now, i heard rumblings in other threads that there is never any constructive debate between creationists and everyone else.

my assumption has been that there is no evidence for creationism, because all the arguments i have seen presented have been deconstructive.

so perhaps my assumption is wrong.

but before i issue my challenge, i want to make it clear that i am not out to shoot down good logic or act like the spoilt agnostics you get so often. i merely wish to play the devils advocate and see the other sides hand.

so, without this turning into a flame fest; i am open to, and would like to hear any evidence in favour of creationism. is there any?



however, i think a disclaimer is needed as some people don't understand what constitutes evidence, as points relating to the following are often presented as such.

evidence does not include reasons why evolution may be wrong, errors made by evolutionary scientists or other extraneous points. they are arguments against evolution, not for creation.

evidence does also not include proving one part of the bible true then extrapolating and claiming the entire bible is factual, that is false logic.

evidence certainly does not include the reasoning that absence of a satisfactory answer means creationism is true.

bibles quotes are not evidence in themselves, they are the hypothesis. the idea is to prove genesis using real world discoveries, not vice versa.

evidence is neutral, and is used to support a positive hypothesis.

[This message has been edited by RAOVQ (edited 11-14-2006).]

I'm sure some creationists would argue that the very fact that we and the world exists is evidence enough?

i'm a christian, and i'm of the opinion that whether or not Genesis was literal or not doesn't really matter, because it has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about how we live our lives.

Not to say I don't think God, pulled string here and there, but yeah

Just watch this, the end says enough.

http://tinyurl.com/y46ldr

I believe we all remember when Digital Savior attempted to prove creationism and the fiasco that ensued.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

now, i heard rumblings in other threads that there is never any constructive debate between creationists and everyone else.

Origins and Civil Librities.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

because it has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about how we live our lives.

Which is irrelevant to this discussion, as well as ambiguous, contradictory, and open to interpretation.

Creationists have no evidence to back up their claims. Everytime I've seen one attempt to present evidence, it was either falsified by other creationists, or due to a hilarious inability to understand evolution ("How come there are still monkies??!!!!")

no really religious people are gonna come on this site im thinkin and if they do then you aint gettin the cream of the crop

so its there nothing creationists can offer?

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

so its there nothing creationists can offer?

See the "Origins and Civil Liberties" thread, it's archived in the religion archives. Basically, creationism's "evidence" was refuted.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

so its there nothing creationists can offer?

bump. thought i would give this one another go.

Creationists don't believe what they believe becuase the evidence points to it, they believe it because their parents told them to. They don't arrive at conclusions from studying facts, they arrive at "facts" by studying conclusions.

People need to stop making these theads goading creationists (or theists) into trying to defend their beliefs with evidence. You know full well that they will never be able to. Or you could keep doing it, just to rub it in http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Kykeon:

Creationists don't believe what they believe becuase the evidence points to it, they believe it because their parents told them to. They don't arrive at conclusions from studying facts, they arrive at "facts" by studying conclusions.

People need to stop making these theads goading creationists (or theists) into trying to defend their beliefs with evidence. You know full well that they will never be able to. Or you could keep doing it, just to rub it in http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I came to my religious beliefs on my own and i know most Christians i know did as well. Your not better than anyone else cause you believe in evolution douche bag. Also creationism was not formed on scientific theories or studies. Thats what you forget about evolution is that it is just a theory. There is no evidence to back it up, it is just an idea that is more feasible than any other ideas.

As unlikely as it may seem, if there is a supremely powerful being, as creationists would suggest:

It'd be possible for him to create the entire world and the semblance of evolution at a whim.

It is, as it has always been, fundimentally a matter of faith.

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

I came to my religious beliefs on my own and i know most Christians i know did as well. Your not better than anyone else cause you believe in evolution douche bag. Also creationism was not formed on scientific theories or studies. Thats what you forget about evolution is that it is just a theory. There is no evidence to back it up, it is just an idea that is more feasible than any other ideas.

Woah, there. I don't think I'm better than you or anyone else. We're all equally worthless. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

A quick question: Were you raised Christian? I realize that what I said was oversimplification, and I regret having posted it. I just think that most Christians had their belief in God ingrained in them at a young age.

Also, you don't really seem to understand what a theory is. A theory is "a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." (definition taken from Wikipedia. If you check into it, you'll find that it's accurate) A theory doesn't run in opposition to fact. Gravity is a theory. No one in their right mind would refute gravity on the grounds that it's "only a theory". There's too much evidence that supports it's existence to deny it. Whats more, gravity will never be classified as anything more than a theory. Likewise, there is a vast amount of evidence supporting evolution. For example: the fossil record, observable evolution in microscopic organisms, and genetic evidence. But it doesn't matter how much evidence is found in favor of evolution. It will never be anything more than a theory. So please, please stop saying "it's just a theory" when arguing against evolution.

Peace, man. And props to your username!

I didn't say theories are in opposition to fact. But they are based on a few facts, i've seen the images of birds evolving on isolated islands and all that shit but that just doesn't convince me. Show me the missing link and whatever ungodly creature it mated with and you might have me on it. Gravity is a force that can be tested by anyone on the earth. Evolution is a "this is the best we got" science.

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

I didn't say theories are in opposition to fact. But they are based on a few facts, i've seen the images of birds evolving on isolated islands and all that shit but that just doesn't convince me. Show me the missing link and whatever ungodly creature it mated with and you might have me on it. Gravity is a force that can be tested by anyone on the earth. Evolution is a "this is the best we got" science.

There is no such thing as a "missing link". For the most part, this term has been used by creationists since the 19th century to discredit evolution. It was then considered that the "missing link" between animals and humans would be the final proof of evolution. Scientists know better these days, but sadly, most other poeple don't. There are only transitional forms. There are many transitional forms throughout history, rather than a single "missing link" between species. The closest thing to what you are looking for it the Australopithicus atharensis (fuck, how do I make italics?), also known as "Lucy". It isn't a "missing link"; since such a thing never existed. There is only tiny changes in a species that result in more and more transitional forms until a species is so different than what it was before, that it is declared it's own species. It isn't necessary for there to suddenly be two missing links to breed and populate. All there needs to be is one animal with trait X who mates with another animal of the same species. It's offspring will have trait X as well, and will pass it on. This happens over and over again with more traits until it can be classified as a new species.

I hope that's easy to read. I'm pretty tired, so it might just sound like nonsense. It's too off topic anyways, so I'm not going to keep talking about it. Hit me up at disgruntledworm@gmail.com if you want to talk about it here any further, though.

EDIT: I tried to make it make more sense.

[This message has been edited by Kykeon (edited 01-11-2007).]

Doesn't the existance of niggers prove that there is no god?

Or at least if there is a god, it proves that he's incomptetant.

Creationism is bullshit, to quote the BULLSHIt show

Science CHANGES

STarts with OBSERVATION

HYPTHESIS

TESTING

DEBATE

Religion is RIGID

Starts of with FICTION

ASSERTION

INSISTING

TWISTING FACT

and sometimes leads to TORTURING the non believers

heres a story titled "Missing link in human evolution found in Africa" for the guy who needs more proof http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s877478.htm

the missing link statement is long gone. Scientists have progressed past it, by observing more evidence.

fuck i hate creationists

quote:Originally posted by Levo75:

Just watch this, the end says enough.

http://tinyurl.com/y46ldr

my favorite time was when the guy that said he was a time traveler said that the US has a new government installed in fall 2005

What the fuck is this trend among Christians to call evolution "just a theory?"

A theory is a fuckload better than a blind assumption.

