GoFish addressed several issues in his response to faith in the Bible. I will, here, address only one of them--the flood. I do not have time to look up citations; however, rest assured I will and post them later. Almost all science has encountered the "worldwide flood." In fact, those who don't believe the Bible say whoever wrote the "fables" in Genesis based many of them on actual events. For what it's worth, those same athiests claim the 12 tribes of Israel were based on the Babylonian pseudoscience of astrology.
quote:Originally posted by outspokenjerk:
Okay GF, here we go again. Answer me this. If we are all products of "evolution", then how did the universe begin? [QUOTE]
There are lot's of theories and no one claims to have THE answer. Theories on multiverses, brane theory, string theory and a unified theory are all vying for THE explanation but no one theory has overiddent he other thus far.
The absolutest fact is that everything we can see in the universe is expanding at enormous speeds. Simply reverse that process and you end up with everything being condensed into one point at sometime int he past.
Given this absolute evidence, what would YOU say happened?
[QUOTE] There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing.
You are, of course, referring to the supposed Second Law of Thermdynamics that purportedly prevents evolution from happening. I'm not going to bother to explain why that is stupid. If you really want to know, start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
quote:Where did it come from?
Again, there are many theories that attempt to explain what happened before the universe began but none can be said to have wide acceptance.
I invite you to read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking if you are truly interested. If not, keep your nose in your book of fables and remain ignorant.
quote:If there was nothing in the universe to begin with,
Who says there was "nothing" before the universe began? There are plenty of theories that suggest that there may have been an infinite number of universes that have expanded and collapsed eternally.
There is a very valid theory that states that our universe is only one of an infinite number.
To me, those kinds of thoughts are so much more "spiritual" and humbling than any book of fables ever will be.
quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Almost all science has encountered the "worldwide flood." In fact, those who don't believe the Bible say whoever wrote the "fables" in Genesis based many of them on actual events.
Utter hogwash. I challenge you to find one credible scientific theory supporting a single, worldwide flood that happened 3000 to 5000 years ago.
Come ON people! Do you REALLY, DEEP DOWN believe that every single animal on the planet including every species of dinosaur, mammoth, elephant, ant, flea and rodent all lived on a single boat for 40 days and nights? Seriously, folks, clinging to such ignorant notions is sooo 12th century and is so frustratingly stupid that my eyes are shooting blood!
quote:GF THATS THE SAME QUESTION I ASK I DIDN'T QOUTE ANYTHING JUST ASKED YOU QUESTION AND YES I MAYBE RELATED TO MY DOG BUT YOU RELATED TO MY ***HOLE.
I am so very embarrassed for this poor, clueless, vacuum of intellect and all who must be associated with him.
DF
STOI wrote:
Mon ami, miracles are things that should not happen. Things that are impossible or so higly improbable that they cannot be believed without being seen.
Babies are born millions of times a day. We even understand how. Man and woman meet. Chromosomes mix--BAM! Zygote! Embryo, fetus, ice cream with pickles, childbirth. You might really dig the baby, but he's no miracle.
A miracle would be if a goat gave birth to a human baby, at least without scientific help. A miracle would be someone's missing limb regenerating. A miracle would be me, with a fist full of $100 bills, getting lucky in a House of Ill Repute. But childbirth? No, afraid not.
If you define miracles so liberally, then use miracles as evidence of your faith, your faith is in grave danger.
DF
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
quote:
If you had ever seen a baby born into this world you would know that there is no way that could happen without divine intervention.
Please. We know how children come about. All species have children, from amoebas to us. they are not miracles.
DF
I pray you dont have children
Mon ami, miracles are things that should not happen. Things that are impossible or so higly improbable that they cannot be believed without being seen.
Babies are born millions of times a day. We even understand how. Man and woman meet. Chromosomes mix--BAM! Zygote! Embryo, fetus, ice cream with pickles, childbirth. You might really dig the baby, but he's no miracle.
A miracle would be if a goat gave birth to a human baby, at least without scientific help. A miracle would be someone's missing limb regenerating. A miracle would be me, with a fist full of $100 bills, getting lucky in a House of Ill Repute. But childbirth? No, afraid not.
If you define miracles so liberally, then use miracles as evidence of your faith, your faith is in grave danger.
DF
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Almost all science has encountered the "worldwide flood." In fact, those who don't believe the Bible say whoever wrote the "fables" in Genesis based many of them on actual events.
Utter hogwash. I challenge you to find one credible scientific theory supporting a single, worldwide flood that happened 3000 to 5000 years ago.
Come ON people! Do you REALLY, DEEP DOWN believe that every single animal on the planet including every species of dinosaur, mammoth, elephant, ant, flea and rodent all lived on a single boat for 40 days and nights? Seriously, folks, clinging to such ignorant notions is sooo 12th century and is so frustratingly stupid that my eyes are shooting blood!
Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Flood, or believe that it was only a local flood involving comparatively few local animals. But they usually have not actually performed the calculations. On the other hand, the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.1 A more detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions is John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This article is based on material in these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions to ask:
How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis 7:2–3.
Genesis 6:19–20:
‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’
Genesis 7:2–3:
‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’
In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.
However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business. Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.
Clean animals: Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means ‘seven’ or ‘seven pairs’ of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each. The term ‘clean animal’ was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, the Mosaic Law definitions can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few ‘clean’ land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).
One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.
For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.
Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.5
One commonly raised problem is ‘How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?’ First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.
Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ This is a leading question—it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark’s inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.6
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.
If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.
Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway.
Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.
Food requirements
The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.
Excretory requirements
It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.
Hibernation
The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention it, but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic either way.
Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they would still need food occasionally.
Conclusion
This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?’
Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing? Hence Christians should ‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you’ (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known ‘scientific facts’.
Christians would be able to follow this command and answer skeptics’ anti–Ark arguments effectively, if they read John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics have claimed that the post-Flood ground would be too salty for plants to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out by rainwater.
Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti–Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nothing else like this has ever been written before—a powerful vindication of the Genesis Ark account.
‘It has just the sort of facts and details that kids find fascinating, and would make an excellent source of information for enhancing Bible study projects and class lessons on the Ark and Flood. Anyone interested in answering the many questions about the ark, especially from skeptics, would be advised to read Noah’s Ark.
No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers.
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.
But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.
But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomaches, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these are not found in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomaches, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these are not found in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Almost all science has encountered the "worldwide flood." In fact, those who don't believe the Bible say whoever wrote the "fables" in Genesis based many of them on actual events.
Utter hogwash. I challenge you to find one credible scientific theory supporting a single, worldwide flood that happened 3000 to 5000 years ago.
Come ON people! Do you REALLY, DEEP DOWN believe that every single animal on the planet including every species of dinosaur, mammoth, elephant, ant, flea and rodent all lived on a single boat for 40 days and nights? Seriously, folks, clinging to such ignorant notions is sooo 12th century and is so frustratingly stupid that my eyes are shooting blood!
Sometimes the mortal brain cannot comprehend how, with God, ALL things are possible! Even those beyond our wildest human imaginations...
quote:Originally posted by outspokenjerk:
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind.
There is no known "scientific law" that addresses this at all so OF COURSE there is no law that would "allow" it, either.
Fortunately for you and me and every other living creature, physics and genetics do allow it so that no laws are broken. I refer you to your own existence as proof of theory.
That said, all you Creationists are the same. You get your same old, outdated, disproved, utterly ignorant information from those "Answers in Genesis" idiots. Every single tidbit of "knowledge" from these people has been so outrageously disproved that they are seen as complete imbeciles by everyone except you and their followers.
You obviously received your "knowledge" by plagerism. Not fair and quite tacky.
Yes, it appears that you plagiarized every single paragraph of your last three posts. This latest one appears to come form:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html which is simply a regurgitation of the same Answers in Genesis crap.
Evolution gave you a powerful brain that allows you to think for yourself instead of claiming others thoughts as your own. You don't have to use it but you look really stupid when you don't.
quote:Originally posted by Peace Brother:
Sometimes the mortal brain cannot comprehend how, with God, ALL things are possible! Even those beyond our wildest human imaginations...
Oh, the human mind is quite capable or comprehending just about anything. For example, I can quite easily compute that there is not enough water on this earth to cover the entire surface of the earth. I can, quite easily, compute that no wooden boat could possibly be engineered (wood is not strong enough for the spans required) to hold two of every single plant (every single tree, flower, grass and other non-animal had to ride along, too, you know) and animal that has ever existed on this planet.
I am quite capable to ascertaining that Noah's Arc was but one of so very many similar "flood" stories that have come in and out of fashion through the ages. You DO know that Zeus sent a flood to destroy the men of the Bronze Age. don't you?
Therefore, I am quite cable of comprehending that the story of Noah is, at best, based on some local catastrophe and, more likely, a fable not meant to be taken literally.
You are capable of these amazing feats of logic, too! But you first have to embrace science as your savior instead of some mythical omnipotent space alien.
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by outspokenjerk:
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind.
