The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's madness. "I know absolutely nothing about radiometric dating but it's all guesswork and the scientists who've dedicated years to studying and who stand by it's accuracy are all fools". :pac:

Exactly

He is right when he says we have made our minds up that the Christian God is invented by humans, but we did that after looking at all the evidence and trying to understand it as best we could.

To decide that something isn't true, as he has apparently done with a large chunk of current scientific theories, without even bothering to look at the evidence or study the area closely is just close minded nonsense

I'm afraid man of faith is quickly joining the ranks of Wolfsbane and JC, who dismiss science they don't even understand based purely on religious ideology and dogma. Shame really.

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

Come on man, you really should give me a little more credit than that. I was talking about one half life, I didn't say that it couldn't go through several half lives as which is understand to be up to about 50000 years before its all gone. Although, you still don't know if the decay was a constant. You have to guess. Probably easier to work out over a smaller period of time - I'll grant you that - but still an estimation.

I was talking about your opinion that carbon dating is the only accurate one.

Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

There are dozens of dating techniques used and each are used multiple times on the same sample and other samples to get an average result.

Every single sample used and every single dating procedure used age the Earth at around 4.4 - 4.5 billion years old.

My problem isn't so much with radiocarbon dating, its with radiometric dating. The problem being that you don't know how much of the isotope was there at the beginning of decay, you don't know if the decay rates have always been constant and whether or not a parent or daughter isotope was added. I may not be an ultra intelligent scientist, but it doesn't take Einstein to understand this.

We know the decay rate is always constant the same way we know the speed of light, the same way we know how to create radio waves, the same way to have the technology to make a combustion engine, the same way we can put a rocket into space.

Its called physics, perhaps you might want to read a book about it ?

Can you see now why I understand it as a theory and not fact?

All I see is that you don't understand the difference between the words 'fact' and 'theory' in a scientific sense.

You also don't understand how science works, you also don't seem to grasp the simple fact that if we use 100 different dating methods and they all give us approximately the same result then that is proof that the samples tested are at LEAST this old.

By the way, did you watch my video? Please watch it.

I watched it, it showed me that the video creator doesn't understand mathematics and specifically probability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We know the decay rate is constant to the same extent as we know anything else in physics and for the same reason why we know anything else in physics, because people studied it unlike creationists who simply declare things to be the way they wish they were. If a constant rate of decay is a guess, then guesswork produced the computer you're typing on, the plane you flew in last year and the moon lander.

Man, those scientists are really good guessers :rolleyes:



The video has already been explained as a texas sharpshooter logical fallacy, just like the bible code

Thats how you want to perceive it, not how it actually is. It doesn't make any false claims. It relies on proven scientific fact and should be considered as perfectly valid. No one has over exagerated anything, they just point out how incredibly rare we are in the galaxy and how incredibly rare it is how life can be sustained on our planet. You will notice that they didn't even mention that God created our planet and universe. Applying abiogenesis or big bang to these known facts is nothing short of completely preposterous and absurd. If you know of any theory about how our planet came about other then the two I have just mentioned, then can you please tell me what it is? I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know. As I said earlier, believing in God as the creator requires far less faith then anything else.
You, a random guy on the internet, sees these potential limitations in radio carbon dating. Do you not think that at some point since its inception these potential issues have also occurred to the brightest minds in the world and that they might have accounted for them?

Absolutely, but when they choose to deny God's existence till their dying day, they will redirect their gifted mind into what satan wants them to believe. The Bible tells us that he is the father of liars, the master of deception. Intellect and wisdom are two very different things to me. The smartest man on earth can also be the most foolish. I'm of average to relatively high intelligence, and I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people here much smarter than me. But without sounding my own horn, I do possess wisdom to a high degree because my wisdom comes from His words and not my own. God has the answers and without Him, I know nothing. It is His wisdom in me, and I have surrendered to it. It is through this wisdom that I can present my argument to the most intellectually gifted mind with confidence, without being intimidated by there superior knowledge to mine. No one here has brought me to shame.

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm afraid man of faith is quickly joining the ranks of Wolfsbane and JC, who dismiss science they don't even understand based purely on religious ideology and dogma. Shame really.

