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
     Few Questions For Creationists
       Few Questions For Creationists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Rodibidably

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am hoping to understand the "creationist" side of this debate a bit better. As a means to understanding a different view, and not a straw man version, I have put together a short list of questions that I would like to hear opinions on. Thanks in advance for those who are able to answer.

http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/a-few-questions-for-creationists/
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:03 AM on September 10, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Depends. I say around 12000 years.

2. The bible does not give a specific date for the universe. It could be as old as Evolution claims, (!3- billions years old) or as old as the earth.

3. I have done a fair amount of research on the Theory of Evolution.

4.I have researched anti-evolution sites alot but I have also done some research on the teachings of several major Evolutionists.

5. One is the historical accuracy of the bible. Another is the cave drawings of dinosaurs which says that man and dinosaur lived the at the same time.

6. Well, possibly a time machine.

YEC

1. I do not say the Earth is that old. We know that the Genealogy from Adam to Jesus is 4000 years. However, much time could have passed before that.

2. Are we intentionally laying, are scientists intentionally lying? If NASA, found evidence that the big bang was false, they would never, ever, admit it.

3. Different cultures have different beliefs. Different religions (Except Judaism and Christianity) have different gods


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 11:34 PM on September 10, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 11:34 PM on September 10, 2008 :
5. One is the historical accuracy of the bible. Another is the cave drawings of dinosaurs which says that man and dinosaur lived the at the same time.


Seriously? That's the best you got? Apparently your research took about as much time as a ringtone is long.

The historical accuracy of the bible doesn't mean that it is useful for what you say. After the fact is a problem with the bible as with all religious books.

As for the cave, that doesn't mean cavemen lived with dinosaurs. Fossils existed back then and large fauna that weren't dinosaurs lived with man.

1. I do not say the Earth is that old. We know that the Genealogy from Adam to Jesus is 4000 years. However, much time could have passed before that.


Come again? Care to cite such geneaology studies that prove Adam to Jesus was 4,000 years?

2. Are we intentionally laying, are scientists intentionally lying? If NASA, found evidence that the big bang was false, they would never, ever, admit it.


Ah, the hallmark of a great belief system. Conspiracy.


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:13 AM on September 11, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. A Young Earth Creationist believes the Earth to be approximately 6,000-10,000 years old. As do I. This is based on the genealogical record found in the Bible. To use this method as a baseline for belief, one must first confirm the validity of the Bible as an accurate historical record of origin to a degree suitable to the individual. This, of course, takes a certain amount of faith, (and, as with believing that the planet randomly formed, and life “just happened” that belief cannot be explained nor proven). Most creationists will not deny the fact that there are accurate dating methods used to date certain things on the planet. These methods can place an age in the thousands, millions, or even billions. The creationist stance, though, is that these items were created as being aged (God created a “mature” planet and universe).
2. I don’t know how old the universe is, and I’m not sure that it matters in the event of proving one side or the other. It’s almost like asking how old God is. Sure, if we can show that the universe is expanding, and we assume that the expansion has a place of origin, we can determine the age by the rate of expansion. But to me, I don’t see it as being important to the topic. It doesn’t prove either side to be correct in the matter.
3. Not a lot, honestly. Although, I am quite interested, and I am not at all against learning more in order to add light on the subject.
4. Not much. Just a few of the basics. I’ll admit that I need to read more in order to develop a better educated stance.
5. Proving creation scientifically is not possible. One would have to prove the existence of the creator. And, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to find Him/Her /It and discuss the matter. And, I digress, we can only speculate as to how to go about doing that—and that’s a completely different argument all together. As far as scientific evidence to “back” the creation theory goes, well, all we really have are the “holes” in the theory of evolution. Take, for example, Darwin’s statement concerning what we now refer to as irreducible complexity: “If there was ever found a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Then we look at something like bacterial flagellum, and it seems that a machine that complex and efficient could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, and this, as well as others, is a system that simply could not, at any moment in history, have worked without being in it’s present state. Now, this isn’t to say that science will not ever explain how the bacterial flagellum or the other complex parts inside a cell came to be. But, for now, it doesn’t seem possible that these parts simply came to be all at once in order to function within a cell. Believing that would be harder than believing in a creator. These things must have been created by someone or something intelligent at some point.

