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
     Proving Creationism
       Disproving evolution =/= proving creationism

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

    
FID

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing that has always bugged me, is that I've never seen a creationist try to prove any of his theories. All I see is them trying to disprove the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory. I mean, purely hypothetically, if someone for definate disproved evolution, that would in no way prove, or even point in the direction of creationism.

I would like some input from creationists about this.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 2:21 PM on March 19, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism can't be proved because it is based on the premise that God created the world.  Thus far, God has not explicitly made his pressence known.  

That's why Creationism is not a science - it is based on the supernatural.  The supernatural is outside the ability of science to prove or disprove.  But some people think that just because something is currently unexplainable, that it must be attributed to God.  If everyone were to have taken that attitude then we would still be living back in the dark ages.

Fortunately science doesn't work like that.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:43 AM on March 20, 2008 | IP
Ethmi

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:43 AM on March 20, 2008 :
The supernatural is outside the ability of science to prove or disprove.  But some people think that just because something is currently unexplainable, that it must be attributed to God.  If everyone were to have taken that attitude then we would still be living back in the dark ages.

Fortunately science doesn't work like that.



Oh, really?  How do you figure that?


-------
I like Swedish women.
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 04:25 AM on March 23, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science deals only with naturalistic processes.  One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is that a hypotheis and theory must be testable.  A supernatural entity is not testable.  

Science doesn't disprove the existence of God.  Neither can Science prove God's presence.  God is outside the relm of science.  

Do you have an example of a testable supernatural entity - since you seem to disagree?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 05:45 AM on March 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since man first arose, he has been trying to explain nature.  Primitive man used primitive explainations, supernatural explainations.  Zeus is throwing lightning bolts, demons cause disease, etc.  
But as we've explored nature, we have never found the need for a supernatural explaination.
Never.  And the more we learn the less likely it becomes that we will ever need a supernatural explaination.  The god of the gaps is rapidly shrinking out of existance.
Creationism is just one more primitive myth that some people are too afraid to give up.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:57 AM on March 25, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from FID at 2:21 PM on March 19, 2008 :
One thing that has always bugged me, is that I've never seen a creationist try to prove any of his theories. All I see is them trying to disprove the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory. I mean, purely hypothetically, if someone for definate disproved evolution, that would in no way prove, or even point in the direction of creationism.

I would like some input from creationists about this.


Quite simple. There is no evidence for creationism. Creationists always derive the validity of their beliefs from the disproving of others. In reality that's the fallacy of false dichotomy. Assuming there are only two choices when in reality there are far more. If the sky is not neon pink, it must be neon orange!

One way to destroy a creationist's argument is to ask them to contrast their belief with another religion's origin story. When placed next to another faith belief, literal genesis has an extremely difficult time.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 6:53 PM on April 7, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Science doesn't disprove the existence of God.  Neither can Science prove God's presence.  God is outside the realm of science."

You cannot believe in both science (evolution) and God at the same time. Science does not leave room for the Bible to be true, and if you don't believe in the Bible, then you can't believe in God either. At least not in a Christian God. It is written plain as day that the earth was created in 6 days and man was CREATED on the 6th. It DOES NOT say that "man evolved for millions and millions of years, and finally the first two humans who were produced were called Adam and Eve." That's just nonsense. All living creatures and humans were created on the same day. They all lived together... nothing evolved. God didn't just put the whole Creation Week part in there just to fool all of us. He put it in there because it is absolute truth. Just like everything else in the Bible. People believe in evolution because they are too afraid to put their trust in something which they don't think can necessarily be "proven." It shows a much more mature person who can believe in something without seeing it, rather than someone who won't put any faith in anything until they've figured out every little detail.

Jesus also tells us about another kind of faith: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Up to this point in the Gospel, there has been only one type of faith or belief: a belief that has arisen because one has seen the glory of the resurrected Christ. But when Jesus leaves this earth and goes to the Father in heaven, there will be and there must be a new kind of faith: a belief without having a visible encounter with the resurrected Christ.

Creation and Christianity go hand in hand. Those Christians who refuse to believe in it are giving in to the ways of the world because they are afraid of what other people will think. Has Jesus' resurrection been proven by science? No, because if it had then everyone would believe in it because somehow it has come to be some almighty form of power that people believe every word of even if it doesn't make sense.

The fact still remains that Creation can be proven. Go out and look at the world around you. Look at the majesty of a hummingbird, or the intricacy of the human eyeball. Look at the complexities of the smallest living creature... look at the beauty of a sunset. This world is too beautiful to have happened by random chance.

Also, evolution is not a fact. It is simply a theory. One that has been disregarded by a number of scientists because it lacks a decent amount of proof. Darwin himself 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.''


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 9:47 PM on April 9, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

The life of Jesus has been historically proven. When one looks at his life, three conclusions are able to be drawn: He is a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord.

Liar: Jesus made all kinds of claims throughout his life that no other human would dare to make. Thousands of people followed him and were willing to die for the claims that he made. He also had many witnesses to the different miracles he performed. If Jesus was a liar, these thousands of people would not be willing to sacrifice their lives for those untrue claims... they would have had to be one hundred percent sure that they were true. So, he is not a liar.

Lunatic: He could have also just been a raving madman. But madmen are not capable of leading large crowds of people and teaching the parables and faith that he did. People would not be willing to listen to his nonsense if he were simply a lunatic.

Lord: This is the only possibility left.

Read about this more in-depth:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/unique.html
http://www.counselcareconnection.org/articles/138/1/Lord-Liar-or-Lunatic/Page1.html

Jesus references creation many times in the new testament. The Bible also says that he was there in the beginning. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."  NASB John 1:1-3

Examples of his references:

Jesus affirms the annihilation of everyone in the flood of Noah, referring to Genesis 6-9:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:36-39

And Jesus takes us even farther back in time with his reference to Abel, the son of Adam, from Genesis 4:

"For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'" Luke 11:49-52
The expression "foundation of the world" refers to the inception of the earth, the laying down of its substance. Notice that Jesus affirms that the blood of men has been shed "since the foundation of the world." Jesus didn't say "from the beginning of man," which he could have said and would been just as meaningful. But in this way, Jesus establishes that since the very beginnings of the world, men have rejected God and his prophets.