If you're telling me I shouldn't believe evolution because it's "just a theory" then why the fuck would I believe something that has even less evidence?

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

I didn't say theories are in opposition to fact. But they are based on a few facts, i've seen the images of birds evolving on isolated islands and all that shit but that just doesn't convince me. Show me the missing link and whatever ungodly creature it mated with and you might have me on it. Gravity is a force that can be tested by anyone on the earth. Evolution is a "this is the best we got" science.

And creationism is magic, so I'd rather take the science.

Besides, evolution isn't a 'best we've got' at all, it's solidly grounded in empirical evidence and experiment, such as fossils. Without evolution, vestigial features are completely unexplainable. Why otherwise would human embryos be fish-like in the early stages and have tails?

quote:Originally posted by socratic:

And creationism is magic, so I'd rather take the science.

Besides, evolution isn't a 'best we've got' at all, it's solidly grounded in empirical evidence and experiment, such as fossils. Without evolution, vestigial features are completely unexplainable. Why otherwise would human embryos be fish-like in the early stages and have tails?



Duh, becuase God did it to trick us. Frankly, if there is a Christian god, he would have had to put all of this evidence of evolution just to trick us. A god like that isn't worth worshipping, even if it means I have to burn for all eternity. Especially if it means that I have to burn for all eternity!

The Bible says we were in current form 6000 years ago, and the bible says that the bible it is true.

Ergo we were crated 6000 years ago in created in current form.

That logic is air tight

[/sarcasm]

Even without using the bias of god one can prove that creation is not a science.

Intelligent Design is taught not through science and facts, but rather by disproving evolution. Evolution uses facts and evidence to prove its theory, ID uses "facts and evidence" to disprove evolution. Even if they do so, they do not prove intelligent design. The inherent teaching method of ID prevents it from proving itself. Lets imagine that ID gathers enough evidence to disprove evolution. Does it mean ID is true then? Fuck no. Imagine you go to your doctor with a cough, and he thinks its either TB or Influenza. He checks you for TB, finds it negative and puts you on some early antivirals for Influenza. is this right? Fuck no! It could be rhinovirus, emphysema, lung cancer, allergies or other conditions. By disproving one thing, you don't prove anything else. If I disprove the umbrella man killed Kennedy, that doesn't confirm that Oswald did, it only means that the umbrella man didn't kill Kennedy.

Of course it is also not falsifiable. Evolution has been tested and confirmed. One such experiment was putting two of the identical populations of Drosophila flies into 2 different jars, one with starch medium the other one with maltose medium. When recombined after certain time the starch medium flies almost didn't breed with the maltose ones, thus creating speciation. Here we have an experiment that tests the theory and confirms it. With ID no scientific experiment or model can be used other than pure philosophic deductive reasoning.

[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-12-2007).]

quote:"I came to my religious beliefs on my own and i know most Christians i know did as well. Your not better than anyone else cause you believe in evolution douche bag. Also creationism was not formed on scientific theories or studies. Thats what you forget about evolution is that it is just a theory. There is no evidence to back it up, it is just an idea that is more feasible than any other ideas."

I really do, with all my heart, hope you die for your ignorance.

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

I came to my religious beliefs on my own and i know most Christians i know did as well. Your not better than anyone else cause you believe in evolution douche bag. Also creationism was not formed on scientific theories or studies. Thats what you forget about evolution is that it is just a theory. There is no evidence to back it up, it is just an idea that is more feasible than any other ideas.

Evolution is as much as fact as gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

There is lots of evidence for evolution, yet not a single bit for creationism. Evolution and creationism do not have the same feasibility.

quote:Originally posted by Kooper0:

Evolution and creationism do not have the same feasibility.



Word. Evolution is observable, both in nature and in laboratory settings. Creationism is not (although I suppose genetic engineering comes close).

hey i dont see any evidence proving evoltion either! can you show it to me? no you wanna know y? two reasons, one if the evolution scientist people will admit there is no evidence proving the theory correct then you idiotic athiests who had no parents and work at wendys couldnt either(not saying there is for creationism)!!! Two there is non and you could never find any, you could never find any evidence for any theory of its kind. its theorys with no crediblity to them and there is nothing to support its claim. on the other hand there is no evidence for creationism cause (if the thoery is true) theres nothing to be found its just here(confusing but hard to explain) but what do you expect? to find gods fingerprints?

[This message has been edited by Masta Thief (edited 01-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

hey i dont see any evidence proving evoltion either! can you show it to me? no you wanna know y? two reasons, one if the evolution scientist people will admit there is no evidence proving the theory correct then you idiotic athiests who had no parents and work at wendys couldnt either(not saying there is for creationism)!!! Two there is non and you could never find any, you could never find any evidence for any theory of its kind. its theorys with no crediblity to them and there is nothing to support its claim. on the other hand there is no evidence for creationism cause (if the thoery is true) theres nothing to be found its just here(confusing but hard to explain) but what do you expect? to find gods fingerprints?



Too bad you skipped over a post that had a link to evidence. Look up, it's about 2 above yours, you fucking idiot.

Why not consider the presence of vestigial attributes and body parts? Why would we, or anything else, be created with attributes that are of no discernable use?

What about the presence of fossils?

What about the observed evolution of microscopic organisms?

I still see no evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. I see experiments aimed at proving this but falling far short. If creationism is wrong, then why would males have evolved with one rib less than females?

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

I still see no evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. I see experiments aimed at proving this but falling far short. If creationism is wrong, then why would males have evolved with one rib less than females?

Oh dear. I've often incorrectly heard we evolved from gorillas and chimpanzees, but not monkeys.

As for the second bit, wtf? We have the same number of ribs.

quote:Originally posted by socratic:

Too bad you skipped over a post that had a link to evidence. Look up, it's about 2 above yours, you fucking idiot.

Why not consider the presence of vestigial attributes and body parts? Why would we, or anything else, be created with attributes that are of no discernable use?

What about the presence of fossils?

What about the observed evolution of microscopic organisms?

hey asshole!!! if a real scientists cannot provide evidence to prove it and will willingly admit it! then you can not either! remember these are the same guys that comes up with these theorys the people that knows most about it! MORE THAN YOU!!! Bitch!!!

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

hey asshole!!! if a real scientists cannot provide evidence to prove it and will willingly admit it! then you can not either! remember these are the same guys that comes up with these theorys the people that knows most about it! MORE THAN YOU!!! Bitch!!!

Have you not grasped the art of reading and writing?

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

^^ EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION

As for the last part of that mess of text, I don't have a clue what you're saying.

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

If creationism is wrong, then why would males have evolved with one rib less than females?

This is an instant classic!

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

I still see no evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. I see experiments aimed at proving this but falling far short. If creationism is wrong, then why would males have evolved with one rib less than females?

humans did not evolve from mokneys. We BOTH evolved from a comman ancestor, if i remember correctly this anscestor was around 4 million years ago? But if we were to look at this ancestor we would probly call it a monkey, but its not similer to monkeys, apes, gorrilas of today no more then we are.

and how come i never knew that about females and ribs. Even if it is true i would say because females grow a fucken child in there gut and need more room.

There is plenty of evidence for human evolution from ape. Do some research. But one wonderful example is human chromosome 2 http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

And as for the rib thing Men and women both (usually) have 12 pairs of ribs. http://vilenski.org/science/humanbody/hb_html/ribcage.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rib_cage



[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 01-13-2007).]

HELLO?

I have a fucking tail [/retard voice]

We have specific organs in our brain that have decreased in size due to lack of use.

