Jump to content

Home

Evolution vs Creationism - a Reasoned Debate


C'jais
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Redwing

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 ^_~

 

Brain size has a whole lot to do with intelligence - though it doesn't always work correctly (retarded persons). It does equate intelligence, and if you disagree, I'd like you to source that claim. My claim is sourced in every half-way decent biology book.

 

Regarding the "We're only using a small part of the brain" argument - Not true. It's a common myth, but neurobiologists all agree that we use the entire brain's full potential, there are simply some undiscovered parts of it that we don't know what does. Like in the time of Columbus, if you asked the man on the street about whether the earth was round or flat, he'd of course say "flat", but if you asked Columbus he'd say that of course it was round. Compare this to modern times: If you ask the average Joe whether we use the brain's full potential, he'd say "Doh, we only use 10%" - if you ask a neurobiologists he'd say we use nearly everything, we just don't know what some of it does.

 

Evolution happens, everything points towards that conclusion - fossiles, current studies of species, bacteria and genetic research. What the bible says is completely irrelevant in this case, unless it's based on scientific research.

 

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

 

For explanation on miracles, see ShadowTemplar's post.

 

Look at ZDawg's miracle. It does not reveal anything about God saving him, it reveals something about him being influenced by myths of angels saving people - his brain makes up this "excuse" for saving him with a huge dose of naturally produced euphoric drugs. I'm not saying ZDawg is mad in the slightest - I'm saying his brain is using his knowledge of angels and God to excuse his natural response to the immense pain. If Zdawg had not heard about God or angels, do you think he really would have seen one at that moment? :confused: :confused:

 

 

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

 

What proof? The Bible? When you begin to postulate that "God did it", without substantiated scientific proof, then you're leaving the realm of reason and into blind faith.

 

Don't make up your own meaning of "proof" and "fact".

 

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.

 

What shows the world is degenerating?

 

Let us say that God created Adam and Eve. He put them in the Garden of Eden. He tested them. They failed. God is all-knowing. Why should he put someone to a test knowing that they will fail? Then you could say that we have not failed yet. That leads us to the point where we are today, but as you say the world is degenerating, so why did God create man if he knew that they would die in the long run?

 

And no, the animals could not have hibernated, it's very few animals that could have done that, and even if you postulate that they could "at that time", why can't they do it anymore? Another concern is inbreeding: if only a few "samples" were taken from each race, it'd result in immense inbreeding, and if you tried to crossbreed your way to new races, you have to remember that when you crossbreed, the offspring becomes sterile.

 

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

 

Then why does calculations reveal stars are a very long distance away, and that their light (which isn't instant) are being sent millions of years ago from now. See SkinWalker's "Guide to dating methods".

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. ^_~

 

And what makes you think the Bible sounds plausible? You believe in it, just because it "feels right"?

 

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? ^_~

 

Yes, the world could have been created just 200 years ago, and then some higher power left evidence pointing at a much older age, but why would he do that? What you are doing is postulating, without sticking to scientific facts.

 

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.

 

You are confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable with the unexplained. If, for example, God showed himself he'd immediately be categorized as a natural law in science - because, in science there's no supernatural, only natural. You can always say that God is a supernatural, without proof of it, but then you're once again leaving the realm of reason.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^

 

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

Also, it says that humans and every creature on the earth lived together at once, which scientific (fossil) evidence reveals is untrue. Unless God masked the evidence for some strange reason, it is very plausible that the bible is false on this account.

 

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 ^_~

 

Once again, you are saying we're trying to disprove God. No, we're trying to prove that we do not need him. All scientific facts points towards God being unemployed. You postulate we need God, and that he created the earth, when no scientific means can prove, verify or agree with this. What you're doing here is proving the negative.

 

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". ^_^

 

Your definition of "Theory" is not the scientific one, it is the commonly mistaken one.

 

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.

 

If all the sea creatures died as you said, then why are they here today?

 

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

 

For the umteenth time, he is not trying to disprove God, he is trying to prove that we do not need him, and that believing in him doesn't solve any of the world's mysteries.

 

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

 

Where is your proof of those totally different conditions? If all you rely on for facts is the Bible, then it isn't scientific facts - it is postulated "facts".

