Evolution vs Creationism - a Reasoned Debate

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

 

The amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant (there is a slight variation, but that is inconsequensial and correctable). New C-14 is being brought to the atmosphere continously.

 

I checked on this subject. It turns out that C-14 is created by N-atoms, which are destabilized by neutron bombardment from the solar wind (mainly, though cosmic radiation also comes from elsewhere).

[DiRtY $oUtH™]

Evolution: No

Creationism: Yes

 

Ada, ada, ada...thhhhat's all folks!!

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

You can still do that in one post. Just take a look at Redwing's post

 

Redwing's posts are, with all due respect, a pain replying to. Gee, C'Jais already said so... Well, great minds think alike (joking).

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Both sides have people that are unlogical. I even get on Christain's cases for useing the kind wrong argument.

 

My point was: I have yet to see any good creationistic points. No offense intended, by I just haven't seen anything viable. Little point to this subdebate, so I say we kill it.

 

BTW: Why did you want to know my Chem background? Just curious.

 

And C'Jais: I still have seen no proof of science. I've seen scientific proof. There is a big difference IMO.

[DiRtY $oUtH™]

My point was: I have yet to see any good creationistic points. No offense intended, by I just haven't seen anything viable. Little point to this subdebate, so I say we kill it.

 

You suffer from narrow-mindedness...but whatever, I don't want to start an argument..when the time comes to die, then we will each have our chance to discover the truth.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Darth Yoda85

 

You suffer from narrow-mindedness....

\

 

Oh yes,and "Evolution: No.Creationism: Yes." is just bursting with broad-mindedness...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Darth Yoda85

 

You suffer from narrow-mindedness...but whatever, I don't want to start an argument..when the time comes to die, then we will each have our chance to discover the truth.

 

Just for the record: what are the creationists' points? I'm assuming that science is valid only until it tries to explain the 4.6 billion years of the earth and how life came to be. Meaning: "sure, science is cool to give us technology that we can use in computers, cell phones and weapons of mass destruction, but it really doesn't know beans about Earth History."

 

The idea that creation was initiated by a god is one that came to be when men drowned heretics because they were left-handed or autistic. It was a time when the church refused to accept that the Earth was not the center of the solar system and that there were other satellites like ours in it.

 

I think creationists would stand on better ground if they would be less rigid in their beliefs and accept the possibility that those who penned the bible did so with a limited understanding of the world around them.

 

As for proving science, Shadow, I was always under the assumption that "science" was synonamous with "study." To prove this, one merely has to browse a college catalog. The hypothoses, theories, and laws that come into being due to scienctific research can certainly (and quite often are) be challenged.

 

This may be all off the subject, but I was serious when I asked if those on the creationist side of the debate could summarize their points.... the thread is getting lengthy. :-)

 

SkinWalker

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Redwing

Is it just me, or is this whole debate unfairly weighted on this forum? Considering the number of people on each side...

 

The number of people don't matter. Only the strength of the arguments made. Someone said something like this: "Even if a thousand people said that something wasn't stupid, when it was, it would not make it any less stupid."

 

Originally posted by Redwing

According to the Bible, that won't happen. Our souls will exist eternally, while this world along with our human bodies will eventually come to an end. We won't have the chance to develop into something else.

 

The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

You can't disprove God, and I'm willing to stake everything on that. In fact, I already have ^.^

 

God doesn't exist. That is a fact (before anyone starts flaming, however, I would like to point out that "fact" only means "scientific fact", but since it is normally assumed that everybody knows that, it is normally abbreivated. One has to remember the limits of science. No offense intended). [if anyone wants a more thorough explanation of "science" ask a Science teacher, look it up, or post here. Watch this space.]

 

Originally posted by Redwing

If creation theory is correct, they weren't a different species (the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it)

 

1: There is no such thing as "creation theory". It is a hypothesis, at most.

 

2: If I am not mistaken, speciciation has also occurred when animals from different branches refuse to interbreed. I may be wrong on that, though.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

Without completely accurate dating, you simply delve into circular reasoning. Besides, an immense flood could have created the layers.

