- NEW!
by Maerdyn77
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
by 23Skidoo
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
When was the last time you read the Bible???
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on February 22nd, 2010
100% agree skidoo
by Davidsays on February 22nd, 2010
I don't understand...the Bible could be a History book if you want to talk or learn about ancient civilizations??? I am a History student and I can verify that the Bible is one of the most read books...and so is the Torah the first Five Books of the Old Testament..which is in the Bible. The Bible can be supported...but Never Never Land can't. There is historical proof in the Bible people have studied it for years and years and years! Why??? Because regardless if you are looking for faith or answers the Bible speaks of them. The Bible speaks of Mesopatamia...one of the oldest civilizations...
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on February 22nd, 2010
The bible is not a history book. The bible is a book of stories written by humans to be read by other humans. It occasionally borrows true facts from reality and actual history and embeds them in the story. There are many many books that do this and are not read by anyone literally.
by Davidsays on February 22nd, 2010
Tjoe - What does it matter when I last read it? Has something changed?
Also, I did say "magical bits", not "historical bits". I know ancient Egypt and Rome existed. That certainly doesn't mean Moses or Jesus did and much less that they were able to talk to shrubbery of walk on water.
by 23Skidoo on February 23rd, 2010
I would just like to point out that math is true because other math is true
by axist47 on February 23rd, 2010
Heck, I can talk to shrubbery, that's nothing. Getting it to talk back is tricky though.
by HasntBeen on February 24th, 2010
Well whatever I believe is what I believe...it is what it is:):)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on February 25th, 2010
True enough TJ. Of course that says nothing about the truth of a proposition - but everyone is free to believe in any nonsense they like.
by 23Skidoo on February 26th, 2010
I'll drink to that Skidoo.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
How can you call it nonsense? Good understanding wins favor, but the way of the unfaithful is hard. Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but exposes his folly. I will drink to that:) So your calling my belief in The Lord...Folly...that's foolish! But it is what it is:)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on February 26th, 2010
The 6 days of creation are not literal days.In the book of Daniel 2:44
says:"In the days of those kings".The kings in question didn't live a few days.1 Sa 17:12 states:" in the days of Saul".This king did not kive a few days.
Some people shoul read the Bible more and then talk.
by cody07 on February 27th, 2010
I have read the Bible. Studies it, in fact.
But, I don't need to understand the mythology of the Maya to know that Quatzecoatle is not terribly likely to exist, I don't need to read Hindu mythology to know that there probably aren't any elephant headed gods running round, and I don't need to read the Christian mythology to know that there almost certainly isn't an Jehovah.
It's that lack of evidence that makes the argument for me.
TJ - I haven't a clue what you're trying to say beyond you opinion that not believing is foolish. So, do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Ganesh and the feathered serpent? After all - there is exactly the same amount of evidence supporting their existence as there is in God's. If not - why is disbelief in one case foolish and in the others not?
by 23Skidoo on February 27th, 2010
How about common sense? Which is more likely, that there's an invisible omnipotent being hiding in plain sight who only talks to the people who believe in him, or that human beings find solace or comfort or meaning by investing themselves in imaginative exercises?
by HasntBeen on February 27th, 2010
And im amazed that you think you came from a PREHISTORICAL APE!!!!
by Ferrari_Enzo on February 27th, 2010
No one thinks that, Ferrari. I came from my parents - just like everyone else.
by 23Skidoo on February 27th, 2010
Believe it or not I am becoming bored with this debate. I believe in One God the Father Almighty creator of heaven and earth...I don't believe in the tooth fairy though:):)..That's just silly!
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on February 27th, 2010
Your belief makes no difference in truth. The lack of evidence for a god is a fact. Believe it or not.
by 23Skidoo on February 28th, 2010
The problem isn't belief in God or belief in the tooth fairy, the problem is belief itself. Belief is the putty we use to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. It ranges from "educated guess" to "wishful thinking" in terms of quality, but never lands anywhere close to "demonstrated truth". The wise man avoids it entirely, trusting that which he knows is true, and allowing doubt to live in the gaps.
The question is "what sort of person is so afraid of doubt that they must fill the cracks with something... anything?"
by HasntBeen on February 28th, 2010
Actually 23Skiddo you're wrong.
There is, in fact, evidence for Never Never Land!
I had a dream about it last night and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the true god) showed it to me.
I hope you open your mind to this amazing truth XD
by Coexist on February 28th, 2010
u of little faith
by crosstrainer on March 1st, 2010
That would be "ye of little faith", I think. And yes, that's not an insult to some people.
by HasntBeen on March 1st, 2010
This is one heck of a comment thread...kind of like the good ole AB days:)..You want to talk God and Science..how I wish Isaac Newton was still alive Yo:)http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp:) I guess that is what science and religion are both based upon..Faith.:)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on March 2nd, 2010
i believe in Jesus Christ my lord and savior and i know that he is real and that he loves me and that i can have a personal relationship with him
by crosstrainer on March 2nd, 2010
@TjoeBaxter: if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that the "good ol' days" on AB are long gone. :)
I think there is some validity to your statement that science and religion are both faith-based. But, there is a difference that matters. In science, every effort is made to set the game up so that results and conclusions can be validated: it's designed with "challenge the dogma" built-in. When done properly, those controls help to guide the *process* of science as it evolves toward greater understanding.
That's very different from religion, where skepticism is generally suppressed or given only lip-service. Religious systems of thought are not designed to stand up to cross-checks: the cross-checkers are preached down, called faithless or infidels, etc. The social network is set up to preserve the unity of the belief system, not its integrity.
by HasntBeen on March 2nd, 2010
I was understanding up until the second paragraph...I do believe religion is like science in a way. I believe some came to prove a theory but not even a brain surgeon can prove a fact!..just a little humor:)LOL:P Even a rocket scientist still has questions:) I am far from a rocket scientist...just call me a bartender mixologist:)
Some say the Big Bang happened...I just say "I know it happened because God created the Big Bang!"...lots of energy and force...its Amazing. That's why when people say "God doesn't exist"...I am just like "Really???? That was a really big bang Yo"!..and that's why I LOVE GOD and HIS SON!!!:)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on March 2nd, 2010
And what of your theory Tjoe? Don't you understand that your theory does not have any credible data to support it?
Yes, there might have been an explosion of energy that created everything in the universe, and many facts collected from space shows signs of an explosion that occurred long ago. This theory, contrary to yours, is actually plausible, since it is supported by scientific evidence. However, if you compare the two, it's obvious which one is more ridiculous.
"Derp Durp. Liek, we were magically poofed into existence by some random old dude and we fought and killed all teh dinosaurs!!!11one1 lololllololooll."
by 404 on March 4th, 2010
@Tjoe: I don't really have a problem with your religion -- you seem to be among the non-aggressive types, the world could use more of that. But... in terms of rigorous, disciplined thinking, there's much to be desired in your claims. People want to believe, so they do, and that's their right. My own view is that this approach to the truth costs the believer quite a bit -- the cost isn't visible though, because it's like lost opportunity: you never get to see what *didn't* happen as a result of the path you took.
In particular, what believers lose is a profound and satisfying relationship with the truth. When one bends ones' mind into any particular pretzel in order to make themselves believe something, they put distance between themselves and the truth. That naturally limits the depth of their appreciation and relationship with the truth. To me, that's a great loss. Believers seem to feel that the comfort or hope or other benefits are worth it. I don't think so.
by HasntBeen on March 4th, 2010
@HasntBeen...Thanks for the compliment:) And I just have to say you are one heck of a writer! You say people want to believe and I am going to have to disagree with you. I don't believe because I want to. I believe because I have seen the truth. I have seen bad things happen and I have been angry at times. I question everything and sometimes I even question my own beliefs.
I don't see what's so wrong with feeling comfort and hope. I don't see what's so wrong with meditating and prayer...sometimes it works and sometimes I don't see the benefits till years later. I believe that there is a higher power other then myself. A power so powerful that the World was created in 6 days, but a power so forgiving that my life has been blessed. Not because I live according to the laws of God everyday, but because I try to live.
No one here living on this Earth is perfect we all have flaws and doubts and anger and resentment and hate. So what's wrong with believing in Hope and Comfort? I don't feel like I am losing myself if anything I feel like I learn more because of my belief in something better.
I honestly have to tell you I feel very intimidated by all of these comments including yours. Everyone who commented really can back up their beliefs. I on the other hand feel that I am not smart enough or intelligent enough to explain my feelings in words. I have this fire burning within my soul that just won't shut up!LOL:P..and sometimes I don't even know what I am fighting for:) I guess I am just fighting to be heard and fighting for something that I really believe in with my whole heart. I might sound stupid or ignorant, but I sincerely Love the Lord and His one and only Son and all the other great prophets that He has sent to this Earth, to teach us Love, Forgiveness and Eternal Life:):) Amen and May We all be Blessed with Knowledge Hope and Salvation. May we all learn something new from one another...and I Thank each and everyone for not being so hard on me:)
And damnit if I get anything out of this Long Thread may it be how to look at another person's perspective and not judge, and learn how to become a better writer:):):) Thanks HasntBeen I look forward to hearing from you...and everyone else:):)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on March 4th, 2010
I don't think anybody doubts your sincerity. But what if you could have the "fire in your soul" without adopting the mythology that you believe comes with it? It's perfectly natural for a healthy human to be passionate about life, about others, about the whole. One need not cook up mystical explanations for their feelings. Reality *is* an amazing thing, humans are amazing. Love is wonderful, creativity is a wonder, the way everything has its place in the whole is a beautiful sight.
There's no need to then tack on "and I believe that God flooded the Earth and killed everybody but then the waters receded without leaving geological traces and somehow he was able to save a truly incredible number of animals on a boat manned by a small crew and..." etc. One need not sacrifice their intellectual integrity to preserve their spiritual energy.
by HasntBeen on March 5th, 2010
Hey Tjoe, you seem more objective than most theists I've come across. You actually sound very similar to myself when I was a christian. The reason why I started reading the bible and began to pray and such was because I thought it was true (you can give Mel Gibbson credit for that). I wouldn't have done so if I thought otherwise. I know what praying does for you when you're sincere, and it feels good. But the reason for the turn around was because I began to look at the other side of the story. Sure, evolution had its part as well as the psychology on praying, but what hit me the most was actually lookin at the bible for what it was. I read a book called "godless" by Dan Barker who was a former pastor that went atheist (he played the piano part for "Mary Had A Little Lamb"). I finally came to the conclusion that the bible isn't any better than all the other mythological stories from the past, and if I'm wrong then I would sure hope that a/the superior being would tell me.
by Coexist on March 5th, 2010
Why would a superior being tell you that?? Its all about free will yo...you choose your life paths. Since you brought up mythological stories I have to say this one is my favorite..well one of them:) http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/Y7/2-2Hinduism/hindu_creation_story.htm...I have lots:)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on March 5th, 2010
I'm still recovering from learning that "Mary Had a Little Lamb" has a piano part. I thought it was all bassoon.
by HasntBeen on March 5th, 2010
That's the only song I can play on the piano..its just three keys:)LOL:P
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on March 5th, 2010
Seems like the lamb could play that itself.
by HasntBeen on March 6th, 2010
Only the Lamb of God:):)..kidding just some Christian humor:)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on March 8th, 2010
"Self-Authenticating and Self-Attesting"
This statement is soo funny and, of course, ridiculous.
It's the same as:
Is you gonna believe whot I'm a tellin Ya...or your own lying eyes?"
It is not possible for any statement to be..."self authenticating". The very idea is Prima facie absurd.
Vocabulary is an essential part of communication.
"Self Authenticating" lmao!
by skep on April 21st, 2010
I absolutely had no idea what you just said skep???? I know I am not the smartest cookie in the bunch...but I don't know how what you said was so funny???? Who is lying???? And who is going to believe whot I'm tellin Yo?
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on April 21st, 2010
Tjoe - I don't scep was calling you or anyone here a liar. It's just a saying.
And s/he's referring to the original answer to this debate - the Self-authenticating bit. Which as I said waaayyy up there - is still 100% pure BS.
It's claiming that "This is true because this says so."
I just reread this whole thread BTW and you remind me of something I heard from a Hindu holy guy (I don't know if they have priests or bishops or monks or whatever - but he had enough standing to be in the US representing Hinduism at an interfaith conference) who said that in his mind the key tragedy of Christianity is they people are expected to literally believe in their mythology. That's always stuck with me.
One can have a relationship and connection with the universe, creative force or big hootie spirit of all and even do so with help of imagery from any religion without having to believe the images are the real thing.
But - that's just me.
Cheers
by 23Skidoo on April 22nd, 2010
Well there are forms of Christianity that treat the stories as allegories, but they don't get much respect from the mainstream. An essential element of Christianity as it is normally understood is that at least some of the key bits are taken literally. If Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, the entire redemption explanation which holds the religion together comes apart rather quickly. Jesus just becomes another wise man from history, rather than a "personal savior".
Then, if you're going to say "well, the resurrection story is true, but a lot of the other stories are myths", you get into trouble with doubting the quality of your source material. So the whole setup really pulls for "Bible inerrancy": it wants that to survive as a whole belief system. Once someone stands on inerrancy, they *sound* so much more confident (if perhaps a bit out of touch), and that confidence is highly attractive to some people.
So I don't think you can have a figurative Christianity without having to rename the religion. Either the underlying story is literally true, or it's all made up.
by HasntBeen on April 22nd, 2010
I understand. And therein lies that central tragedy of the religion.
Personally - I don't need the layer of myth but it strikes me that one can, is one so chooses, enjoy the many benefits of it without all the mess.
Cheers
by 23Skidoo on April 22nd, 2010
XD talk to shrubbery...
that's one for the records
by Sympho de Proggy on April 22nd, 2010
so can I, or so can any man, but will it listen when you do talk to it?
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
For the Self-Authenticating and Self-Attesting crew, I find the best antidote is satire: The Book of Fred says that when you die, you'll go to live in Sam's basement, unless you believe everything Fred says, in which case you'll go to live in Joe's attic. I know everything in the Book of Fred is true, because it says so in the Book of Fred.
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
@skidoo - I also agree 100%.
by Reverend 4:20 on June 12th, 2010
How funny to see people trying to debate you skidoo.
by Don Gorgeous George on September 22nd, 2010
Why thanks. :-)
by 23Skidoo on September 22nd, 2010
Why thanks. :-)
by 23Skidoo on September 22nd, 2010
"One can have a relationship and connection with the universe, creative force or big hootie spirit of all and even do so with help of imagery from any religion without having to believe the images are the real thing."
I've thought this - and then I thought: Do you really want to try to get benefits from believing something that's false? Are there no true beliefs that will give you the same benefit?
by purplecows on September 22nd, 2010
I am having a similar discussuion elsewhere on AB, but more respectful one to one another in differing viewpoints. Here are some interesting FACTS about recorded history:
It's better documented and more historically reliable that Jesus existed... than that Julius Caesar and the Gallic Wars happened?!
The earliest documentation and manuscripts we have about Jesus varies from only 25 - 75 years of His existance... Yes the Bible's N.T. was compiled many years later (about 400 years) but it was from the documents and manuscripts within 25-75 years of occurance!
Here are some others ancient works that nobody doubts but...
(Mind you these are like being a 289th edition or worse!)
Homer's Iliad - 500 years later with 643 manuscripts.
Julius Caesar's Gallic wars - 1000 years later/10 manuscripts.
Pliny's History - 750 years later/7 manuscripts.
Thucydides' History - 1300 years later/8 manuscripts.
Herodotus' History - 1300 years later/8 manuscripts as well.
And the winner...
Jesus Christ, the Old Test. and New Test! - within 25-75 years and with over 24,000 manuscripts! (Like a 1st or 2nd edition!)
From a purely scientific and logical mind... it's far, far, far, far, and a 1000x more trustworthy that Jesus existed, than Homer, Julius Caesar, Pliny, Thucydides, and Herodotus! Yet Jesus is portrayed as "Maybe he existed, we don't know... we weren't there?" but the rest of the people I mentioned above, we would be laughed at and ridiculed if someone said: "We don't if Julius Caesar existed... maybe he did but... we can't know for sure because we weren't there to prove it." ... How fair is that?!
Think what ever you want - 6 days or 16 billion years... this is not the right argument to have! The ONLY question that matters is: "Are we a special result from a God or a desinger.... or are we a meaningless by-product of the self-made universe?"
It doesn't matter what the "other side" thinks... just think what you do and let's all have a beer together!
Just a suggestion
beatcm9k
by beatcm9k on September 22nd, 2010
I have tried to find any scholarly evidence to support this - and found nothing but repetitions of the same claim on Christian sites - and rebuttals of the logic on Islamic ones.
And I have to admit - I don't really understand the point being made.
We agree - there are no written eye witness accounts. The earliest written account is at least 25 years (that's the lowest estimate I've ever seen - but I'll leave it) after the events described. Assuming the very best possible fidelity, the witness told the story which someone wrote but we all know how memory plays with a person. And how events can turn into "fisher man's tall tales" after enough re-tellings. But this effect if multiplied many times if the story was passed down through a succession of people and finally written.
In either case - how does the alleged number of copies of a story have anything to do with it's reliability?
If there were 24,000 Independent, contemporary accounts of the events - or even 24 of them - that would be strong evidence. But there aren't.
By your logic, Harry Potter must be even truer - there are millions of copies within a couple months of each other with 100% accuracy.
by 23Skidoo on September 23rd, 2010
There has to be a name for this fallacy, but it escapes me at the moment: "The more people believe and repeat a false claim, the more likely that it was true".
But really, it's more like this: "The more that people I know and trust believe a false claim, the more likely that it is true." It matters, of course, whether or not the other believers are folks I identify with.
In any case, it also matters very much *what* is being claimed. To claim that Alexander the Great existed is naturally less suspect simply because the claim is consistent with the way we know reality works. To claim that a whale drank Jonah and then spat him back out after some period of non-digestion is inconsistent with what we know about reality, and therefore requires more than just "my buddy says so" to validate it.
by HasntBeen on September 23rd, 2010
How about this: "The more that people I know and trust believe a false claim, the more likely that I will enjoy a good life if I say I believe the same thing, at least around those people."
by purplecows on September 23rd, 2010
Dear 23, HasntBeen, and purplecows....
There is no doubt in my mind the 3 of you are very well educated and highly intelligent people... but I also believe this -
Maybe you can't find a fallacy for my facts because... it doesn't exist! The time-frame and amount of manuscripts are not in err or debate.
But…
Believe me... I'm not sticking up for the Bible! I don't think the Bible (or any other so-called sacred text) is the "The perfect, absolute, and true word of God"... but rather - man's feeble, flawed, and self-empowering attempt at interpreting (possibly) a God or designer's word.
Is there a God? …. I don’t know!
Was the Earth created is 6 days? … I don’t know!
Is there “anything” after we die? … I don’t know!
What I do know is this – people can debate “a God’s” existence or if the Earth was or wasn’t created in 6 days… people can blame a God that either exists or does not for not stopping the “evils” of the world… people can really do anything they want… but that will not change if a God does or doesn’t exist!
What the real tragedy is… is people blaming or faulting a God (that may or may not exist) for all the evils that “we the people” definitely deserve all ourselves and have done all ourselves and TO ourselves.
Was the earth created in 6 days? Like I said “I don’t know!” … but I also don’t care! What we should care about is –
Can’t we all just respect one another in the world… stop hurting, killing, and attacking one another - no matter what any of us believes?
Shall we ridicule, attack, or even kill all the “other” sneeches, because they’re not like us, and don’t have stars on their bellies? (Maybe you’re too young or this is too obscure a reference???) Shall we ridicule and kill all the people that want to still look at Pluto as a planet?
My question - Are we fighting the right fight?
Thanks guys… and I respect all your beliefs! Now… how ‘bout those beers?
beatcm9k
by beatcm9k on September 23rd, 2010
there seems to be some opportunity to learn / practice logic here; dunno if anyone changes their beliefs much because of stuff like this
i believe bad logic should be exposed - you can call that "ridicule" if you like
it's "sneetches"
by purplecows on September 23rd, 2010
Respectfully...
I'm not asking anyone to change their mind... I'm only asking for all sides to be respectful of a belief or non-belief that all others may hold.
Religious people need to stop being bellicose hypocrites... and atheist's need to stop treating the question of the existence of a God as if it was a rudimentary conclusion of a resounding - NO!
The absolute truth is... no one... not me, you, the Pope, or the tooth-fairy knows if there is or isn't (with an absolute 100% certainty) a God or universal designer that exists or not. Science is based on the logical belief of provable or refutable facts… while religion is based in emotional “self evident” opinions (meaning a position or belief that is accepted without the need proof) and are opinions of a faith. Even though there are “truths and opinions” in both science and religion… we can no sooner use science to prove or disprove the existence (or non-existence) of a God… than we can use religion to prove or disprove the theory of relativity or the existence of unseen black holes.
I agree bad logic should be exposed... but the bad logic guilt is just as equal in the scientific community... as it is in the religious one! Both sides wrongfully try to control and dictate what the other should and shouldn't think, do and say... and that is a form of "power control" and dictatorship on both parts. Money- via grants has corrupted science... (See the Archeopteryx Raptor hoax for just one example) and money, via the extortion through tithes, has corrupted all religious people! (Just go to any church and ask the pastor what kind of car he or she drives from the money collected at the church!)
PS... I wouldn't call what you did ridicule... but just a voicing of what you believe... and what you want respected... just like everybody else does! - "Sneetches" it is… my bad.
Thanks everybody
beatcm9k
by beatcm9k on September 23rd, 2010
Hi Beat
None of us are talking about beliefs. As has been stated - the argument you present is simply built on bad logic. Nothing more.
And they guys didn't fail in finding the fallacy, we all talked about aspects of where the logic is bad. We failed in finding the formal name for it. There probably is one dating from the ancient Greeks. They named lots of logical forms and fallacies.
I'll summarize:
1st - I have never see evidence of this 24,000 claim. Only un-cited claims on Creationists websites who use the claim to support their argument. I'd love to see how the number is substantiated.
2nd - EVEN IF it were verifiable that those copies did exist - they would all be copies of one or a small number of source documents. All that would show is the popularity of copying the text - not it's truth. (As my Harry Potter example points out.)
This isn't about arguing with you. I'm not. :-)
by 23Skidoo on September 23rd, 2010
Hi 23!!!
I'm not offended.. even if you claim I'm using bad logic... but actually your Harry Potter claim is (IMO) bad logic. Harry Potter books are (according to and admitted by the author) properly classified in the fictional section of the book store and libraries. (I understand you think the Bible belongs there too, but the Bible is not a work of fiction!) The author of the H.P. books (I think her name is J.K. Rallings) never claimed Harry Potter is a real person and a real powerful magician that should be deified and worshiped in real life.
The Bible is not a work of fiction, but a compilation of historical events, (some that can be verified and some that can't) and include writings of a specific theology. Comparing the Bible to Harry Potter is like comparing "The Memoirs of Thomas Jefferson" to the "Year One" comic books of Batman... this is a comparison of apples to volkswagons!
You and the other guys are trying to sound objective... but actually your just as slanted in your atheism as religious fanatics are in their belief in a God. Rather than accepting just the possibility I was right... you and the others jumped to a defensive stance of- This has to be wrong because its about God and a religion... and even though I can't prove it false... I'll still call it a fallacy.
My claim about the Bible, Julius Caesar, and the others I mentioned are facts that can be easily verified. Go to the library of congress website and see how many manuscripts exist and how many years after the fact they came into existence on each of them.
I know you're not arguing with me 23... and you know I respect you and the other guys and all beliefs... all I'm saying is a God (of some kind) may or may not exist and to speak in absolutes one way or the other is biased, disrespectful, and unethical.
a pleasure as always 23!!!
beatcm9k
by beatcm9k on September 24th, 2010
OK. HP was a bad example.
How about books on alien abductions, then? Also historical documents that have simply not been verified.
I did that search you suggested
(http://www.loc.gov/fedsearch/metasearch/?cclquery=bible+manuscripts&search_button=GO#query=(bible manuscripts)&filter=pz:id=lcweb|ammem|catalog|ppoc|thomas)
and I came up with 219 books about the Bible. If you know how to do this better I'm happy to take you suggestion.
But I still don't understand how the number of copies of texts has anything to do with the truth of the claim.
by 23Skidoo on September 24th, 2010
we don't know who most of the biblical authors were - how do we know if they called their work fiction or not?
by purplecows on September 24th, 2010
That's a good point. We can prove that at least some of it was considered fiction. Take what is good from the bible, and leave out the rest. To take it all literally is unwise.
by Don Gorgeous George on September 24th, 2010
Guys... please stop putting me (an agnostic) in a position to defend the Bible.
Actually it's not a good point... we do know most (meanng at least 51%) of the authors in the Bible. (Sadly, I could list them for you.) The same argument you make can be made about the complete works of W. Shakespeare as not being the actual or only author of his credited plays. This is a pointless and argumentative stance at best and accomplishes nothing in seeking and finding out the actual truth! This method... puts a religious specific (like a Christian) in a position to blindly defend their held belief... rather than reasonably question it. (As they should.)
All I care about guys (and I hope I've been an example to this) is the truth! And the truth of this whole discussion is...
There is sufficient evidence to support a universal designer or a God of "some" kind. BUT EQUALLY ... There is sufficient evidence to question the validity of stories presented in the Bible (As well as other so-called sacred text!) and doubt a God (of some kind.)
Another words... there is sufficient evidence to support the claims of one side and question the validity of the other side = hung jury.
Conclusion:
It is reasonable to be an atheist.
It is reasonable to be a theist.