If the beginning of the world preceded the existence of man by billions of years, the blood of prophets could not have been shed at the time Jesus said. Furthermore, Jesus restates this in a parallel fashion by mentioning prophets from the beginning until more recently: "from the blood of Able to the blood of Zechariah." Jesus affirms a specific person, Abel, as being the one he was referring to whose blood was shed since the foundation of the world. Clearly, if Abel had not lived near the time of the "foundation of the world," Jesus statement would have made no sense.

Now if Jesus was not a Liar or a Lunatic, and his existence is historically proven, how can creation be false?


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:31 PM on April 9, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You cannot believe in both science (evolution) and God at the same time. Science does not leave room for the Bible to be true, and if you don't believe in the Bible, then you can't believe in God either. At least not in a Christian God. It is written plain as day that the earth was created in 6 days and man was CREATED on the 6th. It DOES NOT say that "man evolved for millions and millions of years, and finally the first two humans who were produced were called Adam and Eve." That's just nonsense. All living creatures and humans were created on the same day. They all lived together... nothing evolved. God didn't just put the whole Creation Week part in there just to fool all of us. He put it in there because it is absolute truth. Just like everything else in the Bible.  


Ronald Numbers wrote an interesting book detailing the history of creationism, which is basically a 20th century invention.

The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism

Theologically, there is a strong history of acceptance of science and scientific results.  There need be no conflict between science and Christianity.

As Thomas Aquinas says:"In discussing questions of this kind [the manner and mode of creation as set forth
in Genesis] two rules are to be observed as Augustine teaches (De gen. adlitt., I,
37). The first is to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false ; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:07 AM on April 10, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Allisong - what do you think a scientific theory is?  What is the definition of 'theory', in a scientific sense?

Sure, evolution has been disregarded by a number of scientists - Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Duane Gish.  However, I challenge you to present any peer-reviewed paper any of these gentlement have published that disprove evolution.  I'll save you the effort - you will find 0, zero, zip, nada.  

Oh, they have published some books for the scientifically illiterate public to swallow, using some scientific sounding terms such as 'Irreducible Complexity' or 'Design Inference'.  But these ideas have not passed the scrutiny of scientific review.  Indeed, their arguments have been found to be in serious error.  

When you say that 'evolution is simply a theory' you are identifying yourself as someone who doesn't understand what a scientific theory is, nor do you understand evolution.  That's fine.  You have a lot of company - including our own President Bush.

Life, and the universe around us, is a wondrous thing.  I marvel at both.  I want to understand how life and the universe came about.  Science gives me a chance to take a peek at just how wonderful both are.  

You take the Bible.  I'll take Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, & Co.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:40 AM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 9:47 PM on April 9, 2008 :
"Science doesn't disprove the existence of God.  Neither can Science prove God's presence.  God is outside the realm of science."

You cannot believe in both science (evolution) and God at the same time. Science does not leave room for the Bible to be true, and if you don't believe in the Bible, then you can't believe in God either. At least not in a Christian God.


Good job on failing to learn what interpretation is. You can't be a literal creationists and accept much of any science. It is all about how one interprets the books.

It is written plain as day that the earth was created in 6 days and man was CREATED on the 6th. It DOES NOT say that "man evolved for millions and millions of years, and finally the first two humans who were produced were called Adam and Eve."


Nor does it specificy just how long a day is. Good job on failing to learn the intricacies of your own religious books.

That's just nonsense. All living creatures and humans were created on the same day. They all lived together... nothing evolved.


Care to explain to me why the fossil record does not support that?

Why is that we have yet to find an African elephant in the same layer as a Celophysis?

Or is that you have no actual science education and you're just repeating sunday school's propaganda?

God didn't just put the whole Creation Week part in there just to fool all of us.


Actually he probably did. Why would God try to explain the laws of physics and how genes work to people who one, won't understand, and two don't care?

If your two major concerns were
1) Finding food
2) Not being enslaved/killed by Egyptians

Would you really want to know just how creation was actually made when 99.9999% of it would not help you at all in your life?

The fact still remains that Creation can be proven. Go out and look at the world around you. Look at the majesty of a hummingbird, or the intricacy of the human eyeball. Look at the complexities of the smallest living creature... look at the beauty of a sunset. This world is too beautiful to have happened by random chance.


No, that's "We don't know, therefore Goddidit"

That's animism.  Good job on reverting to early human belief systems.

Also, evolution is not a fact. It is simply a theory. One that has been disregarded by a number of scientists because it lacks a decent amount of proof.


Could you name such scientists? Furthermore, could you define the word "Theory"?

Darwin himself 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.''


No he didn;t. You just fell for a quote mine.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_on_evolution_of_the_eye



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 02:00 AM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another pertinent quote from Augustine in the fifth century:"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics ; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?  Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." (I Tim. 1: 7)
"



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:48 AM on April 10, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nor does it specify just how long a day is. Good job on failing to learn the intricacies of your own religious books.

He didn't HAVE to. A day is a day. It's a 24-hour period. It doesn't have to be interpreted. People just made that up so that they could believe in creation and the Bible at the same time. The sequence of the Bible and evolution don't line up anyway... I posted it in a different thread.

And obviously, if I don't believe in evolution, I don't give any regard to the "fossil record." So that's not really going to convince me, Obvious_child.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 1:50 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nor does it specify just how long a day is. Good job on failing to learn the intricacies of your own religious books.


He didn't HAVE to. A day is a day. It's a 24-hour period. It doesn't have to be interpreted.


Wrong. The Hebrew word for "day" just means an unspecified amount of time.

And obviously, if I don't believe in evolution, I don't give any regard to the "fossil record." So that's not really going to convince me, Obvious_child.


Denying the fossil record denies science and reason. It is foolish to rely on scientific arguments for creationism when you don't acknowledge the weight of science to begin with.

You're basically saying, "Stop trying to convince me with reason, Obvious Child. Reason won't convince me." All the while, you fail to realize that arguments are conveyed through reason.

That's unadulterated cherry picking. God frowns upon hypocrites.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/10/2008 at 3:38 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:35 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is a "Day"?

