The History of the Universe

[Mandalorian54]

correct me if I'm wrong...

 

when you see a sculpture or model on a desk you imediatly wonder who built it.

 

 

I heard a story once.

An athiest walked into a creationists office and noticed a model of the solarsystem on the desk. He then asked who built it, the creationist replied "No one, the gears and pieces all just formed together in that sculpture." The athiest then left.

 

nice little story hun.

 

well my point is when you see somthing your first impulse is 'who built it' not 'how long did it take for this to evolve'.

 

anyone can look at this buitiful universe and see that it must have been built. A universe doesn't just pop into existance from nowhere.

 

And the God who created it is alpowerful and has no begining and will have no end.

 

so if you have any comon sense you can see that the world did not evolve itno existence.

 

how many primitive indian tribs think they evolved. None they all know they were created and attempt to explain thier existence through thier rituals and stuff.

 

am I getting the message across already?!?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

when you see a sculpture or model on a desk you imediatly wonder who built it.

 

Yes. Man built it. It is a purely natual process. It is not caused by something supernatural, and I can prove that. There's no magic behind it.

 

The old watchmaker analogy is severely flawed: Watches have evolved - they started off with crude contraptions (solar watches) and slowly evolved to modern digital watches. I don't care if an outside force did this - the point is that they do evolve. Similarily, I don't give a flying funk if God started the Big Bang, or even if God steers the evolution to his needs and end - the point is that it happens. You can believe in God and evolution at the same time.

 

I'm tired of this. Read the rest here, if you care.

 

And refute this.

 

Once I get the time off, I'll begin the barrage. Happy disproving until then. You still haven't answered the at least 20 questions I must have asked by now. Gently skipping past it does no good for your reputations as literate people.

[RpTheHotrod]

When I said sacrificing everything, it isn't all "God stuff"...I'm talking everything...I have. The only possession I have left is my computer...I own nothing else. I've done everything I can to help others, and I'm sick of people abusing that "helpfullness" and leaving me in the gutter.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

When I said sacrificing everything, it isn't all "God stuff"...I'm talking everything...I have. The only possession I have left is my computer...I own nothing else. I've done everything I can to help others, and I'm sick of people abusing that "helpfullness" and leaving me in the gutter.

 

I'm really sorry to hear that.

 

But what exactly is it that requires you to sacrifice everything you own?

 

Is it because of a people exploiting your sacrifices, or is it too private to talk about?

 

I'm all ears.

[BCanr2d2]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

Please tell how it contradicts itself. I'll see what I can do.

 

One easy one to spot is the birth of Jesus, and with the two different Authors, Matthew and Luke who talk of it, not all the facts easily fit in with each other. Pretty easy when one didn't really know Jesus, and has used other known texts at the time to try and create his book in the Bible.

 

Isn't one of the most important events in the Bible the birth of God's only son, and if this can't be a consistent story amongst different authors, then how can you say all of the Bible is historical fact. With the known mistakes in the backward application of the Roman calender in the 6th Century, we can say that most of the events match up historically. Except at least that of the Census held at the time, it was not until after the birth of Jesus that Syria actually became a full province of Rome. This supposed census is most likely to have been held about 6-10 years after Jesus was born.

Matthew and Luke disagree as to where Joseph and Mary actually lived, whether they are living in Bethlehem, or that they had to visit it on the need of a census, coming from Nazereth. Some of the contradictions and inaccuracies also exist from the translation of the original Greek text into English, which in some places the wrong interpretation of the word may have been used.

Also, since Jesus was a Jew, crucifixes were not used on those who were not Roman citizens.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by C'jais

I'm willing to stake everything on stating that if you creationists (the ones I've been arguing with here) should ever encounter another evolutionist, and try to persuade him, you'll probably dig out the same "isotope dating is false",

 

[...]

 

I sincerely think you'll still proceed on your merry way and "forget" what I and many others proved to you.