But most and foremost, I have a fucking tail.

And if you two dudes ranting about your devotion to creationism would stop just getting mad, then ravishing your keyboard with your outward flowing bullshit anger, it would be great.

Also, evolution works by off-shoots, not species conversion.

And while I'm thinking about it, the raving lunatic of a dumb-ass wanna be preacher that said the rib thing....Well, that's just a direct proof evidence of the way they work. All these creationist get together, feeling all special and shit, and then just spout off to each other. Blah blah this, rah rah that, and a whole lot of hum-bugs. And then you have kids believing that men actually have a different number of ribs than women. Why? Because of all this spouting nonsense. Everyone just wants to be so fucking right, so fucking special, eat a dick and fucking die. You're so fucking right.

quote:If creationism is wrong, then why would males have evolved with one rib less than females?

I don't agree with this guy that men having one less rib promotes creationism, it doesn't. But why do guys have one less rib? I never thought about that before.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I don't agree with this guy that men having one less rib promotes creationism, it doesn't. But why do guys have one less rib? I never thought about that before.

WE DON't

There is evidence SUPPORTING the claim but not PROVING it! this is something that can not be denied for the fact(3rd time i said this) even the big science all for evolution guys cant deny is that it does not prove it just supports it, thats the whole purpose as to why they want to find the missing link. if you could prove something then there would be no doubt about it niether one of us can prove our theorys, its imppossible thats why theres debate about it so lets end it at this!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Stop using the term missing link! Its a bullshit term that is not true. There wasn't one abrupt change. It was many things changing very slowly. All one needs to do to see proof is take one physical anthropology class. Evolution can simply be proved by taking a look at how humans have changed during recorded history. We are significantly taller on average than we were 2000 years ago. Our recorded history is merely a speck in the history of the world. Neolithic era forward is only 1/643,000 of the time that the earth has existed.

I did read some proof for creationism, but it was all circumstantial. They pointed to the ages of the oldest living things on earth. Oldest tree, and the great barrier reef.

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:

Stop using the term missing link! Its a bullshit term that is not true. There wasn't one abrupt change. It was many things changing very slowly.

umm hasnt there been a theroy that evolution occurs in "bursts" followed by a slow stability?

the bursts occur in rapid climatic changes

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/rates.html

[This message has been edited by Mantikore (edited 01-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:



I did read some proof for creationism, but it was all circumstantial. They pointed to the ages of the oldest living things on earth. Oldest tree, and the great barrier reef.

Using tree they can figure out the earth is older than 6000 years old. At least 11,300 something

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

There is evidence SUPPORTING the claim but not PROVING it!

No, there is proof that evolution happens and that humans have evolved from non-human ancestors.

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

this is something that can not be denied for the fact(3rd time i said this)

Repeating yourself does not make you right.

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

even the big science all for evolution guys cant deny is that it does not prove it just supports it,

Wrong.



quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

thats the whole purpose as to why they want to find the missing link.

Oh really? What would this "missing link" look like? There is no missing link.



quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

if you could prove something then there would be no doubt about it niether one of us can prove our theorys, its imppossible thats why theres debate about it so lets end it at this!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

It doesn't work that way. As long as there are religious fundamentalists out there who aren't educated to the facts of science, they will still argue that science has proved nothing and that they are still looking for a missing link, or that women have one less rib than man, or some other bullshit that isn't true. Someone arguing that the Earth is flat does not mean that there is not proof that it is spherical.

i had hoped for some creationists to provide some solid proof of thier ideas. evolution evidence is everywhere, the only people on earth who seem to have difficulty are north american christians.

if they want to know, let them find out for themselves. i am none the poorer for these people's inability to construct and follow logical arguments.

but, apart from the rib comment (funny shit), there is still no evidence. come on, there must be _something_? if there isn't, how can you belive something with ZERO proof?

quote:Originally posted by Docta_Gonzo:

I still see no evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. I see experiments aimed at proving this but falling far short. If creationism is wrong, then why would males have evolved with one rib less than females?

But it's really easy for you to believe some stupid fairy tale that was told to us when we thought we were the center of the universe, or when we thought the Earth was flat. Face it religion has no credibility, religion comes and goes, soon Christianity and every religion we see today will be gone because we evolve our brains get bigger, we get smarter and realize how stupid this shit is. Just like Zeus and Posiden.

I bet 90% of the people that say "I came to the conclusion on my own, not from my parents" were forced into religion at a young age and dont know any different, their brains cant comprehend anything different.

Cant wait for you stupid religious faggits to die off.

Edit- And another thing, you want evidence. Scientist have pretty much mapped the Human Genome and guess what, WE'RE ALMOST 96% CHIMPANZEE, which means our DNA is almost the exact same as a fucking monkeys. Face the fucking facts, crawl out of your stupid narrow minded hole and face the fucking facts.

[This message has been edited by DieSmokin (edited 01-14-2007).]

According to the Bible:

Heavens(universe)and Earth came first (Genesis 1:1)

Earth was formless(Genesis 1:2)

Water under the sky gathered to one place, and dry ground appeared (Genesis 1:9)

Land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land (Genesis 1:11)

great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems (Genesis 1:21)

Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals,(Genesis 1:24)

Man Came into being (Genesis 1:26)

So tell me does that disagree with the order of history?

Think about us. and where we live.

Why are we the only (proven) planet with intelligent life. Why does are planet have a practically perfect gravity, breathable air, a precise orbit of the sun and slant to create a balance of seasons? why do we have such a variety of food, fruit, veg, trees? why is there color? Personally I think this world is much too beautiful to happen by chance/accident. and how come humans cannot use the full potential of their brains. Were we meant live for much longer? be much smarter? be perfect?

Besides the Bible doesn't flat out say that everything was created at exactly the same time 6000 years ago. That seems to be man's infallible interpretation of the Bible. Right after the creation account in the Bible it says that to God a day is not 24Hours.



Just something to think about.





[This message has been edited by tylersch (edited 01-14-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

According to the Bible:

Heavens(universe)and Earth came first (Genesis 1:1)

Earth was formless(Genesis 1:2)

Water under the sky gathered to one place, and dry ground appeared (Genesis 1:9)

Land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land (Genesis 1:11)

great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems (Genesis 1:21)

Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals,(Genesis 1:24)

Man Came into being (Genesis 1:26)

So tell me does that disagree with the order of history?

Think about us. and where we live.

Why are we the only (proven) planet with intelligent life. Why does are planet have a practically perfect gravity, breathable air, a precise orbit of the sun and slant to create a balance of seasons? why do we have such a variety of food, fruit, veg, trees? why is there color? Personally I think this world is much too beautiful to happen by chance/accident. and how come humans cannot use the full potential of their brains. Were we meant live for much longer? be much smarter? be perfect?

Besides the Bible doesn't flat out say that everything was created at exactly the same time 6000 years ago. That seems to be man's infallible interpretation of the Bible. Right after the creation account in the Bible it says that to God a day is not 24Hours.



Just something to think about.





What are you talking about breathable air and perfect gravity. I don't get why people think you need oxygen and shit to breathe, if evolution is true (which it is) then anything can adapt to any environmental conditions. Just cause another planet doesnt have our characteristics doesnt mean life cant exist there.

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

According to the Bible:

Heavens(universe)and Earth came first (Genesis 1:1)

Earth was formless(Genesis 1:2)

Water under the sky gathered to one place, and dry ground appeared (Genesis 1:9)

Land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land (Genesis 1:11)

great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems (Genesis 1:21)

Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals,(Genesis 1:24)

Man Came into being (Genesis 1:26)

So tell me does that disagree with the order of history?

