" That there is no truth, there is only you and what you make the truth"
I don't think I would conclude that there is no truth. I would say though that ultimately the only judgement you can trust on what is truth, is your own and what you judge it on is up to you.
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
That's a valid point. If some of the key parts of evolution theory can be disputed, it doesn't automatically mean that creationists are correct. Just because we only have two theories, doesn't mean if one is wrong, the other has to be right.
I'd have to argue with you on your second point though, that there is 0 evidence that there is a god. If you had said "proof" that would be a different matter. As far as evidence goes though, there's an enormous amount. The Bible itself contains eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus, and the miracles he performed. The way that so much in the universe seems to follow some kind of rules is evidence. The way that from the beginning of civilisation that humans have had the urge to worship something is evidence. The testimonies of hundreds of thousands of people of how God has moved in their lives and how they've witnesses changes in the people around them through contact with God is evidence. The way you may feel on reading the bible with an open heart and mind is evidence. Simply the amount of people on this planet who are religious is evidence, even if you assume they must all be mad, gullible or stupid, you also have to accept the possibility that perhaps many they weighed up the evidence themselves and have their own personal experiences.
Before you say that most of this evidence is anecdotal, I would remind you that 1. anecdotal evidence is still evidence and while maybe doesn't hold much sway to a scientist, is perfectly acceptable as evidence in a courtroom when trying to judge what is mostly likely to be the truth and 2. Most of what you believe as scientifically proven fact is also anecdotal evidence as far a your beliefs should be concerned unless you have actually done all the research yourself .
Recording of a man named Jesus who performed miracles doesn't prove there is a god. The only thing it proves is that there's a guy named Jesus who made things people didn't understand and therefore interpreted them as miracles. It might have been miracles. It have been mere magic tricks. I'm pretty confident if we sent Derren Brown back in time to do some of the things he can do, they'd think he were performing miracles.
The amount of people that is religious is huge. The amount of people who truely and independantly(in the sense that it's their choice alone to be religious) are religious is smaller. People affect each other. If you have 2000 people in the same room, everybody praising the lord and so on, most of the them will probably feel the "spirit" in them or something. A child raised in a strict catholic home is prone to remain catholic. The amount of people born into a religion is bigger than those converting into one.
You're right. It doesn't hold sway to a scientist. I wouldn't want to believe people that lived 2000 years ago, about a guy performed miracles. That's because they weren't as advanced as we are today. Thing they thought we're magical, are logic to us now.
If a scientist said to me that there is a god, I wouldn't believe he him just because he's a scientist. He'd still have prove it, like everyone else. Difference is that he can actually prove it with science. So yeah, most of what I believe according to you is anecdotal evidence, difference is only that it's real evidence supported with science I can mostly understand.
I'd have to argue with you on your second point though, that there is 0 evidence that there is a god. If you had said "proof" that would be a different matter. As far as evidence goes though, there's an enormous amount. The Bible itself contains eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus, and the miracles he performed. The way that so much in the universe seems to follow some kind of rules is evidence. The way that from the beginning of civilisation that humans have had the urge to worship something is evidence. The testimonies of hundreds of thousands of people of how God has moved in their lives and how they've witnesses changes in the people around them through contact with God is evidence. The way you may feel on reading the bible with an open heart and mind is evidence. Simply the amount of people on this planet who are religious is evidence, even if you assume they must all be mad, gullible or stupid, you also have to accept the possibility that perhaps many they weighed up the evidence themselves and have their own personal experiences. Before you say that most of this evidence is anecdotal, I would remind you that 1. anecdotal evidence is still evidence and while maybe doesn't hold much sway to a scientist, is perfectly acceptable as evidence in a courtroom when trying to judge what is mostly likely to be the truth and 2. Most of what you believe as scientifically proven fact is also anecdotal evidence as far a your beliefs should be concerned unless you have actually done all the research yourself .
Very well worded post. As I was trying to come up with a response I find that you have done a more than adequate job on these elements. I am not sure if you are a believer or not, but the 1st paragraph makes me think you could be considering it.
Recording of a man named Jesus who performed miracles doesn't prove there is a god. The only think it proves is that there's a guy named Jesus who made things people didn't understand and therefore interpreted it as a miracle. It might have been miracles. It have been mere magic tricks. I'm pretty confident if we sent Derren Brown back in time to do some of the things he can do, they'll think he could perform miracles.
The amount of people that is religious is huge. The amount of people who truely and independantly(in the sense that it's their choice alone to be religious) is smaller. People affect each other. If you have 2000 people in the same room, everybody praising the lord and so on, most of the them will probably feel the "spirit" in them or something. A child raised in a strict catholic home is prone to remain catholic. The amount of people born into a religion is bigger than those converting into one.