There is no known "scientific law" that addresses this at all so OF COURSE there is no law that would "allow" it, either.
Fortunately for you and me and every other living creature, physics and genetics do allow it so that no laws are broken. I refer you to your own existence as proof of theory.
That said, all you Creationists are the same. You get your same old, outdated, disproved, utterly ignorant information from those "Answers in Genesis" idiots. Every single tidbit of "knowledge" from these people has been so outrageously disproved that they are seen as complete imbeciles by everyone except you and their followers.
You obviously received your "knowledge" by plagerism. Not fair and quite tacky.
Yes, it appears that you plagiarized every single paragraph of your last three posts. This latest one appears to come form:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html which is simply a regurgitation of the same Answers in Genesis crap.
Evolution gave you a powerful brain that allows you to think for yourself instead of claiming others thoughts as your own. You don't have to use it but you look really stupid when you don't.
So what is the difference in me bringing to this forum information from a source I have than you sending me to a link for info you have? If you remember, you didn't want to explain it so you were going to send me to the link you had.
OJ, there's so much wrong with your post about the Ark's capacity, it's hard to know where to begin.
A wooden ship of those dimensions (assuming 5000 year old technology could build one, a dubious assumption) contains a lot of wood; it's not terribly hollow. Your capacity calcs are not quite right.
Neither are your estimates of the number of species. See:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/endan...ecies/mg13117862.300
But what strikes me as most astonishing is your insistence on believing in what is most certainly a fairy tale. You know very well an old man and his family did not ride out a worldwide flood for 40 days with all species aboard. It's not nearly as believable as, say, Hansel and Gretl or Santa Claus.
The logical and scientific evidence I can present means nothing to you, because you won't see it. So, believe as you wish, it's within your rights. Do us a favor, and don't teach children that ark nonsense as literal? That's child abuse.
DF
A wooden ship of those dimensions (assuming 5000 year old technology could build one, a dubious assumption) contains a lot of wood; it's not terribly hollow. Your capacity calcs are not quite right.
Neither are your estimates of the number of species. See:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/endan...ecies/mg13117862.300
But what strikes me as most astonishing is your insistence on believing in what is most certainly a fairy tale. You know very well an old man and his family did not ride out a worldwide flood for 40 days with all species aboard. It's not nearly as believable as, say, Hansel and Gretl or Santa Claus.
The logical and scientific evidence I can present means nothing to you, because you won't see it. So, believe as you wish, it's within your rights. Do us a favor, and don't teach children that ark nonsense as literal? That's child abuse.
DF
quote:Originally posted by outspokenjerk:
So what is the difference in me bringing to this forum information from a source I have than you sending me to a link for info you have?
Good point.
However, my link was to one of may possibilities that MIGHT one day answer your question of "What happened before the big bang?" I didn't claim to have the only answer. It was just one answer of many possibilities.
You sent me to a link that had ALL the answers and if I didn't agree, I would burn in hell for eternity.
Can you see the difference?
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Do us a favor, and don't teach children that ark nonsense as literal? That's child abuse.
DF
I've never really looked at it that way, DF, but you are absolutely right.
Thanks for the new ammo.
Oh, and what do you have to say about your obvious plagiarism, OSJ?
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
STOI wrote:quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
quote:
If you had ever seen a baby born into this world you would know that there is no way that could happen without divine intervention.
Please. We know how children come about. All species have children, from amoebas to us. they are not miracles.
DF
I pray you dont have children
Mon ami, miracles are things that should not happen. Things that are impossible or so higly improbable that they cannot be believed without being seen.
Babies are born millions of times a day. We even understand how. Man and woman meet. Chromosomes mix--BAM! Zygote! Embryo, fetus, ice cream with pickles, childbirth. You might really dig the baby, but he's no miracle.
A miracle would be if a goat gave birth to a human baby, at least without scientific help. A miracle would be someone's missing limb regenerating. A miracle would be me, with a fist full of $100 bills, getting lucky in a House of Ill Repute. But childbirth? No, afraid not.
If you define miracles so liberally, then use miracles as evidence of your faith, your faith is in grave danger.
DF
I will end this now with no ill feelings. You have done nothing by your comments but make my faith stronger. I have faith in God and I know that your comments are merely the devils attempt to weaken my faith. But the beautiful thing about beleiving in God is that you can see through all of it. I can see you are a person that will live life not knowing and eventually God will open your eyes. I can do nothing but try to convince you to study the Bible and see what you are missing. I assure you that the life in all forms is a miracle and would not be possible without Him.
/QUOTE/ A mirac A miracle would be me, with a fist full of $100 bills, getting lucky in a House of Ill Repute./QUOTE DeepFat
I am not even going to comment on this. LOL If you are so disgusting that you cant get some in a "House of Ill Repute. I cant help you. Sounds like you are worse off than I thought
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
—2 Corinthians 5:10
Hebrews 9:27
27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
—Hebrews 9:27
Revelation 20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
—Revelation 20:12-15
quote:Originally posted by SO TIRED OF IGNORANCE:
I will end this now with no ill feelings. You have done nothing by your comments but make my faith stronger.
I don't think DF was trying to get you to lose your faith (and I KNOW I'm not). And I assure you I am not employed by Satan.
What I am trying to do is demonstrate how utterly ridiculous it is to take the bible literally. I am trying to get the point across that science and religion simply do not mix. When you try to mix them, religious people appear as primitives who cower in caves at the sound of thunder from the Gods.
omg,
I am just SO lmao. Imagine me, your humble DF, a minion of Beelzebub. Never met him, don't believe he exists.
Sorry if I flamed you out of the sky, OJ, but whenever you try to drive the square peg of religion into the round hole of reason, you're going to cause friction. The Ark is a fairy tale, nothing more. Just go with it on that basis, ok?
DF
I am just SO lmao. Imagine me, your humble DF, a minion of Beelzebub. Never met him, don't believe he exists.
Sorry if I flamed you out of the sky, OJ, but whenever you try to drive the square peg of religion into the round hole of reason, you're going to cause friction. The Ark is a fairy tale, nothing more. Just go with it on that basis, ok?
DF
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
omg,
I am just SO lmao. Imagine me, your humble DF, a minion of Beelzebub. Never met him, don't believe he exists.
Sorry if I flamed you out of the sky, OJ, but whenever you try to drive the square peg of religion into the round hole of reason, you're going to cause friction. The Ark is a fairy tale, nothing more. Just go with it on that basis, ok?
DF
I have a computer science degree and work in the nuclear field so I assure you that I am not a backwoods redneck that is beleiving in a fable. As I said before, judgment day will come and I am certain of that. I wish you nothing but the best.
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by SO TIRED OF IGNORANCE:
I will end this now with no ill feelings. You have done nothing by your comments but make my faith stronger.
I don't think DF was trying to get you to lose your faith (and I KNOW I'm not). And I assure you I am not employed by Satan.
What I am trying to do is demonstrate how utterly ridiculous it is to take the bible literally. I am trying to get the point across that science and religion simply do not mix. When you try to mix them, religious people appear as primitives who cower in caves at the sound of thunder from the Gods.
I'm glad to know the next time I present my vitae, with the four college degrees, wearing my Omega watch, and speaking perfect grammar and using unsurpassed diction, I will be perceived as a cowaring primitive.
quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
I'm glad to know the next time I present my vitae, with the four college degrees, wearing my Omega watch, and speaking perfect grammar and using unsurpassed diction, I will be perceived as a cowaring primitive.
Ooooo, impressive.
If you base your religion in a literal interpretation of the bible, you are indeed primitive and stupid not matter how many college degrees you have.*
I'm a college dropout and wear a Timex.
(*Note that I did NOT say that a belief in God is necessarily stupid.)
ooh, impressive. I graduated valedictorian of my college class. We're all scholars.
Now, let's discuss how we best understand nature. Is it more reasonable to believe those things we see, measure, test, try, and predict based on sound science?
Or is it better to abandon reason and intellect, and accept the poetic superstitions of primitive shepherds?
I submit it's good poetry, but a poor basis for the advancement of human knowledge.
My friends, if we want to use the Bible as a starting point for a discussion of morality, let's go. It is not the last word on morality, but it's a common point of reference on which we can begin a dialogue.
But the bible is often completely silent on many of the important things that are necessary for human life, comfort, and knowledge. And when the bible does speak of certain things, such as cosmology and biology, it is demonstrably wrong.
As for the ark. You know it's a fable. The story is impossible on many levels. There is exactly no evidence it ever happened. I'm sure that you, my fellow scholars, have examined the evidence for this and applied the proper scientific skepticism. To what conclusion did you come?
DF
Now, let's discuss how we best understand nature. Is it more reasonable to believe those things we see, measure, test, try, and predict based on sound science?
Or is it better to abandon reason and intellect, and accept the poetic superstitions of primitive shepherds?
I submit it's good poetry, but a poor basis for the advancement of human knowledge.
My friends, if we want to use the Bible as a starting point for a discussion of morality, let's go. It is not the last word on morality, but it's a common point of reference on which we can begin a dialogue.
