Creation or Evolution?

[Goldberg]

How did we get here?

I have seen some of the nice arguement threads in here and I was mighty impressed with them.

So I came here and was wondering what you all think of this topic: Evolution or Creation.

Were we created by an almighty being referred to as 'God' or did we evolve from tiny small bacterias millions and millions of years ago and now morphed as human beings?

[Jeffery]

I was created by this guy names Terry, with the purpose of online gaming.

[Hugh Junit]

Creation AND evoluton. I believe in both.

[thrdflrmshr]

I personally was created by my parents.

I think that humans as a race evolved from other organisms.

[paulk6]

God made the tiny little organisms, and we evolved from them. If this is supposed to be an arguement, so far it's a flop.

[thrdflrmshr]

If God made humans, why didn't the religions that believe in him start until only recently?

[Amaroth]

WRONG! I created you all. I am what you refer to as God. Bow down to my radical dadicalness.

[Office_Shredder]

well, I have to right an essay on how this isn't actually a valid choice.

You see, evolution just says that species change due to alteration in gene frequency, it doesn't say where species come from, so it is possible that god simply created a bunch of species which now evolve.

The real question should be creationism vs. non-organic evolution (I don't know the real term for that:()

[Tama Drummer]

At first I believed God created us through Adam and Eve. Then I got confused with the dinosaur crap. Then I finally accepted that He didn't just create Adam and Eve, He created evolution and we evolved from other creatures.
What is everyone's religion? Is my asumption that most of us are cristian wrong?

[Goldberg]

I have this book entitled, "Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?". It says very thoroughly there the many facts of each side, evolution and creation.

*dusts it off*

Here is what the fossil evidence says about the Origin of Living Things (68-69):

1. On the Origin of Life
- " For at least three-quarters of the book of ages engraved in the earth's crust the pages are blank. "

" The initial steps . . . are not known; . . . no trace of them remains. " - Red Giants and White Dwarfs

2. On Many-Celled Life
- " How many-celled animals originated and whether this step occurred one or more times and in one or more ways remain difficult and ever-debated questions that are . . .
'in the last analiysis, quite unanswerable.' " - Red Giants and White Dwarfs

3. On Plant Life
- " Most botanists lok to the fossil record as the source of enlightenment. But . . . no such help has been discovered. . . . There is no evidence of the ancestry. " - The Natural History of Palms

4. On Insects
- " The FOssil record does not give any information on the origin of insects. " - Encyclopedia Britannica

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like. " - The Insects

5. On Animals With Backbones
- " Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of vertebrates. " - Encyclopedia Britannica

6. On Fish
- " To our knowledge, no 'link' connected this new beast to any previous form of life. The fish just appeared. " - Marvels & Mysteries of Our Animal World

7. On Fishes Becoming Amphibians
- " Just how or why they did this we will probably never know. "
- The Fishes

8. On Amphibians becoming Reptiles
- " One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing. " - The Reptiles

9. On Reptiles becoming Mammals
- " There is no missing link [that connects] mammals and reptiles. "
- The Reptiles
" Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we consider the first true mammal. "
- The Mammals[/I]

10. On Reptiles Becoming Birds
- " The trainsition form reptiles to birds is more poorly documented. " - Processes of Organic Evolution

" No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found. "
- The World Book Encyclopedia

11. On Apes
- " Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. "
- Science Digest

" Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil. " - [I]Science Digest[I]

12. [B]From Apre to Man
- " No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape. " - Science Digest

" The human family does not consist of a solitary line of descent leading from an apelike form to our species. " - The new Evolutionary Timetable

There you have it folks, there is sooo much more that is said in this book but unfortunately, this that I typed is but a mere fragment of what the whole book contains. Enjoy.

[LondonJack]

Let's forget these petty little questions and get to the real issue, do you prefer pie or doughnuts?


Let's try and keep this discussion civil ok.

[ck1]

im christian

[Elentari]

good way to put it goldberg...

As for you london, I HATE YOU! ;). How dare you ruin such a possibly deep and philosiphical discussion because you are imature and can't stand the thought that there might be more to the world than your petty imatureness! :D *mutters to self* "pie or doughnuts... sheesh" :D

Anyway, I believe in creation. I will leave it at that seeing as nothing profoundly moving and informative comes to mind ;).

[xyxaxyz2]

I wouldn't argue for evolution because the other side is so stubbornly wrong it doesn't deserve to be argued against. At least not by me, and I learned that the hard way a year or so ago.

[Serge]

You can't argue with someone over religion b/c faith is the BLIND belief in something no matter what anyone tells you.

[uknowwho42]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Bible say that humans were created in the current form (meaning Adam and Eve are of the same form as humans today) ? That would mean that evolution and Christian creationism couldn't coexist. Just wondering, I might be wrong.

Anyway, I have no idea how we or anything else got here, and no one else does either. There simply is no concrete proof or there would be nothing to debate about. This is purely a question of opinion and how you were raised. Personally, I think afterlife are two myths created to hide us from the fact that maybe nothing happens to us when we die. I think we just die and decompose...of course there are memories of us which will last, but focusing on your status in the afterlife rather than living a fulfilling and carefree life on earth is pointless to me. Perhaps this is a different debate, so back on topic...I think the idea of creation was "created" (haha) to explain things which we as humans could not. How did we and our planet and everything else get here? Back to my original point, who knows? I don't, you don't, but I don't think it just appeared from the will of some "higher power." Why does everyone feel the need to explain things like this? Maybe someday we will know. As for me, I'm just going to enjoy life and not worry about where I came from or where I'm going. :D

[LondonJack]

Actually my previous post was a whimsical protest to a thread which i consider in very poor taste. ;)

(and yes elentari, i know sarcasm right, i know)

[kyrios24]

Evolution. Absolutely. But yeah, no arguments, like xyx said. I think creationism is stupid. There was a kid on my bus a few years ago, one of my best friends and quite intelligent, but he was a diehard creationist. I found this rather surprising. Anyway, we spent a huge amount of time arguing about it. Not really a good use of our time, if you ask me. Maybe london is right about this thread... I forsee some pretty nasty arguments coming.

And now to the important stuff - Doughnuts! That's just my mood right now, of course. It changes. But only strawberry frosted, that's my favorite... what's yours london?:) (oh, and what kind of pie are we talking about here?)

Anyway, can't wait to get brutally flamed.

[Office_Shredder]

but doesn't the Bible say that humans were created in the current form (meaning Adam and Eve are of the same form as humans today) ? That would mean that evolution and Christian creationism couldn't coexist. Just wondering, I might be wrong.

SO?!?!??!! WHY DOES NO ONE UNDERSTAND THAT EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT HUMANS CAME FROM APES, OR EVEN CHANGED AT ALL?!?!?! ALL EVOLUTION IS IS THAT SPECIES CHANGE FROM CHANGES IN THEIR GENES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Sorry for the rant, but I hate my bio essay :(

[Goldberg]

Now, about what I previously posted, some of you might have caught the fact that there are Huge Gulfs in between each of them: Can Evolution Bridge Them?

Fossils give tangible evidence of the varieties of life that existed long before man's arrival. But they have not produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on the lack of transitional fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all important places. "

An example of the major divisions is the fish. It was thought to have evolved from the invertebrates. "Fish jumps into the fossil record", Hitchling says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full-formed. "

Now, Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men.

*rests hand*

Evolution requires fish fins to become jointed limbs with wrists and toes, accompanied by major alterations in muscles and nerves. Gills must change to lungs. In fish, blood is pumped by a two-chambered heart, but in amphibians by a three-chambered heart.

Strenous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some ancestor, but without success. No fossil fish show how the pelvis of amphibians developed.

There is more coming, I hope you guys are keeping up.:)

[Office_Shredder]

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men

NO IT DOESN'T! THAT IS POSSIBLE WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, BUT ALL EVOLUTION CLAIMS IS THAT SPECIES CHANGE, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT SPECIES CHANGED AND HOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HFS YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T LISTEN!!!!!!!!

[Goldberg]

Originally posted by Goldberg
presumes

Did you get that, Office? Please, no need for flaming here. If you can't state your opinions in a polite manner, then this thread is not for you.

--Edit--

NO IT DOESN'T! THAT IS POSSIBLE WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, BUT ALL EVOLUTION CLAIMS IS THAT SPECIES CHANGE, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT SPECIES CHANGED AND HOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HFS YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T LISTEN!!!!!!!! [/QUOTE]

Can you possibly show me (link) where the truth of this matter is?

[bloodmonkey2]

i think we all came from aliens and we were lab exparements to them and they messed up the DNA and found this planet to dump us on

[Aro23r]

Originally posted by bloodmonkey2
i think we all came from aliens and we were lab exparements to them and they messed up the DNA and found this planet to dump us on

There is a religion in America that actually believes this. I'll come back and tell you what it is when I find it.

[LondonJack]

So far one vote for doughnuts, i'm going to have to vote pie just because i like them both equally and don't want doughnuts to be in the lead.

Doughnuts : 1
Pie : 1

That is the current standings, unless i missed a vote.

[Wurtil]

Tremble and fear mortals, for the true answer of this much discussed topic will be found within these hallowed words that are spoken from the Dark Master that is Wurtil. Ever since the Internet was proven to be link that is supported through creationism under the faux-leadership of Al Gore, the mass combatants of theology have shown themselves in full force to vanquish the opposition and prove themselves worthy of knowing what is now dubbed, "Truth". Wars have, and will continue to be waged in all walks of life because of the very essence that makes this question what it is. Listen well peasants, for "Truth" is only as true as the one who knows it to be. Indeed, for now is the moment it all has been led up to, and forevermore will citations and acknowledgements fall upon these words. The answer is pie my brethren, the answer is pie. It is the "Truth", like it or not. Only the search within oneself can reveal this answer to be the allmighty power that is knowledge, for it is proven time and time again that the search for the "Truth" may indeed be in and of itself the "Truth". Embrace the "Truth" friends, embrace the "Truth".

Your friendly neighborhood Dark Lord,
Wurtil

[Aro23r]

The religion that believes man was placed on earth and then cloned, giving us humanity is "Rael" or "Raelism" or "Raelian Revolution".

[bloodmonkey2]

im not any special religeon im christian but this is wat i think happened

[Aro23r]

Then join "Raelism". But enough about this, I'll leave it to those interested to continue this arguement.

[Goldberg]

Damn, Aro23r, I was hoping you would put something in because you were one of the few people in the previous arguement threads who's posts were actually worth reading...:(

Hmm, I'm actually getting tired myself..

O well

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
I wouldn't argue for evolution because the other side is so stubbornly wrong it doesn't deserve to be argued against. At least not by me, and I learned that the hard way a year or so ago.

My interest is piqued. What happened, praytell?

[Elentari]

I say pie... I despise doughnuts... :)

[Aro23r]

Originally posted by thrdflrmshr
My interest is piqued. What happened, praytell?


I'll answer with my answer, xyx can chime in later. Creation lacks facts and truths, so someone who argues for it before and even after hearing what an evolutionist says is stubborn. The only thing that holds up a creationist is the Bible, and that is merely a book, written by some people some 50 years after the events they tell (Gospels are 50 years, the rest, I don't know what.).

Listenting to a creationist is like listening to a broken record, you hear the same thing and when you ask for them to prove what they say, they say it needs no proof or the Bible says so, which says nothing, because that is all the Bible is, a book. Why people choose to hold it in such high regard and base their lives around it is strange, indeeed.

[Duffman]

Yeah sorry i'm also a pie fan. 1 VOTE FOR PIE...

Also on the weird religion thing there is a religion called the radical fairy's. It's a religion full of male homosexuals that can believe that can fly. I heard about them on the radio cause of some margonalised religion gathering they had. So remember, thats one vote of pie.