 

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.

 

You're aren't believing in God, you're believing in a book written by man, that compels you to believe in God. You can postulate whatever you like, but without proof, why should the world believe you? Surely the world nowadays isn't as gullible as it was when the Bible was invented?

 

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.

 

People are using science to prove that we do not need God. Oh, he may exist, but where is the proof, and why do we need him? We seem to be doing just fine all by ourselves.

 

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 ^_~

 

Yes, "This is what we think happened, and it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's". Science isn't truth, remember that, it's just that, a theory - but a much more plausible one that the Bible's.

 

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. ^_^

 

It is very relevant. See SkinWalker's dating explanations. If, for example, we found that humans have only existed for the last 10.000 years, whereas dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago, then the Bible must be irrelevant, as it isn't true.

 

Redwing, regardless of what you say, this debate isn't postulation vs postulation - Evolutionists have proof of their theories, whereas creationists have no scientific proof at all, only postulated proof. This makes the evolutionist's theory endlessly more plausible and leaves the odd question hanging of why we should believe in the bible. There is scientific proof that the dinosaurs and man are spread apart by a huge timespan, there is no trace of a great flood and there is no proof of God - yet he can still be there yet it doesn't sound very plausible. You aren't trying to prove creationism, you are trying to disprove evolution.

 

By all means, people should believe what they want, but they can't just walk around saying their beliefs are true and force them upon others, dictate their lives and scare them, unless they have scientific proof of it.

 

Now that we've established that there's no scientific reason to believe in God, I'd like everyone comment on this (perhaps tell me why I'm wrong) and discuss the implications of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Science and common sense has proved there is no "God". But you never know the experiment might slip off the table and our whole universe could go in a puff of smoke as an alien life form says "da@m" , or something to the effect, in his own language.

 

Organized religion is the biggest farce in all of human history...had to add this in. Religion has also done more harm then good. Look at the state of the world today and ask yourself this:

 

If we had no religion for the last + years what could have changed?

 

I think this:

 

Not so many people would have died at the hands of the Nazi political party...remember 11 million died (including the 6 million people of Jewish origin) in the camps...perhaps the numbers would have been far far less?

 

The holy crusades?

 

Muslim and Jewish hate crimes?

 

Religious officials would not have had the as many chances to rape and damage small children. Granted those people would always do those things but perhaps it would not be as easy for them.

 

These are just a few examples. Make up your own mind. And do not spout all of the "good" religion has done. People still starve on the streets as so-called "religious" people spend every Sunday (or whatever day the worship) in a grand building. If the Catholic Church were on the fortune 500 list where do you think they would be…at the bottom…NOT!

 

Use your brain...not someone else’s comments or belief system. Remember Hitler wrote a book too....but did that make him right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cjais

 

Now that we've established that there's no scientific reason to believe in God, I'd like everyone comment on this (perhaps tell me why I'm wrong) and discuss the implications of this.

 

I've participated in many Sweat ceremonies in which one sits in a Sweat Lodge that has a small hole dug to allow for red hot rocks on which the person pouring the sweat applies water to create steam. In one of these Sweats, I began to see visions, which I won't go into detail. My friend Dan Old-Elk says that this is the Creator's way of giving me information and that I am to examine the visions to find my path.

 

Now.... I don't discount the possibility of the Creator's hand, but I also recognize that, when stressed, the mind can play tricks and cause hallucination (sometime Peyote helps ;)). Either way, these are visions that relate to thoughts and/or feelings that already existed in my subconscious. The value is in my self-examination and what I discern from it to help guide my actions.

 

I can't disagree that there is no scientific explaination or reason that supports a reason to believe in god. I also can't discount Man's need to have God. Spiritual development and health are very related to mental health.

 

I do disagree with most of the creationist points of view, however, as they do not accept the facts as they are established by science. Man used the "Creation Theory" (sorry shadow... ) to explain what he could not via science, since Man's scientific ability was limited by technology and understandings of the time. As science improved, explained the universe (chemistry, physics, et al), established theories and laws, and revised both as needed, the "Creation Theory" remained rigid and unchanging.