The word for "day" in Genesis one is the Hebrew word yom. It can mean either a day (in the ordinary 24-our sense), the daylight portion (say about 12 hours) of an ordinary 24-hour day (i.e., day as distinct from night), or, occasionally, an indefinite period of time (e.g.. "In the time of the Judges" or "In the day of the Lord"). Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament the word yom is never used to refer to a definite long period of time with specific beginning and end points. Furthermore, it is important to note that even when the word yom is used in the indefinite sense, it is clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning of the word day is not intended.

Some people say that the word day in Genesis may have been used symbolically, and so we are not meant to take it literally. However, an important point that many fail to consider is that a word can never be used symbolically the first time it is used! In fact, a word can be used symbolically only when it first has a literal meaning. In the New Testament we are told that Jesus is the "door." We know what this means, because we know the word door means an entrance. Because we understand its literal meaning, it is able to be applied in a symbolic sense to Jesus Christ. The word door could not be used in this way unless it first had the literal meaning we understand it to have. Thus, the word day cannot be used symbolically the first time it is used in the book of Genesis.

Indeed, this is why the author of Genesis has gone to great lengths to properly define the word day the first time it appears. In Genesis 1:4, we read that God separated the "light from the darkness." Then in Genesis 1:5 we read, God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. In other words, the terms were being very carefully defined. The first time the word day is used, it is defined as the light to distinguish it from the darkness called night. Genesis 1:5 then finishes off with, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This is the same phrase used for each of the other five days, and shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (i.e., periods of light and periods of darkness). The periods of light on each of the six days were when God did his work, and the periods of darkness were when God did no creative work.

Why six days?

God is an infinite being. This means he has infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite wisdom, etc. Obviously, God could make anything he wanted to in no time at all. He could have created the whole universe, the earth, and all it contains in no time at all. Perhaps the question we should be asking is why did God take as long as six days, anyway? After all, six days is a long time for an infinite being to take to make anything! The answer can be found in Exodus 20:11.

Exodus 20 contains the ten commandments. It should be remembered that these commandments were written on stone by the very "Finger of God," for in Exodus we read, "And when he made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, he gave Moses two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). The fourth commandment in verse nine of Chapter 20 tells us that we are to work six days and rested for one. The justification for this is given in verse 11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them and rested the seven day. Therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it." This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent (and we must be), whatever is used as the meaning of the word day in Genesis 1 must also be used here. If you are going to say the word day means a long period of time in Genesis, then it has been already shown that the only way this can be is in the sense that the day is an indefinite or indeterminate period of time-not a definite period of time. Thus, the sense of Exodus 20:9-11 would have to be "Six indefinite periods shalt thou labor, and rest a seventh indefinite period"! This, however, makes no sense at all. By accepting the days as ordinary days, we understand that God is telling us that He worked for six ordinary days and rested for one ordinary day to set a pattern for man-the pattern of our 7-day week, which we still have today! In other words, here in Exodus 20 we learn the reason why God took as long as six days to make everything-he was setting a pattern for us to follow, a pattern we still follow today.

Day-age inconsistencies

There are many inconsistencies for those who accept the days in Genesis as long periods of time. For instance, we are told in Genesis 1:26-28 that God made the first man (Adam) on the six day. Adam lived through the rest of the six day, through the seven day, and then we are told in Genesis 5:5 that he died when he was 930 years old. (We are still not in the seven day now, as some people misconstrue the account, for Genesis 2: to tells us God rested from his work of creation, not that he is resting from his work of creation.) If each day was, for example, a million years, then there are real problems. In fact, if each day was only a thousand years long, this still makes no sense of Adam's age at death, either!


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 6:59 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 1:50 PM on April 10, 2008 :
He didn't HAVE to. A day is a day. It's a 24-hour period. It doesn't have to be interpreted. People just made that up so that they could believe in creation and the Bible at the same time. The sequence of the Bible and evolution don't line up anyway... I posted it in a different thread.


This argument has already been refuted. Nowhere in the Torah does it specificy how long a day is. Furthermore, the english translation clearly added bias.

And obviously, if I don't believe in evolution, I don't give any regard to the "fossil record." So that's not really going to convince me, Obvious_child.


Then why do you use oil? Or natural gas? Since you don't care about the fossil record, and that is used partially by big oil to find specific type of organisms which were converted into oil, why are you using oil since you don't think the fossil record is genuine?

Your belief is entirely full of contradictions and every day you practice things that contradict what you believe.


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:13 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why is that creationists generally have no idea what they are talking about whatsoever?

I feel kind of bad about picking on ali. She obviously has the education on a 3rd grader, no science background whatsoever and absolutely no critical thinking skills. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, even if the fish are incredibly arrogant.

(Edited by Obvious_child 4/10/2008 at 8:16 PM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:15 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists have just as much an idea about what they mean to say as anyone that talks about evolution.

(Edited by forfunt1 4/10/2008 at 8:22 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:20 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ali, you've very carefully avoided the initial question. As such, I'll ask it again.
What physical (read: empirical, not biblical hearsay) evidence is there for a 6000-year-old earth?

That said, lets look at some of your other statements. For starters, the old Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument.
Firstly, the argument presents a very clear-cut choice, which isn't necessarily the case. I, personally, believe that Jesus was a charismatic leader (Lord) who believed himself to be more than he was (Lunatic) and was prepared to distort the truth/have the truth distorted about him in order to serve his beliefs(Liar).
Secondly, your reasons for him not being Liar or Lunatic are both flawed, in comparison to other charismatic leaders. Hitler for example (sorry, Godwins law) persuaded millions of individuals that his antisemetic views were more than lunacy, and many a politician/leader has lied to get their thousands of soldiers to fight for them.

More directly answering:
The fact still remains that Creation can be proven. Go out and look at the world around you. Look at the majesty of a hummingbird, or the intricacy of the human eyeball. Look at the complexities of the smallest living creature... look at the beauty of a sunset. This world is too beautiful to have happened by random chance.
Google 'emergent behaviour'. Or look at the formations of beautiful snowflakes, or mountain ranges. Or best yet, the methods by which fractals are made. When you're done seeing that beauty can happen as a result of simple rules, look at the evolution of the eye  for a more specific example of how things that appear irreducibly complex really aren't.