 

As for your "imnense flood" mantra:

 

"ZINDLER:...created on the third day of creation week, [ 14] along with the ocean basins, but that at that time Mt. Ararat was only about ten to twelve thousand feet high. Now if all the water came down in forty days and drowned all the mountains of the world, that would require the rain to come down at about eleven and a half feet per hour. John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic mining! Everything would have been swept off the surface of the continents. The continents would be absolutely denuded down to crystalline rocks. All the sedimentary rocks would have been deposited in the ocean basins. Now clearly, that's not the pattern that we see... and it would certainly imply... that does away with Noah's flood!"

 

Courtesy of: http://www.infidels.org (more specifically: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/morris-zindler.html. BTW: Thanks for that link, ZDawg).

 

Also, you need to notice that fully half of the aquatic habitats would have been destroyed, because species adapted to salt-water conditions cannot survive fresh water, and vice versa. Also, pressure at the bottom of the oceans would increase rapidly, thus destoying the only habitable biosphere for a great number of species, which Noah couldn't possibly save, since he couldn't create non-hostile conditions for them.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

You don't understand - the argument is that no "mistakes" have been found. I won't explain more because I dont support the argument anyway ^_~

 

'Tis good to see that you don't support that "point". To those who do support it: Mistakes are rare in the extreme compared to specimen where it has gone "right". Keyword: Compared.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

I don't disagree, although I'm surprised to hear that [are you sure about it?]

 

Dead sure: Human skin colour. In the last (or second-last) issue of Scientific American (great magazine BTW) there was an article called "The evolution of skin colour".

 

Originally posted by Redwing

But where did they, the "seeds", come from?

 

You can keep pushing the borders of science. I have given a more thorough explanation in one of my above posts.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

True.

 

It is one of my fundamental belifs that nothing is "true".

 

Originally posted by Redwing

Except according to creation theory, God was not created. Really though, that's an incredibly arbitrary statement. And it blurs the line very rapidly in this argument; if you appeal to the existence of something else that created the Big Bang, why are you arguing that God doesn't exist in the first place?

 

There is still no such thing as "creation theory" (see above). You also ask why God couldn't have started BB. Well, for all we know, he could. More than likely, though, he didn't (judging by the number of times that science has found a natural explanation where zealots have cried "God"). Additionally, accepting that an omnious, unprovable, alien, uncommunicating, omnipotent, and thoroughly illogical ETI (ie: A god (or a pantheon of gods)) started the show, would be a useless explanation (please read on before you jump to conclusions and start flaming), even if it was a viable one, as it would not give us any additional tools, with which to understand and manipulate the world. Science doesn't care how we came about, save as an object of curiosity, but now that we are here it cares about what we can do to make ourselves comfortable. In a manner of speaking. God, therefore, is a bad explanation, as He doesn't add anything useful to our toolbox.

 

You may start flaming (of course you can't: 1: It is prohibited by forum code of conduct and 2: It will get this thing closed real quick, but it's a manner of speaking).

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Redwing

Why do I believe in God? Simply, what I have seen in my life convinces me that something has to be controlling it. Also, my belief in God has changed my life. You'll have to leave it at that, because my private life isn't going to be put down here. ^_~

 

Glad to see that I am not the only one who values privacy. As someone once said (don't remember who, but I think that I saw it in an issue of Sciam): "In the future we will not all have fifteen minutes of fame, we will all have fifteen minutes of privacy." More power to you (in a manner of speaking)!

 

Originally posted by Redwing

B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^

 

We can prove it scientifically. Mainly because science only concerns itself with what is useful.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^

 

Two words: Time span.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

They have? ^.^ Last I heard they'd only proved it to be over 10k.

 

Na. See my above posts on the subject.

 

*sees that Skinwalker has explained it much better*

 

Gah! See Skinwalkers post instead.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.

 

Hate to break it to you, but you've got that one wrong. Big time. The Bible says that God said it. Keyword: The Bible.

 

The Bible isn't the word of God (not even according to the Bible). It is the word of those who have heard the word of God. And they have always been alone. And it has been written in a time where those to whom it was written were in need of inspiration.

 

Furthermore it has been handed down for generations before it was put to paper. People forget. People exaggerate. People retell biassed stories. In short: The storage medium (ie: Man) was faulty.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

Umm, what does that have to do with the article? Besides, how can you simply state "God is unemployed" without omnipotence?