 

When God created the Earth in 6 days... what was the reference that God used to measure a day? Current measurement relies on one Earth rotation in relation to the vector of the Sun's radiation. Man created this reference. Could God, an alleged omnipotent being, have a different reference?.... perhaps a millenia? More? These are but a few questions that I think can be applied here. Creation and Evolution are two ideas that can exist together. Faith doen't have to be blind. It can occur with eyes wide open (and minds).

 

In short: I agree with Cjais in that there is "no scientific reason to believe in God" (that I've seen to date). But I think there is a social reason to believe in God. It gives us purpose, senses of right and wrong, and a sense of connectedness with the rest of society and nature.

 

Another thing Dan Old-Elk used to tell me: "The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to her."

 

SkinWalker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cjais

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

Cjais, when your about to die, all the things you ever believed about science becomes useless and you realize how foolish it is to only believe somthing that can be proven with all the tools of our time.

 

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.

Did i tell you it was not Dilutions? What i saw, I SAW and not matter what you say or try to prove you will not convince me what i saw and felt was not real, EVER.

 

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

Allah is the Arab word for God.

 

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.

I Dunno, Ask God about that.

 

Look at ZDawg's miracle. It does not reveal anything about God saving him, it reveals something about him being influenced by myths of angels saving people - his brain makes up this "excuse" for saving him with a huge dose of naturally produced euphoric drugs.

You people are proving my point, you all think that these things must be proven with science.

 

I'm not saying ZDawg is mad in the slightest - I'm saying his brain is using his knowledge of angels and God to excuse his natural response to the immense pain.
God took the pain away, it was no excuse.

 

If Zdawg had not heard about God or angels, do you think he really would have seen one at that moment?
Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In nearly all cultures there has been gods; Norse, greek, egyptian, babylonian, jewish, chinese and so on. The reason for this was Man has always looked at themselfes higly, and all knowing. The problem was however, that they actually knew very little. Because of this, gods were created. If someone asked themselves "Why does it rain?", no one knew, therefore people solved all these mysteries by simply saying "God made it".

Belief in gods was never a product of knowledge, it was a product of lack of knowledge. And each time there was something a culture didn't know, they just continued to say "God made it". But gods were also a product of need of comfort. Life wasn't very easy then, but it was very easy to think "When I die, I go to heaven and live happily for all eternity". A lot of ancient cultures needed such, for example it would have been much harder to get Vikings to fight, if they wasn't having the belief of "If I fight bravely and fall in battle, I will go to Valhall ("heaven"), if I die a natural death, I will go to Helheim ("hell")."

 

The lack of knowledge was very important to maintain for the church, or else there would be hard to belive in it. Nicolas Copernicus got killed for a discovery he made that was against what the church belived. Søren Kirkegaard (a Danish philosopher) meant that knowledge was really bad, it gave Man an understanding that it should not have had.

 

But the knowledge came, and most questions Man asked himself earlier, are now answered. You no longer need a god to explain why it rains. Most of the holes in knowledge, that the gods were based on, are filled. But the things that are still unknown strengthens the belief in God, for example "Why is ZDawg still able to walk?" Something that also remains is the comfort of belief, especially since people are really afraid to die these days, it is more comforting if you belive that there is an afterlife.

 

But there is still little need of a god today, tradition is keeping it alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not what they'd say if you told them that, they would have a good explanation you know.

 

If you could solve it just like that , that easy, no doubt they would have.

 

But they really had thier reasons.

 

I only believe in one God. And I believe for many reasons and that just aint one, sorry.

 

You don't need a God to explain why it rains? how do you explain it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JM Qui, very well expressed.

 

Skin, your "religion" is a different one than Christian's or monotheistic one's. Forgive me for using a star wars anology, but this it makes sense : If you consider the force, it's viewed as a force of nature that hasn't been fully explored and examined yet (notice they refer to midiclorians etc). They view the force as something that's all around them, right there and then - not something that will punish or reward you in the hereafter. You could personify the force, but it wouldn't make any sense. The force would still be there if no jedi existed. The force is just that, a force of nature, a natural law of science that hasn't been fully discovered yet. They don't refer to it as a creator, because it is but one force of nature - the sum of it all creates.

 

This I think, is closer to what Skin believes in (correct me if I'm oh so wrong, btw) - I think it's called an apantheistic point of view.