 

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about Christian Doublethink, just in case Jedi-Monk ever sees this.

 

Me bad! I promised myself to stay out of this.

 

By "peer-reviewed" do you mean magazines like the famous science ones? The reason proof about Creationalism doesn't appear in that is because they don't want to put it in there. Thye only want evolution.

 

That's false. They get no submissions with creationistic contents (documented in several independent studies, for full details see the 15 Answers). Obviously they can't put something in their mags that they don't get and can't produce themselves.

 

And again you forget to answer the replies we give your posts. We have already asked you to explain the huge, glaring holes in this "conspiracy plot". But since you are so hell-bent on using it I'll just point out that a hoax of this scale would make the Apollo Program and the Manhatten Projekt put together look like childs play.

 

This masquerade would have to falsify mountains of studies from scores of different countries, and from almost all branches of science. I mean, seriously, do you think that it would actually be possible to pull it off? And if some "Masquerade" actually does have the resources and connections to pull it off, how come that science labs are cronically short of governmental founds?

 

No it isn't. Spam is something that is absolutely worthless such as calling the mods and the forums stupid on you're first post or posting 1 liners in 35 different threads. This is spam, what was posted on Lucy is not... it just something you don't want to even take a chance of looking at.

 

No it's something that I have refuted at least three times before in this very thread. And you have given no counterpoints whatsoever. You just repeat what I have already shot into the ground. Do you read my posts at all? The only reason that I can tell that you do is from your quotes.

 

All history books say this because talking about creationalism in a way that makes it seem like the book accepts it over evolution would violate the law of no binding between the school and church.

 

So you do admit that Creationism is infact nothing but a silly faith?

 

Umm they're is money in every "evolution proving" find... so won't they're be a fraud according to your reasoning?

 

False. You have not understood what I said. Firstly: There is not money involved in every evolution-supporting find (but there certainly would be money coming my way if I could produce some serious proof of Creation (even people who produce shoddy not-proof of creation can get it published in paperback format)).

 

Secondly: I said that in any business where there is money involved there will be fraud. I did not say that in every transaction in which there is money involved there will be fraud (there obviously isn't).

 

You apply the rules of two-way reasoning to a one-way argument. That doesn't hold.

 

Produce another website that agrees with this writer or this concept... one website that states this DOES NOT make it true... more sources please!

 

I can probably find several. But I would only have to look in a medical dictionary and match symptoms. However I only linked to this site to keep triggerhappy MODs at bay (aka: These aren't my words), not because I wanted to prove anything (that would be done in another thread).

 

BTW: You actually have a fine point. I may begin to take you Creationist remotely seriously when (or rather if) you start applying the same to your arguments.

 

And where are you getting this "proof" that the Bible is fiction from? I want to see how you are making this assumption.

 

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Go through a few of their links. I make no assumption here.

 

Please lets keep it civilized here.

 

Civilized behavior included actually listening to/reading what the other guy says/posts last time I checked. In Denmark we have a proverb: Don't throw rocks if you live in a house of glass.

 

since the Bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK it WON'T teach how to make a boing. And since when does a religious book tell how to make a powerplant or a bike? Those are two totally different fields. Get your facts straight, your example proves nothing. Construction Does not have anything to do with the Bible.

 

[...]

 

And again... WHY ARE YOU COMPARING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO A RELIGIOUS BOOK? Get your facts straight. People don't read and believe in the Bible to learn how to build a power plant.

 

You are proving my point better than I ever could: The Bible doesn't state anything about the real world. So why cling to your precious Genesis? And if you say that the Bible does say something about the real world, then where do you draw the line? If it tells you how the world came about, then why doesn't it tell you how to live in it? Because Man was never meant to know? Gee, that's a good God... NOT!

 

BTW: I wasn't talking about a bong. I was talking about a JumboJet. Sorry for my crappy spelling.

