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
     Why do you belive???

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

    
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I want to hear from the creationists here.

Why do you believe in Creationisum?

Evolution has its evidence and working models to back it up so I want to know what advantage you see in creationisum. If Creationisum has evidence then please post it here I will be more than happy to see it. It is a comman failing that both sides of the argument fail to post any evidence.

Try to convert me. I'm listening and I will look at your arguments open mindedly.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/10/2009 at 2:55 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 2:51 PM on January 10, 2009 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I assume by "both sides of the argument fail to post any evidence."  You mean both sides that are creationism.  Because we have posted a shitload of evidence.



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


Posts: 42 | Posted: 9:46 PM on January 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Life was created OR it created itself. One has to be true, the other false.

There was a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything.... no-one knows where the natural laws came from but somehow these natural laws minus any intelligent input brought order out of disorder in contradiction to natural law....

Creation makes infinitely more sense, there is no evidence for evolution that I find convincing and it just seems perfectly obvious to me that intelligence is required to bring about complex co-ordinated systems  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:31 AM on January 11, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

0112358132134 -
No - evolutionist can also fail to post evidence on forums such as this. The evidence is there but usually evolutionists can't be bothered to post it. Maybe this site is different. Creationists don't really ever seem to post any evidence and I really want to see some, even if it is a tiny weeny bit of evidence. If there is none then it would suggest that no debate exists at all.
I really want to know why people believe that evolution is not possible when it is the logical conclusion to you, me and many others.

Lester10 -
May I ask how you explain fossils, the human genome, new superbugs and other evolution we have seen.
The universe we know is hardly orderd. An ordered universe implies a uniform distribution of matter and energy.
What evidence is there for creationisum?

If you are a creationist please awnser the following with true if you understand it and false if you don't or don't believe it.

1) DNA codes for all life on Earth.
2) DNA is passed on from parent to children
3) Small mutations ocure in the DNA copying process
4) Animals which are weak will not be able to survive
5) Animals which cannot survive to breeding age cannot breed
6) Animals which cannot survive to breeding age cannot pass on their DNA.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/11/2009 at 04:39 AM).

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/11/2009 at 04:41 AM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 04:33 AM on January 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Aswissrole,

Fossils do not support evolution -they support creation. Many billions of obvious intermediates are missing -evolutionists know this, which is why they had to come up with the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium' -sudden appearance. The PE theory explains away the lack of evidence, in fact it explains why we should not even bother to look for the evidence but just have faith that what evolutionists say happened did in fact happen.

The human genome is a communication system -it codes for the production of co-ordinated protein formation. No random mutation is going to produce something complex and co-ordinated by chance. Each protein coded for is a specific shape and performs a specific function in combination with many other required proteins. Chance arrangement? Impossible.

New superbugs are actually super wimps -they only survive in hospital environments where all the competition has been bumped off. Get out of hospital and let superwimps compete with the stronger parent populations and they will die because they cannot compete. They are not situationally strong due to gain of information -only due to loss....in all cases.

As for 'any other evolution we have seen' -presumably you are talking about the natural variation we see within 'kinds' of creatures. Variation allows for survival of the 'kind'. Fruit flies always give rise to fruit flies and bacteria to bacteria - anything else is based on pure evolutionary faith -faith not in science but in what nobody has ever seen nor ever will see -it is unwarranted extrapolation from the actual observed data.

An ordered universe is not a uniform distribution of mass and energy -it is when there is not a uniform distribution and the order cannot be explained by natural law.

Answers to your questions
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) Yes


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:54 AM on January 11, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have awnsered yes to all of my questions so it seems you understand the base for the theory. Isn't evolution the logical conclusion from those statements?

As for missing fossil records. Not every bone of every animal ever is going to be preserved. Evolution does have to make a few estimations but these are based upon logic and reason and there are no where near as many cases as you seem to believe.

By switching certain genes on or off and creating new ones mutations are able to occure. If the change is valuable it is obviusly passed down to the next generation. Small changes ocure and eventually build up to create what we see today. To see the variation DNA can cause look at dogs. They are very different but yet their DNA is basicly the same. Our DNA is 95% (not sure of the exact figure) simular to that of a chimpanze.

As for fossils, you failed to give me an explination from the point of creationisum. Its all very well saying they may not prove evolution (which on their own wouldn't but when compilded with the other evidence do) but you need to present me with an alternative theory.

Superbugs which people are becoming afraid of now may or may not be superwhimps. That is not important. What is important is that they have a mutation that allows them to survive antibiotic attacks. They then start to breed when all other bacterium are destroyed. Hence their are many more of them. There is a fear that if we continue to use antibiotics we will give these bacterium enougth opitunity to breed in this manner untill all bacterium are immune to anitbiotics.

As for other evolution I was refering to elaphants developing smaller tusks to avoid poachers. Microbes and bugs being able to matabaylise nylon. People with a natural immunity to AIDS. These are all cases of mutations that have been sucessful and we can begin to see creatures evolving.

Evolution is not based upon faith. Evolution is based upon reason and logic. Religion is based upon faith.

One comman missunderstanding on evolution seems to be that it is a random process. There is a degree of randomization but it is more like trial and error. You remember trial and error from junior school maths. This can be done by choosing random numbers within your bounds to redefine your bounds.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/11/2009 at 08:33 AM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 08:29 AM on January 11, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole,
Lester10 doesn't need my help but perhaps I can illuminate some of his points.
As to the fossil record, the process of determining fossil age is flawed to begin with. There is no actual geologic column. Fossils are dated by rocks and rocks are dated by fossils. Couldn't the distribution of fossils within any sedimentary layer be more consistant with a single cataclismic event than a gradual laying down of layers? In such a event you could expect to find sea bottom dwelling creatures on the lowest levels and flying creatures at the top. Furthermore preservation of any quantity of fossils is more consistant with a sudden event. For instance the remains of a dinosaur that died from global cooling would become food for furry scavangers before it was covered by random flood waters or drifting sands. While this in itself is not evidence fo creation I believe it raises enough question to short circut your trail of reason. However the fossil record does seem to be more consistant with a world wide flood such as recorded in the bible.
As to genetic mutation, you have listed examples of changes within a species not changes to a new species. No creationist doubts microevolution. But evolution scientists have never produced an example of mutation to a new species. If you say it happens gradually, I ask where is a single intermediate species?
Please demonstrate to me how random processes ie. trial and error account for even the simplest form of sight? or a butterfly? or an egg? or any form of sexual reproduction?
Since you cannot, I must conclude that you take it on faith that these things gradually developed without fully functioning untill they suddenly began to function.
I on the other hand will reasonably and logically conclude that since all life on earth shares common characteristic, DNA, that all life has a common designer.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 7:35 PM on January 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Timbrx -I've never had help on one of these forums before -usually what I get is a massive combined evolutionary assault attempting to blow me out of the water. How kind -its enough to bring tears to my eyes!