Yes, it does. Land vegetation did not appear before sea creatures.

Let's look at the creation account in Genesis and then the real order:

Genesis:

(1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man.

The real order:

(1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants.

This is just the tip of the iceberg with scientific problems within Bible.

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Think about us. and where we live.

Why are we the only (proven) planet with intelligent life. Why does are planet have a practically perfect gravity, breathable air, a precise orbit of the sun and slant to create a balance of seasons? why do we have such a variety of food, fruit, veg, trees? why is there color? Personally I think this world is much too beautiful to happen by chance/accident. and how come humans cannot use the full potential of their brains. Were we meant live for much longer? be much smarter? be perfect

Oh, this again. Ah well, it's like Jack Burton always says, "What the hell." I'll answer your questions if you'll answer mine.



quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Why are we the only (proven) planet with intelligent life.



Because we haven't ventured to other star systems and investigated them for signs of intelligent life. Given that intelligent life--in the sometimes questionable form of human civilization--has only existed for a few thousands of years on Earth compared to the approximate 13.7Byr (far less than a percentage point) even if intelligent life developed readily, is it really surprising that we'd don't find anyone hanging around the same neighborhood at the same time?

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Why does are planet have a practically perfect gravity, breathable air, a precise orbit of the sun and slant to create a balance of seasons?

Define "perfect gravity"; what's so perfect about 9.81m/s2? The reason we have "breathable air", et cetera is that this is the environment we've evolved to adapt to. If the air were methane and liquid nitrogen, any existing life would be evolved to breath that. And the uncomfortable and rakish angle of the planet causes much consternation. Why wouldn't an idyllic world would have a minor to negligable tilt to ensure Garden of Eden like conditions throughout the year with no growing and freezing seasons?



quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

why do we have such a variety of food, fruit, veg, trees?

Er, because plants are some of the oldest multicellular land organisms and have evolved to adapt in a variety of ways, each assuring their survival and competitive advantage in their particular environment. Why would some god create such an exhausing variety of foods to eat, many of which can barely be distinguished from their toxic family-mates? Wouldn't it be easier to have one type of fruit or vegetable that can be easily harvested, is delicious, and provides all required nutrients?



quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

why is there color?

This is due to something we like to call the electromagnetic spectrum, our ability to distinguish which gives us a superior capability to do things like seperate out toxic fruits from edible ones. (See the previous question.) Why wouldn't there be color, divine creation or no?

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Personally I think this world is much too beautiful to happen by chance/accident. and how come humans cannot use the full potential of their brains.

It's your choice to believe what you want, but appeals to esthetic arguments fail any logical rigor. There's no indicateion that humans don't use the "full potential of their brains", at least not in the sense of the old "using only 10% of our brain capacity" urban legend. The brains to appear to be redundant, which is probably a combination of how they work (like a network rather than a linear action system) and the need to recover from damage and trauma. To speak intelligably about neuroscience, you're first going to have to read up on the topic; I recommend Ian Glynn'sAn Anatomy of Thought: The Origin and Machinery of the Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Thought-Origin-Machinery-Mind/dp/0195158032/)



quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Were we meant live for much longer? be much smarter? be perfect?

You ask these questions based upon what? There's no indication in natural science--none whatsoever--that we were "meant" to do anything, nor does it seem clear that following any religious protocols or dogma cause you to live significantly longer, become more intelligent, or achieve perfection. Why do you think that we're supposed to be longer-lived, smarter, or perfect?

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Besides the Bible doesn't flat out say that everything was created at exactly the same time 6000 years ago. That seems to be man's infallible interpretation of the Bible. Right after the creation account in the Bible it says that to God a day is not 24Hours.

It doesn't need to flat out say it. The genealogy is given from Adam to Jesus. Unless you think some of these folks lived for thousands of years, the Biblical number is pretty close to 6000 years.



quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Just something to think about.

Indeed.

An interesting technique that evolution deniers use is what I like to call retrospective probability analysis. They take an event in the past, analyze the probability of it happening and decide whether or not it did based on this false logic. i.e. "Evolution (and they really mean abiogenesis) is 1/trillion chance". This is like saying "What are the chances of Jack Whittaker winning $314.9 million dollars in a lottery? Absolutely none! Therefore it didn't happen. Stop using this bullshit retrospective probability analysis. An event that has happened has a 100% probability.

A couple of things:

Evidence. Evidence evidence evidence. not proof. There is no definite proof of anything in the scientific sense.

Also, for the genesis guy, given an infinitely expanding universe with what could technically be called an infinite amount of time, given that time is relative and a measurement created by man, the oppurtunity for such a place to occur at least once is definite, or at least probable as hell.

And just a thought, I can't remember where I heard this, but it is the view of a beautiful sunset by a christian and an atheist. To an atheist, certain specific chemical anomalies must occur for this beautiful sunset to occur, it is truly a rare sight and a tribute to the power and beauty of chance and nature. God, however, could create this sunset, and infinite more sunsets, in a fractal second. It is insignificant in proportion to him, it is weak and meaningless. that's depressing.

Nice answers Martini

I just wanted clarify something..you quoted me on this...

Originally posted by tylersch:

""Besides the Bible doesn't flat out say that everything was created at exactly the same time 6000 years ago. That seems to be man's infallible interpretation of the Bible. Right after the creation account in the Bible it says that to God a day is not 24Hours. ""

Quote Martini

"It doesn't need to flat out say it. The genealogy is given from Adam to Jesus. Unless you think some of these folks lived for thousands of years, the Biblical number is pretty close to 6000 years."

That depends on what chronological order your referring to. But the most common I think is Usshers Chronology which calculated the date of Creation as October 23, 4004 BC.

So according to him it was about 4000 years between Adam and Jesus.

But as for everything before Adam is just the way you look at it. Since to God a day is not 24Hours. Or like the Mayans. They have a similar creation account of 7 days but its a pattern that repeats leading to a end of the calender a day 21st or 23rd of December 2012 that is sometimes thought as the end of the world, judgment day, or just some major event happening.

I think its funny how we all live in exactly the same earth, same evidence, same history, but yet different conclusions and theories.

I have a question for you. When did the first recorded civilization come into being. Was it really that long ago?



[This message has been edited by tylersch (edited 01-15-2007).]

Why doesn't everyone just agree that "God created evolution and evolution was the drunken bastard that stumbled on to human life"

It doesn't really make sense, but at least you'll get the best of both worlds of insane delusions. :]

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Since to God a day is not 24Hours.

How long is God's day? Millions of years? That still causes major problems with Genesis. Are we to suspend all scientific evidence and believe based on faith that fruit bearing land trees were in existence millions of years before sea creatures and the Sun?

If a day is millions of years and God rested on the seventh, that means that He's only been resting a few thousand years and has quite a siesta ahead of Him.



quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

I have a question for you. When did the first recorded civilization come into being. Was it really that long ago?

What's the difference? Is there not enough evidence yet for you to throw the creation account in Genesis out the window? If recorded history only goes back 6,000 years, will that be a major reason for you to believe in the accuracy of the Bible? Modern humans have been around for over 100,000 years.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Ontop of that, why would God need to rest? What does God need with a Starship, etc.

quote:Originally posted by xray:



Well it doesn't exactly say in the Genesis account. But it says this.

(Genesis 2:4)

""4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,""

This scripture shows that a DAY can mean just a period of time. Think of it like "back in the DAY I used to be...blah blah blah"

------

What do you define as a "Modern Human" a being who bangs some rocks together to make a sharp object? Even a caveman could do it? Thats really condescending...