You're right. It doesn't hold sway to a scientist. I wouldn't want to believe people that lived 2000 years ago, that a guy performed miracles because they weren't as advanced as we are today. Thing they thought we're magical, are logic to us.
If a scientist said to me that there is a god, I wouldn't believe he him just because he's a scientist. He'd still have prove it, like everyone else. Difference is that he can actually prove it with science. So yeah, most of what I believe according to you is anecdotal evidence, difference is only that it's real evidence supported with science I can mostly understand.
Yep, Derren Brown is pretty impressive even by today's standards and some of the things he achieves can certainly make someone question things that before may have been classed as supernatural, so you're probably right, 2000 years ago or probably even less he probably could have been hailed as some kind of messiah, should that be what he claimed (or burned as a witch in the middle ages).
I didn't say that the records of Jesus proved anything, I presented it merely as evidence of the existance of God to go alongside all the other evidence. We can add to his (reported) miracles, his teachings, which (paticularly at that period of time) paint a picture of someone really quite remarkable with or without the miracles, and finally the resurrection, which although we can't prove, again has some significant evidence to back it up. According to the records we have, when pierced with a spear, it was found that blood and water in his body had separated, which the Romans knew as we know now, meant he was definitely dead. His followers, who's movement was expected to be finished by the death of their leader, went from being totally downcast, to travelling all over civilisation, preaching his resurrection with little fear for their own lives and according to Luke, who many scholars believe was actually present for much of this, many people witnessed Jesus being alive, after his crucifixion.
As I said, this isn't proof of anything, but it's weird enough not to dismiss out of hand that there was something to it.
I expect your statistics about more people being born to a religion than converting may well be correct, but considering that Christianity, along with other religions, started with one man, I don't suppose it can hold true over the last 2000 years.
My main point is that many believers aren't just blindly following something that they've been told is true on no evidence whatsoever. On top of what is some pretty reasonable evidence, there are their own personal experiences as well. Some of these could be passed off by, as you say, people affecting eachother and being carried along by group feeling, but it would be really pretty sceptical and closed minded to read or hear hundreds of different personal testimonies from rational, intelligent people, and believe that is all it is.
Out of interest, what would you consider might be the evidence we would expect to see if the universe was created by some kind of god?
Very well worded post. As I was trying to come up with a response I find that you have done a more than adequate job on these elements. I am not sure if you are a believer or not, but the 1st paragraph makes me think you could be considering it.
Thanks. A believer, yes. I've seen enough to convince me that God is real. I don't suppose I'm any kind of model Christian (perhaps a little too open minded), and there are plenty of things about the religion that I have issues with, after all, the way I see it, much has been interpreted and put together by humans.
This whole conversation seems to hinge on religion proving its legitimacy to science, showing physical evidence of physical things.
That's easy.
The thing I want to see is science proving its legitimacy to religion, showing conscientious evidence of conscientious things.
That's hard. So hard in fact, that the smart scientists refuse to even ask the sort of questions religion answers, with perfect clarity.
"What am I doing here?" is one such question that Christianity can answer in a way that is consistant with the reality of human sentiments, emotions, will, reason, and consciousness. Science has attempted to answer the question, but never to the point where people actually used the theories to justify their actions. If they did, they'd cease to be human beings altogether.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
Uh, evolution and the birth of the universe really aren't that related. You said that there are mountains of evidence supporting an early universe [evidence? Where?], and then you start writing about a cracked up evolution theory. ><.
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
Uh, evolution and the birth of the universe really aren't that related. You said that there are mountains of evidence supporting an early universe [evidence? Where?], and then you start writing about a cracked up evolution theory. ><.
The two are very much related, evolution is a process that supposedly takes millions of years, in order for this to be true, the universe obviously has to be millions(or as evolutionists believe, billions) of years old. And if you believe in evolution , then you obviously believe that all life sprung from somewhere. The two hold hands in the realm of pseudo science and untruth.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
That's true, but the age of the universe is much larger than the age by which evolutionary processes took place. It is true that if evidence convinces you that evolutionary processes took place, then you also accept the earth to be x amount of years old and by corollary accept the universe to be y amount of years old.
However, proving an old-age of the universe does not necessarily mean that one believes in evolution. I think it would be better not to accept the corollary as exogenous and debate the two seperately.
Originally posted by Draenor In case you were wondering, the explanation that creationists use is that God literally pulled the light from the stars to the Earth, when the Bible states that he created the stars and the moon to rule the night time sky.
I don't get it.. you're admitting that creationists accept Big Bang Theory with those adjustments?