6. I really don’t know what it would take. I’m really not looking at the issue that way though. I simply want to review ALL facts and try to make the best educated decision. I currently feel like evolution COULD be possible, but that life came from nothing: impossible.

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 12:52 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm actually replying to my own post.  I realize that I made a comment concerning irreducible complexity.  I have to admit that I'm still in the process of determining the validity of the argument.  I'm currently looking into exaptation.  the only examples given of exaptation are merely speculative with NO amount of credible proof.  I'm interested in the idea, but I'm finding it hard to find anything that constitutes believing exaptation occured anymore than that of irreducible complexity.  I find it interesting that the idea of irreducible complexity seems to have been constructed in a scientific manner open to debate.  But the argument against it (exaptation) is simple speculation with no credible evidence.  

Here are the "examples" given:  

"Of the many examples of exaptations, here are two involving familiar traits. A multi-stage example involves human hands, which evolved to facilitate tool use and which are an exaptation of primate hands that were used for grasping tree branches. Those primate hands, in turn, were an exaptation of front legs that were used for locomotion on the ground, and those legs were an exaptation of the fins of fish, which were used for locomotion in the water. As this lineage exploited different niches—water, land, trees, and tool-use on the ground—natural selection reshaped its limbs.

A behavioral example pertains to subdominant wolves licking the mouths of alpha wolves as a sign of submissiveness. (Similarly, dogs, which are domesticated wolves, lick the faces of their human owners.) This trait can be explained as an exaptation of wolf pups licking the faces of adults to encourage them to regurgitate food.[2]
These aren't examples at all."
Another example:   "For example, feathers might have originally arisen in the context of selection for insulation, and only later were they co-opted for flight. In this case, the general form of feathers is an adaptation for insulation and an exaptation for flight."

I read the words "might" and "perhaps" quite a bit while reading up on this, and, frankly, that's just not scientific proof - just, as I said SPECULATION, and it cannot be used to DISPROVE irreducible complexity.

 Just mere speculation.  Show me one single example in nature that undeniably shows us exaptation, and I'll buy it.
Can anyone here give a valid example?

Thanks

(Edited by dijonaise 9/11/2008 at 1:11 PM).

(Edited by dijonaise 9/11/2008 at 1:12 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 1:03 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another is the cave drawings of dinosaurs which says that man and dinosaur lived the at the same time.

If you want to believe in Creationism, that's fine.  But saying that there are authentic cave paintings of dinosaurs is ridiculous.  There were also reported drawings on stones in South America depicting the same thing - dinosaurs - supposedly drawn by ancient tribes.  The conclusion:  Dinosaurs lived at the same time as people.  

Reality:  Some locals confessed that the drawings were recently made on these stones so that they could sell them to gullible tourists.

Diinosaurs and modern humans are seperated in time by 65 million years.  

You can go out on the internet and find all sorts of stupid things - UFO's, Bigfood, Noah's Ark, dinosaurs living at the same time as people, Moon landing hoax, conspiracy theories galore, etc.  Do any of these have any scientific basis?  Absolutely none.  

Examine the source of the information!  Does the information come from a reputable source?  Does it make any sense?  Or is it some trashy story from the National Enquirer!

If you insist that dinosaurs did live with people, show us your source for the information.

If NASA, found evidence that the big bang was false, they would never, ever, admit it.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, or how the scientific process operates.  If physicists or astronomers were to  come up with new evidence that support a different beginning to the universe than the Big Bang, they would jump at the opportunity to publish their findings.  The scientific process is about constantly testing and questioning current scientific thought/theories.  That's why evolution is so thoroughly accepted today by the scientific community - it has immense proof supporting it, and there is no other explanation that explains the facts.  The same with the Big Bang.  The cosmological evidence supports the Big Bang.  