 

What I think C'Jais meant was: God can be eliminated from all the equations, and they would be no worse for it. Thus "we" (meaning scientific theories) don't need God. This is demonstrated through a "real life analogy".

 

*Asks C'Jais to back me up on this*

 

Originally posted by Redwing

God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding!

 

An interesting paradox. Basically science doesn't care if God exists or not.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

As for the article: I agree with most of it. I will comment on something to clarfy it, though:

 

"Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith."

 

Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.)

 

I have a few VERY good reasons why science should be taught in schools! You are sitting in front of one of them. Of other things: Not having to go to the well every morning to get fresh water. Being able to take a hot shower in the morning. Having my own bed in a house that is isolated against the cold. Being able to go to a hospital to get rid of malevolent tumors and other diseases.

 

If you go through your daily routines I am sure that you can find a heckuvalot more good reasons.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot: Not having to use flint and steel to get light or cook my dinner.

 

Originally posted by Redwing

Oh! Almost forgot!

 

"What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up. "

 

A) Yes.

 

B) ...meh? That isn't my fault. Why don't you ask them? ^_~

 

Hey! I agree. In fact, that's what I was just saying to refute an earlier part of the article. *points up*

 

One kinda has to get used to the fact that Sciam uses a "shotgun" approach to refuting creationism (or rather: A "nuke" approach). What they say is sound enough though.

 

Qui-Gon: While everything is possible, not everything is plausible.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. The only mutations I see are

 

Extra fingers or toes

Siamese twins

Deformed faces

Unable to reproduce

And many more

 

I fail to see how this helps. And don't give me that wait a million years. There should be changes happening right now. We should be different at least in one way from people 3-4 thousand years ago. You know it would not happen all at once.

 

Few mutations are beneficial. Some are. The beneficial mutations accumulate. That's the point. As a matter of fact (and apart from the bacteria you have all around you), studies are currently underway concerning a parasite that does funny things to insects' mating habits. The bugs are in the process of speciciation. I'll try to find it. Watch this space...

 

*fails to find the link*

 

Again it's a Sciam article. But they don't post everything on the www (for obvious reasons), and it's protected by copyright law.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law?

 

"We hold these rights to be self-evident..." does that ring any bells?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by ZDawg

Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science.

 

Science doesn't give a flying Yoda about miracles. And I'll tell you why: When I am terminally ill with cancer, knowing that somebody has experienced a miraculous cure for cancer, doesn't help fetch my heathen bacon out of the fire.

 

Seriously, though, miracles are "one-shot". Unique. Science wants to be able to make plans for the future. Reliable plans, at that. Therefore science needs reproducable effects, which makes miracles irrellevant (if they were reproducable they would not be miracles).

 

Miracles also don't prove God. They might as well be sent by Tzeentch. Or just be freaks of nature.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

They might as well be sent by Tzeentch.

 

Just for reference,in Warhammer or Warhammer 40k Tzeentch is a God of Trickery and Change.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tyrion

 

Just for reference,in Warhammer or Warhammer 40k Tzeentch is a God of Trickery and Change.

 

He is also evil, mind you. Pretty important point.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Cjais

 

He is also evil, mind you. Pretty important point.

 

No. In the game, you cant really say who is evil and who is not. To quote something.

 

"There are no absolutes, only shades of gray."

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by ZDawg

In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale.

 

I know of (through reliable sources that I trust, but which I alas cannot reveal as it would make me too easily identifiable (akin to what Redwing said above)) someone who was run over by a truck. Keyword: Truck. She is currently being rehabilitated. She will walk again. She was lucky. But luck alone didn't save her. God didn't save her. Science did (in the form of a hospital). And what's more: God won't make her walk again. Luck certainly won't either. But science will, probably.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Since when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe?

 

It's funny that you mention "innocent-until-proven-guilty" (though indirectly). That is Montesque's (how do you spell him (he's french)) invention. Or one of his colleques'. And most of them were a hair's breath from being lynched by the church. Along with people like Gallilei and Copernicus.

 

I'm not trying to flame your faith, I would just like to point out that those high and mighty ideals of yours came about (and were allowed to survive, for surely they have always existed) when said faith had a loaded musket at its temple. A fact that many faithful are unfortunatly unaware of.

