What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Which religions are represented here?

  • Thread starter Odysseus
  • Start date
  • #121
I believe in God I just do not believe he created everything if he created anything. Sure I have many-o-questions but I am sure he understands.
wink.gif
I do believe that evolution and religion do go together.

Can I defend what I state? No because it is a belief. Sure you can use science to prove some evolution or you can use a bible to prove your religous side. Going back millions of years is to hard to prove anything - know matter what you use.
 
  • #122
That was a PERFECT answer Noah!  You hit the nail on the head!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Not interested in getting involved in this debate, but I'm curious if someone could explain how dinosaurs fit in with creationism. Did God supposedly create dinosaurs, or did they not exist? Or something else?

Trashcan, here's my take on dinosaurs.  There are several theories out there, but this one makes the most sense to me.  Before the Flood, people and animals lived a lot longer.  There are some theories as to why this was, but I'm not an expert in that field.  Some reptiles (such as alligators) never stop growing.  If you lived for an extra 100 years, your gator is suddenly 20 ft long!  I personally think there are still some dinosaurs around today, though we may not recognize them as such.  Look at the Komodo dragon, what would it look like after it doubled or tripled in size?  Those frilled lizard things?  Miniature dinosaurs!

I've read articles about dinosaurs, and many natives in central Africa have reported giant half lizard, half elephant like creatures.  Does this sound familiar?  What about the Loch Ness monster?  If it exists, could it possibly be a dinosaur?  What about the ocean? We've only explored approximately 1% of it!  Think of all the creatures that could be in there!  I just think these ideas are interesting and would not be utterly surprised if we happened to find a plesiosaurus or something.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Can I defend what I state? No because it is a belief.

Travis!?!?  If you can't defend what you believe, what good is it?  I do not mean to come across as rude here, but if a person can't defend their beliefs, why should I believe them?  

If someone were to tell me they believed humans were actually robots that are controlled by alien beings and then couldn't defend or even tell me why they believed that, I definitely would not give what they say any credence what so ever!  Would you?

SF
 
  • #123
Let me ask a question here.

Would you classify evolution as a scientific theory, or a religion? How about Creationism?

SF
 
  • #124
[b said:
Quote[/b] (SnowyFalcon @ Mar. 09 2004,04:45)]
there are a few serious "creationist misconceptions" being discussed here..thought I would take a crack at them..

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How about Ramapithicus (I'm sure I botched the spelling), whose entire body was artistically rendered from a two inch piece of jawbone. Lucy, whose skeleton exactly resembles that of a modern day chimpanzee, yet is touted as the link between apes and humans? Nebraska man? A whole body derived from a single tooth (which ended up coming from a pig)? Where does the fossil record prove this?

yes, its true there are several "early hominid" fossils that are now known to be incorrect..but that disproves nothing.
because there are MANY that show obvious traits of both apes and humans..they are truely in-between forms..
its not true that Lucy exactly resembles a chimp..her skeleton is quite different from a chimp..so that one is simply outright false..
Lucy belongs to the Genus and species "Australopithecus afarensis"..They have traits that are obviously more eveolved that apes, but yet not as advanced as modern humans..
no question about it..fossils dont lie:
saying "Lucy, whose skeleton exactly resembles that of a modern day chimpanzee" is simply an outright lie..

http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/afarensis.html

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So basically, if I stick a few humans in an isolated part of a continent, they will become something different eventually?

yes! absolutely..

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Well, I happen to have some evidence. Radiometric dating is not nearly as accurate as you might think. One example off the top of my head is seal skins. Scientists took fresh seal sins and dated them. The tests came back saying they were 1400 years old! That's an OLD seal!

utterly and completely irrelevant..
get a calculator, and add together these numbers:
2376
44998
8712339
776.895
445.091
55.9906

If you make one mistake while entering those numbers, the result will utterly wrong..
does that mean the process of addition is ALWAYS wrong?
of course not..
finding a few examples mistakes being made does not prove that the entire process is flawed..all it proves is some mistakes were made..human error..
you cant use those mistakes to say the WHOLE process is flawed! but yet thats exactly what creationists attempt to do..