 

ZDawg, I'm not saying that you did not see an angel. I'm saying that there's probably a more plausible scientific reason that you saw it. When I was in a near death situation, I certainly neither didn't think about science - I thought about the natural reactions, results, limits and acted accordingly. In other words: In other words - I made an instinctive decision of what I should naturally do in that situation to avoid getting myself killed, and acted upon. I certainly didn't think about science or God, and neither did I expect some Creator to hold his hand over me in this instant, I just did.

 

54, without being too technical, assume that rainclouds are steam that is getting too condensed and thus liquify themselves into raindrops. Compare it too steam in your bathroom and notice how it turns to water on the walls. I'm sure someone can give you a much better explanation, but I'm too lazy to look it up in my book :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

Yes I know but I asked so you would answer what I knew you would to go on to somthin else.

 

Where does the water cycle come from?

 

Eh? :eyeraise:

 

You asked because you knew I "would to go on to somthin else"? What has this to do with Evolution vs Creationism? I did not say anything about the water cycle.

 

The water cycle came into being the moment there were water. It's like the old chicken or egg question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The water cycle came from natual conincidences. It took billions of years to make, since it needed ALOT of hydrogen and oxygen molecules to combine.

 

Also, if you believe in god,why stop there? Why dont you believe that an invisible pink elephant(if anyone can get the oxymoron there,have a cookie) is the cause of you falling? Or that when you jump it's because of a mixture of the force and physical ability? Or what about if there are ghosts? Or that the devil or main evil made us,while god is trying to exterminate it?

 

 

Edit- Also, since we are prepared to die die when we die, we have lower expantations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cjais

ZDawg, I'm not saying that you did not see an angel. I'm saying that there's probably a more plausible scientific reason that you saw it.

I Understand what your saying, but science cannot prove what I saw or give an explanation, nor do I need one.

 

When I was in a near death situation, I certainly neither didn't think about science - I thought about the natural reactions, results, limits and acted accordingly. In other words: In other words - I made an instinctive decision of what I should naturally do in that situation to avoid getting myself killed,
I didn’t have time to think about Anything... I just turned around and BAM! it happened. There where 25 year veteran paramedics that said that there was no reason I should have lived.

I certainly didn't think about science or God, and neither did I expect some Creator to hold his hand over me in this instant
Neither did I... but he did, and if he hadn't I wouldn’t be talking to you right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The water cycle came from natual conincidences

 

Man you guys will believe anything is from chance.

 

By the way if there is no evil. Then what the terrorist did on 9/11 was ok right?

 

 

I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old.

(If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.)

 

 

 

And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof.

 

Ever hear about substitution in algebra?

 

If you have a equation like

 

2X * Y = 100

 

You can not get a true anwser without a second equation. It can be a infinite amount of anwsers.

 

Like this

 

Y = 4 + 1

 

So now you put (4 + 1) in place of (Y).

 

2X * (4 + 1) = 100

 

2X * 5 = 100

 

Which from here is easy.

 

X = 10

 

So one source can be false.

 

It took billions of years to make, since it needed ALOT of hydrogen and oxygen molecules to combine

 

And you know this how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

Man you guys will believe anything is from chance.

 

By the way if there is no evil. Then what the terrorist did on 9/11 was ok right?

 

 

I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old.

(If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.)

 

 

 

And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof.

 

Ever hear about substitution in algebra?

 

If you have a equation like

 

2X * Y = 100

 

You can not get a true anwser without a second equation. It can be a infinite amount of anwsers.

 

Like this

 

Y = 4 + 1

 

So now you put (4 + 1) in place of (Y).

 

2X * (4 + 1) = 100

 

2X * 5 = 100

 

Which from here is easy.

 

X = 10

 

So one source can be false.

 

 

 

And you know this how?

 

1. Evil can exist without having a god. Also, evil is more of an opinion than anything else...

 

2. Well, oxygen and hydrogen combining must take alot of chance and time. Yes, it is just a big coincidence. Stop thinking we are the center and reason of the universe,we might just be a coincidence(A big one,but a coincidence nonetheless).

