PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Intelligent Creationists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like to see a Creationist supporter score higher than the average on an IQ test.

It's not likely going to happen. Particularly in the logic / reasoning category.

Every Creationist I've talked to is incredibly ignorant. Trying to argue against something they know little about and don't understand.

Just like how the clergy preached that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun orbits the Earth, science opened our eyes.

There are no holes in Evolution. There were 10 years ago, there are no more left. It's a theory. It's an incredibly solid theory for which we have more proof than we do that the Earth orbits the sun.

If evolution can't be proven, nothing can. Stop refuting what you don't understand and pick up a fucking book.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:09 AM on April 28, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well I believe in creation, I scored a 140 on an IQ test. Did pretty well in logic and reasoning too.

It's an incredibly solid theory for which we have more proof than we do that the Earth orbits the sun.

The above statement prooves that you're as ignorant as anyone you've pointed fingers at.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 3:21 PM on April 28, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"well I believe in creation, I scored a 140 on an IQ test. Did pretty well in logic and reasoning too."

First off, if by creation you mean fundamental
creationism, then believing in something that was conclusively proven to be wrong over 200 years ago, then that's pretty ignorant, or at the very least, incredibly self delusional, no matter what your score is...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:39 AM on April 29, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

by creationism, I mean I believe that there was something that we don't understand that happened at the dawn of time. Science cannot recreate, nor explain the birth of the first organism. I don't dissagree that adaption, to some extent is possible throughout life on our planet. I already know how distasteful the thought of God is to you, you needn't remind me.  You can call me ignorant of self deluded all you like. For him to say that there are no Creationists with above average intelligence is a far more ignorant statement. I find it further ignorant that you make such arguments personal, and take them personally that people dissagree with you.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 4:04 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
Crim

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

by creationism, I mean I believe that there was something that we don't understand that happened at the dawn of time

Creationism means much more than that.  Specifically, it involves a literal intepretation of the Creation Story in Genesis.  Including, but not limited to:
-All species were created at one point by a god
-No new species were formed after that one point
-A huge, global flood consumed the Earth ~4000 years ago
-In some forms, a 6-12k year old Earth.


 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 4:09 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree with you on that crim. I know alot of poeple who don't take the creation story in genisis as literal. There's alot of stuff in the bible that isn't literal. I've posted plenty of times in opposition to such things. I look at it like this. I believe that God created all things, I believe he designed the laws of physics and biology and so forth and so on. I believe he created it all to be an entirely self reliant system, he doesn't have to constantly pump the spark of life into us. Even if he created only the first organism (which cannot be reproduced by modern science), then that is creation, no? What bothers me about these forums is the people who take such arguments personally, on all sides, and start in with accusations of ignorance or self delusion. I find it childish.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 4:27 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
Crim

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, that is Creation, but not CreationISM.   Creation just means some god had a hand in making the universe/life/whatever.   CreationISM is specifically the literal interpretation of Genesis as reality.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 4:32 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well my apologies, I didn't mean to confuse you. I'm a christian, and if there's one thing that gets under my skin, it's how christians are determined to take one passage literally, and then a chapter later, interpert a passage to fit their convenience.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 3:06 PM on April 30, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Stormcrow,

   By that definition of creation, while I don't necessarily agree,  I apologize for the ignorant and self delusional crack.  There really is a big difference between creation and creationISM.  The first  is an unknowable possiblity (in this life, if you believe in an afterlife) and the other is disproven.
Hey, I get worked up sometimes, so, once again, sorry.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:04 PM on April 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yea, he only wanted to crack if it was the defination of Craetion as put in the Bible, you know how mad people get when they are reminded of Christs superiority. It is a demonstration of the spiritual battle.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:52 AM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" Yea, he only wanted to crack if it was the defination of Craetion as put in the Bible, you know how mad people get when they are reminded of Christs superiority. It is a demonstration of the spiritual battle."