------

Besides I don't understand how someone can use "carbon dating" to find out when a being made a sharp rock.. that rock has always been around.. besides a rock is not a living thing.. correct me if i am wrong but doesnt carbon dating only work if something was living and then died? i've been wondering about this lately... care to enlighten me?

One more thing. Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing.

No, so fucking deal with it, but that doesn't mean a fucking deity created it, it's like asking who created god.

tylersch, you are asking a one ill-thought out question after another and you haven't yet resolved how to clear up the problem of the creation account in Genesis.

It seems that you haven't done any work on your own to explain how things work and seem satisfied believing that God must have did it and for some reason the Bible is infallible and if something is found to be wrong, it's okay to make excuses for it.



Many times I have sat here and answered questions and it ultimately gets me nowhere, as was the case when I answered the questions in you original post.

If you want to know how something can come from nothing, and why "stuff" may have always existed, I recommend reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time or at least reading articles on TalkOrigins.org. (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

Check out this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html) article. Why do you even need an answer to this? There are plenty of things that us humans don't have definite answers to yet. Simply inventing a being with mystical properties and calling it "God" doesn't shed any light on the problem.

As to your question regarding Carbon-14 dating, you date the layers of organic material above and/or below where you find the sharp rock.

If you're serious about this subject, please do us all a favor. Spend a few days looking at the info at talkorigins and then come back with questions. There's lots of good info in there and it's specifically designed to address the creationist arguments.

There are a lot of smart people on this site, and if you're willing to invest some time educating yourself first, they'll be glad to help you.

^ Amen.

tylersch, regarding Genesis you asked, "So tell me does that disagree with the order of history?" It was shown to you that it does.

You then went on to ask a bunch of other questions which Martini did an excellent job of answering (and you never bothered to answer his).

Are you going to continue asking questions until someone doesn't have an answer and then exclaim, "AHA, God did it!".

We don't have the answer to everything. What we do know is, as we observe and experiment, we discover more about how the universe around us works, and one thing everything has had in common so far is that the explanations are all possible without miracles. That's a pattern that has been followed for quite a long time. Of course, if your mind can't comprehend how things can exist without a god, and believing in an omnipotent and omniscient god who always was, poses no similar problem for you, it's your right to continuing to believe. But a failure of science to yet be able to explain EVERYTHING, is a pretty lame reason to believe in this god, and an even lamer reason to believe in the Bible which is filled with all sorts of inaccuracies.

Oh My Fucking "G/god/s" micro evolution has been observed in just about every species on the planet and macro evolution has been observed in fruit flies within laboratories. Besides there is an indisputable amount of fossil evidence showing at least some slight form of macro evolution. So even if the so called theory aspect of evolution, natural selection, genetic drift, and ect., were disproven this would not disprove the observable natural phenomenon known as evolution.

(eg. When Einstein disproved Newtons theories of gravitation there was never any dispute as to whether or not the force actully existed.)



[This message has been edited by the dillinger escape plan (edited 01-16-2007).]

Fair enough. But I have done research on the subject. But I will continue to add Talk Origins to my research.

I apologize if I didn't answer any questions that were meant to be answered. Many of your questions seemed rhetorical. If you want to list your non-rhetorical questions I can do my best to answer them.

None of the questions were rhetorical, so answer as you wish. Did you miss where Martini wrote, "I'll answer your questions if you'll answer mine."?



Let's start with the original problem. You stated, "So tell me does that disagree with the order of history?"

It was shown to you that it does. Isn't that enough for you to throw the Bible out the window? What would it take?

quote:Originally posted by xray:

You then went on to ask a bunch of other questions which Martini did an excellent job of answering (and you never bothered to answer his).

This technique is called The Gish Gallop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish).

quote:In his efforts to promote creation science, Gish has frequently debated prominent and well-known evolutionary scientists. Opponents object to the often unstructured nature of the debates, what they call a "shotgun" approach to presenting many arguments, bouncing from one issue to another by continually throwing out new claims without bothering to answer previous objections, each of which would require considerable time and information to refute, a technique which has been referred to as the "Gish gallop."

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

i'm a christian, and i'm of the opinion that whether or not Genesis was literal or not doesn't really matter, because it has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about how we live our lives.

Not to say I don't think God, pulled string here and there, but yeah

I, personally, would not feel comfortable basing my lifestyle on something that I don't (partially) belive in.

Wonderful thread.

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

hey i dont see any evidence proving evoltion either! can you show it to me? no you wanna know y? two reasons, one if the evolution scientist people will admit there is no evidence proving the theory correct then you idiotic athiests who had no parents and work at wendys couldnt either(not saying there is for creationism)!!! Two there is non and you could never find any, you could never find any evidence for any theory of its kind. its theorys with no crediblity to them and there is nothing to support its claim. on the other hand there is no evidence for creationism cause (if the thoery is true) theres nothing to be found its just here(confusing but hard to explain) but what do you expect? to find gods fingerprints?



You sir are the most retarded person alive.

You're fucking stupid. Plain and simple. You have NO proof whatsoever of a god. Show me "God" and i'll believe you.

"Think about us. and where we live.

Why are we the only (proven) planet with intelligent life. Why does are planet have a practically perfect gravity, breathable air, a precise orbit of the sun and slant to create a balance of seasons? why do we have such a variety of food, fruit, veg, trees? why is there color?"

Your logic is flawed. Of course it seems like these things are perfect for us because we adapted, evolved into it so it could be no other way. Think about it.

quote:Originally posted by tanz:

"Think about us. and where we live.

Why are we the only (proven) planet with intelligent life. Why does are planet have a practically perfect gravity, breathable air, a precise orbit of the sun and slant to create a balance of seasons? why do we have such a variety of food, fruit, veg, trees? why is there color?"

Your logic is flawed. Of course it seems like these things are perfect for us because we adapted, evolved into it so it could be no other way. Think about it.



O.K.

And this proves creationism?



EDIT: Holy shit I just re-read your post and have come to the conclusion that you have worse grammar than a third grader. Did you make it to the third grade?

[This message has been edited by dburgess90 (edited 01-16-2007).]

I was quoting someone else and then showing the flaw in his/her logic. I was in no way trying to prove creationism. Quite the contrary.

quote:Originally posted by tanz:

I was quoting someone else and then showing the flaw in his/her logic. I was in no way trying to prove creationism. Quite the contrary.

Then the person that wrote that is a dumbass. Your straight.

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

One more thing. Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing.

It's called the Stanley Miller experiment. I'm tired of people refuting science on a idealogical basis. The same people who wouldn't fucking bother to pick up a biology book.

http://tinyurl.com/9r5n8

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:

It's called the Stanley Miller experiment. I'm tired of people refuting science on a idealogical basis. The same people who wouldn't fucking bother to pick up a biology book.

http://tinyurl.com/9r5n8

Problem: That experiment did not accuratly reflect the atmospheric conditions present at the time. Not to mention the harsh UV rays.

Try to keep evolution and abiogenesis apart. They are two very different things, and your arguement becomes much more difficult when you bunch them togeather.

quote:Originally posted by the dillinger escape plan:



(eg. When Einstein disproved Newtons theories of gravitation there was never any dispute as to whether or not the force actully existed.)



Actually, there was a good deal of dispute over whether he was right, but then they conducted the famous experiment during the solar eclipse that provided solid evidence that gravity bends spacetime.

I didn't read the second page, but awhile ago my friend said to me "My teacher disproved evolution today."