[roberta]

Well I have to disagree with those people on the side of creationism, because I believe in evolution, which (yes office_shredder) involves slight changes in the genes, which in turn changes the species themselves. But some people do not understand that a million years is quite a long time, and quite enough time for a species to change into a new, and different species, especially if (now bringing out my own limited biological prowess) the difference in genes between us (as in all human beings) is below .1% of our DNA, and with urangutans it is only between 2 and 3 percent, and our genes are 70% percent the same as those of a banana (and most likely to be even more similar to those of a dancing banana for that matter). The similarities are too much to be put aside as mere coincidence. Even now people are still evolving (why do you think we can actually tell one nationality from another?), as in the middle ages the average height of people there was somewhere around 5 feet, whereas now it is somewhere near 5"8', which is quite a lot over a few centuries when you compare it to 3.5 billion years (this is the age of the oldest fosilised piece of life). Quite a lot could happen in that length of time.


And also, I am sorry, but I have to go with the pies as well.

[Office_Shredder]

I'll go with doughnuts.



Did you get that, Office? Please, no need for flaming here. If you can't state your opinions in a polite manner, then this thread is not for you.

You were the one who was presuming, presuming what evolution truly is. And I wasn't flaming, I was just pissed because I had to write an essay on this exact topic and why the question isn't valid.:mad:


Can you possibly show me (link) where the truth of this matter is?

It's called take a biology course, or do some actual research on evolution instead of what the mass media spoon feeds you.

[bludhoundz]

*decides to join in*
I completely agree with xyx and serge, that creationism isn't even worth fighting against, although, I'm doing this because I dont believe in this, but I dont have the best argument, so just count me out of this part.

:D :D :D :D :D
DONUTS ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now its tied 3-3 (count me as two if donuts want the lead)
and my friend votes for muffins

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Hugh Junit
Creation AND evoluton. I believe in both.

Sorry netjak bro, but that's impossible.

12

[noidea]

Well maybe in certain point 12,
just go to the beginning of the evolution, the big bang,
what was before it?
nothing, scientifically this is not possible, energy (atoms, particles...) cannot be created from nothing (einstein- thermodynamics). The evolution has a contradiction here, still the resolve the question what was before the big bang, how everything really started?.

And as i dont believe in god my vote goes for the doughnuts.

[DeadFishGuy]

just go to the beginning of the evolution, the big bang,
what was before it?
nothing, scientifically this is not possible, energy (atoms, particles...) cannot be created from nothing

Actually, in this science magazine my dad gets every month or so there was an article called "The Other Side of Time Zero". In a nutshell, it basically says that there is such a thing as "negative time". This means there was something before the big bang. Before the big bang both time and space were in reverse i.e. left was right and up was down. This was headed for a "big crunch" (the opposite of the big bang). At the big bang, everything flipped over and everything before the big bang began to happen backwards.

So the universe wasn't created from nothing, because there was no nothing in the first place. It has existed and will continue to exist for eternity.

P.S. I vote for pie, I can't STAND doughnuts.

[LondonJack]

Current stadings:

Pie and Doughnuts tied at 4 votes each.

[thrdflrmshr]

Doughnuts.

[Wurtil]

Ah yes, the LQG theory. I wish Bottle was here, we could have more fun physics discussions now that the Big Bang is being brough in. Ok, first off, the scientists who first brought about the LQG theory (Loop Quantum Gravity), used some very estranged methods (by normal standards), to calculate their theory. Mainly, they changed Eistien's General Theory in order to try and take on the problem of singularity that exists with one point in space. Einstien's equations themselves break down at singularity, so (correct me if I'm wrong) we only know what happened about 10ms after the big bang. Before that, well, we are just trying to work it all out like a giant puzzle. Hopefully new experiments on exotic mesons will help explain some small scale interactions that occurred around this brief time period. LQG brings in tons of interesting questions about what happened before the bang (is our universe the exact inverse of a previous universe, meaning that we have no control over what happens to us? Or was our universe created by a black hole in another universe hitting critical mass, and if so, could the same thing happen to our current universe, leading to an infinite series of black holes creating an infinite amount of smaller universes?). However, LQG still has MANY MANY problems involved with it. Whereas the String theory claims that the builing blocks of the universe must be smaller than whatever the smallest point particle is, LQG states that the universe is built upon strings about 30 meters in diameter. True, that is very small compartively to the universe, but overall that is a very strange finding, and it makes Newtonian physics crumble at its feet (to paraphrase, they still need to make the theory better, otherwise some of the basic physical properties of our world will not exist). Also, and probably most importantly on the scale of trying to prove the big bang, LQG STILL does not account for the major problem of finding magnetic monopoles. It, like string and Einstien's equations, claims that there should be literally billions of magnetic monopoles (The Earth is a magnetic dipole, having a north and a south. A monopole has just one pole, and the human race has yet to find any such thing existing or the aftereffects of these things having existed).

Ok, conclusion time, LQG theory is not strong enough to prove anything, and in fact, every theory we have thrown at the Big Bang has come back at us without describing a thing. A lot of what we think we know about the Big Bang is problematic because nothing seems to solve the problems of flatness, horizon, singularity, and the problem of magnetic monopoles.

Your friendly neighborhood Dark Lord,
Wurtil

[thrdflrmshr]

No matter how much we postulate and theorize, no one will ever know for sure what happened 4 billion years ago. While these theories are extremely interesting, they are just that: theories.

What we need is a time machine. Perhaps that is where we can put LQG to some real use.

[Northwind]

Bow before me humble humans!

It pains me to do so, but I must concur with the Dark Lord Wurtil regarding the “Truth”. For truly, pie is the superior snack food. This is not to say that the doughnut is to be eschewed, for the warm Krispy Kreme doughnut is a thing of beauty and amazement. (*A tear comes to the Mighty Northwind’s eye as he fondly remembers living in a place where he had access to his beloved Krispy Kreme*). However, the almighty pie must not be underestimated. The Mighty Northwind doth fairly salivate as he recalls the deliciousness that is these pies: the dutch apple, peach crumb, strawberry rhubard, peanut butter, pecan, and so many others. Doughnut should not feel bad, however, for the power that is pie will vanquish even the mighty Cake (though a Black Forest gateau is not to be sneered at).

Regarding the Creationism/Evolution debate, this hardly seems worth getting into. The only people really arguing for the whole “creationism” issue are those with a particular religious ax to grind and they very selectively interpret the fossil record to support their narrow version of events. I actually saw one person (a Creationist “authority” no less) who argued that there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark! Note, that the Mighty Northwind is not necessarily arguing against the existence of God, just the Creationist idea that God created Adam and Eve and Eden and all that other pretty, but pretty ridiculous stuff.

As for the Big Bang, the Mighty Northwind is no expert, though is hoping that further developments of string theory will eventually help address some of the questions about the possible origins of the universe. It is looking more and more that our idea of one universe (ours) is an antiquated notion. It will be interesting to see what happens. However, it should also be noted that science will never necessarily completely answer this question. As noted in a variety of philosophies of science (see “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” for a layman’s version of this argument), the more we know, the more questions that are raised. Thus, further scientific inquiry will ultimately result only in more questions (and so on). This is why science and religion are ultimately two separate endeavors. Science seeks to ask more questions, religion seeks to provide answers. (Frequently, but not always, in ridiculous ways.)

Whew, I could really go for a slice of pie after all that.
:)

[LondonJack]

Current standings:

Pie: 6
Doughnuts: 5

I missed Wurtil's earlier vote for pie, because he hid it so well :p

On second thought, i'm removing my earlier pie support
so pie and dougnuts are tied once again at 5.

[green97sierra]

my main problem with creationism and the old testament in general is this...

god created the heavens and the earth in five days. on the sixth, he made man, and on the seventh, he took a nap, watched some football, did other godly recreational stuff. now, if this hold true, than that means that on the sixth day, he both created AND detroyed dinosaurs? why would he put so much effort into something just to get rid of it? and for those who have no idea what im talking about, dinosaurs and humans were never on the planet at the same time. dino's died off about a ga-gillion years before the first mammal.

[Northwind]

Actually, London Jack -
If the score was Pie: 6 and Doughnuts: 5 and you changed your vote, the new tally is:
Pie:5
Doughnuts: 6

Which, quite frankly, is simply wrong. The pie should clearly be winning. What is wrong with you people?!?!

And Green,

I may be mistaken, but I think there were some early mammals that were alive concurrent with some of the later dinosaurs. (Not that I disagree with your overall point).

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by green97sierra
dino's died off about a ga-gillion years before the first mammal.

Actually, the earliest mammals are shown to have come into existence towards the end of the Cretaceous Period of the Mesozoic Era, so mammals and dinosaurs did actually coexist. The last dinosaurs are shown to have lived ~65 million years ago, while the earliest humans came into existance ~1.8 million years ago.

[LondonJack]

Originally posted by LondonJack
i'm removing my earlier pie support
so pie and dougnuts are tied once again at 5.

I didn't change my vote, i removed my support of pie. As i stated earlier I like them both equally and was only voting for pie so that they could be tied. Now i remove my pie support so that they can once again be tied, i'm just a wildcard like that.

[Elentari]

now that I think about it... the deliciousness that is the Krispy Kreme evaded my remembrance seeing as at my new place of residence there is none *loud sniff*.

Cake is not even close to pie (even though Red Velvet does come close...)

Pie still gets my vote as I like all types of pie (excepting pecan... yuck).

edit: And doughnuts only has one kind that I really like...

[Goldberg]

BlueberryCheese Cake/Pie easily beats Krispy Kreme and Tim Hortons and any other doughnut place.:)

[thrdflrmshr]

White Chocolate Raspberry Cheescake is quite delicious.

[Cephas]

Erm, Pie beats out doughnuts for sure, although I do have to agree that Krispy Kreme is good (it would be even better if they could spell...).

Has this thread died at the hands of a vote about pie and doughnuts though? I just got back, and here I find out I missed a lively debate... :(

Londonjack, why this though? Was the drink and sandwitch not good enough? Now you need desert? I'm hurt, what unsuspecting innocent grey did you coerce into feeding you this time?

[Serge]

I know it, I have the answer! I know the absolute truth. It has no begining, no middle, and no end. The fact of the matter is the answer is doughnuts. I live within vicinity of a Krispy Kreme and my vote goes to doughnuts. Jelly filled, chocolate sprinkle covered, glazed, cream filled, and many others, doughnuts reign supreme.

My vote goes for doughnuts.

My favorite thing about the bible is all the contradictions in it. For example (can't remember where) it says a thousand years to man is a day to god, and a day to man is a thousand years to god. At least thats what I remember from when I was a kid, don't flame me if I am wrong.

[Cephas]

All right, try not to consider this flaming, I'm just challenging a blanket statement here.

First on the doughnuts... okay, this part is flaming... doughnuts suck, as does anyone who prefers them over pie (maybe I should qualify though, I'm comparing store-bought doghnuts from Dunkin Donuts, Krispy Kreme, and Tim Horton's to my wife's home made pie... Not really fair, is it?).

Now for the contradictions thing, the verse you are thinking of is in 2Peter, and it reads "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This is a simile, used to show that God is not bound by time in the same way that we are. That being said, what other contradictions have you been faced with?

[LondonJack]

And dog so lubbed the world that he sent his only begotten pie, to um, yeah there was some other stuff but i'm a little rusty on that baptist brainwashing err... upbringing (can i get away with that? probably not but i'm not opposed to trying ;))

Can't pie lovers and doughnuts lovers live in peace though? I mean me personally I love them both equally.

[Cephas]

A Banana Cream pie in the face of londonjack for thinking that doughnut lovers and pie lovers can live in peace. Its like the middle east, and Ireland, peace will never come until one side is anihilated!

