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
     Commonality of Theories
       Discuss Commonalities between the two.

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

    
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just wondering if anybody out there can recognize some staggering similiarities of these theories even though they are and will remain polar opposites.. try to be polite and unbiased please.


-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 01:02 AM on April 24, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They both suggest at one point we were created.  Not neccessarily from God, and evolution doesn't really go in to the beginning of life.  Several evolutionists agree that there was a starting point (of life), it isn't eternal.

Other than that, which is actually quite off-topic, there isn't anything I can think of.  Have you found any similarities?  If so, please enlighten me, as I honestly can't think of a single thing.


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 02:04 AM on April 24, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well, im not saying they are the same thing here... but they do have similarities.

We both believe that understanding our history is a crucial part of all science right?

so how come creationists chose to go all the way back in their 'theory' and evolutionists choose to stop just after life began and all matter came into being and go from there.

why is that?
it's because they have to. Since no matter can be created or destroyed according to what we observe today, without admitting that that was not true at least once in the past, the only explanation that they can come up with is, billions and billions of years ago ---- uh.... well we dont know... thats okay to not know stuff... you know to be fair, its not like you guys have a book that told you what took place those many years ago - so you are at a disadvantage... however, thats not so much a disadvantage as you may think because it allows evolutionists to be so much more 'creative' in their thinking....
i mean seriously... even a 5 year old can tell you that a cow came from a cow, came from  a cow... it will have cow children from now until cows are extinct. it will never give birth to a whale, or a fish, or a tree, and it has never come from a banana, or a rock or a fish, or some blob of something.

To believe that life evolved requires beliefs just like creation does. since they both require that things were different at some point in history then they are today - i.e. break certain physical laws we observe.

I believe the bible, nobody has shown me a reason why i shouldn't that makes sense to me, but my list of reason's to know its true and trust it grows longer every day.

now I wont be a bible-pounding world-converter, but what i believe makes as much literal sense to me as what i'm sure evolution makes to evolutionists. we both think eachother's theories are make-believe and fabricated, we both think we're right and come to forums like this not to find the truth, but to change peoples opinions. At least i can admit it. Now you tell me why your fairy tale is better than mine and i'll tell you why it's not, but i mean seriously.... trying to have a serious debate about this IS like arguing over which fairy tale is better. evolution/creation is a philosophical/religious debate not a science debate.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 08:53 AM on April 24, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok first of all learn what eveolution is, no one is surgesting a cow came from a whale.

Second of all there are predictions on the data of the big bang.

Evolution doesn't concern before life becuase evolution is simpily the explanation for the diversity of life and no where does it try to explain where life came from.

I belive evolution more than creationism becuase of the empirical evidence that proves evolution, where as what have creationist got? A two thousand year old book written by men claiming to be influenced by god, to belive that you need faith. To belive fossil records etc you need an open mind. It is a sciebce vs religion debate.

Evolution is not philosophical.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:22 AM on April 24, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry, i got it backwards... the whales evolved from land animals such as pakicetus:



this is the sort of nonsense i was reffering to and maybe i messed up by calling the pakicetus a cow... big deal.. if you can go from this pakicetus creature to a whale, what difference does it make to through a cow in there...
after all, this is a common belief held by some:

it wasn’t until the mid-Forties that the new scientific technique of molecular analysis brought hope to those defending the land-origin hypothesis. By studying live animal species and the antibodies they develop to certain antigens, researchers have shown that the closest living relative of the cetacean are the artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates) such as the cow, pig and hippopotamus. (Ungulates are hoofed mammals.)


So don't tell me that i dont know what evolutionists believe, i dont make this crap up, they do. the fact that you dont know what other evolutionists believe either shows that there are varieties of disagreements between evolutionists (which is okay) or that you dont believe in fact believe evolution in its true form.


regarding the  occurrences before life... what would an evolutionist such as yourself offer as to how that came to be.

creation and evolution are not counterparts, because creation doesn't infer anything about what happened after, and all evolution deals with is what happened after... evo/cre debates are pointless... thats my point...

futhermore, there is no empirical evidence proving evolution.
empirical evidence is hard, undeniable, repeatable, observable.... etc... if i can't observe it, can't repeat it, can deny it... than it is NOT empirical... this is why nobody debates gravity... gravity is supported by empirical evidence... evolution can never be PROVEN just as creation can never be PROVEN... both require a belief and thats all i need both of us to admit



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 9:43 PM on April 24, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I think I should look a little more into it before saying anything, but bacteria is evolving.  Bacterial treatments are becoming less and less effective, how do you explain that?

And one thing that some creationist's try to say is that nothing's ever evolved; things have changed a bit, but NOTHING can turn into something else.  When God created it, that was it, it didn't change into something else.  That's why there's a debate.

I agree that it shouldn't be creationists against evolutionists, because they're not exactly the same thing.  They do overlap a little bit, but not really enough.  It really should be abiogeneticists against creationists, but I haven't seen any debates like that.

As for the cow-thing, according to evolution anything can turn into anything.  It just takes a REALLY, REALLY long time, an amount of time that you or I cannot possibly imagine.  I wouldn't put my money on a cow turning into a whale in the future, BUT it's possible.

According to some creationists there were no dinosaurs, and the fossils were put there by God to provide us with fossil fuels.  Which is completely absurd.  I don't think you believe that, but it's what a creationist came up with nonetheless.  So there are some people on both sides (evol/creat) that make us very, very sad.


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 02:08 AM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok it is perfectly possible for whales to come from land creatures. Now your diagram is a nice example showing the change however this is not to say that a Dalanistes sudenly had a Rodhocetus as a child. It is saying evolution happens through tiny, unoticible changes and across hundreds of thousand years the creture slowly changed into another... Check the time scale on your digram...

Creationism requires faith becuase you are required to belive in a god or higher power to belive it. However based on the evidence it is possible to belive evolution without having faith. Fossil evidence that I'm not going to repeat becuase if you read some of the posts you will find all the evolution evidence. Also if god created all animals, how do you explain nylon eating bacteria, which ONLY eats nylon... nylon is a synthetic matrial and thus is not 6000 years old (the age creationist belive the world to be) therefore the nylon eating bacteria cannot have existed in there current form before the invention of nylon.

The entire treatment of HIV is based on the fact that the virus evolves, this is why HIV victims must perminantly change there drugs because the virus evolves to be amune to the drugs that are being used and thus the drugs must be changed to continue the virus in its new form.

Also this is why we haven't all dies from sars. Sars was killing alot of people a year or two (I can't remember) ago. However viruses are constantly evolving and the sars virus evolved just as all viruses do and changed to be much less harmful to humans.

We can see the evolution in bacteria and viruses because there life span is much shorter and so there are many generations in a much shorted time period alowing for constant visible evolution.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 12:48 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So how come creationists chose to go all the way back in their 'theory' and evolutionists choose to stop just after life began and all matter came into being and go from there.

Because creationists don't have a scientific theory, they have a myth.  Evolutionary biologists are not concerned with the begining of matter or even the begining of life.  The begining of matter has nothing to do with evolution.  How life first arose has nothing to do with evolution.  The processes that caused life to come about are completely different than the processes of evolution!  We can explain evolution without knowing what those processes were, we can make evolutionary predictions without knowing how life first arose, how matter began.  We can make practical applications from the theory of evolution in industry, medecine, farming without knowing where matter came from or how life came about.  Quite simply, the processes of matter formation or first life don't apply to the theory of evolution.  

Since no matter can be created or destroyed according to what we observe today,

This is not true.  Quantum fluctuations have been observed where particles and energy just pop uncaused into existance.  So yes, matter can be spontaneously created out of nothing.  so while we don't know everything about the Big Bang, it is our best theory of how everything started.  It's certainly a much better theory than believing a magical being just poofed everything into existance, a magical being that no one has ever seen, and has absolutely no evidence to support it's existance!

i mean seriously... even a 5 year old can tell you that a cow came from a cow, came from  a cow...

Good analogy, a 5 year old child might well say that, but a five year old child, like most creationists, has no understanding of science.
They don't understand the theory of evolution.

it will never give birth to a whale, or a fish, or a tree, and it has never come from a banana, or a rock or a fish, or some blob of something.

You obviously know nothing about evolution or science...

To believe that life evolved requires beliefs just like creation does. since they both require that things were different at some point in history then they are today - i.e. break certain physical laws we observe.

Completely incorrect!  The theory of evolution requires no "belief", it is solely based on the evidence.  It breaks no physical laws, unlike creationism which breaks numerous physical and biological laws.

now I wont be a bible-pounding world-converter, but what i believe makes as much literal sense to me as what i'm sure evolution makes to evolutionists.

That's because you don't have the brains, guts or inclination to study the evidence.  You're content to believe a disproven myth merely because it makes you happy.  I guess reality is too hard to deal with...

Now you tell me why your fairy tale is better than mine and i'll tell you why it's not, but i mean seriously.... trying to have a serious debate about this IS like arguing over which fairy tale is better. evolution/creation is a philosophical/religious debate not a science debate.