 

To answer your question: See above on what science bothers to care about.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tyrion

 

No. In the game, you cant really say who is evil and who is not. To quote something.

 

"There are no absolutes, only shades of gray."

 

Oh, but in this game, Chaos and it's Gods are working on enslaving and killing mankind and it's emperor - Mankind is (of course) good (with the emperor being über good), so that means Chaos is without a doubt evil

 

Of course, if you assume mankind isn't good in the slightest (see where I'm going?), then you can call everything a shade of gray...

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Cjais

Of course, if you assume mankind isn't good in the slightest (see where I'm going?), then you can call everything a shade of gray...

 

Excactly. Space marines arent good, for example them killing a whole town for a heretic inside there:p

[ShadowTemplar]

@SkinWalker

 

[big thumbs up] Great to have someone around who knows what he's doing. Thing is, though, the reason why we have so far been reasonably sloppy is that even just one of them will disprove creationism's dating, so we only need one for this purpose. But don't get me wrong. I really appreaciates that someone (being in this case you) does some thorough groundwork. [/big thumbs up]

 

Wait...

 

[undo: [/big thumbs up]]

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

As for proving science, Shadow, I was always under the assumption that "science" was synonamous with "study." To prove this, one merely has to browse a college catalog. The hypothoses, theories, and laws that come into being due to scienctific research can certainly (and quite often are) be challenged.

 

Our posts must have crossed in the uploading. I have, throughout this debate, held that everything is challengeable. That science has realised this is what makes it so incredibly powerful.

[ShadowTemplar]

@Tyrion, @C'Jais: You are on the edge of the deep bottomless pit that is called: Thread closed due to spamming, IMO. I'm sorry that I even started this.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

I really appreaciates that someone (being in this case you) does some thorough groundwork. [/big thumbs up]

 

 

I just call it as I see it. Actually, I'm glad my college money didn't go to waste

 

I haven't discounted the possibility of a Creator or God.... but I won't be surprised if, after I'm deceased and my molecules a breaking down to be shared with the environment (maggots, coyotes, groundwater, soil, etc.), that I find that the sum total of humanity as a unit was God. That our individual "souls" made up the whole of the Creator.

 

But while I'm here, on this Earth, I don't really have time to bother with that. I'm just trying to do my part as honorably as I can. If that does or doesn't count for something after my time here is done.... well, what good does it do to worry about it?

 

In the meantime, I believe what I and others can demonstrate through scientific method. Religion has it's place.... I understand group dynamics and social interaction. Faith and purpose serve to create "reason" and "justification" for individuals to interact well with one-another. When they don't, chaos and fear rule.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that religion as an institution is failing society. (Or perhaps it's the other way around. Perhaps society if failing religion): the Catholic preist sex scandals; islam used in the name of terror; cathoics -v- protestants in N. Ireland; and those damned "Watchtower" magazines I keep finding on my doorstep

 

Still, I have to marvel at the good that I see in organized religion. Churches in my area consistently help the less fortunate in the community without regard to their religious beliefs. I give regularly to a local church that accepts clothing donations because I know that they will GIVE it back to the community free of charge.

 

My one point with this thread is that Science and Religion can co-exist. However, both must be willing to revise their hypotheses on a regular basis as new information and understandings are received. I think Science does this... logic and peer accountability ensure it. Religion is slow to do so, but does. At least herecy isn't a capital crime anymore.

 

Cheers.... and may the Creator and Hydrogen be with you

 

SkinWalker

[C'jais]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

@Tyrion, @C'Jais: You are on the edge of the deep bottomless pit that is called: Thread closed due to spamming, IMO. I'm sorry that I even started this.

 

While everyone may not understand it, the warhammer example is a good analogy, and if put into context with our world, can serve as a good reminder.

 

The humans in the 40k universe act like greedy, selfish pigs, and their emperor can only live because he cannibalizes human souls. As Tyrion said, there are no "good" races in this universe, although humanity think of themselves as good, and always try to put themselves at the center of the universe...

 

...I'm sure you see where I'm getting at now, but I'm going to let this little spin off die now.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

 

Our posts must have crossed in the uploading. I have, throughout this debate, held that everything is challengeable. That science has realised this is what makes it so incredibly powerful.