I rolled my eyes and asked how they did that.

He said that the chances of all those particles floating around space and colliding with each other at the exact right moment were so small that it made it nearly impossible. Therefore, the big bang theory is wrong, and so is evolution.

At this point I nearly walked away, but instead I rolled my eyes, explained that even though I don't know a lot about the big bang theory, that logic is completely flawed. The fact that we were sitting there discussing it is proof that it COULD have happened, even if the chances were so small. I just don't understand the way some of these people think.

quote:Originally posted by firekitty751:

I didn't read the second page, but awhile ago my friend said to me "My teacher disproved evolution today."

I rolled my eyes and asked how they did that.

He said that the chances of all those particles floating around space and colliding with each other at the exact right moment were so small that it made it nearly impossible. Therefore, the big bang theory is wrong, and so is evolution.

At this point I nearly walked away, but instead I rolled my eyes, explained that even though I don't know a lot about the big bang theory, that logic is completely flawed. The fact that we were sitting there discussing it is proof that it COULD have happened, even if the chances were so small. I just don't understand the way some of these people think.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE441.html

tylersch, if your actually serious about the question how does something come from nothing?

Then where the fuck did your God come from? Hes always been? Impossible. Something had to of created him since something doesnt come from nothing.

xray:

from the second fucked up link (im not reading the first)

"Claim CE441:

The universe was supposedly formed in the big bang, but explosions do not produce order or information."

"The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal"

wrong, the entropy would have been huge, look at the equation for gibbs free energy.

"The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Besides the fact that it got bigger over time, the big bang has almost nothing in common with an explosion."

i have no idea what that is supposed to prove. that the wording is wrong? even if you stupid link was right in this respect, what the fuck does it prove?

this includes the third point. sure explosions do not encourage order, but ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics. matter will take order on its own. the same way planets form due to mass and gravity, matter will organise itself. the explosion did not create order, the following laws of matter did.

also, diamonds are not the most ordered arrangement. im not sure what fuckup said that, but if you care to do the math, you will find that diamond very gradually breaks down into graphite. diamond is an unstable conformation of carbon.

but im pretty sure you have no idea of the bullshit you posted, you just agree with it. so i expect no kind of logical reponse.

if that is the case, fuck off and stop posting, you retarded, unquestioning and retarded waste of space. why not contribute to a discussion involving puppies, because you are way over your head.

Hahahahaha! This thread is pure comedy.

Creationists are so fucking stupid! Hahahaha!

Oh man. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, they cling to their pathetic bible as if it was worth anything at all.

The battle of Science versus myth is something like Kimbo versus a scrawny pale inbred bible basher.

God doesn't exist, he's fucking imaginary. All you religious freaks are insane.

Thanks for the laugh, stubborn religious imbeciles. Creationism, and God, is devastated once again.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:



wrong, the entropy would have been huge, look at the equation for gibbs free energy

That's not true. The universe first found itself in a very low-entropy state.

As for the rest, I think you're mistaken on what that article claims to achieve... that article aims to refute the biblical-creationist notion that there was no Big Bang because we see order now and (as they - the creationists- claim) "explosions do not produce order or information".

As the article correctly shows, not only is the Big Bang not an explosion, but an expansion of space-time, but order can definitely come from disorder, even from actual explosions.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-18-2007).]

^Rust beat me to it.

RAOVQ, the links xray pointed to are from TalkOrigins.org. In case you're not familiar with the site, it is one of the most respected sites on the web that debunk creationist claims using sound science.

All of the claims on that web page (except for the original creationist claim) are believed to be correct according to current scientific knowledge.

Diamonds are the hardest substance known to man and this is directly related to their very ordered arrangement (the most ordered arrangement known). The fact that they could break down into graphite under certain conditions is irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

i have no idea what that is supposed to prove. that the wording is wrong? even if you stupid link was right in this respect, what the fuck does it prove?

It is attempting to prove that creationist don't know what they're talking about. They are trying to discredit The Big Bang Theory based on what they believe is supposed to happen after an explosion, but science does not say that the Big Bang was an explosion at all.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

if that is the case, fuck off and stop posting, you retarded, unquestioning and retarded waste of space. why not contribute to a discussion involving puppies, because you are way over your head.

This is not the best way to get your point across. Can we rise above making personal attack because you think someone disagrees with your position?

black people are proof of evolution! no I'm not joking. over a long time, the pigments in their skin got darker to prevent them getting cancer. that is evolutionary.

quote:Originally posted by Pseud0nym:

black people are proof of evolution! no I'm not joking. over a long time, the pigments in their skin got darker to prevent them getting cancer. that is evolutionary.

European white humans are descended from African black humans. But yes, humans show different physical attributes that adapt them better for their respective home habitats.

Interesting Fact: Human and chimpanzee DNA is more closely related than that of chimpanzee and gorilla DNA (or, for that matter, any other type of ape).

fair enough, the site is anti-creationist, but my refutions are still correct.

diamond does break down into graphite under all but the most extreme (very hot and high pressure) conditions. it takes a long long time, but it is no-where near the most stable conformation. diamonds do actually break down under room conditions, it is just an unbelivably slow process. graphite, however, doesn't, so graphite is far more stable.

one easy way to tell that it isn't overly stable is the fact that it is so incredibly difficult to make diamonds from carbon.

but fair enough, the personal attack was not needed, and i appologise.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

fair enough, the site is anti-creationist, but my refutions are still correct.

No, they are not.

1. The article was correct when it stated that 'total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal'. The universe first found itself in a low-entropy state.

2. The article said diamond crystals where the most ordered arrangement of carbon. It says nothing of stability. (" Powerful explosions can compress carbon into diamond crystals, the most ordered arrangement.")

It merely mentions their order as a way to refute the creationist claim that 'explosions do not produce order'; whether diamonds are stable or not is irrelevant since stability is not synonymous with order. Greater order does not necessarily mean greater stability.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-21-2007).]

of course order is synonymous with stability. at least in chemistry. diamond is just as ordered as graphite, the same as carbon dioxide, and all stable carbon molecules. chemistry doesn't aknowledge asthetics, just because something looks nicer on paper does not mean it is more "ordered".

also, the evidence shows that the entropy is high. for a powerfull reaction, like one that scattered matter for billions of kiometers around, there must have been huge forces at work. to say entropy is minimal is silly. sure, the mass may have stabilised itself for a short while, but that does not mean that it was itself stable. and it was not stable, because it blew up. controlled chaos does not equal order.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

also, the evidence shows that the entropy is high. for a powerfull reaction, like one that scattered matter for billions of kiometers around, there must have been huge forces at work. to say entropy is minimal is silly. sure, the mass may have stabilised itself for a short while, but that does not mean that it was itself stable. and it was not stable, because it blew up. controlled chaos does not equal order.

It doesn't sound like you understand what entropy is and nothing "blew up". Entropy is the logarithm of the total number of possible states a system can be in.

We live in a cool universe, where the overall average temperature is near zero degrees Kelvin. That's why, according to consensus physics, we see the four forces that govern matter: the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity. In the first instant the temperature was so hot that all four forces were subsumed into one. (The appearance of these forces as temperatures cooled is known as broken symmetry.) Also because of the heat, no particles as we know them today could exist.

No particles, a single overriding force. One possible state. That's why entropy was so low.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

of course order is synonymous with stability. at least in chemistry. diamond is just as ordered as graphite...

You just contradicted yourself! If they are just as ordered (according to you) and if "order is synonymous with stability" they should be just as stable - yet you already said they are not! Either order is not automatically synonymous with stability, or they are not equally ordered. Which one is it?