The theory of evolution is supported by all the evidence found to date, creationism has nothing to back it up.  The fossil record is found in a pattern that only supports evolution, nothing else.  Transitional fossils support evolution, nothing else.  Genetics supports evolution, nothing else.  Vestigial structures support evolution.  Biogeography supports evolution.  Twin nested hierarchies support evolution.  ERV's support evolution.  We have directly observed evolution in the wild and in the lab.  All predictions made by the theory of evolution have been born out.  Evolution is the central concept of biology.  Thge theory of evolution is used successfully in industry, animal husbandry, farming, medecine.
If it was a fairy tale, how come we can apply it so successfully to these fields?  Creationism is supported by...3000 year old goatherder myths...It was completely disproven over 200 years ago.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:52 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, you sure know a lot.. let me go get a chair and stare at you in awe.. the way you repeat that babble almost makes me think you understand it... creation was proven wrong 200 years ago was it? what article was that in? if you can reference even one article that undeniably disproves it, even from yesterday, i'd like to see it. and 200 years ago? where'd you get that number? probably the same place people get this arbitrary 4.6 billion years.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 9:38 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, you sure know a lot.. let me go get a chair and stare at you in awe..

Don't bother, if you did a little research, understood what evolution really was, you wouldn't be so awestruck!

the way you repeat that babble almost makes me think you understand it...

Of course I understand it, but your inability to refute it, even discuss it rationally, shows that you obviously DON'T understand it!  Learn a little bit about the real world, then come back here and discuss it with me, maybe then you won't seem so pitiful...

creation was proven wrong 200 years ago was it?

I said creationISM was disproven, not creation, I see your reading skills are on a par with your research skills.  Yes, creation can not be falsified, as such, science doesn't say anything about it.  Creationism is a failed scienctific theory that was disproven over 200 years ago.  From here:
Creationism

"At the end of the Middle Ages, European tradition held that all of the Earth´s inhabitants had been created by God in one place, the Garden of Eden, soon after the formation of the earth. But as the scientific revolution began to unfold some 400 years ago, naturalists started to catalog fossils according to the layers in which they were found. Soon a very unexpected and troubling pattern emerged.
The deepest (and oldest) layers showed mostly unfamiliar species, but higher (younger) layers contained fossilized remains that resembled living organisms. If what naturalists found had been consistent with traditional beliefs, fossils found in every layer should not have looked different from those that living species would leave if fossilized. Elephants, tigers, palm trees, and people should have left a record of their presences even in the most deeply buried layers, but they didn´t. Clearly, tradition al belief had to be modified to explain the succession of fossil types seen in the fossil record."

From here:
Hutton

"James Hutton (1726 — 1797) is often viewed as the first modern geologist. In 1785 he presented a paper entitled Theory of the Earth to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In his paper, based on his presumption of uniformitarianism, he explained his theory that the Earth must be much older than had previously been supposed in order to allow enough time for mountains to be eroded and for sediment to form new rocks at the bottom of the sea, which in turn were raised up to become dry land. Those that accepted Hutton's arguments developed various forms of what later became Old Earth creationism as a result."

"From 1830 to 1833, the geologist and clergyman Sir Charles Lyell released a three volume publication called Principles of Geology which developed Hutton's ideas of uniformitarianism, and in the second volume set out a gradualist variation of creation beliefs in which each species had its "centre of creation" and was designed for the habitat, but would go extinct when the habitat changed. John Herschel supported this gradualist view and wrote to Lyell urging a search for natural laws underlying the "mystery of mysteries" of how species formed."

Classic creationism proposed that the earth was relatively young (6000 - 10,000 years old) and that the Noachin flood accounted for the pattern of the fossil record.  by the time Darwin published his book, these 2 tenets of creationism had all ready been demolished.

if you can reference even one article that undeniably disproves it, even from yesterday, i'd like to see it.

There's a quick two references that took me 5 minutes to look up.  No geologist accepts a young earth, virtually all geologists accept a 4.5 billion year old planet.  No geologist or paleontologist accepts a world wide flood, it's just impossible.

probably the same place people get this arbitrary 4.6 billion years.

Arbitrary?!?  I think not.  It is the best estimate we can make with the tools and evidence we have to work with.  If you doubt it, provide your reasons and the evidence to support them.  What IS certain and has been for over 200 years, is that the earth can not possibly be only 6,000 years old, and this positively  disproves classic creationism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:04 AM on April 26, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have to love demons posts... no one can refute them properly, they make a slight coment on a the "weakest" part or the bit they don't understand and he comes back with a rather large post to suport what he previously said...


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:49 AM on April 26, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so you say 4.5 billion years ago the earth was formed.  how?  without god thats a diffucult question to answer.


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 8:15 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so you say 4.5 billion years ago the earth was formed.  how?  without god thats a diffucult question to answer.

How was the earth formed?!?  We have a pretty good idea how the earth formed.  Do some research!  We're even now watching stars form and guess what, no hand of god involved!  4.5 billion years is a good estimate based on the evidence we have and the tools we use to date it.  What evidence do you have that this date is wrong?
And since we know that matter and energy can spontaneously arise uncaused, it's possible that the universe arose uncaused without the need for any magical being.  Maybe energy is eternal.  So while it's a difficult question, it's a question that doesn't need god for an answer.
But if YOU'RE going to use god as an answer, then tell us, where did god come from?  What evidence do you have that god even exists?
show us one process in nature that can't be explained by natural forces and can only have a supernatural origin...  No, God is a simple answer for simple people, it's an answer that tells us nothing.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:32 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Matter cannot be spontainiously created as you say, unless you can prove me wrong. yes stars and planets are being created but it is from matter that already exists.  and as far as we can tell none of these new planets are getting life.  for a planet to have life it needs to create an atmosphere and animals that can live in that atmosphere. so how does a bunch of lifless bits of carbon join togther perfectly across on entire plannet and create life?  futher more how are all the parts of the creature put togther so that life is also spontainiously generated? lastly the new bodies have to be able to run flawlessly, how can lifeless carbon create a living working being?


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 12:55 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Matter cannot be spontainiously created as you say

Look up the Casmir effect or Quantum fluctuations, it's all ready been observed.

yes stars and planets are being created but it is from matter that already exists.  and as far as we can tell none of these new planets are getting life

How many planets have we lloked at close up?  What if we find life on Mars, which is still a possiblity, or one of the moons of Saturn or Jupiter?  We've only really looked at ONE planet out of a possible billions and billions of planets, it's much too early to say there is no life anywhere else...

for a planet to have life it needs to create an atmosphere

Well we know a number of planets have an atmosphere...

so how does a bunch of lifless bits of carbon join togther perfectly across on entire plannet and create life?

Natural processes.  You still haven't provided any evidence for anything else...

futher more how are all the parts of the creature put togther so that life is also spontainiously generated

Parts of the creature?  We see organic molecules forming spontaneously, it's not much of a reach to say these organic molecules could then increase their complexity and form life as we define it.  What is completely crazy is the idea of a supernatural being, that we have absolutely no proof even exists, suddenly, magically zapped life (and everything else) into existance!  You completely avoided presenting any evidence to support your fairy tale.  And you also avoided explaining where god came from...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:38 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The casmir effect seems only to deal with particle that are already in existance.  your argument was spontainous generation, and this theroy seems to help my point as well as yours. most of the things in quantium physics use processeces that for all scientests can determine should not work.  like an atom, the electrons rotating about an atom should be sucked into the nuculous yet it isint. most facts about quantium phisccis just happen even though they shouldent.  I believe that if it is impossibleby science then it should only be possible by God.


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 11:18 PM on April 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The casmir effect seems only to deal with particle that are already in existance

Then you don't understand the Casimir effect!
No, it does NOT deal with particles that are already in existance.  From here:
Casimir

"Vacuum energy is brought into play by exceedingly brief quantum fluctuations that create virtual particles and anti-particles that develop momentarily - and seemingly spontaneously - in the apparent vacuum of space and then mutually annihilate, releasing energy in a form that drives the acceleration by a repulsive force. This phenomenon, in which particles seem to be created from "nothing" (the Aristotelian concept of 'potency' - something has the potential of coming into existence - seems a good analog drawn from metaphysical thinking.), can be conceptually explained from principles of quantum physics.
That virtual particles exist has been verified by the Casimir effect."

yeah, I know it's complicated, but that's quantum physics for you!  

your argument was spontainous
generation,


No, I was responding to your statement:
"Matter cannot be spontainiously created as you say, unless you can prove me wrong"
The evidence of the Casimir effect proves you wrong.

most of the things in quantium physics use processeces that for all scientests can determine should not work.  like an atom, the electrons rotating about an atom should be sucked into the nuculous yet it isint

True, much of quantum physics is counter-intuitive but scientists don't think they shouldn't work, they are just very complex.  Why should an electon be sucked into the nucleous?  As I said, this is complicated stuff, so take your time with your explaination....

most facts about quantium phisccis just happen even though they shouldent.

Poor description of quantum physics...

I believe that if it is impossibleby science then it should only be possible by God.