BUT it is most ethically reasonable and most scientifically responsible to be a truth seeking agnostic! We should equally "Seek the truth no matter where it leads us." as Carl Sagan said we should! Why? Because we (the whole world) have been (wrongly) partial in giving slanted evidence that MAY support our claims and MAY question the opponents' claims! We MUST find the truth and whatever it is... but both religious and scientific leaders have failed at this task in their respective quests. (so far.)
(I almost forgot!)
PS 23... to directly answer your question of why we should care about my 24,000 manuscripts point- the more reliable evidence we have to weigh, the more reasonable it is that we should believe our theory is right and has weight! ALSO: The 200 and whatever books you found listed are books written within the last century or so, and only reference books... not actual manuscripts. Checkout Julius Caesar and all the others as well!
I love you guys and these talks!!!
beatcm9k
by beatcm9k on September 24th, 2010
by Twisted Taco
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
that's really witty,made me laugh!
by socrates111 on February 27th, 2010
Nice one! I guess the tide never brought the poor guy back..
by Caroline on March 8th, 2010
they should make that the last sentence of Genesis
by MajkenLovise on April 19th, 2010
Unless you go surfing and say to hell with all the B.S.
Have it your way. I'm going surfing. And when your car runs out of fuel I'll still be afloat.
by stonedsober on May 19th, 2010
God got stranded on a desert island. And on the 8th day, he joined the crew of "Lost"
by Mephistopheles on May 28th, 2010
that would be Deism
by purplecows on September 15th, 2010
Hahaha
by Don Gorgeous George on September 22nd, 2010
by Clasic(R)ock
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
Yes
your right time is not constant in space also the speed of light vary`s
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
ROFL you explain space time and such in scientific terms but the earth was still made in 6 days? riiiigggghhhht
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on February 23rd, 2010
Jamie "Relentless" Booker so far all i see you do is answer every question on the bible and creation with what you think of as witty remarks and insults but not once have i seen you debate properly ,you just run peoples answer down without explanation . when you are ready to answer with something thast sounds readable and mature then you should say your piece not just insult then run off :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
thats because there is no debating about the bible. how can you debate on something like that. if people have bible rubbish drummed into their heads they aren't going to listen to reason. If it takes stupid comments to make people think then im gonna stick to it. i've tried the debating and talking to people in a civilised manner and it doesn't work so im changing tactics. i listen to what people have to say and i take it on board. read my answers and comments on other questions and you will see. but with people that rely souly on quoting the bible and putting up their walls and not allowing anybody elses opinion to sink in then whats the point?
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on February 23rd, 2010
Jamie, I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm starting to feel the same way, although I still do refute certain bogus creationist claims with facts whenever they pop up. But you are right, there isn't much debating with most of these bible-thumpers. So sometimes a solid dose of ridicule works better than anything. The last time a Jehovah's Witness knocked on my door and showed me one of those pamphlets showing lions with lambs and whatnot, I just said "aww, well that's cute". He looked at me a little surprised. I guess he wasn't expecting me to take the tone you would use to address a 5 year old who hasn't yet grasped the facts of life. I can't say I changed his mind about his beliefs, but perhaps I at least made him think about how ridiculous it may sound. If I had taken a more serious tone, he would just have felt that what he presented carried more weight.
by Gratis on February 23rd, 2010
*God
by Clasic(R)ock on February 23rd, 2010
haha gratis. i just tend to answer the door, ask them if they are he pizza guy then when they say no just close the door. what kind of religion actually gathers followers by knocking door to door. leaves me speachless lol.
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on February 24th, 2010
The bible being self-affirming mentions nothing about a day being diffrent for God as it is for any other person. I'm afraid the "God day" is just an empty supposition made up to force the 6-day notion to be true. Much like how rappers change the vowel sounds of words to force them to rhyme.
by ThatGuyTed on February 24th, 2010
and that just shows how rude and immature you both are. Do you know how hard it is for those missionary's, they walk door to door and get rejected by people like you all the time. As a Latter Day Saint, my religion has missionaries too, and they do not deserve they disrespect they get from people like you. You treat them like animals. How about you let them in some time and be open minded, you could learn something. Missionaries can't force their religion too you, you have the agency to decide so you can at least let them in for all of their work.
by Clasic(R)ock on February 24th, 2010
We treat them like animals? Animals don't make millions and remain tax free.
by GabriellaKittyWitch on February 24th, 2010
fair enough classic. im just going to knock on your door and try and convince you to join me and my lucifer worship.
but thats not the same thing you say? oh but yes it is. religion insults me. i just want to get on with my life. i dont want people interupting me and trying to convince me to believe in something completely different.
and btw jehova's witnesses just tell me that on the day of judgement i will die along with all the none believers unless i join now!
join now and get a free parker pen and a free ticket in heaven!!! for a limited time only!
what the hell man. im sorry but i cant respect a religion like that. nor can i respect the missionaries who knock on my door giving me stupid threats from fairy tails and "the book of genesis" quotes. just leave me alone and let me watch the simpsons ¬,¬
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on February 25th, 2010
First of all, Jamie, I am not a Jehova Witness and I cannot speak for them. Second, I honestly wouldn't mind if you came to my door to try to get me to worship Lucifer, as long as you wouldn't force your worship on me. Third and finally, Gabriella, missionaries don't make any money, in fact, missions are very expensive.
by Clasic(R)ock on February 25th, 2010
ThatGuyTedyou said "The bible being self-affirming mentions nothing about a day being diffrent for God as it is for any other person" explane please :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
HKP, again you resort to being a hypocrite and petty insults to gain the suprerior hand in this argument. You have not once gave a single shred of evidence to support your arguments, yet you say that others have not either, which both assumptions are false. You can state that someone might be acting irrational, but be prepared to defend yourself from people who say the same to you.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
???
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
how the hell do you know this? you describe a LIGHT YEAR!
by kristamiller on February 27th, 2010
Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible's creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.—2 Peter 3:8 (2 Peter 3:8) However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
by Stauros on March 5th, 2010
christian poppycock.
Who makes this stuff up? lol
by skep on March 20th, 2010
Why would he call it a day if it wasn’t a day? Why not call it a billion years if that’s what it was? This is a perfect example of the sort of stuff that makes it clear to me what a load of superstitious garbage the bible is.
by gillaspy01 on April 25th, 2010
I respect the door-to-door missionaries.
I also think that science got it right, and the Bible was the best those authors could do at the time.
If I have some time, I'm willing to sit down with them and discuss why I believe what I believe.
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
I read about the "Day" being equal to a thousand years or so... So why do many christians still believe that the world was created in 6 days and the earth is only 6010 years old? Is it a catholic v. protestant argument?
by ThatGuyTed on April 26th, 2010
God also created time. Actually for me there is no time, but just a clock and a calender. The world stopped and there's people on it. That simple lol. what you just did or when you read this. It will stay as it is. There is no history, no time in my opinion. Only a clock and calender :D
by King Arthur Pendragon on April 27th, 2010
i think the 6000-year crowd is just about all protestants
ok, so the world was created before time?
by purplecows on April 27th, 2010
yes we do... a day. a day is called a day because it is a day. therefore if it were any longer it wouldn't be a day.
it specifically says DAY.
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on April 29th, 2010
"What if...a day wasn't a DAY?"
Sounds like a plot for a M. Night Shyamalan flick. Honestly, creationists will go to any means possible to prove that their god exists, even if it means changing their "infallible" holy scripture itself.
by 404 on May 2nd, 2010
Who said a day wasn't a day?
by Clasic(R)ock on May 2nd, 2010
i'm not sure but if a day wasn't a day then what am i gonna do today? i dont understand.
AND just to stop this bull crap. Technically days get LONGER by 13 seconds every hundered years dont they? so doesn't that mean days were even shorter during the days in which god created the earth in 6 days...
HAHA lol days :)
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on May 4th, 2010
To the same point of Genesis 2:4 above, I don't think that the writer of Genesis 5:2 intended for us to think that Adam and Eve were created in the same literal 24 hour day just like
(Genesis 5:2) Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man in the day of their being created.
The writer of Genesis 2:7 is also aware that Adam and Eve did not die in the literal 24 hour day that they ate from the tree of knowledge.
(Genesis 2:17) But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”
(Genesis 5:5) So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died.
Note the different uses of "day" in the Bible as brought out by Vines, particularly (d).
http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=0653
A1. Day [Noun]
hemera "a day," is used of
(d) a period of undefined length marked by certain characteristics, such as "the day of small things," Zech_4:10; of perplexity and distress, Isaiah_17:11; Obad_1:12-14; of prosperity and of adversity, Eccl_7:14; of trial or testing, Psalm_95:8; of salvation, Isaiah_49:8; 2_Cor_6:2; cp. Luke_19:42; of evil, Eph_6:13; of wrath and revelation of the judgments of God, Rom_2:5;
by Texasescimo on May 5th, 2010
Vines is a Biblical dictionary. Even apart from Bible usage, English usage allows different uses for "day".
http://www.yourdictionary.com/day
4. a period or time; era; age the best writer of her day, in days of old
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Day
day (d )
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.
by Texasescimo on May 5th, 2010
Add a comment...
by Texasescimo on June 8th, 2010
What if a universe wasn't a universe?
by purplecows on June 9th, 2010
The term Universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world, or nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
by Texasescimo on June 9th, 2010
And how...exactly...would you know that?
by Michael_H1410 on September 14th, 2010
Wikipedia?
by Texasescimo on September 14th, 2010
@Texasescimo
No, no...I meant the original post.
...although backing up creationism with Bible dictionary and English dictionary definitions doesn't get us very far.
by Michael_H1410 on September 14th, 2010
Thanks for clarifying. Bible usage, Biblical dictionaries, and English dictionaries all agree. Those definitions do not back up what has come to be known as "creationism" though. Not sure if you know the difference, but creationist assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six literal 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago. Ironically, creationist, like many non-believers that oppose them are usually hard core 24-hour day use only people.
by Texasescimo on September 14th, 2010
"and the evening and the morning was the first [second, etc.] day"
so now "evening" really means 500 years?
note: our day starts at midnight; the Jewish day starts at sunset. The days of Genesis are Jewish days. They start with the evening.
by purplecows on September 15th, 2010
@Texasescimo
I'm aware of the different brands of young Earth/old Earth creationism and re-branded 'intelligent design.' No matter which time scale one uses, it's essentially the same thing and it's all bunk. That one would attempt to advance what one purports to be a scientific theory by using a Bible dictionary as evidence is simply laughable. There's no evidence for any of it and no amount of dictionary definitions is going to change that.
by Michael_H1410 on September 15th, 2010
Michael, you missed the point.
Quote, "No matter which time scale one uses, it's essentially the same thing and it's all bunk."
No it isn't essentially the same thing. One is scientifically compatible according to what we currently understand while the others are not. Of course not all areas agree but you get the point.
Quote, "That one would attempt to advance what one purports to be a scientific theory by using a Bible dictionary as evidence is simply laughable."
What is laughable is your inability to reason on the information Tex has given you. What Tex did was show how some interpret the word "day" as meaning 6 literal days or 6,000 years, while this is not what the bible teaches. You can go ahead and say God doesn't exist, but that would not be relevant.
What is relevant is, if you notice the question, is what the bible actually teaches versus unwarranted interpretations. The bible dictionary was used to help make that point. If you disregard that, it is fine, its your choice, but you willfully ignore the data in favor of your beliefs for no relevant reason.
by no_one_special on September 15th, 2010
If everyone can interpret the bible however they want then the bible doesnt actually support any point of view. check out this and think about it.
by gillaspy01 on September 16th, 2010
It just seems to me that only one interpretation agrees with the rest of the Bible as well as proven science.
The following is from part of an article about creation:
[God then blessed mankind, telling the first man and his wife: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1:28; compare Ps 8:4-8.) For humankind and other earthly creatures, God made adequate provision by giving them “all green vegetation for food.” Reporting on the results of such creative work, the inspired Record states: “After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Ge 1:29-31) The sixth day having come to its successful conclusion and God having completed this creative work, “he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.”—Ge 2:1-3.
Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,” a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,” or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,” God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning” arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.—Compare Pr 4:18.
Length of Creative Days. The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.
That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.]
by Texasescimo on September 16th, 2010
texas
your poits are all very well thought out and supported wth your scriptural refferences. However i think you side step the major flaw in the picture by not adressing how litteral interpertaion of anything in the bible goes out the window when you start arbitrarilly redefining words. If a day isnt a day then what does it mean when god appears to mosses as a burning bush? Is bush a litteral word or a figurative word? By extension by redefining words in the bible you invalidate everything else in the bible by default. Its either litteral and true or its all up for interpertation.
Even your interpertation while very well thought out is still not the same as a litteral reading of gods supposed word. even if your intentions are to understand what god meant to say that is still a subjective persuit and far from an exact process.
Basicly what it boils down to is that if youre willing to concede that some parts of the bible arent litteral then youre forced to concede that nothing in the bible must be litteral. Its a slippery slope.
But again i enjoyed your interpetation on what god actually meant when he said day. I know it isnt just your personal interpertation but instead the interpertation of a lot of people. But a lot of people claiming that green is actually blue doesnt make green blue. Its either a day or the whole thing is thrown into question.
by gillaspy01 on September 16th, 2010
@ gilaspy
Quote, "If everyone can interpret the bible however they want then the bible doesnt actually support any point of view. check out this and think about it."
The bible can't be interpreted anyway anyone wants. There are word definitions that halt this as well as the principles found at 2 Timothy 3:16,17 and Romans 15:4.
I don't have time know as I have other discussions to get to but that video was intellectually dishonest. Did you catch it? In addition is was a huge straw man OR the guy is ignorant about Christianity and the Genesis account.
He contradicted himself when he came to his conclusion about God being a liar.
This is why youtube is not a good source for scriptural interpretation or really anything for that matter. Its fun to look at and on occasion I post short vids from there. But in general, there is not much to either side atheist/theist in the way of intellectual honesty on youtube. Straw man arguments are launched all too often to make them useful. Too often one has to sit through an illogical attack just to get to a point. It is very time consuming. However, I will address it later if and when I get a chance.
by no_one_special on September 16th, 2010
Actually, the article on the left, if you actually read it, attempts to disprove this argument, and the article on the right says that there is no god at all. Either way, you're wrong.
by Peterc357 on October 2nd, 2010
The argument on the right is non of my concern. If you read what I said you'd have understood that. The article on the right is also irrelevant since the question is whether or not God created the world in SIX day.
Either way you're wrong.
by no_one_special on October 3rd, 2010
by Gratis
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
do you have proof it's not real?
by Jakeflame11 on April 14th, 2010
but the Earth IS flat!!!
the Bible says there is a mountain from which can be seen "all the kingdoms of the earth"
that is only possible on a FLAT EARTH!!!!!
by purplecows on September 15th, 2010
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
Pure science is open to question, but what is happening today is no where near pure science. Many professors and teachers (and not just Christians) have lost their jobs for saying, "Hey wait a minute, it could have happened this way." Science is working to understand what is around us, and many good things have come from this. Unfortunately, what is happening in this arena, is that anything slightly out of mainstream astrogenesis/evolution is called unscientific.
From a Christians POV, the Bible was inspired by God, and written down by men. Imagine a boss dictating a letter to a secretary. The words in that letter aren't the secretary's words, but the boss's. If you do not believe this, then you have to consider some parts of the old testament. The quarantine process described in Leviticus was hundreds of years ahead of medical practices at that time.
by axist47 on February 23rd, 2010
The difference being, you can prove that your boss exists, the bible started out as a list of dos and don'ts, to give people some moral guidance, but has been corrupted, deliberately and accidentally, to a point where it is now exploited by all manner of conmen and crackpots.
There are no genuine creationist scientists, because anyone who studies the fields of science quickly comes to realise that creationism is based on a thin tissue of lies and deliberate misinterpretations.
I have yet to debate with a creationist who has even a basic grasp of the facts of evolution, they all seem to think that evolution dictates that life came from rocks, we evolved from monkeys, and that there should be some 'missing link' transitional fossil, which of course does not exist because all living organisms are transitional, always in a state of flux.
I have also yet to see any creationist theory which does not seek to disprove science, rather than produce new evidence in favour of creationist mythology, chiefly because the only source of information on the matter is an ancient religious text which is quite often self contradictory.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 25th, 2010
Bible is written by those who thought the world was flat. They did not have telescope or microscope. They did not know a single planet outside of their system. They did not travel to other continents. They could not solve for x when x^2=9. They did not know what the heck that they are breathing. They did not know their body is made of cells. They did not receive 0.01% of the education you have today. They did not receive Confucius teachings. They are just a groups of multi-cell organisms passing their believes to others.
Even after knowing all that, it is puzzling to me how some would still believe creationism
by badadee on February 25th, 2010
PocketNut: Could you please share your evidence that the Bible has been corrupted? Could you please define a "genuine scientist?" Could you please give an example of deliberate misinterpretations?
The reason that you have not seen a creationist theory that doesn't seek to disprove science is this: science says A. Creation says B. A does not equal B. Therefore, they automatically contradict each other.
Also, I doubt that 90% of the high school graduates in this country have a better grasp on evolution.
by axist47 on February 25th, 2010
Axist47 you could do a search regarding the outcome of the 'Jesus Seminars'.
by kakskee on February 28th, 2010
kakskee: I read over a few articles about them, and here are my thoughts:
1)I would very much like to have a long sit down chat with some of these fellows
2)They have a very bizarre voting system
3)Many of their conclusions seem to be based on very flimsy evidence or downright personal opinion
by axist47 on February 28th, 2010
There are a number of different bibles, all of them claim to be 'the' bible, I have read protestant, catholic and gideons, as well as a certain amount of jehovahs witness literature.
All of the different christian schisms claim to be more correct than all the others, and on top of that, the Jews, originators of the Old Testament and christianity, say that none of them are right and that they have misinterpreted the initial message of their forebears.
It should also be pointed out that King James had the bible re-written to his own specifications, citing his divine right as king, a claim every bit as laughable as the pope pretending to be infallible.
A genuine scientist has attended an acreited educational establishment, and studied verifiable facts, rather than unproven religious philosophies. He or she will question established facts based on real, palpable, evidence, rather than trying to twist the evidence into line with biblical accounts, using poorly thought out misrepresentations of scientific thinking.
I have recently sat through a video, in which a zoologist Dr Marc Surtees, a genuine scientist as far as I can tell, uses misrepresented quotes and the metamorphosis of tadpole to frog, to attempt to undermine the theory of evolution, he was entirely unsuccessful, but certainly plausible than well known creationist fraudsters like Carl E baugh and Kent Hovind, who are outright liars.
Baugh and Hovind have tried to pass off a fish commonly known as a Pacu, as 'giant piranhas' grown in a high pressure aquarium, to simulate "pre-flood conditions", blithely ignoring the fact that any reasonably experienced fishkeeper would be able to expose the lie in seconds. the Pacu is a Characin, as is the Piranha, and they certainly look alike, but the Pacu lacks the prominent sharp teeth at the front of its mouth, having pharyngeal teeth further back in its throat, and is predominantly herbivorous in nature.
A little known fact about the piranha, is that its diet consists largely of vegetable matter, but it will eagerly consume meat, as I'm sure you know!!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 1st, 2010
I would say that more than 90% of the differences between each version are due to translation. Anyone who has studied a foreign language knows that it is almost impossible to have a perfect translation. Many words and phrases can be translated several different ways. Also, there are many expressions that we don't have a good translation for (This goes for pretty much every ancient text). Translators have to come up with an equivalent for that phrase. I know it sounds specific, but "The Bible" can refer to any well known translation. I suppose an accurate analogy is "The Dictionary" There are many different kinds, but all contain basically the same information.
Also, I agree with you 100% that some groups have falsely translated the Bible to fit their beliefs.
You mean to tell me that all of these
( http://creation.com/creation-scientists%20 )
scientists and professionals have twisted and deliberately misinterpreted evidence to fit scripture? It's not even remotely possible that they came to the conclusion that creation is true after they examined real, palpable evidence?
I agree with you that there have been some "scientists" that have abused the role, but that has happened on both sides.
by axist47 on March 1st, 2010
Some scientists have tried to make their name, and a quick buck, by prsenting falsified evidence, others have tried to bring science down from within, in both cases they were censured, and their professional careers ruined.
Looking at your list and focusing on the living scientists section, I note that very few of those listed study the science we are discussing here, and some of those I recognise as laying claim to qualifications which are either spurious, or from a non-acredited educational establishment.
These are the people who supply most of the creationist hypotheses, and since said hypotheses are usually easily disproved by empirical evidence, I seriously doubt their credentials.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 2nd, 2010
but then why do we have earth today evolution: crazy no apes evolving today is there? and earth evolving from a meteor as some people say: impossible. how would it circle the sun w/out god? how would we have plants and animals?
by Jakeflame11 on April 14th, 2010
the reason apes have not evolved in the same way as we have is simple, they would have competed with us in the same evolutionary niche, and we would have wiped them out, there are no Neanderthals around now probably for precisely that reason.
We circle the Sun because all bodies everywhere in the universe adhere to the same laws of physics, and there's this thing we discovered about 350 years ago, it's called gravity, you may have heard about it, but it's not in any biblical texts because in the bronze age they had no idea about gravity at all.
Saying that god does everything with magic is just a way of displaying your ignorance of science and denying plain reality.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 15th, 2010
that first paragraph was stupid lol
by Jakeflame11 on April 15th, 2010
No, it was accurate, any species which competes directly with humans becomes extinct.
Perhaps when you have gone away and educated yourself you might be able to resist making such idiotic statements about things you have no understanding of.
The only mistake I made was not capitalising the 'T'.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 16th, 2010
by P4ganiZonda
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
Because evolution works over a very long period of time, that's why, a period of time so vast it is difficult, and in your case impossible, to imagine.
There is no proof at all that the theory of evolution is wrong, so until something is proven to explain biological diversity better, it remains a scientific fact. "God did it with magic" is not an adequate explanation.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 23rd, 2010
Ok, ok, believe what you want but I'm not convinced. Why didn't scientist find the missing link? Because there is no such thing!
We did not evolve from apes! I mean It's ok if you want to believe what you want, you don't have to be a christian, But why be so stubborn as to believe that your great great great great great great great great great great great............ancestor was a monkey?
So people are apes?
If that's true why aren't apes extinct?
it makes most sense since we evolved from them that all apes would now be humans and there would be no more present day "monkey".
by P4ganiZonda on February 23rd, 2010
exactly P4ganiZonda truth is coming to the ignorant scientific community with there text book answers
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
There is no missing link, I agree with you on that, because evolution happens very gradually, so the distinction between humans and our ape ancestors is very fuzzy, there is no missing link because every member of our species is in transition, that's why you look different from your parents.
The apes we descended from are extinct, those which did not follow the same evolutionary path as us have remained apes, or like the Neanderthals, become extinct themselves.
hong kong phooey: Before you accuse someone of ignorance, please learn the difference between 'there', 'they're' and 'their'.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 23rd, 2010
PocketNut stop splitting hairs i know my spelling can be wrong but the mentality of an evolutionist is text book ,you learnt your theory`s at school from a young age and that is all you know you have not even looked at any other evidence you have taken what you been told from when you was young and that is all you need in your eye`s , i have looked at both sides of the evolution argument and can honestly say the theory of evolution does not work there is no evidence for it other than some scientists who we are supposed to trust because they got letters after there name and adorn a white coat then say this is the truth , i suppose it`s a form of faith aswell, so it is text book ignorence , have you heard the saying your limited by what you know and that works both ways when you learn something without looking at both sides and just settle for one answer, that limits you it boxes you in it puts bounderies in your way where as i have looked at both sides and know both arguments there for my limits stretch further than yours .you should try it some time it does work i mean why limit your self to just one side of the argument see both sides in full then decide what you think the truth is :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
On the contrary, I have seen plenty of evidence for evolution, and none for creationism, not one shred. In fact I have read and listened to many creationist arguments that were quite farcical, and even outright lies, "Dr" Carl E Baugh, curator of the creationist evidence museum, I would call a liar to his face for presenting Pacu as "giant vegetarian pirahnas".
Meanwhile we have neanderthal DNA, fossil evidence by the truck load, elephants without large tusks, living fossils like the Tuatara and coelacanth, not to mention insects preserved in 130million year old amber, advanced microscopy, and dendrochronology pointing to the fact that creationism has no basis in reality.
I have read three different versions of bible, all of them were different, none of them match the original texts, and each was man made.
I have no boundaries, prove to me that you are right, and I'll change my tune, but you cannot, because you are limited by your religious beliefs and discount all rational argument no matter how much evidence is staring you in the face.
I accept evolution as truth because I can see it happening all around me, I reject creationism because "god did it with magic" is a fallacious argument.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 23rd, 2010
actually there is vegertarian piranhas ,i know nothing of "Dr" Carl E Baugh but old biblical times animals and people lived alot longer grew bigger so a giant vegertarian piranha would be very possible . a couple of scientists done an experiment to see if it was true what the bible says about every thing growing bigger because of the dencer atmosphere and no uv rays because of the firmament , so they got a couple of piranhas in a big tank inside a hypabaric chamber with no uv rays entering and pressurised it to 50% extra like it was 5-6000 yrs ago ,the piranhas grew to 4 times their normal size and lived alot longer they may even be alive today .elephants with large tusks are mammoths they died out in the ice age .
