot be God.
Quoting Luke the Swift
EVIDENCE 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.
Wrong. The second law tells us that the order of a closed system will go down with no outside influence. The outside influence need not be intelligent and need not plan.
Quoting Luke the Swift
World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!
Recall that " nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".
Quoting Luke the Swift
Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Actually, yes it does.
Quoting Luke the Swift As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!
Try an experiment. Take a box full of sand. Obviously, it's not very organized. Now, hurl a rock into the box. This is just random energy, but it increases the order of the system. A ring around the stone will appear in the sand.
Quoting Luke the Swift
The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." 9
You, Lord Kelvin was working a long time before most evidence for evolution. But still, there is evidence of design (I see it most in mathematics rather than any physical construct).
Quoting Luke the Swift
As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …"7
So if I put work into organizing my unsorted Lego collection, the order of my Lego collection still decreases?
There are well known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. For example, the force of gravity creates energy differentials be making denser areas become even more dense and less dense areas become even less dense. Or, if you put phospholipids in water, they will form double-layered sphere without you inputting any energy. The second law describes more of a general trend of decreasing complexity than an absolute, always followed rule.
Quoting Luke the Swift
EVIDENCE 3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.
This is true.
Quoting Luke the Swift
Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
There is no clear dividing line between life and nonlife. Something clearly not alive (like a rock) cannot turn into something clearly alive (like a bacterium), but something which is not obviously not alive can turn into something which is slightly more like a life-form and thus gradually become life.

Quoting Luke the Swift
EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'
Actually, they do. Just look at languages. They are fairly complex, and very different now than they have been in the past.
Quoting Luke the Swift
In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory. Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3
Just 'cause Darwin said it doesn't mean evolutionists believe it.
Quoting Luke the Swift
No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Quoting Luke the Swift
A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years.
This is not true. Many animals do not possess some or all of the systems you mentioned, meaning that it is possible to survive without them.
Quoting Luke the Swift Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.
The fact that each stage must be functional is why it takes so long. If each stage didn't have to be functional, a single cell could evolve into a human in just a few years.
Quoting Luke the Swift
There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!
Recall that unexplained does not imply unexplainable. Since brains and digestive systems do not fossilize it is difficult to trace their evolution. But if we look at modern organisms, we see viable, working, less complex digestive systems and brains.

Quoting Luke the Swift
EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing
But the found links are not.
Quoting Luke the Swift
If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record.
This is simply false (if you avoid the technicality that continuous evolution makes every fossil transitional). Far less than 1 percent of species fossilize, and transitions tend to occur in smaller populations and exist for less time then more stable species, so we would only expect to find a very small number of transitional species. This is what we observe.
Quoting Luke the Swift Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.
Many have been found, actually.
Quoting Luke the Swift
Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." 2
Some of it is based on fossils, but it's true that most is inference. However, this is simply due to the incredible incompleteness of the fossil record, not because of any problem with the model.

Quoting Luke the Swift
EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.
Right. Natural selection is insufficient by itself.
Quoting Luke the Swift
For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else!
Of course. It would take far, far more than 1500 generations to change them from flies to not-flies.
Quoting Luke the Swift
Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.
Obviously, no selective pressure was applied. Also, it is clear that some (indeed, probably most) mutations are not beneficial.
Quoting Luke the Swift
Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!
But things are not left to themselves, there is a constant inflow of energy to the earth, so the second law doesn't apply.
Quoting Luke the Swift
A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia
It could be evolution, as it is scientifically defined (that is, any change in the gene pool of a population).
Quoting Luke the Swift
Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!
Evolution is not necessarily things becoming more ordered (indeed, usually, it just means becoming more suited to their environment) and mutation does not necessarily decrease
Quoting Luke the Swift
Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!
No, it does not. Harmful mutations are flushed out of a population by natural selection. Helpful ones (rare, but they have been observed) are spread throughout the population by natural selection.