 

What is this true power?!?! "True power" is considered by many to control the world. Christians do not want to control the world. And hypocracy? Parasites? What positive results and what "power"?

 

Science is the power that I refer to. Controlling humans is incredibly easy. Controlling nature is a lot harder (besides the ability to control the world is also derived from technological progress, since better tech means more advanced weapons (one of the not-so-good things about progress).

 

The fact that you sit comfortably before a computer in a nice warm (or cold, depending on what climate you are in) house, instead of being out in the potato field picking up your dinner are the positive results that I refer to. And the fact that you totally dismiss the tool that has given you these oppertunities (science) is the hypocracy that I refer to. Parasitic are the effects of your hypocracy.

 

If you are referring to evolution the I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about by Christians using the "positive results" from that.

 

You are. New drugs. But it was not evolution alone that I referred to.

 

If you're talking about technology then you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[...]

 

Hmm, Chrisitans aren't contibuting? What "positive results" are Christians "using like parasites without contributing"?

 

I would like to point out that every advance in technology that has ever been produced has been produced on the basis of Rationalism, the antithesis of any religion.

 

Unless I didn't understand what you were referring to then,once again, think before you type.

 

Same comment can be more justly applied to you.

 

Hmm I see you are very unfamiliar with the LIVING THINGS in our blood called CELLS that ARE ALIVE.

 

Out of context quote. Again. I was responding to a post that clearly referred to some "life force", among all the other superstition in it (at least that's how I read it, sorry if I was mistaken).

 

Oh man here we go again. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT UNTIL COLUMBUS PROVED THEM WRONG. Where are you getting that this was a Christian practice? Sources, now.

 

You're flat out wrong here. The ancient Greek and Egyptians (I think) knew that the world was round (and they even had the size pretty right, unlike Columbus, who would have starved to death if he had not found America).

 

It's the obelisk-in-Alexandria-and-well-in-someothercity-experiment (or was it the well in Alexandria? Anyway it doesn't really matter). It's a text-book math example that you can find in most math books that deal with the dicipline of Trigonomitry.

 

But this was supressed by Christianity.

 

A literal translation of Job 26:10 ect.

 

You can't make a litteral translation. It's not possible, as anyone who has actually done a reasonably advanced translation will know (just try translating this into French or German or some other language with which you are familiar, if you doubt what I say).

 

Website that proves this? Where? Oh wait there is no website.

 

Again I was responding to someone who clearly needs to get things spelled out in capital letters, based on his posts. Anyway, it follows logically from the fact that the Bible is fiction. And even if you don't accept that, it follows logically from the fact that there are no truths. Therefore the Bible cannot be truth.

 

Then I honesly feel sorry for you because He has done a lot for me because I ASKED and BELIEVED that He could do things in my life.

 

I sincerely hope that I didn't sound whining. Don't take it personally, but I don't want pity. At all. I can't really use it, but thanks anyway. But I would like to know what It has done for you, because I am pretty sure that I could find a perfectly natural explanation for it.

 

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST BUT THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO WAS A VERY LONG ONE AND SOME THINGS SAID IN IT REALLY GOT ME GOING.

 

Not your fault. I did do a Redwing (sorry 'bout that... Woops, looks like I did another...). (And getting people 'going' is pretty much what the Chambers are about, 's far as I understood it.)

 

This is why I told you this debate is pointless...because it ISN"T a DEBATE.

 

A debate, both sides give "evidence" to something, and they debate.

 

Yes. And the Creationist side has provided none so far that has not been refuted.

 

Evo vs Creation...there is NO absolute evidence (if there was, evo would be thought as true by everyone, many scientists are beginning to re-think what they have been taught).

 

False. On both counts. Evolution would not be thought true, just like gravity isn't thought true. And 'scientist' don't rethink the very basics of evolution it is one of the most stable theories of science. See 15 Answers.

 

And there is plenty of hard evidence. I can't help it if you choose to close your eyes, but it won't go away because you do.