There's only one thing I'd like to point out and that is the word 'micro-evolution' tends to imply something onward and upward rather than simply genetic recombination that allows for variation. Mutation never brings anything but loss of information so perhaps the 'evolution' due to mutation within the 'kind' should be more aptly named 'devolution'.

Aswissrole says :
Evolution is not based upon faith. Evolution is based upon reason and logic. Religion is based upon faith.


All worldviews are to a certain extent based on faith in what we cannot repeat due to their historical nature. What is not repeatable experimentally is forensic science. What we're all trying to do is decide which worldview better explains the data which is only available in the present. We see thousands of generations of fruitflies and bacteria being bombarded in an attempt to mutate them and show that they are going to change into something else ultimately but all they do is become mutants in a negative direction which is in accordance with the Biblical history which says repeatedly that things are created to multiply 'after their own kind.' Believing that they have changed through millenia into new 'kinds' as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is not supported by scientific experimentation.

As for the superbugs -take them out into the real world and they cannot compete -they gain resistance by losing something, for example binding sites where the antibiotic previously attached itself.For evolution to be proven, we need to see some new complex coordinated morphological or biochemical change being built up step by step not just assume that it has happened over and over again in the unrepeatable past.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:50 AM on January 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As to the fossil record, the process of determining fossil age is flawed to begin with.

And why is the process of determining fossil age wrong?  Radiometric dating is quite accurate when done properly, and the process of radioactive decay (half-life) is well understood.  Even before the discovery of radioactivity geologists in the early 1800’s realized that the Earth must be very old.  Zircon crystals from Australia are at 4.4 billion years old.  The oldest meteorites are about 4.5 billion years old.  This agrees with independent astronomical calculations that the sun is also ablut 4.5 billion years old.  Fossils found in rock strata agree with each other from different places around the world.  And the chronological appearance of fossils over time support evolution – not flood myths.

Preservation of any quantity of fossils is more consistant with a sudden event.

The evolution of marine micorfossils (such as diatoms, silicoflagellates, radiolarians) from the Cambrian onwards show a steady change (evolution) in structure over millions of years.  If you want to see examples of ‘transitional’ fossils, look at these.

For instance the remains of a dinosaur that died from global cooling would become food for furry scavangers before it was covered by random flood waters or drifting sands.

You won’t get off home plate talking Flood theory with geologists.  65 million years separate us from the last dinosaurs.  A worldwide thin layer of iridium identifies the K-T boundary of 65 mya.  Meteors are rich in the element iridium.  And the Chixulub Crater on the Yucatan coast of Mexico is the signature of the meteor impact that led to the mass K-T extinction 65 mya.

However the fossil record does seem to be more consistant with a world wide flood such as recorded in the bible.

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.  The tale of the flood in the Bible is sheer myth.  For instance, geologist know that the Grand Canyon began its formation about 4 million years ago, revealing rock strata that is 1.75 billion years old.  

Plate tectonics also show that the Earth is billions of years old.  There is a worldwide system of undersea ridges caused by lava rising to the surface as the seafloor spreads in some areas (mid-Atlantic ridge) and sub ducts in other areas (as in the Pacific).  The Himalayas are a result of India pushing up against Asia, Antarctica used to be closer to the equator, the continents all once formed a super continent we call Pangea.  

No creationist doubts microevolution. But evolution scientists have never produced an example of mutation to a new species. If you say it happens gradually, I ask where is a single intermediate species?

Think about it – micro-organisms have generations that are measured in minutes, they are numerous, the smaller genomes they have magnify the result of any mutations that occur, etc, etc.  Thus it takes less time for microbes to show evolutionary change than larger organisms.  But the fossil record clearly show that transitions occurred over time – including hominid evolution.

Close your eyes to all the evidence if you want to, but it won’t go away.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:14 AM on January 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radiometric dating assumes a constant level of radioactive particles to begin with. How can we be certain that radiation levels aren't in flux?
How do you know that higher levels of radiation weren't introduced  as a result in a sudden global catastrophe? What if the radiation including irridium erupted from deep within the earth? The biblical description of the flood includes MAJOR shifts in the surface such as rising mountains and falling sea floors.
As to the grand canyon forming over millions of years, how do you explain the elevation at the beginning of the canyon being higher than the rest of it? Did the Colorado river flow uphill for a million years?
How does "transitional" microfossils in diatomatic earth deposits explain large fossils within these deposits that cross "transitional" lines such as the Plioscene Pisco formation in Peru?
I suggest an experiment for you. Quarter fill a mason jar with dirt, fill to half with water, shake vigorously than leave for a couple of hours. Perhaps the resulting layering sedimentation leaves the oldest forms of dirt on the bottom and the newest forms on the top?
I can't remember the guys name but I recently saw a documentary on how up untill he was in his 80's the scientific community scoffed at him for introducung a large flood theory explaining boulders dropped out in the middle of a plain in the western US. Scientists have since agreed that there was indeed a flood caused by a rupture of a large resivoir in I believe northern Wyoming. They only admit to a regional flood, but the point is that they scoffed for decades untill more modern survey techniques proved the claim.
Orion, I admire your steadfast adherance to the "clearly shown hominoid transitions" even though you must know that all of the "evidence" is tainted by a preconceived notion as to what it represents. I share your steadfastness within my preconceived notion of a creator God. I realize that outside of a life changing experience you will never believe otherwise  and I know this to be true as I once believed the same way you do.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:04 AM on January 12, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure how to use the quote thing so can someone please tell me.

There seems to be quite alot of confusion over evolution which is why you seem to doubt it so much but firstly I will deal with this flood theory (should I say theory? Myth sounds better).