At any rate, while it is true that Big Bang theory isn't completely sorted out, neither is gravity (at all, really). I don't see Christian Scientists advocating intelligent falling. At any rate, there *is* evidence, within measured uncertainties, with large neon lights pointing to singularity and the Big Bang. To discount the theory because it isn't complete is quite foolhardy. Of course it isn't complete - it isn't just someone writing a fairy tale in one sitting. It is constantly being verified to greater accuracy using measurements with smaller and smaller uncertainties. There are challenges, and there are dissenting opinions - that's what science is about. However, just because it isn't universally accepted (and neither is every Christian's interpretation of the Bible), is not enough to discount the theory and call it, as you repeatedly have, nonsensical/illogical/etc.
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
None of this support the idea of a god.
I rather support the idea that world evolved from clay, than magically created by some god.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Take a fictional book, fantasy preferably, one that tells about a time before technology reigned, have a few people learn this story by heart. Put them off in their own little colony outside of civilization, and get them to have kids. Now the fun begins... As these kids are growing up, teach them this story. Don't teach it as a story, but as fact. Teach them that this story MUST be believed or they will all go to some specific very bad place where they will spend all of eternity in some undescribably bad situation. Let a decade or 2 go by, then throw in people that have a different viewpoint.
By this time the kids in this makeshift community will believe (I suppose know is a better word, for it is taught to them as fact) that what they were raised upon is an indisputable fact. And since the nonbelievers are the minority, the nonbelievers will be persecuted, the believers, no matter how much logic and reason is thrown at them, will never come around to the nonbeliever's thinking, because that is how they are raised. Now let thousands of years go by. Obviously the majority of believers are going to have the majority of the children, and the margin of believers to nonbelievers will stay the same.
Get the point? Now apply this comparitively with how the real world is currently. See any similarities? Of course you do, but do you see any differences? I don't. Now your first response is to call all of this a theory and a made up story. Of course it is a made up story, but simply psychology backs up my point just the same. Welcome to the world of religion. Know that there is just as much proof of the existance of Zeus, hell theres just as much evidence for the existence of Gandalf, Frodo, and Sauron that there is of your god, or anyone else's.
Infliction, you were missin' me! I know that's why you made this thread... would love to post aside from the fact that I've already found answers to every concern I know of in this debate, but my vision is rocking back and forth and I have a symphony of lower and higher ringing sounds in my ears at the moment
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Until they start arguing about how to properly conduct their scientific experiments, ever watch south park? I think that episode summed it up pretty well, basic human nature my friend...no getting around the fact that people like to fight, and don't need God as an excuse.
As to what I posted providing no evidence for a creator...that wasn't the intent, the intent was to show you what a man that many consider the foremost atheist in the world wants to believe over God. If you want to believe that all life came from clay then you can do so if you wish, I think you are extremely stubborn and possibly even marginally delusional, but you're entitled to that...But hey, if you think that it's more plausable that you came from clay than that you were created by a higher power, then more power to you.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
correct, from dirt...see there's one factor that naturalistic explanations don't have...it's a pretty big factor in the whole origin thing...God.
One explanation says God made Adam from the dust, the other says that over millions of years some clay was able to turn into something other than clay, all by itself. It's kind of a big difference.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Not that it really matters...though you should note that the first person to propose that the universe started as a swirling cloud of gas did so in the 1800's, his name escapes me right now.
The Bible does not in any way describe anything like the Big Bang...it could be theorized that God made some Gas, and then made it blow up, instantly turning into what he wanted it to...I suppose I couldn't really argue against that, because as long as it's within 6 days, it's true. And yes, the 6 days discussed in the Bible are Earthly days, the type of hebrew used to denote literal translation was used in that part of Genesis, 6 days means 6 days.
Not sure what you mean by Noah's survival of the fittest. The Great flood certainly does explain a lot of things that evolutionists struggle with, namely the mass extinction that supposedly happened 200 million years ago, in addition to rapid formations of things like the Grand Canyon, as well as Pangea.
I do celebrate the fact that the Bible is still relevent today, it is a testament to how timeless and well written the book is. It is the most nuanced and intricately written piece of text in the history of man-kind, and yet the men who wrote it give none of the credit to themselves...that's not very characteristic of human nature if you asked me, men like to glory in the wisdom of men.
Because evolution goes directly against what we believe, and what our Bible tells us, in addition to evolution being scientifically impossible with our current knowledge of DNA.
I don't refer to all evolutionists as atheists, that wouldn't be wise at all. Infliction has stated before that he is an atheist but not necessarily an evolutionist. Atheists are, generally, evolutionists, as it is currently the most commonly accepted theory of the "scientific" community.
Because every piece of information that comes out in support of creationism is quickly gobbled up by evolutionists, switched around, and theorized about in order to explain how it could be that such information could come from a universe that is billions of years old. It happened with the red shift paradigm, it happened with the distribution of CMB in our universe, and it happened with the soft tissue found in Dinosaur fossils. If you want a great deal of solid science regarding creationism then I would point you towards www.answersingenesis.com
Interesting that you would bring up the fact that arguments for both theories are interchangable...It's merely how one chooses to look at the data. When I look at the data, I see a beacon of creation, when an evolutionist looks at the data, they see cause for evolution. I view the world through biblical eyes now...I didn't always, but I do now.