To be fair,

I think he's still more open than JC and wolfsbane have been..your typical JC reply

Mr Vines wrote:

Do you not think that at some point since its inception these potential issues have also occurred to the brightest minds in the world and that they might have accounted for them?

...The so called brightest minds of materialists have faith in spontanuous formation of the Complex Specified Information of man from pondslime... that is a big leap of faith :eek::D... Creation Scientists have long realised the flaw in the materialists faith based position on the dating...

monosharp wrote:

the same way to have the technology to make a combustion engine, the same way we can put a rocket into space.

...Technology that was designed by an INTELLIGENT INPUT...:eek::)

Hey, this is easy, if all else fails I can easily apply for the Discovery Institute:)

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

...The so called brightest minds of materialists have faith in spontanuous formation of the Complex Specified Information of man from pondslime... that is a big leap of faith :eek::D

...Technology that was designed by an INTELLIGENT INPUT...

Hey, this is easy, if all else fails I can easily apply for the Discovery Institute:)

You think the pay is any good ? those creationists seem to have a lot of dosh hanging about.

Maybe we could develop our own theory and ask the discovery institute for beer money funding ?

Ah I know, Intelligent Snowflakes. Snowflakes look designed so they are obviously the result of a 'designer' painstakingly carving each one out of ice blocks.

We'll crush those heathen Crystallographists (I had to look this up) and their theory of crystallisation.

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

But without sounding my own horn, I do possess wisdom to a high degree because my wisdom comes from His words and not my own. God has the answers and without Him, I know nothing.

Yet apparently without him you still managed to figure out entirely on your own ability that he exists and has all the answers and truth. Which is odd since without him you apparently knew nothing.

Some what of a chicken and an egg situation going on there.

You only started to know better than pretty much every working physicist going when you got the truth from God, but before that happened you were some how able to intellectually determine that you were actually getting the truth from God, rather than something else.

How does that work?

And given that your entire argument, your entire position, rests on the knowledge bottle neck of you first determining that God is real and has given you the truth, has it occured to you (given your humility about knowing nothing without the truth from God) that you might just be wrong about this point, and thus all your conclusions from that point, and the "truth" you claim to possess, would fall down like a house of cards.

MooseJam

So how does evolution work , I can't see one small mutation in one individual spreading through the whole gene pool - is the whole gene pool mutating and depending on how beneficial the mutation is there is a critical mass percentage of the population who must have it in order to spread through the whole gene pool.

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

You think the pay is any good ? those creationists seem to have a lot of dosh hanging about.

Maybe we could develop our own theory and ask the discovery institute for beer money funding ?

Ah I know, Intelligent Snowflakes. Snowflakes look designed so they are obviously the result of a 'designer' painstakingly carving each one out of ice blocks.

We'll crush those heathen Crystallographists (I had to look this up) and their theory of crystallisation.

They do indeed seem to have a lot of dosh and it would be by far the easiest job in the world just say something that sounds complex but is utter jibberish.
I'd imagine the more bullsh1t the theory the higher your ranks become. Unfortunately your job isn't made easy because a couple of your assumptions need to be backed up with biblical evidence.
Example Russell Humphreys achronicity theory.

Humphreys wrote:

As I have mentioned in several publications,31,32 two Bible verses lead me to believe that there was a second space-stretching and time dilation episode sometime during the year of the Genesis Flood. One of the verses is Psalm 18:9,

‘He bowed the heavens also and came down with thick darkness under His feet [emphasis added].’
The other verse is 2 Samuel 22:10. It is identical, as the whole chapter is nearly identical to all of Psalm 18. The repetition suggests that the psalm is quite important. In it David reminisces about how the Lord has rescued him from dangers. In this section of the psalm, he speaks in terms of a cataclysmic event that appears to be the Genesis Flood. Everywhere else in Scripture, the phrase here translated ‘bowed the heavens’ is translated as ‘stretched out the heavens.’ The primary meaning of the Hebrew verb, natah, is ‘stretched.’ The translation ‘bowed’ is far down the list of possible secondary meanings.33 So I prefer the primary meaning, which suggests that God stretched out space out at a higher-than-usual speed (as measured on Earth) during the Genesis Flood.