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Ok, the "vegetarian pirahnas" are the fish I mentioned, Pacu, a large vegetarian relative of the Pirahna, from the same family of fish, the Characins, I know this because I am an experienced tropical fishkeeper, I have fed Pacu by hand and Pirahna by tongs(because Pirahna teeth are sharp enough to use as hair trimmers!!), I know for certain that this so called "experiment" is pure lies, these are ordinary fish, kept in a standard aquarium. My 4' x 18" x 18" aquarium would be just about big enough for a juvenile Pacu, and they do indeed resemble Pirahnas quite closely. Kent "convicted fraudster" Hovind, another liar extraordinaire, featured these fish in one of his videos, which is where I found the liar Carl E baughs name. Baugh MUST have deliberately sought out some Pacu with the intent of passing them off as Pirahnas to those who would not know any different, there is no other explanation!
There are pictures of African Elephants from the Victorian era onwards, with enormous tusks, they were all poached out of the gene pool, thus African Elephants no longer have the genes for large tusks, natural selection has ensured that individuals who die before they reproduce, do not pass their genes to the next generation, so thanks to humans, there are few, if any, elephants with large tusks any more.
I'm afraid you'll have to come up with much better evidence than that!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 23rd, 2010
I agree with PocketNut 100%
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
I see you subscribe to the Hovind Theory, HKP. Here's a relevant video you might be interested in watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
PocketNut kent hovind was convicted and sent to jail for 10 yrs for not paying his federal tax and do you know why , because there is nothing in the american constitution or any other document that the government have that states you have to pay your federal tax , so you see you are not obliged by american law to pay your federal tax that is why kent hovine went to jail . your right about elephants tusks and how they are poached by man and how they do not get to maturety to grow the tusks so you just answered your own question no wonder i could not understand it . i`m not sure you want to be convinced you put up your defences with your questions thus blocking out the truth . ps i don`t want a debate about federal tax as it`s not my subject :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
P4ganiZonda, are you being serious? Because if you're not, then you are doing a very good job of making yourself sound extremely retarded. First rule if you're gonna debate something is get your facts straight! Our ancestors where not monkeys, the only people saying that are retarded creationists attempting to build a strawman of evolution. You know absolutely nothing about evolution, so please educate yourself before you make an ass out of yourself next time.
by Gratis on February 23rd, 2010
Gratis second rule of debate don`t resort to name calling it`s bad sportsman ship , and what do you say our ancesters are! also you need to educate your self in a few things ,oh look you broke the first rule yourself . so please educate yourself before you make an ass out of your self next time
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
HKP, Gratis may have said something that offended you but that doesn't mean he's uneducated. The only claim he's made is that no one in the scientific community says that humans are descended from monkeys, and he's right. Evolutionary biologists say we're descended from primates, not monkeys.
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
HKP, Kent Hovind is still a felon, and a liar, nothing he promotes in his videos represents truth in any way. I couldn't care less about federal tax, I live in the UK, but we all know that it's something we have to pay, if it weren't required by law, he wouldn't have gone to jail, quod errad demonstrandum.
Saying that I'm blocking out the truth with my questions is frankly ridiculous, are you seriously suggesting that I should stop asking questions of any sort, and just believe whatever nonsense is handed to me?!?
I follow the lines of facts that I can prove, I can prove that Baugh and Hovind are liars, and I can prove that all of the creationist arguments that have passed in front of me are either lies, or misunderstood facts, twisted to fit biblical mythology.
I can find pictures of these so called Pirahnas, and show you identical fish called Pacu, you are limited by your reliance on dogma, and lack of research beyond fallacious creationist doctrines, I have read both sides of the story, and can find no evidence at all to support your views.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 24th, 2010
HKP, when the OP starts out by calling evolution retarded and self-defeating, without even a basic grasp of what evolutions is, I'm afraid there's no nice way of putting it: he sounds extremely retarded. In fact, his post was so retarded that I had trouble believing it was for real - I mean, seriously, who still uses that old 'dey say we come from monkeys' redneck creationist strawman of evolution. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt by not assuming that he was for real - you'll notice I said "if you're not [being serious]..."
You see, that's the trouble when you're debating with theists: sometimes their arguments are just so dumb that your jaw drops and you have trouble telling if they are serious or just being funny. In fact, there was a recent thread where I thought you (HKP) were just making fun of the creationists by parodying them. I even gave you props and thought you were on my side lol. Actually, I still haven't figured you out. Maybe you are very clever and you are actually just poking fun at creationists - because some of your arguments are just so cliche and stereotypically toothless-barefoot-redneck-creationist-without-a-high-school-diploma that I have trouble believing you are for real. So I won't insult you by assuming you are ;). Meanwhile I give you props, real or not, you are one of my all-time favorite characters here at AB :)
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
PocketNut ok have it your way ,put your money where your mouth is and prove what you say .prove all creation wrong , i have proved it correct so far, feel free to read every thing i have written first before you start your epic journey of debunking . i can`t wait :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever, the fish I can prove, because I know what a Pirahna and a Pacu are, even if this were not the case, organism living in high pressure environments are not generally very large, elephants growing smaller tusks, we have agreed is the case, Kent Hovind is a convicted felon, we have agreed this to be true, thus far you have not provided any evidence I have not already thoroughly debunked.
So, you provide it, I will tell you why it's wrong.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 24th, 2010
kent hovind was convicted of not paying his tax as i have already stated ,how does that affect his creationist science ,why do you keep trying to discredit with something that has nothing to do with what we are debating ,keep to the facts of the debate .:) ps if you want to see a real debate read my answers fully from top to bottom on my thread on this same question then you will see in full all that you need to know :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Guys you don't understand logic....proof that evolution is false
PROOF 1:
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
PROOF 2:
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
by P4ganiZonda on February 24th, 2010
Gratis i am a creationist i believe the truth of the bible ,i would never make fun of gods truth .oh and thanks i see your a fan cheers but all credit of the truth goes to god it is he you should be a fan of :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Gratis ps P4ganiZonda is correct in what he says he has knowledge that you should wish you had, he is very cleaver and has knowledge above your under standing (not being rude):)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Proof 1: Proving a theory that is a century out of date wrong does not prove you right. Whether or not scientists have created left handed proteins does not prove you right. An inability to recreate a single complex protein does not equal evidence of creationist theory. This 'proof' is irrelevant to the discussion.
Proof 2: Members of different species cannot mate with other species, that is because they are seperated by millenia, however similar, but closely related species can, Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears, Bonobo Chimps and Chimpanzees, each of these split off from the evolutionary path of the other, and continued to evolve in different ways to fit different environmental niches.
There is plenty of DNA evidence to show that different species have common ancestors, as well as empirical evidence.
Scientists have observed bacteria evolving to take advantage of a new source of food, evolution is why you are not a clone of your parents, but a distinct individual, all living creatures on the Earth are in a state of transition, and those who have the most offspring will pass on their genetic traits to the next generation.
Your proof is a misrepresented distortion of scientific fact, and even if it weren't, it would only undermine science, not prove you right.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 24th, 2010
PocketNut you said "all living creatures on the Earth are in a state of transition", name one then prove it, prove the transition
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Here is more proof PocketNut
PROOF 3:
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
PROOF 4:
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Look PocketNut what we are doing now is fighting science vs science.
I giving you proof with science, and you reject it with science.
one of them has to be true...ow and thanks for not calling me names like the others.
;)
by P4ganiZonda on February 24th, 2010
hong kong phooey is right.
you can't say "all living creatures on the Earth are in a state of transition", and then not be able to prove it.
by P4ganiZonda on February 24th, 2010
P4ganiZonda if only PocketNut read my other thread in full then then PocketNut would see i have already destroyed this idea
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
but the again what do i know i`m just a simple minded christian
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
all my knowledge comes from god almighty ..god=true...science=false
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
P4ganiZonda, you are like a walking talking encyclopedia of common creationist misnomers, fallacies and lies. You are not using science, you are using misrepresentation and distortion of facts. You can't even tell the difference between evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology and geoscience. But I guess none of that matters since you do not seem to have any interested in educating yourself on facts, and only interested in building one big giant mess of a strawman of evolution/abiogenesis/cosmology/geoscience – which (in your idiosyncratic terminology) you collectively refer to as 'EvolUtionism' or 'Darwinism'.
If, on the other hand, you have any real interest in facts, the following link provides a good overview of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
PocketNut you stated "Proof 2: Members of different species cannot mate with other species, that is because they are seperated by millenia, however similar, but closely related species can, Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears, Bonobo Chimps and Chimpanzees, each of these split off from the evolutionary path of the other, and continued to evolve in different ways to fit different environmental niches.
There is plenty of DNA evidence to show that different species have common ancestors, as well as empirical evidence"....that is called adaptation not evolution ,and "species of animal have common ancester" prove the link between one species and another any where in history
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
gratis you said"transitional fossils" prove the transition prove they was related prove there kinship to each other
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
"gratis you said"transitional fossils" prove the transition prove they was related prove there kinship to each other"
In case you missed it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
Gratis yeah had a quick look at that, what proof has it got other than stating that a transitional fossil has gaps that are getting filled ,filled by what ,that is not proof just scientific jargon with nil physical proof . how do they test it to see if it is related to the next fossil in the transition , have they got it`s children to take dna samples...no , then how is it related, in what way ?
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Gratis you said "In case you missed it" i say "In case you missed it"
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
look Gratis your just trying to prove evolution is true.
Prove it!
I gave proof and you didn't if you do we might be equal.
And I want solid proof not "apes have skulls of humans and that proves that we are ancestors" stuff.
And thank you for your link and I will gladly look at it but you still need to give me proof.
by P4ganiZonda on February 24th, 2010
Hong Kong phooey, so many questions. If you truly want answers, you need to examine things beyond just 'a quick look'. A whole world of knowledge awaits you if only you would start to read ;)
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
Gratis i know the truth of this ,there is no transition of fossils it`s a darwinian lie open your eye`s and read the bible it`s all in there :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
and to be honest with you if i read it all i would be able to destroy your theory even better with your own source, so you see i don`t need your false data or any of your false teachings , god is my teacher he speaks the truth :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
P4ganiZonda, you have not given any "proof" whatsoever. So far all I have seen are bad strawmen arguments from your side. I have corrected you and provided valid references. However, it is not my job to prove evolution to you any more than it is my job to prove electricity or gravity to you. If you want to challenge established scientific theories then, at the very least, you need to thoroughly educate yourself on all the facts. As of yet, you have not even demonstrated a basic understanding of what evolution is. So I'm afraid you have only succeeded in making yourself look like a fool.
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
"and to be honest with you if i read it all i would be able to destroy your theory even better with your own source"
HKP, I wholeheartedly invite you to do so :)
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
Gratis It's not me that has "bad strawmen arguments" or whatever you said.
I wasn't rude to you or anything like that.
I was only trying to prove my point like you try to prove yours.
And anyway you were more rude than me calling me fool and retard and idiot. If you think I'm that then keep it to yourself.
you don't see me calling you a half-brained retard do you?
Definitely not.
by P4ganiZonda on February 24th, 2010
Gratis I do study and I believe in the science of electricity or gravity or physics or chemistry etc.
I'm not stupid!
I do study and I believe it the only thing I don't believe is evolution.
by P4ganiZonda on February 24th, 2010
P4ganiZonda, you have to admit that you were basically asking for it: if you had been more reasonable in your OP and not used words like 'retarded' I would never have used the word either. By shamelessly bashing something, when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about, you are indeed making yourself look foolish. Perhaps a lesson to keep in mind for future reference ;)
"Gratis I do study and I believe in the science of electricity or gravity or physics or chemistry etc. I'm not stupid! I do study and I believe it the only thing I don't believe is evolution."
You clearly have not studied evolution. This just goes back to my original point: if you don't want to give people the impression that you are stupid then you need to educate yourself before you speak out against something (especially in public).
And just for the record, since you seem to be unclear on what the term 'strawman' means: A strawman argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
Gratis i already did on the first thing i asked me you to prove but you have not even give me one piece of proof on the first thing and now you want me to prove what you have not disproved first of all yourself , is that fair have i got to do your job as well as mine ? . what a strange debate this is gratis .you might as well not even be in this debate your doing nothing .
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Hong Kong phooey, you say the darndest things. You really are a silly wabbit, aren't you :p
Just an FYI, there are no 'proofs' in science. Science deals with empirical evidence collected through the process of experimentation or observational studies. If you want to talk about 'proof' then look at math.
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
oh by the way i have studied evelution gratis ,sorry mate i`m one up on you there because not only have i studied evelution but also creationism and find evelution wanting and can honestly say science of evolution is false .
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
math can explane transition . how , math can not explane evolution because + = - in them calculations , THEY DO NOT ADD UP .
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
"oh by the way i have studied evelution gratis, [...] and can honestly say science of evolution is false ."
Wow, you must be the greatest scientist in the world then since you know better than the entire scientific community of the world. I suppose you wouldn't mind showing me some of your peer reviewed papers - oh I'm sure there must be so many, but why don't you just give me a little sample :). A scientist of your stature must surely have won a few Nobel Prizes, as well. Come on now, don't be so humble, show us your credentials :)
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
gratis when did i say i was A scientist , don`t remember that . all i needed was the bible to pul your theory apart and you know it you just can`t admit it and sarcasm from you is doing you no favours :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Hong Kong phooey, you truly are a comedic genius :D. Thank you for giving me such a good laugh today! I really look forward to seeing more of your antics in the next topic.
Hats off to you, Hong Kong phooey :)
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
gratis if it`s just about getting the last word in then go ahead atleast you got that :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
gratis cheers man your ok . feel free to join in any time . god bless you:)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
ok well you got a point there Gratis. I sorta was asking for it :p
lol anyway Thanks for your good debate and all, I like learning about what others think. good day and god bless you! (I'm sure you don't believe me) ;D
by P4ganiZonda on February 24th, 2010
every one of my answers from god`s word :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
P4ganiZonda, don't worry about it. You seem like a cool guy. We live and learn, that's life :)
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW54W9y6-eU
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW54W9y6-eU
Hahaha, now I know where you get your name from. That's awesome, thanks for sharing :D
by Gratis on February 24th, 2010
Ok, Proof 3: The third law of thermodynamics may well state that order cannot arise from chaos, but since every particle of matter in the universe is governed by the laws of nature, they do not exist in chaos, but in a state of order, chaos is a human construct, life can indeed emerge from an extremely complex chemical soup, not from rocks, as many a foolish creationist has tried to insinuate, however this is the origin of life, not evolution, which is the system by which many small changes over large amounts of time build up into exponetially larger changes, to a point where a new species will gradually emerge, rather than the rather bizarre creationist idea of croco-duck, or elephants giving birth to fish.
Proof 4: Has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution either, but the creation of matter, not even the creation of life, and has no relevance, however if I understand Einstein correctly, at some level, matter and energy are interchangeable, that is to say that energy can become matter, and vice versa. If I'm not wrong, the 'big bang' was a massive discharge of energy, the result was matter, conversly, huge amounts of matter generate energy.
I know that we are related to Chimps, because our DNA is so similar, apart from our chromasomes, chimps have a 'fused' chromasome (at base pair 26 if I recall), two chromasomes joined together soon after our family tree branched from theirs, about 2 MYA.
I see no point in name calling, it is the surest way to lose an argument instantly, my goal is better understanding through reasoned debate, which is why I never went into politics!!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 24th, 2010
PocketNut you said"Ok, Proof 3: The third law of thermodynamics may well state that order cannot arise from chaos, but since every particle of matter in the universe is governed by the laws of nature, they do not exist in chaos, but in a state of order, chaos is a human construct, life can indeed emerge from an extremely complex chemical soup, not from rocks, as many a foolish creationist has tried to insinuate, however this is the origin of life, not evolution, which is the system by which many small changes over large amounts of time build up into exponetially larger changes, to a point where a new species will gradually emerge, rather than the rather bizarre creationist idea of croco-duck, or elephants giving birth to fish"... this complex chemical soup ,have you got a sample ?........ Proof 4: Has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution either, but the creation of matter, not even the creation of life, and has no relevance, however if I understand Einstein correctly, at some level, matter and energy are interchangeable, that is to say that energy can become matter, and vice versa. If I'm not wrong, the 'big bang' was a massive discharge of energy, the result was matter, conversly, huge amounts of matter generate energy,, this massive charge of energy in what way did it generate huge amounts of matter from nothing also if huge amounts of matter makes energy how did so much energy come from a minuture atom sized speck before the big bang,also if matter always existed then were was it before the big bang mmmmmmm and our dna is also similer to a worm that does not mean we come from a worm .no ..so it`s as follows we do not come from a chimp just because we share similer dna and may i add we cannot mate with them because our dna is not compatable ..so where is your proof of evelution ?
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
ps PocketNut you still not proved any transition of one animal to another where is your proof this ever happened
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
how did slime change it`s dna to accomadate every single animal on the planet witch in turn changed again and again to make all the different animals and plants on the planet how was it so specific with it`s selection mmmmmmm so you see you can`t get all that diversity without an inteligent designer ...god
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
As I understand it the matter was a by product of the energy, therefore you would not need vast quantities of stuff, ask Stephen Hawking, he could tell you!
We have a similar genetic makeup to worms because way back in the mists of time we shared a common ancestor, every life form on this planet came from the same source, we know this because we all share varying amounts of similar DNA.
The more alike we are in form to an animal, the closer our DNA is to theirs, Chimp DNA is less than 1% different, and as I have already said, we can trace exactly where Chimpanzees diverged from Humans.
We did not evolve from worms any more than we evolved from monkeys, or life came from rocks, these are old and easily debunked creationist arguments that go back almost to the time of Darwin himself.
Our DNA was compatible, millions of years ago, but population growth pushed some individuals into different environmental niches, forcing them to adapt or die, those that survied bred and passed on the genes required to survive, giving rise to a new genus, then eventually a new species, animals do not magically change overnight or give birth to other species, that's the creationist model, which surprise surprise, is backed up by any evidence whatsoever.
I'm still waiting for evidence that explains why creationism is right, all you seem to want to do is vainly attempt to undermine testable scientific facts and empirical evidence, with poorly thought out and misunderstood psuedo-scientific bunkum.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 24th, 2010
PocketNut in my explaining to you all that i did i have explaned creation and shown you your theory of evelution is false what more do you want as for proof were is yours on transition of one species of animal into another species, have you got a half chimp half human transition hold on that`s called a chimera they are mythical just like your theory`s of evolution and the age of the earth . so i say again where is your PROOF :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
mmmmmmm
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
I just have one comment im not here to stay:
I believe in god, yes I've been raised this way and this will never change.No matter what not even with all the proof in the world that im wrong because im a believer and always will be. This is a fantastic debate its been fun to read you all make good points even thought "Gratis" at the end didn't make it much of a debate anymore, in her/his( i really don't know if its a she or he) part. I'm not going to disagree in anything because i can see you all know a lot more facts than i do in this subjects but i want to applaud to the work here it kept me reading until this last comment which seems to be resent and gives me the feel it'll keep going. I hope to see a right end to it and not see someone back down or say they know they're right because of the thought of failing to prove or simply not wanting to which to me is not a good debater. But what do i know? Nothing compared to you all or almost all of you. I don't mean to offend anyone simply wanted to give my opinion on what was happening here. And of course you'll know the side i take but i will enjoy every peace of new information i find out in this debate even from the other side. :) Great job.
by Lovee4eva on February 24th, 2010
HKP- I have already explained that evolution happens over many generations and vast gulfs of time, so the closest you'll get to the mythical chimera is an ancient primate with slightly human charateristics, because all living creatures are slightly different to their ancestors, which is why our own species has such great diversity, yet we can all interbreed, lions and tigers are able to produce offspring together, yet that offspring is rendered infertile, because their DNA is just that little bit more differentiated than the different groups of humans around the world.
I have also explained that this is a debate about evolution, not the origin of life, and how population growth pushes some individuals into new environments with differing environmental pressures, thus forcing them to change or die. It's the basic tenet of the theory of evolution, if you don't understand that, then you have no business debating against it!
You will not find this so called 'transitional' species because all species, living and dead, are in a constant state of flux, the transitional species argument is a spurious creationist myth based on a total lack of understanding of basic biology.
As an illustration I will point out things that we know for certain, you are not identical to your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, or any of the many ancestors we all have, you and your ancestors are a hybrid of two different strands of DNA, a completely new combinnation of genes, therefore you are a living creature in transition.
When DNA is replicated little 'mistakes' creep in, these are known as mutations, if one of these mutations confers a benefit all well and good, you survive and produce offspring who inherit that trait, if it is not a beneficial mutation, you may not survive, or survive as well as you would otherwise, you produce no, or fewer, offspring and the trait is not passed on.
We humans have short circuited the process of natural selection by caring for and curing the sick, which whilst compassionate, allows things like congenital heart defects to be passed on through to the next generation.
Why would a perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, god create genetically linked illness?
You ask for proof from me, yet all you have provided me with is a poorly researched attempt to discredit science, as if by proving science wrong you would prove yourself right, find me something contradictory in scientific theory, and I'd be willing to put money on the fact that you have not understood the science before criticising it.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 25th, 2010
I feel like you should compensate me for the time i wasted on reading this.
by heylo90 on February 25th, 2010
You had the choice to stop whenever you felt the need, the fact that you learned nothing is more due to your shortcomings than mine!
I don't pretend to have all the answers, creationists do, which is why I find creationism so offensive.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 25th, 2010
PocketNut i see your profile , i see now why you flatly refuse to believe ,because if you admit your wrong then that would go against your ego and pride . if you want to believe that you came from a pool of slime then ok ,but the arguments that i say still hold more water than your theory . for starters where is the living transition as you stated that every living thing on the planet is constantly going through a transitional stage ,i`m not asking for a fossil i`m asking for a living example and saying that they have similer charactoristics is not proof or similer dna is not proof ,where is the living transition ,and now you see i`m not asking the impossible just a simple bit of solid proof , there is no point saying this is what i heard or a book says so . it has got to be solid a living specimin .. why do you say it`s gods fault that there is all this problems on earth ,look at what man has done to this planet with all the wars dropping uranium bombs , nuclear explosions ,is this all of gods doing ...no , it is ours not gods and why should god intervine with us when it is us that is turning our backs on the creater and killing each other , why would god save you from all of this if war and polution is what we want to thrive in , so you see it is not gods fault it is our own doing :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
ps lets keep this as a debate not a heated argument :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
HKP, did you notice a glitch with the other post that you made (the one that had 100+ comments)? For me it says "No comments."
by Maerdyn77 on February 25th, 2010
Maerdyn77 yeah i put my final post on and every thing dissapeared , that was my best debate i ever had we both made alot of good points ,it took more than 35 hrs of debating ,i`m gutted ,after all that work nothing to show for it :( . any way we can always start a new one with the old thread it looks brand new and why let it go to waste . we could start all over again , what do you think . :) . ps are you absolutly possitive about that c14 dating method as i only got one side of the story wich was mine (i went and done the very thing that i said about seeing both sides , i only see mine what a hypocrite i am bha ha ha ) . if you don`t want to go through it again just yet then we will leave it for a later date ,it was fun and kept me thinking solid the whole time i was on a mission bha ha ha great debate and a great oponent thanks by Maerdyn77 you are a good sport and you got my respect . cheers mate :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
ps i will not be so full of myself next time ,i try and keep my feet on the ground as you are a strong oponent without malice or any grudge ,just looking for the facts and not an argument ,now that is what i call a debater cheers Maerdyn77 i can`t wait for the next round . ding ding :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Lovee4eva wrote:
”... even thought 'Gratis' at the end didn't make it much of a debate anymore, in her/his part”
I'm afraid it was never much of a debate to begin with. It's hard to have a debate with someone who responds with ludicrous statements like “i know the truth of this ,there is no transition of fossils it`s a darwinian lie open your eye`s and read the bible it`s all in there”[sic] or “have you got a half chimp half human transition hold on that`s called a chimera they are mythical just like your theory`s of evolution and the age of the earth”[sic]
If you have any real interest in this topic beyond just the entertainment value of reading the back and forth comments in threads like this, I suggest you study some facts. Below are some links (just copy and paste them into your browser) that deal with common theistic claims and gives mainstream scientific responses. All references are cited, so you can check the validity of all the answers yourself.
Explains how we know the age of the earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Explains evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Provides an overview of transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
by Gratis on February 25th, 2010
Lovee4eva ....If you have any real interest in this topic beyond just the entertainment value of reading the back and forth comments in threads like this, I suggest you study some facts. Below is a link (just copy and paste them into your browser) that deal with common scientific claims and gives creationist mainstream responses. All references are cited, so you can check the validity of all the answers yourself.
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
ps gratis you stil claim you got the truth where is your proof ,as for that so called evidence you know i pulled that apart with the bible and you still try to push it even though i showed it does not work :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
gratis how can this be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JANwVq018C4 when it clearly says in the bible "there was giants in the world in those days " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4jdrPG0C94
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
ps Gratis... have a look at both video`s and you tell me wich one looks closer to being human , your one with the long pushed out face with a tail and long claws or my one with every feature of a man present . did your one loook like you or did my one ? or do you think my one is a giant monkey ,they have not got the bone structure for starters but then me saying about bone structure alone is wrong of me but you have a look and make your own judgement :)then read genesis to see if there was giants or midgets with tails and claws in those days?
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
gratis maybe this will help in your learning http://vimeo.com/3080507
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
If any of the you hardcore creationists actually go to college and take BIO, CHEM, or Physic courses, you would know how silly you sound right now. The depth of science as of now is so incredible that you would be shocked how little you actually understand about your world. Yes, most of the knowledge you can find are on the internet or in textbooks, but those are written by those gifted with brighter minds. I don't know what the heck went wrong with your high school education, but I think that should be enough to open your mind about science. You rely on the bible. It is the same teachings that people who once thought the world was flat used to believe. Do you think the bible would be anywhere acceptable if it is freshly introduced in our modern day? On the other hand, I actually do encourage having faith in a religion. I think it brings enlightenment to everyone of us. Again... the world of science is far beyond your imagination. Please do not trap yourself with your ignorance.
by badadee on February 25th, 2010
badadee go for it prove creation wrong with one fossil and i will do the same to prove the bible is correct against your scientific theory`s ...........i ...fossil........ each.............