And finally for the moment...
Also, evolution is not a fact. It is simply a theory.
As has been stated a multitude of times: so what? Gravity is just a theory. There are no 'facts' in science, as everything is ultimately open to review. It's one of the features of YEC that makes it non-science: regardless of the evidence, YEC-ers stick to their 'theory'. Evolution, like everything else, adapts.

EDIT'd for minor grammer/style/url correctness

(Edited by iangb 4/10/2008 at 9:47 PM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 9:36 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You forgot the cartoon.

Quote from allisong at 5:59 PM on April 10, 2008 :
What is a "Day"?

The word for "day" in Genesis one is the Hebrew word yom. It can mean either a day (in the ordinary 24-our sense), the daylight portion (say about 12 hours) of an ordinary 24-hour day (i.e., day as distinct from night), or, occasionally, an indefinite period of time (e.g.. "In the time of the Judges" or "In the day of the Lord"). Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament the word yom is never used to refer to a definite long period of time with specific beginning and end points. Furthermore, it is important to note that even when the word yom is used in the indefinite sense, it is clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning of the word day is not intended.

Some people say that the word day in Genesis may have been used symbolically, and so we are not meant to take it literally. However, an important point that many fail to consider is that a word can never be used symbolically the first time it is used! In fact, a word can be used symbolically only when it first has a literal meaning. In the New Testament we are told that Jesus is the "door." We know what this means, because we know the word door means an entrance. Because we understand its literal meaning, it is able to be applied in a symbolic sense to Jesus Christ. The word door could not be used in this way unless it first had the literal meaning we understand it to have. Thus, the word day cannot be used symbolically the first time it is used in the book of Genesis.

Indeed, this is why the author of Genesis has gone to great lengths to properly define the word day the first time it appears. In Genesis 1:4, we read that God separated the "light from the darkness." Then in Genesis 1:5 we read, God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. In other words, the terms were being very carefully defined. The first time the word day is used, it is defined as the light to distinguish it from the darkness called night. Genesis 1:5 then finishes off with, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This is the same phrase used for each of the other five days, and shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (i.e., periods of light and periods of darkness). The periods of light on each of the six days were when God did his work, and the periods of darkness were when God did no creative work.

Why six days?

God is an infinite being. This means he has infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite wisdom, etc. Obviously, God could make anything he wanted to in no time at all. He could have created the whole universe, the earth, and all it contains in no time at all. Perhaps the question we should be asking is why did God take as long as six days, anyway? After all, six days is a long time for an infinite being to take to make anything! The answer can be found in Exodus 20:11.

Exodus 20 contains the ten commandments. It should be remembered that these commandments were written on stone by the very "Finger of God," for in Exodus we read, "And when he made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, he gave Moses two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). The fourth commandment in verse nine of Chapter 20 tells us that we are to work six days and rested for one. The justification for this is given in verse 11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them and rested the seven day. Therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it." This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent (and we must be), whatever is used as the meaning of the word day in Genesis 1 must also be used here. If you are going to say the word day means a long period of time in Genesis, then it has been already shown that the only way this can be is in the sense that the day is an indefinite or indeterminate period of time-not a definite period of time. Thus, the sense of Exodus 20:9-11 would have to be "Six indefinite periods shalt thou labor, and rest a seventh indefinite period"! This, however, makes no sense at all. By accepting the days as ordinary days, we understand that God is telling us that He worked for six ordinary days and rested for one ordinary day to set a pattern for man-the pattern of our 7-day week, which we still have today! In other words, here in Exodus 20 we learn the reason why God took as long as six days to make everything-he was setting a pattern for us to follow, a pattern we still follow today.


Sorry, creationists.org makes it hard to link an image. :-(

Day-age inconsistencies

There are many inconsistencies for those who accept the days in Genesis as long periods of time. For instance, we are told in Genesis 1:26-28 that God made the first man (Adam) on the six day. Adam lived through the rest of the six day, through the seven day, and then we are told in Genesis 5:5 that he died when he was 930 years old. (We are still not in the seven day now, as some people misconstrue the account, for Genesis 2: to tells us God rested from his work of creation, not that he is resting from his work of creation.) If each day was, for example, a million years, then there are real problems. In fact, if each day was only a thousand years long, this still makes no sense of Adam's age at death, either!





(Edited by Apoapsis 4/14/2008 at 10:56 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:41 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I'm here... On the possibilities of Theistic Evolution.

Basically, read this. It describes in length how Genesis can be taken as a faith account, nothing more or less. A chief reason is described here, where the many other passages in the bible (and the OT) that cannot be take literally are expanded upon. The section below directly addresses the 'length of a 'day'', quoting appropriate scripture to back itself up. 2 Peter 3:8 "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".

Concise enough?


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 10:03 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reply to iangb: (I don't know how to do the box things... sorry.)

Same site, different stuff...

A day is as a thousand years

But some refer to II Peter 3:8 which tells us, "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

This verse is used by many to teach, by inference at least, that the days in Genesis must each be a thousand years long. This reasoning however, is quite wrong. Turning to Psalm 90:4, we read a very similar verse, "For a thousand years in your site are like yesterday when it is passed, and like a watch in the night."

In both II Peter 3 and Psalm 90, the whole context is that God is limited neither by natural processes or by time. God is outside time, for he also created time. Neither verse refers to the days of creation in Genesis, for they are dealing with God's not being bound by time. In II Peter 3, the context is in relation to Christ's second coming, pointing out the fact that with God a day is just like a thousand years or a thousand years is just like one day-that God is unaffected by time. This has nothing to do with the days of creation in Genesis!

Furthermore, in II Peter 3:8, the word day is being contrasted with a thousand years. The word day thus has a literal meaning which enables it to be contrasted with "a thousand years." It could not be contrasted with a thousand years if it didn't have a literal meaning. That is, the word day is not being defined here, but is being contrasted with the phrase "a thousand years." Thus, the thrust of the Apostles' message is that God can do in a very short time what men or nature would require a very long time (if ever) to accomplish. Evolutionists try to make out that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce man. Many Christians have accepted these millions of years, added them to the Bible, and then said that God took millions of years to make everything.