But if someone comes along who could present convincing scientific evidence that puts either concept of Evolution or Big Bang in question, then those theories might be replaced, or modified.  But as far as Evolution is concerned, this hasn't happened.  And it is not likely to happen because Evolution is such an obvious fact.  All the details of exactly how evolution proceeds are not yet known, but because the details of the theory are incomplete doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur.  We don't know everything there is to know about the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean it didn't occur.  That's the main reason why the LHC was developed - to answer some of the questions we have about how the universe began.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:21 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me clarify, If they found evidence that the Creation theory was right, and Evolution was wrong, they would never, ever, publish that at all.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 8:15 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm, I disagree.  If concrete evidence was found, irrefutible evidence, that supported Creationism - that God existed - then I think that would be too sensational to keep secret.

But we're still waiting to find that evidence.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:18 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me clarify, If they found evidence that the Creation theory was right, and Evolution was wrong, they would never, ever, publish that at all.

Ridiculous!  The motto of modern science is "go where the evidence leads!"  They are not a bunch of dogmatic, superstitious fanatics, like creationists.  Why on earth would scientists NOT publish their findings?  Like I said, you don't understand how science works!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:06 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then we look at something like bacterial flagellum, and it seems that a machine that complex and efficient could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, and this, as well as others, is a system that simply could not, at any moment in history, have worked without being in it’s present state.


So you're taking about irreversible complexity?
This bacteria flagellum example has been scientifically proven to be incorrect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU



-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 05:32 AM on September 15, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Galileo at 05:32 AM on September 15, 2008 :
Then we look at something like bacterial flagellum, and it seems that a machine that complex and efficient could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, and this, as well as others, is a system that simply could not, at any moment in history, have worked without being in it’s present state.


So you're taking about irreversible complexity?
This bacteria flagellum example has been scientifically proven to be incorrect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU



i have watched that video as well as read a few articles supposedly refuting the idea of irreducible complexity.
frankly, the rebuttle is just not good enough.

basically, all he did was take the "tail" off of the "motor" and call it something else.

the irreducibly complex part of the flagella is the motor.  take one part of it away, and it ceases to function.  it is impossible that the motor component of the flagella developed by a series steps.  it would have never worked, thus it would have never had the chance to evolve into what it is today.





 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 2:11 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the irreducibly complex part of the flagella is the motor.  take one part of it away, and it ceases to function.  it is impossible that the motor component of the flagella developed by a series steps.  it would have never worked, thus it would have never had the chance to evolve into what it is today.

Untrue.  Have any evidence to back this up?
This site goes into great detail on how the flagellum evolved and why it's not IC and how the "motor" did evolve.  From here:
FlagellumEvolution

"Abstract: The bacterial flagellum is a complex molecular system with multiple components required for functional motility.  Such systems are sometimes proposed as puzzles for evolutionary theory on the assumption that selection would have no function to act on until all components are in place.  Previous work (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000, A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol. 203 (2), 111-116) has outlined the general pathways by which Darwinian mechanisms can produce multi-component systems. However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion.  A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria.  Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility.  The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility.  The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems.  Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization.  (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events.  (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components.  Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum. "

Take alook at the site, you might find it interesting.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:36 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:15 PM on September 11, 2008 :
Let me clarify, If they found evidence that the Creation theory was right, and Evolution was wrong, they would never, ever, publish that at all.


Highly unlikely. Evolution has led to numerous commercial products that earn large sums of money. That's a hallmark of a true science. It can produce REAL things. Creationism on the other hand cannot. It has yet to produce a single commercial application. If there was actual evidence for it, we should be able to commercialize its findings into new products. Hence, scientists or at least their financiers would not want to keep that secret as it would be considerable lost profit.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:55 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
knightofchrist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. I really don't know but frankly it doesn't matter.