I don't base anything purely on the gospel, I tried to for 10 years before I eventually just said screw it and became agnostic. A few years later I chose to give it a shot, this time using something other than the Bible as a reference point...when people say that the Bible is all you need, it really isn't true. The bible alone is a powerfull piece of writing, but it's extremely difficult to understand and take in all of its nuances without someone with expertise guiding you. The Bible gives very precise geneologies and tribal heritage lists...but it's almost impossible to grasp all of that without going to outside sources (ie bible studies and third party books)
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Until they start arguing about how to properly conduct their scientific experiments, ever watch south park? I think that episode summed it up pretty well, basic human nature my friend...no getting around the fact that people like to fight, and don't need God as an excuse.
As to what I posted providing no evidence for a creator...that wasn't the intent, the intent was to show you what a man that many consider the foremost atheist in the world wants to believe over God. If you want to believe that all life came from clay then you can do so if you wish, I think you are extremely stubborn and possibly even marginally delusional, but you're entitled to that...But hey, if you think that it's more plausable that you came from clay than that you were created by a higher power, then more power to you.
Isnt that how the bible describes how God created man, from mud ? Dust actually
Doesnt the bible also say "on the firstday god created darkness, and on the second day he created light"
Actually all the creating was done in the first verse when ,"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth"
The other verses are essentially molding what was there or "re-arranging" essentially.
Doesnt this accuratly describe the big bang theory ? (a theory created by a catholic priest)
The Big Bang theory has no merit in Creationism. Don't confuse the two. The Big Bang theory cannot account for something from nothing.
Doesnt the story of Nohah's ark accuratly portray the evolutionary rule of survival of the fittest ?
No, the events around Noah's ark give us the results of God's judgement against sin--nothing more. Please don't attempt to pollute God's Word with nonsensical manmade theories.
Why dont christians celebrate the fact that there 2000 yo book actually does hold some good scientific discussion, if you look carefully ?
Actually, the Bible is lots older. 2000 years ago was 7AD afterall. I have said it before, but God is not interested in teaching us science. He only spends a couple of chapters on creation and we couldn't begin to comprehend God's science anyway.
Why do chrisitians feel the need to directly go against evolution?
Because it is completely false, non-biblical, and encourages apostacy.
Why are all evolutionists referred to as athiests ?
I wasn't aware that they were. I happen to know many people who claim that they are Christians who unfortunately have compromised some of their beliefs to include some of the radical thoeries surrounding evolution. I won't make that stereotype. Even though the evolution concept is incorrect, it is not a pre-quesite to believe in Creation in order to accept Christ as your savior.
Why doesnt Creationism post their entire theory in a reputable scientific journal to be scrutinised by their peers (like what happens to ALL scientific theories ?)
Actually, this has been done countless times in many different ways. It would not matter if God himself spoke from Heaven about it. There would be many who would attempt to explain it away or choose not to believe. It has always been this way. Even when Jesus did miracles in his own hometown there were those who chose not to believe. Do you really think if the "perfect" article was published that you would be convinced? The information is there and the Bible is there. It all comes down to your freewill to choose what to believe.
Why does all the arguments for christianity seem interchangable with arguments against evolution ?
I am unaware of this "interchangeability". Christianity and evolution are not synonymous in any way, shape, or form.
WHY CANT YOU GUYS JUST PLAY FAIR !!!!
What hope does a scientist have to prove anything in this world if people keep spinning their own theories and basing them purely on the gospel ?
Its not my rules man! In the beginning WAS the Word. No matter how far you want to go back, He was already there. I play by his rules or try my best to anyway.
Because creationism isn't accepted as science, in order for something to become an accepted scientific theory, it has to be accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, you stick the word God into anything, and it stops being science for some reason. if you were to replace the word God with "naturalistic phenomenon" you would have a better chance of being accepted as science.
As for creationism in the Bible. What we have to go by is only a few verses, it is true. But creationism isn't trying to imply complex processes to a simple reality...it's trying to imply simple(ie Godly) processes to a complex reality. The Bible only barely touches on the creation of everything because God doesn't want the focus on how, but why. It's not an accident that the Bible states the creation of everything almost as if it were a whym, it's meant to be a testament to God's power, that he could so easily create everything. As I said before, 6 days is 6 days when it comes to the Bible...it isn't meant to be taken as anything other than 6 days, for the reason that I stated in my previous post.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
Show me one piece of evidence that has gone ignored by the scientific community. Science isn't like religion where you can pick and choose what you think is real, because science IS real. The only time I've EVER seen ignored scientific evidence of the like is when there're lobbyists involved.