[drakonfire]

doughnuts get my vote



and i believe in God, i believe he created the world in 6 litaral days, and i believe that man lived with dinosaurs peacefully (until adam and eve screwed it all to peices) i mean if u go back and read genesis it never actually tells us how much time passsed between when adam and eve were created and The Fall



anyway, thats my faith, now if u want some interesting theories that could might explain creationism, go check this site out


http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/faqs.shtml?main#creation_vs_evolution

[Serge]

Originally posted by Cephas
...That being said, what other contradictions have you been faced with?

Ah man, it's been so long, here's one I think.

These are both said by Jesus...

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I

...Are Jesus and God the same being, and if they are how is God greater than Jesus?

Here we go again...

Matthew 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice,gave up his ghost."

Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he breathed his last."

John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit."

...which did Jesus say before he died? And another interesting side note, in my copy of the bible, in Matthew 27:46-50 It says after Jesus said his last words his folowers or whoever was there offered him some sour wine from a rag on a stick, but someone told them not to give him the wine but to wait for Elijah. However in the quote up there, from John 19:30 he apparently drank the sour wine/vinegar. I can find some more but I don't feel like it right now.

[uknowwho42]

I'm from North Carolina, home of the VERY FIRST Krispy Kreme...so I have to go with doughnuts. I grew up within walking distances of one of the first KK's in the world, and it was a key element of my childhood. Any doughnuts that aren't Krispy Kreme (or possibly the powdered Sweet Sixteens) simply are not worth eating...but Krispy Kremes are so amazing that even the best pie could not match their deliciousness...But don't you dare try eating them without milk!

ONE MORE FOR DOUGHNUTS!

[xyxaxyz2]

Listenting to a creationist is like listening to a broken record, you hear the same thing and when you ask for them to prove what they say, they say it needs no proof or the Bible says so, which says nothing, because that is all the Bible is, a book.

I only wish they said this. This I would be willing to argue against. But the modern creationist thinks more, he thinks that science verifies the Bible and all their other religious beliefs. They talk about the law of thermodynamics and the fossil record and evolution is just a theory. :rolleyes: They talk like scientists. But they aren't scientists, and they really don't have any real understanding of what they are talking about. The truth is, the overwhelming evidence proves that evolution is real, and I believe in it to the point that life evolved from non-life.

Anyways, what my last post was refering to. I used to frequent religious/political forums a lot. Still visit them occasionally, though TAO and a couple of other games have taken up much of my online life. Thats how I know so much about the "creation science" frame of mind. The modern creationalist, who tries to prove creationalism with science, is no different from all other conspiracy theorists. Its like arguing with people who claim that Bush personally orchestrated 9/11. I can't do it anymore, the ignorance of the other sides just gets me angry.

EDIT: And pie, no contest. Especially really good pie. Doughnuts are disgusting. :(

[Cephas]

Since your post was long, my answer will have to be. I need to head home now though, I'll post tomorrow.

[Goldberg]

Settle down, people. Now, for all those who do not believe in God, that's ok. Why?

A COMMON reason many people give for doubting the existence of a Creator (notice the capital C) is the prevalence of suffering in the world. Throughout the centuries there has been so much cruelty, bloodshed and outright evil, bringing great suffering to millions of innocent people. Thus many ask: 'If there is a God, why does he permit all of this?'

The opening chapters of Genesis provide the background for answering this quetsion. They descrive the creation of a world without suffering. Thie first man and woman were put in a paradise setting, a beautiful gardenlike home called Eden, and they were given pleasant and challenging work. Regarding the Earth, they were told "to cultivate it and to take care of it."

In addition, since the first humans were created with perfect bodies and perfect minds, they were not defective in any way. Hence, there was no reason for them ever to suffer from sickness, old age or death. Instead, they had the prospect of an endless future in an earthly paradise. -Deuteronomy 32:4

However, for this harmony to continue, the first human pair had to accept their Creator's right to govern human affairs. That is, they had to accept his sovereignty. Why? First of all, because it was proper. The maker of anything surely has a right to excercise a measure of control over what he/she has made. Furthermore, humans needed to accept the direction of their Maker because of this crucial fact: They were not designed with the ability to govern themselves successfully apart from their Creator, any more than they could stay alive if they did not eat, drink and breathe. As long as humans stayed within the guidelines set for them by their Creator, life would be continuous, successful and happy.

Maker's direction can cause all kinds of problems. That was the case with Adam and Eve. They chose to misuse their gift of freedom. THey decided, wrongly, to grasp for independence from their Creator and thereby "be like God". What happened to them is similar to what happens when you pull out the plug of an electric fan. As long as the fan is plugged into a power source, it runs.

Since they willfully chose a course of independence from their Maker, he let them learn the full meaning of their choice by leaving them on their own. Without their Creator's sustaining power, a gradual breakdown of mind and body began. In time, they grew old and died.

Thus, when they chose to be independent, they fell from perfection. So the first humans became like a defective pattern. This imperfection, along with separation from the Creator and his laws, opened floodgates of human folly. Thus, mankind's history has been filled with suffering, sorrow, sickenss and death.
-Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12.

[Serge]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
I only wish they said this. This I would be willing to argue against. But the modern creationist thinks more, he thinks that science verifies the Bible and all their other religious beliefs. They talk about the law of thermodynamics and the fossil record and evolution is just a theory. :rolleyes: They talk like scientists. But they aren't scientists, and they really don't have any real understanding of what they are talking about. The truth is, the overwhelming evidence proves that evolution is real, and I believe in it to the point that life evolved from non-life.

Anyways, what my last post was refering to. I used to frequent religious/political forums a lot. Still visit them occasionally, though TAO and a couple of other games have taken up much of my online life. Thats how I know so much about the "creation science" frame of mind. The modern creationalist, who tries to prove creationalism with science, is no different from all other conspiracy theorists. Its like arguing with people who claim that Bush personally orchestrated 9/11. I can't do it anymore, the ignorance of the other sides just gets me angry.

EDIT: And pie, no contest. Especially really good pie. Doughnuts are disgusting. :(

xyx, I just lost all respect I had for you after reading this post. Doughnuts are disgusting? How dare you!

[xyxaxyz2]

Goldberg.

http://www.atheists.net/pages/feedback_while_charter/owned_by_God.htm

Did you take what you said from this site? Because what you say is basically what is said here, word for word.

I hate when people take other people's work off the internet and post on forums pretending to be intellegent people.

Now there are a number of possible reasonable explanations for this.

1. You wrote both. Only thing is, the link I posted is from 2001, and there are other reasons I doubt you are the same person.
2. Both you and this person took it from a common source, perhaps even one of the books you posted earlier? You still should say you didn't write what you said you did.
3. There is something I'm missing.

Otherwise...

[Goldberg]

No, I am not both. I have mentioned before in a previous post that I have this book "solely" about Creation/Evolution. I have little to no clue what this site is, who's it is.

Wow.... that is freaky.. :eek:

And yes, what I wrote is what is in the book I have, word for word.

--Edit--
That makes it so much easier for me. then.
Everyone, click on xyxaxyz2's link to learn more about God and why there is suffering.

[xyxaxyz2]

You're telling me that your last post was written entirely by you without taking it from any other source?

[Goldberg]

Originally posted by Goldberg
And yes, what I wrote is what is in the book I have, word for word.

I hope you caught that.

--Edit--

It appears that some people are missing the point. It matters not whether I said it or not; or where I got it from, for what the content of what I wrote on that post is the point.

I took a huge chunk of information out of a book and I thought it would help if I shared it to all of you.

I never claimed it mine, but nor did I give credit to where I got it from. Excuse me, for that.

[kyrios24]

Yeah, I figured you didn't think up all the arguments you made. For the most part (maybe I'm forgetting something), they were well-formulated and seem to have come from a knowledgeable and intelligent person, albeit a creationist. Not exactly what I would expect from a wrestling fan as enthusiastic as yourself.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you ever said your stuff came from an outside source. Or maybe I just got fed up with reading this stuff and missed the citation.

[xyxaxyz2]

Yeah, I figured you didn't think up all the arguments you made. For the most part (maybe I'm forgetting something), they were well-formulated and seem to have come from a knowledgeable and intelligent person, albeit a creationist. Not exactly what I would expect from a wrestling fan as enthusiastic as yourself.


This is exactly what caused me to investigate this in the first place.

Goldberg, you never said in the post that you were quoting the book. In an earlier post you even gave page numbers, you didn't do that here. Please do so from now on, so we know you aren't coming up with this stuff yourself.

[Goldberg]

Yes, yes. Forgive me for that.

By the way, the pages I took that from are 188-192, Chapter 16.

[Machin Shin]

I believe the Bible is God's infallable inspired Word, and if it says that God created the entire world in 6 days, then I believe He created the world in 6 days. Period. no evoluition

[Office_Shredder]

How come the world wasn't created in 6 days, then some species changed? Evolution would still exist, it just means that man didn't evolve from apes or reptiles from fish.

[Felix the Cat]

Whew...I cant belive I jus read ALL that. Well I have learned you can't really argue with people on this kinda stuff so, Ima just gonna vote for donuts. I don't like pie.

[Office_Shredder]

Can I change my vote? I want to change it to sesame seed rolls:D

[LondonJack]

Lets see, the choices are pie or doughnuts, so no you can't change your vote to sesame seed rolls :p

[Elentari]

HOW CAN SOMEONE NOT LIKE PIE??? Pie is delicious, yummy, scrumptious, delectable, lip-smacking, mouthwatering, tasty, delightful, gorgeous, luscious... I could go on for days...

Donuts are... plain... boring... gross...

[LondonJack]

I'm still torn up over the fact that you don't hate me Elentari, i'm not sure i can ever talk to you again...

After this time i mean, after this time

[Elentari]

Now I'm all confused... if you're snarr (in a lovely londonjack suit), how can you know about that? Or were you there??? Or are you the gaming one too? But grey snarr was there as well... so how could you... *WAAAAHHHHH*

[LondonJack]

You crashed the server didn't you dear?

[drakonfire]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
How come the world wasn't created in 6 days, then some species changed? Evolution would still exist, it just means that man didn't evolve from apes or reptiles from fish.


NOTE: i am merely answering shredders question, this is not meant to be a reason for creationism, it is my view however


shredder: if u read the Bible and create a timeline from it, then the world has been around less than 15 thousand years... no way evolution of species has taken place, i accept micro evolution, there is evidence of that all over the place, macro evolution is what i have a problem with

[Duffman]

I thought it was 6000... meh.

Also can we get a pie donught count here... I'm enthralled by this poll.

[Elentari]

You caught me babe, it was me... *sigh* but you would know seeing as you're my husband... or are you? Are you the real london?

[Cephas]

Okay Serge, now I'm back in the game :D

This one's off the top of my head, but here goes: Jesus put aside his power to become like us, and while he and his father were still one (in the same general sense that a married couple is one, God is one, being comprised of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; each is God, and equal in power), he had laid aside his 'God-hood' to become a man in every way the same as us, except without sin. Talking about his father being greater, he was dealing with the situation.

Now, in dealing with the last words of Jesus, you need to consider several things (and even moreso with the resurrection accounts):
-Each Gospel is an independant story, and each one is told with specific goals in mind (example: In John 6, Peter says that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; while in the parallel in Mark, you only read him saying that Jesus is the Christ. The reason Mark doesn't include that is because a strong theme in Mark is the disciples failure to recognize that he is the Son of God).
-Each of the Gospels reports some of the words that he said, but not necessarily all of them. Do any two of them state that 'these are the very last words he said, and there was nothing else added'? No. It is the same as me saying to one person "The lady died her hair blue, and she left" and to another person, "The lady frowned, and she left"; in both cases she left, but why the difference between the two statements? Neither statement prohibits the other, as is the case with the statements made from the cross.
-The fact that there are these differences points to the truth of the accounts. If they were all exactly the same, people would say that they copied one another, but since they are different, people can't do that. There are conservative Jewish scholars who believe that the accounts in the Gospels are accurate and true, and based on their differences, believe that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead. That is a pretty strong testimony to me...