But the bible is often completely silent on many of the important things that are necessary for human life, comfort, and knowledge. And when the bible does speak of certain things, such as cosmology and biology, it is demonstrably wrong.
As for the ark. You know it's a fable. The story is impossible on many levels. There is exactly no evidence it ever happened. I'm sure that you, my fellow scholars, have examined the evidence for this and applied the proper scientific skepticism. To what conclusion did you come?
DF
LOL....I never professed to be a scholar. I was simply making the point that I also am not "stupid". I am sure there are thousands maybe a million people "smarter" than I am. However, the lack of common courtesy and maturity is not shown here in this discussion. I cannot answer every scientific question that you might have. Fortunately, I beleive in the impossible through God. But through your own definition of a miracle before would that not apply to the events surrounding the Ark? Something that cannot be explained with science that you must see with your own eyes? I am not going to fight with you especially when some have not had the raising to not call names like a 6 year old. If you have a logical question that you beleive the Bible does not address, please ask me and I will find the answer. Maybe we will both learn something.
That's what roofer addict said.
did you post here before?
DF
DF
STOI
You wound me. What do you mean, lack of common courtesy and maturity?
We are talking about the examination of nature. Is the acceptance of science and reason less mature than belief in superstition?
DF
You wound me. What do you mean, lack of common courtesy and maturity?
We are talking about the examination of nature. Is the acceptance of science and reason less mature than belief in superstition?
DF
Previous posts of GoFish and DeepFat:
What I am trying to do is demonstrate how utterly ridiculous it is to take the bible literally. I am trying to get the point across that science and religion simply do not mix. When you try to mix them, religious people appear as primitives who cower in caves at the sound of thunder from the Gods.
If you base your religion in a literal interpretation of the bible, you are indeed primitive and stupid not matter how many college degrees you have.*
We are talking about the examination of nature. Is the acceptance of science and reason less mature than belief in superstition?
________________________________________________
Below is my reply:
You say science and religion don’t mix. You have hit the very reason that scientists have not been able to discover or prove how man or the universe came into existence. Evolution is a theory or guess that makes an attempt to determine our existence by using only the things that can be studied and documented. Science automatically rules out anything supernatural before even beginning, because they have no way of measuring it, or proving their findings to others. Scientists have no way of studying the supernatural without observing it in action. Scientists were not present when God created the heavens and the earth and when he made man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him life. God will not fit into their laboratory. Since science eliminates God and the supernatural from their studies, they have eliminated the answer to their problem before they even get started. Scientists have learned much, but the scientists that use scientific methods to determine how we came into existence have committed themselves in attaining an impossible goal. The role of recognizing how we came into existence is more the role of a detective than a scientist. The signs are everywhere that our Creator has been here. You can’t put God under a microscope. You can’t locate Him with a telescope. And you can’t fit Him into a laboratory. There are some things that scientists have no ability to do, because the means of approaching the subject using scientific methods is not feasible or possible. The reason science has chosen evolution as their theory, is because it removes God and the supernatural from the picture, and allows them to study rocks and organic matter to find the pieces of their puzzle. That is the only way they can study and document their findings in a way to prove to others what they have found to be true. Yet in all their efforts, they have not come close to proving that life can exist by accidental means. Nor have they even proved that life can evolve without any intelligent intervention. Evolution is still just as much an unproven theory today as it was when they first drew up this theory. You put your trust in a theory that man cannot prove, although they have put great effort in trying to do so. Show me the proof that you are right by scientific methods, and I will show you that I’m right by scientific methods.
You criticize those who attempt to prove their faith in God or in the bible by using science. I agree with you to a large degree on this, because science is so limited in its abilities to prove anything, that it often has no place in an intelligent discussion on certain issues. Besides, science excludes God and the supernatural from the very beginning in its studies, because it would be difficult to study God and observe His actions in a controlled laboratory environment. God cannot be made to act when they have their cameras ready to catch Him in action. God will not stick His finger under a microscope when He is asked to. God cannot be controlled by man, nor can he be confined to a laboratory. Also God isn’t limited to the laws understood by scientists, because God is capable of the impossible. Since science can only prove something by careful observation and the examination and study of things in a controlled laboratory environment, they have an understood rule to keep God out of their picture. That only leaves them with the ability to study rocks, planets, organisms, etc. that they might put under a microscope and be able to examine. Scientists cannot use scientific analysis to take God’s word on anything, nor can they take the word of another. Although it is 100% true that God created the heavens and the earth and all life that is on it, scientists have no means of proving it. So they continue to plod along picking up things, turning them over and breaking them apart in order to make their analysis. Scientists will not discover the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, because of the very limitations that they impose on themselves in their study. From the very beginning, scientists exclude God from the picture, because they cannot fit him into their laboratory. Scientists are extremely handicapped by their self-imposed limitations. Scientists may very well believe in God, but they would have a difficult time in proving His existence by limited scientific methods. All they can do is study what God has made. In studying God’s handwork they have made some awesome discoveries that should make any person realize that neither we, nor the universe could ever exist by a freak accident, or a series of freak accidents. Many scientists believe in God, but they cannot prove it by scientific methods. Many scientists do not believe in God, yet they cannot prove their belief by any evidence studied. Scientists can’t put God under a microscope and prove His existence, but neither can they prove the theory of evolution under a microscope either. Where does that leave your baseless argument? You have no proof by science, neither can you prove God doesn’t exist by science. Science is not the reasonable way of finding the answers in all scenarios, and this is one of those scenarios that science makes a fool of itself in.
Scientists are no different than anyone else. There are foolish scientists and there are wise ones. You put a lot of stock in people whose only ability is to analyze rocks and such, and in all their years of study, they have yet to get anywhere close to proving their theory of evolution.
The question then might be if evolution is only a theory that has yet to be proved, then why is it still around? I might see God, but to prove I see Him to a skeptical audience with only my word would be difficult. Many might see a noticeable difference in me that no logic can explain; yet many would still refuse to believe that God had a hand in it. Even when a large group sees a miracle of God in action, and knows He has made an entrance before their eyes, they may still find their unified testimony to be counted as baloney of fabrication by others who weren’t there. God is a personal God, and those who know Him, know that He exists, but it is often their word against the skeptic’s word. Evolution, even though it is a preposterous and yet to be provable concept, is the closest thing that scientists can come up with to explain life without the inclusion of God or the supernatural, so they cling to their beloved theory as if it were gold. The theory of evolution is no more than an idea put together by mans limited imagination, that allows scientists to have something to focus on in their search, without having to put God under the microscope, or having to prove His existence. Yet scientists have yet to discover any credible evidence to prove the theory of evolution to be a fact, so today after years and years of study, it is still only a theory.
If you want to believe that something extremely complicated was created by an accident, then your only logic would be to start at the least complicated and proceed to the more complicated. There is nothing mind blowing in the theory of evolution. Yet evolution is ridiculous when examined closer, and it is full of unplugged holes. Evolution is the only leg that scientists and atheists have to stand on, even though it is a wooden leg of their own fabrication. Once God is known to be real, then the whole premise of evolution appears foolish. Evolution has no scientific basis, and all odds are against it. What logical process do scientists have to offer that explains our wondrous existence? Scientists can only study what exists, yet how everything got here they have no earthly idea. They can never start with a lifeless material and figure out how life came to be. Neither can they start with life and trace it to its raw beginning. There is no scientific evidence that sheds any credible light on the preposterous idea of evolution. There is no evidence to support this theory, and that is the reason it is called a theory. Evolution is nothing more than a premise or guess that lacks any solid foundation in science or anything else. Looking at fossils doesn’t tell you how life got here. Studying the basic materials that compose a living thing doesn’t tell you how it was formed or how life was imparted to it? But if we consider more than what meets the eye, we should be aware that what we are and what we see would not exists without a maker, who we call God.