 

Sorry.. I definately got that out of context...

 

Good night and I look forward to checking this thread tomorrow afternoon.

 

SkinWalker

 

By the way.... if you all didn't know, SkinWalkers is on PBS tonight... I haven't read the book yet, but I plan to check this out.

[Redwing]

I'm sorry my posts are a 'pain to reply to'

 

Originally posted by Cjais

A) We're still completely human. By the way -how do you know our brain is improving? As for the rest, that's as arbitrary as you think the Bible is. ^.^ So get back to me when it comes true

 

It is not as arbitrary as the bible, it is a fact the ancient people had more bodily hair to protect themselves from the elements without clothes. Humans are considerably smarter than they were thousands of years ago, based on brain size. Once I prove it is true, will you then lose your faith?

 

Bodily hair isn't what I was talking about. I should also point out that brain size does not equate intelligence, and that human's don't actively use most of their brains, and we have no idea what it's there for. And obviously, the human race was generally shorter "back then". Shorter means less of everything ^_~

 

B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^

 

I cannot prove it, because you think God is something that operates out of the established laws of physics - but tell me where you think he did a miracle, and I will explain that with science.

 

I know for certain you can't do that. Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations

 

D) [Whoa! Where's "C"?] Nooooooooooo. I mean, evolutionary changes that didn't produce a viable product. I haven't assumed anything

 

Evolutionary changes rarely does produce a viable product, but out of millions of bad changes, a good one will occur that subsequently will prove to be useful. Increased brain size and very manipulative hands are two of them.

 

In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so.

 

C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^

 

You do not understand how nature works together. Every creature works in a symbiose with every other - if you remove just one creature, another will die. It would take billions of years to develop the current biosphere if he only took a few samples, because life would have to start all over again, if he killed a few races and we have those races today. For example, if he only took 2 samples of each race, it'd result in inbreeding and the race would suffer from it. How would he feed the animals, how would he take care of their natural habitat, how could he possibly build a ship big enough? There are a billion of questions pointing at the falsity of Noah's fabled ark.

 

You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything.

 

It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated.

 

Light from stars could have easily been altered by God. I mean, by definition. ^.^

 

Why would he want to do that? So he can give you evidence for the negative?

 

Well, no...so we would have stars, silly.

 

You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did.

Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so".

 

Exactly. ^_~

 

F) Exactly. That is where all the arguments here become pointless.

Technically, God would be an all-powerful alien. Something we cannot understand. Supernature. Because nature is really only what we currently understand.

 

You got it! God could prove to be a bunch of aliens experiementing with our planet and lives, and this is why it is folly to think so, unless we have proof of it. By all means, go on and believe what you will, but you can only prove the negative, not the positive.

 

I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong. Why is it folly to believe in something? We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about. You may be convinced but you really can't ever be sure. You can't even be sure our very existence isn't the product of your fantasy, or the mental engineering of Super Termites from Planet Una, any more than I can be sure God exists. But you're sure, right? To the point where it affects your existence as a person? ^_~

 

God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding!

 

"Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith."

 

Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.)

 

What you quoted said that science actually rules out the supernatural. In science, there is no supernatural, there is only the natural. Show me where it said that science cannot rule out the supernatural.

 

Supernatural - as in "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces" is only what science cannot explain. if science could theoretically eventually explain everything, supernatural would have no definition. And God would be explained by science, which like I pointed out above, is impossible because human understanding couldn't possibly fathom God.

 

Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural.

 

What I was talking about in the article - the article showed that science doesn't explain everything, and "When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy". Thus you can't rule out supernatural, because you can't explain everything with science.

 

So, since you believe everything in the bible, word for word, once science has proven that there was no great flood, your belief will fall. It is dangerous to think that way.

 

That wasn't an argument. Appealing to future theoretical events doesn't count. ^_~

 

The number of people don't matter. Only the strength of the arguments made. Someone said something like this: "Even if a thousand people said that something wasn't stupid, when it was, it would not make it any less stupid."

 

I know, silly. ^_^ It's just that I don't have the time to be mostly carrying one side of the debate. In fact, I should be doing my art homework right now.