Scientific considerations applying to the Flood suggest to me that time dilation occurred during this event of space stretching, and it helps explain why the stretching would appear to be very rapid as seen from Earth.3

Humphreys argues that there has been a massive time dilation effect during the great flood, that explains the pioneer anomaly and of course the flaw in dating systems :rolleyes:
His entire paper which was published in 2008 assumes the universe is a closed spherical structure:eek::D

Humphreys, btw, is the editor of one creation science journal : Doesn't really say much for creation science if the journal's editor published paper's like that.

Sur, if the pays good, it should be an easy enough job just gotta brush up on a bit on biblical science first.:)
It would go against every principle I have though :mad:

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote: »

So how does evolution work , I can't see one small mutation in one individual spreading through the whole gene pool

It will over time if it provides a fitness advantage to the organisms that carry it because they will reproduce more than those that don't.

In fact in species that reproduce quickly and face harsh environments this can happy incredibly quickly, as in the case of drug resistant bacteria.

MooseJam

Wicknight wrote: »

It will over time if it provides a fitness advantage to the organisms that carry it because they will reproduce more than those that don't.

In fact in species that reproduce quickly and face harsh environments this can happy incredibly quickly, as in the case of drug resistant bacteria.

Sure bacteria are one thing but for a mammal say with a 20 year lifespan and 10 million population how long would it take to spread to the whole gene pool, I'd only be guessing but it would be a very long time , far too slow to drive evolution.

Or what about mutations that provide zero benefit but coupled with a later mutation provide huge benefit, how do those spread.

My guess is everybody is mutating and a certain % of the population will have any given mutation, if the mutation is benefitial it will spread quickly and even if it isn't beneficial it will spread.

MrPudding

MooseJam wrote: »

Sure bacteria are one thing but for a mammal say with a 20 year lifespan and 10 million population how long would it take to spread to the whole gene pool, I'd only be guessing but it would be a very long time , far too slow to drive evolution.

Evolution is very slow, well in organisms that have longer lifespans anyway. That said, there is a theory that the reduction in the size of African Elephant tusks is due to evolution, and that has happened very quickly due to a selection pressure in the form of tusk poachers.

MooseJam wrote: »

Or what about mutations that provide zero benefit but coupled with a later mutation provide huge benefit, how do those spread.

I think the main thing is that mutations which cause a negative benefit are less likely to spread, beneficial are more likely to spread and those that are neutral are in between. They are more like to spread than negative and less likely to spread than positive, on there own that is. This would mean that it is likely that a neutral mutation could quite happily survive in a population, and indeed probably spread, and then be ready for the future mutation that that it reacts very positively with.

MooseJam wrote: »

My guess is everybody is mutating and a certain % of the population will have any given mutation, if the mutation is benefitial it will spread quickly and even if it isn't beneficial it will spread.

If you take humans today I think it is fairly safe to say we are not being selected against in the same way as humans were in the past. We now have a civilisation which can act against natural selection. Hundreds of years ago genetic mutations causing congenital defects would be likely to be fatal. If you die shortly after birth you don't have much chance to pass on the faulty gene.

Medical science has meant that these flaws are not always fatal, and therefore the mutation survives, whereas in the past it might have died out. So I think in that respect you are quite right, in modern times, in the developed world in particular, non beneficial and indeed even damaging mutations can survive and spread.

Outside of our cushy existence though things are not so easy. There are still parts of the world where infant mortality is very high due to various reasons. Congenital defects are much more likely to be lethal in countries with poor healthcare. Natural selection is still killing off negative benefit mutation here. In the animal kingdom it has never stopped.

MrP

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote: »

Sure bacteria are one thing but for a mammal say with a 20 year lifespan and 10 million population how long would it take to spread to the whole gene pool, I'd only be guessing but it would be a very long time , far too slow to drive evolution.

It can do, it may take thousands of years (or minutes if you talk to Creationists!), but not sure what you mean by far too slow to drive evolution? Evolution has been going for billions of years.

Also it is important to remember that it is not a case where one mutation takes thousands of years to spread through a population and then we start on the next mutation.

MooseJam wrote: »

Or what about mutations that provide zero benefit but coupled with a later mutation provide huge benefit, how do those spread.

They spread when they are coupled with the later mutation and provide huge benefit.

MooseJam wrote: »

My guess is everybody is mutating and a certain % of the population will have any given mutation, if the mutation is benefitial it will spread quickly and even if it isn't beneficial it will spread.