However, the point of II Peter3:8 is that God is not limited by time, whereas evolution requires time (and lots of it).

It is also important to note that in the section of II Peter preceding the statement "One day is as a thousand years," we are told that "... Scoffers will, in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, " where is the promise of his coming? For since the father's fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation "" (II Peter3:34).

Thus, in the last days people are going to say that things have just gone on and on-just as the evolutionists say things have gone on and on for millions of years. These people do not believe that God intervenes in history. This statement-"All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation"-could really be defined as the modern-day concept of uniformitarianism. This is the view prevalent in geology today: that "The present is the key to the past" (i.e. this world has gone on and on for millions of years in the same way as we see things happening today). This is really the basis of modern evolutionary geology. Most modern-day geologists don't believe that God created the world thousands of years ago, but that it is a product of processes over millions of years. God told us quite clearly that he created everything in six days, and that he took this long to do it because of the particular purposes explained in Exodus 20.

http://www.creationists.org/howlongisaday.html

Go look at it... though I'm sure it won't do any good...

And Obvious child - I do not have the education of a third grader... and I actually received an A in every science class I've ever taken. So please, don't try to make me seem like a fool.

You'll all see in the end anyway.




-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:40 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know if it's me or the link, but I get a 'server busy' page every time I try to follow your link. Sorry, I'll try again later. I'd be interested to see a site that isn't Answers in Genesis.

IN-POST EDIT: Woo, Google still has the page cached. Oh, nuts. It's a direct extract from AiG. I should have guessed, good old Ken Ham pulls through again... ho hum. To the replymobile!

As to the specific interpretation of Peter 3:8, you've got your interpretation, my link has another and I've got mine: that this verse and Genesis are not related in any way, but that instead Peter was just trying to describe how awesome it would be to stand in Gods presence; so joyous that a day would feel like a thousand years, yet a thousand years will pass like a day. If you've ever been in love, or simply incredibly happy, you'll know the feeling. I think that the verse is simply meant to be taken figuratively. Just like Genesis.

I can't help but notice that you've only replied to those points of mine that can only be answered with text dumps from that page. What do you make of my other claims: specifically about other parts of the Old Testament which are designed to be taken literally, but which are, in fact, incorrect? For example:
Leviticus 11 13 " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

The get-out is that clearly here God (who was speaking to Moses at the time) was speaking in terms that his listeners could understand: they wouldn't think of bats as mammals, but as birds. But what's to say that God didn't 'dictate' Genesis in the same style and terms?

Just so you know, use the ScareCrowCode to make the box things... I would guess, anyway. I'm used to BBCode.

EDIT: spellage, etc...


(Edited by iangb 4/10/2008 at 11:13 PM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 11:07 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 9:40 PM on April 10, 2008 :

You'll all see in the end anyway.



So basically, we have to believe what you believe or we're going to hell.

And you think you shouldn't come off as arrogant?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:17 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, Apoapsis, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't really be truly believing in my religion then, would I?

Iangb - read this. http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_06/ts_scientific_evidence.htm

And yes, I know the whole moon-dust things has been discredited...


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:42 PM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My question would be if that religion is Christianity or Bibliolatry.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:27 AM on April 11, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly; I quote the article.
"Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, the evidence more than suggests that it is not billions of years old."
So no, it is impossible to put proof behind your 6000 years. Looking at the more far-reaching evidence...

The initial metaphor - that of 'the age must be less than the youngest date' is not, unfortunately for you, necessarily the correct one. Consider that I was trying to work out the age of our metaphorical mine from the various commemorative awards it has received over the course of its life. I find one award from 1968, a second award from 1932 and a third award from 2000: but it would be silly for me to conclude that the 2000 award should be the one used to date the mine as being ~8 years old.
Clearly in this case, the oldest piece of evidence must be used to show the minimum age of the Earth, as opposed to the youngest date relating to the maximum age.
From this we have to say that there are two different types of evidence that can be used to date the earth, and these must be treated in two different ways...

Type 1) This is evidence that puts an upper boundary on the age of the earth. This is the sort of evidence that Ken Hovind (who, incidentally, is criticised by even the creationist community for his more far-fetched theories) is talking about in the initial part of your link.
Type 2) This is evidence that puts a lower boundary on the age of the earth. It would be something like: mountain X can be proven to be Y years old, the earth must be older than this. For example, looking through my room I found a 20th birthday card. This means I must be over 20.

Now we've got those sorted, let's go through Kent's list and say what type of evidence each part is: be it type 1 or type 2 evidence. I need only worry about Type 1 evidence, because all the rest merely puts a minimum date on the earth: it could be far older than that (final example - we've worked out that I am at least 20. This implies that the earth has been here a minimum of 20 years).
Oh, and if I can debunk it, I will do that instead. I may reference talkorigins a lot: have a look here for the complete list... Also, here is good for Hovind-specific arguments.

Moon dust: debunked
Fossil meteorites: debunked
The closeness of the moon: debunked
Sirius: Not relevant, and debunked.
Topsoil: debunked
Niagra: This is type 2 evidence. The earth must be older than the Niagra falls, not younger....
Mississippi: Again, type 2 evidence. Also, note that Kent is using the 'could have' language that he criticises later in his own piece.
Ocean floor sediment: debunked
Salty oceans: eurgh (I have bad memories of this one from a different debate, sorry). Thoroughly debunked
Ice Cores: debunked
All of the 'evidence from biology': Type 2 evidence
All of the evidence from history: Type 2 evidence and/or hearsay.

Done! My turn....

The two main arguments against a young earth are radiometric dating (specifically the isochron method) and the fact that we can see the light from stars which are billions of light years away. Do you have anything against these two pieces of evidence? They're both type 2, and both put the age of the earth at faaar older than 6000 years.