Like we've said, diamond is the most ordered formation of carbon. That it is less stable compared to graphite does not refute this.

This carbon and chemistry argument's going nowhere.

Best evidence of creation is that nothing can be the cause for itself to happen (exist, in this case), so something that we'd regard as a higher power would have to have created it.

not that I believe in the shit myself.

EDIT: I guess I was unclear. what the higher power would have to have created is the big bang, the universe, and all the evidence pointing towards evolution. Unlikely? yeah. I forget why I was even arguing this.

[This message has been edited by Koja (edited 01-22-2007).]

just have patients, and support science. One day we'll be able to create life ourselves, completly fucking over the creationist idea

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

of course order is synonymous with stability. at least in chemistry. diamond is just as ordered as graphite, the same as carbon dioxide, and all stable carbon molecules. chemistry doesn't aknowledge asthetics, just because something looks nicer on paper does not mean it is more "ordered".

also, the evidence shows that the entropy is high. for a powerfull reaction, like one that scattered matter for billions of kiometers around, there must have been huge forces at work. to say entropy is minimal is silly. sure, the mass may have stabilised itself for a short while, but that does not mean that it was itself stable. and it was not stable, because it blew up. controlled chaos does not equal order.

Order is in no way synonymous to stability. The most stable substances (i.e. noble gases) barely have any complex order as opposed to very ordered and very unstable polypeptide chains and nucleic acids. In a shitty analogy one card is not ordered, but very stable,a house of cards is ordered, but is about to topple and ruin everyone's shit. If anything order and stability are antonymous, but most likely not correlated.

Also I'd like to know what "chemistry" theory claims that all those substances are equally ordered, or are you pulling the numbers out of your ass? The heat of formation for CO2 is −393.52 kJ/mol. The heat of formation for diamond is -494.9 kJ/mol. Oh shit?! DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR EQUALLY ORDERED SUBSTANCES! CHEMISTRY AS WE KNOW IT IS CONTRADICTORY! Either that or you're pulling statements out of your fucking ass.

Controlled chaos does not equal order? What the fuck? The element of control itself has to be of order. Order controlling chaos = order.

quote:Originally posted by tylersch:

Besides the Bible doesn't flat out say that everything was created at exactly the same time 6000 years ago. That seems to be man's infallible interpretation of the Bible. Right after the creation account in the Bible it says that to God a day is not 24Hours.



You are correct in saying that not everything was created at the same time, but where do you find that the Bible says to God a day is not 24 hours? The actual word in Greek that is used for day, means a real 24 hour day. To clarify that the English version uses the phrase, there was morning and evening. And it says that every time it mentions one of the days of creation.

how do creationist explain continental drift??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pangea_animation_03.gif

Estimated that 180 000 000 years ago earth was 1 giant continent. The time period is estimated by measuring how much the continents are drifting apart right now and how fast, and working backwords.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-22-2007).]

nobody know? I forgot to mention more proof that continental drift is real. Earths tectonic plates that are floating on molten rock by the way, have fault lines that constantly interact(earthquakes) and move. Just so happens these fault lines follow the shapes of the continents. Also when you compare the rocks from 2 points across the ocean, with the shape of the supercontinent. The rocks match up



ow and i remember learning something about how this backs up evolution, by explaining how some species evolved in the same familys yet were seperated by ocean. Further strengthening the theory of evolution

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-23-2007).]

I emailed about 5 different creationism science websites. Still no response. My guess is there made up answer wasnt in the "how to be a creationist scientist handbook"

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

I emailed about 5 different creationism science websites. Still no response. My guess is there made up answer wasnt in the "how to be a creationist scientist handbook"

Google [creationist "continental drift"] without the brackets.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Google [creationist "continental drift"] without the brackets.

fuck I shouldnt of asked LOL. They claim the tectonic plates moved at a blistering speed to there current configuration. Wich would be distructive to the planet i presume. Could you imagine that happening. THe earthquakes would be fucking INSANE. Small earthquakes today are from the very far edges of the plates shifting rapidly a few feet, or meters. IF the entire planet was shifting it would be fucked!. The amount of volcanoes erupting along the ring of fire would probly force the planet into darkness. These guys just embaress themselves claiming to be scientists.

"The Bible is silent about plate tectonics. Many creationists believe the concept is helpful in explaining earth's history. Some are still cautious. The idea is quite new, and radical, and much work has yet to be done to flesh out the details. There may even be major modifications to the theory that increase its explanatory power, or future discoveries could cause the model to be abandoned. Such is the nature of scientific progress. Scientific models come and go, "But the word of the Lord endures forever" (1 Peter 1:25)."

much work to be done, what like reading a grade 8 text book?

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

nobody know? I forgot to mention more proof that continental drift is real. Earths tectonic plates that are floating on molten rock by the way, have fault lines that constantly interact(earthquakes) and move. Just so happens these fault lines follow the shapes of the continents. Also when you compare the rocks from 2 points across the ocean, with the shape of the supercontinent. The rocks match up



ow and i remember learning something about how this backs up evolution, by explaining how some species evolved in the same familys yet were seperated by ocean. Further strengthening the theory of evolution



Or vice versa, that similar species existing on entirely seperate continents lends further credibility to continental drift.

Evolution may just be the creation. I don't understand why people are so quick to throw that out. There is so much more out there than our little planet. We are insignificant. There is no right or wrong, proof or no proof. It's a question that we will never know the answer to. If there is a supreme being, then that being created a universe and the organism thriving evolved in some way. We are changing all the time. Look back 100 years. We are so different now. Imagine us thousands of years ago. Humanity was not created as it is today. I like to think that there is a creator. Not in the usual sense, but in the sense that it is a unexplainable creator. It's very difficult to put into words. The only way I can describe it, and this is a terrible example, is rocks. We know how they form and why they form, but we don't really know HOW or WHY. Why do rocks exist? They make up so much, but they're random in a way.

personally i don't think there is a why. things have happened like this due to our physical laws. we have no purpose, no aim in life. our existence is explained the same way you explain the burning of the sun, only much more complex.

to take your example, rocks, why not have them. their shape isn't random. they exist due to dust and sand and minerals being compressed in the earth due to gravity. thier shape is due to weathering or activities like plate movements or volcanoes. nothing really random, just the obserable way things happen.

sure, i don't know much about the big bang. im no physicist, so i don't know the details. and i have no real desire to star reading a brief history of time. this means that i will probably never know how exactly the universe came to be, and our theorys (like string theory) behind it. but that does not mean i belive in a creator. im happy with a mystery, i don't need to invent a supernatural force to justify it.

How did everything get started? I know there are theories and beliefs, but how can their be nothing and then some how things start to happen? I'm ignorant on the theories of time, but how does something come from nothing?

You guys are really intelligent, but some of you come off as elitist pricks. Bashing someone who believes in a higher power is lame and comes off as insecure on your part. Science can explain a lot, but there is still a lot of mystery, which I enjoy. Life would suck if you knew why we all were here. I have faith in a higher power, but I can understand why most of you hate overzealous religious people. I find these people elitist pricks also because they are stubborn also. They bring out the bad part of religion.

In the end, what does it matter? I'm going to continue to be open minded and just live a good life instead of caring about what others believe in. Life is short and arguing about the beginning of life is IMO a waste. I'm enjoying this thread, but I find the "I hope you die because you believe in a higher power " shit really lame.

^^^the main thing i find retarded with the theory of the creator is that it actually doesnt explain anything.