Where's an example of a helpful mutation? I read in my biology textbook about an experiment in which random mutations were introduced to a population of E. coli, and they gave the bacteria a different type of disaccharide sugar than the type they naturally consumed. Over the course of several generations, the enzyme the bacteria used to break down the sugars adapted to more efficiently break down the new sugar. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a citation for this particular experiment, but other experiments have also found E. coli populations to evolve. (e.g. http://aem.asm.org/content/79/3/1008.full, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2462549?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102712721337 )
Quoting Luke the Swift
EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"5

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”10

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.
Keep in mind that the universe could possibly be infinite in spatial extent, thus an infinite amount of recombinations would be done.
Quoting Luke the Swift
Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"
Yes.
Quoting Luke the Swift
Let's now put this in its larger context. Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.
Very complex, I agree.
Quoting Luke the Swift
There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!
Obviously not in one step. You can't make something that complex out of something non-living. However, something simple can become slightly more complex (by random variation), and then the slightly more complex thing can become slightly more complex again, and continue so that gradually, it gives rise to much more complicated organisms.
Quoting Luke the Swift
And with that I leave you gentlemen!
Quite a lot of stuff, but I enjoyed reading it.

I've got a question: Suppose, hypothetically, someone, by careful measurement, proved that God had taken five days to create the universe rather than six. Would you try to refute his claim?

Also, if you're advocating creationism, I wouldn't complain about violations of the laws of thermodynamics, because creationism violates all three.

By the way, why'd you copy and paste that argument from http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html, when you could have just provided a link?
Permalink
| October 2, 2013, 9:39 pm
Quoting El Barto !
I still think we're aliens. Where THEY came from, I don't know.

Evidence?
Permalink
| October 2, 2013, 9:49 pm
I created it.
Permalink
| October 3, 2013, 12:54 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
I created it.

Evidence?
Permalink
| October 3, 2013, 9:53 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible

I would love to do some more debate with but my time runs short maybe in your reply you could take one disagreement at a time instead of a bunch at once so as to give us more time to debate with each subject.
Permalink
| October 3, 2013, 12:08 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Evidence?

We, as fellow Bobs, created it.
Permalink
| October 3, 2013, 4:57 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Evidence?

I would love to do some more debate with but my time runs short maybe in your reply you could take one disagreement at a time instead of a bunch at once so as to give us more time to debate with each subject.
Permalink
| October 6, 2013, 10:15 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this. I felt that your points were well grounded and required prayer and thought. So here I go.
1. I see it one way, you another. The Bible says "in the space of six days." I see that as six days, not millions of years.
The Genesis creation account is meant to teach us about God, not about science. So, these six days are meant to teach us something about God, not to tell us that the world was created in a space of six days.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
2. So the Holy Spirit inspired man to decieve? God has limits. He cannot go against his nature. And inspiring man to lie would be going against his nature.
True, but the creation account was not written to deceive but to teach. You are so focused on the six-days part that I wonder, can you see the lessons that this story holds? Genesis 1, like all other Biblical stories, is meant to teach us about God, not scientific truths.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L. 3. Then Jesus' dying on the cross was pointless. His spirit never died. It went to heaven to be with his Father. Are souls do not die, the live forever, either in heaven or heII.
There is a connection between the human body and soul which I don't claim to understand that probably explains this.
But the death of an animal is certainly not evil, if no sin caused it. That's my point.