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Guys stop ignoring Hong Kong Phooey, he's right, If your so sure that creation is wrong then prove.
I haven't heard even 1 person try prove creation wrong.
by P4ganiZonda on February 25th, 2010
P4ganiZonda is it to much to ask ...1 ...fossilo.....each...... i can get one can get one that proves the bible ,can anybody get a fossil that even comes close to evolution ?
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
HKP- I have no idea what you mean by my 'ego and pride', the reason I am debating with you is because you don't seem to have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Case in point, I have repeatedly stated that evolution consists of a series of tiny changes, over a vast period of time, you and I are slightly different from our parents, so if you want to see a transitional species, go and look in a mirror.
We know for a fact that each generation is different from the last, and we can see evolution actually happening in microrganisms.
There are many fossils showing the progression of species through the aeons, but of course you won't accept them as proof, because there are gaps in the fossil record, chiefly due to the fact that the conditions required for fossilisation are extremely rare, but since all living animals are in transition, then it is logical to assume that all extinct animals were likewise transitional.
Even if I were to present a fossil of Tiktaalik Roseaea, a fish with primitive amphibian features, you would dismiss it as a 'mosaic' creature, because you do not want to acknowledge that you have been wrong all along.
Science does not seek to disprove the existence of any deity, but creationists seek to disprove science with no more evidence than a corrupted religious text that is over 2000 years out of date.
If creation is right, then provide evidence, not proof, just evidence, because so far, as I have repeatedly said, nothing you have provided so far comes even close.
I have provided information regarding DNA research, fossil evidence, evidence of natural selection, and even touched on quantum mechanics, yet all you have provided is misinterpreted science and the catch all 'god did it' quote.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 25th, 2010
PocketNut maybe this will help in your learning http://vimeo.com/3080507 please watch these are scientist that prove your theory does not calculate ? if you want more proof you only got to ask
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
pocketnut you said :"HKP- I have no idea what you mean by my 'ego and pride', the reason I am debating with you is because you don't seem to have the faintest idea what you're talking about".
but your about me say`s this "I'm pro-religion and anti-creationism, I'm a fishkeeper, amateur artist, Palaeontologist and naturalist" so not only will your ego and pride be hurt but you will have to rethink all that you think is real .
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Thus far I have watched the first seven minutes, I will finish watching later, it is certainly refreshing to see a genuine scientist speaking from the opposing viewpoint, however much he tries to twist the facts to fit the myth.
He is still focusing on the transitional species argument, and has already admitted that such things exist, albeit not in the quantity that scholars might like, transitional species do exist, so there's your fossil evidence for a transitional species.
So far, I'm not anticipating changing my world view according to a viewpoint from a religion that wasn't even around 3000 years ago, it puzzles me as to why christians think they have all the answers for something they claim happened a minimum of 3000 years before there were any christians, or indeed any other monotheistic faiths.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 25th, 2010
PocketNut wait until you have seen it all and i will debate you on it . i think you are ok but we have got issues of difference and we have got to clear it up once and for all . we will only use what you know against what i know . lets make this a good clean debate and keep our heads straight . this debate is going great as i find what you say very educating . you show your proof your way and i will show mine gods way . keep it cool and god bless you :)....i am not trying to convert you to any thing i just want to prove gods word . sorry if i have been abbrasive but i am very tired as i have been debating some one else at the same time ,i hope you have not got the hump with me as i think this debate is going ok . m:):):):)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
oh and it is 4000 yrs before christianity existed and not 3000 yrs :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
hong kong phooey wrote:
”If you have any real interest in this topic beyond just the entertainment value of reading the back and forth comments in threads like this, I suggest you study some facts. Below is a link (just copy and paste them into your browser) that deal with common scientific claims and gives creationist mainstream responses. All references are cited, so you can check the validity of all the answers yourself. “
HKP, simply copying what I wrote and changing some of the words does not give you any valid points. It only makes you come across as a preschooler parroting what you hear adults say, and changing words around for fun. And you keep claiming that you have 'proof', but so far the best you have been able to come up with are farcical, pseudo-scientific creationist lies. Again, I suggest you thoroughly read through the links I posted. If you really want to challenge established, peer-reviewed scientists then go right ahead. You won't have much luck – especially when you don't even have a basic high-school level grasp of science.
by Gratis on February 25th, 2010
Hey I was reading through the comments and, well, me being a slow reader and all... I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not going to catch up with ya guys. It's sort of like an itch you've just gotta sctatch and, well, I'm scratching ;-)
So I would like to ask anyone to forgive me if I bring something up that has already been settled, but I can't stand by being a spectator any longer.
So anyways here's some vids on transitional fossils from a great proponent for evolution
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2#p/c/F9729F67CD4034C9/0/O4GdZOlPrX8
and here's a couple of questions for those of you who don't accept evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2#p/c/EBDE4D7DB15BED77/0/63LRfLyR-JU
(btw, P4ganiZonda the "proofs" you offered don't apply to evolution. Evolution doesn't deal with the begginings of life, that belongs to physics and chemistry. If you want to talk physics and chemistry, then fine. But leave evolution out of it).
by Coexist on February 25th, 2010
Gratis you wrote "hong kong phooey wrote:
”If you have any real interest in this topic beyond just the entertainment value of reading the back and forth comments in threads like this, I suggest you study some facts. Below is a link (just copy and paste them into your browser) that deal with common scientific claims and gives creationist mainstream responses. All references are cited, so you can check the validity of all the answers yourself." sorry i did but youy still have not proved your self right nor proved me wrong ..
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Coexist, you bring up valid points. I'm sure those same points must have been touched on already somewhere in this massive thread of 92 comments! If I hadn't already been participating in this thread from close to the beginning I would never have bothered to read that many comments either lol. So don't worry about repeating anything, a good point bears repeating. Unfortunately, though, no amount of evidence or reasoning will convince a die-hard creationist.
by Gratis on February 25th, 2010
HKP, the age of the earth, evolution, gravity, electricity etc.: all of this already has been proven conclusively by the scientific community. It's not my fault that you haven't kept up, nor is it really my job to educate you - that's why we have schools :)
by Gratis on February 25th, 2010
Gratis lets debate inteligence another time as i can`t think :}.god bless you :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Gratis ....hkp.... i like that it ain`t bad cool man youre ok ..god bless you .......................
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Thanks Gratis, I just don't wanna be redundant.
P4ganiZonda's last comment was "Guys stop ignoring Hong Kong Phooey, he's right, If your so sure that creation is wrong then prove [it]. I haven't heard even 1 person try prove creation wrong."
Well I believe the flying spaghetti monster created the universe, Prove me wrong.
Here's a question from one of the vids I've provided...
Why do some birds (like Ostriches) have nomadic bones (which are bones that make it easier for flight but less structurely sound) when it's only worse for them, and some mammals that can fly (such as bats) have solid bones which is bad for flight? (This is from the second video at 1:35-2:41).
by Coexist on February 25th, 2010
Coexis you said "Here's a question from one of the vids I've provided...
Why do some birds (like Ostriches) have nomadic bones (which are bones that make it easier for flight but less structurely sound) when it's only worse for them, and some mammals that can fly (such as bats) have solid bones which is bad for flight? (This is from the second video at 1:35-2:41)" i don`t know i am not a biolagist :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
But yet you speak out against evolution?
That's not very objective, though from the few comments I've seen you said you've looked at both sides of the evidence. I gave you one viewpoint, now it's your choice to decide what to do with it.
btw, I'm not a biologist either, but if you're looking for a biologist donexodus2 is the guy.
This video may also be apropriate for the topic in this thread:
Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2#p/c/EBDE4D7DB15BED77/5/9V_2r2n4b5c
by Coexist on February 25th, 2010
how can this be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JANwVq018C4 when it clearly says in the bible "there was giants in the world in those days " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4jdrPG0C94 .. we can show video`s all day but it won`t change the facts :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Coexist god loves you , he has proved himself right yet again, you just did not see it because your logic was covering the truth . god bless you :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Coexis god loves you desperatly .and he will not stop
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Haha coexist the spaghetti monster stuff was funny.
But really, this is how evolutionists believe life started.
We were randomly created.
WRONG!
If we were an accident (which is what evolutionists believe) then why would the world be so complex?
I mean, how could plants provide oxygen for animals and animals provide carbon dioxide for plants.
And anyway, what's the proof that the world comes in pairs?
for example, man & woman, right & wrong, left & right, dumb & smart, good & evil, solid & liquid (gas & plasma) etc.
Everything is made for a purpose.
by P4ganiZonda on February 26th, 2010
Coexist you want spaghetti here you go it`s as real as your transitional fossils ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ugSKW4-QQ
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
what do i know about evolution ,i`m just a simple minded gimboid bha ha ha
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
Coexist ..i think that last link was broken try this one it has all the spaghetti you need http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ugSKW4-QQ
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
If life forms were to evolve by chance, then the environment would have to be a complex one, a simple environemnt is not only nonexistent, but not conducive to complex chemical reactions, in any case we're debating evolution, not the origins of life, so once *again* you stray off topic, not that we were on topic to start with!
Not all things in nature come in pairs, that's a nonsense in itself, good and evil are another human construct, some things are beneficial, some are not and others are indifferent, that is to say neither harmful or beneficial, some solids act like liquids under the right circumstances, see pyroclastic flows, and to quote Terry Pratchett "the faster you hit water, the more it acts like concrete.", a liquid that behaves like a solid.
The only universal constant is change, the only real difference is the rate of change, and what form that change takes.
Everything in existence is in a constant state of flux, changing from one state to another, evolution is simply one type of change, and like it or not, it exists and has shaped the lives of every living thing on this planet, and every other life bearing planet for that matter!
HKP- I did say a minimum of 3000 years!
I have heard of the giants reference in the bible, I have also heard of Sir Isaac Newton saying that he felt as though he were "standing on the shoulders of giants", which is a metaphor, I feel that biblical accounts of giants may well be metaphorical in nature, or simply a case of exaggerating the prowess of prominent people of the time, not a literal description of actual giants.
I see no reason why religion and science cannot coexist, it is only this creationist fervour that has got in the way, I have a strong religious belief, but I don't try to fit everything else into my philosophy of life, there is no reason to believe that a deity was not involved, but in the same way as you or I might be involved in planting flowers, we tend them and admire them, but they are left to do the growing by themselves.
Creationists start with a version of bible, then attempt to shoehorn the evidence into proving their point, leading to nonsensical psuedo science.
Which reminds me, I must watch the video you posted, a zoologist commenting on palaeontology, despite not believing in evolution should be interesting, especially since he's already undermined the transitional fossil myth in the first few minutes!
I am not getting heated, I can assure you, you would know if I were, losing my temper would be entirely counter productive!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 26th, 2010
That was a pretty rivveting spaghetti video. P4ganiZonda like I and what PocketNut just mentioned, evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life.
I don't understand, it's apparent that P4ganiZonda doesn't understand how evolution works, but yet he "refutes" it. I mean, he doesn't even know the difference between and ape and a monkey! Also, if you were educated on evolution at all you would know that life started out simplistically and evolved to complexity, not from complexity to complexity (like creationists claim).
Now that I got that off my chest, HKP I can't help if you're unwilling to look at the other side of the evidence. I provided videos on tansitional fossils, evolution vs. creationism, and questions for those who don't accept evolution. I'm not just spilling out videos, HKP, but providing evidence for why evolution is correct and why creationism is wrong, which is what you wanted right?
by Coexist on February 26th, 2010
PocketNut you said" he's already undermined the transitional fossil myth in the first few minutes!" . if you watch it properly the transitions on the things he explanes are transition of the tadpole into a frog that is transition of infant to adult of the same species and that also go`s for the living fossils they do not change into another species ,were does he state that they change into a differernt animal?
watch it properly in full and PAY ATTENTION !
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
Coexist like i said to pocketnut watch this video in full and PAY ATTENTION !
http://vimeo.com/3080507
you can try and debunk it together, you know 2 minds better than one and all that . cheerio pip pip old chap :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
HKP and P4ganiZonda, I have no idea why PocketNut and Coexist even bother continuing this discussion with the two of you when you obviously don't bother paying attention to any of what they write. Not only have they debunked every single one of your arguments, but they also continue to provide useful facts and attempt to put things into context for you. So I think it's time you started to pay attention. It's the least you can do. They are in fact doing you a service by trying to educate you. Would you disrespect someone who was volunteering their time to teach you to read or do math? Well maybe you would, but it's not very nice.
by Gratis on February 26th, 2010
Gratis you said ......
"HKP and P4ganiZonda, I have no idea why PocketNut and Coexist even bother continuing this discussion with the two of you when you obviously don't bother paying attention to any of what they write. Not only have they debunked every single one of your arguments, but they also continue to provide useful facts and attempt to put things into context for you. So I think it's time you started to pay attention. It's the least you can do. They are in fact doing you a service by trying to educate you. Would you disrespect someone who was volunteering their time to teach you to read or do math? Well maybe you would, but it's not very nice."....i say you do not like losing a debate and now how have they debunked me , in what way ,have they given me solid proof ...no have i given solid proof .....yes ..so how have they debunked me . gratis you lost the debate ages ago just sit back and relax as you are doing them no favours . if your on there side you are really letting your team mates down , please sit back and observe it`s your best bet ? :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
You realize it's not about winning or losing when we are just trying to educate you. If you refuse to listen to us then you are ultimately the one who loses. The reason I've stopped debating with you is because nothing seems to get through to you. If you want to know how you have been debunked, all you need to do is go back and actually read our posts. Better yet, go read some textbooks, read the links I provided, or search for scientific texts yourself on the internet. There's a whole world of knowledge out there if only you could pull your head out of the ground for just a second.
by Gratis on February 26th, 2010
Gratis be honest with your self and swollow your pride because pride is one of the deadly sins be careful of it . you are in no way educating me as it is me that is your teacher you are the students . you just don`t seem to get it you can not explane gods plan with science ! and now please sit back and learn !
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
HKP, just read the arguments that Gratis and the others have presented to you, then read your own. If you can understand why we laugh at you and think of you as ignorant and uneducated, then congradulations, you still have some hope left in that empty brain of yours. If not, and you don't see the problem with stating opinions and calling them facts, while ignoring the well supported arguments of others, then that's the reason why you exist as a part-time janitor.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
We've tried to be rational and help you understand the fallacies of creationism and its workings, but all you've show us is your ability to act like a cornered wild animal, unyeilding and not open to discuss is a civil manner, therefore we will treat you as such.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
Kaleidoscope your the one with the scientific brain you prove me wrong and please make it quick because i`m gonna have my dinner . the argument was" Was the World Created in Six Days?" i have proved it to be correct and proved gods existance ....so if you do not under stand the concept of a supreme deity then you will never under stand gods plan and will try forever trying to explane gods plan with science and you will be banging your head off the wall looking for the LOGICAL reason for every thing in existance when all you have to do is read the bible and you will see for your self ,but that`s to "UNSCIENTIFIC" for you ,there has to be a million different numbers so you can calculate something other wise it must be dismissed . i`ll keep gods truth in favour of your truth ,because you just do not get it about gods plan and you never will while you use science is that clear or would you like me to draw a picture . if you have nothing else to add to this debate other than insinuating that i have no inteligence well i think you better go back over this thread and have a closer look . have a nice day :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
Kaleidoscope as for acting in a civil manner it is me that has been civil ,all you evolutionists when you can not win a debate you resort to insults (although i find them very amusing ). if you do not believe me then have a good read and see who has been unsivalised :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
PocketNut can you send me a message as i can not get a message out unless some one contacts me first, my message thing is not working properly .i need to talk to you privatly please :) god bless you :):)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
So basically, all you just did was copy+paste my entire argument and changed the antagonist to...atheists? We're not the ones that were stating opinions and acting as if it was common knowledge. We weren't the ones getting rash over a simple matter of discussion.
Second, you claim you've proved God's existence with this childish rant you call an argument? Behind your poorly worded phrases and poorly constructed arguments, there is nothing but the common creationist horseshit.
Third, I am not commenting on your arguments. This isn't a matter of religion nor is this relevant to the question. I am commenting on your ability to direct and give rebuttals, and your ability as a person to rationalize and be open to other opinions. Instead, you've done none of these and resorted to immature insults and blatantly false statements and expect us to believe them.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
Gratis, look, I am paying attention to PocketNut and the other dude! (whatever his name was :D )
What do want me to say to them?
"Ow I love you intelligent minds of science"
haha if you want me to say that then wait until I devolve into an ape again!
haha
(Just Joking)
No one is winning.
I'm very sure that PocketNut and Coexist won't be convinced that evolution is fake, even if the world was against them!
And obviously we won't change our minds about what we think.
This is more or less a pointless debate ( DON'T GET ME WRONG, BARE WITH ME) but no one is agreeing with each other.
by P4ganiZonda on February 26th, 2010
For the other readers of this comment, if there are any, I'll give you an example of the debating "teqniques" that HKP utilizes in his arguments.
1> Childish ranting
"Kaleidoscope your the one with the scientific brain you prove me wrong and please make it quick because i`m gonna have my dinner . the argument was" Was the World Created in Six Days?" i have proved it to be correct and proved gods existance ....so if you do not under stand the concept of a supreme deity then you will never under stand gods plan and will try forever trying to explane gods plan with science and you will be banging your head off the wall looking for the LOGICAL reason for every thing in existance when all you have to do is read the bible and you will see for your self ,but that`s to "UNSCIENTIFIC" for you ,there has to be a million different numbers so you can calculate something other wise it must be dismissed . i`ll keep gods truth in favour of your truth ,because you just do not get it about gods plan and you never will while you use science is that clear or would you like me to draw a picture . if you have nothing else to add to this debate other than insinuating that i have no inteligence well i think you better go back over this thread and have a closer look . have a nice day :)"
As you can see, it is quite a spectacle to witness when someone has the ability to use grammatical errors and spelling faults in every phrase of his argument, as well as completely ignoring proper syntax and punctuation, and still expects the readers of his argument to take him seriously. Childish ranting and immature and unnessesry comments such as
"i have proved it to be correct and proved gods existance ....so if you do not under stand the concept of a supreme deity then you will never under stand gods plan and will try forever trying to explane gods plan" are to be expected in a child's arguments, but for this to be present in all of a grown man's arguments as well as in his rebuttals is truly a wonder.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
2> "Holier-than-thou" attitude
"i`ll keep gods truth in favour of your truth ,because you just do not get it about gods plan and you never will while you use science is that clear or would you like me to draw a picture"
"ps gratis you stil claim you got the truth where is your proof ,as for that so called evidence you know i pulled that apart with the bible and you still try to push it even though i showed it does not work :)"
"ps if you want to see a real debate read my answers fully from top to bottom on my thread on this same question then you will see in full all that you need to know :)"
"exactly P4ganiZonda truth is coming to the ignorant scientific community with there text book answers"
"oh by the way i have studied evelution gratis ,sorry mate i`m one up on you there because not only have i studied evelution but also creationism and find evelution wanting and can honestly say science of evolution is false ."
This type of technique is similar to childish ranting, but focuses more on the act of making people feel "inferior" simply because they do not believe in God. It does the exact opposite though, since the only one in this situation that doesn't think that HKP is illiterate and immature is HKP himself.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
3> Unsupported arguments as well as immature rebuttals
"actually there is vegertarian piranhas ,i know nothing of "Dr" Carl E Baugh but old biblical times animals and people lived alot longer grew bigger so a giant vegertarian piranha would be very possible"
a couple of scientists done an experiment to see if it was true what the bible says about every thing growing bigger because of the dencer atmosphere and no uv rays because of the firmament , so they got a couple of piranhas in a big tank inside a hypabaric chamber with no uv rays entering and pressurised it to 50% extra like it was 5-6000 yrs ago ,the piranhas grew to 4 times their normal size and lived alot longer they may even be alive today ."
"elephants with large tusks are mammoths they died out in the ice age ."
"badadee go for it prove creation wrong with one fossil and i will do the same to prove the bible is correct against your scientific theory`s ...........i ...fossil........ each............."
"i have looked at both sides of the evolution argument and can honestly say the theory of evolution does not work there is no evidence for it other than some scientists who we are supposed to trust because they got letters after there name and adorn a white coat then say this is the truth , i suppose it`s a form of faith aswell, so it is text book ignorence"
"Kaleidoscope as for acting in a civil manner it is me that has been civil ,all you evolutionists when you can not win a debate you resort to insults (although i find them very amusing ). if you do not believe me then have a good read and see who has been unsivalised :)"
As you can see from the above examples, HKP utilizes the common kindergarten-level argument, which is the equivalent of saying "No, you". By doing so, HKP can avoid answering a question and instead, put off the argument and create space to flood with another rant or insult.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
Kaleidoscope you said
"As you can see, it is quite a spectacle to witness when someone has the ability to use grammatical errors and spelling faults in every phrase of his argument, as well as completely ignoring proper syntax and punctuation, and still expects the readers of his argument to take him seriously. Childish ranting and immature and unnessesry comments such as
"i have proved it to be correct and proved gods existance ....so if you do not under stand the concept of a supreme deity then you will never under stand gods plan and will try forever trying to explane gods plan" are to be expected in a child's arguments, but for this to be present in all of a grown man's arguments as well as in his rebuttals is truly a wonder."
all you are doing now is using my grammer to justify your argument how is that a debate , are you going to debate me on "Was the World Created in Six Days?" or are you going to carry on insulting me (like i say i find it very funny ) or are you going to prove me wrong ? if not then go some where else to get your jolly`s as i am very thick skinned and you are not . if all you want in life is what you persieve as true then ok but as a debater you are not worthy ! say what you like do what you like it is no buisness of mine . good by and happy hunting .
oh and just one more thing NO BODY HAS PROVED ME WRONG AS OF YET and you are not capable of debating . since you come into this debate it has gone pear shaped and turned sour so i say GOODBY you contributed nothing and you got nothing :)god bless you and be safe
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
Kaleidoscope at least the others put there case forward and debated . :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
4> Hypocrisy
"you should try it some time it does work i mean why limit your self to just one side of the argument see both sides in full then decide what you think the truth is :)"
If you have read our comments, then you would know that it isn't us who hasn't been reading your posts, it is you.
"Kaleidoscope as for acting in a civil manner it is me that has been civil ,all you evolutionists when you can not win a debate you resort to insults (although i find them very amusing )."
If you aren't aware, there are many people reading these comments, and I haven't said a word that is hypocritical or demeaning in any way.
"i don`t know i am not a biolagist :)"
Then don't act like one.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
"Kaleidoscope at least the others put there case forward and debated . :)"
As I have said before, I have no interest is the question nor the topic. Debating whether or not the world was created in 6 days is not relevant to my interests. It is common knowledge that it isn't.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
"all you are doing now is using my grammer to justify your argument how is that a debate , are you going to debate me on "Was the World Created in Six Days?" or are you going to carry on insulting me (like i say i find it very funny ) or are you going to prove me wrong ? if not then go some where else to get your jolly`s as i am very thick skinned and you are not . if all you want in life is what you persieve as true then ok but as a debater you are not worthy ! say what you like do what you like it is no buisness of mine . good by and happy hunting .
oh and just one more thing NO BODY HAS PROVED ME WRONG AS OF YET and you are not capable of debating . since you come into this debate it has gone pear shaped and turned sour so i say GOODBY you contributed nothing and you got nothing :)god bless you and be safe"
I know. It is not my goal to contribute to this argument. I (like yourself) find pointing out your flaws amusing.
Xenu bless and may you find your brain :)
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
i do not act like anything for starters and i say to you right now in front of every body that are reading these comments PROVE GOD WRONG OR PROVE EVOLUTION , that is what the debate is about and so far YOU HAVE NOT EVEN SAID A WORD ABOUT IT !. .........so what now, are you game or are you not . if not then goodby :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
Kaleidoscope then we have both had a good laugh :) god bless you and be happy :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
just take 1 intro to biology class in college....just one and youll be taught how to understand evolution. u sound uneducated.
by bthcas on February 26th, 2010
bthcas just take 1 intro to gods plan class.a.1 in the bible....just one and you`ll be taught how to understand creation . i am very educated thank you very much .if you have nothing to put forward to the debate then get some one that can ! :) .....mmmmmmmm
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
not one evolutionist can understand . i pray to the almighty you do understand one day . your soul is on the line here . wake up stop being insulted and see what is going on . we have all got to see the truth ..science is not the bible and the bible is not science .....so where do we go from here .....well for starters read the bible and find out :).... revelations is just around the corner ......WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ...........?
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
AMEN! Okay say if we did evolve from an ape..WHO MADE THE MONKEY? You think that they were just always here? Who made space stars grass dirt???? Ill tell ya who GOD ! People didn't have history books back then they kept it all in a diary. It just sounds stupid to me when people say oh well the bible is written by man why would all those men write about one man? There has to be truth to that. We have history books now with everything documented well the bible is our history book also the sooner people realize that the better
by iLOVEJESUS on February 26th, 2010
The myth that humans evolved from monkeys has already been discussed, it is a creationist nonsense designed to muddy the waters of reasoned debate, so that neither reason or debate can be used to disillusion those who think that science and religion are somehow seperate.
Our ancestors evolved from primates, specifically ape like creatures, who in turn evolved from lemur like creatures, who evolved from earlier mammals, that evolved from mammal like reptiles, who started out as reptiles after evolving from amphibians, who would have begun as lobe finned fish, and so on.