Firstly let me ask you. Did this flood cover the entire earth? There are fossils found all over the world so we must asume so. This is an incredably large volume of water. Where did it come from and where did it go after the flood. Surly a flood event which coveres the entire Earth in 40 days (not entirly sure on the biblical mythology) would have been an extreamly violent event destroying basicly all fossils from previus generations and would have easily left visable geological features. The largest flood features are the badlands in North USA. These were caused by a giant glacier collapsing releasing a wall of water. This is nothing compared to the magnitude that a flood which covered the Earth must have been like!

timbrx said:
"There is no actual geologic column."

Please tell me you are kidding. The geological layer is not visable everywhere, granted. But at areas where the ground has split or been turned to its side by tectonic activity it is clearly visable. The K-T boundary is the perfect example of this (for those which don't know this was a layer of iridum left by the metiorite that extinct the dinosuars - metiorites are sometimes very rich in heavy Earth metals).

No onto evolution. I appoligise for the length of this post and I am affraid I cannot include everything in it.

"Please demonstrate to me how random processes ie. trial and error account for even the simplest form of sight? or a butterfly? or an egg? or any form of sexual reproduction?"
"Since you cannot, I must conclude that you take it on faith that these things gradually developed without fully functioning untill they suddenly began to function."

Hang on, you need to wait untill you have at least finished your post!

I will chose the first one sight.
There must have been some random mutation that caused some cells to be sensative to light. This can be seen in its simplest form in many bacterium today. This mutation has obvius advantages as it would allow cells to travel towards a source of light (for photosynthesis or to find food). Now as cells began to develop into multicellular organisums another mutation caused several of these cells to group together. Whether a simple control system (AKA Brain) was already developed is uncertain. If a simple brain was developed then it would be able to use this infomation to avoid obsticals and maybe even avoid preditors. As you can clearly see, pretty much any increase in the control system or amount of light detecting cells is a positive improvement for the creature and so creatues with a mutation for either of these would live and pass on their DNA. In our eyes today the light detecting cells are seperated into Rods and Cones. One detects colour and the other shape, I can't remember which is which though. Colour would have been an evolutionary advantage as it would have allowed creatues to distingish preditors from the background.

Now if better eyes are so good why are our eyes not as good as that of the hawk?
This too is easily explainable. The hawk hunts its prey by swooping down from great heights onto rabbits where as human, originaly, hunted on foot. We do not need to see a rabbit from 50 miles away and so any further improvements in our eyes would not have been particularly benificial and so would not have really survived. An Eagles eyes are vital and better eyes give a better chance of seeing a rabbit and allow eagles to fly at greater heights. Therefor they are more likly to survive and pass on their DNA.

OK that was quite a breif and simple explination and I am by no means the best person to explain it.
Now I shall deal with a few of the confusions that have arision.

You seem to want to see species transforming into another species. This is not precisly how evolution works. evolution is the gradual change within a species. How do you state a species has evolved into a new one? The onld species usually does not remain and so most members of the species change. Sometimes physical seperations can cause a species to part. Eventually over millions of years they may become so different that their DNA is incompatable and so they cannot breed with them any more.

You also seem not to relise that many animals are related through a comman ancestor rather than a missing transition. You ask for the transition between chimps and humans. There is no such transition in the way you seem to percieve it. There are many comman ancestors. These are what scientists call transition fossils. There are hundreds of humanoid bones. Please go to the Natural History Museum (or he American equivalent) and see some of these fossils.

"a life changing experience". What are these life changing experience that I hear you talk about and how do they work as evidence. Is it you getting a feeling or do you think God is acturly taking to you?

One more point. If a God is suppost to be perfect and to have created the world then why does the natural world compete against itself? If humans are suppost to be created in God image then why are we so far from perfect?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 12:54 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am so glad I stumbled across this forum. I am sure that I crack you up just as much as you crack me up.

The origonal question was "why do you believe in creationism". The answer is simply "because I want to". Not very scientific but there you are. Because I believe this way, I interpret things different than you. You see light sensitive bacteria as perhaps a step towards developing a rudimentary form of sight. I see light sensitive bacteria as an organism designed to be sensitive to light. You see similarities between species as evidence of a common origon. I see it as evidence of a common creator. You see the flood story as some sort of myth. I see it as an explanation for many geological mysteries.

I agree with you, however, that science is a beautiful thing. I too have an inate curiosity and spend many hours exploring the natural world, seeking answers to technical questions regarding chemistry, electrochemistry, physics and even human behavior.
(oops, I think this belongs on the other thread)
Nevertheless just because we differ in our opinion as to where natural processes origonate doesn't mean we can't draw similar conclusions as to how things work.

As to the " life changing experience" all I can say is that I believe a God changed me from the inside by lifting a veil. I won't bore you with the details, and it didn't immediately change all of my long held beliefs but it gradually opened me up to accepting possibilities that I would have previously deemed "myth". No, it is neither a feeling nor voices in my head. But rather an awakening of something that lay dormant inside me. Some supernatural knowing that God is real and those inumerable coincidences that led me to the point of surrender were not coincidences after all.

As to why a perfect God would create a world that humans see as imperfect, I don't know. But just maybe God sees thingd a little different than you or I.

PS if someone shows you how to use the quote thing would you please pass it on?
Thanks.





 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:19 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Science is a beautiful thing." This is a very agreeable statement but where as you find bueaty in a creator or some sort of higher power, I find bueaty in how systems such as evolution and forces work together and shape our universe. By explaining these simple things one can explain the larger things.

Your description of the "life changing experience" is very poetic but it doesn't awnser my question. I want to knwo exactly what it is. Is it simular to the eurika moment when you relise how things work and click together? Is there a way to simulate this experience or to verify its existance? What you claim as a religius experience may be different to other peoples claim of a religius experience.

Also, I want to know more about this flood event that you claim happened. Where did the water come from and where did it go?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 2:27 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can see how you find beauty in evolution. Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean I don't understand it. I think the greatest beauty in evolution lies with the curiosity that spawns such creative explanations. I often refer to my own personal evolution. I have evolved into who I am today. I am still a human, but I am much different than I was 15 years ago.