2. Once again no clue and it doesn't matter

3. A little bit through a mixture of science teachers and several excerpts from evolutionary writings

4. I have been taught I'd say quite a bit about Darwin and Dawkins

5. I'd say the mind or possibly the complexity of the cell

6. I would need an explanation for the existence and process of the mind as well proof of transitional fossils


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


Posts: 8 | Posted: 6:00 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what I want to know is just exactly what evidence of God are you looking for?  What concrete substance is going to convince you of the possibility that there might even be a God?  What exactly besides creation itself and the existence of all things will lead you to God?  Is there some sort of geological thumbprint from the Hand of God on the earth that will lead you to the existence of God?  Is Gods creation itself not enough to whisper in your ear that there is a God.  What I really want to know is what else is there that God can do that would convince you that HE IS?  What is it that would be just so concrete in your mind to the existence of God, if everything He has made is not enough?


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 7:59 PM on September 25, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 7:59 PM on September 25, 2008 :
what I want to know is just exactly what evidence of God are you looking for?


Just because someone rejects literal creationism doesn't make them an atheist. That would be an example of non-thinking. Furthermore, metaphorical Genesis has no problem with evolution.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:23 AM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 2:11 PM on September 15, 2008 :

i have watched that video as well as read a few articles supposedly refuting the idea of irreducible complexity.
frankly, the rebuttle is just not good enough.

basically, all he did was take the "tail" off of the "motor" and call it something else.

the irreducibly complex part of the flagella is the motor.  take one part of it away, and it ceases to function.  it is impossible that the motor component of the flagella developed by a series steps.  it would have never worked, thus it would have never had the chance to evolve into what it is today.


One of the leading ID proponents has conceded on the flagellum:

http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/evolution-of-bacterial-flagellum/

Multiple points of homology between the components of the F-ATPase and flagellum/TTSS would clearly qualify as “various parts of the machine” having “homologs that are in turn part of a system that is more ancient than the machine.” Thus, if I were to assign a Discontinuity Score to the flagellum, it would reside within the negative realm of the continuum.


-------
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: 06:16 AM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What exactly besides creation itself and the existence of all things will lead you to God?

I don't know, but everything we've seen so far appears to have a natural explaination.  There is nothing we've observed that "needs" a god to explain it.  If God wanted to convince us of his existance, you'd think he would do a better job.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:27 AM on September 29, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with our concept of God is that we visualize God as an entity in human form.  That's not new to Christianity.  I believe other cultures also had gods in human form - Greek mythology being a classic example.

Giving God a human appearance elevates our own status in nature.  But it's part of a misleading antrhopocentrism that started crumbling when Copernicus dethroned the Earth as the center of the universe 600 years ago.  

But people still cling to this human image of God.  And that's why some people have such a hard time accepting evolution.  It de-humanizes God.

If God exists, then God exists as Nature herself.  That's how I look at it.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:31 PM on September 29, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As far as scientific evidence to “back” the creation theory goes, well, all we really have are the “holes” in the theory of evolution.
Proving that crows are not black doesn't prove that they are pink.

The creationist need to take the bacterial flagellum is kinda pitiable. I mean, there are many thousands of species out there whose organs are perfectly explainable through evolution. They pick one of them that has one part that seems difficult to make through the process of evolution, and instead of thinking how it was done they say "MAGIC!!!" (and therefore all the other creatures must be magical as well).

the irreducibly complex part of the flagella is the motor.  take one part of it away, and it ceases to function.
Sooo... Why didn't the creationists sustain irreducible complexity of that 10 part motor, instead of the 42 part flagellum? Could it be because if they did not only it would be less impressive but it would also imply that God used His intelligence to design bubonic plague?

Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, and this, as well as others, is a system that simply could not, at any moment in history, have worked without being in it’s present state.
Well, so you say. And you're kinda biased. You prefer to listen to someone who just says "MAGIC!!" instead of thinking people who investigate and come to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

I read the words "might" and "perhaps" quite a bit while reading up on this, and, frankly, that's just not scientific proof - just, as I said SPECULATION, and it cannot be used to DISPROVE irreducible complexity.
Speculation is of much more scientific value than faith.