Because creationism isn't accepted as science, in order for something to become an accepted scientific theory, it has to be accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, you stick the word God into anything, and it stops being science for some reason. if you were to replace the word God with "naturalistic phenomenon" you would have a better chance of being accepted as science.
No, for something to become an accepted scientific theory it has to be logical, and possible to at least some degree. The idea of god contradicts all known laws of the universe, among other things, therefore it is illogical, therefore it is not scientific.
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
Show me one piece of evidence that has gone ignored by the scientific community. Science isn't like religion where you can pick and choose what you think is real, because science IS real. The only time I've EVER seen ignored scientific evidence of the like is when there're lobbyists involved. Its not that they necessarily ignore it. Some of the evidence is WAY too strong for that. They won't change their paradigm, but rather science will attempt to explain away the evidence or call it some anomaly. Take for instance the actual flesh from the T-Rex that was found. They couldn't deny that it was real. However under NO circumstances were they about to change their mind about the dinosaur still being 70 mil years old.
The first thing that was said was that it had to be fake because flesh couldn't last that long no matter how well preserved. Once it was proved to be real, they made up some cock-&-bull anomaly of how it must have happened. Sad really.
Perhaps ignored was a poor choice in words...more like...Science has changed a few things in order to fit the increasing amounts of evidence against evolution and the Big Bang, three simple cases are posted in my post in the previous page...but I'll give a few more here, cases in which science has attempted to go back and explain something because it doesn't fit with their beliefs
The density of Mercury(believed by evolutionists that a meteor hit mercury and caused it to be so dense, because it was way too dense to be billions of years old)
Saturns rings' rate of dissipation (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, causing a renewal of its rings)
Mars' atmospheric pressure (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, noticing a pattern here?)
The number of comets in the solar system (proposed Oort cloud roughly one ly away from our solar system, spitting comets back into our solar system, though no actual observable data supports the existance of such a cloud, it is only theorized because it would be impossible to explain the number of comets in our solar system otherwise)
And as I said before, CMB levels, Red Shift problems, Dinosaur fossils containing soft tissue, want more? Pseudo science is so dead set on making everything work for a theory of billions of years that they will explain away any amount of evidence against it, they just keep on believing, despite what the evidence is saying.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
" That there is no truth, there is only you and what you make the truth"
Change my mind so much I can't even trust it
My mind change me so much I can't even trust myself
That's a valid point. If some of the key parts of evolution theory can be disputed, it doesn't automatically mean that creationists are correct. Just because we only have two theories, doesn't mean if one is wrong, the other has to be right.
I'd have to argue with you on your second point though, that there is 0 evidence that there is a god. If you had said "proof" that would be a different matter. As far as evidence goes though, there's an enormous amount. The Bible itself contains eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus, and the miracles he performed. The way that so much in the universe seems to follow some kind of rules is evidence. The way that from the beginning of civilisation that humans have had the urge to worship something is evidence. The testimonies of hundreds of thousands of people of how God has moved in their lives and how they've witnesses changes in the people around them through contact with God is evidence. The way you may feel on reading the bible with an open heart and mind is evidence. Simply the amount of people on this planet who are religious is evidence, even if you assume they must all be mad, gullible or stupid, you also have to accept the possibility that perhaps many they weighed up the evidence themselves and have their own personal experiences.
Before you say that most of this evidence is anecdotal, I would remind you that 1. anecdotal evidence is still evidence and while maybe doesn't hold much sway to a scientist, is perfectly acceptable as evidence in a courtroom when trying to judge what is mostly likely to be the truth and 2. Most of what you believe as scientifically proven fact is also anecdotal evidence as far a your beliefs should be concerned unless you have actually done all the research yourself .
Recording of a man named Jesus who performed miracles doesn't prove there is a god. The only thing it proves is that there's a guy named Jesus who made things people didn't understand and therefore interpreted them as miracles. It might have been miracles. It have been mere magic tricks. I'm pretty confident if we sent Derren Brown back in time to do some of the things he can do, they'd think he were performing miracles.
The amount of people that is religious is huge. The amount of people who truely and independantly(in the sense that it's their choice alone to be religious) are religious is smaller. People affect each other. If you have 2000 people in the same room, everybody praising the lord and so on, most of the them will probably feel the "spirit" in them or something. A child raised in a strict catholic home is prone to remain catholic. The amount of people born into a religion is bigger than those converting into one.
You're right. It doesn't hold sway to a scientist. I wouldn't want to believe people that lived 2000 years ago, about a guy performed miracles. That's because they weren't as advanced as we are today. Thing they thought we're magical, are logic to us now.