Aswissrole, believe me when I say that nothing would please me more than to be able to explain to you exactly how my "life changing experience" worked. I honestly don't know. I can say that it was something like the eurika moment. The bible describes it as a quickening of the spirit. It seems to imply a thrown switch. I believe that God does it when a person is ready. He determines the readyness. No two people have the same experience but the result is the same: the sense of completeness, the filling of a God sized hole, a greater purpose. When I was younger I attempted to simulate the experience through the use of drugs. I didn't know at the time that that was what I was trying to do.  But when I was changed I realized that all of that experimenting was only a cheap imitation of the feeling of completeness you get when the Spirit of God touches you.

As to verifycation, I can only say that untold thousands would testify to a God induced change. My parents and siblings would testify as to the change in me.

Aswisrole, I don't know if you are sincere in your desire to understand this phenomenon or if you are looking for some ammunition to attack my beliefs with. For this reason I will not go into more personal detail.

According to Genisis, there was water below the air and water above the air. Perhaps some sort of water canopy above the atmosphere. Also it says that it didn't rain untill the flood. Water sprung out from the ground. (thus no rainbow untill after)

The bible doesn't say that merely rain flooded the earth but that "the fountains of the deep" broke open. Perhaps some vast subteranian resivoirs that became our oceans when the upper atmospheric water colapsed on them.

It also describes vast upheavals of mountain ranges and the formation of great valleys.

I can only imagine the geological stresses that such an event would cause. First, massive ammounts of water crashing down from the upper atmosphere. (water canopy would reflect most of the cosmic radiation that is bombarding us on the molecular level even now and raise the atmospheric pressure resulting in larger creatures and longer life)
This water ruptures whe shell covering underground oceans which collapses and causes further displacement. The enormous pressure changes result in earth quakes and upheavals that form the mountain ranges we see today. As the mountains rise and the seas sink the water  settles down in the resultant basins called oceans and lakes. The grand canyon is formed in minutes, Florida forms in hours, and tectonic activity reverberates even to this day.

It makes sense to me.



 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:35 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I don't know if you are sincere in your desire to understand this phenomenon or if you are looking for some ammunition to attack my beliefs with."

I mean no offence to you or any christians. I merly wish to understand why you believe what you believe in the sight of such overwhelming evidence and to see if there is any argument in your favour. So far creationisum is not doing very well, sorry.

So this religius experience feeling, thingy is suppost to be a feeling of purpose and completness? Does this mean you did not feel happy before? Were you not content? Did you think there was more to the universe?

Personaly I don't really feel "a god sized hole" unless you are refering to my first for knowleage and an understanding of the universe. The expinlation of a God offers me no comfort, the idea of dead ones remaining alive is just blatently wrong. By taking a step back and looking at humanity as a whole you begin to relise that firstly we are not important, there is nothing guiding us and that any explination to the universe is much greater than the idea of a God.

Back to this flood though. Water in the atmosphere? Where the hell did this come from? Enougth water in the atmosphere to flood the earth would not just deflect cosmic rays, it would deflect most kinds of light or heat energy from the sun. How did this water stay up there and how did it get there in the first place?

"it didn't rain untill the flood"
Then how did the plants grow and animals live?

"Perhaps some vast subteranian resivoirs that became our oceans"
Surly some evidence of such a subteranian resivoirs would be found, especially one large enougth to flood the Earth.

"tectonic activity reverberates even to this day"
Are you proposing that the flood caused tectonic activity as opposed to large gravitation pressure and metiorite impacts heating the core of the Earth?

This flood does not explain the large amount of fossils left behind. If Noah was suppost to have seaved 2 of every single animal then why did he leave so many millions behind? And where are the fossils of humans that drowned in this flood?

One last question. How old do you believe the world and the universe are?

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/12/2009 at 5:34 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 5:32 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole, I do not take offense at your questioning my beliefs. I do not have to question yours as I once believed much the same as you. Whether or not you can see any possibility of my flood explanation is irrelevant. You can not know everything any more than I can. The point is that there can be many explanations for many things that are simply beyond our ability to understand. Which is why I would not expect you to understand my "religius experience feeling, thingy".
The only reason I understand it is because I have experienced it.

As to your replies to the quotes, I remind you that I am only relaying to you an interpretation of what the bible says about these events. I don't believe the message in the bible comes from hell.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:32 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I don't believe the message in the bible comes from hell."
Not sure what you mean by this. The Bible was written by humans many thousands of years ago (the new testimant is about 2000 years old but I'm not sure about the rest). I don't understand why you believe a single book which was written 2000 years ago over all of the modern scientific books available today.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 1:51 PM on January 13, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Back to this flood though. Water in the atmosphere? Where the "hell" did this come from?"

Read Gen. 1:6-8 if you are really interested.

I don't believe a single book. The bible is a compilation of over 60 books written by dozens over a dozen authors over the span of several millenia. It is the only known recorded insturment to have survived with its message intact for so long and taken as a whole the message contained within it shows remarkable (supernatural?) continuity in its development.

As to all of modern science books available today, I can't say as I have not read them all. Have you?
Do you rely on any science book that was written over a hundred years ago and was at the time accepted as scientific fact? Even evolutionists don't hold to all of Darwins "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

( Ironically it was Darwins scientific peers who opposed him the most.)

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:19 PM on January 13, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scientists don't hold onto a single book for minellia as science evolves through time. Religion is static. Science continually moves towards a further and more complete understanding of the universe.

I don't expect you to have read every single modern science book and you are most likly more read than I give you credit for.

To take Darwins origion of species book as fact for all eternity would be daft and I'm sure you agree. I feel the same way about the bible.

One final question as I am getting rather board of this debate. What evidence / collection of evidence would you see as proof of evolution?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 5:12 PM on January 13, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would like to see an example of random bits of information organizing into even the simplest form of life. even if you put amino acids and protiens and enzymes and every required ingredient into a non-hostile environment and added energy, shook it , shocked it, whatever, and it formed into some type of self replicating information passing anything, I would accept that as emperical proof for evolution of life from non life.
Or if you could somehow make one species turn into another species. Yes I knowabout the 40,000 generation bacteria experiment that has produced different behaving bacteria. But it is still just bacteria. Make one become an aomeba or a protazoa and I will concede the debate along with every other reasonable creationist.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:05 PM on January 13, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"some type of self replicating information"
There is currently an experiment to see what this can achieve. Although our meathods are very crude, scientists have been able to create simple RNA strans (a simple version of DNA that is expected to have been the first "living" organisum to develop). Anyhow, evolution does not really begin with the beginin of life, that is a differen topic, evolution deals with life once it has been established.