As for the drink, no one said that these two drink offers are the same. I think the Matthew passage parallels the Mark passage, where it says "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not." , and not the John passage.

Keep 'em coming, I enjoy a good challenge...

xyx, have you ever met a scientist who is Christian? I know a few, and their arguments are reasoned. I'm not a scientist, so I can only parrot what I'm told, but if you're interested in hearing it from someone who is qualified to deal with the subject, I'd be glad to get some info from them. It looks like you've only dealt with the plebs on this matter...

[Cephas]

on a side note:

YAY, 30 posts, I am no longer a meager junior member any more!

[Goldberg]

As always, Cephas, nice to see you posting around.:)

[Northwind]

Cephas,

I think you missed xyxxyxxyxyaxyxyxx2's point (at least as I interpretted it). I don't think he was saying that there aren't many Christian scientists (note - not "Christian Scientists"), I think he was saying there are not many creationist scientists. There are plenty of scientists who are Christian. There are plenty (all?) of creationists who are Christian. There just are not many creationists who are scientists (I wonder why?). I will admit that there are a lot of creationist pseudo-scientists out there.

Seriously, the vast, vast majority of Christians do not take the Bible literally regarding the creation and age of the earth. Information from every realm of the physical sciences directly contradicts the notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The sheer force of mental will required to believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible is simply astounding ("must believe Bible, must believe Bible, must believe Bible, . . ."). Not that I don't appreciate the effort, but Good God! it is absurd.

Which gets to my earlier point. Science and religion ultimately have different values. Science isn't telling people not to believe in god (or God), and religion shouldn't require that we check our brains at the door. If God did put us here, didn't he/she/it give us "reason" for some purpose? Why are fundamentalists not allowed to use it?

[Goldberg]

The same goes to you, Northwind, because it seems you have missed Cephas' point as well.

Notice how it was at the very bottom of his post...?:)

[Northwind]

Do you mean: Denken Tut Weh- Ödon von Horvath
You're right, I missed that point entirely. :) Otherwise, I think he said that "have you ever met a scientist that is Christian." I think I responded to this. All arguments I have seen from so-called "Creationist scientists" don't hold up to actual biology (especially the literal "the earth is only a few thousand years old" arguments). And if you are not being literal about that, why be literal about the potential origins of animal life?

[Cephas]

Northwind, I was pretty sure that my point was clear, but I'll restate it and elaborate. I have a friend who is one of the top chemists at Merck, and he is a creationist scientist. He is capable of producing reasoned arguments in favor of creation over macro-evolution. I have also met 2 others who can do the same. One has a website: http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp . Thanks drakonfire, for the catch! :D

Denken tut weh translates roughly to 'thinking hurts', btw... ;)

[drakonfire]

Originally posted by Cephas
Northwind, I was pretty sure that my point was clear, but I'll restate it and elaborate. I have a friend who is one of the top chemists at Merck, and he is a creationist scientist. He is capable of producing reasoned arguments in favor of creation over macro-evolution. I have also met 2 others who can do the same. One has a website: www.drdino.com

Denken tut weh translates roughly to 'thinking hurts', btw... ;)

uh cephas, u might wanna watch where u put the periods in ur links, i fixed it in my quote, but if i use ur link it takes me to some apache project page, not what u were aiming for methinks



oh and northwind, we r allowed to use our heads, but if we proved everything through scientific FACT (and any THEORY is just that, a theory, not something proven by fact) then where is the faith? anywho, i would just like to point out to everyone, regardless of whatever "evidence" ppl present, we will never kno the truth of the matter (unless u believe the Bible is truth, as i do) this is why i've stopped really getting into these arguments, it really is pointless, they r all just scientific theories, as far as science goes, and CANNOT be proven

and sure i have a few questions, i'm just Waiting to ask God when i get up there abou them all, since i, nor anyone else, can answer them

[Goldberg]

Originally posted by Northwind
Do you mean:
You're right, I missed that point entirely. :) Otherwise, I think he said that "have you ever met a scientist that is Christian." I think I responded to this. All arguments I have seen from so-called "Creationist scientists" don't hold up to actual biology (especially the literal "the earth is only a few thousand years old" arguments). And if you are not being literal about that, why be literal about the potential origins of animal life?

Hah.:p Good one.:)

But on a more serious level, about being literal on the origins of animal life, well Northwind, I was merely stating the facts written in the book (see xyx, Im careful:) ) to give others a broader knowledge about them. The huge gulfs in the fossil history is when "Evolution" comes in. Not that you didn't already know that...:rolleyes:

[Northwind]

OK,

This is the last time I am weighing in here because it obviously is getting nowhere. I do have to mention that I looked up the "drdino" web site. All I have to say is "Oh My God!" Did any of the supporters of creationism actually look at this site or read any of the entries? He uses Steven Jay Gould as a critic of evolution, when, in fact, Dr. Gould is (was) probably the foremost authority on evolution. He cites someone else claiming that World Wars I and II were caused by evolution. He makes a variety of critiques of scientific findings and then, when presented with evidence he cannot get around (e.g., the age of the universe), basically says "Well he's God and God can do anything he wants."

What kind of argument is that??? Wait, I have the answer here -- it is a strictly religious argument that has nothing to do with science. As Karl Popper stated in 1944, the core of science was that it was potentially falsifiable. In other words, if it could not be proven wrong, it is not science. "Dr." Hovind (of the drdino site) throws falsifiability out the window when he relies on the "God can do anything he wants argument." This is impossible to falsify and impossible to argue against because is an assertion, not an argument.

Sorry for the tone of this post, I do not hold anything against anyone who has posted here (though Drakon I do find your "truth is not knowable except by those who believe in the truth of the Bible" comment to be a bit grating). I do get frustrated however, when people willfully refuse to understand basic scientific principals yet pretend to make scientific arguments (I'm referring to drdino here).

Anyway, I'm done with the serious posting for now. Someone bring me a slice of pie (a la mode if you have it). :)

[drakonfire]

Originally posted by Northwind
[COLOR=skyblue] (though Drakon I do find your "truth is not knowable except by those who believe in the truth of the Bible" comment to be a bit grating).



oops, didnt mean for it to sound that way, that is what I accept as truth, even though i cant know scientifically that it is true


what i meant to say is that science technically cant prove how the universe started, or how we got here, so for ME, truth is what the Bible says

[Cephas]

Northwind, are you talking about this quote:

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

I don't know that Gould is criticizing the theory of evolution there so much as recognizing that it has its fallacies.

As far as the 'evidence he cannot get around', he does deal with the age of the universe on several different levels. You can see that in the QandA section under 'Universe is not 'Billions of Years' old"...

My question is, who is being narrowminded? I was not raised to believe in creation. My father is a devout atheist and a very intelligent man. However, I have looked at both sides of the argument, and IMHO creation comes in with more evidence to back it than evolution.

On a side note, I'm glad you're in my camp with your pie! Lemon Meringue and Key Lime pies are the best!

[Lich]

if we were created through adam and eve we are all brothers and sisters... eww and if they were white how do we have asians!

[Serge]

According to the evolution theory, the first "humans" were from africa. It's called evolution, all humans at one point probally looked the same, then they evolved to be best suited to their environment. Also, Adam and Eve(if they existed) were not white, the Jewish religion, and the Torah, originated from the Middle East. In fact all three major world religions all originated from there. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, (not in that order).

[drakonfire]

not in that order serge? actually u got it right, judeism came first, abraham BC (i forget the dates), then christianity with Jesus (AD 30 ish) and islam (6th century AD)

unless of course u ask a muslim, and then they will say abraham founded Islam, meaning christianity was the last of the 3 religions.. but we r getting off topic now


as to different skin colors/tones builds etc, thats called micro evolution, changes within a species, still being the same species, but something changed (in some birds beak length, in humans, skin color)

[xyxaxyz2]

xyx, have you ever met a scientist who is Christian?

The vast majority of American scientists are Christian, because Christianity is the main religion in the US.

I'm not refering to Christian scientists, but Creation Scientists, who aren't really scientists at all, or at least only scientists in a different field.

And they have no reasonable arguments.

[Cephas]

And they have no reasonable arguments.

To make a blanket statement like that, you would have to have encountered EVERY single argument that has been put forward. This is almost as bad as an atheist, philosophically speaking; they claim there is no God, but to make such a claim, they need to have proof, and there are things that lie outside of their realm of experience, therefore they cannot prove their stance.

This stands, unless of course, your definition of a creationist scientist is different from mine. I would call a creationist scientist someone who is scientifically qualified, and puts forward evidence (note: not proof, neither macro-evolution nor creation can be empirically proven), that supports a view that the world originates from the work of a divine Creator. How are you looking at this?

[LondonJack]

Things have gotten far worse then i could have imagined

The end is near? (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6827)

Edit: The link now works, halleballuhyahexbealadocious

Edit2: i know, i know, Achie-poo is singing, but if your ears and eyes don't melt check out the rest of the thread

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

I believe in the theory that Evolution was sparked by God. I mean what are the chances of intellegent life on Earth. How would it even exist if there was no hand to guide it? It's completely incomprehensable.

The Captain

[Cephas]

LondonJack, shouldn't someone tell hair that he/she is in the wrong thread? Or is this a clan being lead by a grey n00b?

El Capitano, it's an interesting idea. My take on it is that if God can create life, then he would create it the right way the first time, rather than having to tinker with it through the ages...

[LondonJack]

*gets down on one knee*

Marry me Cephas? My wife Elentari doesn't mind if i bring home other people to stay with us.

[Cephas]

Much as I am flattered by your proposal, LondonJack, I don't know that my wife would appreciate that kind of lifestyle. Besides, what if I wanted to move to London at some point?

[Elentari]

WHO SAYS I WON'T MIND! YOU BET I'D MIND! I ONLY KEEP ONE HUSBAND AT A TIME (except for snarr, but he doesn't count as he is london as well), AND THE SAME SHOULD GO FOR YOU HONEY BUN! But, Ceph, you can be a secret lover ;).

[LondonJack]

Can my pet name for my secret lover be seond wife? If so i think we can come to a compromise on this honey.

[Cephas]

This is getting disturbing...

EDIT: I should note though, that while most Christians frown upon polygamy, the Bible does not prohibit it. It is not recommended conduct, but there you have it... :D

I just don't think I can be a wife after 5 years as a husband...

[Elentari]

I suppose... but I am still superior...

I just don't think I can be a wife after 5 years as a husband...

LOL!!!

[Cephas]

Superior to what? I think I missed something here... Superior to LondonJack? Just about anyone is... :D

[LondonJack]

You can always bring your significant other along Cephas, he/she can be third wife.

[Cephas]

My wife relegated to 3rd?? She's always been first, and I don't know that she would relish being 3rd... Besides, I have a funny feeling she wouldn't appreciate a deviant lifestyle... To top it off, we have two kids, each of whom is a handful.

[LondonJack]

If you haven't revealed our special bond to third wife, how can you truly say that she is first in your heart?

[Cephas]

Er... What special bond? Is this special as in 'forrest gump' special, or as in 'walking in the moonlight with someone who's avatar is a freaky skull' special?
The fact is, I won't tell my wife, because somethings are just WAY too wierd to try to explain...

[LondonJack]

Just tell her that you guys are going to stay with some friends for a while, she will catch one in a month or two.