The ONLY source of reference that backs up creationist ideas, is a religious text written before the rediscovery of America and Australia, you don't see bison or kangaroos mentioned in accounts of creation, any more than you see the plethora of extinct mega-fauna.
Dogma is a pernicious and fast spreading form of fraud, I refer you back to the liars Hovind and Baugh and their "giant vegetarian pirahnas".
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 27th, 2010
ILOVEJESUS is right.
Hahaha and don't say I am uneducated because that's just dumb.
I'm literally a straight A student in science and math (except for the science of evolution)
Anyway HKP is a great guy, so you should stop ridiculing him.
He stands up for what he believes in, even when everyone is against him, that's why he's great at debating.
Thanks HKP ;)
And you evolutionists, please at least be sorta like Gratis ,he's not perfect, everyone isn't, but at least be more understanding.
by P4ganiZonda on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut I read about evolution a while ago and it said before we were "ape like creature" we evolved from creatures like squirrels.
by P4ganiZonda on February 27th, 2010
P4ganiZonda is that why we keep our nuts in a bag , dam i`m a tree dwelling nut cruncher ,now what am i going to do :( bha ha ha
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
is this how the sqirrel got up the evolutionary tree
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
I *really* shouldn't have laughed at that, but there's spit all over my monitor!!
PZ- Yes, ape like creatures, not necessarily actual apes, or indeed lemurs, as I said lemur like creatures.
I have not accused you in partcular of being uneducated, I'm fairly certain I haven't accused any one person of any such thing, but you do lack even a basic comprehension of what evolutionary science is all about.
There is no evidence that fish (or any other species for that matter) will grow to gigantic sizes in a high pressure environment or that said environment ever existed, no evidence of a crystal firmament, no evidence to support biblical accounts of a worldwide flood, or any explanation of how all the animals fitted onto one boat, much less how they were rounded up from undiscovered continents.
On the other hand, evolution has been observed in bacteria, studied in DNA, plate tectonics, sedimentary layers, ice core samples, magnetic particles in solidified lava and fossils have shown us that the world is far older than 6000 years.
We have species seperated by thousands of miles of ocean who are neverthless related, despite being utterly incapable of reaching each other for many millions of years.
None of this backs the creationist standpoint, but kudos to you for trying!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 27th, 2010
Hahaha ok PocketNut, I guess you didn't accuse me of being uneducated :P
Anyway I believe that you are educated, and you say smart things but there is some proof of the great flood.
Scientist have found sea shells high up upon the mountains and the have not the slightest idea why!
Obviously because there was a great flood.
Well thanks for your information!
I really appreciate the time you gave to write all of that stuff!
:)
by P4ganiZonda on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut oi you called me uneducated bha ha ha .to be honest with you i thaught the debate was great ,i`m sorry if i have been abbrasive with you but it was getting quite heated , i think your ok not a bad fella oh and sorry for winding you up just to get a reaction i could not help my self . the bottom line is you have got your truth and i have got my truth we are never going to see eye to eye as our beliefs are very opposite , but hay not a bad debate i think it was my longest one .. ps and just one more thing i would like to say mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm bha ha ha
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
yeah I agree with HKP.
It was a good debate.
by P4ganiZonda on February 27th, 2010
anyhoo there you go
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
Sure, you will never believe in evolution because we don't have all the answers, and I will never believe that the invisible man in the sky made everything with magic.
HKP- I did point out your English wasn't up to scratch, but I note that on the whole your spelling has improved!
PZ- The shells on the mountain got there because two tectonic plates collided, and one of them buckled to form mountains, pushing what was once the bottom of the sea or a lake/river up and taking the local fauna with it, elementary geology really! Not due to a worldwide flood, hence we still have species of animal such as kangaroo, sloth and kakapo (just barely!). There is evidence of massive flood events, but at different times, and in different places, and most not contemporary to the bilical era. Certainly at the time such a flood would have seemed to be worldwide, hence the biblical account is not entirely inaccurate.
It has been a good debate, but it has become heated and it may be wise to end it here, but I do not concede defeat in any way, my belief (for want of a word more suitable) remains unchanged.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut cheers .. the shells on the mountain was closed all of them, this means they was alive when the waters receded . if the shells come from a mountain on the sea floor under the sea there would be open shells there aswell ,the shells was on the mountain because the mountain was suddenly cover by water by a worlwide flood . so how do you explane the fact all the shells was closed ?
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut this time we have all got to stay calm stick to facts and i understand your problem with not being able to prove transition of fossils so my ideas this we will dismiss the fossil evidence as lack of evidence so there for we can`t use it in the debate ,there is a couple of other ways i can prove my case and i think there is other ways to prove your case so we could start with my last question and go from there . this time only facts to do with the question of the debate nothing else , if it does get heated for what ever reason we will postpone the debate until the next day when we calm down ..is it a deal :)
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
we didn't evolve from apes; we have a common ancestor with them.
by kayla666lee on February 27th, 2010
P4ganiZonda, wrote:
"I'm very sure that PocketNut and Coexist won't be convinced that evolution is fake, even if the world was against them!"
I'm pretty sure that I speak for both PocketNut and Coexist when I say that if the overwhelming evidence was in favor of creationism we would all change our tune. I don't base my beliefs on wishful thinking - I don't believe something to be true simply because I want it to be. My conclusions are based on where the evidence takes me. So far, there is exactly 0 (zero) evidence for creationism or young earth creationism. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. So it really isn't a matter of debate or opinion, it's a fact. Debating it is like debating whether or not the earth is flat. And, as ridiculous as it sounds, a case could be made (and believe it or not but I've actually seen it done) for the earth being flat, using the exact same style of debate and distortion of facts that you and HKP have been using in this discussion. But of course the shape of the earth seems like a more tangible concept to the layman than evolution or the age of the earth, which is exactly why education is so important. If you and HKP had taken the suggestion mentioned here earlier of taking just one intro to biology (or geoscience) class in college I think it would really open your eyes to how little you know and how much there is to learn. Now don't get me wrong, I am not calling you uneducated, but you have demonstrated close to zero knowledge in biology and geoscience – so these are obviously areas where your education is lacking.
I'd like to round off by pointing out something that I think is important for you both to keep in mind: nowhere during this debate has anyone (that I know of) tried to disprove God. In fact, it has been explicitly pointed out that it is not the job of science to disprove deities. What can be disproven, on the other hand, are specific claims such as the earth being young or that species do not evolve. So this has not been an atheism vs theism discussion, it has been a fact vs misinformation discussion. You don't need to reject established scientific facts in order to believe in deities. I just want you to keep that in mind so you don't think that you must bury your head in the ground in order to maintain your belief in God. If you want to believe in God then go right ahead, I'm not going to tell you that you need to stop. But what I will tell you is when you are making a fool of yourself and talking about things you know absolutely nothing about. Consider it a courtesy, kind of like a gentle elbow in the side if we were out in public to stop you from prattling off about something that would make people look at you funny. So instead of getting angry when we correct you, just consider us your friends looking out for you ;)
Take care, the both of you! It's been fun talking to you and reading your crazy arguments :D
by Gratis on February 27th, 2010
Gratis .. you said
"I'm pretty sure that I speak for both PocketNut and Coexist when I say that if the overwhelming evidence was in favor of creationism we would all change our tune. I don't base my beliefs on wishful thinking"
so what you are saying is you will go with an idea if it is popular ?
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
Anyway Gratis what is it your problem if we believe in God?
Were not forcing you to believe.
And anyway it's my problem if I get an "F" on my evolution classes not yours.
Maybe other subjects interest me more.
:p
Okay, anyway thanks for "teaching me" more about evolution!
haha
by P4ganiZonda on February 28th, 2010
Gratis
what about them fossils that took millions of years to form eh ?
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
PZ- Gratis specifically and clearly stated that he has *no* problem with you believing in your god, any more than I do, what he *is* saying is you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, but don't go pushing them on us as if they are solid proven facts.
I happen to have a strong religious belief, as I have mentioned, however I do not see fit to push it onto others, particularly as a science.
As for the shells, one of the side effects of tectonic plates sliding together is volcanic activity, a volcanic eruption can deposit large amounts of sediment very quickly, as can resulting tidal waves (aka tsunami), preventing the shells from opening post mortem, and creating ideals conditions for fossilisation, you can see vast amounts of fossils created when buried during storms on Bracklesham Bay beach in the south of the UK, some of which are still articulated as in life, I have a couple here at home, although the articulation, as I discovered, is very fragile after 45 million years!!
HKP- If proof arose of the existence of the christian god, and that he did indeed create the world, I would drop evolution like a hot potato, if the ideas of creationists became popular, yet presented no more evidence to support them, I would offer a dissenting opinion until they are proven, even if I were the only person on Earth not to believe.
I agree that Gratis was indeed speaking in a way I would personally approve of, so I endorse his opinion.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 28th, 2010
PocketNut you said
"As for the shells, one of the side effects of tectonic plates sliding together is volcanic activity, a volcanic eruption can deposit large amounts of sediment very quickly, as can resulting tidal waves"
some of these shells have been found on some of the highest mountain ranges also they have been found on top of everest , how do you explane that , there is no tsunami`s no volcanic euruptions as i imagine these mountains have never erupted . how is this ?.
did you see my last post here it is again.
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp
:) :) :)
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
Tectonic plates rubbing together cause volcanic activity, volcanic ash rains down choking the river/lake/sea, the shellfish suffocate and are preserved, the plates continue to push together, one is subducted under the other, pushing the uppermost plate upwards and forming mountains with shells on top.
As for the link, bone is denser than felt, and fossilisation does not always occurs in limestone caves, if you were to dissolve the calcification, you would find the remains of the felt hat.
Fossilisation is where minerals *replace* the organic material entirely, not just encase them in stone.
Also fossils can be dated relatively accurately according to the rock strata in which they are found, the creationist fallacy of polystrate fossils has been debunked by more than one scientist, on more than one occasion, although not quite as often as the "evolutionists can't explain how the eye evolved" myth.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 28th, 2010
PocketNut
how long would it have taken for mount everest to get to the height it is today from being on the sea bed ?
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
It depends upon the height of the mountain and the process that formed it, as far as we can tell Everest is quite young, at around 50-60 MYA, however some volcanic mountains take a 'mere' 400,000 years, plenty of time for the initial seismic/volcanic activity to bury and then lift the fauna of a body of water to the top of a mountain, assuming they were at ground level in the first place, life occurs in mountain streams all over the world, the White Cloud Mountain Minnow, or 'Tanicthys Albonubes' (literally "Tans' fish of the mountains") is one fish species I can attest to being one such species.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 28th, 2010
so if everest is that old then why have the fossils that are present in the air on a mountain being hit by strong winds not worn away , surly afer all that exposure to the elements over all that time they would have been eroded or shown signs of a lot of erosion .
these shells was found intact and whole
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
Ok PocketNut you may not believe me, but, you must admit that there is some proof to support creationism.
Please answer this question.
Scientists believe that about a hundred billion years ago the earth, the sun, and all the planets of the solar system were nothing but a cloud of cold dust particles swirling through empty space.
Gradually, these particles were attracted to each other and came together to form a huge spinning disk. As it spun, the disk separated into rings, and the furious motion made the particles white-hot.
The center of the disk became the sun, and the particles in the outer rings turned into large fiery balls of gas and molten-liquid. Then they began to cool and condense and take on solid form. And at last, some four or five billion years ago , they became Earth, Mars, Venus and the other planets.
After this to take place how did the moon happen to orbit the earth and how many billions of years ago?
Please answer my question.
by P4ganiZonda on February 28th, 2010
PocketNut
ps you got me on the hat but only for now.
give me time ,the hat is not over just postponed bha ha ha :) :) :)
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
:)
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
"Scientists believe that about a hundred billion years ago the earth, the sun, and all the planets of the solar system were nothing but a cloud of cold dust particles swirling through empty space."
Pulled that one out of the hat I see. You do know that the earth is about 15 billion years old not "a hundred billion years."
Gratis and PocketNut, I don't think truer words have been spoken by Laurence J. Peter: "Against logic there is no armor like ignorance."
by Coexist on February 28th, 2010
Coexist
we are trying the debate unheated and calm ,please show evidence and facts not personal views thankyou :) :) :)
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
I would tell you that I showed you videos regarding transitional fossils, I would mention that I likewise offered a video on why creationism is faulty and I would even go as far as to say I offered a video on questions for creationists who don't accept evolution. But I get the strange feeling that that wouldn't do any good.
by Coexist on February 28th, 2010
Nobody knows exactly how the Moon came to orbit the Earth, although my personal theory is that due to it's smaller mass it was "captured" by the Earths gravity, one thing is for certain, without the Moon regulating the tides of the oceans and stirring up volcanic activity, this would be a dead world, despite being in the so called "Goldilocks zone" (which is broader considerably band of habitable space than some creationists believe).
As for the shells, found whole and intact on the side of a mountain, after being buried by volcanic sediment? Easy, the volcanic sediment would have hardened around them, then slowly eroded, exposing the shells intact, and in a pre-mortem state.
The artic and antartic are areas rich in fossils, which are often buried under many years of ice, each layer built up over tens of thousands of years, and like tree rings (which dendrochronologists have shown go back at least 15,000 years, forcing creationists to mve the goalposts again back from 6,000 years), show that the Earth is not only ancient, but trap particulate matter, alowing us to analyze the atmosphere in which those layers were formed.
I'm afraid that I as yet, have seen no evidence for creationism, just a lot of attempts to disprove science by pointing to missing evidence, or misunderstandings of known evidence.
HKP- You're a fine one to talk!! ;-)
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 28th, 2010
PocketNut
i wanted a clean debate with no more arguing and heat that is why i asked coexist to keep to facts and not views i did not intend to insult any body , as far as i`m concerned any one can join in as long as it does not go pear shaped (i was talking about myself on that matter aswell i know i have been abrasive and sarcastic and that was one of the reasons it went pear shaped last time ). so coexist when you are ready with your vids please go forword with them i will look at them in full and that should go for both sides .
right are we ready to carry on .
but lets all take our turn in a orderly manner that way we are not going to try and answer 5 different questions at a time and that goes for any body on my side aswell
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
:) :) :)
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
Klaatu Barada Nikto
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
haha sorry about the "hundred billion years" stuff.
It was just a mistake!
Well PocketNut I think you are very smart and you have many good points. It sounds very logical that the moon would enter orbit around the earth because of it's smaller mass. I believe many of the things you say, but I still believe in creationism.
It still sounds weird to me that one day, even though there was never life before, lighting struck the earth and several molecules have combined to make the first basic life structure.
And PocketNut creatonists think that the earth was 6,000-8,000 years old not 6,000 lol.
;)
by P4ganiZonda on March 1st, 2010
P4ganiZonda wrote:
”And anyway it's my problem if I get an "F" on my evolution classes not yours.
Maybe other subjects interest me more.”
And yet you act like a know-it-all. Don't you think it's a tad bit arrogant to think you can challenge the findings of established evolutionary biologists with only an F in biology?
by Gratis on March 1st, 2010
Yes, the original creationist figure was set at around 6-8000 years, but was adjusted to around 15,000 years to accomodate the solid proof of dendrochronology.
Had it occurred to you that you can believe in both creation and evolution?
I put it to you that the facts I have presented here can be held to be true, and that you can also believe that the initial 'creative spark', was provided by a deity of your choice.
The only objection I have, is the literal interpretation of biblical stories, and the nonsense used by creationists to justify said interpretations.
I have just stumbled upon Ray "banana man" Comfort, there is a place for him, and it's called comedy central, I nearly soiled myself laughing at him!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 1st, 2010
PocketNut
how old is the planet and our moon and also ........who.......ray banana man ....who`s that ?
by hong kong phooey on March 1st, 2010
PocketNut wrote:
"I have just stumbled upon Ray "banana man" Comfort, there is a place for him, and it's called comedy central, I nearly soiled myself laughing at him!"
The first time I saw that I laughed so hard I nearly soiled myself too! Especially the part about "just the right shape for the human mouth" LMAO!
HKP, since you don't seem to have had the pleasure: here you go. Enjoy :D
by Gratis on March 1st, 2010
yeah see that .
by hong kong phooey on March 1st, 2010
It's even shaped to fit in your hand!!! Hahahahaha!!! Classic comedy moment!
The whole selective breeding of cash crops just passed him right by!
Sorry, just being a bit immature there, but in the full video, he was arguing that a banana and a coke can have design features in common! People making idiotic statements like these do not help your cause at all!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 1st, 2010
... doesn't squirt in your face, and even has a point at the top for ease of entry! :D This video still makes me laugh when I see it.
by Gratis on March 1st, 2010
PocketNut
the top of everest ,at what rate does it erode away and what rate does it rise .
also the shells would have had more erosion if they was getting exposed bit by bit ,are you saying only the the rock around the shells are the only thing to erode also mount everest is not made up of volcanic rock .
if this was the case it would not be the tallest mountain in the world because of the erosion rate .
how come the shells are only found on or near the serface and not deeper ,if it was the sea bed then you will find layers of shells representing the differernt times of the ages ,they would be found in layers like sedimentery rock .
the bottom of the mountain would be younger would`nt it seeing as it is pushing up ,there is the lack of shells compared to the top why are people not finding these shells half way up surely you would find more layers of shell`s in layers there seeing as it was all see bed .
by hong kong phooey on March 1st, 2010
The speed of erosion would depend entirely upon weather conditions, as for the state of the shells, I'm not entirely certain, however the shells from Bracklesham Bay I collected must have been exposed to the action of the waves, but are beautifully preserved, chiefly I feel because the sand is less resistant than the fossils, which explains why the shells on Everest can erode from their rocky tomb without themselves being eroded.
Thinking about how they could have been buried, when tectonic plates collide and form mountains, some of the crust will buckle and fold over on itself, before being pushed upwards to become a mountain range, this would explain how the shells are thinly spaced in some areas, but as I have just discovered, up to ten feet deep in others, and also explains why Everest in not composed of volcanic rock. Without actually excavating the mountain itself, or carrying out some sort of geophysical survey, it is difficult to tell what fossils lie buried deep within the mountain, if any.
Erosion itself is seldom uniform, it can affect parts of a mountain, whilst leaving others untouched, and according to the information I have found on the subject, Everest is still growing, presumably faster than it is being worn away.
Geology is not my number one subject, but as far as I recall, rocks are grouped in one of at least three ways, igneous (formed by heat), sedimentary (compressed layers of substrate) and crystalline structures (often formed by a combination of extreme heat and pressure).
Of course fossils too have their own unique makeup, so I stand to be corrected if I have missed some out!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 1st, 2010
we are not talking about shells from a sand swept beach we are talking shells on top of a mountain swept by millions of years of wind and grit.
as shells are worn away on a beach they would erode very quickly and would be nothing within decades as of shells from a mountain that was worn away by wind and grit they would take longer thus showing for longer ,so why is it that the rock has worn away but not the shells , is it that shells are harder than rock , now we know there is no lava just hard rock.
by hong kong phooey on March 1st, 2010
Gratis wrote:
"And yet you act like a know-it-all. Don't you think it's a tad bit arrogant to think you can challenge the findings of established evolutionary biologists with only an F in biology?"
I didn't say I get F's in bioligy Gratis!
I clearly stated that it's not your problem if I get F's not that I do!
It's clear enough as it is, so please don't say that I am arrogant.
And I don't act like I know it all Gratis!
haha sometimes you make me laugh Gratis with your funny comments! XD
And PocketNut, yes, It has occurred to me that I could believe in both evolution and creationism but that can only be half true.
It can't be entirly true because evolution is based on single cellular organisms evolving into other organisms.
As I have stated in Proof 4 was it?
Anyway, I don't believe in evolution even though I could.
PocketNut, how did the Earth earn it's core? (changing the subject a little bit here)
I mean the big hot glowy thingy (I sound sooooo un-scientific right now XD) in the center of the earth?
How did it get there?
I know that it's all magma (lava) that's there and other molten rocks such as sulfur but how did it get so hot?
by P4ganiZonda on March 2nd, 2010
PZ, I didn't even say that you are arrogant. I reserved judgment on that by asking you if you thought your opinions weren't "a tad bit arrogant". So since you got confused the first time, let me see if I can rephrase this so you can give me a straight answer: what exactly makes you qualified to challenge the findings of established biologists and geologists?
by Gratis on March 2nd, 2010
PZ- The Earth is still cooling from its initial formation, the core is not a static ball of lava, the Earths rotation, the effects of our Moon and Earths magnetic field keep it from sitting still long enough to cool, although it has cooled quite a lot over billions of years, resulting in lower levels of volcanic activity, it is nevertheless far from solidifying.
HKP- The shells structure has been replaced by minerals that have literally replaced the organic components of the original organism, the surrounding rock would have been composed of silt or sand, which apart from being compressed, is much less resilient to erosion due to it's relatively large grain size, compared to the soluble minerals which fossilised the shells.
Aside from this, the thin layer of shells we see in certain areas, may simply be the remains of a much deeper layer of fossils, the rest having been eroded and destroyed, whilst their compatriots were preserved beneath, it is very hard to tell without actually studying examples in situ, or at least seeing pictures, although pictures can not only be falsified, but even if accurate may only represent the best preserved examples, and would therefore not representative of the whole.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 2nd, 2010
I understand PocketNut. You make good points :)
Ow and Gratis, what makes me qualified?
Hahaha this isn't your everyday Communistic KGB secret meeting!
Anyone can join to argue it's not like you need a passport to enter debates or something. I can challenges biologists if I want, their job is to stay their ground and prove me wrong or ignore me if they want. And I don't think I'm "a tad bit arrogant" thank you :)
by P4ganiZonda on March 3rd, 2010
PocketNut
how old is the earth and the moon
by hong kong phooey on March 3rd, 2010
PZ, of course you are free to debate whatever you want, even if you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm just calling you out on it.
by Gratis on March 3rd, 2010
I understand the Earth to be in the region of 4.5 billion years, give or take 0.1 of a billion. Presumably, if the Moon was formed at the same time, it would be of a similar age.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 3rd, 2010
what purposes does the moon have other than affecting tides
by hong kong phooey on March 3rd, 2010
in the bible it says "and there was giants in the land in those days ".....if the bible is a lie then creation did not happen ....explane these fossils
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udrNXiZipXY
by hong kong phooey on March 3rd, 2010
The Moon also agitates the surface crust of our planet, causing a certain amount of continental drift and volcanic activity, it also keeps the Earths core from remaining still enough to lose all of its heat, if none of these things happened our planet would resemble Mars, cold and ostensibly dead.
The Youtube link does not appear to work, can you provide the title of the video instead or another link?
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 3rd, 2010
it works ok here but here it ia again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udrNXiZipXY
then try this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz5h0lHo4Ek
by hong kong phooey on March 3rd, 2010
Ok, it works now, if you call it up and pause it at 3:50, just before the picture changes, you can see a logo in the corner, it reads "worth1000.com", if you check it out, which I reccommend because it is a cool site, you will find that it is a photo-editing community, dedicated to producing images that do not exist in the real world, however some con artists have cynically exploited this particular set of images to provide "proof" of giants.
See here for the more artful version, which has had the web address removed: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-skeleton.html
I must admit to losing interest in the second video very quickly, I may revisit it if I should find myself in a masochistic mood one day!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 4th, 2010
haha ok Gratis. ;)
good day!
by P4ganiZonda on March 4th, 2010
Haha pocket nut I have proof for ya! ;)
ok,
As the moon rotates around the earth, it is slowly moving away from the earth about 3 inches a year. The moon entered the earth's gravitation about 4.1 billion years ago. If the moon is slowly moving away from the earth 3 inches every year, and it took 4.1 billion years for evolution to take place, the moon would be 12,300,000,000 inches away. If that was true the moon would have been a long way from the earth about over 10,000 years ago!
by P4ganiZonda on March 4th, 2010
PocketNut
so you are saying all these are photo shop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb-m3Yj0dQI
do you realise that the governments around the world are trying to keep the real history of our past from us , not all can be dismissed as hoaxes
is this one a hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt313qq3h6M
i just looked up the fella that says he done it in photo shop ,no wonder he says he done it his sites are for sale so he needs something to grab attention .
there are to many pictures on the web for them all to be fake
even the one that is supposedly photo shoped , his sight does not show any proof other than different articles saying that they cdome from 2 different places , he shows no proof and even if he did it still does not explane all of the giant skeleton pictures .
there is no way all of the photo`s are fake as alot of the photo`s i have seen are historical facts that the government could not cover up.
watch this vid in full screen and look very carefully pay attention to the baby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKkoSy3_fhQ
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
PZ- Thats 3.8 centimetres per year, and it's orbit is expected to stabilse at about 16 times it's current size, at which point an Earth day will be equivalent to 55 current Earth days, however if current calculations are correct, this will not occur until after the Earth has been consumed by the Sun going supernova in 7 billion years time.
HKP- Yes there are documented examples of people growing taller than average, however 36 feet, as proposed by the last video I viewed, is ridiculous. I'll follow your links this evening after work and get back to you!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 4th, 2010
P4ganiZonda
that means the moon would have had to start its orbit nearly touching earth ,if this was the case the earths gravitational pull would have made the moon part of earth not a seperate satelite
also being that close it seams to me that the moon would have been pulled apart , we would have parts of the moon present on earth ,there is not .
i have got another arguement about the moon but i will delay that one until later.