So often people like yourself will criticize others who take the bible literally, simply because they consider its stories impossible to have happened. Tell me how the universe can be possible. Tell me how life, intelligence, emotions, physical attraction, and the remarkable abilities to move, see, hear, smell, and taste can be possible. How can a human brain exist, and be so complexly wired as to send an electrical signal to the one unique nerve ending that will cause a muscle to contract or relax in just the right way and at just the right part of the body to lift a heavy weight or guide a delicate precision instrument? How can that human brain take signals from the eye and from the touch of the hand so that the whole body seems to work in synchronization and purpose? Could all of these things happen by accident? What designed the heart so that it would pump the blood through all its arteries and vessels, so that all the body might receive life and sustenance? How can we move our fingers and blink our eyes with only a thought? How did the heart know it should speed up at times and slow down at other times, based on the energy expended? How long would man have had to live before his heart and brain would have evolved to that level? What of our emotions and our ability to understand and use intelligence? Could that have happened by accident? What is it that sets the forces in action within the mind to control the many functions of the body without any necessary conscious effort on our part? Would this remarkable brain have evolved before the finger evolved, or after the finger evolved? Would the heart have evolved before the blood vessels or after? Would emotions have existed before or after the human being was developed? How can there be so many different people in the world who are basically built and designed in a similar fashion, yet have recognizable distinctions so that we are all individuals with different finger prints, different voices, and different faces and physiques, allowing us all to be special and recognizable in this great scheme of things. Do your honestly accept the preposterous belief that all these remarkable things could have evolved from a long series of accidents, which occurred exactly in the proper sequence and timing necessary to progress to where it is today? You expect others to acknowledge your ridiculous and impossible conclusion as a reasonable hypothesis, even though you present it without factual basis? Then you turn around and are you so vain as to believe that God could not have done the things written of Him in the bible, simply because He would have had to work beyond the realm of what you consider to be possible? If you consider evolution and the big bang to be the explanation of the existence of the world and of human life, surely you can believe in anything. Is your tremendous capacity for logic and reason the standard for all other logic and reason? I bet that you could create the world if you chose to. Is it necessary that a God, who created the universe and breathed life into the first man, would have to do things in a way that would be dictated by the laws and limitations that we are subject to? Is it beyond our Creator’s ability to keep an ark made of wood intact that is built according to His instructions? Could He have not designed every detail exactly as needed to contain all its various creatures? Could the birds not ride on the backs of the animals? What makes you think it could not be done, simply because you wouldn’t be able to do it? You are constantly referring to those who disagree with you as ignorant people because they take the bible literally. Shouldn’t the one who created the universe out of nothing, and created all living things, not also be able to keep a wooden ark together, even if it were made of paper or straw? God is a God who works the impossible. He does not work in your limited boundaries of reality. What law would hinder God from doing what ever He chose to do, and in whatever manner he determined to do it? Is it impossible for the entire world to be covered with water, yet only one family survive it because they believed God and obeyed His commands? You mock those who take the bible literally. Why do you only attribute to God the limited ability of the human? Have you considered the strength of the ant according to its size? Could God not create a man with remarkable strengths and abilities if He chose to? Could the one who created the oceans and rivers and lakes not be able to walk on them also? What makes you think that God must work within the realms of what you consider to be possible? Can a God who designed the forces not be able to work outside the laws of physics? Are you the one who has the responsibility to keep check on God’s children, in order to ensure that we only keep our belief within the realm of your accepted boundaries? Why is it that you do not believe in a God who might be capable of doing what you cannot? If you were God, would you place the same limitations on yourself that you would place on your creation? Would you make it so that you could never intervene in your own work? Once you set things in motion, would you have limited yourself to act only within the natural laws you placed on your creation. Did the laws exist before the universe came into existence, or did the laws only maintain the universe within boundaries that God imposed on it? You look at the word of God and say hogwash because you count its remarkable stories as impossible. You look at the universe and foolishly count its complexities the possibility of an accident without design or purpose. In both respects you remove all possibility of any intelligent intervention, and rid yourself of all intellectual reasoning? You are a fool in both perceptions. The incredible existence of the universe and of all the complex forms of life reveal that a maker must exist who is wondrously capable beyond the realm of our imagination, and whose abilities far exceed ours. At least it does to most of us. However when you look at the universe you see an accident resulting from an explosion of some kind. And when you look at the human race you see a long series of mutations developing from the first accidental one-celled amoeba that came into existence billions of years ago. Aren’t you intelligent!
You don’t need science to make logical conclusions. It is amazing the capability we already have to evaluate many things around us without using scientific methods. We don’t need a college degree to learn how to make use of the senses and intelligence we were born with. Yet do you know how they work? Can you understand which nerve that your brain sends a signal to in order to move your little finger? Do you know how great an electrical impulse to send to control the force and direction of movement of the little finger? How is it that it works when you don’t understand it? Could you actually be a freak accident? Why is it that so many like yourself can’t realize what is so obvious? I look and see the moon circle the planet and always facing the earth from the same side while most every other body is rotating. Scientists call the attractions between the heavenly bodies gravity, and they calculate the force of it to a large degree because of its consistency, but just because they have a name for this force, doesn’t mean they know why it exists? What brought these laws into existence? Why do heavenly bodies attract instead of repel one another. Did they have some chaotic and random beginning and then by accident end up in some fantastic arrangement that held them all together in patterns and rhythms of time. Did some unknown explosion put together the entire universe? What is responsible for the final precise balancing act of the universe which allows us to predict the phases of the moon and the time of each day’s revolution on its axis, so much that we can use it as a standard to measure time against? The Hubble telescope has made some fascinating snapshots of strange and mysterious things in the universe. Scientists try to look into the past in order to determine our beginning. They study as best they can the elements that might be found on the planets and stars by examining light wavelengths, etc. but they are only more fascinated and bewildered by what they see, than narrowing down their explanation of it all. They come up with theories and then have to reevaluate them as more evidence is discovered. There seems to be no limit to what is in space, and the boundary of space is yet to be found. But consider also what you see everyday on this earth. Doctors and biologists take a close look at life and the complication and precision of it, and it is no less fascinating. There are fascinating plants and creatures all around us. Yet isn’t it fascinating how a human is always born to a human, and a dog to a dog. Why does the giraffe have such a long neck? Did it evolve because the tree leaves got higher off of the ground? Did the mother and father deer decide that their children should have longer necks, and out popped this new creature we call a giraffe that was better equipped to survive the elements? Did that giraffe look around and find another giraffe and then have intercourse and populate the world with giraffes? You mock the Christian for His ignorant belief in the impossible. My friend, I wouldn’t throw stones if I were you.
What I am trying to do is demonstrate how utterly ridiculous it is to take the bible literally. I am trying to get the point across that science and religion simply do not mix. When you try to mix them, religious people appear as primitives who cower in caves at the sound of thunder from the Gods.
If you base your religion in a literal interpretation of the bible, you are indeed primitive and stupid not matter how many college degrees you have.*
We are talking about the examination of nature. Is the acceptance of science and reason less mature than belief in superstition?
________________________________________________
Below is my reply:
You say science and religion don’t mix. You have hit the very reason that scientists have not been able to discover or prove how man or the universe came into existence. Evolution is a theory or guess that makes an attempt to determine our existence by using only the things that can be studied and documented. Science automatically rules out anything supernatural before even beginning, because they have no way of measuring it, or proving their findings to others. Scientists have no way of studying the supernatural without observing it in action. Scientists were not present when God created the heavens and the earth and when he made man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him life. God will not fit into their laboratory. Since science eliminates God and the supernatural from their studies, they have eliminated the answer to their problem before they even get started. Scientists have learned much, but the scientists that use scientific methods to determine how we came into existence have committed themselves in attaining an impossible goal. The role of recognizing how we came into existence is more the role of a detective than a scientist. The signs are everywhere that our Creator has been here. You can’t put God under a microscope. You can’t locate Him with a telescope. And you can’t fit Him into a laboratory. There are some things that scientists have no ability to do, because the means of approaching the subject using scientific methods is not feasible or possible. The reason science has chosen evolution as their theory, is because it removes God and the supernatural from the picture, and allows them to study rocks and organic matter to find the pieces of their puzzle. That is the only way they can study and document their findings in a way to prove to others what they have found to be true. Yet in all their efforts, they have not come close to proving that life can exist by accidental means. Nor have they even proved that life can evolve without any intelligent intervention. Evolution is still just as much an unproven theory today as it was when they first drew up this theory. You put your trust in a theory that man cannot prove, although they have put great effort in trying to do so. Show me the proof that you are right by scientific methods, and I will show you that I’m right by scientific methods.
You criticize those who attempt to prove their faith in God or in the bible by using science. I agree with you to a large degree on this, because science is so limited in its abilities to prove anything, that it often has no place in an intelligent discussion on certain issues. Besides, science excludes God and the supernatural from the very beginning in its studies, because it would be difficult to study God and observe His actions in a controlled laboratory environment. God cannot be made to act when they have their cameras ready to catch Him in action. God will not stick His finger under a microscope when He is asked to. God cannot be controlled by man, nor can he be confined to a laboratory. Also God isn’t limited to the laws understood by scientists, because God is capable of the impossible. Since science can only prove something by careful observation and the examination and study of things in a controlled laboratory environment, they have an understood rule to keep God out of their picture. That only leaves them with the ability to study rocks, planets, organisms, etc. that they might put under a microscope and be able to examine. Scientists cannot use scientific analysis to take God’s word on anything, nor can they take the word of another. Although it is 100% true that God created the heavens and the earth and all life that is on it, scientists have no means of proving it. So they continue to plod along picking up things, turning them over and breaking them apart in order to make their analysis. Scientists will not discover the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, because of the very limitations that they impose on themselves in their study. From the very beginning, scientists exclude God from the picture, because they cannot fit him into their laboratory. Scientists are extremely handicapped by their self-imposed limitations. Scientists may very well believe in God, but they would have a difficult time in proving His existence by limited scientific methods. All they can do is study what God has made. In studying God’s handwork they have made some awesome discoveries that should make any person realize that neither we, nor the universe could ever exist by a freak accident, or a series of freak accidents. Many scientists believe in God, but they cannot prove it by scientific methods. Many scientists do not believe in God, yet they cannot prove their belief by any evidence studied. Scientists can’t put God under a microscope and prove His existence, but neither can they prove the theory of evolution under a microscope either. Where does that leave your baseless argument? You have no proof by science, neither can you prove God doesn’t exist by science. Science is not the reasonable way of finding the answers in all scenarios, and this is one of those scenarios that science makes a fool of itself in.