 

3. Chance is well,chance. We did come from a single celled organism(Ask evoulution, just like you tell us to ask god) or maybe not. Maybe something else,something from another dimension, or maybe gods(note gods,not god) or something else. With all these different gods and religions,how do you know which is right?

 

4. Antagontisthesim has actually been better to me than worshiping in god. When I was little,I started to think of cuss words(part of growin up!). So I thought of thinking cuss words at god. So I got frightend, thinking he knew my thoughts and would punish me. But of course i couldnt stop thinking them,because by the time I thought I shouldnt think it,it was thunk:D So,after I became an antagontists,all those fears went away. I think I have an soul though...just that something else created me instead of a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cjais

Skin, your "religion" is a different one than Christian's or monotheistic one's. ..... This I think, is closer to what Skin believes in (correct me if I'm oh so wrong, btw) - I think it's called an apantheistic point of view.(

 

I had no idea that the idea of Apatheism existed... interesting, but I was more interested in a link from that page to Gnostism.

 

That's all getting too organized for me :-) I've always admired the simplicity of Native American beliefs. They give thanks to Father Sky and Mother Earth, pray to their Ancestors and work to honor their ancestors with good, honest, hard-work. To do otherwise is a waste of your lineage and all of your ancestors ended with you for nothing.

 

As to the Star Wars analogy.... you have to remeber: George Lucas is a Man of Earth... a human who probably grew up exposed to many different cultures and religions (like most of us) and probably questioned much of what he saw. His "Jedi Knights" and the "Force" are all products of our cultures on Earth. I see a new an interesting thread topic emerging here ;)

 

ZDawg.... We're all glad you survived your accident. But you have to admit: there's as much a probability that your experience was coincidence along with a mental reaction to enormous stress and shock as it is divine intervention. But please, don't think that you have to change what you choose to ultimately believe in. Whichever makes you a more complete person is what you should stick with.

 

If there is a God, and he did, indeed, create us in his own image, then perhaps our innate desire to seek knowledge, ask questions, and seek self-actualization as a society is a reflection of that image. Perhaps science is following the will of God.

 

Either way, science will need to have the freedom to teach what it knows in the education of the masses so that others can build upon this and continue to ask questions.

 

I think a ways back in the thread, someone was postulating that the Earth was only a few millenia old and that "all of the creatures of the Earth lived the same time as man...." or something similar. Is this still a point of the "debate." If not, I don't see what still remains to be addressed. I'm too sleep deprived at the moment to back track within the thread... so are there any "creationist" points left to acknowledge?

 

SkinWalker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since we aren't debating whether Creation is possible, and I have no intention of justifying my belief in this forum, I guess I don't need to make any more of those immense posts that annoy you all so much. ^_~

 

I agree that there is no scientific reason that you should believe in God. But science is not everything.

 

edit: Gah! I was wroong...x.x

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Originally posted by Redwing

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 ^_~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Brain size has a whole lot to do with intelligence - though it doesn't always work correctly (retarded persons). It does equate intelligence, and if you disagree, I'd like you to source that claim. My claim is sourced in every half-way decent biology book.

 

Regarding the "We're only using a small part of the brain" argument - Not true. It's a common myth, but neurobiologists all agree that we use the entire brain's full potential, there are simply some undiscovered parts of it that we don't know what does. Like in the time of Columbus, if you asked the man on the street about whether the earth was round or flat, he'd of course say "flat", but if you asked Columbus he'd say that of course it was round. Compare this to modern times: If you ask the average Joe whether we use the brain's full potential, he'd say "Doh, we only use 10%" - if you ask a neurobiologists he'd say we use nearly everything, we just don't know what some of it does.

 

I'm sorry, I had no idea. I should have checked. ^_^;;;; But I stick to what my point: we aren't superior to our ancestors. Even if we become such, it won't matter.

 

Evolution happens, everything points towards that conclusion - fossiles, current studies of species, bacteria and genetic research. What the bible says is completely irrelevant in this case, unless it's based on scientific research.

 

It's relevant because you're arguing the validity of a Biblical-based theory. I think. I might have got lost again. ^.^

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

For explanation on miracles, see ShadowTemplar's post.