(Edited by iangb 4/11/2008 at 07:54 AM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 07:43 AM on April 11, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 10:42 PM on April 10, 2008 :

Iangb - read this. http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_06/ts_scientific_evidence.htm


So you would consider Kent Hovind to be a good representative of your position?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:41 AM on April 11, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We can see the light from stars because God made them especially for our benefit and pleasure. He can do anything, so he can make the light get here right away if He wants.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 09:32 AM on April 11, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lee Strobel was an atheist who set out to disprove Christianity. But as he investigated deeper and deeper, he only became more convinced that he was , in fact, the one that was wrong. So he wrote a book, well actually many books, but this one is called, The Case for a Creator. He uses science and other evidence that is not from the Bible obviously, since he wasn't a Christian in the first place. I would recommend checking it out.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 09:57 AM on April 11, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was the more or less exactly the reply that I was expecting. And to pre-empt your reply on isochron dating:
"God set up the initial conditions of the world so that the world would already be prefect. He didn't create Adam as a baby; why should he create rocks that are newly-formed? The isochron method is flawed because it is based on the fact that it is practically impossible for a rock to start off with the precise initial conditions to make it appear older than it is, but to God, all things are possible"

We now have an impasse of faith. I have shown - scientifically - that there are no flaws in an Old Earth which you have yet to come up with. I have also shown - scientifically - that there is evidence which requires God to have 'tampered with' it in order for the earth to be younger than it appears.
Separately, I (and Kent Hovind. I'm fairly sure AiG admits it as well) have shown that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for an Earth that is 6000 years old. The only evidence of a 6000-yr-old earth is in the literal translation of the Bible. It is nothing but your faith in the bible which causes you to ignore the scientific evidence.

Have you heard of the idea of Omphalos (link)? Essentially it is the beleif that "in order for the world to be 'functional', God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair ... and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable."

This is now, ultimately, the view that you are taking. Because this is the only way by which the Biblical age of the earth can be upheld - a view based entirely on faith, without any scientific reasoning whatsoever.

Does that sound about right? If not, feel free to claim as to why. If so, I'll go on to the consequences.

Consequences of Omphalos
1) Last Thursdayism
"To God, all things are possible". Therefore, I propose a new theory. God created the entire universe last Thursday. He simply gave everyone and everything 'false' ages, like he has done in your version of Creation. I have faith in my version, you have faith in yours. Who is to say which of us is correct?

See also: Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

2) God as Liar
If God created everything with 'fake' ages, does that not make Him something of a liar? After all, He would know that we would work out the 'apparent' age of the universe, even if it conflicts with the 'real' age of the universe. He's lying to us through the medium of... everything.

3) 'Fake' old earth.
Couldn't think of a good title for this one... meh. Anyway, looking at the answers to the above two consequences comes the logical third answer.
From 1: It is possible that God made the world at any time, just giving everything 'fake' pasts. The Bible is a solitary anchor to when the 'real' start-point was, but if the Bible happened to say, for example, yesterday, then that would be the 'real' start point. Everything 'before' yesterday would be a false memory.
From 2: God cannot lie. This means that, in a very real way, should yesterday have been the 'real' start of the universe, the days 'before' yesterday would actually still have been real. If they weren't real, then God would be lying to us in that He would have given us incorrect memories.
Consequence: The earth is old. God created the world 6000 years ago, but in order for the earth to appear older He Gave everything 'false' pasts. So, light getting to us from the North Star (430 light years away) had a 'false' past stretching 430 years. Because God cannot lie, this means that in a very real way the 'false' past was real. Every piece of scientific data that we can gather is real, because if it was not, God would be lying to us. We really are in a 4.5-billion-year-old-universe, just one that was created 6000 years ago.

It would be possible to reject this consequence with the claim that God is not avoiding lying to us, we are merely misinterpreting our evidence. But there is such a wealth of evidence all pointing to an old earth, and none pointing to a Young, that it would have to be a work of God for earth to be other than we interpret it as. You yourself have stated that God 'made the light get here right away'. It just takes another - equally literal - interpretation of Genesis.

Thoughts?

(Edited by iangb 4/11/2008 at 11:03 AM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 10:55 AM on April 11, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As regards to God in general.... I'm an agnostic, for reasons I might go into somewhere else. God doesn't phase me, as long as He is a creature of faith.

Bad science does.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 11:07 AM on April 11, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 10:40 PM on April 10, 2008 :
Reply to iangb: (I don't know how to do the box things... sorry.)

And Obvious child - I do not have the education of a third grader... and I actually received an A in every science class I've ever taken. So please, don't try to make me seem like a fool.

You'll all see in the end anyway


Agreed. You have the education of a 2nd grader. You failed entirely to answer any science question we have given you. Every single 'science' explanation you gave comes directly off AIG, which are easily refutable. In another thread I refuted your 'arguments' and provided a website that has known refutations to AIG's nonsense. You fled the scene. Second, you have failed entirely to even properly define the terms being used. You can SAY you got As in science classes but when you can't properly define theory, that is far more evidence you are lying about your credentials.

You are a fool. Quite a big one.

And you are reliant on threats of Hell when you have no arguments. A sign of immaturity but of serious religious insecurity. Not to mention outright failure to figure out who actually calls the shots in your religion. And you have completely failed to realize there are more then one religion out there.

Good job on constantly failing.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:22 PM on April 11, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 8:20 PM on April 10, 2008 :
Creationists have just as much an idea about what they mean to say as anyone that talks about evolution.

(Edited by forfunt1 4/10/2008 at 8:22 PM).


Not at all. How many literal creationists do you know that can properly define evolution and the term theory? Most of them can't even figure out that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Idiots every last one of them.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:25 PM on April 11, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 09:32 AM on April 11, 2008 :
We can see the light from stars because God made them especially for our benefit and pleasure. He can do anything, so he can make the light get here right away if He wants.


So Magic?

Got it.

Remember the Creationists' Rule Book; If you don't have an answer and will never have any hope of any reasonable answer, claim Goddidit.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:26 PM on April 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's not resort to personal insults.

I think it's obvious that for Allisong (and others) her religion is a very important part of her life.  Something she draws comfort and strength on.  I respect that.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:03 PM on April 11, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you, Orion.

And just to make things clear I did not mean to make it seem like I believe people will go to hell if they do not believe in creationism... it fails to matter at all in the long run. Believing in creationism is obviously not the definition of Christianity - it is instead accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. And yes, I do believe that the only way to get into heaven is to do that. I realize that there are other religions, but that doesn't mean that they get to have separate rules. I believe in absolute truth - meaning there is only one way to get into heaven. I respect those other religions, but that is not what I believe.