Scientists are no different than anyone else. There are foolish scientists and there are wise ones. You put a lot of stock in people whose only ability is to analyze rocks and such, and in all their years of study, they have yet to get anywhere close to proving their theory of evolution.
The question then might be if evolution is only a theory that has yet to be proved, then why is it still around? I might see God, but to prove I see Him to a skeptical audience with only my word would be difficult. Many might see a noticeable difference in me that no logic can explain; yet many would still refuse to believe that God had a hand in it. Even when a large group sees a miracle of God in action, and knows He has made an entrance before their eyes, they may still find their unified testimony to be counted as baloney of fabrication by others who weren’t there. God is a personal God, and those who know Him, know that He exists, but it is often their word against the skeptic’s word. Evolution, even though it is a preposterous and yet to be provable concept, is the closest thing that scientists can come up with to explain life without the inclusion of God or the supernatural, so they cling to their beloved theory as if it were gold. The theory of evolution is no more than an idea put together by mans limited imagination, that allows scientists to have something to focus on in their search, without having to put God under the microscope, or having to prove His existence. Yet scientists have yet to discover any credible evidence to prove the theory of evolution to be a fact, so today after years and years of study, it is still only a theory.
If you want to believe that something extremely complicated was created by an accident, then your only logic would be to start at the least complicated and proceed to the more complicated. There is nothing mind blowing in the theory of evolution. Yet evolution is ridiculous when examined closer, and it is full of unplugged holes. Evolution is the only leg that scientists and atheists have to stand on, even though it is a wooden leg of their own fabrication. Once God is known to be real, then the whole premise of evolution appears foolish. Evolution has no scientific basis, and all odds are against it. What logical process do scientists have to offer that explains our wondrous existence? Scientists can only study what exists, yet how everything got here they have no earthly idea. They can never start with a lifeless material and figure out how life came to be. Neither can they start with life and trace it to its raw beginning. There is no scientific evidence that sheds any credible light on the preposterous idea of evolution. There is no evidence to support this theory, and that is the reason it is called a theory. Evolution is nothing more than a premise or guess that lacks any solid foundation in science or anything else. Looking at fossils doesn’t tell you how life got here. Studying the basic materials that compose a living thing doesn’t tell you how it was formed or how life was imparted to it? But if we consider more than what meets the eye, we should be aware that what we are and what we see would not exists without a maker, who we call God.
So often people like yourself will criticize others who take the bible literally, simply because they consider its stories impossible to have happened. Tell me how the universe can be possible. Tell me how life, intelligence, emotions, physical attraction, and the remarkable abilities to move, see, hear, smell, and taste can be possible. How can a human brain exist, and be so complexly wired as to send an electrical signal to the one unique nerve ending that will cause a muscle to contract or relax in just the right way and at just the right part of the body to lift a heavy weight or guide a delicate precision instrument? How can that human brain take signals from the eye and from the touch of the hand so that the whole body seems to work in synchronization and purpose? Could all of these things happen by accident? What designed the heart so that it would pump the blood through all its arteries and vessels, so that all the body might receive life and sustenance? How can we move our fingers and blink our eyes with only a thought? How did the heart know it should speed up at times and slow down at other times, based on the energy expended? How long would man have had to live before his heart and brain would have evolved to that level? What of our emotions and our ability to understand and use intelligence? Could that have happened by accident? What is it that sets the forces in action within the mind to control the many functions of the body without any necessary conscious effort on our part? Would this remarkable brain have evolved before the finger evolved, or after the finger evolved? Would the heart have evolved before the blood vessels or after? Would emotions have existed before or after the human being was developed? How can there be so many different people in the world who are basically built and designed in a similar fashion, yet have recognizable distinctions so that we are all individuals with different finger prints, different voices, and different faces and physiques, allowing us all to be special and recognizable in this great scheme of things. Do your honestly accept the preposterous belief that all these remarkable things could have evolved from a long series of accidents, which occurred exactly in the proper sequence and timing necessary to progress to where it is today? You expect others to acknowledge your ridiculous and impossible conclusion as a reasonable hypothesis, even though you present it without factual basis? Then you turn around and are you so vain as to believe that God could not have done the things written of Him in the bible, simply because He would have had to work beyond the realm of what you consider to be possible? If you consider evolution and the big bang to be the explanation of the existence of the world and of human life, surely you can believe in anything. Is your tremendous capacity for logic and reason the standard for all other logic and reason? I bet that you could create the world if you chose to. Is it necessary that a God, who created the universe and breathed life into the first man, would have to do things in a way that would be dictated by the laws and limitations that we are subject to? Is it beyond our Creator’s ability to keep an ark made of wood intact that is built according to His instructions? Could He have not designed every detail exactly as needed to contain all its various creatures? Could the birds not ride on the backs of the animals? What makes you think it could not be done, simply because you wouldn’t be able to do it? You are constantly referring to those who disagree with you as ignorant people because they take the bible literally. Shouldn’t the one who created the universe out of nothing, and created all living things, not also be able to keep a wooden ark together, even if it were made of paper or straw? God is a God who works the impossible. He does not work in your limited boundaries of reality. What law would hinder God from doing what ever He chose to do, and in whatever manner he determined to do it? Is it impossible for the entire world to be covered with water, yet only one family survive it because they believed God and obeyed His commands? You mock those who take the bible literally. Why do you only attribute to God the limited ability of the human? Have you considered the strength of the ant according to its size? Could God not create a man with remarkable strengths and abilities if He chose to? Could the one who created the oceans and rivers and lakes not be able to walk on them also? What makes you think that God must work within the realms of what you consider to be possible? Can a God who designed the forces not be able to work outside the laws of physics? Are you the one who has the responsibility to keep check on God’s children, in order to ensure that we only keep our belief within the realm of your accepted boundaries? Why is it that you do not believe in a God who might be capable of doing what you cannot? If you were God, would you place the same limitations on yourself that you would place on your creation? Would you make it so that you could never intervene in your own work? Once you set things in motion, would you have limited yourself to act only within the natural laws you placed on your creation. Did the laws exist before the universe came into existence, or did the laws only maintain the universe within boundaries that God imposed on it? You look at the word of God and say hogwash because you count its remarkable stories as impossible. You look at the universe and foolishly count its complexities the possibility of an accident without design or purpose. In both respects you remove all possibility of any intelligent intervention, and rid yourself of all intellectual reasoning? You are a fool in both perceptions. The incredible existence of the universe and of all the complex forms of life reveal that a maker must exist who is wondrously capable beyond the realm of our imagination, and whose abilities far exceed ours. At least it does to most of us. However when you look at the universe you see an accident resulting from an explosion of some kind. And when you look at the human race you see a long series of mutations developing from the first accidental one-celled amoeba that came into existence billions of years ago. Aren’t you intelligent!
You don’t need science to make logical conclusions. It is amazing the capability we already have to evaluate many things around us without using scientific methods. We don’t need a college degree to learn how to make use of the senses and intelligence we were born with. Yet do you know how they work? Can you understand which nerve that your brain sends a signal to in order to move your little finger? Do you know how great an electrical impulse to send to control the force and direction of movement of the little finger? How is it that it works when you don’t understand it? Could you actually be a freak accident? Why is it that so many like yourself can’t realize what is so obvious? I look and see the moon circle the planet and always facing the earth from the same side while most every other body is rotating. Scientists call the attractions between the heavenly bodies gravity, and they calculate the force of it to a large degree because of its consistency, but just because they have a name for this force, doesn’t mean they know why it exists? What brought these laws into existence? Why do heavenly bodies attract instead of repel one another. Did they have some chaotic and random beginning and then by accident end up in some fantastic arrangement that held them all together in patterns and rhythms of time. Did some unknown explosion put together the entire universe? What is responsible for the final precise balancing act of the universe which allows us to predict the phases of the moon and the time of each day’s revolution on its axis, so much that we can use it as a standard to measure time against? The Hubble telescope has made some fascinating snapshots of strange and mysterious things in the universe. Scientists try to look into the past in order to determine our beginning. They study as best they can the elements that might be found on the planets and stars by examining light wavelengths, etc. but they are only more fascinated and bewildered by what they see, than narrowing down their explanation of it all. They come up with theories and then have to reevaluate them as more evidence is discovered. There seems to be no limit to what is in space, and the boundary of space is yet to be found. But consider also what you see everyday on this earth. Doctors and biologists take a close look at life and the complication and precision of it, and it is no less fascinating. There are fascinating plants and creatures all around us. Yet isn’t it fascinating how a human is always born to a human, and a dog to a dog. Why does the giraffe have such a long neck? Did it evolve because the tree leaves got higher off of the ground? Did the mother and father deer decide that their children should have longer necks, and out popped this new creature we call a giraffe that was better equipped to survive the elements? Did that giraffe look around and find another giraffe and then have intercourse and populate the world with giraffes? You mock the Christian for His ignorant belief in the impossible. My friend, I wouldn’t throw stones if I were you.
quote:Originally posted by dialectic:quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
I'm glad to know the next time I present my vitae, with the four college degrees, wearing my Omega watch, and speaking perfect grammar and using unsurpassed diction, I will be perceived as a cowaring primitive.