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
PocketNut
are you telling me that nothing could get out of proportion in history then if that is true then what about the dinosours , the brontosourus for example , how big was this lizard .
in genesis every thing lived longer as for lizards they do not stop growing all of there life (there may have been some that was the exception to that rule but most do grow all of there lives ) so if a lizard lives for long enough it would be huge like a brotasourus or maybe a trex .
all that has to happen is for an animal to live longer , in the human case the pictures that i showed you these was the children of the fallen angels , if you look in the bible you will find that these fallen angels was small as grasshoppers to us so they mixed human dna with them selves and produced the giants (they manipulated the human gene pool so as to grow giants so as to make us as grasshoppers to them .
the giants was only half human , this is why noah built the ark so as to kill off the hybrid humans they was not perfect in there generations but noah and his family was , they had adams blood running through there veins this was pure blood from when god created him .
so you see that giant humans are very possible even 36 feet and proberbly bigger .
ps sorry about the last vid but i was showing you that because i was screaming at your ideas bha ha ha ...please forgive me for that besides it broke the ice a bit and was also intended for a light break .
how do you know that the sun is going to go supernova in 7 billion years time as science is very young and you have nothing to compare it to .
the bible goes back further than modern science so why does it not indicate such an event , if you look at the bible it does say the heavens and earth will role up like a scroll not explode ,this indicates an implosion not an explosion ?.
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
ps the sun does not have enough mass to implode, as implosion indicates toward a blackhole, wich our sun sol does not come near to the size that would create a black hole . IT`S NOT BIG ENOUGH
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
PocketNut
pps this is my longest debate and i think it is going great
you have shown me alot to think about .
we gotta keep this one going as we have not even scratched the surface .
god bless you bruv your doing great i am reading everything you write and every thing is making more sence cheers man :) :) :)
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
PocketNut
can you explane to me about the peltdown man as this was a fossil ?
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
Well PocketNut, you are extremely correct about the 3.8 centimeters, I made a mistake in my numbers!
(dang, I better check my spelling this time :p)
And PocketNut The moon does NOT, in a way, orbit the earth.
Gravitational force (F) is defined as:
F = G * M1 * M2/(r*r)
G is the gravitational constant
M1 and M2 are the masses (of the Earth and the Moon in this case)
r is the distance between them
This depends upon the product of the two masses and so is exactly the same for both.
What is really happening is that both the Earth and the Moon are orbiting the center of mass of the two bodies. Because the Earth is much heavier than the Moon, that center of mass is actually inside the surface of the Earth (it's about 3000 miles from the center).
The moon AND Earth orbit the center of the two bodies, so to say that the moon orbits the earth is no entirely correct my dear friend. :D
by P4ganiZonda on March 4th, 2010
P4ganiZonda
i`ll leave the astronomicle calculations up to you as i have not got a clue .
i will stick to what i know but please jump in always for science facts .
god bless you :) :) :)
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
Mathematics is not my strong suit, however bearing in mind what we know about gravity we can reasonably assume the following: the Moon has been shown to be moving away from us, by means of laser range measurements, the further away from a source of gravity you get, the less effect it exerts upon you, therefore it is logical to assume that the moon was not always travelling away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per annum, but at a much slower rate due to the greater pull of the Earth, and the counter pull of the Moon.
Due to advances in telescope technology, we have been able to examine supernovae in other solar systems, so we are beginning to get an idea of what will happen to our Sun, I don't believe a black hole will result, because as you said, it is too small, however we can predict a likely expansion of the Suns outer gas layers, to a point where they will engulf and destroy our solar system, before the Sun shrinks to becaome a red dwarf star, either way, Earth will be toast!
Piltdown man was a fake, an amalgamation of a variety of animals, it remained undiscovered for over forty years, and was a lesson well learned, thankfully scientists have become more cynical since then, and hoaxes seldom last for long these days, the important thing to bear in mind however, is that once the hoax is exposed, the scientific community comes right out and admits to its mistakes, despite the fact that this gives more ammunition to the likes of Hovind and Baugh.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 4th, 2010
REF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb-m3Yj0dQI
The bone at the beginning is not human,all of the 'giant' skeleton pictures are fake, some not very good fakes, the white skull at 1:00 is a gorrila skull close up, the following 'cone' shaped skull is an example binding a skull in infancy to change its shape, the skull at 1:15 is the skull of a human infant.
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt313qq3h6M is one of te more convincing fakes.
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKkoSy3_fhQ Excellent! I reccommend anyone reading this to watch this one! What can I say? I'm a terrorist!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 4th, 2010
PocketNut
this is as close to evolution as you are ever to get
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcodzcCFJ28
by hong kong phooey on March 4th, 2010
Speak for yourself!! ;-)
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 5th, 2010
PocketNut
i know about skull binding thats not the one i was pointing out .
and the last vid was meant as a light joke bha ha ha :) :) :)
by hong kong phooey on March 5th, 2010
i know, that's why I put the winking facecon!
Which one were you pointing out? The close up of the Gorilla skull, or the infant skull?
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 5th, 2010
PocketNut
does the past predict the future
think about it , it says in the bible "look to the past to see the your future".
how often has history repeated itself ? ..:)
by hong kong phooey on March 5th, 2010
Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes"
by Coexist on March 5th, 2010
Whichever version of the bible you read, you cannot put it forward as any more than a religious text, history repeats itself only in certain ways, morse code improved communications, the telephone came next, then the internet and mobile 'phones, and I'm pretty sure that beyond being a leap forward in communication, they are unique events in history in and of themselves, Coexist put it more succinctly I think!!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 5th, 2010
Sorry guys for not joining the debate recently...I was just busy and couldn't use the computer!
by P4ganiZonda on March 7th, 2010
Nice interesting debate guys. i just joined here today, but have to say, thus far i liked this one the most.
As for english isnt my first language, i'm gonna try to participate here.
one of the things you guys discussed was where that the moon came from and why it orbitted our earth. good questions. well, there's a theory that suggests that the Moon was created after a Planetesimal about the size of Mars collided against the Earth. About 4.5 billion years ago would have a huge impact on the Earth have been, this impact was a kind of grazed. This ensured that the Earth was not destroyed, but only a large part of its outer coat lost playing. This material slowly collided them together to form the Moon.
by joepiler on March 9th, 2010
Welcome to AB joepiler.
by Coexist on March 9th, 2010
Thanks m8
by joepiler on March 9th, 2010
Anyone could say the same about God and Christianity being "soooooo retarded", it's all a bunch of made up bullshit. You don't have any evidence supporting your argument.
by OHsprinks on April 3rd, 2010
Welcome to this long, drawn out, pointless conversation OHsprinks.
by Coexist on April 3rd, 2010
This is still up here? I thought the mods deleted this post already.
by 404 on April 7th, 2010
the end :P lol
by Lovee4eva on April 11th, 2010
i just saw this, and read the entire thing....and to the hong kong dude...you told coexist to go forward with his/her videos...but he/she already had...and reminded you of them several times...anyway, i don't have time for this, this has gone from "was the world created in 6 days" to evolution to the creation of life to the creation of the solar system, why bother
by MajkenLovise on April 18th, 2010
Because ignorance cannot go unchallenged!
that and I love sharpening my thoughts on these conversations, the more creationists argue against science, the more science I learn!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 18th, 2010
I think a good quote to describe this conversation, which I gave earlier, is: "Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." Laurence J. Peter
by Coexist on April 18th, 2010
that fact you guys can't stick to creation and go gallivanting off into theism-bullshit-land, is pretty much proof that there's no point in this discussion.
.
i am, however extremely pissed at some stuff that came up here so i'll vent a bit.
.
whoever mentioned thermodynamics as proof against evolution obviously never studies thermodynamics.
.
the law states that the entropy of the entire universe must increase.
that doesn't mean order cannot be achieved.
.
entropy is NOT a measure of chaos.
anyone who says that doesn't understand it.
.
it's a measure of the ways in which a particle state can present itself.
it's purely combinatorial.
.
there's no problem with the system becoming ordered so long as it has enough energy to sustain itself (eg sunlight, in this case).
.
evolution agrees with the second law.
by Sympho de Proggy on April 19th, 2010
a few other things:
.
the closer the moon is, the stronger the pull.
meaning the dislocation speed gets much MUCH slower slower as you go back in time.
.
i don't have to mention the earthmoon theory as it was already brought up but until you can disprove it that's closed.
.
as for the huge man-skeletons.
you you guys would rather believe in a global conspiracy to hide 36-foot skeletons, than crack open a book about evolution....
we're just wearing ourselves out over nothing.
.
well if buy any chance you ARE interested, i suggest reading a Richard Dawkins book.
.
he may piss you off (he pisses me off too sometimes, as he's very confrontational), but it's all good science, and he's very meticulous in his proofs and sources, so you can verify everything to a T.
by Sympho de Proggy on April 19th, 2010
Evolution is not proven.
by King Arthur Pendragon on April 27th, 2010
Evolution has not been proven to the satisfaction of the slack jawed, illiterate yokels who have been conned into believing that biblical accounts are literal truth, but it has been shown to provide the best explanation of how life has developed, and is backed up by almost every other branch of genuine science.
Creationism and intelligent design are unproven rubbish with no basis in scientifically observable fact.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 27th, 2010
The mans got a point
by Coexist on April 27th, 2010
You are deluded.
by canoeguide on July 12th, 2010
lol
by RefreshPerspective on July 22nd, 2010
Evolution is the theory that Ape and Men have the same ancestry, you don't even know that.
by King Arthur Pendragon on July 24th, 2010
No, Evolution is the theory that all life has a common ancestor, not just humans, however you are correct in that we understand humans and apes share a common ancestor, fossil evidence in combination with DNA has proven this, pretty much beyond doubt, the bible is not the source of this doubt however.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on July 25th, 2010
"Evolution sounds soooooo retarded and un-thought through that it's nearly proving it's self wrong..
how could people evolve from APES??
I haven't heard a more retarded statement in my entire life!"
You find that retarded, but yet you're perfectly ok with being made from dirt? Talk about retarded.
by ConservativelyLiberal on September 9th, 2010
And how could Chinese people evolve from African people?
by purplecows on September 15th, 2010
What do you mean Chinese people evolving from African? I'm assuming you're talking about the coming out of Africa theory where early humans went into Asia, yes?
It's not hard to grasp... diversity is a result of the different environments early people had to adapt to.
by Coexist on September 15th, 2010
SATIRE ALERT
it's called "reductio ad absurdem"
how could people evolve from APES??
And how could Chinese people evolve from African people?
you see, it's the same argument, it simply makes everything more obvious
in fact, i was tempted to write:
And how could Indian people evolve from African people?
because Indian people look quite similar to African people, you see
by purplecows on September 15th, 2010
I'm not sure that I'm quite following you.
You could say that we descended from apes, it just depends on how you define apes. Our ancestor (with chimps) was probably more chimp-like than it was human-like. "why are chimps around still" you may ask... well easy. Our early ancestor's were isolated from humans long enough for the two branches to become too distant to say they're the same species anymore.
Did that clarify things up a little?
by Coexist on September 15th, 2010
The thing I think purplecows is getting stuck on is the whole ape thing, it's either apes or monkeys for creationists, because they can't understand that 'primate' is the name of the animal family to which we and our ancestors belong.
Not all primates are monkeys, apes or lemurs, but all monkeys apes and lemurs are primates.
In any case, our direct ancestor bore a closer skeletal resemblance to lemurs than monkeys or apes.
We know that the 'Out of Africa' theory is true, because it has been shown that our DNA originates in Africa and can be traced across the world.
If you need further proof, on occaision white parents will occaisionally have a black child, some children are born with tails, others with thick hair on their faces, all due to atavistic genes passed down over the millenia.
The proof of evolution is all around us, but creationists prefer to utterly deny it in favour of writings by people who would have been astonished to learn that the Earth is not flat.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on September 15th, 2010
I'll even back you up with a video:
by Coexist on September 15th, 2010
Pecisely, not only can we produce evidence in favour of evolutionary theory, but we know roughly where to look for it, and when it is found it contradicts the creationist hypothesis.
And then we can back this evidence with atavistic DNA.
QED!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on September 15th, 2010
Yeah there's plenty of evidence out there but sadly there's also plenty more creationist propaganda out there that most people (mostly Americans) fail to see what's right in front of them.
I think their train of thought may go along these lines XD
by Coexist on September 15th, 2010
that video made me sad...
until i saw it was made by Exodus XD
.
then i realized he made this satirical video because a lot of ppl actually think like this.
then it made me sad again...
by Sympho de Proggy on September 16th, 2010
The Earth is flat I tell you!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on September 16th, 2010
XD Yeah this is a sad world with people like PocketBut and their crazy theories, ROFL
by Coexist on September 16th, 2010
XD oh my gosh I didn't realize I made a typo with your name until now. I meant PocketNut (the "N" and "B" key are right together)
by Coexist on September 16th, 2010
I believe that I am Jesus Christ. It makes perfect sense. The only problem is that I can't seem to prove it.
by Don Gorgeous George on September 22nd, 2010
by Katsuona
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
what do fossils have to say about creation?
by msspacey123 on February 27th, 2010
How about the fact that they're basically millions of years old foot prints of I don't know how many creatures from the past? I don't see a world this complicated being made in six days, and I also don't see any evidence of the earth being just 2000 years old. Find me some physical evidence that this world was created in six days and I might just lean the other way- otherwise I remain firmly convinced that this planet is at least fourteen and a half billion years old.
by Katsuona on February 27th, 2010
You mean the missing missing links? without which Darwin said Evolution would be false?
by Believer77 on March 20th, 2010
by ThatGuyTed
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
by Reptar
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
Oh yo...God being timeless meant that the days could not be related to human time. Therefore 6 days to God may mean 6 million years to us.
Because God is infinite in power and wisdom, there’s no doubt He could have created the universe and its contents in no time at all, or six seconds, or six minutes, or six hours—after all, with God nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37).The age of the earth, as determined by man’s fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billions of years old.It is interesting to contrast the speculations of modern cosmology with the writings of the early church father Theophilus:
On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on Earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.Martin Luther once said:
I have often said that whoever would study Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we must be certain: no clearer speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.Moses, the author of Genesis 1, also wrote Psalm 90.4 In this Psalm, Moses compares 1000 years to a single day or a watch in the night.But I guess if you don't believe in the Bible all of this doesn't matter..LOL:P I just find your comment about God being a fairy tail hard to grasp, and you know I love you:) Maybe you should read the Bible before you call it trash yo::)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on February 22nd, 2010
no im pretty sure it was 6 days :) if it wasn't then the bible would say 6 million years. its not for him to read and fondly remember his god days. its for us to read, therefore, six days is six days.
and its complete and utter bull shit
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on February 23rd, 2010
Bangstar, Your awesome, But even your awesomeness can make me believe in the Bible Hun. I have read it, on a scale of 1 to 10 I give it a solid 6 for entertainment, but it's a little long winded, it took me 5 years to read the damn thing. I found no evidence of God in it, only collected scraps of insanity. Genesis being some of the stupidest rambling ever put to print.
by Reptar on February 23rd, 2010
6 million?,,try 3.7+/- BILLION
by mtndewman44 on February 23rd, 2010
yeah something like that haha
6 days ¬,¬
by Jamie "Relentless" Booker on February 23rd, 2010
I still can't believe they posted this as an official debate. The only reason I can see is to stir the proverbial pot so to speak. No one can disprove faith, so what's left to debate?
by Reptar on February 23rd, 2010
A few of you might find this entertaining: Creation Science 101
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
by Reptar on February 23rd, 2010
You say you try and only debate things worthy of logic., fairy 'tails' are not worthy, and ask why Answerbag is posting such 'trash', yet you sit here debating. lmao. If you really believed that you would have skipped over this q entirely.
by LarryH54 on February 23rd, 2010
No, actually I'm not wasting my time debating as it's impossible to debate matters of faith. I chose to use my answer as means of expressing my reasoning. I don't like that AB is endorsing this Jerry Springer style "debating".
Thanks for trying to tell me what I believe.
by Reptar on February 23rd, 2010
I believe that AB created this topic in order to rile up the community and show that the site is active and flaming. The more we talk, the more it benifits AB, so this is why it exists.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
Kaleidoscope well this is titled as a debate what do you expect to find other than a debate besides you are not capable of debating , you come on my thread just to be abbusive and you turned the whole debate sour it was going great before you turned up ,you did not even debate ,now what is the point of you coming on these debates if you have not got a clue how to debate , you put nothing into it what so ever you did not even ask a question you just ranted ......you are just a complainer and a whinger ,wining your way into other peoples threads , did you send spam to my message box mmmmmm maybe it sure looks like your thing to do resorting to maliceousness, sad very sad
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
hkp??,,I don't see any such activity on this thread,,what bearing does this have on this one?
by mtndewman44 on February 27th, 2010
Probably confused Kaleidoscope with Reptar, who apparently doesn't realize that religions have been debated for centuries.
by LarryH54 on February 27th, 2010
Religions have been debated, but faith is pointless to debate, which is what this "debate" has boiled down to. Nothing more Lerry, thanks for assuming I don't know my history.
I see you're putting your time in this "debate" to good use.
by Reptar on February 27th, 2010
here is a source to better answers:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609a/article_01.htm
by Perryman on February 27th, 2010
So fairy tales, huh? Could you answer me where all the gas that started the big bang came from? According to the Laws of Thermodynamics matter can neither be created or destroyed, so something comes from something. So according to that law the very first something had to be eternal. So it was either God or the gas. Reptar, you said that you like to use logic. So use it here: What's more logical? A thinking, living, breathing God who can think and create (an amazing version of us)? Or a big pool of swirling gasses that can't think, can't move by itself and can't be duplicated? God is the more logical one. Take a pile of yellow lego's. Can you personally make a wall of legos that four bricks high and two bricks wide from those lego's? Yes, if you use your mind you can. So imagine those lego's again. First of all, who put them there? And when will they make something as simple as a wall with no help? They never will. So, the lego's represent the gas. Where did it come from? And with no outside help, how did it do the impossible?
You may argue that Mendel's experiments prove evolution. But again, who put the workshop together that he was working in? Who gathered the materials necessary to create the chain reaction? An intelligent creator, that's who.
by LegitDisciple on September 8th, 2010
I wasn't participating in the 'debate', reptar, I was merely trying to clarify what looked like a misunderstanding on mtndewman's part. Thanks for assuming the worst about my intentions.
by LarryH54 on September 8th, 2010
All good points LegitDisciple.
I`ve openly admitted that I have no clue as to the origin of the universe it self,but I do know that the Bible is full of lies, lies made by mankind.
I truly believe the world took more then 6 days to create though, by what means....I have no clue.
Larry, I think you need to take another look at your comments, and maybe find a few more that you made around the same time to my answers.
by Reptar on September 10th, 2010
Yo Reptar...sometimes 8 hours feels like 9000....You can't measure the time of God Yo:) The Bible says 7 days? What time are you following? Believe it or not the Bible is True...I think we might of found Noah's Ark:)...Just another story from the Bible..and now we may have proof:) It is on top of Mount Everest...I think:)
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on September 12th, 2010
If Noah ark was for real...You think he would have just killed those two mosquitoes!
by Reptar on September 13th, 2010
by ONE DAY TO LIVE ONE DAY TO DIE
on February 24th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Account Closed
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
I thought you said that you don't follow the old testament?
by Reptar on February 23rd, 2010
Reptar, When did I say I do not read The Old Testament? I do read the New Testament more then I read The old testament.
The bible passage I quoted is from
THE NEW TESTAMENT: 2 Peter:8 "But do not forget this my dear friends: With The Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".
by Account Closed on February 23rd, 2010
Uhm. The question was whether you believe that the 6 day figure was literal, that is to say, as defined by 6 rotations of the earth. You're saying he more likely took millenia, so your answer is in fact 'No'.
Of course, the whole question is utterly nonsensical according to the bible as it tries to claim the Sun was placed on day 4...
But of course, without the planet rotating to face the sun, you don't even HAVE the concept of a day at all, so trying to say that god used up 3 of them before the sun even existed is just hilariously paradoxical.
Indeed without the sun for the earth to orbit around, or an axis to tilt towards/away from it, you have no years, no seasons. No real means of measuring time whatsoever in the classical sense - certainly not using the terms referred to in the bible.
by Vastin on February 24th, 2010
Vestin, Please understand that I am not questioning IF God created the world. I know He did. I am not saying that The Holy Bible is wrong, by saying God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.
What I am saying is, because The Lord has said "To The Lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand are like a day". Could we as humans, misunderstood what The Holy Bible says about the creation being made in 6 days. It is only a thought that crossed my mind. I am not saying that, that is how it happened, I just had a thought. I love Our Dear Lord Jesus and I have no question, at all, that God created the whole world.
by Account Closed on February 24th, 2010
I wasn't talking about you're quote, I was refering to Genesis. I never said that you said you don't read the O.T, just that you told me you follow the N.T.
by Reptar on February 25th, 2010
_"Yes, The Holy Bible says that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. I believe The Holy Bible, and do not question it."_
Yeah and I bet if the bible told you to jump in front of a moving train you'd do that too right? Since you do not have an evolved enough brain to question it...
by HumourMe on February 28th, 2010
HumourMe, Laugh at me if you want to, BUT remember lots of people laughed at Noah, when he was building the ark.
by Account Closed on February 28th, 2010
Reptar, on February 23rd your comment was "I thought you said that you don't follow the old testament".
Anyway Reptar, no problem.
God bless
by Account Closed on February 28th, 2010
Yes, I thought you did say that you don't follow the O.T. I remember you commenting to some quotes I posted from the the old testament, and I thought you said something about just following the new testament.
by Reptar on February 28th, 2010
I don't remember Reptar. Anyway, you and I are both searching for the truth, and we are both on the right path, so that is good.
by Account Closed on February 28th, 2010
Even though the bible says thou shall not kill unless for food or self defence then it says all the way throughout it to kill people who break Gods laws!
by Zenrean on March 9th, 2010
Zenrean, your comment did not come through?
by Account Closed on March 10th, 2010
Why must every Christian who has faith, also of necessity believe that everything in the Bible must be literally true? It is NOT a requirement of faith to also believe that nothing is symbolic or a metaphor! Six "Days" of Creation is merely six STAGES consisting of millions of years each. Why keep science and religion at odds?
by Adeptone on March 30th, 2010
Because one is fantasy and one is not.
by Reptar on March 30th, 2010
Macavity, in order for you to KNOW God created the world, you would have had to be PRESENT when it happened and been a WITNESS. But you only BELIEVE deeply that the report in the Bible is correct. Having a strong FEELING even a "conviction" is not really and actually KNOWING. Many people FEEL that they KNOW God. But unless and until you meet Him Face-to-face (and not merely have a "relationship" with God) it will remain only a BELIEF or having FAITH that He Exists!
by Adeptone on April 1st, 2010
by Blackberry.
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
by Davidsays on February 27th, 2010
When you're dealing with attempting to grasp something beyond the five senses, there is a lot of trial and eerrorrrrrerroor.
by Adeptone on March 8th, 2010
Not to mention delusion, ignorance, wishful thinking, denial
by Mephistopheles on May 28th, 2010
by Isaac
on February 25th, 2010
voted:
No
Science is man made evidence.........LOL.........given enough time all things can be justified and proven
by Eileen on February 25th, 2010
Fossils aren't man-made, they're natural. DNA is natural. Evolution is natural. The Earth is certainly not made-man, and it itself is evidence the world wasn't created in six days, if one studies it enough.
I also disagree with your second statement, not everything is justifiable, like believing in something without evidence, or convicting innocents to death. Not everything can be proven, like your bold claim that Science is man made.
So I disagree with everything you just said.
by Isaac on February 26th, 2010
you totally missed my point, you have read all these facts inwhich you type............read them from a book, hence man made words...........
by Eileen on February 26th, 2010
Isaac, Einstein, as a world renowned scientist, tried for many many years, to proove that God did not exist. Even with a brilliant mind like his, he failed to do so.
by astimegosby on March 15th, 2010
@astimegoesby So?
by Isaac on March 16th, 2010
Isaac, Science is your belief, not creation. I would think that because Einstein could not proove that The World was not created, by God, then you might be open to considering that The World may have been created not evolved.
by astimegosby on March 16th, 2010
@astimegoesby
You do know that NOTHING can really be disproven in scientific terms? Not creation, not god, not the flying spaghetti monster, not Russell's Teapot. I can't believe you didn't know that.
by Isaac on March 17th, 2010
And......once upon a time the world was thought to be flat, until that is it was proven otherwise........man thought it to be flat, man dispelled that nonsense...hence man made words and ideas. TA TA
by Eileen on March 17th, 2010
Isaac, you are right, not science, not anything or anyone can proove that God did not create the world. Because He did. I can't believe you do not know that.
by astimegosby on March 17th, 2010
@astimegoesby
So you believe that just because it can't be disproven it must be true? I would like to hear you completely disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Go ahead, and if you can't then that means one of two things: Either your logic is nonsensical, or he must be true! I wonder which one it is(...)
by Isaac on March 17th, 2010
Isaac, mate, you sound like you are very young, and that would account for your comments. Man's understanding of the world is limited to a mans intelect. You see, God has only revealed as much to man as he wants us to know. When The Lord is ready, He will reveal everything to us, and then we will understand, all things. Until that time, some of us will Know God through faith and others will blindly turn away.
by astimegosby on March 18th, 2010
@astimegoesby
I am young, but that has little to do with anything since I know more about religion than most.
Why do you have faith for this particular god claim, but if someone asked you to have faith in Thor, would you come to know him through faith or would you blindly turn away?
by Isaac on March 18th, 2010
@Isaac
I am young
Yes, I can tell you are young. Example: A statement like "I know more about religion than most". How could you possibly know that?.
Why do you have faith?
I have faith in God because I know He created this wonderful world. I have faith in His Son Jesus Christ, because I know Him. I have faith In The Holy Spirit, because He lives in me.