 

The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right.

 

Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^

 

God doesn't exist. That is a fact (before anyone starts flaming, however, I would like to point out that "fact" only means "scientific fact", but since it is normally assumed that everybody knows that, it is normally abbreivated. One has to remember the limits of science. No offense intended). [if anyone wants a more thorough explanation of "science" ask a Science teacher, look it up, or post here. Watch this space.]

 

But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition. You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~

 

Also, without time travel, you can't prove the world came into being on its own steam. Therefore I could say "All your theories of evolution did not happen. That is a fact." Because neither you nor science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is truth. Actually, by your usage nothing known to us as fallible humans is a fact. And now I'm babbling.

 

1: There is no such thing as "creation theory". It is a hypothesis, at most.

 

1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^

 

As for your "imnense flood" mantra:

 

"ZINDLER:...created on the third day of creation week, [ 14] along with the ocean basins, but that at that time Mt. Ararat was only about ten to twelve thousand feet high. Now if all the water came down in forty days and drowned all the mountains of the world, that would require the rain to come down at about eleven and a half feet per hour. John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic mining! Everything would have been swept off the surface of the continents. The continents would be absolutely denuded down to crystalline rocks. All the sedimentary rocks would have been deposited in the ocean basins. Now clearly, that's not the pattern that we see... and it would certainly imply... that does away with Noah's flood!"

 

Courtesy of: http://www.infidels.org (more specifically: http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...is-zindler.html. BTW: Thanks for that link, ZDawg).

 

I think they're confused as to where the water is supposed to have come from. From "the fountains of the deep" and the "firmament" breaking and raining down. They obviously haven't read the Bible they're trying to refute. Not all that flood water was rain. It says so right there.

 

Also, you need to notice that fully half of the aquatic habitats would have been destroyed, because species adapted to salt-water conditions cannot survive fresh water, and vice versa. Also, pressure at the bottom of the oceans would increase rapidly, thus destoying the only habitable biosphere for a great number of species, which Noah couldn't possibly save, since he couldn't create non-hostile conditions for them.

 

He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation.

 

Dead sure: Human skin colour. In the last (or second-last) issue of Scientific American (great magazine BTW) there was an article called "The evolution of skin colour".

 

Oh, well that doesn't exactly prove the point I thought it was supposed to prove (the evolution of a completely new species from an old). But you don't need to argue that with me, because I believe it does happen.

 

There is still no such thing as "creation theory" (see above).

 

Yes there is (see above) ^_~

 

You also ask why God couldn't have started BB. Well, for all we know, he could.

 

Didn't ask that.

 

More than likely, though, he didn't (judging by the number of times that science has found a natural explanation where zealots have cried "God"). Additionally, accepting that an omnious, unprovable, alien, uncommunicating, omnipotent, and thoroughly illogical ETI (ie: A god (or a pantheon of gods)) started the show, would be a useless explanation (please read on before you jump to conclusions and start flaming), even if it was a viable one, as it would not give us any additional tools, with which to understand and manipulate the world.

 

Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you?

 

Science doesn't care how we came about, save as an object of curiosity, but now that we are here it cares about what we can do to make ourselves comfortable. In a manner of speaking. God, therefore, is a bad explanation, as He doesn't add anything useful to our toolbox.

 

Why then are you trying to use science to disprove an explanation of how we came into existence? Again, what good does it do you?

 

You may start flaming (of course you can't: 1: It is prohibited by forum code of conduct and 2: It will get this thing closed real quick, but it's a manner of speaking).

 

But...but...I've never flamed

 

We can prove it scientifically. Mainly because science only concerns itself with what is useful.

 

But that isn't proving. Proof is "the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true".

 

Two words: Time span.

 

Well now. How do you know how long a biosphere takes to develop in what must have been totally different conditions?

 

Hate to break it to you, but you've got that one wrong. Big time. The Bible says that God said it. Keyword: The Bible.

 

The Bible isn't the word of God (not even according to the Bible). It is the word of those who have heard the word of God. And they have always been alone. And it has been written in a time where those to whom it was written were in need of inspiration.

 

The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us.