If a scientist said to me that there is a god, I wouldn't believe he him just because he's a scientist. He'd still have prove it, like everyone else. Difference is that he can actually prove it with science. So yeah, most of what I believe according to you is anecdotal evidence, difference is only that it's real evidence supported with science I can mostly understand.
Yep, Derren Brown is pretty impressive even by today's standards and some of the things he achieves can certainly make someone question things that before may have been classed as supernatural, so you're probably right, 2000 years ago or probably even less he probably could have been hailed as some kind of messiah, should that be what he claimed (or burned as a witch in the middle ages).
I didn't say that the records of Jesus proved anything, I presented it merely as evidence of the existance of God to go alongside all the other evidence. We can add to his (reported) miracles, his teachings, which (paticularly at that period of time) paint a picture of someone really quite remarkable with or without the miracles, and finally the resurrection, which although we can't prove, again has some significant evidence to back it up. According to the records we have, when pierced with a spear, it was found that blood and water in his body had separated, which the Romans knew as we know now, meant he was definitely dead. His followers, who's movement was expected to be finished by the death of their leader, went from being totally downcast, to travelling all over civilisation, preaching his resurrection with little fear for their own lives and according to Luke, who many scholars believe was actually present for much of this, many people witnessed Jesus being alive, after his crucifixion.
As I said, this isn't proof of anything, but it's weird enough not to dismiss out of hand that there was something to it.
I expect your statistics about more people being born to a religion than converting may well be correct, but considering that Christianity, along with other religions, started with one man, I don't suppose it can hold true over the last 2000 years.
My main point is that many believers aren't just blindly following something that they've been told is true on no evidence whatsoever. On top of what is some pretty reasonable evidence, there are their own personal experiences as well. Some of these could be passed off by, as you say, people affecting eachother and being carried along by group feeling, but it would be really pretty sceptical and closed minded to read or hear hundreds of different personal testimonies from rational, intelligent people, and believe that is all it is.
Out of interest, what would you consider might be the evidence we would expect to see if the universe was created by some kind of god?
That's easy.
The thing I want to see is science proving its legitimacy to religion, showing conscientious evidence of conscientious things.
That's hard. So hard in fact, that the smart scientists refuse to even ask the sort of questions religion answers, with perfect clarity.
"What am I doing here?" is one such question that Christianity can answer in a way that is consistant with the reality of human sentiments, emotions, will, reason, and consciousness. Science has attempted to answer the question, but never to the point where people actually used the theories to justify their actions. If they did, they'd cease to be human beings altogether.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
-------------------------------------------------->
<-------------------------------------------------
Uh, evolution and the birth of the universe really aren't that related. You said that there are mountains of evidence supporting an early universe [evidence? Where?], and then you start writing about a cracked up evolution theory. ><.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
-------------------------------------------------->
<-------------------------------------------------
Uh, evolution and the birth of the universe really aren't that related. You said that there are mountains of evidence supporting an early universe [evidence? Where?], and then you start writing about a cracked up evolution theory. ><.
The two are very much related, evolution is a process that supposedly takes millions of years, in order for this to be true, the universe obviously has to be millions(or as evolutionists believe, billions) of years old. And if you believe in evolution , then you obviously believe that all life sprung from somewhere. The two hold hands in the realm of pseudo science and untruth.Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
That's true, but the age of the universe is much larger than the age by which evolutionary processes took place. It is true that if evidence convinces you that evolutionary processes took place, then you also accept the earth to be x amount of years old and by corollary accept the universe to be y amount of years old.
However, proving an old-age of the universe does not necessarily mean that one believes in evolution. I think it would be better not to accept the corollary as exogenous and debate the two seperately.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
I don't get it.. you're admitting that creationists accept Big Bang Theory with those adjustments?
At any rate, while it is true that Big Bang theory isn't completely sorted out, neither is gravity (at all, really). I don't see Christian Scientists advocating intelligent falling. At any rate, there *is* evidence, within measured uncertainties, with large neon lights pointing to singularity and the Big Bang. To discount the theory because it isn't complete is quite foolhardy. Of course it isn't complete - it isn't just someone writing a fairy tale in one sitting. It is constantly being verified to greater accuracy using measurements with smaller and smaller uncertainties. There are challenges, and there are dissenting opinions - that's what science is about. However, just because it isn't universally accepted (and neither is every Christian's interpretation of the Bible), is not enough to discount the theory and call it, as you repeatedly have, nonsensical/illogical/etc.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
None of this support the idea of a god.
I rather support the idea that world evolved from clay, than magically created by some god.
BooGA boOGAH!!!!iII!11
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Well least Atheist wars are impossible..
Atheist 1 : I don't believe in God , what you gonna do about it ?
Atheist 2 : I agree with you..
Atheist 1 : Oh ok..fancy a beer ?
Atheist 2 : Sounds good to me.
unlike..
Religious zealot 1 : My God is the real God.