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Scientists have been studying and measuring the sun for over 100 years. It is and has been shrinking at a rate of 5 ft an hour. Take this backwards in time and you have the sun growing at a rate of 5 ft an hour. Now this doesn't seem like a lot when the Sun is millions of miles across, but when you multiply by 4 billion years or so, you have a HOT problem (hehehe!)!
In fact, if the earth were even 20 MILLION years old, the sun would be touching the earth!!! This is during the Cenozoic period (sp?) when humans should have existed! How can this be possible? Can you touch the sun and live?

not quite sure what you mean here..
who says the sun was once much larger than it is now?
oh wait..I get it now..since the sun is now shrinking at that rate, it has ALWAYS been shrinking at that rate? and was once much larger?
ok..that would make sense, if it was true the sun was actually shrinking..there isnt conclusive evidence it is..
and even supposing it IS true, how do know it has *always* been shrinking at the same rate? we have no idea..
this is an example of taking one small observation, which may or may not be true, and building an entire theory around it based on no factual eveidence at all! in short, this particluar arguement against evolution has essentially been made up out of nothing..hardly conclusive..

here is a great page!
answers most questions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html

Scot
 
  • #125
Great stuff, everyone! I'm caught up in contract negotiations at work (was out till 11:30 last night!), and can't wait to dive back in here, but alas, it will have to wait till tonight at eariliest. I don't want to be slack in my replies.

Capslock
 
  • #126
Well if you can defend what happend several million years ago...go ahead? I can not. I believe things evolve or they die because they can not handle the new surroundings. I am not asking you to believe my belief...I need facts and the only facts we can come up with is what happend thousands of years ago. Sure we have dinosaur fossils but we can not prove a T-Rex's became a another creature of sorts that is living today. Just like I do not think god created everything...it may be writtin but I do not believe it.

Travis
smile.gif
 
  • #127
Lucy : http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-011b.htm

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So basically, if I stick a few humans in an isolated part of a continent, they will become something different eventually?

yes! absolutely..

Well, why didn't the Mayans become a different species than the Chinese?

There are SO many articles on C-14 dating out there, I won't even bother posting them.  Do a google search if you want to.  One interesting one I found in about 30 secs is this.

Check out this article on the sun shrinking.

Gotta get back to schoolwork!

SF
 
  • #128
SF, those aren't scholarly or scientific sources of information, but rather from a site that proudly proclaims it's bias. They start from a conclusion and work backwards, which is the opposite of the scientific method. "Answers in Genesis" is not a scientific organization.

Although I hope to get into more detail later, I just wanted to point out that in searching for knowlege, you'll be able to find whatever answers you want on the internet. There is no shortage of biased information out there. Whenever possible, it pays to seek non-partisan, unbiased information from people who don't have a stake in one answer.

In this case in particular, you cite an article by Snelling, who boasts a PhD and claims to be a peer-reviewed geologist. It appearst that's correct, but his scholarly articles make repeated reference to geologic activity from hundreds or thousands of millions of years ago- in direct contradiction to his religious writings that proclaim an earth only thousands of years old. In fact, all writers for Answers in Genesis subscribe to an anti-scientific "Statement of Faith", which reads, in part:

"(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

(B) BASICS

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. "

The Dr. Snelling who writes in Answers in Genesis makes no mention of his scholarly writings that freely mention an earth millions of years old, and his scholarly writings never mention his beliefs or works with the ICR or Answers in Genesis, nor the notion of an earth a few thousands of years old. It would appear to me that his committment to science is on an "opportunity" basis only.

For a rebuttal to Snelling's theories, read this:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling_flood_geology.htm

Capslock
 
  • #129
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Well, why didn't the Mayans become a different species than the Chinese?

because neither group was ever *fully* isolated from the rest of humanity.
and even if they were fully isolated, there wasnt enough time..
Humans have been in the Americas for less than 40,000 years, which isnt nearly enough time..and besides, they were never completely isolated anyway..

you get new species when 2 popultations are fully isolated from each other..for a long time.
such as new world vs. old world monkeys,
(have been seperated for 36 million years, since Africa and South America split..)
or marsupials in Australia.
Australia has been very isloated from the rest of the world for a long time..and it sports many species that live only there..because they evolved there, because they were isolated..
Scot
 
  • #130
Hey Capslock,

     You bring up a good point, but I must question one thing.  Doesn't everybody have a bias?  Whether they proudly proclaim it or hide it under titles and fancy words, everybody has a bias.  I happen to agree with their bias, which was why I went to their site.  Just because they (like the rest of the world) are biased, doesn't make what they say any less true!

I must point out that it took me about two minutes to find those articles on the web.  I read them, thought the authors made good points and posted them.  I did make a mistake in not doing a background search on the authors, which could lead to fatal assumptions (or a lot of time spent going nowhere!).

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Whenever possible, it pays to seek non-partisan, unbiased information from people who don't have a stake in one answer.