Spell check would have given this that extra "umph". A-
Sorry, think that was my typing. Still, I was shooting for some humor...
quote:Originally posted by what4:
Why does the giraffe have such a long neck? Did it evolve because the tree leaves got higher off of the ground? Did the mother and father deer decide that their children should have longer necks, and out popped this new creature we call a giraffe that was better equipped to survive the elements? Did that giraffe look around and find another giraffe and then have intercourse and populate the world with giraffes? You mock the Christian for His ignorant belief in the impossible. My friend, I wouldn’t throw stones if I were you.
Your ignorance is so very profound that I don't know where to begin. So I won't. I hope your self delusion brings you much happiness. I will choose to live in the light of reason and sanity.
quote:The question then might be if evolution is only a theory that has yet to be proved, then why is it still around?
Evolution is a stone cold fact. Anyone with three brain cells and an honest mind knows it.
quote:Evolution has no scientific basis,
I'm afraid I have to agree with my friend gofish again. You are too ignorant to discuss this topic with.
So, how are the fish biting?
DF
quote from DeepFat:
Evolution is a stone cold fact. Anyone with three brain cells and an honest mind knows it.
________________________________________________
What do you believe a theory is? Do we call evolution a law or a theory? Look it up.
Evolution is a stone cold fact. Anyone with three brain cells and an honest mind knows it.
________________________________________________
What do you believe a theory is? Do we call evolution a law or a theory? Look it up.
Will you be happy if we call it the Law of Evolution? fine.
It's a Law, then.
DF
It's a Law, then.
DF
Evolution is a stone cold fact. Anyone with three brain cells and an honest mind knows it.
quote:
Evolution has no scientific basis,
________________________________________________
What I should have said is that evolution is not based on any provable scientific evidence. Even though a theory is a logical conclusion based on the study of facts, it cannot be termed a fact unless it has the potential of being proven as such. Scientific theories accepted as factual must be falsifiable. Evolution cannot be falsifiable, because it has no provable or disprovable conclusion derived from the factual evidence. Some theories are easily accepted as facts because they can be shown in calculations using mathematical methods, or they can produce predictable and reliable outcomes in repeated demonstrations. However, the theory of evolution cannot be proven by mathematics. It cannot be proven in a experimental demonstration because it requires thousands to billions of years to even build a workable case for it. Any intelligent intervention would destroy the premise that it is a natural progression. When evolution is closely examined it loses all credibility, and has no proof whatsoever for its claims.
quote:
Evolution has no scientific basis,
________________________________________________
What I should have said is that evolution is not based on any provable scientific evidence. Even though a theory is a logical conclusion based on the study of facts, it cannot be termed a fact unless it has the potential of being proven as such. Scientific theories accepted as factual must be falsifiable. Evolution cannot be falsifiable, because it has no provable or disprovable conclusion derived from the factual evidence. Some theories are easily accepted as facts because they can be shown in calculations using mathematical methods, or they can produce predictable and reliable outcomes in repeated demonstrations. However, the theory of evolution cannot be proven by mathematics. It cannot be proven in a experimental demonstration because it requires thousands to billions of years to even build a workable case for it. Any intelligent intervention would destroy the premise that it is a natural progression. When evolution is closely examined it loses all credibility, and has no proof whatsoever for its claims.
quote:Originally posted by what4:
When evolution is closely examined it loses all credibility, and has no proof whatsoever for its claims.
Okay. Let's "closely examine" one single aspect of evolution. I'll let you pick the subject.
Some suggestions would be:
The evidence for a 6000 year old earth.
Dinosaurs walked with man.
The Grand Canyon.
The lack of evidence for one animal evolving into another (a small, furry, ferret-like animal to an elephant, for example)
The human eye.
I'm sure you have some others. Let's take a close look at the one, single aspect that you feel epitomizes Evolution's shortcoming the most.
Okay. Let's "closely examine" one single aspect of evolution. I'll let you pick the subject.
Some suggestions would be:
The evidence for a 6000 year old earth.
Dinosaurs walked with man.
The Grand Canyon.
The lack of evidence for one animal evolving into another (a small, furry, ferret-like animal to an elephant, for example)
The human eye.
I'm sure you have some others. Let's take a close look at the one, single aspect that you feel epitomizes Evolution's shortcoming the most.
________________________________________________
There you go. You ask me to disprove your theory. Diprove God if you will. If you can prove your theory, I will prove there is a God.
I really don't see how either of these subjects can lend any credibility to your theory. You have the burden of proof, not me.
Some suggestions would be:
The evidence for a 6000 year old earth.
Dinosaurs walked with man.
The Grand Canyon.
The lack of evidence for one animal evolving into another (a small, furry, ferret-like animal to an elephant, for example)
The human eye.
I'm sure you have some others. Let's take a close look at the one, single aspect that you feel epitomizes Evolution's shortcoming the most.
________________________________________________
There you go. You ask me to disprove your theory. Diprove God if you will. If you can prove your theory, I will prove there is a God.
I really don't see how either of these subjects can lend any credibility to your theory. You have the burden of proof, not me.
quote:Originally posted by what4:
There you go. You ask me to disprove your theory. Diprove God if you will. If you can prove your theory, I will prove there is a God.
Ahh yes, the old "evade and deflect" strategy. I'm going to bite, anyway:
I would never, ever ask anyone to "disprove" anything. That is not how science works. You "prove" things by presenting supporting evidence. It is the evidence that supports the theory, not the other way around.
I was only asking you to pick your best or most favorite single piece of evidence that supports your hypothesis that all of creation was poofed into existence 6000 years ago by a omnipotent space alien.
Heck, I'll start if you wish: My favorite piece of evidence for a unimaginably old universe (other than my mother-in-law) is the distance between opposite ends of our own tiny galaxy: 100,000 light-years.
go, you know as well as I that what4 can't prove one thing. There is nothing to prove. His "mind" is poisoned by a primitive superstition that was created by understandably ignorant people a long time ago before the realities of nature became apparent.
The sad part is his, and others', reluctance to recognize the progress our species has made in understanding nature. Their insistence on clinging to a world of demons and magic, when there is a better way of looking at things, is truly pitiful. Deliberate, stubborn, ignorance with conviction is just so pathetic. It is the reason why people all over laugh at the South.
When people think of backwards idiots, mired in cobwebbed superstitions, they don't think of Chicago. They see snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues, Creationists from the South.
To abandon intelligence and progress is truly embarrassing.
DF
The sad part is his, and others', reluctance to recognize the progress our species has made in understanding nature. Their insistence on clinging to a world of demons and magic, when there is a better way of looking at things, is truly pitiful. Deliberate, stubborn, ignorance with conviction is just so pathetic. It is the reason why people all over laugh at the South.
When people think of backwards idiots, mired in cobwebbed superstitions, they don't think of Chicago. They see snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues, Creationists from the South.
To abandon intelligence and progress is truly embarrassing.
DF
Quote:
Ahh yes, the old "evade and deflect" strategy. I'm going to bite, anyway:
I would never, ever ask anyone to "disprove" anything. That is not how science works. You "prove" things by presenting supporting evidence. It is the evidence that supports the theory, not the other way around.
I was only asking you to pick your best or most favorite single piece of evidence that supports your hypothesis that all of creation was poofed into existence 6000 years ago by a omnipotent space alien.
Heck, I'll start if you wish: My favorite piece of evidence for a unimaginably old universe (other than my mother-in-law) is the distance between opposite ends of our own tiny galaxy: 100,000 light-years.
________________________________________________
My Reply:
First off I’ve shown to you that the theory of evolution has no provable or disprovable conclusion. It requires a great leap of faith to believe in it. It can’t stand up under any merits of mathematical evaluation and it cannot predict any future state of life that will give credibility or provable verification based on any predictable conclusion. You cannot disprove a theory that presents no standard that it can be measured by. However, I will make an effort to understand your argument and debate you on the time issue, because many people by their ignorance on the matter try and destroy the credibility of the bible with it.