Religious zealot 2 : no my God is the real God.
Religous War number 12947573932902055 ends in another bloody victory for stupidity.
________________________________
Until they start arguing about how to properly conduct their scientific experiments, ever watch south park? I think that episode summed it up pretty well, basic human nature my friend...no getting around the fact that people like to fight, and don't need God as an excuse.
As to what I posted providing no evidence for a creator...that wasn't the intent, the intent was to show you what a man that many consider the foremost atheist in the world wants to believe over God. If you want to believe that all life came from clay then you can do so if you wish, I think you are extremely stubborn and possibly even marginally delusional, but you're entitled to that...But hey, if you think that it's more plausable that you came from clay than that you were created by a higher power, then more power to you.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
correct, from dirt...see there's one factor that naturalistic explanations don't have...it's a pretty big factor in the whole origin thing...God.
One explanation says God made Adam from the dust, the other says that over millions of years some clay was able to turn into something other than clay, all by itself. It's kind of a big difference.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity in 1927 and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom"—now known as the Big Bang.[6]
(from Wikipedia)
Not that it really matters...though you should note that the first person to propose that the universe started as a swirling cloud of gas did so in the 1800's, his name escapes me right now.
The Bible does not in any way describe anything like the Big Bang...it could be theorized that God made some Gas, and then made it blow up, instantly turning into what he wanted it to...I suppose I couldn't really argue against that, because as long as it's within 6 days, it's true. And yes, the 6 days discussed in the Bible are Earthly days, the type of hebrew used to denote literal translation was used in that part of Genesis, 6 days means 6 days.
Not sure what you mean by Noah's survival of the fittest. The Great flood certainly does explain a lot of things that evolutionists struggle with, namely the mass extinction that supposedly happened 200 million years ago, in addition to rapid formations of things like the Grand Canyon, as well as Pangea.
I do celebrate the fact that the Bible is still relevent today, it is a testament to how timeless and well written the book is. It is the most nuanced and intricately written piece of text in the history of man-kind, and yet the men who wrote it give none of the credit to themselves...that's not very characteristic of human nature if you asked me, men like to glory in the wisdom of men.
Because evolution goes directly against what we believe, and what our Bible tells us, in addition to evolution being scientifically impossible with our current knowledge of DNA.
I don't refer to all evolutionists as atheists, that wouldn't be wise at all. Infliction has stated before that he is an atheist but not necessarily an evolutionist. Atheists are, generally, evolutionists, as it is currently the most commonly accepted theory of the "scientific" community.
Because every piece of information that comes out in support of creationism is quickly gobbled up by evolutionists, switched around, and theorized about in order to explain how it could be that such information could come from a universe that is billions of years old. It happened with the red shift paradigm, it happened with the distribution of CMB in our universe, and it happened with the soft tissue found in Dinosaur fossils. If you want a great deal of solid science regarding creationism then I would point you towards www.answersingenesis.com
Interesting that you would bring up the fact that arguments for both theories are interchangable...It's merely how one chooses to look at the data. When I look at the data, I see a beacon of creation, when an evolutionist looks at the data, they see cause for evolution. I view the world through biblical eyes now...I didn't always, but I do now.
I don't base anything purely on the gospel, I tried to for 10 years before I eventually just said screw it and became agnostic. A few years later I chose to give it a shot, this time using something other than the Bible as a reference point...when people say that the Bible is all you need, it really isn't true. The bible alone is a powerfull piece of writing, but it's extremely difficult to understand and take in all of its nuances without someone with expertise guiding you. The Bible gives very precise geneologies and tribal heritage lists...but it's almost impossible to grasp all of that without going to outside sources (ie bible studies and third party books)
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Doesnt the bible also say "on the firstday god created darkness, and on the second day he created light"
Actually all the creating was done in the first verse when ,"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth"
The other verses are essentially molding what was there or "re-arranging" essentially.
Doesnt this accuratly describe the big bang theory ? (a theory created by a catholic priest)
The Big Bang theory has no merit in Creationism. Don't confuse the two. The Big Bang theory cannot account for something from nothing.
Doesnt the story of Nohah's ark accuratly portray the evolutionary rule of survival of the fittest ?
No, the events around Noah's ark give us the results of God's judgement against sin--nothing more. Please don't attempt to pollute God's Word with nonsensical manmade theories.
Why dont christians celebrate the fact that there 2000 yo book actually does hold some good scientific discussion, if you look carefully ?
Actually, the Bible is lots older. 2000 years ago was 7AD afterall. I have said it before, but God is not interested in teaching us science. He only spends a couple of chapters on creation and we couldn't begin to comprehend God's science anyway.
Why do chrisitians feel the need to directly go against evolution?
Because it is completely false, non-biblical, and encourages apostacy.
Why are all evolutionists referred to as athiests ?