 

Yet... it seems every Evo side is this

 

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

 

No we're not. See above.

 

Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.

 

We're not. We're supplying plenty of evidence. It's the Creation side that you should be shooting at with that.

 

I just mentioned something I saw on the news and I get attacked and I'm told to "get the hell out!"?

 

No, I attacked your repetingly posting of things that have already been refuted. That's what. And I attacked your habit of repeatedly posting things that are so logically thin that you couldn't even convince a bright 5-year-old child with them.

 

I'm sick of people...I gave everything I've had, I've lost everything all in the name of helping others...but not once has any of them done anything back. Sometimes I get so tired of it.

 

You don't have to give up everything to help other people. If you do, then it's your choice, but IMO it's a bit (or rather very) naive to expect them to return the favor. There is no good in this world. No evil either, just vast, pitiless indifference.

 

Get the hell out? yeah, why don't I***EDITED, best leave that out. Last thing I need is to be sent somewhere*** that'd make you happy then, wouldn't it? I know it would be easier for me, that's for sure.

 

What would make me happy would be a reasoned debate. Not just mindless quoting of something that has been disproven already.

 

Sick of it.

 

So am I. For the same reasons, but you have the sides mixed up.

[Psydan]

If you are a true evolutionist you should applaud every time you see a kid with Down's, or with any other kind of mutation, because that is how you think we got here. What are some "positive" mutations in some parts of the human race, but not most? Also, how come humans on different continents, seperated by oceans on both sides, didn't have any significant adaption such as wings or extra limbs or an extra eye or something? You can just tell me that it was too short of a time period, cause I guess that's probably your answer, right? Finally, how do light-sensitive cells just mutate into being? You can't mutate volentarily, or pass on a mutation through will, so how would animals just happen to get the kind of cells they need, and a light-sensitive cell is a very amazing trait for it to just "appear" in the gene pool, but I guess thats probably wrong too, huh?

[Reborn Outcast]

Shadow this is why I get frustrated. EVERYTIME SOMEONE POSTS A LINK ON CREATION OVER EVOLUTION YOU DISMISS IT AS IRRELIVANT. And then 5 posts later you ask for evidence.

[Master_Keralys]

Cjais - big question for you here.

 

You have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that evolution is science, and is about "cold hard facts". Yet, a few days ago, before I got really busy and didn't have time to reply, you asked the rhetorical question "Prove to me what isn't [philosophy]." Okay, so which is it? Is evolution philosophy or science.

 

You make my point perfectly with that statement, though - when it comes right down to it, everything is philosophy. There can be no conclusive evidence either direction in this debate; so far all I have seen from either side (myself included) is an attempt to debunk the other side's theory. Which is logical, when there is little conclusive evidence for either side. The watch example is a poor one to use, but it's point will work.

 

Admittedly, watches have changed over the years. But one doesn't question that the watch was created. While I disagree that macroevolution occurs - the whole finch thing proves nothing one way or another, as I'll explain in a moment - the point is that in order for evolution to occur, if it did, certain factors would have to be controlled by an external force.

 

Finches beaks - that whole thing doesn't show anything one way or another. The beaks can actually change sizes on individual birds. As in, if you take one bird and move it to a different island, where it has differenct needs, the beak will grow or whatever on that single bird. Gotta go.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Psydan

If you are a true evolutionist you should applaud every time you see a kid with Down's, or with any other kind of mutation, because that is how you think we got here.

 

Do people with Down's syndrome usually marry and pass the mutation? Is it beneficial?

 

What are some "positive" mutations in some parts of the human race, but not most?

 

Mutations depends solely on the environment. If it's benefical to grow larger beaks to break the only nuts available - the big ones - it will happen.

 

Also, how come humans on different continents, seperated by oceans on both sides, didn't have any significant adaption such as wings or extra limbs or an extra eye or something?