Yes, that is correct. Is that not what you were asking?

man of faith

Wicknight wrote: »

Yet apparently without him you still managed to figure out entirely on your own ability that he exists and has all the answers and truth. Which is odd since without him you apparently knew nothing.

Some what of a chicken and an egg situation going on there.

You only started to know better than pretty much every working physicist going when you got the truth from God, but before that happened you were some how able to intellectually determine that you were actually getting the truth from God, rather than something else.

How does that work?

And given that your entire argument, your entire position, rests on the knowledge bottle neck of you first determining that God is real and has given you the truth, has it occured to you (given your humility about knowing nothing without the truth from God) that you might just be wrong about this point, and thus all your conclusions from that point, and the "truth" you claim to possess, would fall down like a house of cards.

I am so glad that you have raised this point!:)

The Bible tells us that He has written His laws onto our hearts and minds and that we have been born with a conscious of eternal perspective. So thankyou for pointing that out, as you are right, we aren't born into this earth without knowing enough to know to seek Him. This spiritual eternal perspective coupled with our mind that can't even begin to fathom it, has launched us on a quest to find the truth. If you are only relying on your natural mind, regardless of how intellectually brilliant and gifted you are, there is only so far that you can go in your understanding.
In Romans 12:3, the Bible also tells us that He has given to each man an equal measure of faith. We are born with the inherant ability to believe. He is no respecter of persons. This is why at the end, faining ignorance won't be acceptable. As much as God loves you, He has to remain a God of justice. He gave you the gift of life and equal opportunity.
Jeus says,
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)
and
"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12

The reason I say without Him I know nothing is because that until I connect myself with Him and what is written in His word, my mind will be absolutely full of unanswered questions of which I have no way of knowing the answer to. His Spirit illuminates the truth to you. When you are walking in darkness, you have no way of seeing where you are going. Darwinism is a case of the blind leading the blind. Darwins guess is every bit as good as yours.

monosharp

lugha wrote: »

Well isn't everyday a school day! I encounter that fallacy a lot but I have never heard it given a name before.

Here children go to various schools from 6am to midnight 6 days a week. :eek:

Its crazy.

marco_polo

MooseJam wrote: »

Sure bacteria are one thing but for a mammal say with a 20 year lifespan and 10 million population how long would it take to spread to the whole gene pool, I'd only be guessing but it would be a very long time , far too slow to drive evolution.

Or what about mutations that provide zero benefit but coupled with a later mutation provide huge benefit, how do those spread.

My guess is everybody is mutating and a certain % of the population will have any given mutation, if the mutation is benefitial it will spread quickly and even if it isn't beneficial it will spread.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking in terms of modern populations.

For most of our history population sizes would have been very small. Around the time we first began to spread around the globe out of Africa (70,000 years ago give or take), population size would have been in the low thousands (quite possibly not even in the tens of thousands).

Bear that in mind as you read this:

Other mammals who live in groups, tend to do so in ones with relatively few individuals.

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

I am so glad that you have raised this point!:)

The Bible tells us that .....

Man of Faith watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoqKF52FU8

Its a video by a Christian about creationism.

man of faith

monosharp wrote: »

Man of Faith watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoqKF52FU8

Its a video by a Christian about creationism.

Monosharp you watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh3f5KfXXOo&feature=related

And all you other atheists WAKE UP!!!

You know millions and millions of dollars is invested in SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence) to scan the skies with radio telescopes looking for any form of communication from other life forms in outer space to prove that we are not alone. An astronomically largely complex communication system exists in our own dna, yet still you say that there is no Creator or intelligence far superior to us. If we were to record the amount of encoded information in just one pinhead of dna into paperback books and stack them on top of each other, we would have a pile of books approx. 500 times higher than here to the moon (this is the result of a literal calculation). We will hang a man based on its irrefutable evidence. I call this intelligence the God of the Bible seeing as it can be cross referenced with extreme accurancy to the historical, geological and paleontological record. An enormous amount of oceanic marine fossils found on mountain tops - indicating the flood.

I expect a myriad of responses. I may reply - I'll just see how we go. I'm sort of getting tired of this, but I have thouroughly enjoyed myself. You may or may not here from me again, but nevertheless remember that Jesus loves you. God has paid the ultimate price for you to be restored to Him. I wish all of you the best and I mean you absolutely no harm. God bless and good night.