Thor
Yes, I would turn away from Thor, but, not blindly.
by astimegosby on March 18th, 2010
@astimegoesby
I know more about religion because I study it. The more you know about religion the more likely you are to be non-religious because the term "religion" is so watered down between the thousands of religions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
"I have faith in God because I know He created this wonderful world"
How do you know he created the world? Why do you perceive this world as wonderful?
by Isaac on March 18th, 2010
age has nothing to do with it.........Isaac I think you carry yourself very well in a debate...........
by Eileen on March 18th, 2010
@Eileen Cheers!
by Isaac on March 18th, 2010
@Isaac,
I study religion
You say you study religion, and the term religion is watered down between the thousands of religions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
Yes, alot of religions are wrong. The only true religion is christianity, because christian's know there is only one God, the creater of heaven and earth. And they know His Son Jesus Christ.
How do I know God created the world?
I know by faith, because God has opened my eyes to His wondrous work.
I know by science, through common sense. If everything and everyone evolved from species crawling out of the sea, How did we get intelligence from non intelligence? Like, how can something, with no intelligence evolve into something with intelligence?
Why do I perceive this world to be wonderful?
Wow, how could I not perceive this world to be wonderful. I look at the natural beauty of the earth, and the heavens above, and I see its beauty. I know it is our gift from God.
Yes, I realize that I am blessed to live in such a lovely part of the world. I am not blind to the poverty, and the war torn countries, and all the cruelty, in the world. But, God did not create the suffering. Man has created it, through hatred and greed.
by astimegosby on March 19th, 2010
@astimegoesby
"Yes, alot of religions are wrong. The only true religion is christianity, because christian's know there is only one God, the creater of heaven and earth. And they know His Son Jesus Christ. "
All religious people will say "Yes, alot of religions are wrong, but there is one TRUE one, just happens to be mine!" Just because you claim certainty on yours doesn't make yours valid in any sense. Just like how a muslim who claims certainty on their religion would make them right.
"I know by faith, because God has opened my eyes to His wondrous work." Now, if he 'opened your eyes to his wonderful work', why would you need faith? Faith is belief without evidence, and if you have been given evidence, then faith is not required.
"I know by science, through common sense..." Perhaps you should study abiogenesis. It's the science that explains the answer to your question.
"Wow, how could I not perceive this world to be wonderful..." Hm, so you put god in a win-win situation by crediting him for all the good things in life, but not holding him responsible for the bad things. This is a double standard that most religious people have, it's understandable, but wrong. God did create suffering through natural causes: Tornadoes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, Floods, Death, Mudslides, Earthquakes, Meteorites, Lightning, Hurricanes, accidents, animal attacks, disease, and many other things. All these examples created by god, not man (if you believe in god). How can human hatred and greed make evils such as earthquakes?
by Isaac on March 19th, 2010
@Isaac
One true religion
Yes, every one beleives that their religion is right, that is human nature.
The difference is, I KNOW The Lord Jesus Christ. His Holy Spirit lives in me. Now, I realize that you neither believe, nor accept what I am saying, and that is ok, I hope one day, you will.
Faith
I have faith that Jesus will return to the earth. I have faith that heaven exists. I have faith that one day I will be in heaven with God. I have faith in the promise of eternal life, for Christ's people.
Issac, you have been given evidence of God's wondrous work too, but you just can not see it.
Double standard
God did not promise a world without hardship. Yes, there are natural disasters. If you read The Holy Bible you will see that all
these things you have mentioned are all prophesied to happen, before The Lord Jesus Christ returns to the earth.
This is NOT A PERFECT WORLD, The Lord has told us in The Holy Bible that all these things will come to pass. But, after Jesus has returned to the earth, to gather his own people, God is going to create A New Earth, a perfect earth, just like it is in heaven.
I know that, because I have faith.
by astimegosby on March 21st, 2010
@astimegoesby
"Yes, every one beleives that their religion is right, that is human nature.
The difference is, I KNOW The Lord Jesus Christ. His Holy Spirit lives in me."
There is no difference in you claiming you KNOW and someone else claiming they know for certain. Those two sentences I just quoted seem like an ironic contradiction to me. You should have said "The difference is I have evidence and that is..." but you didn't and you proved yourself to be the same as any religious person without any difference.
Faith: Again, you didn't address my question which was: Why do you need faith?
"Yes, there are natural disasters. If you read The Holy Bible you will see that all these things you have mentioned are all prophesied to happen"
Did he predict when exactly natural disasters will happen, or did he just say "A lot of earthquakes and hurricanes are going to happen a lot in the next few millennia."? If the latter, then that is such a vague prediction then it can't be considered a win. I can just say "An earthquake is going to happen within the next 100 years" and when one does happen will that prove I have some kind of precognition? No.
"This is NOT A PERFECT WORLD, The Lord has told us in The Holy Bible that all these things will come to pass. But, after Jesus has returned to the earth, to gather his own people, God is going to create A New Earth, a perfect earth, just like it is in heaven. "
What is he waiting for? How much longer will 'his own people' wait for this fantasy?
by Isaac on March 21st, 2010
This is the best debate I have read in years, I have to hand it to both of you, you both carry yourself well
by Eileen on March 21st, 2010
@Elieen
Best debate - you both carry yourself well
Who are you referring to? It would not be HasntBeen and Isaac, would it? lol
by astimegosby on March 21st, 2010
@Isaac
The difference is I have evidence
I disagree with your view. "I stated that I Know The Lord Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit lives and me". I can not see how wording that differently makes any difference. I also stated how I know Christianity is the one true religion.
I feel you are playing with words.
Faith
We need to have faith in things that we have not seen. I can see the wonderful world around me, and I have faith, that although, I have not seen God, He created it all. Because of my faith, God oppened my eyes, mind and heart, to know that He is the creater.
Isaac, You have said in a previous post, that you know more about religion then most people, because you study it. I am stupefied that you do not have alot more knowledge, then you appear to have.
Example, your claim to have studied religion, and yet, you have no idea, what has been prophesied, in The Holy Bible.
Millennia
God has not revealed when He will end the world. No one knows, not even Jesus Christ. Jesus has given us signs of things that will occur, before He returns to the earth, in The Holy Bible.
Alot of the things He has prophesied, have already come to pass. Some of theses things are: Season will run into season; children will disobey their parents; man will lay with man and not with woman; there will be wars and rumours of wars; there will be famine; there will be smoke and fire. Also, The Lord has said: "For when you hear of peace and safety, then, I will return" "I will come like a thief in the night and every eye will see and every knee will bend"
What is He waiting for
That is an arrogant question. Who are we to question God? The creater of heaven and earth.
That is very pretentious of you, to question God Our Father.
God will gather His people, and take them to heaven, when HE is ready, NOT when we think He should be ready.
For someone who claims he knows more about religion then most people, you do not appear to know much at all.
by astimegosby on March 22nd, 2010
@Eileen: your comment that "Science is man made evidence.........LOL.........given enough time all things can be justified and proven" is utter hogwash (and poorly expressed, as well).
The distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is independently verifiable. Anybody with the willingness to do the work and the brainpower to understand the topic can run experiments, examine the evidence, perform the calculations.
Yes, many people just read about it in books, but many more participate in experiments and calculations and evidence-examination, confirming or challenging conclusions formed by others. Given enough time and multiple repeats by different people, truth can be established with a high degree of certainty.
By contrast, religious principles depend entirely on taking the word of supposed authorities who are long dead and wrote down their ideas in ancient books that have been translated from their original text and cultural / historical context. There is absolutely no way that anybody can verify the vast majority of this.
That's the difference between truth and myth.
by HasntBeen on March 22nd, 2010
@astimegoesby
""I stated that I Know The Lord Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit lives and me". I can not see how wording that differently makes any difference. I also stated how I know Christianity is the one true religion.
I feel you are playing with words."
I feel words are all you have. What is the difference from a christian who claims certainty on their god, and a hindu who claims certainty on their god(s)? According to you, the difference is "The Christian KNOWS their god is real", which isn't a sufficient answer, as the difference you stated isn't a difference at all.
"We need to have faith in things that we have not seen..." Let me extend that; you need faith in things that you have not seen, heard, sensed, tested, smelt, touched, felt, or anything that we have evidence for. So you need faith for things you have no good reason for believing in.
"You have said in a previous post, that you know more about religion then most people, because you study it. I am stupefied that you do not have alot more knowledge, then you appear to have. "
Generally the more people study religion, the most non-religious they are. A prime example of this is Matt Dillahunty who was a christian for >20 years but after actually studying his religion (and not just what he was indoctrinated with in his childhood), he became an atheist after years of studying.
"That is very pretentious of you, to question God Our Father."
The argument from Authority. There is SO many things wrong with that. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
by Isaac on March 22nd, 2010
I've noticed, @astimegoesby, that you love to get your feathers all in a ruffle and stand on your tippie-toes so you can try to look down on your opponent, when you sense that your arguments are vacuous.
It's cute. It sort of reminds me of Big Bird being angry that Ernie switched the 'E' and the '3' on the letterboard.
But, it's not very impressive as an arguing strategy. Better to just stick with logic and evidence -- you're not intimidating anybody here... what would you do, *type* us to death?
by HasntBeen on March 22nd, 2010
What a stupid answer. Mate, Science made no proof to evolution or theory. Get a mind.
by King Arthur Pendragon on April 27th, 2010
Hmm... well it sounds like you need to go back to remedial reading as well as remedial science, since the answer does not claim that 'proof' has been made. The answer is not stupid, if you want to accuse it of something you could accuse it of being brief and general.
by HasntBeen on April 27th, 2010
There ends one of the most interesting opinions I have read in a long time in AB. ~Larendeil~ one thing for sure you are a total kill joy of what was interesting comments posted by all....Who left you in charge of what is "stupid" then again by your posting of that one line, I say we vote "Capt of Stupid" be given rightfully to you!
by Eileen on April 27th, 2010
@Larendevil
If you don't believe in science, then turn off your water supply, don't have safe sex, don't use modern transport and don't even think about getting medicine when you're sick. Science gives us all these things and uneducated unwilling misguided people like you just toss it aside in favour of your stupid beliefs.
Science proves things to the degree of reasonable certainty, it never proves things 100%, nor does it claim to. Know why? Because to do so would be nonsensical. No-one can ever prove anything 100%! Ever.
I hope you learn something.
by Isaac on April 27th, 2010
How do you know that i live in a modern place? I live in nature. Are you a pervert? Science only explains things that are not paranormal related. I know Science cannot prove anything.
by King Arthur Pendragon on April 27th, 2010
by Mufasa
on February 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by Mephistopheles
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
i like your comment!
by socrates111 on February 27th, 2010
by John
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
by ThatGuyTed
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
(2 Peter 3:8) However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible's creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.—2 Peter 3:8.
by Stauros on March 5th, 2010
The biblical account CAN be compatible with true science. Trouble is those that argue in favor of a very literal interpretation with the Bible, with Genesis having ALL the facts. The first few chapters of Genesis provide a brief, general explanation of the creation of the universe that I would feel comfortable telling a child, just to let them know after that real nitty-gritty detail of HOW it was all done will require several college years each of physics, geology, biology, zoology, chemestry, and higher mathmatics, and eventually mankind may truely understand it in.. oh say another 3000 or 4000 years.
I just feel that most creationists would rather the scientific world stop investigating everything and keep the vault of human knowledge limited to "God did it.", and that irks me.
by ThatGuyTed on March 5th, 2010
what evidence? i wanna here it
by Jakeflame11 on April 14th, 2010
Got to college, take 4 years of physics, geology, mathmatics, biology, and chemistry. You should be able to get most of the up to date evidence.
by ThatGuyTed on April 23rd, 2010
by MrJosh
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
by Don Gorgeous George
on January 5th, 2010
voted:
No
by Rinky Dinky Do on March 3rd, 2010
by Brian
on February 25th, 2010
voted:
No
by Anonymous
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
Yes
Besides the fact that the "Big Bang" does not follow the law of conservation of Matter, nor does it explain where the energy to create said explosion came for. Things don't just blow-up on their own, they have to have an outside influence of some sort.
Evolution is missing the fossils of the supposed dinosaurs to mammal halfway point (Horrible phrasing, I know). Plus the fact that there hasn't been ONE SINGLE NEW SPECIES recorded in human history that has been proven to be a major mutation. The farthest we've seen is changing beak size and micro-evolution of bacteria.
Until such time that those links are found, and maybe even after, creationism is the only one that makes sense to yours truly.
Side note - They've finally added an "edit comment" button; about damn time.
by Anonymous on February 22nd, 2010
"Things don't just blow-up on their own..."
It wasn't a literal explosion, it was an expansion of space-time.
"...dinosaurs to mammals..."
You're right, there aren't any transitional fossils from dinosaurs to mammals. This is because mammals didn't evolve from dinosaurs. They evolved from therapsids, for which there ARE a number of transitional fossils.
"...not one new species...proven to be a major mutation..."
A new species doesn't arise from a single major mutation. It arises from an accumulation of smaller mutations, until the descendant type cannot produce fertile offspring with the ancestral type. Using that real definition of speciation, we have a number of examples. Google "observed instances of speciation."
by Maerdyn77 on February 22nd, 2010
There is some evidence of transition in living creatures even today. Hind limb rudiments in whales, coccyx bone in humans ( the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail), there are vestiges of the hindlimbs in the form of a pair of pelvic spurs in some snake species and don't forget the now useless human appendix.
This evidence is provable, readily available and completely ignored by religious people.
by Davidsays on February 22nd, 2010
"It wasn't a literal explosion, it was an expansion of space-time."
That would take so much energy....
"A new species doesn't arise from a single major mutation."
Eagles are still Eagles, frogs still have the same basic shape, horses haven't changed.
The only changes that have occurred are from breeding two different types of the same species.
Nothing new.
"Hind limb rudiments in whales"
You don't think that even for a second they could have a purpose for said whale..
"the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail"
I'm not seeing how you came up with that.
by Anonymous on February 23rd, 2010
"they have to have an outside influence of some sort..."
It is common belief (with much evidence, you don't believe me? Google it.) that the big-bang was caused by dark-matter.
by lucas6 on February 23rd, 2010
"Dark Matter" also known as "Anti-Matter" only destroys...
by Anonymous on February 24th, 2010
Oneday, you are spouting a load of unscientific, unsubstantiated nonsense, whales do have vestigial limbs, they did indeed have another use, namely as claspers used during mating, but their original use was as legs, the same is true of snakes.
The coccyx is the remnant of a tail, how do we know this? Simple, it's present in other Primate species, as well as the Hominid fossil record.
Evolution does not continue at the same pace for all species all of the time, it slows down and speeds up according to the environment the organism in question finds itself in, you are blithely ignoring the fact that this takes a long time to happen, and that this does not immediately produce a new species, frogs will not suddenly give rise to eagles, unless of course the invisible man in the sky changes them by a magic that is beyond human understanding, don't forget to leave a generous donation in the collection plate, the preacher needs a new private jet.
Dark-matter and anti-matter are two different things.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 13th, 2010
"Dark-matter and anti-matter are two different things."
Yep, my bad, I thought they weren't... but Wikipedia'd it..
However, it has an "evidence" section, which leads me to believe that dark matter
itself is still a theory.
"you are blithely ignoring the fact that this takes a long time to happen"
After X amount of thousands of years of human history, A frog is still a frog.
Frankly, I'm at this point: You want to believe in Evolution? Be my guess, I really don't care. I know what's true, and I know that Evolution is false. I have given up arguing my point since it really doesn't make a difference what you or I say. I'm staying with Divine Creation, you're sticking with Evolution, and neither one is changing their minds.
by Anonymous on April 13th, 2010
There are many different species of frog, because they all live in different environments with differing pressures upon their physiology, eventually some frogs may develop significant differences, but you are still ignoring the amount of time this is likely to take.
Of course a frog is still a frog, but its offspring will be a different frog because it is made from two different strands of DNA, over millenia this minor difference will become larger, until the frog becomes something new.
Perhaps you should read wikipedia more often before making such ridiculous statements, evolution has plenty of scientific evidence in its favour which can easily be researched with a cursory glance of quite a number of websites.
Saying that an invisible man popped everything into existence with magic is a total cop out.
If you actually had half an idea about the subject I might be able to respect your point of view.
I don't believe in evolution, I know evolution to be fact, I know in evolution.
Organised religion is false, it is a brainwashing cult, it never changes it's message, and that which does not change is doomed to die.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 13th, 2010
"Saying that an invisible man popped everything into existence with magic is a total cop out."
Uh-huh, and saying a bunch of particles "decided" to blow-up all on their own, and through destruction (I consider explosions to be destructive), created the whole universe with food chains all correct, the Earth just far enough from the sun to keep us alive yet close enough to keep us alive as well, and that some bacteria figured out it needed to "evolve" all on its own to an entirely different species in order to survive makes COMPLETE FREAKING SENSE.
"Organised religion is false, it is a brainwashing cult, it never changes it's message, and that which does not change is doomed to die."
A. You misspelled organized
B. Did you ever come to think that maybe the damn scientists are doing the brain-washing? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is evolutionary theory that is doomed to fail?
"Of course a frog is still a frog, but its offspring will be a different frog because it is made from two different strands of DNA, over millenia this minor difference will become larger, until the frog becomes something new."
Who says these frogs weren't already there? Who says man has discovered every species on Earth?
Again, like I said earlier, we can bicker about our ideas all day long, neither one of us is going to change our minds.
by Anonymous on April 13th, 2010
Organised is spelt with an 's' in UK English, I see no reason to alter my spelling to fit your geographical location.
If the universe did not conform to the current laws of physics we would not be here to argue the point now.
Science is peer reviewed and open to new theories and ideas, religion is not, it's believe what we believe or be condemned to hell.
The whole point of being on AB is to share knowledge, I am attempting to correct your misaprehensions regarding evolution, not to mention the differences between UK and US English.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 13th, 2010
"Science is peer reviewed and open to new theories and ideas"
PEER-REVIEWED, that means that the Evolutionist's peers (who are also Evolutionists) review it.
"Religion is not, it's believe what we believe or be condemned to hell."
Sometimes the truth isn't always nice now is it?
"I am attempting to correct your misaprehensions regarding evolution"
A. Misapprehensions*
B. Regarding the THEORY of evolution
This will never end :)
by Anonymous on April 14th, 2010
Again with the easily debunked nonsense, the theory of evolution is not a theory because it is a vague collection of ideas, but because it is open to being updated by anyone who has a better explanation, it is the highest form of scientific classification next to a law, if you or I found a piece of information that overturns this theory, the scientific community would have no option but to accept it should it prove to be true.
Creationism and intelligent design are baseless and fraudulent, no amount of nitpicking over minor typos will change this.
You find some actual evidence which can be properly verified, and I will admit that I am wrong, my point being that this will never end due to the fact that there is no proof for the creationist hypothesis, not one iota, every single creationist myth I have encountered I have debunked using repeatable experiments and observations, all you have is a bible and leaflets on creationist fairy tales.
As for the truth not being very nice, I doubt you would consider a world without your god to be very nice, personally, I think it might make the world less interesting, but a world without fundamentalists might be a little more peaceful too.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 14th, 2010
science is the fantasy, yes. i agree with the mystery cat
by Jakeflame11 on April 14th, 2010
Of course, provable, repeatable, experiments and observations of real events are as nothing compared to made up nonsense from the bronze age.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 15th, 2010
"no amount of nitpicking over minor typos will change this."
That's just for my fun. :)
"Creationism and intelligent design are baseless and fraudulent"
Here we go again, the atheists say religion is unfounded, and the religions say evolution is unfounded.
And I see you're asking for evidence, so just a few sites to start with ;)
http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v12n4p03.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html
by Anonymous on April 15th, 2010
http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm
T Rex was a veggie? Spurious evidence, the teeth are set 2 inches are set 2 inches into the jaw, but were also anchored by skin and flesh. 16 foot human femur? Seen this hoax before, I believe it's the bone of an ancient flying bird. polystrate fossils? Long since debunked as nonsense, no evidence here.
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v12n4p03.htm
Evolution is wrong because it isn't in the bible, blah, blah, yaddah, yaddah, no evidence here.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html
Yet more spurious, unsubstantiated nonsense backed up by pointless diagrams depicting the evolutionary process as random and therefore a belief held by those who are too stupid to place their faith in invisible sky man, no science here, no evidence, just a vast collection of half truths and outright lies from an uncomprehending rube, either that or a cynical con artist.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 15th, 2010
"Long since debunked as nonsense, no evidence here."
By you and most likely you alone.
Yet more spurious, unsubstantiated nonsense backed up by pointless diagrams depicting the evolutionary process as random"
Yet, when an evolutionist brings a chart, you believe it must be true.
by Anonymous on April 16th, 2010
If the chart is wrong, I will raise issue.
For creationist myths debunked see this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
I am far from alone, there are many genuine scientists around the world who agree wholeheartedly with my sentiments regarding creationism, but who will debate quite vehemently with each other over the minutia of evolutionary theory, creationists have yet to provide one shred of even plausible evidence, therefore they are relegated to the realm of fantasy until such time as they do.
For your education, this video explains the basics of evolution in under 2 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho
This video points out, as have I, that evolution is not random chance, since everything must conform to the rules of physics and natural selection, nothing is truly random.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 16th, 2010
"For creationist myths debunked see this series of videos"
For the Evolutionary Theory debunked, see these websites:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
http://www.gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html
There are videos, sites, and other media for both sides dear boy.
Both "TOTALLY DEBUNKING" each other, and when one thing debunks another, and you show it to the other person, they come back and show you why you're wrong, and it never ends, which is why I don't usually bother with these kinds of conversations because after a week or so of debating this stuff with people, it gets really boring, really quickly.
by Anonymous on April 16th, 2010
On the other hand I never tire of learning, and in discussing the blatant falsehoods of christian fundamentalists claiming an ancient text holds more knowledge than all of modern science, I learn more and more about why not just christianity, but all religions are wrong in their assertions, it's almost beyond belief to me that any intelligent, educated person could place their faith in people who believed the Earth was flat and had no idea that Australia or the Americas even existed, all three easily disproved with knowledge, experimentation and observation, not blind faith.
It is not beyond belief that the majority of creationist preachers are outright liars, Kent 'convicted felon' Hovind for one example.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 16th, 2010
"Kent 'convicted felon' Hovind"
Who?
"it's almost beyond belief to me that any intelligent, educated person could place their faith in people who believed the Earth was flat and had no idea that Australia or the Americas even existed,"
A. I'm not placing my faith in THEM, I am placing my faith in God, thank you very much.
B. I'm just as surprised that any intelligent person would actually believe that their universe came all together by some big explosion.
Seriously, didn't you get the idea from the atomic bombing that destruction DOES NOT create anything new (Not including radiation)?
by Anonymous on April 16th, 2010
The old bomb fallacy eh? Well that's easily debunked for a start, just because the bomb destroys an order you can understand, it does not necessarily follow that it hasn't created something, the fact that you regard it as a chaotic mess is irrelevant, the fact that it has caused nothing of value to you to spring into existence does not prove that explosions only cause destruction.
You might as well put your faith in the Teletubbies for all it matters, the bible is a collection of moral stories, not a scientific treaties on the inner workings of the universe, and it is the source of your belief in god.
Many thousands, perhaps even millions of gods have been worshipped throughout the millenia with equal fervour to your own, either all of them exist, or none of them, I err on the side of none, but by no means am I irreligious, I simply do not hold with beliefs that are not backed by rational thought, as opposed to irrational, blind, faith.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 17th, 2010
"I simply do not hold with beliefs that are not backed by rational thought, as opposed to irrational, blind, faith."
I simply do not believe in beliefs that the universe came together without God.
"The old bomb fallacy eh?"
It may be old, but it still holds true.
"nothing of value to you to spring into existence does not prove that explosions only cause destruction."
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot the part where shards of buildings are desirable, that outlines of the shadows of humans in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, were of great value.
Again, it still didn't create anything new that could pertain to creating and supporting life.
So no, the "old bomb fallacy" still holds true.
by Anonymous on April 17th, 2010
The reason the bomb fallacy is a fallacy is simply because you are assuming that unoccupied building remain abandoned, whereas in reality nature takes up residence quite quickly, they become useless to us, but are a boon to wildlife.
Here in the UK wildlife conservationists are using TNT on peat bogs in order to create small ponds for wildlife.
You are correct to say bombs used in war, designed by an intelligence, are unpleasant and of little use, but you are wrong to say that all explosions are bad, the difference is which situation they occur in.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 18th, 2010
"nature takes up residence quite quickly"
The explosion itself did not create anything new that would classify as a life-form, what would happen is plants THAT ALREADY EXISTED would eventually find a way into said residence and have their offspring "take-over" that area.
by Anonymous on April 18th, 2010
Correct, however a previously inhospitable area becomes more hospitable to life, life was not created at the moment of the big bang, as you should well know, but the conditions for an environment conducive to life was.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 18th, 2010
"but the conditions for an environment conducive to life was."
And where does this life come from?
by Anonymous on April 18th, 2010
(Bleh, AB bug)
by Anonymous on April 18th, 2010
Life came from a chemical combination which was more robust than other chemicals, it gradually became more and more complex.
If it's all too much for you to comprehend, by all means feel free to go back to your default position of 'it was all done with magic', despite all of the solid evidence to the contrary.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 19th, 2010
"'it was all done with magic', despite all of the solid evidence to the contrary."
Magic has nothing on God :D
"Life came from a chemical combination which was more robust than other chemicals, it gradually became more and more complex."
So, you're saying a bunch of chemicals somehow became sentient all on their own, forming a living organism? That's just plain nuts, no matter how you look at it.
by Anonymous on April 19th, 2010
Not at all, I must admit that I didn't explain it in a particularly eloquent way, but sentience is not the first step in evolution, the ability to absorb other chemicals to maintain its existence is.