 

Every heard of the punchline -"get a sense of scale"? The timescale required for an extra limb would be enormous, and it's doubtful that an extra limb would ever help that much. Growing something stronger, lighter or tougher is ridiculously easy compared to growing a completely new skeletal structure.

 

You can just tell me that it was too short of a time period, cause I guess that's probably your answer, right?

 

Part of it. But humans would never be able to fly simply by adding wings. Our chest would need to be gargantuan for that to happen. Our weight would need to be reduced drastically, and we'd look completely different. It's not going to happen - especially not since we have no need of it.

 

Finally, how do light-sensitive cells just mutate into being? You can't mutate volentarily, or pass on a mutation through will, so how would animals just happen to get the kind of cells they need, and a light-sensitive cell is a very amazing trait for it to just "appear" in the gene pool, but I guess thats probably wrong too, huh?

 

The rate of mutations is pretty constant. Your own body cells are mutating all the time. It's evident. There's no need to debate that it's thoroughly fantastic how HIV evolves so quickly that it makes it impossible to target. It's marvelous.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Shadow this is why I get frustrated. EVERYTIME SOMEONE POSTS A LINK ON CREATION OVER EVOLUTION YOU DISMISS IT AS IRRELIVANT. And then 5 posts later you ask for evidence.

 

Point to a concrete example.

 

I'll happily answer your questions, but not if you simply copy-paste 19 GB worth of text and expect us to reply coherently to that. We haven't got that time.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

You have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that evolution is science, and is about "cold hard facts". Yet, a few days ago, before I got really busy and didn't have time to reply, you asked the rhetorical question "Prove to me what isn't [philosophy]." Okay, so which is it? Is evolution philosophy or science.

 

It's science.

 

My commentary that "Everything is philosophy" was about how you looked at the universe. Everyone has their own view of it. Philosophy is about morals, for example.

 

"Philosophy is the no-man's land between Science and Theology, exposed to attack from both sides."

 

Me stating that everything is philosophy, is philosophy.

 

But facts are indeniable. You cannot deny that evolution happens - evidenced in observations and droves of evidence from the past.

 

There can be no conclusive evidence either direction in this debate; so far all I have seen from either side (myself included) is an attempt to debunk the other side's theory.

 

While I just posted a rough sketch of all the evidence for evolution, this is pretty much just about beating your theory to the ground. We've presented much empirical evidence for our theory, while the same sadly cannot be said for you.

 

Now, if you want to claim the moral high ground here, I suggest you make a rough draft of your theory. Back it up with empirical evidence and scientific observations. We've done our part long ago, it's high time you did yours.

 

While I disagree that macroevolution occurs

 

Disagree all you want. I'm sure bacteria and insects are not going to bother you about this.

 

the whole finch thing proves nothing one way or another

 

Finches' beaks shows that they're specialized to eating specific nuts available in their environment. This is evident. On the Galapagos Islands, there are several species of finches - each specialized to eat a specific kind of nut or even other sources of food. The finches are so specialized that they cannot eat each other's nuts (w00t?) - they can only survive by eating their own kind of nut. In other words - each species of finches are occupying a niche in their environment, that makes sure they share the food - they are at an equilibrium with the environment. They don't fight over food because they simply can't eat the other finches food.

 

It's now only logical to assume there once existed a common ancestor to all these different species of finches. One that was more diverse and not to so picky with regards to food sources. This ancestor gradually branched off into several niche species to take advantage of the abundant food. It's also curiously evident that the different species of finches are more or less isolated on different parts of the islands. This theory is being backed up by reasoning and empirical proof. Show me yours.

 

Regarding the watch analogy, the point is that you simply can't connect a watch to "God must have created everything." It doesn't work - there's no connection between the two, as it's clearly evident that the watch is being made by natural processes. There's nothing mystical about it. Evolution develops apes, which develops humans, which develops watches. Watches aren't created miraculously from nowhere. And the fact that they can't self assemble as nothing with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to self assemble.