Got any evidence for this??  Nothing in science or quantum physics is impossible, only incredibly complex and not everthing is completely understood yet, but there STILL is absolutely no evidence that God is responsible for anything, there is STILL no evidence that God even exists.  Your claim is a typical God of the gaps arguement, we don't understand quantum physics, so Goddidit!  Just like the ancient greeks who didn't understand lightning and said Zeus did it!  What happens to your God when the gaps close....what happens to your belief when the quantum world is more fully explained, when it's shown that God DOESN'T keep every electron from crashing into the nucleous they orbit...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:51 AM on April 30, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

using the same logic that you just displayed, i can say that god is a very complex thing to study, and just because we can't explain it now, doesn't mean its impossible for god to exist. There isn't any evidence god doesn't exist, but i personally think there is a lot of evidence that he does exist, and its more than a goddidit opinion. I dont claim god's name for everything unexplainable, but you can't rule him/her out either. for example. all science has to be broken down into things we can sense right, like numbers on a screen, a needle across a meter, lights flashing, an alarm going off... until we have a way to quantify and interpret god with our 5 senses, there will be no way of disproving or proving his existence. we also can't prove or disprove his involvement in everyday things, because we know that gravity exists, science was a way of trying to explain what already existed, science didn't create gravity and it didn't destroy it, this force that pulls objects toward the earth can be observed, repeated and studied by using experiments, but we still can't see gravity, and we still dont know what it is fully. this (and other questions of similar nature) are being brought together in the Unified Field Theory (UFT) becoming known as the Theory of Everything(ToE)... this is just a scientific goddidit of sorts dont you think?

i mean Unified Field Theory is described as the mother of all theories. Einstein spent the last 40 years of his life trying to study it.. its commonly referred to as the "holy grail of physicists". I'm not saying goddidit, but i love this aspect of science, because the more we study even apparantly simple forces at work on earth, we start to see their extreme complexity. for example, this UFT has given rise to theories (superstring theory) that 10 or even 26 dimensions exist, curled up into tiny pockets... this stuff is incredible. Again, these things to me show how LITTLE we understand our world. this doesn't prove god exists, but it makes me doubt that we are the most intelligent thing out there if we can't understand something that apparantly happened by chance.


-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 11:01 AM on April 30, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry, just let me add a better explanation of UFT being the unification of the theory of relativity and quantum theory. Einstein sought to prove that all things on a macro and micro scale operated under the same rules.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 11:06 AM on April 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

using the same logic that you just displayed, i can say that god is a very complex thing to study, and just because we can't explain it now, doesn't mean its impossible for god to exist. There isn't any evidence god doesn't exist, but i personally think there is a lot of evidence that he does exist, and its more than a goddidit opinion.

you can say God is a very complex thing to study but you can't study Him because there is no evidence He even exists.  Does that mean God doesn't exist, no it doesn't.  You say there isn't any evidence that God doesn't exist, but there isn't any evidence that Odin doesn't exist either, or Zeus doesn't exist, or Ra doesn't exist.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  A magical, all powerful, eternal entity is an extraordinary claim yet you have NO evidence to support that claim.  You're the one making the claim, it doesn't fall to me to prove He doesn't exist, the onus is on you to prove that he does.

until we have a way to quantify and interpret god with our 5 senses, there will be no way of disproving or proving his existence.

But if we have no evidence at all of his existance, if natural processes procede from natural causes that we can study, observe, test, predict and harness, why ascribe an untestable, unproven, unobservable supernatural component to them?  Occam'sRazor
"In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred."
God is an unneeded assumption, one we have no evidence for.

Again, these things to me show how LITTLE we understand our world. this doesn't prove god exists, but it makes me doubt that we are the most intelligent thing out there if we can't understand something that apparantly happened by chance.

Yes, I'll agree, we don't know everything and I also agree it doesn't prove God exists, and I admit it doesn't prove that He doesn't either.
It is possible that an all powerful God does exist, working unseen through natural forces but this is an unfalsifiable claim and so science says nothing about God, it doesn't say he exists, it doesn't say He doesn't.  But to claim that God miraculously intervenes in everything is both counterproductive and leads to total ignorance.  What if no one questioned the church's claim that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it?
Or better yet, what if no one question the church's claim that demons caused disease?  This is what fundamental creationists are doing, they're telling us all the evidence is wrong, logic is wrong, the earth is 6,000 years old, animals don't evolve, based on their interpretation of a book written over 3,000 years ago by primitive people who had no concept of reality.  Believing in God is a question of faith, it's a personal choice that I have no problem with, one that science can't disprove.  Believing in a God who regularly breaks the laws He supposedly created, as fundamental creationists do, renders science useless, is counterproductive, leads to ignorance and is ultimately dangerous.  And as more of His miraculous actions are explained by science, this God is forced into smaller and smaller gaps until no reasonable person can believe in His existance.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:07 PM on April 30, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why should an electron be sucked into the nucleus?
The particles surrounding the nucleus are giving off a charge and the nucleolus is giving off a charge, because the charges are different one should counteract the other and disrupt the atom, they should not, by any means provable, remain on the course that they are following.  Yet we know that they do.

I have a question. where are you finding your information at?  I would like to look over it.  not for credibility sake but for personal study.

Poor description of quantum physics...

sorry I should have said some, not most.

Nothing in science or quantum physics is impossible, only incredibly complex and not everything is completely understood yet, but there STILL is absolutely no evidence that God is responsible for anything

typical evolutionists point.  If we don’t have an explanation for it then we just aren’t smart enough yet, well what if there is no explanation.  An argument stating that there is just no explanation but god and an argument that we will eventually find the answer take the same amount of faith.


(Edited by deep thought 4/30/2005 at 8:12 PM).


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 8:09 PM on April 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The particles surrounding the nucleus are giving off charge and the nucleolus is giving off a charge, because the charges are different one should counteract the other and disrupt the atom, they should not, by any means provable, remain on the course that they are following.  Yet we know that they do.

This is very complicated stuff, I don't pretend to understand it all, but your claim that electrons should not remain in there shells around the nucleus of the atom is not correct.
From here:ElectronOrbits

"What has been viewed as a condition of nature we "just had to accept", has been shown to be derivable from Rutherford's "planetary" model. The mechanisms responsible for the discrete orbits of the electron lies in the time delay associated with momentum transferred by the electric field between the particles combined with the effect relativity has on the electron's mass affecting its momentum. This time delay is comprised of three components - the distance between the particles, the mass of the proton (section 1.2) and the time dilation caused by the electric field."

I have a question. where are you finding your information at?  I would like to look over it.  not for credibility sake but for personal study.

Usually I just google for information that I don't know offhand.  I sited my source above, sorry I haven't consistantly done that.  I'll try to correct that problem.

typical evolutionists point.  If we don’t have an explanation for it then we just aren’t smart enough yet, well what if there is no explanation.  An argument stating that there is just no explanation but god and an argument that we will eventually find the answer take the same amount of faith.

But how many MILLIONS of times has a god been used as an answer and been wrong?
Zeus throws lightning bolts, Apollo drives the sun, demons cause disease, Heaven is in the sky, and on and on...  When has a god been proven to cause anything?  Where is the evidence that an all powerful god even exists???  "We don't know, but we'll investigate.." is an infinitely better answer than "Goddidit, we can't understand it".
As soon as you show me some process that can't be explained by nature and can only be explained by divine intervention, I'll agree with you...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:43 PM on April 30, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with that request though, is that science will always attempt to explain things in nature, will always have a theory for it - even if it's just a 'best guess given our current knowledge"... and if we didn't understand something through nature, and used divine intervention to explain it, isn't that a goddidit again? i dont understand whats different about your request and what you constantly push off as goddidit. is it that you feel all these goddidit examples people have used are explained in science?


-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 07:41 AM on May 1, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with that request though, is that science will always attempt to explain things in nature

That's because science can only explain the natural world.  The supernatural, by definition, is above physical laws, it is completely unpredictable, it can't be studied or quantified.  Once you say Goddidit, that ends all investigation, that ends all practical applications.  If people stopped studying germs and disease because the church claimed it was God's way of punnishing the wicked, we wouldn't have modern medicine.  So yes, science will always try to explain things through nature, to do anything else would be self defeating.  Now why don't you tell us why God supernaturally intervening is a better answer than science or can't you do that?

will always have a theory for it - even if it's just a 'best guess given our current knowledge"...

Ah, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.  It's never a "best guess".  A scientific theory is a well supported explaination of a set of related facts.  It makes predictions, it provides the means to falsify itself.  Then, through the peer review process, other scientists in that field attempt to tear the theory to shreds, to disprove it.  They examine the evidence, repeat the experiments that confirm the theory, devise new tests to falsify it, do everything in their power to show it's wrong.  When a theory can't be falsified, it is considered valid.  It's never proven 100%, there is always the chance some new data, some new test will falsify it.  So  a scientific theory is never just a "best guess", it is an explaination that is completely supported by all available evidence.

and if we didn't understand something through nature, and used divine intervention to explain it, isn't that a goddidit again?

I'm not following you, what you describe above is exactly what a "Goddidit" is all about.
Don't you see that since man first tried to understand the world around them, they've used divine intervention as an explaination, Ra controls the sun, Zeus makes ligntning, Thor makes thunder, God punnishes sinners with disease.  And everytime they have been wrong.  The "Goddidit" explaination has a horrible track record, it's never been right.  

i dont understand whats different about your request and what you constantly push off as goddidit.

Show me something that science says can not possibly happen but happens anyway.  Then I'll admit there is evidence of a supernatusal being.  Creationists are fond of saying life could not possibly have arisen through natural processes, even though there is evidence (not strong evidence, but evidence nontheless) that it can and did.  Show me the evidence that completely falsifies abiogenesis and I'll accept your claim.  Until then, it's in humanity's best interest to continue researching it, continue experimenting with it, continue looking for it on earth and on other planets.

is it that you feel all these goddidit examples people have used are explained in science?