We all wonder how'd everything come to be. Just saying well God or a creator must have made us, answer solved. Well that doesnt explain how that creator was created. So really your left with more questions then you started of with

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

^^^the main thing i find retarded with the theory of the creator is that it actually doesnt explain anything.

We all wonder how'd everything come to be. Just saying well God or a creator must have made us, answer solved. Well that doesnt explain how that creator was created. So really your left with more questions then you started of with



Yeah..

Why do people describe the beginning of life as extremely complex ie: science or extremely simple ie: religion?

I think creationism has to be at least a little true. I mean where did the universe and all its inhabitants come from? Where did the particles involved in the big bang come from?


Also, though, where did god come from? Who made him? And who made the guy who made god?

What is so hard to believe about Genesis? It perfectly describes the Earth's return to life after the last major cataclysm. First, light poked through the volcanic ash that blocked the surface of the Earth from the sun's warmth. Next, the cold covering of the world melted and drained to the seas/oceans - returning cycles of precipitation and such. Then, vegetation returned. Sea life grew to fill the oceans. Land animals grew to fill the forests, tundras, mountains, and so on. Then man began to thrive; taking position as the head of the food chain.

The problem most have with Genesis is that they think it's an account of the Universe's beginning. It's the story of MAN's beginning. To those who take their Faith seriously: Ask God himself what Genesis means.

Of course though, I'm crazy. I think God's the one who reveals these things to me, so I MUST be a lunatic.

^^^the main thing i find retarded with the theory of the creator is that it actually doesnt explain anything.

We all wonder how'd everything come to be. Just saying well God or a creator must have made us, answer solved. Well that doesnt explain how that creator was created. So really your left with more questions then you started of with

The problem is that you think Genesis is meant to explain Why. That is neither its purpose nor its ability.

It explains how Society formed after the rebirth of life on Earth, and explains the beginning of the 'What' to Adam's descendants. The rest of the Old Testament explains the 'What' of Adam's descendants up to a couple thousand years ago (with some prophesy concerning the 'What' up to now and a bit further), and some of the 'How' in regards to living a decent life. The NT contains the 'What' and 'How' of Faith. With the 'How' concerning the spreading of this Faith. It also contains the 'What' of the future, up until now and a little bit further.

If you want to know why you exist...keep existing.

The problem most have with Genesis is that they think it's an account of the Universe's beginning. It's the story of MAN's beginning.

Not really. The problem most people have is that there is absolutely nothing supporting what it states; which is something your incessant ramblings share in common with it.


Of course though, I'm crazy. I think God's the one who reveals these things to me, so I MUST be a lunatic.

Martyr yourself much?

Martyr yourself much?

Martyr? I don't expect to make an impact on anyone here. If someone believes what I have to say, that's cool...but that's their decision. Reject it? Much the same. I'm not putting myself in harms way to share what's been shown to me, nor do I particularly care whether or not someone trusts me. If I was still in denial of Christ's Lordship, I wouldn't trust what I'm saying either. As a matter of fact, I've seen quite a few posts from you that are strikingly...similar...to things *I* have said in the past. How am I to blame someone for doing exactly what I would do? How am I to give of myself to someone who wants nothing of what I have? I can't martyr myself...there is no cause here.

By "martyr yoursef" I meant that noody here called you a lunatic. You're conjuring tht persecution out of thin air - at least in this thread. Rather dishonestly I might add.

I don't reallycare what you expect, who you blame or whether you see a cause here or not.

Origins and Civil Librities.

*laughs*

Damn, I'm epic. That thread was an epic failure, for sure...but epic, nonetheless.

By "martyr yoursef" I meant that noody here called you a lunatic. You're conjuring tht persecution out of thin air - at least in this thread. Rather dishonestly I might add.

I don't reallycare what you expect, who you blame or whether you see a cause here or not.

Actually, Rust, I was indirectly called insane, among a couple other choice insults as a result of belief in God. Conjured from thin air? Nope. Dishonest? Nope. Your claim stemmed from ignorance? Yep.

You can try and prove me dishonest when it comes to that which is evidenced, and my integrity will stand. Below, in bold, is the indirect attack on my insanity. If you wish to read it in its original post, I believe the fellow's name was Gorcrow.

God doesn't exist, he's fucking imaginary. All you religious freaks are insane.

*laughs*

Damn, I'm epic. That thread was an epic failure, for sure...but epic, nonetheless.

That was an epic thread...

*laughs*

Damn, I'm epic. That thread was an epic failure, for sure...but epic, nonetheless.

I don't see where the thread was a failure at all. It created a huge amount of discussion and brought out a multidude of facts. The original argument made in the thread may have failed, but the thread itself was one of, if not the, best threads ever seen in this forum.

It was epic.

Below, in bold, is the indirect attack on my insanity. If you wish to read it in its original post, I believe the fellow's name was Gorcrow.


He not only said that ages ago, in a thread where you hadn't even posted, but he specifically said "religious freaks" which means if you took offense you've already voluntarily martyred yourself by making yourself out to be one!

This is pathetic; you're grasping at straws and you know it. And please don't call my claim "ignorant" just because I didn't think you would stoop to such childish levels.

He not only said that ages ago, in a thread where you hadn't even posted, but he specifically said "religious freaks" which means if you took offense you've already voluntarily martyred yourself by making yourself out to be one!

This is pathetic; you're grasping at straws and you know it. And please don't call my claim "ignorant" just because I didn't think you would stoop to such childish levels.

Rust, you say that I grasp at straws...I'm not even arguing with you. Lighten your load, man...can you laugh at nothing but death?

You said that I conjured my jest from thin air. I hadn't, so I provided a quote from the specific post in which I made my original absurdism towards. What compels you?

Who said I can't laugh at anything but death? I just pointed out how utterly ridiculous it is to reply as you did (i.e. assuming you would automatically be called a lunatic ) just because some idiot made a general comment ages ago, one that wasn't even directed at you.

If you want to justify your remarks based on that comment, go right ahead.

What is so hard to believe about Genesis? It perfectly describes the Earth's return to life after the last major cataclysm. First, light poked through the volcanic ash that blocked the surface of the Earth from the sun's warmth. Next, the cold covering of the world melted and drained to the seas/oceans - returning cycles of precipitation and such. Then, vegetation returned. Sea life grew to fill the oceans. Land animals grew to fill the forests, tundras, mountains, and so on. Then man began to thrive; taking position as the head of the food chain.

The problem most have with Genesis is that they think it's an account of the Universe's beginning. It's the story of MAN's beginning. To those who take their Faith seriously: Ask God himself what Genesis means.

If Genesis is not about the creation, but about the last cataclysm, why does the book not simply say that? Here you have interpreted the book of genesis to mean something completely different than most of your brethren think it is. This is why the bible is about as useful as your average horoscope is.

If Genesis is not about the creation, but about the last cataclysm, why does the book not simply say that?

For the same reason that its prophetic writings are riddled with metaphors and allusions: Understanding is for those who dedicate themselves to understanding. Without God there is no wisdom; you can't grasp the texts of the Spirit if you read them to feed your ego rather than your soul (this is as much true for the Divine Revelations of the Bible as it is for the Divine Revelations that common men will share). You will only come away with warped understanding meant to justify your evils. What good is it to seek an answer when each one that comes will be met with ignorance in the form of argument and sloth?

When you quit fighting the Spirit, the hidden manna and the white stone are freely given through every last part of existence. There exists a universal truth expressed in every last piece of matter: seeking for self, one will find fragments of this truth that make life tolerable; being still of heart, one will see this truth in absolutely everything that is.