I wasn't aware that they were. I happen to know many people who claim that they are Christians who unfortunately have compromised some of their beliefs to include some of the radical thoeries surrounding evolution. I won't make that stereotype. Even though the evolution concept is incorrect, it is not a pre-quesite to believe in Creation in order to accept Christ as your savior.
Why doesnt Creationism post their entire theory in a reputable scientific journal to be scrutinised by their peers (like what happens to ALL scientific theories ?)
Actually, this has been done countless times in many different ways. It would not matter if God himself spoke from Heaven about it. There would be many who would attempt to explain it away or choose not to believe. It has always been this way. Even when Jesus did miracles in his own hometown there were those who chose not to believe. Do you really think if the "perfect" article was published that you would be convinced? The information is there and the Bible is there. It all comes down to your freewill to choose what to believe.
Why does all the arguments for christianity seem interchangable with arguments against evolution ?
I am unaware of this "interchangeability". Christianity and evolution are not synonymous in any way, shape, or form.
WHY CANT YOU GUYS JUST PLAY FAIR !!!!
What hope does a scientist have to prove anything in this world if people keep spinning their own theories and basing them purely on the gospel ?
Its not my rules man! In the beginning WAS the Word. No matter how far you want to go back, He was already there. I play by his rules or try my best to anyway.
Because creationism isn't accepted as science, in order for something to become an accepted scientific theory, it has to be accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, you stick the word God into anything, and it stops being science for some reason. if you were to replace the word God with "naturalistic phenomenon" you would have a better chance of being accepted as science.
As for creationism in the Bible. What we have to go by is only a few verses, it is true. But creationism isn't trying to imply complex processes to a simple reality...it's trying to imply simple(ie Godly) processes to a complex reality. The Bible only barely touches on the creation of everything because God doesn't want the focus on how, but why. It's not an accident that the Bible states the creation of everything almost as if it were a whym, it's meant to be a testament to God's power, that he could so easily create everything. As I said before, 6 days is 6 days when it comes to the Bible...it isn't meant to be taken as anything other than 6 days, for the reason that I stated in my previous post.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
Show me one piece of evidence that has gone ignored by the scientific community. Science isn't like religion where you can pick and choose what you think is real, because science IS real. The only time I've EVER seen ignored scientific evidence of the like is when there're lobbyists involved.There are mountains of evidence that are in support of a young universe...contemporary science usually just ignores it though...or tries to make up some cooky explanation that fits it...for example: It is known that even the most simple of living organisms would need to have a minimum of 250ish genes in order to actually survive(though this organism would have no life support abilities and would instantly die were it to encounter any kind of difficulty). Now, obviously something with 250 genes doesn't just appear out of thin air, so in order to rectify this, some evolutionists(including Darwin's new slavegirl, Richard Dawkins) have begun discussing the possibility that all life started from self replicating clay crystals.
I'll say that again....Richard Dawkins thinks that the idea of a living God to be preposterous, but is will to entertain the idea that all life started from clay
from clay
FROM CLAY
Show me one piece of evidence that has gone ignored by the scientific community. Science isn't like religion where you can pick and choose what you think is real, because science IS real. The only time I've EVER seen ignored scientific evidence of the like is when there're lobbyists involved. Its not that they necessarily ignore it. Some of the evidence is WAY too strong for that. They won't change their paradigm, but rather science will attempt to explain away the evidence or call it some anomaly. Take for instance the actual flesh from the T-Rex that was found. They couldn't deny that it was real. However under NO circumstances were they about to change their mind about the dinosaur still being 70 mil years old.The first thing that was said was that it had to be fake because flesh couldn't last that long no matter how well preserved. Once it was proved to be real, they made up some cock-&-bull anomaly of how it must have happened. Sad really.
Perhaps ignored was a poor choice in words...more like...Science has changed a few things in order to fit the increasing amounts of evidence against evolution and the Big Bang, three simple cases are posted in my post in the previous page...but I'll give a few more here, cases in which science has attempted to go back and explain something because it doesn't fit with their beliefs
The density of Mercury(believed by evolutionists that a meteor hit mercury and caused it to be so dense, because it was way too dense to be billions of years old)
Saturns rings' rate of dissipation (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, causing a renewal of its rings)
Mars' atmospheric pressure (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, noticing a pattern here?)
The number of comets in the solar system (proposed Oort cloud roughly one ly away from our solar system, spitting comets back into our solar system, though no actual observable data supports the existance of such a cloud, it is only theorized because it would be impossible to explain the number of comets in our solar system otherwise)
And as I said before, CMB levels, Red Shift problems, Dinosaur fossils containing soft tissue, want more? Pseudo science is so dead set on making everything work for a theory of billions of years that they will explain away any amount of evidence against it, they just keep on believing, despite what the evidence is saying.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.