[xyxaxyz2]

To make a blanket statement like that, you would have to have encountered EVERY single argument that has been put forward.

I pretty much have. Creation science is an oxymoron, it is based on falsities, therefore, none of it is correct.

This is almost as bad as an atheist, philosophically speaking; they claim there is no God, but to make such a claim, they need to have proof

No more than the theist needs proof to beileve the opposite. Also, you don't need to claim there is no god to be an atheist, you just need to not believe in any god to be an atheist. A rational atheist may not be willing to claim anything he has no proof in, but still may feel emotionally that no god exists.

A creation scientist is any person who seeks to support Biblical creation through science.

[LondonJack]

Ok this thread has moved on to omnisexual polygamy, try and keep up people.

[Serge]

IRT drakonfire: When I said "not in that order" I meant that wasn't neccesarily the order of "popularity". I knew that was the order of origin.

Also, cephas, I think your argument about what Jesus's last words were was pretty weak. One says he drank something one said he didn't. Also, one said he said, "A" and died, one says he said "B" and died, one says he said "C" and died. Why would they choose different words to claim as his last words? I mean if I was a christian I would want to know what my savior's last words were. I am glad you took the time to argue it, and respect your opinion though.

And, did anyone figure out how bad donuts beat pie?

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

Hey you guys, could I make this love triangle have an extra prong?

Elentari, will you marry me to?
Oh, and Cephus...who's your wife? I've been looking for a secret lover...Elentari is getting old.

[Elentari]

*gasp* I am NOT getting old... and since when am I your secret lover??? No extra prong for you. Ceph, your wife is free to join however ;).

[Cephas]

Well xyx, I guess I'm beat. You're obviously much more knowledgeable than anyone out there. You've encountered every single argument that has ever been put forth, and personally penned the entirely reasonable counter-arguments for at least 30% them side by side with David Suzuki. The problem is, you are looking at anyone who tries to support special creation with science, and I am looking at those who are academically qualified to do so, we're not meeting on the same ground.
I appreciate that you have obviously read truckloads of creationist material in order to see all of their falsities, which show that everything they stand for is incorrect. I bow down before your vast knowledge of the cosmos.
FYI, your intelligent atheist is an agnostic, I believe. A theist is someone who believes in a god (greek theos), the prefix before atheist negates the term, making the atheist someone who believes there is no god. I'm sure you already knew that, just as you already knew everything else..

Serge, what would you think if everyone of the Gospels said exactly the same thing? Maybe you think it would be believable, but most people would scream out 'Colaboration!' and walk away, saying that anyone who believes that stuff is crackers... And as far as the drink, I made a mistake earlier. The Mark passage I was mentioning parallels another Matthew passage, not the one you were bringing up. Again though, while some people said they should wait, it doesn't say that they didn't give him the vinegar (on a side note, that's a pretty sour drink!), so there is no contradiction here, unless you are trying to read more into the text than is mentioned...

[Cephas]

Elentari, I think most ppl would agree with the Captain on your age. Although 'old' is a relative thing, but your profile currently gives a birthday of June 11, 1932, that makes you OLD !

Ct Jack Sparrow, my wife is not nearly as old as Elentari, but she's still much too old for you. An inexperienced sparrow can not fly with hawk... She'd roast your pinion feathers and pluck off the rest with a rusty pair of tweezers.

[Elentari]

I agree with ceph. Xyx... how do you know? I mean, how are you absolutely positive that EVERY SINGLE CREATIONIST SCIENTIST THAT EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE is a complete quack and only uses the scientist job to further the ends of the creationist cause. That's just absurd. You are so absolutely set in your ways that you just wont see it any other way than yours. Did you ever think for a second that maybe you are wrong? Now you're going to counter what I just said by saying that neither have I, but does that matter? Just because Billy Joe doesn't think that he's wrong doesn't mean that he's right and that you don't have to either.

Edit: I just saw your most recent post ceph, and I would just like to state that that age is a joke, I'm not that old... :rolleyes:. You think you'd be able to figure that out for yourself... geez....

[Cephas]

C'mon Elentari, do you think I would've written it that way if I really thought you were THAT old?

[LondonJack]

Cat fights among the wives already, good thing i like drama :D

[Elentari]

*slaps ceph with gauntlet* There! That'll learn ya to insult your elders (and betters).



;)

[Lord Achilles]

What happened to this topic? *sigh*

[Elentari]

You don't care ach... you just want posts...

[Omega_Paladin]

Anyone else think the chick in the Vonage comercial up there has a head like Wilson the Volleyball?











You suck Ach

[Elentari]

I thought that was a guy... :p

[thrdflrmshr]

How cool would it be to have a thread where we could post pics of what we all REALLY look like. Somehow, I think getting the 25-year-old-in-a-giant-banana-suit-dancing-to-cheesy-techno image of Omega_Paladin out of my head would help me sleep at night.

[Omega_Paladin]

Somehow, I think getting the 25-year-old-in-a-giant-banana-suit-dancing-to-cheesy-techno image of Omega_Paladin out of my head would help me sleep at night.

What.


In.


The.


Hell.


Is.


In.


Your.


Cheerios.

[Elentari]

yeah... but some of those pics might scar you for life...


Edit: I don't really like the idea of having all those 78 yr old men knowing what I look like...

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by Omega_Paladin
What.


In.


The.


Hell.


Is.


In.


Your.


Cheerios.

Whole grain oats.

[Omega_Paladin]

And what? Mescaline Jello?

[xyxaxyz2]

The problem is, you are looking at anyone who tries to support special creation with science, and I am looking at those who are academically qualified to do so, we're not meeting on the same ground.

No one is academically qualified to support a certain untruth. Creationism cannot be proven by science.

FYI, your intelligent atheist is an agnostic, I believe. A theist is someone who believes in a god (greek theos), the prefix before atheist negates the term, making the atheist someone who believes there is no god.

I wasn't disagreeing with you here, it was the word claim i had a problem with. Belief is usually emotional; it is possible for a atheist to believe something, yet not claim it true, because they lack evidence.

How can you call for evidence of atheism when you don't request such evidence for theism? Most atheists/agnostics are not any more reasonable than the average theist, in my experience....

[xyxaxyz2]

how are you absolutely positive that EVERY SINGLE CREATIONIST SCIENTIST THAT EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE is a complete quack

Because its a quack science.

You are so absolutely set in your ways that you just wont see it any other way than yours.

As I said before, its like arguing with any conspiracy theorist. Creation science is the succesor to flat earth science.

Did you ever think for a second that maybe you are wrong?

About most things, yes. About the falsity of creation science, no.

[Goldberg]

Serge: The four Gospels are written by four Apostles out of the 12, namely Mark, John, Luke, and Matthew.

Does it even matter if they are all worded differently? Say it is, does that make a difference? These four people all see things in their own way, thus making what they do different than others. Of course it will be different.

But like I stated earlier, it makes no difference.

PS

I like having the Pie/Doughnut ll Wife/lover thing here in the thread, it makes the discussion a little bit amusing.:) LJ, can I be your secret lover?:rolleyes:

[Cephas]

Okay xyx, here we go:

Creationism cannot be proven by science.

100% agreed. But neither can science prove the theory of evolution. Neither can be empirically proven. What's your point?

BTW, I'm choosing the things to argue here, your second statement doesn't contain enough meat for me to bother with.

How can you call for evidence of atheism when you don't request such evidence for theism? Most atheists/agnostics are not any more reasonable than the average theist, in my experience....

I have seen plenty of evidence for theism, changed lives chief among this. Agnosticism is a reasonable stance, atheism demands that the atheist know everything there is to know, in order to state that there is no God. Even the most pompous person I've ever met has never claimed to know more than 10% of all there is to know, how can someone who doesn't know everything know that God simply exists beyond his realm of experience?

Your remarks both to me and to Elentari show that there is no point to continuing this discussion with you. Regardless of what we put forward, you have already made a decision. I wish you well, but know that pride (in the sense of the French 'orgueil') will always keep you from seeing facts as they are.


Goldberg, I need to correct you here:
Neither Luke nor Mark ranked among the apostles. They were closely associated with them later on, and both of them make appearances in the book of Acts, but neither were of the 12.

Serge, just to clarify what Goldberg is talking about (I think), there are differences, but there are not discrepancies.

[Goldberg]

Originally posted by Cephas
Goldberg, I need to correct you here:
Neither Luke nor Mark ranked among the apostles. They were closely associated with them later on, and both of them make appearances in the book of Acts, but neither were of the 12.

Arggg, I was waiting for someone else to correct that. But nooooo, you just had to bust right in and fix everything, huh?!?!
:mad:




:p

[Cephas]

huh? who did you expect to correct that?

[Serge]

Originally posted by Goldberg
Hello everyone, I am an idiot, I ramble on for hours w/ little to no meaning.

Originally posted bt Cephas
Wow Goldberg, you're an idiot too, I thought I was all alone. Would you mind if I joined you in your sensless rambling?

It doesn't matter what was actually said as long as I interepreted it in my own way correct?-No, that's (^) not what you typed, so even if a particurally stubborn person interepeted it that way, it's not what you said.

And as for the passages I took from the bible, if a person was sent to the planet to die, don't you think his last words would be important?

[Cephas]

if a person was sent to the planet to die, don't you think his last words would be important?

Yes. But if his whole purpose in being there was to die, then should not all his words be important?

[Aro23r]

Originally posted by Cephas


I have seen plenty of evidence for theism, changed lives chief among this. Agnosticism is a reasonable stance, atheism demands that the atheist know everything there is to know, in order to state that there is no God. Even the most pompous person I've ever met has never claimed to know more than 10% of all there is to know, how can someone who doesn't know everything know that God simply exists beyond his realm of experience?


xyx, It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. He believes because he was told to believe. He never reached that conclusion on his own. No creationalist did, they needed strife or peer pressure to convert to any religion. Never under sound mind does one convert to creationalism.

However, cephas, have you ever noticed that changed lives happen because of their own thoughts. Or, how many converts to Christianity do so because they are nearing death, or are so deep in shit that they cannot do anything else (St. Thomas of Assisi, Dorothy Day). Perhaps they see no gain in their path, so they change and hope that it will help them?

Also, cephas, can you, honestly say, that god proved himself to you? Prove to me that he has personally interacted in your life.

Also, evolution has as much going for it as creationalism, except for one thing, evolution traces it's path from the very beginning (an atom that simply always existed and evolved from there). Creationism has a god that is always there and then somehow brings itself to now, with no connection except for "oh yea, that being just made it." Whoop-dee-freakin do.


Here is a quote for you.

The Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.
--Thomas Hobbes--

You will deny this, but you know it is true.

[Cavour]

:eek:

Smart people are too... smart... like Aro...

[ck1]

Originally posted by Cavour
:eek:

Smart people are too... smart... like Aro...
*cough*suckup*cough*

[Elentari]

DAMN IT XYX, you are so frustrating. I refuse to speak to you anymore :).

Aro may word his arguments like he's smart, but don't believe it! He had his mom type it for him! He really is one of THOSE in real life... ;).
Also, just because someone makes their side of the argument pretty and convincing doesn't mean they're right. It just means they have a way with words cav.

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

Originally posted by Cephas
Elentari, I think most ppl would agree with the Captain on your age. Although 'old' is a relative thing, but your profile currently gives a birthday of June 11, 1932, that makes you OLD !

Ct Jack Sparrow, my wife is not nearly as old as Elentari, but she's still much too old for you. An inexperienced sparrow can not fly with hawk... She'd roast your pinion feathers and pluck off the rest with a rusty pair of tweezers.

...Now see what happens when you forget to come to a post? :o

neways, she may be a Hawk, but I am one hell of a sparrow. I've got a big guns, and my sword is very long, with a razor sharp tip. Also, my ethical compass only points towards her black pearls, so Its all good. And if she plans on roasting my feathers, and "plucking" me, I'm ok with that, honestly. I like my feathers ruffled a bit.