But so far every "Goddidit" example HAS been wrong and HAS been explained by science!  Name ANY natural phenomenon that is better explained by "Goddidit"!  Go ahead, I bet you can't even name one!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:23 AM on May 1, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh boy... that was not the point... using goddidit to explain natural phenom is pointless, because science deals with the natural, i dont use the goddidit idea personally, and i'm not defending it as any sort of proof, because its not a proof, its not scientific. the "church" has been wrong on a lot of issues, but so has science. the bible teaches the world is round, but science didn't figure that out till when? there are plenty of allusions to scientific knowledge in the "bible times" that weren't officially written down as science until millenia later. i dont use goddidit as an excuse, if i say god did something, its because he said he did, and i believe him. it doesn't contradict science either, because science just attempts to understand what exists, it doesn't actually change what exists. if science finds out how disease spreads and kills people, i dont see how that affects my beliefs at all because i never believed that and its not a scientific idea supported by the bible anyways.

just so you know, not everything the official church believes in agrees with the bible, because the roman catholic church equatic tradition with scripture at the council of trent and decided that it was just as true, and all of these false ideas came out of tradition and ideas of man, not the bible, so they apply to those who presented them, not the church today, and not me especially





-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:12 AM on May 1, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the bible teaches the world is round, but science didn't figure that out till when?

Whoa, the Bible teaches that the world is flat, the Greeks knew it was spherical long before the Bible.

there are plenty of allusions to scientific knowledge in the "bible times" that weren't officially written down as science until millenia later.

Like what?  All I can think of are the many obvious mistakes the Bible makes.

the "church" has been wrong on a lot of issues, but so has science.

But the church clings to it's dogma despite evidence and reason.  Science is self correcting, it accepts nothing dogmatically.  It goes where the evidence leads.  Nothing in science is taken on faith.  Science is the most objective method we have of studying reality.

i dont use goddidit as an excuse, if i say god did something, its because he said he did, and i believe him.

But if you can give no better explaination than "God did it because he said so and I believe him", that is using "Goddidit" as an excuse and it's a worthless answer.

it doesn't contradict science either, because science just attempts to understand what exists, it doesn't actually change what exists.

But how about when it DOES contradict science, the earth isn't flat like the bible says, the sun doesn't orbit the earth like the bible says, snakes don't talk like the bible says, insects don't have 4 legs like the bible says, so yes, the Bible does contradict science.

just so you know, not everything the official church believes in agrees with the bible, because the roman catholic church equatic tradition with scripture at the council of trent and decided that it was just as true, and all of these false ideas came out of tradition and ideas of man, not the bible, so they apply to those who presented them, not the church today, and not me especially

All the examples I used above and many, many more, come directly out of the Bible.  Either you explain them by saying "Goddidit" or the Bible is wrong, they are your only 2 choices.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:51 AM on May 1, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But how about when it DOES contradict science, the earth isn't flat like the bible says, the sun doesn't orbit the earth like the bible says, snakes don't talk like the bible says, insects don't have 4 legs like the bible says, so yes, the Bible does contradict science.

how about you start referencing these. I dont remember ever reading them.

But so far every "Goddidit" example HAS been wrong and HAS been explained by science!  

Just becaus its been explained by science dosent make it wrong, it still happened.  all science did was prove that it could.

Name ANY natural phenomenon that is better explained by "Goddidit"!  Go ahead, I bet you can't even name one!

The earth forming.  you say we have observed other planets being created but so far you have no way of knowing how the earth was formed.  if you can tell me what method actually set into play to form the earth then why cant you consider that it could have been god? yes, science finds ways to go against what is tought, but that is only because in the begining that is there only goal.  there are aalot of explainations for some questions but evolutionists accept only the answers that dont involve god, even if they are outragious answers.  you ask us to come up with things that science cant explaine but when we do you just say that its typicall goddidt thinking.

earlyer you said that belief in god is like a battle of the gaps. you find ways that these things can happen aside from god and then claim that you disproved him.  It could go the other way, these new developments could support god as well.  why would god create a universe where everything followes set rules, and then break the rules he has set?


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 12:04 PM on May 1, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, i'd love to hear you're references for how the bible teaches the world is flat, because that is totally untrue... the allusions to a round earth are among the earliest recorded writings in the bible. the bible doesn't say insects have 4 legs in that leviticus passage, thats a common misinterpretation error.. and i gotta eat lunch.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 12:46 PM on May 1, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how about you start referencing these. I dont remember ever reading them.

The sun standing still: Joshua 10
"12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
      "O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
      O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

   13 So the sun stood still,
      and the moon stopped,
      till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
     as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
     The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!"

Insects with four legs: Leviticus 11:

" 21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

  22Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

  23But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

And of course the famous talking snake in the garden of Eden.

Just becaus its been explained by science dosent make it wrong, it still happened.  all science did was prove that it could.

Let my modify my claim, every "Goddidit" example that has contradicted science has been wrong.  I thought that was understood, but apparently not.  So when the science explains something one way and the bible has contradicted it, the bible has alwasy been wrong, like in the examples above.

The earth forming.  you say we have observed other planets being created but so far you have no way of knowing how the earth was formed.  if you can tell me what method actually set into play to form the earth then why cant you consider that it could have been god?

what is the evidence for God forming the earth?  Please list it!  Plenty of evidence that the earth formed naturally, try here:
EarthOrigin
Or here:
EarthOriginII
Or here:
EarthOriginIII

I stand by my statement, the formation of the earth by natural means is a much better supported theory than divine creation!  It's up to you now to show evidence that God created it miraculously as stated in the Bible.

there are aalot of explainations for some questions but evolutionists accept only the answers that dont involve god, even if they are outragious answers.

No, scientists accept only answers that are supported by the evidence, any answer that involves God is supported by NO evidence.  And why do you keep using the term "evolutionists", evolutionists only study biological evolution, it's geologists and cosmologists who study the formation of planets...

you ask us to come up with things that science cant explaine but when we do you just say that its typicall goddidt thinking.

I ask you to come up with things that science can't possibly explain by natural forces, your example of earth formation is obviously not such a process since we have a great deal of evidence on how it formed.  You can't come up with ANY examples of something that is better explained by divine intervention.  

earlyer you said that belief in god is like a battle of the gaps. you find ways that these things can happen aside from god and then claim that you disproved him.

No I didn't, I said those who try to scientifically prove God and the Bible battle the ever narrowing gaps.  I maintain that science never seeks to prove or disprove the existance of God.  But when fundamental creationists try to use the primitive myths of the Bible to explain reality, they are invariably wrong.  The earth isn't 6,000 years old, there never was a world wide flood, life does evolve.  I stated that the Bible is not a book of science like some, like you and carns, say it is.  I've shown examples that prove the Bible is wrong when it is interpreted scientifically.  I've shown why the modern scientific method is much more reliable than the Bible in explaining nature.

It could go the other way, these new developments could support god as well.

Anything could happen in the future, but it hasn't yet!

why would god create a universe where everything followes set rules, and then break the rules he has set?

What?!?  Isn't this what I've been saying all along?  If you're saying God works through natural means, then I don't have a problem with that.  My problem is with those creationists who insist that the Bible is accurate when it comes to science.  That since they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, then, despite all the evidence to the contrary, since it;s in the bible it must be correct.  My point is the Bible is NOT a book of science and when intepreted literally especially when dealing with science, it is wrong.

(Edited by Demon38 5/2/2005 at 06:04 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:39 AM on May 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, i'd love to hear you're references for how the bible teaches the world is flat, because that is totally untrue... the allusions to a round earth are among the earliest recorded writings in the bible.

Easy enough:
Dan 4:10 NRSV - "Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great.
Dan 4:11 NRSV The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth."

A tree high enough to be seen "to the ends of the whole earth" is only possible on a flat earth.

Prov 8:26-27 NRSV - "when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep"
Job 26:10 NRSV - "He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness."

Here we see God creating the earth as a circle, a flat surface.  A spherical earth could NOT be place in the waters.  It's clear that the earth was described in primitive fashion, not as a sphere, but as a flat circle.  And just what waters was it placed in?

the bible doesn't say insects have 4 legs in that leviticus passage, thats a common misinterpretation error..

Oh yes it does, and rather expicitly!

"Leviticus 11:
21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

 22Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

 23But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

I've heard half assed explainations that locusts and grasshoppers have "jumping legs" above their feet, so they have four feet PLUS 2 jumping legs that somehow don't count.  But beetles don't have jumping feet, they have six legs like all insects do, not four.  So here we see the Bible claims that ALL insects have four feet when plainly they do not.  Fossil records also show that at no time in earths history did they have four feet.  The Bible (and you) are wrong.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:02 AM on May 2, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That iether shows that the bible was wrong, or you can't trust the bible because the people who wrote it couldn't count...



-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 11:28 AM on May 2, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

leviticus is obviously a book of laws. Why would there exist a law that forbade eating four legged insects. either we're misinterpreting it, or they were referring to something with a literal four legs... it would make no sense for them to include such an explicit law about a creature that was nowhere to be found.

second, daniel is a book of prophecy, those are dreams, and do not reflect reality... if i say i dreamt i could fly, does that make me a liar? of course not. these passages are not errors, they're just picked apart by people who don't understand their context because they're determined to convince themselves its imperfect.

you're skepticism is only matched by your stubbornness. its funny to me how somebody who doesn't beleive in the bible is so concerned about those who do.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:44 PM on May 2, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have no more comments regarding this strain. truly you have shown us that your knowledge and abilities are superior to our own in this area. I would like to thank you also for your time, you may enjoy knowing that with every one of your posts I have gained a better knowledge. I’m sorry to say that my opinion hasn’t changed but you have given me the biggest challenge I have ever had to face so far as argument. It would be pointless to continue to fight this loosing battle. I leave with my intelligence increased and only one final request.  I have attempted to place your age and have failed, I have tried to guess at your education and have failed at that as well.  my last request is that you tell me of your formal education and your age if you would care to inform me of that much. thank you.