God did not create the world by "magic." He is omnipotent, so he can do anything. That's not the same as magic.

I think that you are the immature one, Obvious child. I don't think it's necessary to put me down over and over. I'm not lying about getting As in science. I'm not that stupid.

And you guys can just call me Allison.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 6:37 PM on April 11, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 6:03 PM on April 11, 2008 :
Let's not resort to personal insults.

I think it's obvious that for Allisong (and others) her religion is a very important part of her life.  Something she draws comfort and strength on.  I respect that.




She is completely unwilling to examine her beliefs. Socrates stated a life unexamined is a life not worth living. Similarly, a belief not examined is a belief not worth having. Ali's beliefs are CLEARLY not worth having.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 11:56 PM on April 11, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 6:37 PM on April 11, 2008 :
And just to make things clear I did not mean to make it seem like I believe people will go to hell if they do not believe in creationism.


Sure you didn't. You just happened to say that after getting your ass kicked. Don't mind me if I don't believe you, after all, every creationists I've met usually resorts to threats of Hell sooner or later.

it fails to matter at all in the long run. Believing in creationism is obviously not the definition of Christianity - it is instead accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. And yes, I do believe that the only way to get into heaven is to do that.


Aside from God being the only one, assuming your religion is correct, who determines who is saved and who is not. Oh that silly concept of Grace. How forgotten it has become.

God did not create the world by "magic." He is omnipotent, so he can do anything. That's not the same as magic.


Because...

I think that you are the immature one, Obvious child. I don't think it's necessary to put me down over and over. I'm not lying about getting As in science. I'm not that stupid.

And you guys can just call me Allison.


Don't mind if I don't believe you.

1) you failed to show you understand the term 'theory'

2) you failed to understand the very basics of evolution

3) you failed to show you can separate different ideas and theories from each other

4) you posted garbage that has been refuted a thousand times, these are commonly referred to as "PRATT"s

5) You seem to believe because you WANT to believe rather then believe because that is what the facts and logic support. In fact, you go so far as to live your life in sheer contradiction to your beliefs. You use products that SHOULD NOT EXIST under a creationist set of physical laws. You use products that are derived from direct evolutionary concepts. And yet you seem perfectly willing to ignore such blaring problems.

You'll have to excuse me if I do believe you are stupid.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 12:02 AM on April 12, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Congratulations, Obvious, you've managed to turn a fairly interesting thread* into your own personal flaming ground. Is it _really_ necessary to make an insult per line when you post?



*I'd only just come up with those consequences of omphalos... normally I'd just leave it that omphalos is not scientific, the Big Bang is, and leave it at that... after all, you can believe anything you want. Though Obvious seems to disagree. Anyway, this new one seems to dip into a theological anti-YEC, also. Hmmmm....


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 07:12 AM on April 12, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 07:12 AM on April 12, 2008 :
Congratulations, Obvious, you've managed to turn a fairly interesting thread* into your own personal flaming ground. Is it _really_ necessary to make an insult per line when you post?



*I'd only just come up with those consequences of omphalos... normally I'd just leave it that omphalos is not scientific, the Big Bang is, and leave it at that... after all, you can believe anything you want. Though Obvious seems to disagree. Anyway, this new one seems to dip into a theological anti-YEC, also. Hmmmm....


If ali wants to people to believe she is intelligent, she has to a few things, first namely understanding the subject she believes to be false.

I've often used an analogy is describing how creationists go about it:

They are like someone trying to refute quantum physics without an understanding of the principles of Force.

Obviously Ali is doing the same thing. She can't even define what evolution is, what it includes and what it does not.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 1:45 PM on April 12, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hehe, unfortunately you're talking to a third-year Physics student. You don't really need to know the principles of force in order to understand quantum physics, it all gets a bit too... mathematical for simple concepts to fit in.

Anyway, I'm not (currently) interested in what Ali thinks I believe. I'm more interested in what she believes... something for which she is uniquely qualified to state. You clearly believe her beliefs to be false, but I doubt you fully understand them, either.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 7:24 PM on April 12, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 7:24 PM on April 12, 2008 :
Hehe, unfortunately you're talking to a third-year Physics student. You don't really need to know the principles of force in order to understand quantum physics, it all gets a bit too... mathematical for simple concepts to fit in.

Anyway, I'm not (currently) interested in what Ali thinks I believe. I'm more interested in what she believes... something for which she is uniquely qualified to state. You clearly believe her beliefs to be false, but I doubt you fully understand them, either.


You get my point. She fails to even understand the basics of the of the basics, of the basics. And yet she thinks she can refute it. Oh wait.

And I don't understand everything about evolution. But I do understand the very core of it. Which virtually no creationists can even approach. And I do realize that evolution, or at least parts of it may be actually incorrect.


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 3:00 PM on April 13, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Ethmi at 04:25 AM on March 23, 2008 :
Quote from orion at 11:43 AM on March 20, 2008 :
The supernatural is outside the ability of science to prove or disprove.  But some people think that just because something is currently unexplainable, that it must be attributed to God.  If everyone were to have taken that attitude then we would still be living back in the dark ages.

Fortunately science doesn't work like that.



Oh, really?  How do you figure that?



Well, this is actually a very good argument, because if we imagine the beginning era of our inquisitive mind, we would have strangled our curiosity by answering "God" to every "Why?"-question, and no progress would have been made. Naturally I am generalising extremely, but only to emphasize the point.

All the best!


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 7:32 PM on August 13, 2008 | IP
knightofchrist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:57 AM on March 25, 2008 :
Since man first arose, he has been trying to explain nature.  Primitive man used primitive explainations, supernatural explainations.  Zeus is throwing lightning bolts, demons cause disease, etc.  
But as we've explored nature, we have never found the need for a supernatural explaination.
Never.  And the more we learn the less likely it becomes that we will ever need a supernatural explaination.  The god of the gaps is rapidly shrinking out of existance.
Creationism is just one more primitive myth that some people are too afraid to give up.