I’m not sure where you’re headed in referring to the distance between opposite ends of our own galaxy. I suppose you are referring to a possible estimate of when our galaxy might have began by studying the distances of stars or heavenly bodies from us, and making note of how fast they might be traveling away from us. If scientists have an accurate way of determining present distance along with speed, direction, and acceleration of a body in space, they might be able to determine the time when all the bodies of space would have had some common beginning. This may be what you are referring to. However, their conclusion must be based on the premise that the speed or acceleration has remained constant since it first began. I have no real problem with the universe being produced in one moment of time. That would coincide completely with God’s word on the matter. I also have no problem with the age of the universe, although I’m not sure just how accurate scientific conclusions are when looking at the age of our universe. However, I have no issue with the age of our universe or of the earth being in question, because to me it has no relevance as to how it was created. There is no conflict in time estimates, as far as I understand it, with the scientific estimation of time against the light the bible sheds on the matter. Believe what you want to believe on time. I see no conflict in believing in God, and accepting Him as the Creator, and still agree somewhat in the initial premise that the earth was created in an instant of time by an explosion of immense power. That sounds like the way God would have began the universe as far as I’m concerned. However, the problem with the Big Bang theory is that when God is left out of the picture, you have no reason for the beginning action to take place, and surely no way that the complicated and mysterious universe could have reached the stable and beautiful existence that it now exhibits.
What is your concern in proving evolution with how old the earth or the universe is? The creation of the universe and the creation of life are covered under different theories. I have no problem with the estimated age of the universe by scientists. But where the theory of evolution is concerned, if it makes no sense whether it has 3000 years or 100 billion years for life to form, because it would be impossible to have happened by pure chance, no matter how long you give it. If in your mention of the age of the earth you are trying to pit science against the bible, maybe we can discuss the issue. But if you are trying to prove evolution, you are way off the mark here.
I don’t believe you can determine the age of the universe by scripture, although many believe they can. There are primarily 2 reasons I don’t believe you can. Many try and determine the age of the earth from the bible by determining the age of the generations of man from Adam until the present. I believe that they erroneously determine that the earth and the universe were created about 5 - 24 hr days before Adam was formed. Also, I don’t believe that Adam’s age starts from when he was first formed, but rather it started on the day when he first sinned, and the countdown to death began. To start with, when God first created the heavens and the earth, the earth was void and dark, and covered with water. It probably bore little resemblance to what we know it as today. Light had not yet come into existence on its behalf. After it was created it could have remained for billions of years in this dark and water covered state. What reason would an eternal God have to hurry on such matters? Later God said let there be light, and there was light. So some point in time after God created the heavens and the earth, He caused light to enter the picture and shine on the earth. It was only at this point in time that day and night came into play for the planet earth. These may have been 24 hr. days but there is no way of knowing. What this source of light was I do not know, because the sun, moon, and the stars were not part of the earth’s firmament to provide it light until the 4th day. It could be that the earth was at this time not circling the sun, or the sun’s light was hid from it. The earth may have not even been caught up in the present stable rotation and orbit, as we understand it today. Whatever the length of day, the days began to be numbered and would mark the dividing line between God’s interventions concerning His creation. It wasn’t until the 4th day that the sun, the stars, and the moon became a part of the earth’s continued source of light, and became a standard by which today’s time is measured. How long did these first 3 days last? Were they 24 hr. days or thousand year days? How long did the earth exist before day and night even came into existence on its behalf? The length of time that the earth was in its initial state of darkness could have been billions of years. The length of time that the waters took to recede from the earth and dry land appear, and the sky form between the waters on the earth and above the earth, could have been thousands or billions of years. The length of time the earth was being prepared with grass, shrubs, fruit bearing trees, etc. could have been thousands or billions of years. It wasn’t until the 4th day that a situation is described where the earth appears to share today’s same relation to the sun, moon and stars, and has them in its surrounding view, so this is the only time we can reasonably expect that an actual 24 hr. day and night cycle might have began.
We often assume that the earth always was positioned with the same familiar sky we see each day and night, but that appears it might not be the case. In the very beginning, the earth probably held little if any resemblance to what it is today, and the place in the universe that it held is unknown. Some do not accept Genesis as an actual day-by-day account of creation. Some believe that God may have been more interested in letting us know how we fit into the scheme of His creation, rather than giving us a literal day to day account on how everything came into being. Whatever a person’s belief, I do not believe the bible can be used as a source to determine the age of the universe, because I believe that there is no way of knowing given the account told of it, just how long the universe existed before the time that Adam and Eve sinned, and before their days would have been numbered. The age of the universe and of earth might be a question for the curios, but in our relationship to God, that answer is not important.
If you read on in Genesis chapter 2, you might notice that when Adam was formed that the grass and shrubs had not yet appeared on the earth, or at least not outside of the Garden of Eden that God had prepared for Adam. It appears that life on the rest of the earth had yet to be developed to the point that any animal or man could be sustained by it. Even though God had set things in motion on the 6th day for all life on the dry land to come into existence, there is no telling how much longer it took for the earth to be populated with plants and living creatures. Only in the Garden of Eden was plant life, animal life, or human life to be found with any certainty. Yet, by the time that Adam and Eve sinned against God and were cast out of the garden, plant life and animals would have surely populated the earth so that a support basis for Adam and his descendants would have been there. So the question then is how long did Adam and Eve live before they sinned against God and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. They could have lived thousands or billions of years before being deceived by Satan and sinning against God. It was only when they had sinned, and death was to be their certain end, that their remaining days would have any reason to be numbered. Adam and Eve were created to live forever. Why would there have been a reason to keep a record of the number of days they lived, until they knew that they had time running out on them? Why measure someone’s age when they have no end to them? I don’t expect that those who enter the kingdom of heaven will bother keeping up with the years of their age throughout eternity? We do not know how long Adam and Eve lived without death looking over their shoulders. They could have easily lived for billions of years before Satan found a way to draw them into disobedience by deception, and caused them to doubt God’s word. I strongly believe that any age attributed to Adam must start from the day that he first sinned against God, because only then would His remaining days have reason to be numbered. So then the question is how long did the earth exist before Adam and Eve sinned against God and their age was actually counted? There is no reason why scientific estimates could not be right according to scripture. Scripture gives no conclusive time to estimate the age of the universe or of the earth. Scripture doesn’t even give the time as to how long Adam and Eve lived on earth before the fall. At least it doesn’t according to what I have read. If it does, then I will accept the scripture before I will accept the conclusion of man, because I have much more confidence in scripture, than I do in any man’s conclusions that conflicts with it.
If you are trying to say that the bible gives a wrong account of the age of our earth, it may be that you have been given wrong information. The bible will stand the test of time. Any conclusion that science draws that is in opposition to God’s word will surely fly back in the face of the scientists when they later discover the truth. However, sometimes there is no real conflict, but rather only misinterpretation of scripture. Often people make the mistake that just because something has been accepted or even taught from the pulpit, that it is true. Sometimes we all have to take a second look in order to see the truth more clearly. Science has yet to prove the bible wrong. The conclusion that the theory of evolution makes cannot be proved. If you can prove it, then do so. I’m a little irritated at people trying to declare that it is a fact when it is not. A conclusion based on the study of facts, is not always a factual conclusion. Scientists seem to stand strong on their theory of evolution and ask that we disprove it when we disagree with it. They are going to have to prove it first. I hold God to His word and expect that He will honor His word. I stand on it by faith. I have seen God come through for me when all natural logical circumstances were against it. Science, however, seems to get away with saying anything and not being held accountable to back up their claims with verifiable proof. Most theories of science are reasonable and even provable. Why they destroy their credibility with something as ridiculous as the theory of evolution, makes no real sense, unless God’s impossibilities so trouble them that they are willing to accept anything that comes close to explaining life, as long as it gets God out of the picture.
You ask my to prove God. God has proved Himself to me by honoring His word. I believe His word, and science has offered me no reason not to. If you are really interested in learning if God is real or not, and are willing to listen to and allow God to change your heart, and give you a new purpose for living, you will eventually see proof of His existence. However, if you resist every effort God makes on your behalf, and continue to mock Him and those who trust Him, then I could tell you everything God has done for me, but you would not believe me. I'm no longer trying to convince you that God is real. However, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant theory of evolution presented as if it is a fact, and people using science as if it has the final answer without it offering proof of its findings.
It may be some time before I can respond to any future posts because of situations coming up.
Ahh yes, the old "evade and deflect" strategy. I'm going to bite, anyway:
I would never, ever ask anyone to "disprove" anything. That is not how science works. You "prove" things by presenting supporting evidence. It is the evidence that supports the theory, not the other way around.
I was only asking you to pick your best or most favorite single piece of evidence that supports your hypothesis that all of creation was poofed into existence 6000 years ago by a omnipotent space alien.
Heck, I'll start if you wish: My favorite piece of evidence for a unimaginably old universe (other than my mother-in-law) is the distance between opposite ends of our own tiny galaxy: 100,000 light-years.
________________________________________________
My Reply:
First off I’ve shown to you that the theory of evolution has no provable or disprovable conclusion. It requires a great leap of faith to believe in it. It can’t stand up under any merits of mathematical evaluation and it cannot predict any future state of life that will give credibility or provable verification based on any predictable conclusion. You cannot disprove a theory that presents no standard that it can be measured by. However, I will make an effort to understand your argument and debate you on the time issue, because many people by their ignorance on the matter try and destroy the credibility of the bible with it.