Also, Elentari...I was saying old as in "Same old Same old" It was a joke, because I was acting indecicive, since I just asked you to marry me.

[Serge]

IRT Cephas: If his last words, or all of his words for that matter, were so important, why weren't they written word for word. I am sure if one was to say some awe inspiring, all important thing, and people were to paraphrase it, and no one quoted it word for word, one would be pissed.

[xyxaxyz2]

100% agreed. But neither can science prove the theory of evolution.

Science cannot prove evolution in the sense that it cannot prove anything to 100% certainty. Fact is, there is so much evidence for evolution that science knows it exists as much as it knows, for example, that gravity exists.

On the other hand, there is no evidence for creationalism.

BTW, I'm choosing the things to argue here, your second statement doesn't contain enough meat for me to bother with.

Its an important point, the idea that some things we have so much evidence for that we just have to accept them as true without even seeing the other side of the issue.

I have seen plenty of evidence for theism, changed lives chief among this.

:rolleyes:

How does a life changing offer evidence for the existance of God?

Agnosticism is a reasonable stance, atheism demands that the atheist know everything there is to know, in order to state that there is no God.

A god existing makes no logical sense according to the system the rational atheist chooses to follow.

Using your argument, I could say that the belief that the tooth fairy does not exist is unreasonable. It is no more possible to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist than to prove that God does not.

[Elentari]

hmm... yes... someone was sitting right up near him with something to write on because they knew his last words were coming in about a minute and they had to be sure to get them down correctly because someone a long time from then was going to be reading the Bible (or something) and thinking to themselves, why, this says that he says "insert quote here", but this other thing says "insert slightly different quote here"... hmm... it must all be a lie.

You know that the Bible wasn't originally written in English right? It's called "translation", sometimes not everyone thinks it says the same thing. You aren't being very realistic here. Even if it was some big huge event, not everyone would hear the same thing, and it could get changed somewhat. They didn't all go home and write down his last words cuz they knew it was gonna be important sometime later in history. It's a pretty weak argument to say that just because people and books say that he said something different before he died therefore it must not be real.

[Serge]

You're telling me you could follow someone around for X (help me out people find X) Years believing someone is your lord and savior, and you wouldn't remember word for word the last thing he said b/4 he died to cleanse you of your sins.

I remember the first thing I ever said to my first g/f and that was three years ago. and that was middle school "romance" not someone I thought was my only hope of staying out of eternal damnation. I am not trying to thrash your religion, I respect or tolerate all religions, but the "holy books" are crap in my oppinion.

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

Like I've prob. said in the past, I read Da Vinci Code, and also thought the guy had a pretty good point, about the bilbe, and all...So (Since I'm Obsessed with Ancient Religus History) I decided to look up some stuff about Constantine, and The Bible. It turns out that all the stuff Dan Brown was saying about Constantine and the Bible That is to say, (for those of you who haven't read it) that Constantine was a Paganist (nature worshiper, not devil worshiper), and was also the one who put together the Bible. They also claimed that Constantine was baptized, against his will, on his death bed, where he was too week to protest. (Just to add a bit of color, Constantine was baptized by his most loyal followers, who were angry because Instead of following his religion, he jumped on to the "Winning Horse" of Christianity) Also, I found reliable sources saying that Most other "Historical" books of Jesus's time, say that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, even though the Bible says he did. It's sad, but I'm becoming more and more synical about my own faith. I wonder what budism's like?

Oh, and back to the matter of Creation/Evolution, I think that, as with all stories in the bible (except for the ones that might plausably happen), I believe that the Creation Story of Genisis, is meant to be Metaphorical. I believe that It means to question our very consept of not where the phisical us came from, but the "emotional/mental" us. Our subconsience (of course they didn't call it that back then. I mean honestly...our subconcience is really (sorry to qoute Final Fantasy, but I just finished it) "The Thread that binds our World Together." How can our own minds be powerful enough to creat an entire world? I think THAT is what the Creation Myth adresses. Gods involvement in our own subconsience. We can't logically be creating it by ourselves. We're no where near smart enough. I think that the ancient Christians understood the concept of "Mind over Matter" and even went on to believe that Mind Created Matter...After all, what is the mind except a jumbled mass of electricity (nerves), and what is Electricty, but Matter?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ;) :p :)

[Goldberg]

Oh my, Serge, how many times has it been explained to you that it does not matter whether nor does it make a friggin-diggin-difference if the wording has changed?? I mean, over the centuries, they didn't even speak english! It was just translated so that everyone else can understand. See, if you translate everything word for word, since you like that phrase so much, then it would not make sense. There are certain instances where you have to understand what is said, then translate it entirely. I'm sure you learned that in elementary or early High School...:rolleyes:

And what the hell is this??

Originally posted by Serge
I am not trying to thrash your religion, I respect or tolerate all religions, but the "holy books" are crap in my oppinion.

Seriously Serge, you need to watch what you're saying because not everybody shares your friggin-diggin opinions.

[xyxaxyz2]

Seriously Serge, you need to watch what you're saying because not everybody shares your friggin-diggin opinions.

So don't say anything other people don't agree with? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Goldberg]

No, that is not what I said. I said for him to WATCH what he says because he just pretty much threw crap on the 'holy books'.

[xyxaxyz2]

And whats wrong with that? He can say what he wants, if he is wrong, present why you believe he is wrong, or just ignore him. :rolleyes:

[drakonfire]

Originally posted by Ct Jack Sparrow
Like I've prob. said in the past, I read Da Vinci Code, and also thought the guy had a pretty good point, about the bilbe, and all...So (Since I'm Obsessed with Ancient Religus History) I decided to look up some stuff about Constantine, and The Bible. It turns out that all the stuff Dan Brown was saying about Constantine and the Bible That is to say, (for those of you who haven't read it) that Constantine was a Paganist (nature worshiper, not devil worshiper), and was also the one who put together the Bible. They also claimed that Constantine was baptized, against his will, on his death bed, where he was too week to protest. (Just to add a bit of color, Constantine was baptized by his most loyal followers, who were angry because Instead of following his religion, he jumped on to the "Winning Horse" of Christianity) Also, I found reliable sources saying that Most other "Historical" books of Jesus's time, say that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, even though the Bible says he did. It's sad, but I'm becoming more and more synical about my own faith. I wonder what budism's like?




buddhism is... confusing... i'm learning about it in my religions class, i've also read the Da Vinci Code, as well as seen a documentary on the same theory's dan brown uses in it


my history/religions prof, who is one of the smartest ppl i kno, and NOT one to follow anything %100 blindy (that is to say, he has done a lot of research into religion) he has heard that theory over and over again, and while much of it is true (constantine being a pagan, he was a Sun Worshipper... its one of the reasons SUNday is as important today as it is, because constantine helped make it such) the core of what that book is about is false, jack, he has done a lot more research into it than u have i'm willing to bet, dont let it make u doubt ur faith, or become cynical


"There were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among u, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies"


paraphrased from 2nd peter, chapt. 2


just my 2 cents for jack on the matter




(oh and jack, buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism, and the hindu holy books, of which there r 7, at times BLATENTLY contradict eachother, and a hindu wont even deny it, they just dont care... its the eastern mindeset, *shrugs*

[xyxaxyz2]

Right... while the Christian religion is always logically consistent. :rolleyes:

The Bible is full of contradictions...especially if you look at it as a whole...and I'm not talking about the stupid contradictions people see from the same story being told two different ways, but rather theological, philisophical, and moral contradictions.

[Serge]

Goldberg, the "wording" is not what is changed in the passages I brought up, the entire message is changed. And, as much as you don't like it, like xyx said, everyone is allowed to have their oppinion. Even if my oppinion is, "the bible was okay, but The Lord of the Rings, now there is work of fictional literature!"

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

Originally posted by drakonfire
buddhism is... confusing... i'm learning about it in my religions class, i've also read the Da Vinci Code, as well as seen a documentary on the same theory's dan brown uses in it


my history/religions prof, who is one of the smartest ppl i kno, and NOT one to follow anything %100 blindy (that is to say, he has done a lot of research into religion) he has heard that theory over and over again, and while much of it is true (constantine being a pagan, he was a Sun Worshipper... its one of the reasons SUNday is as important today as it is, because constantine helped make it such) the core of what that book is about is false, jack, he has done a lot more research into it than u have i'm willing to bet, dont let it make u doubt ur faith, or become cynical


"There were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among u, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies"


paraphrased from 2nd peter, chapt. 2


just my 2 cents for jack on the matter




(oh and jack, buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism, and the hindu holy books, of which there r 7, at times BLATENTLY contradict eachother, and a hindu wont even deny it, they just dont care... its the eastern mindeset, *shrugs*

Yep...I know what you mean. I don't believe the book, because It's a fiction. What I do believe is the 25 hours of research I've put into. And I'm talking soley after I read that book...not to mention what I did before that. Like I said, I happen to love religious history. I find Mythology captivating, and It's relation to reality stifeling. I find The actual history increadibly ineresting as well. I had something else to say, but I forgot it. I'll get back to you.

[Serge]

Originally posted by drakonfire
(oh and jack, buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism, and the hindu holy books, of which there r 7, at times BLATENTLY contradict eachother, and a hindu wont even deny it, they just dont care... its the eastern mindeset, *shrugs*

Buddhism is not an "offshoot" of hinduism. It was started by Sidhartha Guatama(sp?) AKA "the Buddha" and Sidhartha was born a Hindu. He started his religion as more of a reformation of hinduism, but he got rid of one of the main parts of Hinduism, the caste system. So it's more of a whole new religion than an "offshoot" although it may be a little influenced by Sidhartha's Hindu background.

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

To put it into prespective, It's like saying science is a shoot-off of math, or democracy is a shoot-off of anarchy, or (more related) Christianity is a shoot-off of Jewdism

[01001001]

i dont know what your all talking about but my views are:

i believe that we didnt evolve from chimps nor were we created by a higher figure (aka GOD) i believe that we came from a far distant planet and we were outcasts and for being outcasts we were sent/kicked out of the planet and we landed on this crummy planet and all the evidence that we evolved and that we were created is just a coincidence...

[Elentari]

wow. Are you serious?


That's interesting if you are.

[01001001]

yes im serious... about evolution... it just doesnt seem right that we "evolved" from chimps?? even though we are remarkably alike... and creationism... its just hard to believe..

so i made my own theory.. i call it the outcasts thoery.. spread the word

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

If you claim that you were joking after a little while, I will take down your sig (for making such a stupid joke). Otherwize, you can believe whatever the hell suits you.

[Serge]

I figured it fitting to make my 666th post in such a special thread so enjoy...

[xyxaxyz2]

Yeah...evilution is the tool of the Devil.

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

Read title^
What are you thinking...God, and Creation are the tools of the devil :) lol

[Cephas]

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. He believes because he was told to believe. He never reached that conclusion on his own. No creationalist did, they needed strife or peer pressure to convert to any religion. Never under sound mind does one convert to creationalism.

Aro, I don't know how things are on Neptune, but in North America, people aren't raised to believe that they were created by God. They are raised to believe that great grandpa was an ape, and they act accordingly. I was not pressured into believing that man was created, I saw that the evidence people choose to ignore because they are indoctrinated from infancy to believe they are suped-up chimps.

However, cephas, have you ever noticed that changed lives happen because of their own thoughts. Or, how many converts to Christianity do so because they are nearing death, or are so deep in shit that they cannot do anything else (St. Thomas of Assisi, Dorothy Day). Perhaps they see no gain in their path, so they change and hope that it will help them?