I don't think such a resource exists!? Everybody has a stake in this fundamental question.  Many other beliefs (such as in the existence of a God) are balanced on top of this argument, and I'll guarantee you that they'll have a say in that!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]They start from a conclusion and work backwards, which is the opposite of the scientific method

In order for something such as the creation of the world to be proved by science, it has to be three things.

1)Observable
2)Measurable
3)Repeatable

Nobody can do this with the creation of the world, so we're all looking backwards.  I at least have an eyewitness account (Bible) by the Creator Himself!  Really, evolutionists are worse off in this scenario!

On to Scot!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Humans have been in the Americas for less than 40,000 years, which isnt nearly enough time..and besides, they were never completely isolated anyway..

So, who gets to decide how much time is necessary?  If I went and asked another evolutionist, would he be consistent with you?  Who gets to define completely isolated?

Great stuff guys!

SF
 
  • #131
SF, you're absolutely correct, everyone has biases, but I don't think all biases are equal. There are many evolution-believing scientists who are Christian (even most of them?), so I don't view this as a religious arguement as much as a scientific one. In any case, "evolution" arguements don't start from the conclusion that evolution is true. Creation arguements do, however.

The case for evolution is made by fossils, genetic mutation, DNA evidence, and observable evolution and speciation in the lab. In other words, tons of physical, testable, observable evidence. And also, more importantly, evolution isn't tied to any doctrine; if scientists find it's not true, then science is STRENGTHENED, not weakened. However, if creation is found to be untrue, then some people's religious doctrines have to be modified, and therefore there is a considerable psychological hurdle to overcome.

But your point is correct, everyone has biases, myself included. We should endeavor to minimize them, however, whereas I see folk like "Answers in Genesis" almost celebrating their biases.

Capslock
 
  • #132
The real question to be answereed is, Who is responsible for all that has been created? If the credit goes to God, it doesn't matter how He did it or any of the other sub-debates. After all, there are still a few folks that just can't accept that He become a human and interact with other humans. Believe it or not there are some folks that can't accept that He is Fully God and fully human and fully Spirit. He's God and His thoughts and ways are not like ours. they are far beyond our comprehension. Just ask Job. He was a decent fella and was called to task by God - but he was also commended by God for his faith. This topic bears a striking resemblance to the Book of Job.
 
  • #133
well jainism is one that you might have left out oh yeah maybe you should put down Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic.
 
  • #134
Hi Capslock and others...

Just want to point something out here....

I hear a lot of "science disproves God" or "science supports this" or "science shows that". The fact of the matter is, science itself is based on an unproven premise, though necessarily so.

For any logical conclusion to be true, it has to be valid (based on solid logic) and also sound (based on true premises). However, science itself is limited to the measurable world. There are some things that can not be measured - love, the existence of God, etc. These can not be accounted for in scientific experiments and therefore can not be included.

Just because they can not be included does not mean that they don't exist. We all know that love is very real, even if science can not prove that it exists or how. It can only show the effects of it in some cases.

Now, since some things can't be measured, scientists have left them out of their equations, and many have discounted their existence alltogether. For example, all of science is based on the premise that there is no God. If it wasn't, no conclusion could be sure - metaphysical intervention can not be measured: it doesn't follow laws of nature. Scientist have to leave God and other unmeasurables out of their equations. It's science.

However, as I mentioned earlier, a logical conclusion has to be sound for to be true. All that science has shown assumes that God doesn't exist. If he does, the conclusions science comes up with might end up differently. For example, science might find that something/one must have created the universe. But based on the assumption that he doesn't, evolution is at this point in time the most plausible theory around for how life came about.

If one chooses to hold on to the premise that there is no God simply because he can't be measured, then one has no choice but to embrace the 1 in a googleplex chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans. It is indeed the most scientifically evidenced conclusion out there based on the premise of the non-existance of God. However, it is not a proven conclusion - the premise it is based on is an unproven assumption scientists must make.

The existance of God is as real to me as the existance of love. Sure it can't be measured, and it probably won't ever make it into the average college textbook. But science can't measure everything in this world.

So my point is, don't try to use science to prove or disprove the existance of God. Science can try to show that the world COULD have come about without God, but it can't prove or disprove his existance. At best, it can show some of the effects therof.

So where does this leave us in a debate like this? We can:

A) Use science as evidence for the POSSIBILITY of evolution
B) Use science as evidence againts the POSSIBILITY of evolution
C) Talk about moral consequences of various worldviews.
D) etc.

...but we can NOT use science as an ultimate indicator of the existance of God.

K? cheers!