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 10:53 PM on May 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would there exist a law that forbade eating four legged insects. either we're misinterpreting it, or they were referring to something with a literal four legs...

So either way the Bible is wrong...There are no flying creatures on earth that have 4 legs, so you have to go with  misinterpretation,
which means the Bible is wrong.  What else in the Bible has been misinterpreted?

these passages are not errors, they're just picked apart by people who don't understand their context because they're determined to convince themselves its imperfect.

But what about the other passages?  
Prov 8:26-27 NRSV - "when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep"
Job 26:10 NRSV - "He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness."
this wasn't a dream, it tells God made the earth.  It does not describe a sphereical world, as you claim, but a flat earth floating on some water.  It is a primitive belief that is not true.

[b]you're skepticism is only matched by your stubbornness. its funny to me how somebody who doesn't beleive in the bible is so concerned about those who do.[\b]

I have supported every claim I have made, you have supported none of your claims.  And personally I couldn't care less if you believe in the Bible or not, but then don't come to a debate site and try to pass off the Bible as scientifically accurate!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:19 AM on May 3, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Carns, can you please post a comment on where in the bible it says the earth is round rather than flat, becuase I was always thought that it said the earth was flat.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:52 AM on May 3, 2005 | IP
Peaks

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This entire topic is really invalid.  There is no commonality between the two.  Evolution is an objective science and Creationsim is a faith-based pseudoscience.  

If you want to say that God created everything, that's fine, I can deal with the existence of something greater than us that caused our creation.  It's when you start saying that he did it 6000 years ago because that's the only way to make the world jive with your book that concerns me.  

It's not science.  Its a justification for a book.  Maybe its a really holy book that a lot of people believe in.  Great.  That doesn't change the fact that it's not scientific, and that it shouldn't be taught as science.  

You may even be able to poke holes in evolution, but that doesn't mean that your theory of creationism is the next logical step.  Even if you were to completely prove to me that evolution was an incorrect theory, I would ask for what the evidence does suggest as the next logical possibility.  If you told me that there's a really old book that says that some omnipotent force created everything as it currently exists, I would ask for proof of that.

Note that I wouldn't ask for more reasons why evolution was incorrect, because it would already have been proven incorrect.  Now I would want reasons why creationism is the logical choice.  I don't think you have that kind of evidence.  If you want to present that now, go ahead.  But let the burden of proof fall on you.

Convince me without mentioning evolution.  Give me the reasons why I should believe in all this creationism stuff.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:46 PM on May 5, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the reason i started this forum was actually to dispell misconceptions about each belief. they are not anti-theories as many think. they don't contradict eachother... evolution's anti-theory is what you could call "devolution" that things are winding down, getting worse as opposed to getting better... these ideas can be debated... you can compare a scientific theory to another.... you can't debate creation vs. evolution because creation isn't science, how can you debate a science with a non-science... they aren't in the same field... evolutionists should find out what their beleifs are with regards to the origin of all things living and non-living and debate that with creation...
and creationists should focus their efforts on proving that macro-evolution doesn't happen, or that when it does, its a loss of information, not a gain of information.... pardon the wording on that.

these verses you're quoting actually can be interpretted in support of a round earth... a circle being inscribed as a boundary between light and darkness? you think that means the earth is flat? how so? if the earth is flat, the whole earth would either be light or dark.... not having a boundary... a round earth is SUPPORTED by this verse... instead of trying to disprove the bible, try and understand what they intended.

the proverbs verse is wisdom speaking... does wisdom actually speak? no, so i guess the bible's all wrong right? please read this the way it was intended to be read... the whole chapter in proverbs is clearly getting the point across in a poetic way that wisdom existed and was possessed by god, and in the way he created the earth, we can see this wisdom manifested.

when shakespeare said "Glory is like a circle in the water,Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself,Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought" did people think he figured there existed a body of water with no shore, such that it could unceasingly grow? nobody questions things like this, because poetry is not science. im sure shakespeare was well aware, and so was the author of that proverb.





-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 8:20 PM on May 5, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you can compare a scientific theory to another.... you can't debate creation vs. evolution because creation isn't science, how can you debate a science with a non-science... they aren't in the same field...

Yes, you are correct.  But creationISM made many scientific claims that were consequently disproven, so creationism is a falsified scientific theory.  Creation by God isn't science, it can't be supported or falsified by science.

and creationists should focus their efforts on proving that macro-evolution doesn't happen, or that when it does, its a loss of information, not a gain of information.... pardon the wording on that.

But macroevolution has been observed, it's a fact.  And while it can be a loss of information, it also can be a gain of information, that, too, has been observed.

these verses you're quoting actually can be interpretted in support of a round earth...

Not when you look at them objectively.

a circle being inscribed as a boundary between light and darkness? you think that means the earth is flat? how so?

Well, first of all, a circle is flat, why didn't they say sphere, or ball?  Second of all, according to the Bible the earth is unmoving,
"1st Samuel 2:8 ~ For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them. 1 Chronicles 16:30 ~ He fixed the earth firm and immovable. Psalm 93:1 ~ The world also is established, that it cannot be moved. "
So the earth is unmoving, the heavens above, the firmament, is a bowl or tent covering the earth, the sun moves over the earth in this bowl, the earth is a "a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness", the obvious interpretation is the earth is a flat circle held in place on the waters, it's entire surface is the boundry between the light (from the sun above) and the waters (darkness) below.  You never bothered to try and explain why the bible says the earth is unmoving or what the waters it rests in really are...

if the earth is flat, the whole earth would either be light or dark.... not having a boundary...

The whole earth IS the boundry, light above and darkness below.

a round earth is SUPPORTED by this
verse


No it's not...You pick and choose isolated facts that sound vaguely like thye support your position, but when you look at them in context they most certainly do NOT support a spherical earth.

the proverbs verse is wisdom speaking... does wisdom actually speak? no, so i guess the bible's all wrong right? please read this the way it was intended to be read... the whole chapter in proverbs is clearly getting the point across in a poetic way that wisdom existed and was possessed by god, and in the way he created the earth, we can see this wisdom manifested.

Fine and dandy, but don't try to tell us that the Bible is accurate scientifically!  Don't try to tell us that the Bible has scientific facts hidden in it that prove that it's the word of God.  And don't try to tell us the Bible describes a spherical earth!

when shakespeare said "Glory is like a circle in the water,Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself,Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought" did people think he figured there existed a body of water with no shore, such that it could unceasingly grow?

But there are people who think the earth is 6000 years old, there was a world wide flood and the Bible contains advanced scientific truths, because of the Bible's poetry.  I'm not the one who's confused here...

im sure shakespeare was well aware, and so was the author of that proverb.

What was the author aware of???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:04 AM on May 6, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know Demon, I do agree with you on most points, but if you choose to anger your opponent (or be angered) in an argument rather than attempt to persuade your audience, you might as well cut off all of the blather of your posts and just say "You are wrong. I am right." :--)

Then again, isn't everyone saying that? Hmmmm...

 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 10:34 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 09:22 AM on April 24, 2005 :
ok first of all learn what eveolution is, no one is surgesting a cow came from a whale.

What difference does it matter what mammal became another? It is a story. It has never been observed.

Second of all there are predictions on the data of the big bang.
And you point is? The predictions were made after the theory. Most of them recently. It is also a story.

Evolution doesn't concern before life becuase evolution is simpily the explanation for the diversity of life and no where does it try to explain where life came from.

Apparently you have never read Haeckel. The reason evolutionist refuse to talk about origins is that it a self evident truth that we were created and the only story they there is  sell is morpholoogy. If you Just Say that animals that disapear from the fossil evidence reappeared as other animals you don't need evidence that it actually happened. Just that some animals disappeared . Spontaneous generation is anti-science so it is believed religiously but denied scientifically.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous

generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of

God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose

from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis

Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)


I belive evolution more than creationism becuase of the empirical evidence that proves evolution, where as what have creationist got? A two thousand year old book written by men claiming to be influenced by god, to belive that you need faith. To belive fossil records etc you need an open mind. It is a sciebce vs religion debate.
To believe there is a fossil record you need a vivid imagination There is no fossil record. There are bones in the dirt. They prove something died. Beyond that it is pure speculation.
Creationist believe that God created them.

Evolutionist believe they were a random act with no purpose.

There is no fossil record , just bones , bones don't talk. You can't say they had any kids let alone different kids.
Evolution has no empirical evidence, just bones .
It is pure imagination, not science.

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
What experiment would tell you a bird became a dinosaur? How would you repeat it?



Evolution is not philosophical.


You can say anything. It is not science. Science means to know , not to imagine.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 5:09 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution and Creation are polar opposites.

Creationist believe the world and all life was created by Almighty God in 6 days.

Evolutionist believe the world created itself and god does not exist or if he does he ia a weak and limited god.
[speaking of life]
The only observable evidence that evolution claims is the genetic variations in animals of the same kind.