 

Look at ZDawg's miracle. It does not reveal anything about God saving him, it reveals something about him being influenced by myths of angels saving people - his brain makes up this "excuse" for saving him with a huge dose of naturally produced euphoric drugs. I'm not saying ZDawg is mad in the slightest - I'm saying his brain is using his knowledge of angels and God to excuse his natural response to the immense pain. If Zdawg had not heard about God or angels, do you think he really would have seen one at that moment?

 

I have heard of people who have seen things without knowing anything of angelic descriptions that somehow fit the explanations, since you asked. Of course they could be lies. But I'm not arguing in that area. In fact, I even said I could come up with explanations such as Shadow has ;) and I never said miracles can prove God exists for the world to see.

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

What proof? The Bible? When you begin to postulate that "God did it", without substantiated scientific proof, then you're leaving the realm of reason and into blind faith.

 

Don't make up your own meaning of "proof" and "fact".

 

I should have worded it: "If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so - None."

 

It doesn't matter what I've postulated. The fact remains that until either of us sees the evolution of the cosmos/creation, we both have no proof.

 

Buh? Are you referring to my definitions? They were all taken from the Handy Online Dictionary and http://www.dictionary.com! Don't insult me. If you were, that is. ^_^

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

What shows the world is degenerating?

 

Let us say that God created Adam and Eve. He put them in the Garden of Eden. He tested them. They failed. God is all-knowing. Why should he put someone to a test knowing that they will fail? Then you could say that we have not failed yet. That leads us to the point where we are today, but as you say the world is degenerating, so why did God create man if he knew that they would die in the long run?

 

Our souls will live forever. As for the failing, I don't know. God, if he exists as I believe, certainly doesn't think like a human - so how could I know? [Note the use of lazy-man's/woman's way out ;)]

 

And no, the animals could not have hibernated, it's very few animals that could have done that, and even if you postulate that they could "at that time", why can't they do it anymore? Another concern is inbreeding: if only a few "samples" were taken from each race, it'd result in immense inbreeding, and if you tried to crossbreed your way to new races, you have to remember that when you crossbreed, the offspring becomes sterile.

 

I should have added the all-important clause: "God did it." Remember, I'm not using science to explain everything. Before you say that's invalid, think about it - can science explain everything now?

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Then why does calculations reveal stars are a very long distance away, and that their light (which isn't instant) are being sent millions of years ago from now. See SkinWalker's "Guide to dating methods".

 

You said that in the beginning. I said: God manipulated the light so it reached Earth immediately. You said: Why? So he could give evidence against his existence? I said: Well, no, so we could have stars.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. ^_~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

And what makes you think the Bible sounds plausible? You believe in it, just because it "feels right"?

 

I have no intention of justifying my beliefs in this forum - it'll take too long! Besides, you wouldn't listen - I wouldn't if I was in your place ^_^

 

Plus there's this lil thing called privacy *grumble* :xp:

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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? ^_~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Yes, the world could have been created just 200 years ago, and then some higher power left evidence pointing at a much older age, but why would he do that? What you are doing is postulating, without sticking to scientific facts.

 

My belief in the existence of God was not spawned directly from a scientific fact. Therefore why would I stick to them? I'm only trying to show that my belief in God does not contradict science. Besides, most scientific fact is greatly informed postulating anyway ^_~

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

You are confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable with the unexplained. If, for example, God showed himself he'd immediately be categorized as a natural law in science - because, in science there's no supernatural, only natural. You can always say that God is a supernatural, without proof of it, but then you're once again leaving the realm of reason.

 

How do you know what is unexplainable? Wouldn't it just be the "unexplained at this time"? And according to your definition, the word "supernatural" has no use because to exist in reality is to be natural. I've been fudging a bit because it's confusing me that we even have that word if your definition is the right one ^_~

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

Also, it says that humans and every creature on the earth lived together at once, which scientific (fossil) evidence reveals is untrue. Unless God masked the evidence for some strange reason, it is very plausible that the bible is false on this account.

 

Not in the same place. For a very, very long time humans lived only in Mesopotamia. Maybe even before the Flood (I can't recall)

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ^_~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Once again, you are saying we're trying to disprove God. No, we're trying to prove that we do not need him. All scientific facts points towards God being unemployed. You postulate we need God, and that he created the earth, when no scientific means can prove, verify or agree with this. What you're doing here is proving the negative.