-noah
smile.gif
 
  • #135
Archaeological science has done an excellent job of confirming Biblical history. Science, that which isn't abusive, is nothing to fear. There was an individual who was anti-Christian, named Josh McDowell, who set out to prove the Bible was false. So he read it thoroughly. He then decided that his position was wrong and he became a Christian. He then wrote a book called, "Evidence That Demands A Verdict." Great book. He followed it up with another, "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict." It was over my head at the time - lotsa criticism - literary, form, historical. Does that prove anything? No, but it was impressive. Please read the Bible - all of it. Get the big picture - the forest for the trees, as it were. See God's love for us. See the imagery, the poetry, the differing audiences, the history, the literalness, the metaphorical. Then decide.
 
  • #136
Noah,
good points!
I also believe Science cant prove, or disprove anything about God..but science doesent care..
you are assuming a few of your ideas are facts, when they are actually only opinions..

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Now, since some things can't be measured, scientists have left them out of their equations, and many have discounted their existence alltogether. For example, all of science is based on the premise that there is no God. If it wasn't, no conclusion could be sure - metaphysical intervention can not be measured: it doesn't follow laws of nature. Scientist have to leave God and other unmeasurables out of their equations. It's science.

the thing about that is..Science doesent need to care one way or the other if God exists or not..
all of Science's conclusions still work regardless of God's existance or non-existance! either way is perfectly fine with Science! ;) I believe in God, I also believe 100% in evolution..the 2 beliefs are not mutually exclusive..
I simply dont believe the bible is a factual book..God can be very seperate from the bible.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]metaphysical intervention can not be measured: it doesn't follow laws of nature.

yes, but Nature does follow the laws of nature!
everything that science observes follows the laws of nature.
if you assume the "laws of nature" are "God's laws"..then God is breaking a lot of his own laws! why would God write something (in the bible) then show it to be utterly untrue in the real world? that doesent make sense to me..
for the Bible to be literally true, then one of either 2 things has to also be true:
A. God is capable of being wrong..because he wrote things in the bible that can be proven to be untrue..I believe God is incapable of being wrong..
or..
B. God lied to us.
He said things in the bible that he just made up..which he didnt really do..
I also believe that is untrue..
So if God is never wrong, and is also never a liar, there is only one conclusion for me..the bible was written by humans..who were wrong. because they didnt know what was what 2,000 years ago..

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]However, as I mentioned earlier, a logical conclusion has to be sound for to be true. All that science has shown assumes that God doesn't exist. If he does, the conclusions science comes up with might end up differently. For example, science might find that something/one must have created the universe. But based on the assumption that he doesn't, evolution is at this point in time the most plausible theory around for how life came about.
thats not true..it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that God exists, it is also impossible to prove he created the universe..
therefore evolution is the only plausable theory for how life came about based on evidence that physically exists..
yes creationism is another theory..but one based only on faith..not based on any factual evidence whatsoever..
Creationism theory flatly contradicts everything God put on the surface of the planet..and inside it..why would he do that?
if one is to believe in the literal existance of God...one has to believe what he is showing us! I dont understand how creationists can believe in God, and then utterly ignore all of His creation! thats so bizzare..

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If one chooses to hold on to the premise that there is no God simply because he can't be measured, then one has no choice but to embrace the 1 in a googleplex chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans
1 in a googleplex? did you make that number up yourself?
that arguement is meaningless..because first of all..no one knows what that actual odds are..and secondly, lets say the odds ARE one in a googleplex..well, it STILL could have happened then right?! without God!
biggrin.gif
you are saying it IS possible!
the only way to really use that arguement as a arguement against evolution is to say "then one has no choice but to embrace the IMPOSSIBLE chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans"
and of course..no one can say its factually impossible..
therefore, ANY odds are still odds it could have happened..

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So where does this leave us in a debate like this? We can:

A) Use science as evidence for the POSSIBILITY of evolution

Right! that is what we are doing!
biggrin.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]B) Use science as evidence againts the POSSIBILITY of evolution

Science does that too! no problem there.. ;)

eventually Creationism will fall by the wayside..along with the Flat earth theory, and the "fact" that the Sun and everything else revolves around the Earth..ideas that were once believed as truth but were disproved by Science..
creationism is just another one of those ancient relics supported by nothing and disproved by everything..
if you just look around, its Obvious how God works..
to me, the study of Evolution is also the study of God and the amazing things he has done with life..

I believe evolution based on facts..
I believe in God based on faith alone..
I disbelieve the bible, creationism, the flood, etc..based on tons of factual eveidence against these myths..and zero factual eveidence to support them..

Scot
 
  • #138
Hi Scotty,

Thanks for replying! I see we agree on some things... and others not. A "few" comments on what you said...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]the thing about that is..Science doesent need to care one way or the other if God exists or not..