The only observable evidence that Creationist claim is the genetic variation of animals of the same kind.

Evolutionist refuse to talk about origins as it is impossible to explain any other possibility than an intelligent being created life.
The odds of life arrising by chance as so far beyond the point of mathematical absurdity that to claim it a possibility is a form of insanity.
A one with many thousands of zeros after it is not a possibility.

That's about it. Creationist experiment to discover how God did it.

Evolutionist try to prove he did not.

It is a war of religions , there is nothing in common, nothing at all.


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 5:23 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution and Creation are polar opposites

Untrue, since most Christians accept evolution and believe God created through natural methods like evolution.

Evolutionist believe the world created itself and god does not exist or if he does he ia a weak and limited god.

Evolution does not equal atheism.  And why is a god who creates through natural means "weak"?

The only observable evidence that evolution claims is the genetic variations in animals of the same kind.

Hahahahahaaahahaaaa!!!   All of genetics supports evolution.  How do YOU explain ERV's?  The entire fossil record supports evolution, transitional fossils and transitional living organisms support evolution, biogeography supports evolution, embriology supports evolution, twin nested hierarchies supports evolution.  Your ignorance doesn't falsify the th eory of evolution.

The only observable evidence that Creationist claim is the genetic variation of animals of the same kind

There is no evidence for creation.  How does genetics support creationism?!?!  Explain that....

Evolutionist refuse to talk about origins as it is impossible to explain any other possibility than an intelligent being created life.


Ridiculous and untrue!  Evolutionists only study life, biochemists study how chemicals self organize, 2 different fields of science, completely different procedures.  And no matter how life got here, once it was here it evolved, the evidence makes that plain.

The odds of life arrising by chance as so far beyond the point of mathematical absurdity that to claim it a possibility is a form of insanity.
A one with many thousands of zeros after it is not a possibility.


Show me the math that backs up your silly claim!  And how many times do you have to be told that life didn't arise by chance, it arose by chemical reactions that don't occur by chance.

That's about it. Creationist experiment to discover how God did it.

Hahahaaaa!!!  Oh my...give us the data on ONE creationist experiment that gave us ANY evidence that God created anything!  Give us any evidence of God!  Funny how you just can't back up your claims...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:25 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 05:25 AM on June 11, 2005 :
Untrue, since most Christians accept evolution and believe God created through natural methods like evolution.
That is a statement. This is a statement.
Evolutionist eat their children.

You can say anything. Most Christians believe in milions of years but they believe Adam was formed out of the dust of the earth and the Lord God breathed life into him and he became a living soul.
I will personnally go with you to a number of churches and we can take a poll. You are living in a dream world . Half of all graduating High School seniors reject evolution.
Only 14% of the population accepts the purposeless, mindless view of evolution you do.
On every campus that intelligent design is offered the classes fill before they start.

http://www.smartaxes.com/college_courses.html

Evolution does not equal atheism.  And why is a god who creates through natural means "weak"?

Evolution teaches there are no miracles from God.
That everything has a naturalistic explanation.
Atheism teaches that there is no God and therfore no miracles from God and everything has a naturalistic explanation.

The God of Abraham, Issac  , and Jacob that came to earth as the the person of Jesus Christ to atone for your sins and mine is Almighty God
.
He is the Lawgiver. He created what we call natural laws and does not need to start something and hope nature will find a way.
All He has to do is speak and atoms obey His voice.

Naturalistic is atheistic. To say God created using naturalistic processes is a non-sequitor!
Hahahahahaaahahaaaa!!!   All of genetics supports evolution.  How do YOU explain ERV's?  The entire fossil record supports evolution, transitional fossils and transitional living organisms support evolution, biogeography supports evolution, embriology supports evolution, twin nested hierarchies supports evolution.  Your ignorance doesn't falsify the th eory of evolution.

HAAAA is something a child would say as I suspect you are.
Evidence does not support anything . An interpretation of evidence can be used to support a theory.
You are using the theory of evolution to support the theory of evolution.

""Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants." Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address"
Note the qualifications.

There is no evidence for creation.  How does genetics support creationism?!?!  Explain that....

BTW did you know the Father of modern genetics-Mendel- was a creationist that was ignored by the evolutionist for 60 years. Evolution theory set the science of genetics back 60 years in that one instance.

"Gen 1:21  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. "

It is observed that this is true. Whales have whales, apes have apes. cats have cats , people have people. Refute that!

Creation is evidence for creation. What you are really saying is I want to set my own morals so I refuse to believe in God and you can't make me!
That is true. But when you die you will know for sure if that was the worst mistake possible.

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all... To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself... They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." (Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of the American rocket and space program


Evolutionist refuse to talk about origins as it is impossible to explain any other possibility than an intelligent being created life.


Ridiculous and untrue!  Evolutionists only study life, biochemists study how chemicals self organize, 2 different fields of science, completely different procedures.  And no matter how life got here, once it was here it evolved, the evidence makes that plain.

Your arguments get more irrational an contradictory all the time.
Evolutionist don't study life! The look at bones and other types of evidence that real science documents and make up stories to fit!
Bio means life silly! A bio chemist by definition studies the chemistry related to living things not how they self organize. That is a story the evolutionist make up.
There are lots of biologist that believe God created us. The ones that don't must be reminded by evolutionist to ignore the obvious!
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., [Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, professor at the Salk Institute, USA], "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin Books: London, 1990, reprint

"The Duke of Argyll (Good Words, April 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. as ... in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature-I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away."' (Darwin, Francis [son of Charles Darwin], in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64


"That Darwin's question is universal, wherever there is life, is surely undeniable. The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design. Darwin's question, or rather the most fundamental and important of Darwin's many questions, is the question of how such complicated "design" could come into being. All living creatures, everywhere in the universe and at any time in history, provoke this question. It is less obvious that Darwin's answer to the riddle-cumulative evolution by nonrandom survival of random hereditary changes-is universal." (Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "Darwin Triumphant: Darwinism as a Universal Truth," in Robinson M.H. & Tiger L., eds., "Man & Beast Revisited," Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC, 1991, p.24). [top of page]



"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1). [top of page



You have to be braindead not to see this a sermon not science.
All these "scientist" believe there is overwhelming evidence for design, for a Designer.
They ignore it on religious grounds.
You say it does not exist because ?



Show me the math that backs up your silly claim!  And how many times do you have to be told that life didn't arise by chance, it arose by chemical reactions that don't occur by chance.

Please explain how their is no chance is purposlessness? Or are you saying it was designed?
Make up your mind , please!

Hemoglobin - a scientific look into the improbability of the random formation

Our DNA/RNA coding system arranges amino acids into specific sequences to form each required protein. Only a specific sequence of amino acids will produce the required result.

Hemoglobin is responsible for both the red color of our blood and for the oxygen chemistry based on our breathing. There is one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin. Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. (Sickle cell anemia is one example.)

Considering alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 to the 650th power permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.
(The actual number is 7.4 x 10 to the 654th. Some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant. in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10 to the 503rd.)

A reasonable finite approximation for infinity. The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd. (In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10 to the 500th+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 10 to the 17th seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe.)

Hemoglobin shows very good evidence of being skillfully designed

Hahahaaaa!!!  Oh my...give us the data on ONE creationist experiment that gave us ANY evidence that God created anything!  Give us any evidence of God!  Funny how you just can't back up your claims...
Please stop with the Hahahaaaa!!! it is hard enought to imagine I am conversing with an intelligent person without such childish tactics.

Are you more learned and intelligent that Dawkins or Darwin or von Braun? Dawkins and Darwin are atheist and von Braun is a creationist.
They all see evidence for creation.
Say you refuse to believe in God and I will belive you are misguided.
Continue to say there is no evidence for creation and I say you are a fool.
"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (Pagel M. [Research fellow, Department of Zoology and Hertford College, Oxford University], "Happy accidents?" Review of "The Pattern of Evolution" by Niles Eldredge, W.H. Freeman 1999. Nature, Vol 397, 25 February 1999, p.665) [ Top of page]
"This notion of species as `natural kinds' fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are "instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking." But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature? Both Darwin and Lamarck struggled with this question and did not resolve it to their satisfaction. Both denied to the species any status as a natural kind." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], "A Quahog is a Quahog," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," [1980], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.170-171)




"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove." (Dr. Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists." (Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose)

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)










-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:10 PM on June 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can say anything. Most Christians believe in milions of years but they believe Adam was formed out of the dust of the earth and the Lord God breathed life into him and he became a living soul.

Most Christians believe Adam is a metaphor for mankind.  No intelligent person believes Adam and Eve were real!

will personnally go with you to a number of churches and we can take a poll. You are living in a dream world . Half of all graduating High School seniors reject evolution.

Reality isn't based on how many people believe it or not.  In fact, that's a circular argument!  "Creationism is true because people believe it. People believe in Creationism because it's true."  Now that's circular logic!!!  If half of graduating highschool seniors don't accept evolution, they've received a poor education.  America scores near the bottom of industrialized countries in science scores, not properly teaching evolution is part of the problem.

Only 14% of the population accepts the purposeless, mindless view of evolution you do.

So what?  49% of the population accepts evolution, and that percentage is much higher in the other industrialized countries of the world.

Evolution teaches there are no miracles from God.

Since evolution says nothing about God, you are wrong.

That everything has a naturalistic explanation.