Flamed Diving

man of faith wrote: »

You know millions and millions of dollars is invested in SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence) to scan the skies with radio telescopes looking for any form of communication from other life forms in outer space to prove that we are not alone.

Yup... and?

man of faith wrote: »

An astronomically largely complex communication system exists in our own dna, yet still you say that there is no Creator or intelligence far superior to us. If we were to record the amount of encoded information in just one pinhead of dna into paperback books and stack them on top of each other, we would have a pile of books approx. 500 times higher than here to the moon (this is the result of a literal calculation).

Yeah, it took 4.5 billion years of evolution for it to become as complex as we see it today. We understand the mechanism through which this happens. No creator is required.

man of faith wrote: »

We will hang a man based on its irrefutable evidence.

We also base scientific theories on irrefutable evidence. Don't be silly and confuse scientific theory with guessing. Thanks.

man of faith wrote: »

I call this intelligence the God of the Bible seeing as it can be cross referenced with extreme accurancy to the historical, geological and paleontological record.

No, it can't. Otherwise Science would have confirmed this statement. You know, the same science that made your PC and the 21st century lifestyle you hypocritically take for granted.

man of faith wrote: »

An enormous amount of oceanic marine fossils found on mountain tops - indicating the flood.

No, this does not indicate the flood. Try to learn how mountains form.

Hint: They rise.

man of faith wrote: »

I expect a myriad of responses.

You should, when you talk complete nonsense.

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, this does not indicate the flood. Try to learn how mountains form.

Also one must assume that a flood would cause the fossils to 'flow' to the bottom of the mountain.

man of faith

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yup... and?



Yeah, it took 4.5 billion years of evolution for it to become as complex as we see it today. We understand the mechanism through which this happens. No creator is required.

Are you serious??? Then explain how matter formed from nothing.
Watch this video again, as all these occurances had to take place at one unique time in the galaxy, or life could not survive on our planet:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god-video.htm



We also base scientific theories on irrefutable evidence. Don't be silly and confuse scientific theory with guessing. Thanks.

No, evolution is guessing.


No, it can't. Otherwise Science would have confirmed this statement. You know, the same science that made your PC and the 21st century lifestyle you hypocritically take for granted.

Yeah, science that is dominated by atheists and evolutionists such as yourself. They will never allow anything contrary to slip through the cracks of their fortified wall, the diabolically corrupt system that controls minds. You will believe it because some very foolish man has propped himself us as God, and told all you sheep exactly how to think. Wake up man. You are buying into a major lie. Darwin would be ashamed of the scientific world today, as you've gone against very statements he made. It shouldn't even be called evolution anymore.


No, this does not indicate the flood. Try to learn how mountains form.

Hint: They rise.

There are mountains of paleontological and geological evidence to prove a global flood. Just do some research, and you'll find out just how much.

You should, when you talk complete nonsense.

ALL PLEASE READ

wolfsbane

lugha wrote: »

I would say a disbelief in God in my current position, yes. But it is revisable. In fact I would be thrilled if you or anybody else could persuade me that there was a God whom I could explore to intercede to answer my prayers and who would grant be eternal life and everything else. But so far nobody has persuaded me.

Seek and you will find - if you seek for Him earnestly. Ask Him to reveal the truth, if He is there.

Read the Bible, asking the unknown God to give you discernment if it is true or not.

Consider the universe around you, asking if this is only the result of material forces. Consider yourself and the individuals you know - are they really only material?

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

.

Thank you for your retraction. At least you are now on-side with your fellow-evolutionists.

Now we just have to find out what the terms mean to each side.

lugha

man of faith wrote: »

Monosharp you watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh3f5KfXXOo&feature=related

And all you other atheists WAKE UP!!!

Dang. The charming your lady in the video neglected to advise me which God I should worship. Thor? Zeus? I did find two words in everything she said which resonated with me, “totally embarrassing”.

Anyway leaving aside her “interesting” view of evolution and lets suppose that evolution is false (and unlike any religion, evolution like everything else in science can and will be rejected on the basis of evidence) that would just send us back to square one where we will not understand how we came to be. Such a scenario would add no credibility to the case that (any!) God made us.