Mad?  Nah, people are allowed to be as stupid as they want.  But when you come to a site called "You Debate"  and try to pass off a fairytale like the literal reading of Genesis as true, you better be prepared to take your lumps.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:58 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon- No prob man, I find myself getting worked into a frenzy at times too. Just remember, it's the ideas your fighting against, it's nothing personal.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 03:56 AM on May 5, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it is interesting to note that while there are literally 10's of thousands of scientists doing evolution based research every day, there are virtually no scientists doing any research into creation science.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:07 AM on May 9, 2003 | IP
jeafl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know that Creationists do not exist as a monolith.  Some claim the earth is no more than 10,000 years old while other claim it is billions.  Chances are it is somewhere in between.  We must remember that is a human concept and it essentially did not exist before the first humans.  Furthermore, there is archaeological and documentary evidence that suggests the world has not always had a 365.25 day year and that days once were less than 24 hours.

However, I must take exception at old earth Christians who believe animals were allowed to die before the fall of man.  The Bible says the wages of sin is death; so I refuse to worship a God that could so easily create life just to allow it to die without cause.

 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 11:04 AM on May 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you mean 'without cause'?
Living organisms naturally die eventually.  If they didn't, there would be massive overpopulation.
Death is a necessity.

Isn't it much more likely that the death in question is a spiritual one (especially since Adam obviously didn't physically die upon original sin)?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:39 AM on May 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Adam did die in the first day as Jehovah had said he would (Genisis 2:17), Take a look at 2Peter 3:8.... so how old was Adam when he died?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:53 PM on May 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What level of intelligence makes one BELIEVE
that something comes out of nothing?
As we may all know nothing is the lack of something. Is it intelligent to assume that
something comes out of the lack of it ?
Stretch your "I.Q" please!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:00 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Correct  guest.
Thank you for debunking Creationism.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:45 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please keep in mind during this debate that the Theory of Evolution is a scientifically incorrect theory.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:40 AM on May 16, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest,
 You've got to be joking.  The theory of Evolution is not a scientifically incorret theory, it is the only theory that explains the diversity of like on Earth.  Every other theory has been proven wrong, including creationism.  The Theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in science.  In fact, we have seen evolution in action, so I don't know how you can possibly make such an assine statement like that...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:51 AM on May 16, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please give me some RESPECTABLE information proving that the theory of evolution is scientifically incorrect.  

(If you can, it will still never amount to all the  information in supportof evolution)
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 4:38 PM on May 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[color=blue]
For years those of us that were born in the 50's - 60's and before were taught and even threatened with religion.  "If you don't do this you will go to hell".

Tremendous battles were fought regarding creationism and evolutionism.  School vs. church, etc.

We have seen science, astrology and astronomy stood on it's head with new revelations as technology and our understanding of the universe evolve.

The truth is, there is a wonderful discussion going on here that will only be proven when none of us will be able to relate the truth to the living.

As an old soldier I remember a famous saying.  "There are no athiest in a foxhole".

When I was a young child I remember vividly detecting a distinct difference between the energy of my physical body and that of my soul, or spirit if you will.  It was then, and is still today such a distinct difference that I believe there is an energy that will live on beyond my current existence on this earth.  

The theory of evolution or creation will not change that  The sad but true fact is the only people who will ever know the truth about life and the hereafter are those who have already gone to the hereafter.  

This is a great discussion and one that is inevitable.  However, I believe it is one that is un-winnable.  As mankind travels  through this universe the knowledge will continue to change about our surroundings and so will the theory's  regarding our creation / evolution.  

Is it possible that we are looking to the heavens and the past to define for us our real existence rather than taking the much more realistic approach of searching within?  

I believe in a supreme being.  I believe in a life hereafter.  The rest is still a great mystery to me.  

My point...There are some debates you just can't win.  They are great debates, but they wil only be debates.  Once you know the answer to this question you won't be able to come back and communicate your finding to the rest of mankind.

Just my thoughts!

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:13 AM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Ford_Prefect

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"There are no athiest in a foxhole"
I really hate that quote. It takes a really arrogant prick to believe that he can speak for all atheists in fox holes.

Is it possible that we are looking to the heavens and the past to define for us our real existence rather than taking the much more realistic approach of searching within?  

I don't quite understand how searching for things that are inside of us will help us understand things that are outside of us.

My point...There are some debates you just can't win.  They are great debates, but they wil only be debates.  Once you know the answer to this question you won't be able to come back and communicate your finding to the rest of mankind.