 

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by C'jais

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing.

 

Wait did you just contradict yourself? Didn't the universe assemble spontaneously from nothing according to evolutionists?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Wait did you just contradict yourself? Didn't the universe assemble spontaneously from nothing according to evolutionists?

 

According to evolutionists? No.

 

You apparently still don't get that you can believe God created life on earth, God controls the direction evolution is taking and that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity.

 

How would you react if I told you that nearly 80% of all Christians take evolution as a fact? That the pope does? That it in no way makes your beliefs invalid, except the Creationistic ones.

[Reborn Outcast]

Ok C'jais I see your point now. I agree that evolution could be a work of God BUT I also believe in Genesis which I BELIEVE contradicts evolution because Adam names all the animals. It is a very difficult concept for a Christian who is still searching. BUT, do you believe that they're is a God? The whole point of the thread was "The History of the Universe". If they're was a big bang, God did it. This is what I believe. We've kind of fallen away from that subject and into another debate in which there is no "winner".

 

 

 

I am the first to admit, that though I may not sound like it in my posts, I am still wrestling with the concept.

[RpTheHotrod]

Just popping in.

 

 

The term "Christian" isn't always what some people mean. Awhile back, any Catholic was called a Christian, for example.

 

The "Christian" most of us are talking about are the true Christians. The ones who believe in God, Christ's blood, and the Holy Trinity.

 

Also, all because someone says they are a Christian, doesn't always mean they are. I've had people my entire life telling me they were Christians, but they were never saved. People get the wrong idea what Christian means.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

I agree that evolution could be a work of God

 

Wait. Go no further. Hold on to this.

 

It could, couldn't it? God created everything. God created nature, no? God created evolution. Why do you feel like you have to defend some absurd theory when the answer is right in front of your face: Everything ties so well together because God made it. Isotope dating is not an insult to God, or a way to lead his followers astray - it's a part of nature. God is in nature.

 

When God made the Big Bang, there was light. When God made the first life on earth, there was life. When God made man what they are today, Adam was created. It's all metaphorical.

 

A time has come to stop viewing the Bible in a "take-no-prisoners" literalistic way. It's a work of art, and art can be understood on many levels. The most crude and primitive of them is to take it as what meets the eye at the fleeting glance - the purely literal way. Just as an abstract painting is rubbish to those who don't see the depth in it, so is creationism bland and irresponsibly false to those that translate it the petty literal way.

 

BUT, do you believe that they're is a God? The whole point of the thread was "The History of the Universe". If they're was a big bang, God did it.

 

God could have made the Big Bang. God could have seeded life on earth. God could manipulated his creation to his vision and end. God can always be there.

[RpTheHotrod]

One problem with that theory

 

and the evening and the morning were the first day

 

 

a total of 6 days to create

7th He rested.

 

Now, 1 "day" back then couldn't be millions of years...because of that "and the evening..." sentence. Now, by using your own science that you say in infallible, the earth could NOT have slowed down that long (to prolong one day to a million years), or the orbit would totally screw up. SO...the evening and the morning WERE the first DAY.

 

 

 

Only way you can say He used evolution to create the world is by not believing what the Bible says...which is His Word.

 

There you have it

 

 

 

Don't bother asking me any questions...I'm just dropping by.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

Now, 1 "day" back then couldn't be millions of years...because of that "and the evening..." sentence. Now, by using your own science that you say in infallible, the earth could NOT have slowed down that long (to prolong one day to a million years), or the orbit would totally screw up. SO...the evening and the morning WERE the first DAY.

 

Wh-wha?

 

The days mentioned are metaphorical. Do you really believe in physical "doors" in the firmament as well? I'd never, ever try to compare the "days" to units of time. It wouldn't make any sense.

 

Don't bother asking me any questions...I'm just dropping by.