"Or if you could somehow make one species turn into another species."
I reffer to domestic dogs, cows and many other creatures. Are these not examples of how evolution could work? Its obviusly not natural selection but it shows how a surviving species infulences the population. Is the breeding of a wolf to a dog changing one species into another? Not really as they have not been seperated long enougth for breeding to produce infertile offspring. This would take several million years possibly.

It is not realisticly possible to turn a chimp into a human. This is because chimps did not evolve into humans. Both evolved from the same comman ancestor. To get a population of chimps to mutate back to this comman ancestor and then towards humans would be unpractle and prove nothing as this would not normaly happen.

What we will expect to see in the future is the gradual change of existing creatures to other creatures since our records of them began. We have already seen some evolution take place but as time goes on and records extend further back we will be able to see more drastic changes since records first began.

Eventually a theory of evolution will be proven beyond doubt, or, more likly, it will be replaced by a more sophisticated theory as theories often are in science. Think of it as an evolved theory of evolution.

"I will concede the debate along with every other reasonable creationist."
I'm sure you are a reasonable creationist and that the number of creationists will drop throughout time as more and more evidence becomes apparent and as the theory of evolution becomes more refined. However, there are many creationists out there that are not reasonable.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/13/2009 at 6:35 PM).

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/13/2009 at 6:37 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 6:34 PM on January 13, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess I see the beginning as the whole debate. Certainly there are increasing variations within species. And some might even change into barely recognizable forms over a relatively short period of time. I know, micro-evolution is not considered a valid term but it sure seems to fit the bill.

I cannot imagine how something living can arrise from something non living without intelligent design. I am not saying I "know" it can't, I'm just saying that for me a creator God seems makes a lot more sense.

Here's to your evolution evolving beyond doubt. I hope for your sake it does. If I am wrong, I've lost nothing. If you're wrong, well, lets don't go there.

Cheerio, Aswissrole!  See you on the next thread.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:27 AM on January 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Timbrx and Aswissrole,
Both of you asked for the way to highlight quotes -unfortunately I could not join you in the debate as misty, rainy weather cut me off for a while. Click on the red ScareCrow Code to the left of the box you write your message in and it tells you how to do everything. I am as new as you so that is as much as I know. You write quote in square brackets followed by your quote and then write /quote at the end also in square brackets.

As to your mention of life coming from non-life, it's the biogenetic law that says life only comes from pre-existing life and that's all fine and well until evolutionists decided that life must have come from lifeless chemicals because otherwise the unmentionable might put His supreme foot in the door and there would go that fairytale.

The other point is that you need a replicating protected organism of some sort before natural selection can even start to work so evolutionists need that complex type of precursor to have come randomly from lifeless chemicals - quite a tall order!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:29 AM on January 14, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Timbrx and Aswissrole,
Both of you asked for the way to highlight quotes -unfortunately I could not join you in the debate as misty, rainy weather cut me off for a while. Click on the red ScareCrow Code to the left of the box you write your message in and it tells you how to do everything. I am as new as you so that is as much as I know. You write quote in square brackets followed by your quote and then write /quote at the end also in square brackets.


Thanks, Lester10. by the way, check your personal inbox in your user profile.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:41 PM on January 14, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As to your mention of life coming from non-life, it's the biogenetic law

What is the biogenic law, who formulated it, what is the evidence that supports it, how was it tested?  Please be specific, creationists pull this crap all the time.  The only mention of the biogenic law is that it's a reference to recapitulation.  So you're claim that life coming only from life is the biogenic law is wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:50 AM on January 16, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"it's the biogenetic law that says life only comes from pre-existing life"

Firstly evolution doesn't deal with the first life but instead what happens after it is established. It like asking general relativity what happened at the big bang. The theory is not able to tell you. Does that mean its wrong? No. We won't be able to explain everything with one theory untill we unify the theories and find a theory of everything, if such a thing exists.

Secondly, there are theories as to how life began. The chemicals for building simple life and proteans can be found quite easily. It is hypothesised that life may have formed in a primordial soup on Earth.

Another theory is that life arrived to Earth on a metiorite. Where this life came from is a big short comming with this theory and so it is not particularly viable. However, it does demonstrate that life may have only needed to have been created once and then it would be able to expand throughout the galaxy ad maybe even the universe.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:05 AM on January 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Life has only ever come from pre-existing life -that we know for sure (experimental, observable, remember Pasteur). That life apparently must have come from non-living chemicals in the distant past is imagination on the part of those evolutionists that will not allow 'a divine foot 'in the door.
Since it is quite a jump from non-life to reproducing life (necessary for natural selection to start to work) - evolutionists accept the possibility by faith in the meantime.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:28 PM on January 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just because we don't know exactly yet how life came about in the beginning doesn't mean that we have to turn to a divine power for our explanation.  There are clues.  And that's what makes science fun.  The search for answers, new discoveries.  It would be a pretty boring world if all we had to point to was 'God did it - there is no need to look any further.'  

There is a new initiative at Harvard University devoted to researching the origins of life.  

http://origins.harvard.edu/

We'll have to wait and see what interesting things come from it.

It can be argued whether a virus is really alive.  It must invade and use another cell's resources in order to reproduce.  It's basically a DNA enclosed in a box.  A virus is on the border between living and non-living.

We're finding that molecular precursors to life are found in intersteller space.  

I admit that I don't know a whole lot about this facinating field, but I've seen enough glimpses on the internet, and in books, to show that the formation of life from non-life (abiogenesis) does not require a divine origin.  In fact, I'm confident it does not.

Louis Pasteur experiments only showed that the spontaneous generation of life was not possible in a sterile environment.  You have to remember that conditions on earth 4 billion years ago were vastly different then what it is today.  The earth's environment was changed by life itself.  

Someday we'll discover how life formed from non-life - without the need for God.  And we will find evidence for life elsewhere in the universe too.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:10 PM on January 16, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10

Did you even read my post or did you just glance at my name?

I said that evolution is not trying to deal with how life got started but how it has changed to create the vast diversity we see around us today. Evolution is not the theory of everything and it never has tried to be. One cannot do science by trying to arive at a theory of everything first time round.