 

Furthermore it has been handed down for generations before it was put to paper. People forget. People exaggerate. People retell biassed stories. In short: The storage medium (ie: Man) was faulty.

 

Books from the Bible have been found from about the time they were written with only a few word's difference from what they are now. Besides, the current books of the Bible were put through a serious grinder and what was to be "accepted". Or the Bible would be thousands of book long, instead of 66.

 

What I think C'Jais meant was: God can be eliminated from all the equations, and they would be no worse for it. Thus "we" (meaning scientific theories) don't need God. This is demonstrated through a "real life analogy".

 

"We" are not scientific theories. My belief is that we need God, as in "we" - "people". ^_~

 

An interesting paradox. Basically science doesn't care if God exists or not.

 

Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist.

 

I have a few VERY good reasons why science should be taught in schools! You are sitting in front of one of them. Of other things: Not having to go to the well every morning to get fresh water. Being able to take a hot shower in the morning. Having my own bed in a house that is isolated against the cold. Being able to go to a hospital to get rid of malevolent tumors and other diseases.

 

If you go through your daily routines I am sure that you can find a heckuvalot more good reasons.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot: Not having to use flint and steel to get light or cook my dinner.

 

You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~

 

It's funny that you mention "innocent-until-proven-guilty" (though indirectly). That is Montesque's (how do you spell him (he's french)) invention. Or one of his colleques'. And most of them were a hair's breath from being lynched by the church. Along with people like Gallilei and Copernicus.

 

I'm not trying to flame your faith, I would just like to point out that those high and mighty ideals of yours came about (and were allowed to survive, for surely they have always existed) when said faith had a loaded musket at its temple. A fact that many faithful are unfortunatly unaware of.

 

Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to.

 

 

One last thing...I'm not arguing about the dates of the Earth because, a) I don't know and b) it isn't relevant to my argument. ^_^

 

Cheers.... and may the Creator and Hydrogen be with you

 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Elijah]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

I know of (through reliable sources that I trust, but which I alas cannot reveal as it would make me too easily identifiable (akin to what Redwing said above)) someone who was run over by a truck. Keyword: Truck. She is currently being rehabilitated. She will walk again. She was lucky. But luck alone didn't save her. God didn't save her. Science did (in the form of a hospital). And what's more: God won't make her walk again. Luck certainly won't either. But science will, probably.

Dude listen up, when your being crushed by a tractor and you hear the bones in your fingers snap along with your leg and parts of your arm science doesn’t mean jack to you. My friend, when I looked up I saw an ANGEL, ANGEL (angelic being). It was no flash of light or dilutions, it’s was an ANGEL, Do you get my point? What I saw was there! Standing next to me, I don’t need any friggin science to try and prove anything, I saw what I saw and the Creator of the earth HEALED me.

Can you tell I don’t care about science?

 

Were you Christian before that incident?

No, I had heard about "God" and "Jesus" and like you I tried to prove it was just some lame story made up by people in desperation for something to hold on to.

 

What makes you believe in God/the bible compared to old Norse mythology/Allah/Scientology?

Eh? Just as you would say God hasn’t done anything for you, why should you believe? I Say, mythology/Allah/Scientology hasn’t done anything for me, Yet God has, And so… I Believe.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by ZDawg

Can you tell I don’t care about science?

 

Eh? Just as you would say God hasn’t done anything for you, why should you believe? I Say, mythology/Allah/Scientology hasn’t done anything for me, Yet God has, And so… I Believe.

 

So, science is all fine and good when it saves your life on the hospital, gives you internet, computers and warm clothes on your body - but when it comes to explaining strange vision, it's just not good enough? And who is to say that it was a higher entity known as "God" that saved you, when it was in fact an angel that stood next to you, how do you connect the two?

 

And maybe that angel incident was just some "crazy story for people in desperation to hang on to"? Did you know that your brain is virtually flooded with endorphins when you're in extreme pain, which can easily cause you to see weird visions. Much like people in near death experiences, which may explain a part of what you saw, if not everything.

 

The last part didn't make any sense to me, Allah is God as well, and he has angels too - maybe Allah saved you?

 

One last thing: Why doesn't God reveal these angels to everyone on earth, so that there can be no dispute over whether he's real or not? Sounds like a pretty strange tactic to use, IMHO.