Really so if everything can be proven without the supernatural could you please explain to me how the mind, thought, and logic all exist after all they are not material and could not be created by random chemical reactions as evolution states it.



-------
If evolution is correct then our minds are the result of random chemical reactions then how can we trust them?
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:02 PM on September 2, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Really so if everything can be proven without the supernatural could you please explain to me how the mind, thought, and logic all exist after all they are not material and could not be created by random chemical reactions as evolution states it.

Just because we don't know everything YET doesn't mean Goddidit.  Do you have any evidence that God created the mind, thought or logic????  Didn't think so....

And I see you don't understand evolution, amoung other things, because evolution isn't random at all.

The mind and thought are both processes of material components, the neurons of the brain, so they most certainly are based on physical, material means and therefore are completely explainable without the supernatural.  And logic is a tool created by the mind of man, so it too, has it's basis in a physically causes process and is not subject to the supernatual.  
You're batting .000!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:24 PM on September 2, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from knightofchrist at 8:02 PM on September 2, 2008 :
Quote from Demon38 at 03:57 AM on March 25, 2008 :
Since man first arose, he has been trying to explain nature.  Primitive man used primitive explainations, supernatural explainations.  Zeus is throwing lightning bolts, demons cause disease, etc.  
But as we've explored nature, we have never found the need for a supernatural explaination.
Never.  And the more we learn the less likely it becomes that we will ever need a supernatural explaination.  The god of the gaps is rapidly shrinking out of existance.
Creationism is just one more primitive myth that some people are too afraid to give up.



Really so if everything can be proven without the supernatural could you please explain to me how the mind, thought, and logic all exist after all they are not material and could not be created by random chemical reactions as evolution states it.




1.) Logic doesn't "exist". It's simply a way the universe operates. No one knows why logic is the way it is, but then again, do you have any idea how the universe could exist without logic? It couldn't. For example, consider the law of non-contradiction. Have you ever observed something existing and not existing at the same time? Can you even conceive of such a thing? I fail to see how an object's inability to exist and not exist simultaneously is evidence of the supernatural.

2.) The mind and thoughts are both products of chemical reactions going on inside one's brain, which is made of matter. Remove the brain and the so-called "immaterial" ceases to be.

3.) Chemical reactions are anything but random. Ex: Heat sulfur and iron together and you get a new compound, iron sulfide, every time.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/2/2008 at 9:30 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:29 PM on September 2, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

knightofchrist

Are your skills so pathetic that you have to rely on obvious God-of-the-gaps logic?

If we used your logic, we'd attribute everything we do not know to God. That includes how microwaves work. You seriously want to rely on logic which dictates God makes microwaves work?

I suggest you talk to a neurologist. They may teach you thing or two about the brain's neutral pathways.

(Edited by Obvious_child 9/4/2008 at 04:49 AM).

(Edited by Obvious_child 9/4/2008 at 04:50 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:49 AM on September 4, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 10:31 PM on April 9, 2008 :
The life of Jesus has been historically proven.


Um, no, it hasn't.

There is no (surviving) document about Jesus written during his (alleged) lifetime: not even by Christians.  

The earliest surviving Christian writings about Jesus were made by Paul, many years after Jesus (supposedly) died.

The writings of Josephus, who wasn't even born when Jesus (allegedly) lived, were controlled by the Christians, who forged passages about Jesus.



This historical dude is quite interesting though ...


“Even before he was born, his mother knew that he would not be a normal child.  In fact she had an angelic visitor come to her prior to her conception explaining that the one who would be born of her would himself be divine.  His birth itself was accompanied by miraculous signs and wonders.

As a young child he was religiously precocious, beyond what the adult religious leaders that he met could have imagined possible. As an adult he left home to engage in an itennerant preaching ministry, going from village to town, teaching his good news, that people did not need to be tied to the material things of this world, but to live for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him who became convinced that he was no mere mortal, and he did miracles to confirm them in their faith: healing the sick, casting out demons, and even raising the dead.  But he raised the ire of many of those in power, who brought him up on charges before the Roman authorities.

Even after he left this world, though, his followers continued to believe in him, claiming that he had ascended to heaven, and that they had seen him alive afterwards.  At a later time, some of his followers wrote books about his life and some of these writings still survive today.

But I doubt if any of you has ever read any of them, and I doubt if many of you have even heard the name of the man I’ve been describing: Appolonius of Tyana.  

Appolonius of Tyana, the famous neo-Pythagorean philosopher of the first century AD.  Appolonius, a worshipper of the pagan gods whose life and teachings are recorded for us in the writings of his later follower Philostratus, in a book called “The Life of Apollonius of Tyana”.

Appolonius lived at about the same time as Jesus, although they never knew each other. Their followers, though, knew each other, and they entered into heated debates concerning who was the superior being.  



What is striking and what is little known is that these were not the only two men in the ancient world who were believed to be divine.  There were lots of people who were thought to have been miraculously born, empowered from on high to do miracles, to heal the sick, to cast out demons, to deliver spectacular life-transforming teachings, who were thought to have ascended to heaven at the end of their lives, where they still live today.  Jesus may be the only miracle-working son of god that we know about in our world, but he was not at all the only one talked about in his own world.”

(From lecture 2 of the 12-hour video lecture series “The Historical Jesus”, by Bart D. Ehrman, available from The Teaching Company (www.teach12.com))

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 06:32 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I keep hearing the "couldn't have happened randomly" theory.  What these people don't understand is that with regards to evolution, "you" don't get the perfect variation every time.  Many many variations of creatures have been born genetically different than their "parents" the majority of these did no better or even worse at surviving and ultimately, reproducing.  Herein lies the problem with the 747 analogy.  If you throw those plane parts up in the air an infinite number of times, EVENTUALLY they will fall back into place (there are a few problems with this such as the need for a rivet gun, but it was your analogy, not mine) even things with a ridiculously low probability will happen eventually given enough trials.  Look at any irrational number: pi, sqrt(2, e, etc.  and i can guarantee you can find your phone # in there eventually.  An infinity of random can produce any result within the bounds of the test.


EDITED: for grammar

(Edited by 0112358132134 10/13/2008 at 3:58 PM).


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 3:57 PM on October 13, 2008 | 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.