But that doesn't render our debates useless. There is still a logical course we can take. There is still a conclusion we can all reach. It takes debate to find what the ultimate extent of human knowledge is. Finding that extent is my purpose at least.



-------
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?'"<br><br>--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 12:37 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well I'm not a genius...but I have an IQ of 124, and I support creation.

                     Sam
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:56 PM on July 28, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Well I'm not a genius...but I have an IQ of 124, and I support creation."


But the only reason you support creation is because of your faith, you have no evidence to back up your belief and ignore the avalance of evidence that contradicts creationism.  Despite your 124 IQ you remain willfully ignorant.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:52 AM on July 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please be cautious in your use of the word "prove".  This word should be reserved for use in the field of mathematics alone.  I believe that evolution theory is not as secure as you suggest.  However, I concede that my knowledge is very limited.  Therefore, for educational purposes, perhaps you could present undisputed facts which are both predicted by evolution theory (please discuss mechanisms) and absolutely incompatible with any creation scenario.  Please cater to the layman in your descriptions and try to not be too technical.  By the way, my IQ was recently measured at approximately 140.  However, we all should recognize that an IQ test only directly measures ones ability to score well on an IQ test.  Let's not put too much stock in such numbers and focus on what is written.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:40 AM on August 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I read many of these posts for the first time I find it strangely coincidental that as soon as a believer in evolution is asked for some solid evidence the debate ends...  I dont know if anyone will ever read this, but in response to some of the "arguments" for evolution-how can you stand so strong on something that is just a theory??  It may be the best one yet, but its still completely UNPROVEN!  For several years people believed the earth was flat.  Just cause the explination makes sense at the time, doesnt mean it wont be disproved later.  A lot of you have big mouths when it comes to all this, yet there has been fallicy in almost every argument I have heard.  I would do you all good to remember...YOU CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR!! Just because you were taught evolution doesnt mean it is true.  Did you know that 50 years ago there were history textbooks in schools that taught that African Americans and Native Americans were completely inferior races and did not deserve the same rights as Caucasions?  Because it is in a book doesnt make it true.  I just urge you to find things out for yourselves.  Dont just believe what you read.  Research it.  Show some intellegence in your debates.  Be a leader, not a follower.  Some of you may not like it, but I have proof--100% solid evidence--that God is real and that He sent his son to pay the price for our sins.  However, the proof is in me.  It is my word against yours and those who refuse to see will never know what I know.  I have seen God move in my life in ways you will never comprehend.  I accept it and believe in faith that He will keep his promise to me.  No bogus "theory" will change my mind.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:50 PM on October 8, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps we just don't have time to choose which evidence to pick or lay out. There is a lot of evidence for evolution.

Lets go with retroviruses: These viruses copy their genome into a random site of the host's DNA. If a germ line cell is infected then the retroviral code will be passed down to the hosts children.

Now chimpanzees and humans share about half a dozen pairs of identical retroviral sequences in exactly the same place in their genomes.

Here I will note that the chance of a two identical retroviruses infecting the exact *same* part of the genome of two different creatures is extremely low. Therefore the chances of such an event happening thousands of times amongst species on Earth (as it has) is beyond chance.

Rather the only explaination (and a simple one at that) for shared retroviral remenants in the same place in both the Chimpanzee and Human genome is that both came from a common ancestor which possesed such a retroviral insertion.

Not only does this provide conclusive evidence for common ancestory but you can also compare shared retroviral sequences within the genomes of species on Earth to construct an tree of evolutionary descent.

The result turns out to support the existing evolutionary tree constructed from other independant evidences.

More on retroviruses here

There are no Creationist answers for this.

Now this is just ONE evidence for evolution amongst HUNDREDS of equal quality. It is compacted to this size but someone who knew retroviruses better than me could easily go into about 5 times more depth than I have. Even so this has taken me quite a while to write and format, that is why "we" are reluctant to provide any evidence simply because it usually falls on deaf ears (the people who ask for it don't actually want it). I hope this isn't the case this time.