Even if irreducible complexity wasn't disproved (no matter how many times it's disproved, no creationist will ever buy the rebuttal), that doesn't mean it's proved. Even if it was proved (we know it never will) it doesn't mean God is the creator. And even if God was the creator (although a creator God is contradictory by definition), it doesn't mean it was like the Bible said.

Just mere speculation.  Show me one single example in nature that undeniably shows us exaptation, and I'll buy it.
Can anyone here give a valid example?
Valid? Yeah, plenty. Undeniable? Creationists will deny it, so none. Well, most of them will just ignore it, but some will deny it, of course.

i have watched that video as well as read a few articles supposedly refuting the idea of irreducible complexity.
frankly, the rebuttle is just not good enough.
You can find "irreducible complexity" in bacteria and viruses that are very harmful. As you stated in another thread you don't believe God made those.

You said:
This is just speculation on my part, but I believe that the world was perfect in the beginning, and that once sin had entered into mankind, and god no longer dwelled with man literally, the world started to change – literally. It’s my personal belief that things such as parasites, carnivores, venomous creatures, even briars on plants began to take form.
They took form... (By a process other than evolution, i imagine.) Ok, you said it was speculation... Why not speculate towards something that makes sense? I mean... Wouldn't it be easy for you to speculate that harmful, non harmful or benign bacteria (being similar to each other) came to be by the same process, instead of "God made these, the other begun to take form"?

I still don't know what a perfect world would be like.

Since my school days i liked to "chase" cases of "irreducible complexity" (but i had not come up with such a fancy name). I mean cases i couldn't explain through evolution. One of them was the bacterial flagellum. The electric eel was another one. I never doubted evolution for one second. I just liked to solve puzzles. I could never figure those two out.

Quote from dubie903 at 4:59 PM on September 25, 2008 :
what I want to know is just exactly what evidence of God are you looking for?  
"Looking for"... Probably none.

Quote from dubie903 at 4:59 PM on September 25, 2008 : What concrete substance is going to convince you of the possibility that there might even be a God?  
There is no "might". "God" is a concept. Such as "destiny", or "triangularity", or "tao". It's not a "thing" or an "individual", capable of "existing".

Quote from dubie903 at 4:59 PM on September 25, 2008 : What exactly besides creation itself and the existence of all things will lead you to God?  
You're stating beforehand that there IS a "creation".

Quote from dubie903 at 4:59 PM on September 25, 2008 : Is there some sort of geological thumbprint from the Hand of God on the earth that will lead you to the existence of God?
If God had hands, who could possibly call Him "God"? Why would "God" "need" hands?

Quote from dubie903 at 4:59 PM on September 25, 2008 : What I really want to know is what else is there that God can do that would convince you that HE IS?  What is it that would be just so concrete in your mind to the existence of God, if everything He has made is not enough?
If by "God" we mean something complete, total, infinite and perfect, then there's nothing he can "do".

Only imperfect beings need to do things.

I like taoism: "The Tao never does anything,
yet through it all things are done."

So beautiful.

Oh, dj, here is a nice conversation between a mortal and God.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:43 PM on September 29, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 4:43 PM on September 29, 2008 :
[color=teal] If by "God" we mean something complete, total, infinite and perfect, then there's nothing he can "do".

Only imperfect beings need to do things.