 

Oh, it doesn't exactly work that way

 

There's no "I'm just dropping by, don't bother replying to my posts"-immunity here, that renders your statements invulnerable.

[RpTheHotrod]

Fine.

 

If it said "day" I might not take it as a day

 

but it says

 

"the evening and the morning were the first day"

 

I'm saying, it HAD to be an actual DAY...because if one DAY in that instance was a million years, the earth (according to your infallible science) would fly out of it's orbit and who knows...get sucked into the sun.

 

so that proves (proving itself now, I'm saying..grr how do I say this. I'm not saying it's proof, but according to itself..what it is saying is an actual day)

[Psydan]

Originally posted by C'jais

 

Regarding the watch analogy, the point is that you simply can't connect a watch to "God must have created everything." It doesn't work - there's no connection between the two, as it's clearly evident that the watch is being made by natural processes. There's nothing mystical about it. Evolution develops apes, which develops humans, which develops watches. Watches aren't created miraculously from nowhere. And the fact that they can't self assemble as nothing with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to self assemble.

 

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing. [/b]

 

Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot) secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.

Also,

Originally posted by C'jais

 

You apparently still don't get that you can believe God created life on earth, God controls the direction evolution is taking and that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity.

 

How would you react if I told you that nearly 80% of all Christians take evolution as a fact? That the pope does? That it in no way makes your beliefs invalid, except the Creationistic ones.[/b]

 

But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us. I agree with you 100% Cjais on the fact that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity, but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes). Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

I'm saying, it HAD to be an actual DAY...because if one DAY in that instance was a million years, the earth (according to your infallible science) would fly out of it's orbit and who knows...get sucked into the sun.

 

Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet.

 

Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed.

 

It makes no sense for God to operate in terms of night and day, since if he's God, he's everywhere and thus night and day doesn't exist to him. Do we agree he made the terms "night" and "day" to help humans understand him, even though it's not really true? Because, as we know, night and day are as relative as they get.

 

so that proves (proving itself now, I'm saying..grr how do I say this. I'm not saying it's proof, but according to itself..what it is saying is an actual day)

 

No, the Bible cannot prove itself. You're the one who's using circular reasoning to make your head and the earth spin.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Psydan

Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot)

 

We have a common ancestor in apes, yes.

 

secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.

 

And what makes you think you aren't stuck with the same question? The only answer we know for sure right now, is that we honestly don't know.

 

Creator or non-creator, these are still just postulations until we've identified what it really is.

 

But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us.

 

What we're discussing here, if you somehow managed not to see it, is whether creationism is fact or not.

 

Again: I don't care if God made the Big Bang. I don't care if God made the first bacteria and afterwards mutated and evolved them to his needs. What I do care about is that the Biblical Genesis isn't fact. It isn't, no matter how much you believe in a holy text.

 

Again: We've presented positive proof of evolution. You still need to present positive proof of the biblical genesis. It doesn't help to present dating constructs and state "Because the earth is young, our theory must be the right one". It doesn't work, you can't prove the connection, much as I can't state "Because the earth is old, my theory must be right." Try to debunk our dating methods, try to debunk science all you want - in the end you won't be right simply by having done this.

 

 

but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes).

 

It's not about believing fact. Do you believe in the theory of gravity as well? The theory of relativity?

 

Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?

 

Which is exactly what we're doing.

[BCanr2d2]

Obviously those Creationist Scientists out there that take a view of the Bible in some cases being metaphoric, use the Genesis text to desribe what is in essence a logical six step sequence to the creation of life on earth.

 

They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.

 

How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know. You want a mystery, work out how ancient civilisations had enough of an understanding in science to write how the earth was created.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by BCanr2d2

They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.

 

I dunno... creating light before the source of light itself? Creating plants that require photosynthesis before the sun was created?

 

How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know.

 

I'll let you in on a secret: They're no more right than my viking myths. But it's still art.