All science teaches this, science can only operate with a naturalistic presumption.  Do you make these same claims about the atomic theory?  The heliocentric theory?  The germ theory of disease?  Why or why not?  

Naturalistic is atheistic. To say God created using naturalistic processes is a
non-sequitor!


Then, by YOUR definition, all science is atheistic.  Why can't God use naturalistic processes to create?  Where's your evidence?

HAAAA is something a child would say as I suspect you are.

Your powers of perception are as poor as your knowledge of science.

Evidence does not support anything . An interpretation of evidence can be used to support a theory.  You are using the theory of evolution to support the theory of evolution.

But you ignore the fact that some interpretations of evidence are going to be right, some are going to be wrong.  How do you tell the difference?  You test your conclusions, you have other experts test your conclusions, you have other experts try to tear your conclusions apart.  When that can't be done, your theory is valid.  The tennets of creationism have been torn apart, it is a falisfied scientific theory, disproven over 200 years ago.  Evolution has not been falsified, it is the only valid explaination for the diversity of life.  No one uses the theory of evolutin to support the theory of evolution, thats what you do, "the bible is the word of God, it says so right in the Bible", now that's circularity!

Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics

25 years out of date...

BTW did you know the Father of modern genetics-Mendel- was a creationist that was ignored by the evolutionist for 60 years. Evolution theory set the science of genetics back 60 years in that one instance.

Nah, Mendel was no creationist!  And genetics is an integral part of the modern synthesis.  
This is all just stuff you made up, no truth in it at all.

It is observed that this is true. Whales have whales, apes have apes. cats have cats , people have people. Refute that!

And yet, whales have lungs but live entirely in the water!  What kind of moronic god would force an air breather to live in the water?!  Deep diving whales suffer from the bends, guess your all loving god really hated whales.  And why did he put vestigial hind limbs in them anyway?  Chimpanzees and humans are genetically closer than horses and zebras, so according to you chimpanzees and humans are the same kind.  Chimpanzees and humans share 7 ERVs, the only possible explaination is they share a common ancestor.  And those are the facts!

Creation is evidence for creation.

Wait a minute, weren't you the one rejecting evolution becasue "evolution is evidence for evolution"?!?!  Creation is evidence for creation is (wait for it....) A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!!  What a hypocrite!

What you are really saying is I want to set my own morals so I refuse to believe in God and you can't make me!

Nope, what I'm saying is humans created their own morals and until you show me some evidence for your magic skyman, I'll believe my own senses and common sense.

That is true.

No it's not.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A. Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)"

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 140-41.] "

Please explain how their is no chance is purposlessness?

Have no idea what you are saying here!  Here's what I said:
"Show me the math that backs up your silly claim!  And how many times do you have to be told that life didn't arise by chance, it arose by chemical reactions that don't occur by chance."

So life didn't arise by chance, it arose because of the properties of nature.  it doesn't require a creator, only matter and energy.  And you still haven't been able to back up your original claim, show us the math that backs up:
" The odds of life arrising by chance as so far beyond the point of mathematical absurdity that to claim it a possibility is a form of insanity."
Show us how you calculated those odds or withdraw the statement!

There is one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin. Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. (Sickle cell anemia is one example.)

But sickle cell anemia is a beneficial mutation in a jungle infested with malaria carrying insects.  In the absence of modern medicine, Humans with sickle cell anemia will, on average, live longer than those who don't have it.  

Hemoglobin shows very good evidence of being skillfully designed

Don't be ridiculous, hemoglobin is excellent evidence for evolution.  From Here:
HemoEvo
"A team led by Dr. Jonathan Stamler, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Duke University Medical Center, believes that the hemoglobin molecule found in the gut of Ascaris lumbriocoides is a remnant of a crucial evolutionary junction in which anaerobic life forms, like bacteria, separated from newly emerging aerobic organisms, such as humans. The worm, in short, reveals that hemoglobin evolved first and foremost to handle the molecule nitric oxide (NO) rather than oxygen, as scientists thought, and tells the tale of when hemoglobin ceased being a "consumer" of oxygen and became a "carrier" of oxygen, Stamler said."

And let me throw some more pertinent quotes out there:

" Let me lay my cards on the table. If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of even Newton or Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. It is not just a wonderful idea. It is a dangerous idea.
       - Daniel Dennett, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" "

"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."
- Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"

"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer - but none exists."

- Stephen Jay Gould

Evolution as such is no longer a theory for a modern author. It is as much a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.
- Ernst Mayr






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:46 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:46 AM on June 18, 2005 :

Most Christians believe Adam is a metaphor for mankind.  No intelligent person believes Adam and Eve were real! So 45% of the population of America including Doctors, Scientist, Teachers etc. are stupid and you are are the brain. [I picture you as pinky] Please show your source. This , if true means we should all pray for more stupid people. With out these morons we would not have airplanes , or Lazers , or MRI's, Doctor's would not wash before surgery, we would not have telegraphs or computers or space flight, the United States would have likely starved to death without stupid people.


Reality isn't based on how many people believe it or not.  In fact, that's a circular argument!  "Creationism is true because people believe it. People believe in Creationism because it's true."  Now that's circular logic!!!  
You are winning an argument with yourself! That's amazing!
I don't believe Jesus Christ created all things because most people do. Look around you bud, I am the lone ranger here! You are truly delusional.
Your main argument is :
ALL SCIENTIST AGREE!
ALL BIOLOGIST AGREE!
ALL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS!
99% OF AMERICANS AGREE!
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PROVES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE GOD CREATED US ARE STUPID BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY RATIONAL ANSWER! THE ONLY RATIONAL ANSWER IS EVOLUTION BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE GOD CREATED US ARE STUPID!
You are using circular logic in new and unimaginable ways. You are truly special!


So what?  49% of the population accepts evolution, and that percentage is much higher in the other industrialized countries of the world.
Your circular thought process is truly a freak of nature ! The most advanced , richest , and most benevolent nation ever in the history of the world is the one with the highest percentage of creationist and you say that is a bad thing? You are on a roll!

Since evolution says nothing about God, you are wrong.[/b]The introduction to origins says there is no creator God. All of evolutionary theory is built on naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that EVERYTHING has a natural explanation. That is atheism. God is supernatural! [/b]

All science teaches this, science can only operate with a naturalistic presumption.  Do you make these same claims about the atomic theory?  The heliocentric theory?  The germ theory of disease?  Why or why not?  

It is not a presumption it is an absolute. No matter what the evidence indicates it must be ignored.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)"

This is from one of the world's leading evolutionary biologist, a nobel prize winner. Evoluttion is a religion. It ignores science.
Science tries to find a natural explantion, it does not fabricate one if the evidence does not provide it.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the EVIDENCE!

Naturalistic is atheistic. To say God created using naturalistic processes is a
non-sequitor![/b]

Then, by YOUR definition, all science is atheistic.  Why can't God use naturalistic processes to create?  Where's your evidence?
Evidence that God could have not used naturalist process to create ? Hmm. That is a deep intellectual question. Why could a supernatural being not have used a natural process to preform a supernatural act?
Hmmm. Let me think that one over.
Hmmm. Let's see. I think that if a supernatural being used a natural process to perform a supernatural act the natural process would then become a supernatural process. You thoughts?


HAAAA is something a child would say as I suspect you are.
{HAAAA] is something a child would say as I suspect you are.


But you ignore the fact that some interpretations of evidence are going to be right, some are going to be wrong.  How do you tell the difference?  You test your conclusions, you have other experts test your conclusions, you have other experts try to tear your conclusions apart.  When that can't be done, your theory is valid.  The tennets of creationism have been torn apart, it is a falisfied scientific theory, disproven over 200 years ago.  Evolution has not been falsified, it is the only valid explaination for the diversity of life.  No one uses the theory of evolutin to support the theory of evolution, thats what you do, "the bible is the word of God, it says so right in the Bible", now that's circularity!

Evolution cannot be falsified because evolutionist never run out of theories. If the fossil evidence says there was no slow gradual change that proves evolution happened quickly. If "extinct" animals and plants that evolved into other kinds are found alive some must not have evolved the same way. Fairy tales work like that.
You keep saying that creationism , the existance of the God of the Bible was disproved 200 years ago. Who did this and how. Be specific.
You have no idea what circular reasoning in, it is a natural , blind , and undirected process of YOUR brain. [/b]

Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics

25 years out of date...
Hmmm 25 years is ancient history but 200 years was only yesterday? Maybe you could start a private thread and debate yourself. :}
That is a lame argument, really , really , really lame.


Nah, Mendel was no creationist!  And genetics is an integral part of the modern synthesis.  
This is all just stuff you made up, no truth in it at all.
ou now less about creationist than you do about evolutionist. No small feat!
http://tomclegg.net/tom/mendel.html
Mendel's idea that some species might begin as hybrids was introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in the eighteenth century. In 1737 he held the special creationist view that all species had been created by God and could not deviate from "the limits of their proper kinds" (Callender 1988). He later updated his theory to account for natural hybrids. Although he did not perform any careful experiments, he was confident that they existed (Olby 1966). First he classified them as "at least permanent varieties," and by 1759 he found it "impossible to doubt that there are new species produced by hybrid generation" (Callender 1988). He proposed that God had initially created one plant in each Order, which then crossed to form Genera and Species (Callender 1988

Evolutionst have to take credit for everything or people might start to suspect that all creationist are not stupid , can't allow that.
Mendel was ignored. That is history. It makes evolution seem anti science, can't allow that.
Darwin's only real contribution to science was that he found and had some real scientist catalog a great deal of plants and animals.
Mendel was ignored because he was a creationist .
He was a scientist, Darwin was a science fiction writer who plagerized all his theories. He had not one day of scientific education in his life.