 

You do not need him or science does not need him? Also I disagree with your third statement. God created the universe and may or may not be interfering with how it's run. But he certainly is employed in the lives of his people. I can't prove that to you in this debate, of course. ^_~

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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". ^_^

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Your definition of "Theory" is not the scientific one, it is the commonly mistaken one.

 

Meh? Okay. All six definitions of theory:

 

the·o·ry

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

I used the first one. Which are you referring to?

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

If all the sea creatures died as you said, then why are they here today?

 

-.-* I never said they all died. I said he didn't try to save them.

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

For the umteenth time, he is not trying to disprove God, he is trying to prove that we do not need him, and that believing in him doesn't solve any of the world's mysteries.

 

It's only the umpteenth because you're still quoting in the same post :p

 

I already wrote my reply up there. *points*

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Where is your proof of those totally different conditions? If all you rely on for facts is the Bible, then it isn't scientific facts - it is postulated "facts".

 

That was quite a shabby argument, I admit. But you're missing my point - you don't know.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

You're aren't believing in God, you're believing in a book written by man, that compels you to believe in God. You can postulate whatever you like, but without proof, why should the world believe you?

 

How do you know that? You think that. I never (consciously) tried to convince you that I was right, only that I wasn't wrong. That is my chosen direction. I choose to stick to it. ^_^

 

Surely the world nowadays isn't as gullible as it was when the Bible was invented?

 

Mmmmmmmmmm. Perhaps it's just blinder now?

 

Besides, the separate books were written over centuries.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

People are using science to prove that we do not need God. Oh, he may exist, but where is the proof, and why do we need him? We seem to be doing just fine all by ourselves.

 

They're doing a lovely good job of it aren't they. ^_^ Besides, only a social scientist should be doing that, because God is more concerned with man than the universe he created, destined to end in fire. We're doing just fine all by ourselves? How can you say that, not knowing whether God is involved?

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ^_~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Yes, "This is what we think happened, and it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's". Science isn't truth, remember that, it's just that, a theory - but a much more plausible one that the Bible's.

 

Saying "it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's" is opinion and shouldn't be taught as fact.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. ^_^

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

It is very relevant. See SkinWalker's dating explanations. If, for example, we found that humans have only existed for the last 10.000 years, whereas dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago, then the Bible must be irrelevant, as it isn't true.

 

I missed his post. He didn't list any nearly 100% accurate dating methods except the old C-14. Of course I am well aware that it is not the only possible method.

 

Redwing, regardless of what you say, this debate isn't postulation vs postulation - Evolutionists have proof of their theories, whereas creationists have no scientific proof at all, only postulated proof.

 

*sigh* This is getting tiring. -.- Proof - "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." You only have evidence that doesn't prove.

 

This makes the evolutionist's theory endlessly more plausible and leaves the odd question hanging of why we should believe in the bible.

 

Refer to others' statements - I am not arguing this.

 

There is scientific proof that the dinosaurs and man are spread apart by a huge timespan, there is no trace of a great flood and there is no proof of God - yet he can still be there yet it doesn't sound very plausible. You aren't trying to prove creationism, you are trying to disprove evolution.

 

*sigh* Again, I am not trying to do either...

 

By all means, people should believe what they want, but they can't just walk around saying their beliefs are true and force them upon others, dictate their lives and scare them, unless they have scientific proof of it.

 

Ummm, I haven't done any of those... :( (And they shouldn't do that whether they have "scientific proof" or not!)

 

Now that we've established that there's no scientific reason to believe in God, I'd like everyone comment on this (perhaps tell me why I'm wrong) and discuss the implications of this.

 

Back to the start except considerably less high-spirited...

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old.

(If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.)

 

Not really... the source is obviously flawed. Mt. Everest was formed about 60 million years ago. We know this because the tectonic rate of the Indian subcontinent can be calculated at about 15 cm/year. That's extremely fast in geologic terms... in otherwords, the Indian Subcontinent "slammed" up against the EuroAsian continent, creating a massive upheavel.

 

Now I know what your going to say: How do we know? In short, much geologic field research has mapped the geologic strata in the region and examination of unconformities in the region show where normally horizontal terrain or strata has been lifted to vertical (or even inverse!) position. There is actually a "beach" that has been discovered far above sea level that is "upside-down."