 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 8:45 PM on October 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First and foremost I cannot know anything 100% apart from the fact that I exist and that something else exists/existed for me to be created.  EVERYTHING else is speculation.
Personally I don't understand why people who believe in a God have to be so against the possibility of an amount of evolution.  It makes sense for things to change in a species, if it is a good change and increases the liklihood of its survival such traits will then be passed to its offspring.  Those without such traits are more likely to die.  Hence over large amounts of time a species can change its characteristics to increase its liklihood of survival.  Many Creationists do take Genisis literally, many do not.  As to the argument that you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which aren't is wrong is a shallow argument.  Much of the oldest parts of the Bible occured before written records, hence it is just oral tradition that was eventually written down.   However, as I suggested I don't think believing in God does not mean not believing in evolution.  In addition to this there are things in Genisis that are just wrong (such as the positioning of the heavens and the earth and the vault) that aren't addressed by creationists - many just claim genisis as being literal, when there are inaccuracies.  I believe that there evolution occurs but I also feel that there is a god.  (Note the difference between KNOW and Believe/feel)  As to the comment about the quote that there are no athiests in a foxhole - the comes out of fear of death...  fear does funny things to people, makes them say and do things that they would not normally do under normal conditions.  Also - it was believed that all athiests recanted on their deathbed and recalled a faith in God.  That was most famously proved wrong by David Hume (one of the most famous philosophers of all time) who was avowedly athiest but kept that view into death.  I think that is pretty much most of what I have to say.  Thanks.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:45 AM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like to jump in if that's all right

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:48 PM on January 13, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

has anyone here read calculating god? it is a good book. it actually has some pro creationist arguments in there (excuse my spelling)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:50 PM on January 13, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it says that we evolved the right size to use fire, without which there can be no metallurgy or basic fuel and building. however i realized that if anything intelligent evolved that was to large or small to use fire, then it simply would conform to natural selection and not become humanly intelligent. the book uses a creationist arguement basically refferrring to the fact that both alien planets had major extinctions at the same time earth did. this is hypothetical of course. however it offers the intrigueing concept that god isn't perfect
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:02 AM on January 14, 2004 | IP
kwispy

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In response to Void's post about retroviruses, I was wondering if they have found those same viruses in any other organism, or are the humans and chimps the only ones they have studied?

Also, out of 30,000 retroviruses in the human genome, only 7!?! were also found in the same place as chimps retroviruses?  I mean, it's quite possible that over 10K+ years of existance, or whatever the time may be, humans and chimps probably could have contracted those same 7 retroviruses sometime or another.

These retroviruses could have been very specific in the areas of infection, esp. the 7 that infected both humans and chimps, because, is that not the nature of viruses to be specific to their hosts?  
Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.  This doesn't necessarily have to be very rare, if the retroviruses were as prominent as AIDS or some other widespread virus.  And all it takes is for one person to get it in the right place and only one chimp to get it in the right place to develop this similarity.  After many years of reproduction, it would eventually infect the whole population, at least the population that the infected organism or their decedents had contact with.

So I don't see how rare and unique this occurence is.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:05 PM on January 20, 2004 | IP
kwispy

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"In addition to this there are things in Genisis that are just wrong (such as the positioning of the heavens and the earth and the vault"

-What are you talking about?  Please explain further, and if you could tell what verses you are looking at, it would be helpful.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:12 PM on January 20, 2004 | IP
kwispy

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a response to the first post how you would like to see some creationists get a good score on an IQ test, just to inform you, here is a list of scientists that studied in particular fields making major contributions to modern science:

Physics::            Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry::       Boyle, Dalton, Ramsey

Biology::            Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz

Geology::          Steno, Woodland, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier

Astronomy::       Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder

Mathematics::    Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

All of these scientists were incredibly smart for their time period, and all were believers in creation.  If in doubt, look up their biographies and check out this reference:  

A. Lamont, 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible (Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1995), p. 120-131; H.M. Morris, Men of Science--Men of God (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1982).
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:34 PM on January 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

kwispy said:

"So I don't see how rare and unique this occurence is."

The fact that you don't understand endogenous retroviruses is no refutation of this as evidence for evolution.

"I mean, it's quite possible that over 10K+ years of existance, or whatever the time may be, humans and chimps probably could have contracted those same 7 retroviruses sometime or another."