God is complete and perfect and has no need for anything He has created.  He has no need for us to complete Him.  He is complete in Himself and His personhood.  He is eternal, all powerful and the author of life.  There is nothing that He needs from creation.  He has created all things to freely give of Himself to man.  He has made man in his image and freely gives Him all things.  We are made distinct and different from all other things He created, because God made us in His image.  The human race reflects the image of God.  There was a plan that God had for all eternity to involve man and freely give to man and even serve man.  He has no need from us to serve Him, but he humbled Himself and came down to earth as Jesus Christ, He became man to serve us and to pay for our sins (offenses to God).  All of creation is the backdrop for this action of Christ Jesus dying for sins, but in no way did God ever need to do this.  He simply, lovingly and freely chose man to be part of His glorious and eternal plan of salvation.  He has chosen man to be the heirs of eternal life, because a very well known fact, irrefutable even, is that I am going to die, you are going to die and every 1 out of 1 persons is going to die, but God wants you to know eternal life through repentance of your sins and faith in His Son Jesus Christ.  That is the eternal plan of God, freely given to man, but one can only receive this promise when they put their faith in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.  I am very sorry to get off of the scientific debate.  I know this forum is for science and not religion.  But I still want to know how science can disprove the Bible when it clearly says that God spoke creation into existence.  How and where does science dissprove the word of God speaking things into being.  If He simply says "let there be..." and then there is, how does science dissprove that.




-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 7:49 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God is complete and perfect and has no need for anything He has created.
Then what moved Him to create anything? Love? Love for something that did not exist?

He has created all things to freely give of Himself to man.
Is that a reason? Doesn't sound like one.  

He has made man in his image and freely gives Him all things.
His image... Literally? Then God does have hands? Why would he have something he doesn't need?

Some creationists claim that man is devolving. We can see that we used to have bigger canine teeth. So Adam had fully developed fangs, right? And, since mankind tends to have less and less hair, then Adam must have been quite furry.

Is God furry? Does he have fangs?

Does He have two legs? Why? Is He binded by gravity?

Does he have eyes? Why? If he knows everything why would he need something like that? Does he have a blind spot?

Why did he make cockroaches so much better than us? Or perhaps Adam was immune to radiation, and could live a long time with his head off... And we lost those attributes... Or perhaps God is a cockroach, like they say in Heroes...

We are made distinct and different from all other things He created, because God made us in His image.
Yeap, he made us worse. Weaker, defenseless, sick, and with a blind spot.

The human race reflects the image of God.
Just the outside image? Or does he have organs? Does He have a liver? Why? What does He eat?  What happens with his droppings?

There was a plan that God had for all eternity to involve man and freely give to man and even serve man.
There WAS a plan, but there's no plan anymore? Did His plan fail? Is His plan a general sketch or does it include every single detail? If the second is correct, then he intended for Adam to disobey him, right? He planned minutely every sin any man has ever made, and then he punished it.

Genesis 6:6 (KJV)
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Samuel 15:35 (King James Version)
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.


So much for his plan.

Samuel 24:16 (King James Version)
And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand.


It sounds pretty improvised to me.

He has no need from us to serve Him, but he humbled Himself and came down to earth as Jesus Christ, He became man to serve us and to pay for our sins (offenses to God).
Something infinite can't fit in a finite Universe. Certainly not in a man.

All of creation is the backdrop for this action of Christ Jesus dying for sins,
So he DID intend for all of us to sin!!! He knew it all along, but he played surprised and angry!!

but in no way did God ever need to do this.  He simply, lovingly and freely chose man to be part of His glorious and eternal plan of salvation.
Simply? You think it's simple for a perfect being to do something as flawed as Man and all of creation is? When he didn't even need it? It sounds terribly complicated to me.

He has chosen man to be the heirs of eternal life,
Well, not all of them. Just a tiny minority. Christians. Or those good persons who didn't hear from Jesus (which is harder and harder, with all of his propaganda).

but God wants you to know eternal life through repentance of your sins
Then why did He create a system in which sin is possible, and create laws that oppose those instincts that He gave us himself? I must presume He gave them to us, since we did not evolve them.

and faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
Why make an extra condition?

That is the eternal plan of God, freely given to man, but one can only receive this promise when they put their faith in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.
Well, then He fucked me big time. Because He made a book that tells things that don't seem possible according with the laws of Nature that He Himself must have made, and then He gave me the intelligence to note the contradictions. Why didn't he make me dumb enough so i couldn't tell?