Exactly

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]all of Science's conclusions still work regardless of God's existance or non-existance!

They may "work"... but that doesn't mean they are true! As I pointed out, they are all based on the premise that God doesn't have an effect on the world. But let's just say he could....

Now what does the picture look like?

For example, take the case of a murder trial. Evidence shows there was a guy with a scetchy record in the alley at the time of the crime. However, that is all the evidence they have for this guy.

Second, you have another suspect who ended up with the slain man's cell phone. He claims it was planted on him. Also, he is way to small be be able to beat someone up. Furthermore, he has absolutely no blood on his hands. Lastly, there wasn't enough time for him to do the crime.

Now, since the prosecution has to use some solid evidence, they ignore guy #1. This leaves them to come up with a complex possibility of how guy #2 could have killed the slain. Eventually, they conclude that he ran the block before the alley in his suit, knocked the slain over by surprise, went to the balcony above the guy he had knocked over, dropped a bunch of rocks on him, stole the cell phone, then picked up the rocks and hid them nearby, running the next few blocks to make up the lost time.

It doesn't seem to matter to them how unlikely this scenario is. Since they have decided they can't use guy #1 for the trial, they are ignoring him. Does that mean he is innocent? Does it?

Of course not!! Just cause they don't have any evidence for him doesn't mean he didn't do it.

The same thing goes for evolution and creation. Just because we don't have any scientific evidence for God's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist or didn't create the universe. There is plenty of evidence for metaphysical intervention throughout the world. If scientist were to accept the possibility that metaphysical intervention was possible, millions of things would be attributed to it:

The big bang had to be set off by someone/thing. According to Newton's laws it is a process that can't be repeated.
The intricate design of almost everything around us screams for the need of a designer. I interests me that evolutionists claim that all life on earth came about by chance and yet we have not found one single functioning object outside of life that did. Do we find fossilized watches on the beach? or even gears? The chance that a gear was formed from some molten metal years ago is far higher than the chance of even one single organelle in a cell forming by chance. Survival of the fittest works for evolution once you have stable life. But it doesn't explain how cells could have formed, for a cell can't even begin to survive until all of it's parts are in place precisely as they are. That goes for many things we find in nature. Eyes. Ears. These couldn't have come about simply piece by piece! Until they were fully formed, they can't function!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] I simply dont believe the bible is a factual book..God can be very seperate from the bible.

You don't have to! That is fully based on faith. However, it Bible does work as far as moral laws go. Those who follow it tend to have more balanced, fruitfull lives. As far as historic accuracy goes, many things were read in the Bible long before they were proven by science. Check out

http://www.seeking4truth.com/historical_accuracy_of_the_bible.htm

for a few examples.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
yes, but Nature does follow the laws of nature!
everything that science observes follows the laws of nature.
if you assume the "laws of nature" are "God's laws"..then God is breaking a lot of his own laws! why would God write something (in the bible) then show it to be utterly untrue in the real world? that doesent make sense to me..

Yes, nature follows the laws of nature. That is the way the universe is set up. Assuming God created the world from nothing, we have to remember a few things:

Before the world, there was no matter
Without matter, there was no time or space.

Our minds are limited to thinking about things within the realms of time, matter, and space. We can not imagine infinity, or what life outside time, space, or matter is like. Assuming God DID create time, matter, and space, he would have every right to set the rules that nature will follow or to break them. After all, these are rules that NATURE will follow... not himself. If you make a lego world, you make the rules. It is perfectly right and just to break any rules to set up for your creations to follow. (This is totally different than God's nature (other meaning of the word here) or any promises he makes. These he can't break, by his nature, like you said... but that's a whole nother discussion. And yes God can't lie.)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]He said things in the bible that he just made up..which he didnt really do..

such as?
smile.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]thats not true..it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that God exists, it is also impossible to prove he created the universe..
therefore evolution is the only plausable theory for how life came about based on evidence that physically exists..
yes creationism is another theory..but one based only on faith..not based on any factual evidence whatsoever..

True - evolution is the only "plausable" theory for how life came about based on evidence that physically exists. But that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Consider the love a mother has for her young one. If we only took physical evidence, we would have to say that she takes care of him to ensure:

a. she has someone to take care of her when she gets old.
b. to carry on her gene code through society.
c. because she has to - abandoning the child would be illegal.

Now, are any of those primary reasons for which most mothers take care of their children? Of course not!! We know that mothers take care of their young because they LOVE them. Is this conclusion based purely on faith?? Of course not.... we see the evidences, and feel love ourselves in our hearts.