"... I knew no more about the plants which I had collected, than the Man in the Moon."


False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?"
Charles Darwin




And yet, whales have lungs but live entirely in the water!  What kind of moronic god would force an air breather to live in the water?!  Deep diving whales suffer from the bends, guess your all loving god really hated whales.  And why did he put vestigial hind limbs in them anyway?  Chimpanzees and humans are genetically closer than horses and zebras, so according to you chimpanzees and humans are the same kind.  Chimpanzees and humans share 7 ERVs, the only possible explaination is they share a common ancestor.  And those are the facts!
[/b] Moronic God? What have you created lately? A grain of sand maybe?
It is apparent you know nothing about whales either. Whales have no vestigal limbs. The National Center for Selling Evolution says the bones the whale used for purposes related to producing baby whales [ask mommy to explain] are vestigial. No real scientist does.
Give me a transistional from whatever to whales.
Did you know that human DNA and banana DNA are 50% similar" This proves  humans are half bananas.
Recent studies have proven the lug nuts from a buick fit a chevy. Do to the absolute absurdity of the common designer theory scientist see this as proof that these cars are evolving into garbage trucks. [/b]



Wait a minute, weren't you the one rejecting evolution becasue "evolution is evidence for evolution"?!?!  Creation is evidence for creation is (wait for it....) A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!!  What a hypocrite!
Paley's theory is not circular. If we see a building we have empiical proof that there was a builder. If we see a painting we have absolute knowledge there was a painter. When we view God's creation we have absolute proof there is a Creator God.
You are sadly not intellectually capable of understanding what circularity is. That is why you live there.



Nope, what I'm saying is humans created their own morals and until you show me some evidence for your magic skyman, I'll believe my own senses and common sense.
Pro 28:26  He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whosoever walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.



So life didn't arise by chance, it arose because of the properties of nature.  
Were did the properties of nature come from. Magic?

But sickle cell anemia is a beneficial mutation in a jungle infested with malaria carrying insects.  In the absence of modern medicine, Humans with sickle cell anemia will, on average, live longer than those who don't have it.  
Please show your statistical proof of this claim. Perhaps you would recommend we give sickle cell to poor people as a gift from the evolution outreach misson. :]

"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."
- Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"

"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer - but none exists."

- Stephen Jay Gould

Evolution as such is no longer a theory for a modern author. It is as much a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.
- Ernst Mayr

This is another stupid argument. Because these people believe in evolution in spite of evidence THEY presented against it evolution is true. It only proves that evolution is a religion.
It is beyond you intellect to understand what a hostile witness is. If a creationist said these things [below] they would have no weight.
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." "Everybody knows the fossil record doesn't provide much evidence for gradualism; it is full of gaps and discontinuities. These gaps are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the record, but this not an adequate explanation…This remarkable stasis [steadiness] has generally been ignored. If it doesn't agree with your ideas [talking to evolutionists] you don't talk about it." "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils." "Can a reasonable story of continuous change be constructed for all macroevolutionary events [i.e., hopeful monster theory]? My answer shall be no."
Dr. Steven Jay Gould


"The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. The diversity of organisms, similarities and differences between kinds of organisms, patterns of distribution and behavior, adaptation and interaction, all this was merely a bewildering chaos of facts until given meaning by the evolutionary theory."
in Populations, Species, and Evolution, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. This is an authoritative text.



This is a classic example of circularity. The theory proves the theory.
I rest my case.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:59 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So 45% of the population of America including Doctors, Scientist, Teachers etc. are stupid and you are are the brain.

You haven't shown us any evidence that 45% of the population believes Adam and Eve were real people!  Most Christians believe Adam and Eve are a metaphor for humanity, so 45% of the population DOESN'T believe it, that's just your misinterpretation of the statistics.

I don't believe Jesus Christ created all things because most people do.

You believe it because you have been brainwashed since birth.  You believe it because you are too afraid to objectively look at the evidence.  You believe it because, in your own mind, if you don't believe it youthink you will go to hell.  You are a superstitious simpleton unwilling and unable to comprehend the modern world.

Your main argument is :
ALL SCIENTIST AGREE!
ALL BIOLOGIST AGREE!
ALL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS!
99% OF AMERICANS AGREE!
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PROVES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE GOD CREATED US ARE STUPID BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY RATIONAL ANSWER! THE ONLY RATIONAL ANSWER IS EVOLUTION BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE GOD CREATED US ARE STUPID!


Nope, you still don't get it.  The one place I said anything like 99% of americans accept evolution was a typo, I said that already.  Your insistance that that is my stance is an example of your dishonesty.  Yes, over 95% of all the scientists in the US accept evolution.  yes, over 99.9% of all biologists and geologists accept evolution.  No, the theory of evolution doesn't prove the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution is supported by all evidence found in biology, geology, genetics, embryology, astronomy, biogeography, etc.  To willfully ignore this evidence to believe in the ancient myths of primitive sheepherders is stupid.  No circularity.  Your argument, "creation proves creation" is circular and is unsupported by any evidence or logic.

The most advanced , richest , and most benevolent nation ever in the history of the world is the one with the highest percentage of creationist and you say that is a bad thing? You are on a roll!

Yes, it's a bad thing.

It is not a presumption it is an absolute. No matter what the evidence indicates it must be ignored.

Wrong, science can't operate on the supernatural.  Explain how it could possibly test events that defy the laws of nature?  And of course there is NO evidence for the supernatural at all.

This is from one of the world's leading evolutionary biologist, a nobel prize winner

So what, Wall is out of date, you don't seem to realize that science moves forward, it builds on what has gone before.  It is an irrelevant quote and in no way shows that science CAN aknowledge the supernatural.  Stick to the point, Iknow you're trying to confuse people because your position is so weak, but your deciet isn't working on me.

Evoluttion is a religion.

Evolution takes nothing on faith, it's not a religion.  Evolution has no supernatural deities, it is not a religion.  You keep repeating this statement, but like all your claims, you can't back it up.

It ignores science.

No it doesn't, but like ALL science, it ignores your primitive myths.  And despite all the evidence  and logic behind evolution, that just pisses you off...

Evolution cannot be falsified because evolutionist never run out of theories.

Evolution can be falsified but it hasn't been because it's valid.  Show us evidence of complex organisms appearing before simple archaea, show us life on earth that doesn't use DNA.  Nope, sorry, you lose again.

Hmmm 25 years is ancient history but 200 years was only yesterday?

Still don't understand science do you.  200 hundred years ago creationism was completely refuted, no one has been able to disprove that refutation.  All evidence has continued to support an old earth, no world wide flood and the evolution of all life on earth.  

ou now less about creationist than you do about evolutionist.

Who's talking about Linneaus here??!?!  Mendel was NOT a creationist as you so dishonestly claimed!  Mendel's work is part of the foundation of modern evolutionary theory.  Nothing you posted has any bearing on these facts!  

False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long;

Yes and all you've posted is false facts and irrelevatnt information.  You still can';t support any of your claims!

Moronic God? What have you created lately? A grain of sand maybe?

But I'm not omnipotent and omnicscient!  So my point still stands, if you claim that God is all powerful and all knowing, why has he cursed so many lifeforms with such poor designs? the overwhelming evidence of poor design in the natural world refutes you.

Whales have no vestigal limbs.

Hahahaaaa!!!  Moron!  Of course they do!
What would you call greatly reduced tibia, femur and knee joints buried in the skin of right whales, unconnected and useless?  what is your explaination?  Your claims are without merit, and without evidence!

Did you know that human DNA and banana DNA are 50% similar" This proves  humans are half bananas.

How does it prove that???

Recent studies have proven the lug nuts from a buick fit a chevy.

How is that relevant, cars don't reproduce, meaningless tripe, you have nothing.

Paley's theory is not circular. If we see a building we have empiical proof that there was a builder. If we see a painting we have absolute knowledge there was a painter. When we view God's creation we have absolute proof there is a Creator God.

Meaningless nonsense!  We know a building is an artifact built by man, we know a painting is an artifact created by man.  What evidence supports your silly asseertion?  What evidence supports creation was created by your god???
We have directly observed nature mindlessly creating by way of natural processes, no evidence of any god.  So we directly observe nature creating itself without any god!  You still can't back up your assertion!  It's still just a primitive myth that you are too scared to disbeieve!  

You are sadly not intellectually capable of understanding what circularity is. That is why you live there.

Circularity:
"Creation is evidence for creation"

You have yet to show us how this ISN'T circular!  You lose!

Pro 28:26  He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whosoever walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.


Meaningless...

Were did the properties of nature come from. Magic?

Only according to you.

This is another stupid argument. Because these people believe in evolution in spite of evidence THEY presented against it evolution is true.

What?!?!  Face the facts, you've misunderstood every quote you've used.  You still don't understand what the theory of evolution is.  

This is a classic example of circularity.

No it's not...

The theory proves the theory.

No, the evidence still proves the theory and you haven't been able to refute it.

I rest my case.

Good then maybe you'll shut up and learn a little of what your talking about.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:12 AM on June 20, 2005 | 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.