But I still want to know how science can disprove the Bible when it clearly says that God spoke creation into existence.
And how can science (or the Bible) disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  

How and where does science dissprove the word of God speaking things into being.  If He simply says "let there be..." and then there is, how does science dissprove that.
The Bible does a pretty good job disproving itself with it's many contradictions.

Logic is enough to disprove the Bible.

For instance, a simple question. It doesn't get as simple as this: How many languages where there before the flood?

Genesis 10:5 (King James Version)
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.


Several.

Genesis 11:1 (King James Version)
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.


Ok, i'm confused...

Perhaps my question wasn't simple after all.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:30 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
Baconsbud

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know why people waste their time trying to talk to creationist since no matter what evidence you show them they will close their mind to it. I have noticed that ever time that their point is well countered they run to their sermons about how god did it and then made lies to fool us non believers. I saw a few people on here say that the bible is a historically accurate book yet from what I have learned lately most experts say that most of it is only accurate when it come to small part of it most areas of the bible aren't supported by the evidence. I want to see the evidence for its accuracy. I want current research from non biased groups or individuals. I don't want the normal christian group saying they have found the evidence but not showing it or some called photo that could be easily done with photoshop. If you can't provide any proof then you need to do more research.


-------
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 05:59 AM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But I still want to know how science can disprove the Bible when it clearly says that God spoke creation into existence.

Let's see, science disproves the bible by showing that many of the claims of the bible are false.  Speaks creation into existance???  What does that mean and where's your evidence?  In fact, where's your vidence for any god, let alone your personal god...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:18 AM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:30 PM on October 2, 2008 :


There was a plan that God had for all eternity to involve man and freely give to man and even serve man.
There WAS a plan, but there's no plan anymore? Did His plan fail? Is His plan a general sketch or does it include every single detail? If the second is correct, then he intended for Adam to disobey him, right? He planned minutely every sin any man has ever made, and then he punished it.

Genesis 6:6 (KJV)
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Samuel 15:35 (King James Version)
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.


So much for his plan.

Samuel 24:16 (King James Version)
And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand.


It sounds pretty improvised to me.




The plan of God is still in effect, and always will be. Psalm 33:11 "The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation."  His plan is continually being acomplished, has been acomplished, and will always be acomplished.  Just because God was sorrowful that he had made man, because man was living offensively to God, doesn't mean that His plan was not being acomplished.  Following King Saul was King David who was an ancestor of Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ is the fullfilment of the eternal plan of God.  Ephesians 3:11 "{This was} in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,".  Gods plan is perfect according to Gods plan and God does not consult with man about His plan but He acts according to the counsel of His will.  Ephesians 1:11 "also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,"  The eternal God has always acted on His will.



Quote from wisp at 10:30 PM on October 2, 2008 :
[color=teal]

For instance, a simple question. It doesn't get as simple as this: How many languages where there before the flood?

Genesis 10:5 (King James Version)
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.


Several.

Genesis 11:1 (King James Version)
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.


Ok, i'm confused...

Perhaps my question wasn't simple after all.



Mr. Wisp I like your style and I enjoy our debate I enjoy people giving me a challenge on my faith and what I believe.  Now the question you have asked is "How many languages where there before the flood?" and then you chose a section of text that you thought answered your question.  The flood account is given in Genesis chapters 7 and 8.  The portion of text you gave is Genesis chapters 10 and 11.  Those two chapters you gave are chronologically after the flood.  They give an account of the descendents of Noah and his sons, and then give an account of the tower of babel, which is after the flood.  So to answer your question, there was only one language before the flood.




(Edited by dubie903 10/3/2008 at 12:19 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:02 AM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:18 AM on October 3, 2008 :
But I still want to know how science can disprove the Bible when it clearly says that God spoke creation into existence.

Let's see, science disproves the bible by showing that many of the claims of the bible are false.  Speaks creation into existance???  What does that mean and where's your evidence?  In fact, where's your vidence for any god, let alone your personal god...