In the same way, there is evidence in the universe supporting the existance of God - if we choose to accept it - and those that have a relationship with God can feel him very strongly in their hearts.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I dont understand how creationists can believe in God, and then utterly ignore all of His creation! thats so bizzare..

I, for one, don't ignore his creation. I see it's complexity and beauty as a declaration God's glory. The whole earth supports a creationist theory. Evolution doesn't disprove creation in the least. It only gives a theory of how it could have happened if we were to rule God out.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]1 in a googleplex? did you make that number up yourself?
that arguement is meaningless..because first of all..no one knows what that actual odds are..and secondly, lets say the odds ARE one in a googleplex..well, it STILL could have happened then right?! without God!
biggrin.gif
you are saying it IS possible!
the only way to really use that arguement as a arguement against evolution is to say "then one has no choice but to embrace the IMPOSSIBLE chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans"

True. I do see it as impossible, but I'm neither a fully trained scientist nor a statisticion, so I can't give you the numbers first hand... I can only take what others have come up with. The figures I've seen that scientists have put out range somewhere between 1 in *insert a huge number here* and 0. But I can't claim that they are 0 and be honest about it. I really don't have a clue what they are. But I know they have to be infintessimally tiny, especially after studying how cells work at great length.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I disbelieve the bible, creationism, the flood, etc..based on tons of factual eveidence against these myths..and zero factual eveidence to support them..

That, as you well know, is the overstatement of the day. There is a lot of evidence for a flood, and much of the stuff found in the Bible. Don't give sweeping statements like that unless you are willing and able to back them up with something.
smile.gif


Yes, God COULD have created the world through evolution... but then it wasn't evolution by chance anymore, it was evolution spurred on by God. That would explain the total lack of fossil evidence for evolutionary stages and how the evolutionary theory could have fit into the young earth that many scientists are finding we live on.
smile.gif


Hey, this is quite an interesting discussion! Let's hope it stays at the "discussion" stage and doesn't turn into an argument.

cheers,

-noah
 
  • #139
I guess I’ll stick my nose in here since my name was invoked. Let me state outright that I have found the Bible to be infallible. It says what it say, we intrepret
What it says. The biggest problem is when were lost in translation. Check this out.


Hebrew is very fascinating. Unlike our language, the individual letters have meaning. For example with the word "cat" in English, the individual letters have no meaning, In Hebrew each letter would represent characteristics of the cat. Hebrew also has no numbers; the letters have dual meaning (both consonant and number). Further Biblical Hebrew is written right to left, back to front. As if that were not enough: there were no chapters, no verses, the vowels were left out, no punctuation, and no spacing! Just a continuous string of Hebrew consonants! Now that "cat" becomes "ct" or really "tc"! So you have to pick out the word from the string of letters and determine from context if say cat, cot, or coat was intended! One could write a whole paper on linguistics and Hebrew!
If you are really going to delve into some of the controversial issues in the Bible, you need to learn something of the original languages - or at least the history of the translation - especially if you are going to hang entire concepts on the meaning of a word or two. Some think this is rubbish... They say "God gave me the King James version - that's all I need". Well, for these people I offer the following simple examples:
A fine example is the Hebrew word "erets" translated as "earth" that appears in the King James Bible. What do you think of when you hear the word Earth? Probably the round spinning globe of a planet we call home - right? We subconsciously "add in" things like the Earth's: size, volume, shape, number and shape of continents, size and depth of oceans, height of mountains, diversity and quantity of wildlife (from the deepest parts of the oceans to the polar regions), etc. The word Earth comes with a lot of baggage today... This is a very recent definition of "Earth". In Biblical Hebrew, this word means "land". It could be an individual's land, the land of a city, as far as you could see, or possibly the extent of an empire. In short, it usually meant anything but what we attribute to it now!
Another example is the phrase in Genesis 1:28 "... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...". This helped lead Scofield and others into the gap theory - which postulates that in Genesis 1:1 everything is created, in Genesis 1:2 it becomes "formless and void", and Genesis 1:3 on details the "re-creation"! The Hebrew word translated as "replenish" really simply means to "fill".
My final example is the word Adam/Man. Most do not realize that the Hebrew word for "Adam" and "man" are one and the same. The translators decided where to put in "Adam". There is no special proper name for Adam!
Possibly now you can appreciate the difficulty, and understand some of the arguing that goes on as a result of taking these original Hebrew texts, translating them into "old English" (the language of King James in 1611) and applying our modern meanings to these older translated words!
I think you will find this information helpful and informative. I feel you will gain something - regardless of which "side" you fall on with regard to any one of these controversial topics.