Your logic seems completly idiotic to me. evolution can't explain this: Therefore their MUST be a god. No! This logic will get you no where except the dark ages. It is okay to admit that you don't know things. Scientists don't knwo everything, if they did then their would be no point of science.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/16/2009 at 2:21 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 2:19 PM on January 16, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from Orion
Just because we don't know exactly yet how life came about in the beginning doesn't mean that we have to turn to a divine power for our explanation.  There are clues.  And that's what makes science fun.  The search for answers, new discoveries.  It would be a pretty boring world if all we had to point to was 'God did it - there is no need to look any further.'  


from Aswissrole
Firstly evolution doesn't deal with the first life but instead what happens after it is established.


It seems to me that this might be a good place for a new thread. The debate over what the debate is about.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my definitions.

Evolution - the process of change with increasing complexity; historical development; the theory that various types of organisms have their origins in other pre existing organisms; the progressive development of the universe.
micro evolution  is changes within a species.
Macro evolution is changes from one species to another, presumably one more advanced.

The creationist position is not that we turn to a creator as a default position when we have no answers. It is that the evidence found in nature is more consistant with a creator than with random chance development.

True, I am looking for the fingerprints of our creator but not to throw the scientific process into the dark ages. On the contrary, I believe if scientists would look at things as created instead of evolved it might open up whole new levels of understanding the world we live in. An awfull lot of energy is wasted trying to prove something that in many respects is irrelevant. What disturbes creationists the most is that so many so called objective scientists outright reject even the possibility of God as though the mere existance of God would be an affront to them.

I still contend that macro evolution is unproven and even destructive to science if it is clung to as the only possibility.
Furthermore, in order for evolutionary thinking to be consistant it must conclude that life itself evolved from non life. Thus the origin of first life is equally as important to the discussion as the origin of a species.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:57 PM on January 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From Timbrx
Furthermore, in order for evolutionary thinking to be consistant it must conclude that life itself evolved from non life. Thus the origin of first life is equally as important to the discussion as the origin of a species.


Thank-you Timbrx, my point precisely! Unless evolutionists somehow are prepared to allow for God or advanced alien civilizations to kick start it after which, of course, they must leave it to mutation and natural selection.
We can't leave God out as an option due to anyone's philisophical presumptions -all we're saying is where does the evidence point and it can only point to evolution by default if creation gets shut out from the start -not a very scientific starting point.


From Aswissrole
Your logic seems completly idiotic to me. evolution can't explain this: Therefore their MUST be a god. No!


First of all , I never said that -you sucked it out of your own misconceptions about what creationists believe and why. Secondly this is truelly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Evolutionists are absolutely convinced that evolution had to have done it and attempt to fit everything into that a priori decision. One thing they will not allow, no matter how much sense it may make to so many others, is the possibility of intelligence behind our existance. That's like deciding who the murderer was before the  evidence appears at the trial.

Orion says:
Just because we don't know exactly yet how life came about in the beginning doesn't mean that we have to turn to a divine power for our explanation.


Likewise just because 'we don't know exactly yet how life came about' is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a natural event and that only naturalistic explanations are acceptable and, of course, that God can have nothing to do with it.  




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:50 AM on January 17, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hmmmm... I though I replied, but it doesn't seem to have come up, oh well.

timbrx:
If you want to discuse how life originated then I will, but we both have our view points and their is close to no evidence for any of the theories available. I don't think such an argument would achieve anything.

Lester10:
We have never said that the possibility of a God is impossible. I simply think it it extreamly unlikly or God is amazingly lazy. I don't like this deafult position on God. That is what we are arguing against.

Why, are we disscusing the origins of life. No one knows how life began and so all we can do is speculate. I find the most probably awnser to be that life formed from ammino acids in a primordial soup. Again, this is my idea of the most probable awnser, not the absolute awnser. The possibility of God is very remote as there is no evidence to explain him and as science pushes the bourders of the unkown further away, there seems to be less and less that he did to create the universe we know today. Who knows, we may find a god oneday but the chances of such a thing are looking more and more remote.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/17/2009 at 7:45 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 7:43 PM on January 17, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from Lester -
Likewise just because 'we don't know exactly yet how life came about' is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a natural event and that only naturalistic explanations are acceptable and, of course, that God can have nothing to do with it.  


But science can only deal with natural phenomenon.  It can only provide a natural explanation.  You do not seem to understand that.

Matters of God are left to religion.  

That is the difference between the two.  Science is based on reason, God is faith based.  There is a clear seperation between the two.  

Creationists just don't seem to understand that.  God cannot be a part of a scientific explanantion if God cannot even be detected or identified.

If God (or the supernatural) is ever positively detected and identified, that will be the day the whole game of science changes.  But we haven't come to that day yet, and I suspect we never will.

And I'm still waiting for Lester and timbrx to offer an alternate explanation of the fossil record to the explanation that evolution gives.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:58 PM on January 17, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For all those creationists convinced that a wonderful living being is so complex that it "just has to have been created by something", consider this:

whoever created the wonderful and complex living being must have been even more wonderful and complex.  This means, according to your reasoning, that this creator must have been created by someone else.

And don't come up with the "The creator created itself" theory. That is an illogical statement that deep down you should know does not make any sense.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 04:15 AM on January 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Flippo,

whoever created the wonderful and complex living being must have been even more wonderful and complex.  This means, according to your reasoning, that this creator must have been created by someone else.


You are right -that creator had to be more wonderful and more complex - so if that creator was limited, then there would have to be an over-God that created that one that would have been more wonderful and more complex and then an over-over God above that who knew even more and was even more complex. This could go on ad infinitum to an infinite number of more complex gods OR there could be one infinite God instead? The Bible speaks of an infinite omnipotent God that created all things including time so if that God created time then by extension that means that that God is outside of time and thus eternal -which is what the Bible says.

Hi Orion
But science can only deal with natural phenomenon.  It can only provide a natural explanation.  You do not seem to understand that.