It's not 'quite possible', do some research, we know that these retroviral insertions are rare and occur randomly.  For the same retrovirus to infect the exact same area of the genome in two different species is infinitesmally low.  How do we know this?  Observation, we've seen how these viruses operate.  NO, you'll have to provide more conclusive evidence to support your claim that this isn't evidence for evolution than your ignorance.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:58 AM on January 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"In addition to this there are things in Genisis that are just wrong (such as the positioning of the heavens and the earth and the vault"
-What are you talking about?  Please explain further, and if you could tell what verses you are looking at, it would be helpful."


Real quick, found this stuff here:

"Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later."

I'd love to hear how you try to explain these errors and inconsistancies.  And there are plenty more were they came from!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:10 AM on January 21, 2004 | IP
kwispy

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, the whole deal about retroviruses was kind of me poking at it without actually know much about it.  I don't have evidence because I don't know any more about retroviruses than what that article says and a little in my bio classes.  

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.


In response to the verses about the light being created and the sun, it says that God created light, not the sun.  Light doesn't necessarily mean the sun.  I'm guessing as to what it actually means, but it could be that God had created photons(light), which weren't present before, and then on the fourth day, he put these together, along with hydrogen and helium to form the stars and the sun.  I'm not sure what he did, because the Bible doesn't say anything at all about photons, hydrogen, or helium.  It's definitely not a science book that will give you scientific names or of the such.

To all those references to man being created before the vegetation and animals, it states that "God formed the man from the dust of the ground..."; this probably did not occur in an instant because just like all of Genesis, the whole thing was a process.  The next verse (2:8) states "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed".  Obviously, the man God had created wasn't just sitting around while everything grew, he was being created, which his creation ended on the sixth day(it does not say his creation ended, but if you notice how the rest of ch. 1 is written, it is not very specific, and is in much broader terms than is ch. 2.  This really questions the meaning of 'created', and the translation of the Bible to English.  Is it entirely accurate?  I need to do more researching before I can understand how they translated it, and give you an answer).  Then he was placed in the garden.  Otherwise, he would have nothing to eat, until the garden had grown.  

I mean, the whole thing about the 7 days, were they actually 7 24-hour periods?  Who knows?  But it does say that a day was a period of light, followed by a period of darkness(At least thats what I presume it means by 'and there was evening and there was morning')

Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later."


It definitly does not say they were created at the same time, it says they were created; no mention on order.  "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."  It does not say "male and female were created at the same time", and they were not, otherwise it would have said that.  It does say that 'man was created', then 'male and female he created them', because he meant for them to be male and female, created in his image.  It's not chronological, just a statement of what he did.

Have you actually read those passages?  Maybe you would gain a better understanding of them if you did, rather than take someone else's interpretations, unless those are your interpretations.  The Bible can be moved around and read differently to accomadate different intepretations, just as any book can be.  You can probably tell that Luke didn't write these books, because they aren't very precise, as he was a doctor.  
But when reading the Old Testament, you have to interpret them according to what the author had in mind: That God had created the universe.  This is all these first chapters try to tell you.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 5:01 PM on January 21, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Check this out:

The majority (65%) of creationists do not have a highschool education.

Explains A LOT doesn't it?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:20 PM on January 27, 2004 | IP
Killer_KF

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dont start with the "inconsistancies" of the Bible. Every one of them have been taken out of context. Read into it and you will find out that they truely are not "inconsistancies".
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:56 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dont start with the "inconsistancies" of the Bible. Every one of them have been taken out of context. Read into it and you will find out that they truely are not "inconsistancies".

Of cxourse there are inconsistancies!  The Bible is a book of myth, it is not a book or science or history!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:06 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: Of cxourse there are inconsistancies!  The Bible is a book of myth, it is not a book or science or history!

As you like to say, "You haven't given us a shred of proof to change our minds! Pathetic!"


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 9:51 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The lack of historical and scientific accuracy is about all the proof needed.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 10:43 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As you like to say, "You haven't given us a shred of proof to change our minds! Pathetic!"

Here ya go!