That being said I agree with Jim Scott on this. I did not mean to imply the Bible can be interpered
Many different ways, simpley that through are own inperfections, and quest for short cuts, many people have manipulated the bible to say what they want it to. I believe that each passage of scripture states only what the arthor intended it to say. I have found no..( read zero(0) discrepancyes in scripture itself. This leads me to state with a given amount of assurance that God’s word is infaliable. The problem with interpretation comes when people do not do there home work on what there studying, or don’t bother to study at all. I find it curious that some state the don’t believe the bible when they haven’t studied it. NOT MEARLY TOOK A GLANCE AT IT BUT STUDIED IT. I doubt also that anyone here, myself included, as read every atheistic paper written, but some how believe this THEORY without question.
On to Dinosaurs!

I believe they were long gone before Adam and Eve were created.
What happened to them? Well I think its a virtual certainty that it was a meteor impact. Do you know we have recently discovered a crater in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula (Chicxulub) that is 120 miles across! This calls for an asteroid at least 9 miles in diameter! In 1883 Krakatoa erupted and in the U.S. and during the next season temperatures were down an average of 7 degrees overall. That may not seem too significant to you but consider that this led to very wide spread crop failure in the U.S. and even more catastrophic failures in Europe. Now consider that Chicxulub was an explosion over 1000 times more powerful (yes 1 thousand)! This clearly would have had a devastating impact on all life on this planet. As further proof this event dates to the time of the dinosaurs extinction (approximately 65 million years ago) and at that layer there is over 300 times more iridium (element contained in asteroids) than expected. Most scientists recognize this as the "smoking gun" for what happened to the dinosaurs

Annnnnnnd the increadible shrinking sun.

Prior to our understanding of nuclear energy, the only explanation scientists could come up with for the sun's energy was gravitational contraction. If this was indeed what powered the sun, more than 100 million years ago the sun would have been larger than the earth's orbit! Further evidence came from "some" measurements that seemed to indicate a small decrease in the suns diameter.
Rebuttal: From what we now know about nuclear reactions, the temperature and pressure inside a collapsing sun would ignite nuclear fusion (nuclear energy power is therefore unavoidable). The idea of a sun decreasing in diameter has been completely disproved by the much more precise measurements of Barry LaBonte and Robert Howard. If you still have any doubts, the sun's temperature, luminosity, spectral line emissions, radius, and mass, all dictate an energy source through converting hydrogen into helium (nuclear fusion) for about 5 billion years. It further indicates that this fusion should proceed for about another 5 billion years. This is very good science firmly rooted in physics... Remember we have nuclear reactors on the Earth now!

AND CARBON DATEING.

This is probably one of the areas that get written about the most. Young earth creationists usually devote an entire chapter of their books to its alleged problems - often imaginary or greatly exaggerated. Since the dates being measured can be in the billions of years, and there is a margin of error, the dates can be off by more years than the young earth creationists believe the earth to be. This leads them to laugh at the error being stated as +/- x million years... well that's because we are dealing with billions of years of history. An analogy would be young earthers counting how many thousandths of an inch a major interstate had, while the rest of us were counting the miles!
Radiometric dating is basically measuring the amount of decay in a radioactive element. Radioactive is just that - it is actively radiating energy. When this energy is radiated away it will change into another element. This process is measured in terms of "half life" - which refers to the amount of time required for there to only be half of the original element present. After another half-life there is only half of that original half left (or 1/4) - this continues on down the line. With carbon 14 dating for example if an item was dated to 11,540 years, it would only have 1/4 of the original carbon 14 which means that it had gone through 2 half life periods (5770 + 5770 = 11,540 years). You can only go back about 10 half-lives before there is so little of the original material left - you can't measure it.
The way it works is kind of simple. Think of the analogy of a solar system, pretend at specified rate planet orbits decay to the point that they drift away - this is similar to what happens to the atoms of these radioactive elements. The orbits of the atom particles are not stable long term - they have a shelf life if you will (the half-life). Nothing on this earth is forever - it will eventually decay. If fact, we have discovered that the entire universe is literally wearing out just as depicted in the Bible (Isiah 51:56). God has created the laws of physics, wound up the universe and is letting it run down... we can even measure this wearing down... it's called entropy. Radioactive decay is proof of this wearing down. Radioactive decay too supports the Bible.
I will briefly cover 2 of the main type of radioactive dating here - there are others and they are getting more accurate all the time.
Carbon 14 dating has a half-life of 5,770 years. It decays into nitrogen 14. It is only useful for measuring the age of prior living matter. The amount of initial carbon 14 can be determined by the amount of carbon 12 still present (which does not decay within the useful range). Ages can be determined up to 50,000 years (age since man) with an approximate 15% error rate. Carbon 14 has been cross-referenced with tree rings to achieve a very high degree of accuracy for ages up to 9,000 years. Carbon 14 dating has helped prove the age of events in the Bible - it is not something to be feared.
Potassium-Argon dating measures the rate of breakdown of potassium 40. It has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. It decays into argon 40. It is useful for dating only volcanic matter form the millions to billions of years with a plus minus date of 50,000 years.
There are no very good ways to date things (radioactively) in the "in between" age of 50,000 years to a million years. They are working on it.
The notion that radioactive decay proceeded at a different rate in the past is impossible! Radioactive decay is by definition a nuclear process. Any conditions such as temperature, pressure, radiation, etc. strong enough to alter the atomic decay rate, would completely destroy whatever it is that you are trying to date (such as a fossil or its surrounding sedimentary deposits).
The only issues are the amount of original parent material, and possible contamination.
Young earth rebuttal: The evidence for radiometric dating is weak - there is little (if any) evidence for actual decay - and even if it occurred, the rate of decay could have been higher in the past (for example during the flood). A special young earth group of scientists (RATE) has been put together that openly challenges the wisdom of conventional science on radiometric dating.
Old earth reaffirmation: The RATE group has had much difficulty explaining away the problem of radiometric dating. In fact, in their most recent findings - they make some powerful admissions. They now freely admit that much radiometric decay has indeed irrefutably taken place. They further admit you can't simply appeal to the geological processes (read the flood) to solve this difficult problem.