Actually I do understand that, but if the ultimate cause of all things created the natural laws themselves, then that is outside of what can be explained by science. In which case science has to restrict itself to what can be experimentally proven to be true and not move beyond those borders with its philisophical preconceptions. There's more than enough real science out there to be done without stepping into the historical science realm and making pronouncements about the whole of reality and history that cannot be tested.
Either God created the living world or else evolution and natural processes did it on their own. The thing is, in the absence of proof of either one, one should not throw out the one and indoctrinate everybody into the other - the belief (faith-based) that 'Evolution' did it.
If we could all clearly delineate between what 'science' is qualified to say and what it is not, then there wouldn't be a problem.
What we are trying to say is where does the evidence point?
Could naturalistic processes conceivably be responsible for the digital code of the genetic code.
Can matter give rise to information?

Matters of God are left to religion.


Evolution is religion -it is based on faith and philosophy and so much of its story-telling is science fiction not science fact. That is why it should not be allowed in science classes - kick all the religion out if you feel so-inclined not just the one evolutionists prefer to avoid.

If God (or the supernatural) is ever positively detected and identified, that will be the day the whole game of science changes.  


And the day that evolutionists can positively show us how an increase of information can be produced by natural processes (not just assume that it does) -it will go a long way toward convincing the rest of us that it is in fact possible.
As for positive evidence that God exists, look around you -the creation IS the evidence. Just as we need an engineer to build something complex so we need an intelligent creator to put us and the animals and the plants and everything together. The Bible says that it is clear for everyone to see so that if we say we can't see it, we are 'without excuse'.
Evolution is brainwashing of the worst kind.

And I'm still waiting for Lester and timbrx to offer an alternate explanation of the fossil record to the explanation that evolution gives.


Personally...an enormous flood killed pretty well everything -that's why you get billions of fish all washed together; dinosaurs are tangled and twisted up. There are too many massive gaps between precambrian and cambrian, between invertebrates and vertebrates and on and on -the evolution explanation forces itself on the evidence.

As Phillip Johnson so aptly put it - "If evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution."
People believe it - but it's based on faith not evidence.

Aswissrole,
I don't like this deafult position on God. That is what we are arguing against.


No more than the rest of us like the default position to be evolution and at this stage it is. Lets not have a default position then!







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:29 AM on January 18, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No more than the rest of us like the default position to be evolution

Evolution is not the deafult position. It has been proven many times and so we have acsepted it as reality.

Evolution is religion -it is based on faith and philosophy

This is just plain wrong. Evolutuion is based upon reason and evidence.

As for positive evidence that God exists, look around you

This is rediculus. We ask for proof and you show us ambigus observations, no scientific data or experiments. By looking around I can see how simple systems are able to intertyne creating a much larger and complex system.

an enormous flood killed pretty well everything

HA! and at what time did this flood occure, where is the evidence for it and so on....
I have asked these questions before and recieved no responce, only half hartedly thought out theories.
You seem to forget that not all fossils are from the same period but are spread out over the course of lifes history.

May I ask: How old do you think the Earth and the universe are?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 08:16 AM on January 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

Personally...an enormous flood killed pretty well everything -that's why you get billions of fish all washed together; dinosaurs are tangled and twisted up. There are too many massive gaps between precambrian and cambrian, between invertebrates and vertebrates and on and on -the evolution explanation forces itself on the evidence.


And when did this Flood occur?  If you a Biblical literalist, then the Flood occurred around 2400 BC.  Yet the Egyptian civilization was in full blooom at that time and there is no mention of a flood beyond the annual overflow of the Nile.  

There is no geological evidence for a worldwide flood.

I'm not saying that the Biblical Flood as described in Genesis has no basis.  But at best the bibilical flood has its origins in the retelling of a story of a cataclysmic flood that occurred locally, perhaps a massive flooding of the Euphrates and/or Tigris rivers.  It could be a disasterous event to the local population, seeming that the 'entire world' was flooding.  But hardly a worldwide flood.

Or perhaps the source of the Flood was from a tital wave brought forth from an undersea earthquake, or even a large meteorite striking the Persian Gulf.  

According to scholars the book of Genesis was written between 900 and 500 BC.  I'm not scholar on ancient civilizations, but it seems logical to me that the writers of Genesis derived a lot of their material from the earlier Sumerians, Assyrians, and Babylonians who came before them.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:57 PM on January 18, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole says:

Aswissrole:
I don't like this deafult position on God. That is what we are arguing against.





Lester10 says:

No more than the rest of us like the default position to be evolution and at this stage it is. Lets not have a default position then!



unfortunately, the government funded scientific community has walked right into the "default" trap. To admit even the possibility of a creator means that government authority is not absolute. This is why authoritarian governments reject theocratic religious views in favor of evolution / humanistic religious views. Personally, I prefer liberty. You evolution guys can blind yourselves to the FACT that far more human atrocities have been comitted by by evolutionary thinking (ex. Hitler, Stalin, Mao) in the past 100 years than has been committed in the name of religion throughout all of history. And you try and present Christians in particular as being fanatical ignoramouses intent on thrusting science back into the dark ages? Who are the true fanatics here? Hint: try looking in a mirror with your evolution colored glasses on.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:16 PM on January 18, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How many crusaids have their been in the western world alone? 25?
What about the witch burnings?
Terriost bombings?
Contiual prosecution against the Jews?
Tell me this war in the Middle East is not due to religion. Whether that is due to Christianity or Islam does not matter.

As for your examples of evils in the past century I'm not sure these are down to evolution. Hitlers acts were truly atrocities but I don't think any of them believed in evolution or at least did not consider it much at all.
Hitler was just a racist which hated the Jews.
I don't know much about Stalin or Mao. I know that Stalin would purge his armies but I thought this was to get rid of trators.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/19/2009 at 11:30 AM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:29 AM on January 19, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole, In the book "Mein Kampf" Hitler repeatedly quotes from Darwin to support his premiss of a master race. He refers to Jews as a sub species. He later defends mass extermination as survival of the fittest.

As for Stalin, he was the bloodiest murderer of them all. His purges were sanctioned by Marx who postulates atheism as the natural progression of humanity per. Darwin.

Yes, as I previously stated, many atrocities have been comitted in the name of religion. No that doesn't make it right. The reason it doesn't make it right is BECAUSE of moral absolutes. With pure natural selection and survival of the fittest anything goes.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:25 PM on January 19, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:29 AM on January 18, 2009 :
Hi Flippo,

whoever created the wonderful and complex living being must have been even more wonderful and complex.  This means, according to your reasoning, that this creator must have been created by someone else.