"Despite the fact that there is undeniably some accuracy in the Bible, scholars are now convinced that many inaccuracies can be found in it. Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy report that the Hebrews, numbering as many as 2.5 to 3 million, left Egypt, wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years, and finally invaded and conquered the promised land. Most biblical scholars and archaeologists doubt the historical accuracy of this biblical story. The March/April issue of Archaeology magazine declared that neither the exodus nor the conquest of Canaan happened as recorded in the Bible. "Today's archaeologists are certainly not the first to challenge the Book of Joshua," said Neil Asher Silberman in the feature article. "Its historical reliability has been a matter of dispute for more than two centuries" ("Who Were the Israelites?" p. 22).
Speaking at an archaeological conference at the Royal Ontario Museum, Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren reported that "his efforts at more than 80 sites in the Sinai from 1972 to 1982 had not turned up any support for the historical accuracy of when the exodus was supposed to have occurred" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren went on to tell of the discovery of papyrus notes that reported the sightings of two fugitive slaves. "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked. "This can't be explained unless you invoke miracles here, and I am a member of the department of archaeology and not of miracles." "

So we see the bible is not a book of history...

HOw about this one...

""For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." [Matt. xii, 40.]
Evidently Jesus believed the story of Jonah and the whale, as well as the tale of Noah's ark [Luke xvii, 27; Matt. xxv, 38.] both of which are now generally discredited. Moreover, his prophecy regarding his entombment was inaccurate, for he was only two nights and one day in the heart of the earth, from Friday night to Sunday morning."

From here:
BibI

"There is also no evidence for other biblical claims, such as the murder of the infants by King Herod at the birth of Jesus. Such an event would have at least merited a few lines in the works of contemporary historians, especially his enemies; those historians who were hostile to Herod wrote of his other atrocities. But no. But no one noticed the killing of all children under the age of two.

The Genesis story of creation is certainly not an historical event, as modern science has revealed, as well as the Flood of Noah's time. This flood has been conclusively demonstrated to be a piece of mythology, borrowed from the Assyrians, and probably built up upon a real, localized flood (the Black Sea flood of about 5000 B.C.E. has been proposed as the original model).

From here:
BibII

"MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)"

From here:BibIII

"LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird."

"JS 10:12-14 God obliges Joshua by making the sun and moon stand still (so that he can finish his battle by daylight)."

"IS 30:26 The moon will someday be as bright as the sun now is. (Note: Until relatively recent times, the moon and the planets were thought to give off their own light.)"

Are these enough inaccuracies, myths, falsehoods and non existant histories for you?




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:54 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
tifagomez

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from StormCrow at 4:04 PM on April 29, 2003 :
by creationism, I mean I believe that there was something that we don't understand that happened at the dawn of time. Science cannot recreate, nor explain the birth of the first organism. I don't dissagree that adaption, to some extent is possible throughout life on our planet. I already know how distasteful the thought of God is to you, you needn't remind me.  You can call me ignorant of self deluded all you like. For him to say that there are no Creationists with above average intelligence is a far more ignorant statement. I find it further ignorant that you make such arguments personal, and take them personally that people dissagree with you.


THANKYOU!!!




-------
tifagomez*
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 9:49 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
tifagomez

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong again!
a cell cannot be created niether can it come
into existence by itself!
I believe God is BANG ON RIGHT!!!


-------
tifagomez*
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:03 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
tifagomez

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now that was just plain nasty!!!
You seem to be looking for a fight.
Should anyone think you are a mean spirited little,
Darwin Monkey?



-------
tifagomez*
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:07 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
tifagomez

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are so right!
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God!
God is wisdom,and everything brilliant.
Our human brains cannot understand every-
thing,but God does.
The way to know if you are wise or not is if
you can understand that you know nothing,
compared to God!


-------
tifagomez*
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:13 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
tifagomez

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[The majority (65%) of creationists do not have a highschool education.

Explains A LOT doesn't it?

Is that right? I have my High School Education,and so does my husband,and we both believe in the Holy Bible!!!
Hey,thats not all,most of our christian friends
finished school and college too.I finished a course in college and passed it very well.

Did caca doo doo evolve too?




-------
tifagomez*
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:20 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong again!
a cell cannot be created niether can it come
into existence by itself!


Any evidence to back up this statement?  Didn't think so...

The majority (65%) of creationists do not have a highschool education.

Explains A LOT doesn't it?


Yeah, it does explain a lot, like creationists have no idea of what they're talking about and can't possibly disprove the theory of evolution if they don't understand it...Becasue of their lack of education, they can't understand why evolution is valid and is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:35 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.