Turtwig

Man of faith,

There is no evidence in the slightest to suggest a global flood, none whatsoever.
I'll ask you this though if the world was flooded for 40 days and 40 nights then how the heck did the plants survive??

Matter forming from nothing?
Is typical appeal to false common sense..
What is nothing?
What is forming?

If we are buying into a major lie then it is up to the creationist to show us some evidence of the lie and to make some predictions based on that evidence as to how things should go.
Thus far:
Evidence : Zero.
Predictions : Nil.

Must try harder..

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

[quoting JC]:
Quote:
originally ALL Bcteria were good ... but then came the fall and death ... and some bacteria became pathogenic ... but even today many bacteria are in symbiotic relationships with us and STILL are 'good'!!!
And this ladies and gentlemen is why people laugh at creationists.

All bacteria used to be "good" but now some are apparently "evil". Such scientific terminology in use it boggles the mind.

For any lurkers out there, just spends a few minutes reading this pre-school infantile "babies come from storks" nonsense. Its better then anything anyone could make up.

It seems evolutionists must be pedants, then. Most people, including scientists, know what is meant be a 'good' bacteria and a 'bad' one. But for the pedants, let me spell it out - good for the human body, and bad for the human body.

Lurkers here should note this attempt to evade creationist argument rather than address it.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

monosharp said:

It seems evolutionists must be pedants, then. Most people, including scientists, know what is meant be a 'good' bacteria and a 'bad' one. But for the pedants, let me spell it out - good for the human body, and bad for the human body.

Lurkers here should note this attempt to evade creationist argument rather than address it.

Not precise enough.
Example : E Coli is helpful for digestion in the intestines, but you guessed it, bad for us if it contaminates our food.

So is E Coli good or evil??
This wasn't an evasion attempt, it was a recognition of the vagueness of a supposedly scientific statement.



The pedantic person out there will realise I wasn't precise enough either, but I was simply illustrating a point:p

Flamed Diving

man of faith wrote: »

ALL PLEASE READ

Please learn how to use quote tags properly, or at least use a number system. It's just plain lazy.

man of faith wrote: »

Are you serious??? Then explain how matter formed from nothing.

That has nothing to do with evolution. You really haven't a clue, do you?

man of faith wrote: »

Watch this video again, as all these occurances had to take place at one unique time in the galaxy, or life could not survive on our planet:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god-video.htm

I don't have time to watch your video, but I can imagine the lies purported, as I have heard them all before.

man of faith wrote: »

No, evolution is guessing.

Erm, no. You are both stubborn and ignorant (of evolution) here. A vicious combo.

To mods, this is not a personal attack. I am merely stating the obvious. He is being stubborn and has displayed a massive lack of knowledge of the theory he so greatly opposes.

man of faith wrote: »

Yeah, science that is dominated by atheists and evolutionists such as yourself.

Firstly, evolutionism is a myth purported by faith-heads. There are no gravitationalists, are there? Silliness. Secondly, there are a great many scientists that are christians, muslims, etc, etc. Only "literalist interpretists" :pac: have a problem with evolution. Guess what? The problem is with the interpretation.

man of faith wrote: »

They will never allow anything contrary to slip through the cracks of their fortified wall, the diabolically corrupt system that controls minds.

No, that is the minority of people who take the bible literally. I personally don't worry about evolutions validity. Doesn't make a great impact on my life.

man of faith wrote: »

You will believe it because some very foolish man has propped himself us as God, and told all you sheep exactly how to think.

Who? Darwin? No, the bones of his theory was right, but much of what he said was simply wrong. That's the beauty of science. Truth doesn't come from authority figures, it comes from evidence.

man of faith wrote: »

Wake up man.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

man of faith wrote: »

You are buying into a major lie.

I'm not buying into anything. I don't care if evolution is true or not. Doesn't make a huge impact on my day-to-day life.

man of faith wrote: »

Darwin would be ashamed of the scientific world today, as you've gone against very statements he made.

Oh, would he? You know Darwin now? Once your enemy, and now your friend? I don't care what Darwin thought. I never have. His opinion doesn't matter.

man of faith wrote: »

It shouldn't even be called evolution anymore.