You are right -that creator had to be more wonderful and more complex - so if that creator was limited, then there would have to be an over-God that created that one that would have been more wonderful and more complex and then an over-over God above that who knew even more and was even more complex. This could go on ad infinitum to an infinite number of more complex gods OR there could be one infinite God instead? The Bible speaks of an infinite omnipotent God that created all things including time so if that God created time then by extension that means that that God is outside of time and thus eternal -which is what the Bible says.



It is still impossible.  One cannot create itself.  The point is not what the bible says.  The point I make here is reason and logic.  If the bible says "god can make a circular 2-dimensional square", then that proves the bible is wrong.  

It is unlogical to create oneself.

Of course, you can argue God was always there (infinitely in the past).  But in the same line of thought, you can just say the universe was always there.  And this is my point: there is no logical need for a God.

 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:25 AM on January 20, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx
I thought Hitler was using evolution to refer to the progression of the Nazi race, I'm not sure he ment it in a biological sence. However, I have not read Mien Kampf. I do not agree with what Hitler did one bit and that is not how evolution acturly works, usually. Usually a species does not set out to obliterate another species. Usually the weaker species dies as a result of the superia species indierctly e.g. through a lack of food.

What people don't seem to understand is that science has no obligations to "good" or "evil". Science is science and can be used for "good" as much as it can for "evil".

"Marx who postulates atheism"
Atheism does not nessacarily mean evolution. In the times before Darwin I would suspect athiests had little to no idea how life began.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:15 AM on January 20, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole,

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that as long as humanity is involved in the equation there will be atrocities. I personally believe that the potential for human atrocity is grerater when God is taken out of the equation. Evolution from non life to life naturally lends itself to an athiestic viewpoint which puts humans in charge of morality. When morality becomes relative you get atrocity justified by the by the atrocious.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:40 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -
Evolution from non life to life naturally lends itself to an athiestic viewpoint which puts humans in charge of morality. When morality becomes relative you get atrocity justified by the by the atrocious.

Are you saying that a God-fearing person is more moral than an atheist?  I hardly think so.  

Here's a little something that Isaac Asimov wrote.  Its a little dated but he makes a very good point.

The Reagan Doctrine


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:36 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

as long as humanity is involved in the equation there will be atrocities.

Very much agreeable.

the potential for human atrocity is grerater when God is taken out of the equation.

I disagree with this statement. We have already agreed that there is always going to be an extream minority of people which will cause these atrocities. With religion most of these atrocities are justifiable and people can be coaxed into acsepting them with fears of hell and damnation.

To be onest it doesn't matter which one has caused more atrocities. It doesn't change the awnser, evolution is still right.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 3:13 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole
To be onest it doesn't matter which one has caused more atrocities. It doesn't change the awnser, evolution is still right.


Couldn't agree with you more on that one point Aswissrole - whatever is true is true. Only thing is I do not believe that evolution is true at all -I believe very strongly that it is impossible for it to be true and I know it has never been proven to be true. Variation within the kind cannot simply be extrapolated to variation to other kinds. It's never been demonstrated, fossils are a bunch of dead bones that have to be interpreted. It's no good saying that we cannot demonstrate it to be true because it happens too slowly and then turn around, dream up punctuated equilibrium and say now it happens too fast to be seen. No matter what we apparently will never have any proof for the above reasons. So it is a faith based system which you believe to be reasonable.

I also agree with Timbrx that atrocities and immoral conduct are far more likely when there is no God in the equation. It makes a difference when you really believe that you are not alone and that everything you are doing has an audience. That way you're less likely to do something just because you can get away with it.  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:33 AM on January 21, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it has never been proven to be true

Yes it has. It has been acsepted by the scientific community and there is clear evidence in fossil records and in recent mutations.

turn around, dream up punctuated equilibrium and say now it happens too fast to be seen.

What? I don't understand what you mean here. I don't think I or any respectable scientist has claimed something along those lines.

If you do something just because you can get away with it and are a nice person only so that you can go to heaven then you are a truly awful person. People need to learn to behave on their own, its time for the human race to grow up from the childhood fantasies of religion.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 10:47 AM on January 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
It's no good saying that we cannot demonstrate it to be true because it happens too slowly and then turn around, dream up punctuated equilibrium and say now it happens too fast to be seen. No matter what we apparently will never have any proof for the above reasons. So it is a faith based system which you believe to be reasonable.

Just because biologists debate the exact mechanics behind evolution doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur!  

Physicists theorize that there is an elementary particle called the graviton that is responsible for gravity.  It has, as yet, to be detected.  But that doesn't take away the fact that gravity exists.

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end,
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:15 PM on January 21, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:31 AM on January 11, 2009 :
Life was created OR it created itself. One has to be true, the other false.

There was a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything.... no-one knows where the natural laws came from but somehow these natural laws minus any intelligent input brought order out of disorder in contradiction to natural law....

Creation makes infinitely more sense, there is no evidence for evolution that I find convincing and it just seems perfectly obvious to me that intelligence is required to bring about complex co-ordinated systems  





It makes sense because your understanding of big bang theory (which is not evolution) is faulty.

You talk about "nothing" "exploding" and those terms are completely wrong.

There is a point in the big bang, its the farthest point we can calculate towards using mathematical methods. The point is the singularity.

This singularity is a point thats after the big bang process started, meaning that the actual source of the big bang and the first moments of big bang are unknown.

So something from nothing is a straw man, big bang doesn't state this.

Same with the explosion, you apparently haven't read about the theory at all because its a rapid expansion, not an explosion.

If you think in those terms, you're not qualified to say "Creation makes infinitely more sense" because you don't have an understanding of evolution (or in your case big bang theory) and thus can't say you're opinion is based on equal knowledge from both sides.



 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:12 AM on January 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

zucadragon is correct.  According to current quantum physics and cosmology the Big Bang started as a singularity.  It wasn't an explosion in the normal sense of the word because it involved the expansion of space itself.  As the universe expanded and cooled this allowed the formation of matter and the physical forces we see today.  One of the goals of giant particle accelerators, such as the HADRON accelerator, is to explore the properties of subatomic particles as they existed shortly after the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:57 PM on January 22, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

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

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

 

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