Check out these quotes from the most recent RATE (pro YEC) paper:
"Others had tried—and for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE days—to find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves."
And what about this one this one...
"By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)"
Source:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

It is equally hard to envision a greatly accelerated rate of decay in the past... If the current radioactive decay rate is sufficient to sustain plate tectonics over a few billion years, one must wonder... What are the consequences of putting a few billion years of decay into the short time scales they require?

If all that decay were confined to a single year or a few days (during the creation week) you would have an unimaginable amount of energy (read heat) released. You would vaporize the oceans and melt the earth. And if all this decay actually took place -- how is it that we STILL have active uranium mines... it should have all decayed (actually went up like a nuke with that fast of a decay) long ago. Since they (YECs) believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, and they admit (now) that much decay has taken place, and moreover they trust carbon dates into biblical times (read thousands of years) but still want them to be off for even further back -- Let's not forget, they believe the entire universe is only thousands of years old -- so it puts a VERY tiny window on when these decay rates could have been functioning differently that today's measurable rates. And the further back you "trust" any radioactive dates, the more unexplainable their position becomes especially when you want the uranium derived dates to be operating differently than say carbon dates. Why is all this important? Because they completely miss the point that the earth is a very poor conductor of heat. If this much heat was released (through accelerated decay) the earth would still be VERY hot -- you cannot cool the earth in a mere few thousand years to present levels. The situation is completely hopeless.

I’ll stop here. Unless anyone has a question directly for me this will probably be my last post on this thread. I do not have a computer at home, and mostly post between breaks. I will continue to read the discussions here on my PC phone, but I can not sign in for some reason. Even if I could I would have to use a stylus on a tiny on-screen keyboard. My time will be limited in the next few weeks, and I’d like to focus on developing the relationship with those of you who have been Pming me.
To those of you I haven’t PM ed in a while, I apologize. Also, since I believe in the doctrine of the elect, and predestination. I believe God has foreordained His children (Romans 8:28-34) for His glory. I also believe that there are those who will never accept the message of the cross because God has foreordained this as well. Again I’m more than happy to address questions aimed at me here, other wise I look forward to speaking with all of you on other threads. Thanks! I’ve enjoyed it. I can explain what war is like, you can go watch “Saving private Ryan” but until you experience it first hand you wouldn’t have a clue. God is like this!
Until you experience Him first hand, and he changes You’re life in ways that would make Dr. Phil green with envy it’s a hard concept. PERSONALLY, what HE has done in my life is all the evidence I’ll ever need.
Justin Jacob Zak
 
  • #140
Hello all

BTW a googleplex is a really number 10 to the 10th power to the 100th power to give you an Idea of how large this number is if you traveled to the farthest star and put a zero every inch of the way you would still not have enough room to write it. That's what google was named after.

I have a few questions for you.

Where do you believe the bible to be untrue?

Where is the so called "facts" to support evolution?


Hope to hear you response.

thanks
-Jeremiah--Jeremiah-
 
Back
Top