Yes, there are people who 'convert' because it was convinient to do so for them. I don't think that that is the case now though. I have faced nothing but problems with my family because of the stand that I have taken. Christians in China face death for succumbing to what you call 'peer pressure'. Popov was tortured for years for his stand for Christ, seperated from his family (who thought he was dead) and in various Communist work camps. Are these people that fit your description? I am not

The Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.

What's the point to the quote? I'm not Catholic and I don't follow the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, there is no evidence for creationalism.

xyx, take your blinders off and then tell me this.

You're telling me you could follow someone around for X (help me out people find X) Years believing someone is your lord and savior, and you wouldn't remember word for word the last thing he said b/4 he died to cleanse you of your sins.

3 years, roughly, but only two of the gospel writers. And no, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that each of the gospels was written as a story with specific purposes and goals in mind, therefore they only report what is relevant. Just about any author that writes a story will eschew the use of irrelevant information...

Tell me if I missed addressing any posts here :)

[xyxaxyz2]

Aro, I don't know how things are on Neptune, but in North America, people aren't raised to believe that they were created by God.

The majority of Americans (from the USA) do not believe in evolution....

Tell me if I missed addressing any posts here

Mine. :rolleyes: But you warned me of that.

[Cephas]

You'll have to reiterate then. My eyes are sore, and I don't want to read everything again ;) What did I warn you of though? The flat earth thing?

As far as my post about the majority of americans being evolutionist, I will stand by it. When is the last time you heard a teacher telling their students that they were created by God? I never heard it in school myself... American's are nominally christian, but that doesn't mean that they teach their children what the bible teaches, nor does it mean that they believe it.

My guess is, if I polled my division at work (~60 ppl, in a sales organization), 90% would believe in evolution. Of the other 10%, it'd probably be divided down the middle between creationists and off-the-rocker (no offence meant :) )people like 01001001 who have come up with their own theory...

[xyxaxyz2]

Where do you live? Because if you lived in certain places in the USA I think your opinion would be different.

Of course the educated class tends to believe in evolution. But the average American?

And I'm interested, what evidence is there of creationalism?

Edit: What did I warn you of though? The flat earth thing?

Yeah. And I stand by that. Creationalism=modern flat earth.

[Cephas]

Will post tomorrow, train to catch ;)

[GeneralBenedict]

Originally posted by Cephas
When is the last time you heard a teacher telling their students that they were created by God?


Most states require by law that the teachers keep relgion out of scientific theory.

[Al Caponeoni]

I believe in a dual role type thingy.

I believe that a higher power did provoke the big bang, creation, etc..., but I do believe that evolution did take place. And for those hardcore Baptists out there, don't take the Bible too literally. Symbolism people, symbolism.

[GeneralBenedict]

My own beliefs seem to be fairly similar to A. C.'s

[Lord Achilles]

I am God. Douche-bag.

[Ct Jack Sparrow]

DAMNIT...I thought you knew better...your the lord

I'm the Holy Spirit.

YOU WANNA NO WHO GOD IS?!?!

to bad, I killed him

NO MORE TRINITY TONIGHT ;)

Just jokin around.
*prays for forgiveness*

[Cephas]

xyx, I have to apologyze. I didn't come in to work yesterday and my 10hrs (yup, you read right) of internet/month is up already :( so my response will come tomorrow.

I will try to have an answer for you tomorrow, the evidence will come from a friend of mine who is scientifically qualified to speak on the subject. As far as the earth being flat, I think I'll let the evidence speak for itself to the people who think otherwise! ;)

EDIT: You asked where I am? Not the US. I'm in Quebec, and most things in our experience trend up from the US to us, rather than down.

[LondonJack]

*rubs second's shoulders*

It will be ok

[Cephas]

Like I said in some other thread: Does LondonJack ever make sense??? Some day LJ might, but I'm not holding my breath.

[LondonJack]

I just never make sense to you Cephas, but that isn't a mark of deficiency on my part ;)

[Cephas]

Ouch, you really have it in for me, don't you! If you log in as Snarr, perhaps you'll make more sense... I'm pretty sure that the problem here resides between your keyboard and your mouse though...

[LondonJack]

Have it in for you?

I don't think it's anything as serious as that dear, just a little lover's spat at best.

I must remind you, that you are the one that started in on me as far as this little discussion goes (even though i was baiting you with that *rubs shoulders* post to see if you would repeat your earlier remark about me being non-sensical) ;)

[Cephas]

Oh wait, "second's shoulder" as in second wife? Er, I thought I turned down your proposal, since when am I second? I appreciate a good shoulder rub as much as the next person, but I'm still not second! :rolleyes:

I have to stand by the nonsensical remark though, even if in retrospect, your remark above made some sense...

[Cephas]

Ladies and gents, I'm going to make a record for sumultaneous posts today, apologies in advance.

My friend sent me some information which is EXTREMELY simplified on the subject, here goes:

1. Universal Laws

First Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Conservation of Energy): Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, all is transformed: the total energy of a closed system remains constant.

Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy): While the total energy of a closed system remains constant, there is a directional process of change, not upward but downward. Energy is converted irreversibly to a form (heat) unable to do further work (the system’s available energy to do work decreases over time). Entropy is the measure of disorder of a system.

These 2 fundamental laws teach us that our universe is governed by laws of conservation (rather than innovation) that are not static but are running down towards minimum energy and maximal disorder. This stands in stark contrast to life in general, being extremely complex and made up of high energy chemical associations. Not only is evolutionary theory not supported by these laws, it goes in the opposite direction.

[Cephas]

2. Irreducible Complexity

An irreducibly complex system is one in which all parts are essential for function. Nothing works unless everything works! Evolution lacks foresight as its ‘operating principles’ involve chance/random modifications that are selected by natural selection. Darwin realized that irreducibly complex system would present a serious problem to his theory if they existed:

‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ (C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 1872)

We now know that living organisms contain many, many irreducibly complex systems, and this poses a great challenge as to how these systems could have arisen.

[Cephas]

3. Information

Here we separate the boys from the men, complexity from information. Irreducible complexity is pale in comparison to the bewildering amount of coded information contained and expressed in living organisms.

While we have become experts at understanding the how and why’s of living machinery, their origins still elude us. A plane is easily understood by the materialistic approach, but just because we can explain how it works through universal principles and laws doesn’t mean that these laws are responsible for its origin! That required the implication of rational intelligent agents.

Consider how a human body (especially the brain) is so much more complex than a single cell, yet all of the information for the entire body (its structure and functions) is contained in that first cell from the genetic information which it was derived! The complexity of the genome isn’t complexity anymore, it’s at another level! It is information, language. It is a message with purpose, encoding intelligence in itself.

Analogous to the plane, built and functioning according to universal laws and principles but required free-willed intelligent agents to design it with a purpose, all of life’s complexity and information contained therein is pleading with us for a greater origin, since the physical universe in itself cannot account for life’s origin.

[Cephas]

Conclusions

Each preceding point increases exponentially in strength. Combination of these increases the power of the argument, however these facts alone neither prove nor disprove creation or evolution. This issue cannot be empirically settled as life’s emergence cannot be reproduced. Faith is required by either side, yet not all faiths are created equal.

Life’s riddle consists in that though we are ‘at home’ in this universe, many fundamental questions and issues surround our existence and especially our origin.

Creation’s strength is that it provides an answer to the riddle by invoking something greater than the universe itself. Creation’s difficulty lies in the fact that this Source eludes our experimentation.

Evolution’s appeal is that it stays within the confines of the universe. Evolution’s weakness is that everything within the confines of the universe flows in the direction opposite to what is required.

Life’s riddle thus becomes a dilemma: accept the evidence and acknowledge a greater Origin, or limit our view to a strictly material origin and ignore the message drawn from the data.

Creation requires faith based on the premise that the universe alone as we know it cannot account for life, that something greater is required for it to be. Evolution requires faith based on the premise that nothing beyond the universe exists, and therefore regardless of the data before us, life must have evolved from nothing by uncertain mechanisms and circumstances.

Creation, on the basis of what is seen and understood, argues for the unseen beyond our world.
Evolution, despite and against what is seen and understood, argues for the unseen within our world.

Ultimately, this makes the debate not a scientific one, but a philosophical/theological one.

[Northwind]

Cephas,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I know I said I wasn't going to post here any more, but decided to make one exception to address Cephas' arguments. You are correct in stating that boiled down this way, the issue become more philosophical than scientific. However, there is a very simple error in the reasoning presented here.

Your explanation (Creationism) does not actually address any of the points you mention -- it simply displaces the arguments one more level. If something cannot be created out of nothing and it is the "law" of the universe that things go from more order to less (entropy), then "god" cannot exist. After all, that means god would have to come from somewhere and is more complex and ordered than before god existed.

You then might say that it is simply god's nature to exist. You have then done an end run around all of the arguments that you just made and, if you are going to throw out your rational arguments so that god can exist, you cannot use them to comdemn another belief system.

I will also add that there is some growing suspicion that this universe may not be all there is. String theory proposes some interesting ideas about the possibility of multiple universes. Thus, what you assume to be a "closed system" may not be - at which point the arguments against evolution, etc. fall apart on even that rational level (though as I already pointed out, if you are going to argue creationism and god, you cannot use those arguments anyways.).

As someone once said (though I forget who) "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

[Office_Shredder]

Let me throw in my opinion:

Aliens came from another galaxy to this one in order to better understand how THEY were created by attempting to naturally replicate life, thus ending the argument over creationism vs. evolution. However, they created the dinosaurs, which turned out to be stronger than they had suspected, to the point that the dinosaurs started attacking alien scientist outposts. So they nuked the planet and started over (they're mammals too, so reptilian dominance didn't sit well wth them). As humans evolved, the alien species saw many similarities between us and them, and decided to occasionally send an alien to earth to help further civilize our planet. Unfortunately, they came to realize in the 1900s that we could not be peaceful like them, and they tried to wipe out the human race by setting up the political and economical factors necessary for WWI and WWII. However, these didn't work, and they now realize that once we gain space travel, we will destroy the alien race.... so they got Bush into office to buy them some time to plan further.

[Cephas]

Welcome back Northwind, glad to have you. Again, I will re-itterate that while I agree with what I am posting, the information is coming to me from a friend who is qualified to study the subject scientifically. That being said, here is his response:

The "error" pointed out, properly understood, is not an "error", it is a "limitation". There is a huge difference between an error and a limitation. The notion that Creation does not address the points mentioned but merely moves it to a another level is accurate, but this represents a "limitation" rather than an "error".

The truth of the matter is that one faces similar limitations either way, and this is why we mentioned earlier that the debate becomes one that is more philosophical than scientific. But, not all limitations are created equal.

The problem with Creation is that it pushes the unknown to a level beyond the physical.
The problem with Evolution is that is inserts the unknown within the known.

I realize the limitations of Creation, and I feel its discomfort. I would much rather be able to understand it fully. But seeing that we can't even understand fully our universe which we consider our home, this discomfort should come to us as no surprise. This is our reality, whether we feel comfortable in it or not.

Creation is faith based upon the facts.
Evolution is faith despite and against the facts.

Maybe the proponents of Evolution aren't made uncomfortable by the notion of a Uncaused Prime Mover as we proponents of Creation are, but the facts laid out before us should be enough to give the proponents of Evolution even greater discomfort than ours.

What your friend needs to realize is that we are not arguing only in one direction. In other words, we are not Deists, arguing for God's existence solely on philosophical or pseudo-scientific reasons. We agree with the Deists in their argumentation, however, the real strength of the argumentation for God's existence is not the silence of the universe or the puzzles of scientific scrutiny, but rather the clear presentation of God's existence and manifestation through history through the biblical texts. Any serious consideration of this subject needs to examine this.