Who cares what its called? Honestly?

man of faith wrote: »

There are mountains of paleontological and geological evidence to prove a global flood. Just do some research, and you'll find out just how much.

Do some research. Well, as it turns out, I have. I found that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity, and that things seem to run fine without one.

YAY.

lugha

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seek and you will find - if you seek for Him earnestly. Ask Him to reveal the truth, if He is there.

Read the Bible, asking the unknown God to give you discernment if it is true or not.

This is the circular argument which I cannot square in my mind, although I can see that there are many believers who have no such trouble. You suggest that I read the bible (and thus agree apriori that the bible is indeed the word of God) and my prior belief will be affirmed. The difficulty of course is that proponents of all of the thousands of other religions might implore me to take the same course of action with respect to their holy books or rituals. The only arguments I have heard from those who choose Christianity over other religions they have examined is that it somehow appealed to them more than others. No offence to those, but that might be fine as a reason for choosing a particular model of car to drive but I would have expected that there would be a killer argument for Christianity, which asserts its truth AND explains what it has that other religions lack.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Consider the universe around you, asking if this is only the result of material forces. Consider yourself and the individuals you know - are they really only material?

This might lead one to believe in a deistic God. I am essentially agnostic with respect to the existence of this God. Perhaps you look at the wonders of the universe and are filled with a sense that there must be a God. I certainly understand this sensation. But that tells you that this God will intercede if you pray to him or offer you eternal life after death?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well look at the fossil record. It is all there. The fossil record are snapshots of these changes taking place over millions of years.

We can't sit around watching the accumulation of mutataions. We can look back at the fossil record and see them.

Of course you have to accept the fossil record is this, which you have already closed your mind to, so I'm probably talking to the wall here. But this is what you see in the fossil record, you see the intermediate forms that Creationists lie about by saying they don't exist.



It is evidence of evolution producing accumulation of changes large enough to cause speciation, and really once you have that you don't need anything else. These mutations repeated over billions of years will produce "goo-to-you".

That is what is predicted and that is what the fossil record shows.

Of course you refuse to accept any of that because of your religious beliefs. If you have closed your mind there is very little I can do to open it. That is up to you.

The only thing lacking here is any evidence from Creationists that this process some how stops at certain points for some unknown supernatural reason.

I have a problem about how the fossil record is interpreted. The snapshots are linked together by the interpreter - they are not like a video. The sequence is in the mind of the beholder.

No doubt much of the evolutionist interpretation is honest conjecture, a serious attempt to fit the evidence to their general theory. Some, however, is mere propaganda and/or publicity, as this article points out:
'Ida' Fossil Hype Went Too Far
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html

wolfsbane

lugha said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Seek and you will find - if you seek for Him earnestly. Ask Him to reveal the truth, if He is there.

Read the Bible, asking the unknown God to give you discernment if it is true or not.
This is the circular argument which I cannot square in my mind, although I can see that there are many believers who have no such trouble. You suggest that I read the bible (and thus agree apriori that the bible is indeed the word of God) and my prior belief will be affirmed.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. No, I mean you to read it on the possibility of if being God's word. Reading to see if it will speak to you - as it would if it was God's word and you were sincerely seeking after Him.

I would have expected that there would be a killer argument for Christianity, which asserts its truth AND explains what it has that other religions lack.

The killer argument is two-fold:the witness of creation to your conscience; and the witness of the gospel to your conscience. Those two leave you without excuse - and if you apply yourself to them, they lead you to God and the salvation He gives to all who come to Him. The other religions may claim this - but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Consider the universe around you, asking if this is only the result of material forces. Consider yourself and the individuals you know - are they really only material?
This might lead one to believe in a deistic God. I am essentially agnostic with respect to the existence of this God. Perhaps you look at the wonders of the universe and are filled with a sense that there must be a God. I certainly understand this sensation. But that tells you that this God will intercede if you pray to him or offer you eternal life after death?

I agree - creation and our sense of ourselves as more than material beings tells us nothing about how God would respond to us. With only that witness, we would be merely wise to try and see what happens.

But we have a fuller witness - the gospel which God has sent to us. His word assures us that all who sincerely seek Him will find Him and that He will pardon every sinner who repents and trusts in Him. To suppress that witness is to be foolish to the ultimate.
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”