God speaking things into existence, I guess is not self explanitory, although I would think that it is.  Anyways to speak something into existence would mean that God says for something to exist, and then it exist.  And as far as evidence I would have to direct you to my signature at the bottom of my post, it comes from a portion in the Bible that describes God and how His attributes, power and nature are seen in creation.





(Edited by dubie903 10/3/2008 at 3:29 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:48 AM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God speaking things into existence, I guess is not self explanitory, although I would think that it is.  Anyways to speak something into existence would mean that God says for something to exist, and then it exist.

So where ever God is there is an atmosphere, because sound has to propogate through an atmosphere...  And God is physically speaking, he has a mouth and a tongue and vocal cords, so he is a physical being...
So no, your claim is not self explanitory.  It's like all the other myths of magical gods that have come before, pathetic when it's examined in the light of modern knowledge.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:48 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 08:02 AM on October 3, 2008 :The plan of God is still in effect, and always will be.
Ok, so basically he planned everything, including being sorrowful. I have problems with the concept of a planning, doing and sorrowful God (let alone "angry"). But the next paragraph is more clearly contradictory:

Samuel 24:16 (King James Version)
And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand.

Could you please address the above paragraph? Doesn't it say that He changed His mind? He changed his mind several times in the Bible.

Gods plan is perfect according to Gods plan and God does not consult with man about His plan but He acts according to the counsel of His will.
If that's the case anything i do will be a part of His plan. The "God made me do it" excuse would always be correct.

We're but thoughts in His mind, and yet he punishes us.


Mr. Wisp I like your style and I enjoy our debate I enjoy people giving me a challenge on my faith and what I believe.
That's cool! Very cool! I always like to challenge people's beliefs, including my own (which have changed quite radically at ages 7, 11, 16 and 18).

I think it would be healthy for all believers to have an atheist phase.

Like many christians i also think that EVERYONE has faith in something. Not in evolution though. The act of faith comes quite earlier. When one "choses" to believe in one's own existence, and in the possibility of having any knowledge.

After that act of faith, looking at the evidence and concluding that evolution happens all around us has nothing to do with faith.

Now the question you have asked is "How many languages where there before the flood?" and then you chose a section of text that you thought answered your question.  The flood account is given in Genesis chapters 7 and 8.  The portion of text you gave is Genesis chapters 10 and 11.  Those two chapters you gave are chronologically after the flood.  They give an account of the descendents of Noah and his sons, and then give an account of the tower of babel, which is after the flood.  So to answer your question, there was only one language before the flood.
I see... You're right... So chapter 10 is after the Tower of Babel also? For it speaks of several languages.

Don't the two paragraphs that i quoted contradict each other in any way?

10:31 and 11:1 are quite next to each other. And they say:

These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.

and

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

The two are just one versicle appart. Does chapter 10 account for what happened after chapter 11?


(Edited by wisp 10/8/2008 at 08:04 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:03 AM on October 8, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) You said "He has made man in his image and freely gives Him all things."

His image... Literally? Then God does have hands? Why would he have something he doesn't need?

2) Some creationists claim that man is devolving. We can see that we used to have bigger canine teeth. So Adam had fully developed fangs, right? And, since mankind tends to have less and less hair, then Adam must have been quite furry.

Is God furry? Does he have fangs?

Does He have two legs? Why? Is He binded by gravity?

Does he have eyes? Why? If he knows everything why would he need something like that? Does he have a blind spot?

3) Why did he make cockroaches so much better than us? Or perhaps Adam was immune to radiation, and could live a long time with his head off... And we lost those attributes... Or perhaps God is a cockroach, like they say in Heroes...

4) You said "The human race reflects the image of God." Just the outside image? Or does he have organs? Does He have a liver? Why? Does he get wasted? What does He eat?  What happens with His droppings?

5) Did He intended for Adam to disobey him?

6) Did He plan every sin any man has ever made?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:14 AM on October 8, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.