1. You evaded the question. I have studied much of the Bible, and commentarys on the Bible, and the six days part teaches about God. I quoth Jesus Christ, "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) And "Scripture can not be broken." (John 10:35) If his word is the truth then why inspire a lie? We both know He cannot lie. If this is a lie, than there is reason to believe the whole Bible is a lie.
2. Maybe, but it has tought me many things about God, one of which is that He made "the heavens and the earth in the space of six days, and all very good." What does this teach me about Him? It teachs me much. And do not think I spend my time pouring over one pssage over and over. But I quoth R.C. Sproul "we live in a period that is allergic to rationality" and should we not ba able to combat it?
3. Spiritual death= He11. And Jesus could not have been sent to He11 justly, and God is just, so, He went to heaven. Assumptions, that is what you are talking about.
I am sorry about taking a while to get back to you, prayer and devotion where musts. I thank you in aiding my walk in faith.
Permalink
| October 7, 2013, 6:28 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
1. You evaded the question. I have studied much of the Bible, and commentarys on the Bible, and the six days part teaches about God. I quoth Jesus Christ, "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) And "Scripture can not be broken." (John 10:35) If his word is the truth then why inspire a lie? We both know He cannot lie. If this is a lie, than there is reason to believe the whole Bible is a lie.
Was Jesus lying when he told parables? No, of course not. He was putting spiritual truths in terms his audience could understand. Similarly, the creation account is not a story meant to be taken as a historical, but rather as a story putting spiritual truths in terms we could understand. Had it described the evolutionary model it would neither be helpful to us nor would it be easier for us to understand.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
2. Maybe, but it has tought me many things about God, one of which is that He made "the heavens and the earth in the space of six days, and all very good." What does this teach me about Him? It teachs me much. And do not think I spend my time pouring over one pssage over and over. But I quoth R.C. Sproul "we live in a period that is allergic to rationality" and should we not ba able to combat it?
So we both agree it's helpful for learning from.
But what can you learn from the idea the God created in six, physical, earthly days, that you can't learn from him creating over a space of several billion years?
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
3. Spiritual death= He11. And Jesus could not have been sent to He11 justly, and God is just, so, He went to heaven. Assumptions, that is what you are talking about.
I'm not exactly sure why this is relevant (Of course, it was probably me who led us off on this tangent, so I'm not complaining). My point (originally) was that if an animal suffers or dies, there is not necessarily sin involved. Therefore, sin did not need to enter the world until humans did.
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
I am sorry about taking a while to get back to you, prayer and devotion where musts. I thank you in aiding my walk in faith.
And I thank you for aiding mine.

Permalink
| October 7, 2013, 10:23 pm
Quoting Luke the Swift
I would love to do some more debate with but my time runs short maybe in your reply you could take one disagreement at a time instead of a bunch at once so as to give us more time to debate with each subject.

Alright, there are two disagreements that I think are most important.

Firstly, about the supposed lack of transitional fossils. Of course we wouldn't predict there to be very many transitional fossils, because the fossil record is incredibly incomplete. This is what we observe, a few, rare, and usually not great, examples of a transitional fossil.

Secondly about the idea that the combination of mutation and natural selection cannot lead to new traits. The fruit fly example is completely irrelevant if no selective pressure was applied (it's unclear from what your source said).
Long term experiments have observed natural selection and mutation to produce new traits in bacteria.
Permalink
| October 7, 2013, 10:31 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Alright, there are two disagreements that I think are most important.

Firstly, about the supposed lack of transitional fossils. Of course we wouldn't predict there to be very many transitional fossils, because the fossil record is incredibly incomplete. This is what we observe, a few, rare, and usually not great, examples of a transitional fossil.


To my knowledge, any and all, transitional fossils such as the neanderthal man, and such have never been found. The ones that have been found are fakes. So the Missing links are still missing.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Secondly about the idea that the combination of mutation and natural selection cannot lead to new traits. The fruit fly example is completely irrelevant if no selective pressure was applied (it's unclear from what your source said).
Long term experiments have observed natural selection and mutation to produce new traits in bacteria.

Yes what your saying is true, but there is no evolution of kinds. The bacteria did not change from bacteria to something else. It changed into more bacteria.
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 10:37 am
I lose a lot of faith in human intelligence while reading this topic.
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 3:16 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I lose a lot of faith in human intelligence while reading this topic.

Yeah . . . then what will you put your faith in if our intelligence fails?
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 3:21 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I lose a lot of faith in human intelligence while reading this topic.

I've lost than a long time ago.
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 3:23 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I lose a lot of faith in human intelligence while reading this topic.

Don't we all?
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 3:26 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
Aliens? Updated Saturday
The Middle East Updated Tuesday



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


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