 

We know this all occured millions of years ago, because even the fastest tectonic rates (which are still in that region) would take millions of years to occur. I'm not as good at math as I'd like to be, but 15 cm/year divides into 8, 848 m about 17, 696 times. 8, 848 is the number of meters high Everest is. So the collision had to take at least 58, 986 years to raise a mountain!

 

But that's not all: dating methods put the whole event (Indian Continent moving away from Australian Continent to the making of Everest) at between 250 million years ago to 60 million years ago.

 

These dating methods aren't exclusively (or even mostly) Carbon-14. C14 dating is but *one* tool available to date rocks. (see my earlier post). One of the more fascinating methods involves examination of the magnetic changes in different rock strata over the years.

 

Somewhere near the center of the Atlantic Ocean runs the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is where sea-floor spreading occurs (new crust being formed and pushed away in opposite directions). By doing some sea-floor measurements with magnatometer, it can be noted that there are regular changes in magnetic resonance that correlate with the Earth's regular polar reversals.

 

By examing a specimen of rock and getting an approximate date by K-Ar method (not C-14), it is possible to determine a more exact date by examining the microscopic iron particles to determine their alignment. The key to this "code" is on the oceanfloor in the pattern of polar reversals, which left their evidence in bands that run parellel to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

 

Science relies on not one look, not even two... but multiple looks at the same evidence from as many points of view as possible. Methods are carefully spelled out for peers to review and attempt to duplicate. Science does NOT make assumptions, but rather states what is observed. Only after a hypothesis has been tested and re-tested with consistent results does it become a theory. Only a theory that withstands the test of time and more testing can become a law. And when a flaw is discovered in a scientific law it is revised, rewritten or scrapped altogether in favor of the new information.

 

Creationist "theory" doesn't hold to the same principle. It remains unyielding, blind "faith." In the end, if creationists refuse to update their ideas, it will die the death of all superstitions, and become as quaint an idea as throwing salt over one's shoulder.

 

That, in my opinion, will be a sad day. Society stands to gain much from spiritual beliefs that are relevant.

 

Good night, and may the Creator and Hydrogen keep you. ;)

 

[And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof.

 

Dude... I'm too tired... Go Here.

 

Good night, and may the Creator and Hydrogen (or Carbon) keep you. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only saying one...two things, I promise.

 

Mt. Everest was formed about 60 million years ago. We know this because the tectonic rate of the Indian subcontinent can be calculated at about 15 cm/year.

 

Remember what the counter argument for Earth's rapid magnetic field decay was? Just because that's what it is now doesn't mean that's what it's always been.

 

We know this all occured millions of years ago, because even the fastest tectonic rates (which are still in that region) would take millions of years to occur.

 

The Flood could have created them. And see above.

 

*runs away*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tyrion

1. Evil can exist without having a god. Also, evil is more of an opinion than anything else...

Oh really? last time I checked, the meaning of Evil was "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant."... I Dunno about you but that doesn't sound like it has ANYTHING to do with God.

 

Antagontisthesim has actually been better to me than worshiping in god.
have you honestly worshiped God?

 

When I was little,I started to think of cuss words(part of growin up!).
Little? as in younger that 12? and sense when was creating cuss words part of growing up? I didnt... even before i was a christian.

 

So I thought of thinking cuss words at god. So I got frightend, thinking he knew my thoughts and would punish me. But of course i couldnt stop thinking them,because by the time I thought I shouldnt think it,it was thunk So,after I became an antagontists,all those fears went away. I think I have an soul though...just that something else created me instead of a god.
God Isnt going to punish you for your thoughs.... Forgiveness really is a great thing :)

 

Why would you need satisfaction? Knowing that it is real would be enough sactisfaction for me...
Thats where Faith comes into play. and No, Faith is not a "God thing"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ZDawg

Oh really? last time I checked, the meaning of Evil was "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant."... I Dunno about you but that doesn't sound like it has ANYTHING to do with God.

 

That's what I just said...o.O

 

Edit- And by cuss words,I mean damn,bas****,b*tch.

 

Stuff like that that I learned from my friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...