Coupling the negative evidence from the physical universe along with the positive evidence from the Bible makes a complete story that anyone should be hard pressed to reject.

If you're friend is serious about his inquiring, let him know about Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Also, I would be very happy to discuss these issues with him if he would be so willing.

There is a lot to talk about, from both sides!

[Northwind]

Ok,

I can't believe what a sucker I am, getting pulled into these pointless discussions.:rolleyes: Still, I couldn't let a couple of these statements stand. Foremost among them is this statement: Creation is faith based upon the facts.
Evolution is faith despite and against the facts.

This is so not the way it is. True, there are some holes in the fossil record and we do not know everything thing there is to know about evolution. However, we have a pretty good idea of the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the age of fossil records. None of these remotely support the literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't have any quarrel with the argument that "god" may have set the universe in motion. That explanation is no more or less compelling than any other offered. But to say that the "facts" support the idea that the earth and the universe is only a few thousand years old to completely deny to know what we know. Now, I realize that faith requires a leap of logic (in the Kirkegaardian sense), but it should not completely contradict logic.

I urge anyone who has not already made their mind up on the issue to do more than simply study "Creationist" web sites for your information. For those who still want to argue that creationism is a real science, I refer back to an earlier post regarding Popper's definition of science. Namely, that it must be potentially falsifiable.

And so I ask creationists this: What information could someone find that would invalidate your argument?

If there is not anything, then it is not a scientific argument. For all its flaws and uncertainty, there are any number of findings that could potentially invalidate evolution. And then there would be a search for a better theory. If this is not true for creationism, then it is simply a faith based on hope.

[xyxaxyz2]

I stopped reading here:

First Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Conservation of Energy): Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, all is transformed: the total energy of a closed system remains constant.


:rolleyes:

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier about creation scientists, people who pretend to be somewhat knowlegable and use scientific terms but really have no understanding of the topic they are talking about. The law of thermodynamics argumant for creationism is the most common example of this; it can be found on pretty much any creationist site on the net, even though it has been shown incorrect numerous times.

The total energy of a closed system remains constant, but life isn't a closed system, as it receives energy from the sun.

[Cephas]

Northwind, I'm beginning to think that this is futile, but I will post the response I was given nonetheless.

Response:

First of all, I have never mentioned the term "creationism" or "creation science" so I am a little surprised that it is being used against the arguments presented. Much to the contrary, I clearly stated twice that at its root, this debate is "more philosophic than scientific".

Our position was clearly stated, science proves neither, and so whatever the position taken, the dilemma is real.

The "troublesome" quotation,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation is faith based upon the facts.
Evolution is faith despite and against the facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reflects our dilemma (i.e. science cannot prove either, hence the use of the term FAITH) but yet we showed in the very beginning how it does teach us something!

We understand how living organisms function, as we understand how a plane functions, but planes didn't build themselves, and as far as we know from all that we know, life cannot build itself from nothing.

The preceding quotation illustrated the issue:

-does one exercise faith in something beyond the physical universe (i.e. a singularity) or

-does one exercise faith in something that occurred within the physical universe, all the while knowing that the known and the observable goes in the opposite direction?

Faced with the same issue, both positions require faith, yet one is not equivalent to the other.

To to following question given, I propose 2 different answers:
"And so I ask creationists this: What information could someone find that would invalidate your argument?"

#1: Concerning Life's origins:
We were under the impression that Pasteur had put to rest the question of whether life can or not appear out of non-living matter.
If you have examples of spontaneous generation, please share them with us. This definitely could invalidate our argument.

#2: Concerning the Bible:
The Bible clearly appears to have stood the test of time, and in many different settings (I myself have done my undergraduate studies in Biochemistry, and my graduate studies in Organic Chemistry, and though I recognize my many limitations as mentioned earlier, I have yet to find an ''invalidating'' argument against the Bible). If perchance you have found any, please direct them my way.


Lastly, concerning the charge that the Bible is unscientific by today's scientific standard is iffy at best. The solidity of any position or argument depends first on the solidity of its first principles and pre-suppositions.

The appeal to the fossil record and its "holes" and that science allows us to "have a pretty good idea of the age of the universe" all depends on how one looks at the data and the pre-suppositions involved in their interpretation. Even Darwin recognized that the data in itself doesn't tell us anything, that we need to interpret what it means.

Your wise warning about listening too eagerly to what "creationist web sites" have to say is a doubled-edged blades. You are absolutely right, there is a lot of junk and half-truths in those web sites, but one needs to look carefully on either ends of the spectrum.

We need need to be open-minded, but not empty minded. Adherence to a specific positions makes this process increasingly more difficult, and great care and self-examination is required as we proceed.

xyx, your objectivity is compromized when you don't read everything before you. Try addressing points 2 and 3.

[Office_Shredder]

and as far as we know from all that we know, life cannot build itself from nothing.

Not entirely true... experiments have been done to replicate early earth environments, and life-like objects have been created... so there's just a half step that is missing, not the entire step most people think is missing....

Also, if I am not mistaken, I seem to recall hearing in bio class about some sort of crystalline mud or something (was it crystals IN mud? :confused: ) that evolved in a way... so it's possible that some sort of crystalline structure eventually incorporated carbon through an abstract chemical reaction and thus gained the ability to be alive in a very simple manner.

[xyxaxyz2]

Try addressing points 2 and 3.

There is no need, using the law of thermodynamics to justify creationism is the sign of an ignorant creationist. There is no need to go further, because there is no scientist knowledgable in the subject who would use that argument.

[Office_Shredder]

The laws of thermodynamics have little to nothing to do with this argument.... at best, they stalemate it.... so let's not go into them

[xyxaxyz2]

The laws of thermodynamics have little to nothing to do with this argument.... at best, they stalemate it.... so let's not go into them



The laws of thermodynamics are important because they are the first sign you should look for to see if a creation "scientist" is real or not.

[Office_Shredder]

Let me retract my statement.... no matter how much logic the evolutionist uses, it's still a stalemate because the creationist "scientist" is a retard and will say "But the bible..." over and over again as if it was written by Einstein and every scientist just assumes it's right or something.

So go ahead, use thermodynamics if you want, I'm sure God came out of nothing just like the laws of thermodynamics say is possible.

[Cephas]

Whoa, now hold on a sec here. As I said, this was EXTREMELY simplified. His original doc was 15 pages, vs 1.5 that was posted. xyx, you still compromise objectivity by saying you won't read it all. Are you afraid of seeing something that you can't answer?

I will be back early next week to post again.

[Al Caponeoni]

Office_Shredder. Einstein was religious, and a firm believer in "God."

If everyone wants to learn something, read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. I read it twice. It's about the Unified Theory of Everything. I am now a believer in Superstring Theory.

Basically it unites Einstein's Theories of Relativity (Special and General) with Quantam Mechanics. They have always clashed, but the String Theory brings them together.

Go buy the book, and if you don't have the money, check it out from your local library.

I think that everyone who is completely anti-Creation seem more bullheaded than people who are anti-Evolution, because anti-Creationists are all about the "hard evidence." Every great physicist I have known believes in a higher power (as mentioned above) and that is why I respect them.

I am not anti-Evolution or anti-Creation. I believe in "God." But I also believe that we evolved from an original primordial ooze, so to speak. Just like the physicists who specialize in the BBT (Big Bang Theory), I believe that there was something before that particle expanded. Something caused it. Some higher being.

Just my nickel and dime. :)

[xyxaxyz2]

Are you afraid of seeing something that you can't answer?

No. Reading creationist writings is just boring, because they just repeat what other creationsts have said before. I've seen it all, more than a couple of times, and I'm not really interested in getting into another deep argument with creation "scientists."

[Office_Shredder]

Originally posted by Al Caponeoni

I am not anti-Evolution or anti-Creation. I believe in "God." But I also believe that we evolved from an original primordial ooze, so to speak. Just like the physicists who specialize in the BBT (Big Bang Theory), I believe that there was something before that particle expanded. Something caused it. Some higher being.

Just my nickel and dime. :)

That's what I was saying in the beginning of this argument, but everyone ignored me! That evolution and creation don't contradict each other! Why do you get all the credit for saying it then:mad:

Al, I know Einstein was religious, I think you minsinterpreted what I meant. I meant that some people use the bible as hard facts, like one would use an article written by Einstein as hard fact because Einstein wrote it, so it must be correct. In the same sense, people say that since god wrote the bible, it must be correct.

[xyxaxyz2]

Einstein was religious? Why do you say that? Believing in God does not make one religious.

[Cephas]

Office_Shredder, here's the reply to your comment about the creation of life-like objects:

Without wanting to sound too harsh, it is easy to sell a story bridging lifeless matter to living organisms when little is known about the governing principles of inanimate matter, and when the complexities and mechanisms that make-up living organisms are ignored.

S. Miller’s experiments were hailed as proof for spontaneous generation, but closer examination reveals that nothing is further from the truth. Here are a few of the “problems” with Miller’s experiment:

1- Chirality: all that S. Miller’s experiments generated (and could ever generate) is a statistical mixture left and right-handed molecules. Life is not made up of a statistical mixture of left and right-handed enantiomers, but exclusively left-handed. Analogous to life itself, only chirality can beget chirality.

2- Need for designer: only after fine-tuning for long time & under precise conditions achieved modest yields of simplest compounds (tar 85%, formic acid 13%, glycine 1.05%, alanine 0.85%).
Also a trapping device was necessary to collect the generated chemicals, for without this shielding from the energy source & harsh conditions the chemicals would quickly have been broken down. The radiation from the sun is much more efficient at destroying than synthesizing these very simple racemic building blocks.

3- Many presuppositions of these experiments are difficult to justify:
a) methane-ammonia reducing atmosphere required for the generation of these simples chemicals is
lethal to any form of life,
b) Oxygen on the other hand is essential for life and yet it was excluded (for obvious reasons, it would
have set the whole thing ablaze & degraded any building block molecules. Note that no oxygen also
means no ozone, which is essential to protect living organisms from the sun’s radiation.

4- Universal Laws: a) Formation of chemical bonds between amino-acids, sugars, purines & pyrimidines (to build nucleotides, RNA, DNA, proteins, etc.) requires energy whereas opposite (hydrolysis) releases energy and is thus a favored process (rather than the other way around).
b) Contrary to popular belief, the presence of water is problematic as reactions leading to large biomolecules loose water (dehydration) and hence, without the in situ removal of water, reactions being in equilibrium (principle of Le Chatelier). Water drives the equilibrium in the wrong direction.

So Miller synthesized traces of racemic amino-acids in a pool of tar under carefully controlled conditions! So what! Amino-acids are lifeless molecules, they are to a cell what iron ore is to a car, SIMPLY FINDING IRON ORE DOESN’T PROVE THAT CARS SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATE FROM IT!

I’m surprised that these experiments are used in favor of the evolution theory, quite frankly all is serves to do is hammer another nail in its coffin. Even the authors that conducted these experiments realized and were honest enough to acknowledge this:

‘The rates of depurination of DNA, of hydrolysis of peptide and polynucleotide polymers, and of decomposition of sugars, are so large that it seems impossible that such compounds could have accumulated in aqueous solution and have been used in the first organism....’
(Miller, Orgel, The Origins of Life on Earth, 1973, p. 126)

Yet despite the issues and the evidence, the story is perpetuated, and it goes a little like this:
1. To explain life’s existence in this universe, only materialistic hypotheses are acceptable.
2. Evolution is the only materialistic hypothesis available.
3. Only evolution can make sense of life.

The circular reasoning of this argumentation only serves to illustrate the evolutionist’s dilemma, as Miller himself alluded to:

‘…the problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I,
or most other people, envisioned.’ (S. Miller, Scientific American, 1998)