I’m not sure where you’re headed in referring to the distance between opposite ends of our own galaxy. I suppose you are referring to a possible estimate of when our galaxy might have began by studying the distances of stars or heavenly bodies from us, and making note of how fast they might be traveling away from us. If scientists have an accurate way of determining present distance along with speed, direction, and acceleration of a body in space, they might be able to determine the time when all the bodies of space would have had some common beginning. This may be what you are referring to. However, their conclusion must be based on the premise that the speed or acceleration has remained constant since it first began. I have no real problem with the universe being produced in one moment of time. That would coincide completely with God’s word on the matter. I also have no problem with the age of the universe, although I’m not sure just how accurate scientific conclusions are when looking at the age of our universe. However, I have no issue with the age of our universe or of the earth being in question, because to me it has no relevance as to how it was created. There is no conflict in time estimates, as far as I understand it, with the scientific estimation of time against the light the bible sheds on the matter. Believe what you want to believe on time. I see no conflict in believing in God, and accepting Him as the Creator, and still agree somewhat in the initial premise that the earth was created in an instant of time by an explosion of immense power. That sounds like the way God would have began the universe as far as I’m concerned. However, the problem with the Big Bang theory is that when God is left out of the picture, you have no reason for the beginning action to take place, and surely no way that the complicated and mysterious universe could have reached the stable and beautiful existence that it now exhibits.
What is your concern in proving evolution with how old the earth or the universe is? The creation of the universe and the creation of life are covered under different theories. I have no problem with the estimated age of the universe by scientists. But where the theory of evolution is concerned, if it makes no sense whether it has 3000 years or 100 billion years for life to form, because it would be impossible to have happened by pure chance, no matter how long you give it. If in your mention of the age of the earth you are trying to pit science against the bible, maybe we can discuss the issue. But if you are trying to prove evolution, you are way off the mark here.
I don’t believe you can determine the age of the universe by scripture, although many believe they can. There are primarily 2 reasons I don’t believe you can. Many try and determine the age of the earth from the bible by determining the age of the generations of man from Adam until the present. I believe that they erroneously determine that the earth and the universe were created about 5 - 24 hr days before Adam was formed. Also, I don’t believe that Adam’s age starts from when he was first formed, but rather it started on the day when he first sinned, and the countdown to death began. To start with, when God first created the heavens and the earth, the earth was void and dark, and covered with water. It probably bore little resemblance to what we know it as today. Light had not yet come into existence on its behalf. After it was created it could have remained for billions of years in this dark and water covered state. What reason would an eternal God have to hurry on such matters? Later God said let there be light, and there was light. So some point in time after God created the heavens and the earth, He caused light to enter the picture and shine on the earth. It was only at this point in time that day and night came into play for the planet earth. These may have been 24 hr. days but there is no way of knowing. What this source of light was I do not know, because the sun, moon, and the stars were not part of the earth’s firmament to provide it light until the 4th day. It could be that the earth was at this time not circling the sun, or the sun’s light was hid from it. The earth may have not even been caught up in the present stable rotation and orbit, as we understand it today. Whatever the length of day, the days began to be numbered and would mark the dividing line between God’s interventions concerning His creation. It wasn’t until the 4th day that the sun, the stars, and the moon became a part of the earth’s continued source of light, and became a standard by which today’s time is measured. How long did these first 3 days last? Were they 24 hr. days or thousand year days? How long did the earth exist before day and night even came into existence on its behalf? The length of time that the earth was in its initial state of darkness could have been billions of years. The length of time that the waters took to recede from the earth and dry land appear, and the sky form between the waters on the earth and above the earth, could have been thousands or billions of years. The length of time the earth was being prepared with grass, shrubs, fruit bearing trees, etc. could have been thousands or billions of years. It wasn’t until the 4th day that a situation is described where the earth appears to share today’s same relation to the sun, moon and stars, and has them in its surrounding view, so this is the only time we can reasonably expect that an actual 24 hr. day and night cycle might have began.
We often assume that the earth always was positioned with the same familiar sky we see each day and night, but that appears it might not be the case. In the very beginning, the earth probably held little if any resemblance to what it is today, and the place in the universe that it held is unknown. Some do not accept Genesis as an actual day-by-day account of creation. Some believe that God may have been more interested in letting us know how we fit into the scheme of His creation, rather than giving us a literal day to day account on how everything came into being. Whatever a person’s belief, I do not believe the bible can be used as a source to determine the age of the universe, because I believe that there is no way of knowing given the account told of it, just how long the universe existed before the time that Adam and Eve sinned, and before their days would have been numbered. The age of the universe and of earth might be a question for the curios, but in our relationship to God, that answer is not important.
If you read on in Genesis chapter 2, you might notice that when Adam was formed that the grass and shrubs had not yet appeared on the earth, or at least not outside of the Garden of Eden that God had prepared for Adam. It appears that life on the rest of the earth had yet to be developed to the point that any animal or man could be sustained by it. Even though God had set things in motion on the 6th day for all life on the dry land to come into existence, there is no telling how much longer it took for the earth to be populated with plants and living creatures. Only in the Garden of Eden was plant life, animal life, or human life to be found with any certainty. Yet, by the time that Adam and Eve sinned against God and were cast out of the garden, plant life and animals would have surely populated the earth so that a support basis for Adam and his descendants would have been there. So the question then is how long did Adam and Eve live before they sinned against God and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. They could have lived thousands or billions of years before being deceived by Satan and sinning against God. It was only when they had sinned, and death was to be their certain end, that their remaining days would have any reason to be numbered. Adam and Eve were created to live forever. Why would there have been a reason to keep a record of the number of days they lived, until they knew that they had time running out on them? Why measure someone’s age when they have no end to them? I don’t expect that those who enter the kingdom of heaven will bother keeping up with the years of their age throughout eternity? We do not know how long Adam and Eve lived without death looking over their shoulders. They could have easily lived for billions of years before Satan found a way to draw them into disobedience by deception, and caused them to doubt God’s word. I strongly believe that any age attributed to Adam must start from the day that he first sinned against God, because only then would His remaining days have reason to be numbered. So then the question is how long did the earth exist before Adam and Eve sinned against God and their age was actually counted? There is no reason why scientific estimates could not be right according to scripture. Scripture gives no conclusive time to estimate the age of the universe or of the earth. Scripture doesn’t even give the time as to how long Adam and Eve lived on earth before the fall. At least it doesn’t according to what I have read. If it does, then I will accept the scripture before I will accept the conclusion of man, because I have much more confidence in scripture, than I do in any man’s conclusions that conflicts with it.
If you are trying to say that the bible gives a wrong account of the age of our earth, it may be that you have been given wrong information. The bible will stand the test of time. Any conclusion that science draws that is in opposition to God’s word will surely fly back in the face of the scientists when they later discover the truth. However, sometimes there is no real conflict, but rather only misinterpretation of scripture. Often people make the mistake that just because something has been accepted or even taught from the pulpit, that it is true. Sometimes we all have to take a second look in order to see the truth more clearly. Science has yet to prove the bible wrong. The conclusion that the theory of evolution makes cannot be proved. If you can prove it, then do so. I’m a little irritated at people trying to declare that it is a fact when it is not. A conclusion based on the study of facts, is not always a factual conclusion. Scientists seem to stand strong on their theory of evolution and ask that we disprove it when we disagree with it. They are going to have to prove it first. I hold God to His word and expect that He will honor His word. I stand on it by faith. I have seen God come through for me when all natural logical circumstances were against it. Science, however, seems to get away with saying anything and not being held accountable to back up their claims with verifiable proof. Most theories of science are reasonable and even provable. Why they destroy their credibility with something as ridiculous as the theory of evolution, makes no real sense, unless God’s impossibilities so trouble them that they are willing to accept anything that comes close to explaining life, as long as it gets God out of the picture.
You ask my to prove God. God has proved Himself to me by honoring His word. I believe His word, and science has offered me no reason not to. If you are really interested in learning if God is real or not, and are willing to listen to and allow God to change your heart, and give you a new purpose for living, you will eventually see proof of His existence. However, if you resist every effort God makes on your behalf, and continue to mock Him and those who trust Him, then I could tell you everything God has done for me, but you would not believe me. I'm no longer trying to convince you that God is real. However, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant theory of evolution presented as if it is a fact, and people using science as if it has the final answer without it offering proof of its findings.
It may be some time before I can respond to any future posts because of situations coming up.
Well, I am a believer and I do believe in creation and I have had my share of arguments here with DF and GF. I also agree with them on some things, not concerning God of course. Right now I don't feel like going to battle but I do have one question for the "Big Bangers". Let's just say that the evolutionists are right. Well then, I spent my life being the best person I could be. I have tried to love everyone as myself. I have truly been a moral person. I have been a good husband and father. I have helped the needy and just genuinely loved people. What happens when I die but nothing. I return to the earth as fertilizer. I cease to exist. No harm, no foul. BUT, what if I am right? Where does that leave you?