Magic is a force beyond our comprehension, you claim that your god is beyond comprehension and simply wished everything into existence, the invisible man in the sky who nobody sane has heard from in thousands of years (if ever), just popped it all into existence, complete with fossils to "test our faith", and yet chemistry that can be replicated sounds nuts?
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 19th, 2010
"and yet chemistry that can be replicated sounds nuts?"
Yes
"who nobody sane has heard from in thousands of years"
Who no one who isn't listening hasn't heard from.
"You claim that your god is beyond comprehension and simply wished everything into existence"
Wrong, spoke into existence.
"just popped it all into existence"
And where did the material for your Big Bang come from? Nowhere? Eventually, no matter how you look at it, something just has to have came into existence, or as my beliefs say, was always there.
by Anonymous on April 19th, 2010
Chemistry, something we can see and smell and touch sounds more nuts than the invisible man 'speaking' things into existence? Are you winding me up here?!?
The big bang theory only extends as far back as the actual event itself, however if I understand the theory of relativity correctly, matter and energy are interchangeable, vast amounts of energy may well cause matter to form.
If you're hearing a god talking in your head, you need help because you are not sane, therefore, nobody sane, or honest, has ever heard from god.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on April 19th, 2010
"If you're hearing a god talking in your head, you need help because you are not sane, therefore, nobody sane, or honest, has ever heard from god."
Or maybe you're just not listening, or maybe you have heard but have disregarded it as nothing.
"Are you winding me up here?!?"
Yes :D
by Anonymous on April 20th, 2010
by msspacey123
on February 25th, 2010
voted:
Yes
he created a day in 7 days?
by MajkenLovise on April 19th, 2010
We don't know for sure. us hums like to put a pinpoint on things as to how long things are while God doesn't
by msspacey123 on April 23rd, 2010
so then when anything else in the Bible is found to be false, you'll just say it doesn't mean the same thing to God?
so for example it turns out the Earth isn't the center of the universe. OK, well then, we humans don't know what "center" is to God.
or, Jesus said that he would return before some in that room had tasted death. They're all dead and he hasn't return. OK, then we humans don't know what "taste" means to God.
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
by Z-Weezy on February 25th, 2010
Mmmm ... may I have 'faith' in your heartfelt logic? Yes, indeedy.
by M Moon on February 25th, 2010
So then, God is not eternal-- matter is. Come on, tell me how the "matter" got here in the first place. That's every bit as difficult as explaining how WE got here. I assume the existence of a God; you assume the existence of the Matter. The only difference is in the object of worship and the different paths of logic.
by Believer77 on March 20th, 2010
Exactly. That is why this question is in the debate section. I choose to believe in scienctific theory that is contantly being changed and more often than not flawed. However, as time progresses I think mankind will find the answer to this question. Science continues to evolve, religion is stagnant. Unless a modern day prophet appears and repeats some of the miracle of the new testament and publishes an addendum to the bible, you will get no new information. Every single day, mankind makes leaps and bounds towards solving the questions of the world around us. Maybe at some point our two belief systems will converge-science proving that their is a God-and you can say, "I told you so."
Until then though, I am not going to believe that an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being that is supposed to have empathy towards man could create a world that is so flawed and has so much suffering. I choose to put my faith in myself and my fellow man, because though they are flawed, they never claimed to be perfect.
by Z-Weezy on March 22nd, 2010
At least you're honest. I like that. This debate about who has faith in what gets on my nerves sometimes.
by Believer77 on March 22nd, 2010
I have tons of respect for believers, and am honestly a little jealous. I just don't have the faith to believe in a system which I see as being inherently flawed.
I am grateful for all the good that Churches and religious charities do for the world though.
by Z-Weezy on March 22nd, 2010
I just want to point out that the big band did not in fact bring things into existence, the theory states that all was compressed to an infinitesimal point that then expanded rapidly (and explosively) and continues to expand (accelerating) to this day. I haven't ready everything you have here, just skimmed, but I wanted to clarify that. Though I do appreciate your attitude.
by TheBemused on March 30th, 2010
TheBemused is correct. In my original answer, a more accurate statement would have been the universe as we know it came to exist in the blink of an eye. I am aware that the theory states thats all matter was condensed prior to the Big Bang. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
by Z-Weezy on March 31st, 2010
by Vastin
on February 24th, 2010
voted:
No
Sarcastic you are. Nonsensical. Dubiously generated. Worthlessness. Arguments?
The light transit of which God creates and enlightens has not to do with the speed of light. That is not an argument, it is a statement which only the enlightened appreciate.
Worthless are they of whom you speak? Best to be worthless in wisdom and belief in God, than immobilized by self.
by Avatar7 on February 24th, 2010
You are quite disdainful of your fellow humans aren't you? Sarcastic you are. Angry too.
I think not that you enjoy your life upon this planet nor the wonders here. You mention the word argument four times. Of whom do you wish to argue? God with a small g? Ok.
Nonsensical? Dubiously generated? God, confusing the 'Hell' out of human beings? Do you believe in Hell? Well, at least that's a start.
The speed of light and the 'distance to furthest stars' is the scientific hinge upon which you measure earths time? Yet within those calculations, can you add one thing to or take one thing from God? No.
I can just see you sitting and saying to 'Crucify Christ' because according to your doubt and calculations, he was an accident. For if, according to you, one such as I am 'enwombed' and cradled within an imagined universe, then you must be God and Jesus must not have been His Son. All of His followers must have been delusional. The only Holy water you believe in was the liquid Pontius Pilate washed his hands with. If so, then Jesus must have been a figment of his imagination because the miracles you doubt exist because you have not 'seen' them could not have occurred.
Do you suppose 'His Light' to be that of the one which limits your universe to measurements and increments which make you feel solid through logical deductions based upon human eyesight; not insight?
God is omnipresent which transcends anything you know of as reality. I believe Jesus: "Blessed are those who believe and have not seen". I also believe that your doubt will not bring you blessings.
Still, I wish for you to have blessings, to see beauty, and to be touched by everything good and pure. To have love reside within and without. Not to argue, but to share with others, offering hope to all whom you meet.
by Avatar7 on February 25th, 2010
by Margen67
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
wait wait...unicorns arent real?
lol, sorry but evolution is REAL. how do you explain the fact that all embroys from all species start out the same and then change as they mature? embroys all have gills in the begining and start out as the same blob shape...chicken,pig, human, fish and then start having differences. or the fact that snakes used to have legs and went away? yes god and the garden blah blah..thats a myth of biblical proportions! And what about Darwin's finches? i think that pretty much sums it all up.
by bthcas on February 26th, 2010
bthcas how do explain where did it all come from? We came from monkeys c'mon where did the monkey come from? The bible is like a history book its right in front of you, you can't prove that evolution is real its just a theory !
by iLOVEJESUS on February 26th, 2010
Not so sure what the unicorn part was about, but I like this!
by Anonymous on February 27th, 2010
For the last fucking time (excuse the language) we didn't evolve from monkeys. Humans evolved from a common ancestor. Just like every other organism on planet Earth. Don't bother debating this FACT with me, I don't have time for people who are unwilling to open their mind to reality.
Later.
by HumourMe on February 28th, 2010
HumourMe, I think most creationists know evolution doesn't claim we didn't come from monkeys, either that or they're too dunse to actually retain the knowledge.
by Coexist on February 28th, 2010
And then they're these people with the whole Michael Jackson theology of Coexisting...
Hahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaha!
Seriously, if you think a Coexisting will happen with the rest of the world hardly getting along at all, almost to the point of Nuking each other, you need to step out of Dreamland.
by Anonymous on February 28th, 2010
Prove evolution.
by King Arthur Pendragon on April 27th, 2010
That is an unfair comparison - since unicorns don't really exist, but are mythical creatures based on the discovery of Rhinos.
Human and apes both evolved from an earlier common ancestor, who in turn evolved from an even earlier ancestor with branches spreading far and wide creating millions of different species of animals with evolutionary differences.
by neveroddoreven on September 12th, 2010
by Opinion-man on February 23rd, 2010
by Avatar7
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
Yes
You are quite disdainful of your fellow humans aren't you? You prefer the company of imaginary beings, never seen, never questioning your self-righteousness. You have no peers, for you are cradled and en-wombed entirely within your own imagined universe.
Still, you do look kind of silly in there. ;)
by Vastin on February 24th, 2010
Vastin,
Of such immense doubt you do reside and that to which you addressed me is upon you. I notice that you spell God with a 'small' g...
My answer really got under your skin didn't it? Ohhh aren't you about to fall over your pride and non-beliefs? Ego. Of your error and in your 'talk'; the walk of one who leaves little hope for those who look to God as a higher source of knowledge.
Yet of man, whose reflection in a mirror could teach him much. For if he would say, here am I; Thank You God; in gratitude may I serve you; and in humble thankfulness may I praise the bounties upon the earth, the silence of the universe, the clarity of mind, the stoutness of heart; as the good comes in and the bad goes out; may my soul be free and my eye with beauty filled. Only with innocent purity may man ask and receive the knowledge that God desires us to know, in abundance according to that which each is capable of receiving.
And of capability? You have to learn to crawl before you can get up off of your slithering belly and walk. Your commentaries reflect one immersed in his own doubts and questionings casting shadows upon others who look to His light for wisdom.
by Avatar7 on February 24th, 2010
So, do you believe in six literal days or do you believe in days consisting of a divine standard that cannot be known to man? If the latter is true, why is it necessary to even mention these days if they were sure to cause confusion or could be interpreted in many different ways? What is the point in saying different days when God could've just listed what she created in chronological order?
The seventh day is supposed to be a day of rest for Christians, but is the because God rested on the seventh day or because man miss-interpreted her word?
by uhhu on February 25th, 2010
Josiah...
Days consisting of a divine standard that cannot be known to man.
There are those who attempt to steal the secrets they cannot calculate. Others who would use that knowledge in forms that would upset the natural balance of the universe. Everything is inter-linked, timed and of it's own natural duration, not for man to manipulate. One mistake of mankind upon the dawn of timings are capable of a domino effect of which he has not yet the ability to calculate.
People take truth that they can see and feel, then turn it into a maze of questionings. Anyone can take the simple statement that God created the world in six days dissect it into infinite pieces, then reassemble them into another likeness. Of such many make misinterpretations and lead others into confusion. Remembering that at one point people thought the earth was flat… so too our perceptions of the universe are in the embryonic stages of awareness.
Through God’s mysteries, mankind is protected from himself, he created us to have free-will, but not for the purpose of doubting his creation or the wonders thereof.
I happen to like the world's beauties and wonders and think He not only did a good job, but the intricate life forms and creations express such a diversity, that one can only look in wonder and be thankful. It concerns me not what the number of days, millennium or manmade increments of time it took him to create the earth we inhabit.... It matters what mankind does to care for it and each other, in obedience to simple wisdom which God intended for our benefit, health and growth upon our journey here.
To answer the 'seventh day' and 'misinterpretation' query, the answer is: Both.
Thank you for your interest.
by Avatar7 on February 25th, 2010
Do you not postulate that perhaps God wanted us to learn about the specifics of her creation. There are many scientists who find Theories such as Evolution, Abiogenesis, and The Big Bang as nothing more than explanations to how God set everything into being. I am curious as to what your stance on bible literalism and currently scientific theories is. You seem to have a rather hostile stance on people questioning the natural order of things and I would like to know if this applies to scientific discovery.
by uhhu on February 25th, 2010
Josiah...
Do my words make you ‘feel’ hostility? Why? What is within you?
Yet in the face of mankind’s tendency to not only fight amongst one another, but even against the goodness and God; Yes it might be said that ‘mankind’, missed the mark. As such, we are all imperfect and limited in knowledge of the Creators infinite design.
Scientific theories might be likened to a mult-dimensional Rubik’s cube. Always striving to place individual aspects in line with one another; yet of that striving, not the ‘whole’ is discovered, only tiny fragments. To possess part of a formula without the whole creates mutations of truth and matter.
The natural order of things was intended to be ‘thankfulness’, ‘wholeness’, and ‘innocence’ through divine love. Not 'love to get' but 'love to give unto others'. All of which could be possessed by the poorest soul on earth. Blessed are the poor for they shall see God. Unto that, all answers locked within the Bibles pages are revealed. Not one answer is impossible to God for revelation, through the name of one undefiled, Jesus.
Spend a billion dollars on science, yet the humble man with one penny in his pocket, giving it away to one in need, shall be given knowledge at his bidding.
How does the ‘heart of science’ beat? For it is through heart that all knowledge is manifested. Be a heart bad, darkness. Be a heart true, light. This simple fact cannot be used by those of darkness for the light knows them by name and number. Those to whom earthly ‘being’ is absorbed by questionings for profit and knowledge tilt the ‘natural order of things’ and open the doors of good and bad knowledge; often not realizing one from the other in their quest for scientific answers; his concept of the ‘natural order of things’ and Gods are upon two totally different spheres of existence. Constantly rotating and sometimes almost within proximity, yet separate. One is the true horizon, the Creator, the other a mirage.
If mankind fails to live on this divine planet in love and harmony and gratitude, the result will be irreversible unseen consequences… In the end, the seeker of new knowledge will be used as a pawn by those seeking to regain what they lost. The blind leading the blind.
Great will the fall be thereof.. The very ground will be shaken and felt around the Globe. Nay not of God’s hostility, but of mans own failure to be thankful to the Creator for what he has, be content with where he is in the Universe and promote love, divine inspiration, hope and healing upon Earth. “Seek not to conquer the universe if you do not master yourselves on earth by allowing the Creator to be the teacher and one true source of your being”. Of that ‘breath’, beats the true heart.
by Avatar7 on February 26th, 2010
by Avatar7 on February 26th, 2010
No, I do not feel a hostility towards you, I wrote that you seem to have a hostility towards scientific inquiry. Or at least a strong skepticism.
So, do you accept *any* scientific theory, or are they all misguided? I think it would be best for you if you took the time to understand the theories that you regard as non-sense or inherently incorrect before entirely dismissing them. You seem to want a world where humans sit in awe of God's creation and not make simple of it so that they may be more sincere in their beliefs. But then, if people are so sure and positive in their beliefs, what is to stop them from disregarding life as precious and rare? What is to stop other random religions from sprouting up that encourage violence because they are so convinced of their god that they will do anything at all?
It would be nice if Gods were to exist and people treated each other with respect because of this, however, there will always be that dissenter, the wolf in sheep's clothing, who will seek to profit off of people's strong convictions at the expense of others. There will always be those who seek to understand our place in the cosmos, instead of placing scripture over observances. If people like Galileo had just taken the scriptures literally they would not have made the discoveries they had.
"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." ibid., p. 226
"...nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages." as quoted in Blind Watchers of the Sky, p. 101
-Galileo
by uhhu on February 26th, 2010
Blind. Blind. Watchers of the Sky. Says it all.
A. I did not say that you have hostility towards me. I asked, "My words make you feel 'hostility'?
B. Do I accept Rubik's cube scientific theory? No, for they are in-part, not in-whole gathered from fragmented knowledge.
C. Take the time to understand ‘the theories’. Why? Theories will not add one day nor subtract one day from my existence here on earth. Nor will it provide me with the one pathway that leads home to the Creator. I have free will, as you do, as you see, you be.
D. If the ‘seekers’ of finding our ‘place in the cosmos’, helped mankind find his place here on earth through mastery of self through the principles of God’s Word; The world would change for the better and the balance thereof preserved.
E. Yes we have God given ‘senses’. These may be used for Good or Evil. One who immerses himself in God and opens himself to ‘His Word’ which contains the keys to the Kingdom; travels the correct pathway to knowledge.
F. One who uses his senses, self-reason, and intelligence pursuing questionings to answers already available in God’s word, pursues the pathway which leads to darkness and though he may ‘gain the whole world and it’s riches’, loses his own soul in the process.
G. The source of ibid, p. 226??
Never question or condemn anything proven by sense-experience or ‘necessary demonstrations’, upon the testimony of biblical passages? To that author of doubting Gods Word; His truth was not revealed.
...Sounds like Lucifer’s autobiography written in blood, shed by God’s son, the lamb of truth, Jesus. Written of in the 'Bible'.
by Avatar7 on February 26th, 2010
I don't know who or what I would be feeling hostility against. I misunderstood your question, to answer it, I had no feelings of hostility.
I accidentally copied "ibid" over, sorry about that. The source is "Galileo at Work : His Scientific Biography"
Thank you for promulgating your stance; I find it very interesting.
by uhhu on February 26th, 2010
by Anonymous
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
it was dust before it was lava
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
Good point, purplecows.
by Anonymous on April 26th, 2010
by Adeptone
on March 30th, 2010
voted:
No
by Stauros
on February 26th, 2010
voted:
Yes
Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible's creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.—2 Peter 3:8.
by Stauros on March 5th, 2010
Are you saying that perception of patterns and ability to interpret these patterns is not a God given ability? Did he give us the ability to reason so we could point out the contradictions?
1 is not equal to 1,000;
unless the terms 1 and 1,000 are of equal value, therefore everything is a blend, God is neither alive nor dead, but both... Schroedinger's God?
A point and a line are not only unequal but are within 2 very different dimensions and planes though there can be a point residing on a line within that plane.
Please, Copy/paste your information from the bible that said it was in existence beforehand, because from what I remember it is stated that he created the land and the sea... not that he was Adam in disguise and took it upon himself to be not only the first man, but the first to differentiate one from another. Perhaps all he did was be the first to name them; creation in and of itself could be another metaphor. The bible loves those.
by TheBemused on March 30th, 2010
In case 6,000 years is not enough, we can just apply the same principle again: Each day of those 6,000 years is as 1,000 years, therefore six days, which is 6,000 years, is really 6,000 x 365 x 1,000 years, or 2,190,000,000 years.
That's pretty close to the 4,000,000,000 years that science tells us, and I'm sure we can find a way to make a minor adjustment.
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
by diligentdevil on February 25th, 2010
by vittau
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by Sunblynd 5.0
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
The question was whether you believe god created the earth in 6 'literal' days. The rotation of the earth may have altered slightly over the eons, but that just makes the days shorter, not thousands of years longer.
According to your statements above, you do NOT appear to believe that the earth was created in 6 days - not literally at any rate.
by Vastin on February 24th, 2010
got served
by badadee on February 25th, 2010
Literal days? You mean the modern 24 hour period right? I understand your knowledge is limited on what I just stated so let me put it in children's terms so you can understand okay?...okay.
As a child, I am sure you watch Star Trek right? And I am sure you heard of the space time continuem right? Okay, so the deeper you travel in space, the more time gets warped, some clocks can even turn backwards! Yes it's true! Isn't physics fun? So children, in your feeble gray matter perception, no the Earth was not created in six days per the literal sense of the current rotation of the Earth, as compared to it's primordial rotation billions and billions of years before the day your mommy and daddy got drunk and forgot to use a condom!
Now, Gods perception of time, is far different from yours, so to explain it so as if a child could understand it, 6 literal days were scribed, because the human brain in the days of Moses could not comprehend 450 Billion years!
The book of Genesis is a mythilogical story, if you would go to Sunday school you would learn this, but instead you choose to make up your own mind and use it to insult others because you think in your own little head, that it makes you look smart... Well, smart ass is more like it.
Got served back!
by Sunblynd 5.0 on February 25th, 2010
Your use of ad hominem makes me a sad panda. Also it's better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass. Using star trek as an analogy is terrible. For one the whole series is ridden with pseudo science that the general masses might actually perceive as true. The only thing I'm qualified to comment on is in the realm of special relativity (since I haven't studied general yet) where (acceleration = 0) and where the only thing that can cause time dilation is moving near the speed of light. At that point time starts to slow down for the thing that was accelerated up to near the speed of light and stays slower while it's traveling at that speed and a=0. But at no point does time fold back on itself (clocks turning backwards) the only effects you could possibly have are extremely slow running clocks that will return to normal once an object experiences an acceleration to lower it's velocity.
Since you were the one to make the claim that it was true, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders so until you can provide some scientific papers or some credible sources / authorities to prove your claim the rest of us can dismiss your claims about warped time frames.
Moving along though, your argument was trivialized ever since you called the book of genesis a mythological story. By saying that your affirming that you don't believe any part of it to be true because mythological stories are known to modern cultures to be fabricated stories to explain things that humans didn't or couldn't understand. If you want to correct this and say that genesis is true but the 6 days are a metaphor for weeks, months, years, etc then your argument would be less trivial.
In any case what your suggesting is that if there were a being, that being exists outside the realm of physics, because again thanks to special relativity all laws of physics hold for all parts of the universe so until something/someone can be shown to break this theory theists lack the evidence needed to prove their claim. Also no such being has been proven by a suitable gedanken experiment ( I did a paper on the ontological argument for example which highlighted many people coming to the conclusion that it uses circular reasoning or other fallacies.) But since a god can neither be confirmed nor denied, the argument of it's abilities is trivial as well until such a being can be shown to exist.
by kinetochore on April 28th, 2010
let's play the same game with space instead of time.
With God, a thousand miles can be as an inch.
So maybe the entire universe is within arm's reach.
Even better: with God, a curved line can be straight and vice versa.
So the earth really is flat after all!
by purplecows on September 25th, 2010
by Brian I
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
For some reason I can't "like" your answer(I keep clicking but nothing keeps happening), so I'll have to do it the old fashioned way. Great answer Brian.
by Reptar on February 25th, 2010
Brian the author and you are correct. A recent study done in the US showed that significantly more people believe in creationism than in science. Over 60% in fact believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. It's absolutely shameful but there it is.
by ConservativelyLiberal on September 9th, 2010
how many believe that pi is equal to 3?
by purplecows on September 25th, 2010
Exactly purple. They ignore what parts of the bible they want and support what parts they want to. They ignore the fact that the bible gets something as simple as Pi wrong(even though other cultures had calculated out 6 to 7 decimal places). And choose to support young earth quackery, even though there's mountains of evidence to the contrary. That portion of American society has given up on not just logical but even reasonable and rational thinking. It's the major dividing line in the conservative liberal divide.
by ConservativelyLiberal on September 26th, 2010
@ purplecows - I'm not a believer and I didn't know anything about Biblical calculations of pi so I just Googled it and, like so much else about the Bible, there are sites that say one thing and other sites that say the opposite. Here are two links from the first Google page, both of which seem to be saying that the Bible doesn't give a value of 3:
http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-contain-mathematically-incorrect-value-/
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
by Brian I on September 26th, 2010
by iwnit
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
No
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi
on July 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by Crowsnest
on April 1st, 2010
voted:
No
by Legend In Your Own Mind
on February 27th, 2010
voted:
No
by Ferrari_Enzo
on February 27th, 2010
voted:
Yes
Good sales techniques.
by Adeptone on March 8th, 2010
It's not the "SUPER ULRTA MEGA UBER POULAR RELIGION".
.
Give me three things that prove God real without:
1.Saying you can't prove God real, it's all about faith!
2.The earth is prove, where else could it have come from!
3.How do you exist if God isn't real!
4.Why don't you disprove God!
by Zenrean on March 9th, 2010
That's because way back, back when culture was slowly growing to incorporate views from around the world, the Roman Catholic Empire went on missions to convert or purge; civilizations lived from then on in fear that if they did not believe or spread the word they would get the ax.
This was further pressed by the crusades which ravaged a land in which the antagonizers had never set foot, just because the members of the church believed it was the place where much of their religion originated and so it could not be inhabited by such mongrels as those who do not believe in God.
This is a constant theme in the Christian religious background, using the stories of the church to manipulate the masses into bloody wars focused on expanding the influential bounds of the religion for which they fight. I think you knew it once in America as Manifest Destiny. It was a form of delusional belief of entitlement that the religion had... "Dominion over everything"
by TheBemused on March 30th, 2010
Thank all valiant and intelligent humans who conceived of, and who sacrificed and died for this democracy, and may we fervently hold it ever near and alive as a highest treasure beyond measure!
by Adeptone on March 30th, 2010
Christianity is the most popular religion, therefore it must be right and all the others are wrong.
And Catholicism is more popular then Protestantism, therefore it must be right and Protestantism is wrong.
But wait! Islam is more popular than Catholicism! Oh no!
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
I like your Comment, purplecows, but unfortunately there is no LIKE button in the Comments section... so here it is: Adeptone L*I*K*E*S this.
by Adeptone on April 27th, 2010
well then...how did scientists find clams or shells on the top of mountains. That proves that there was a great flood and Noah did have a huge ark.
by Ferrari_Enzo on September 21st, 2010
That proves no such thing. Sixty-five million years before the present, the dinosaurs became extinct, and mammals ruled the Earth. The techtonic plate of India, moving northward, collided with Asia. The collision pushed the shallow ocean sediments between the plates into the towering mountains we call the Himalayas, carrying fossil seashells up as part of the mountains. You really need to do some reading other than just your Bible!
by Adeptone on September 25th, 2010
ha ha! adeptone didn't catch the satire!
"That proves that there was a great flood AND NOAH DID HAVE A HUGE ARK."
by purplecows on September 25th, 2010
Well ferrari how the clams came to be on a mountain is the theory of plate tectonics, Duh.
by AKNA on September 26th, 2010
That anything is "poopular" merely shows that the MASS MENTALITY HAS BOUGHT INTO IT, not necessarily that it is true!! Where did you learn reasoning? Get your money back!
by Adeptone on September 28th, 2010
I wish Answerbag techs would upgrade the Comment section so that one can respond to either another's Answer OR another's Comment to an Answer. It gets confusing. Especially when you can't see the last Comment. Or can see the last Comment but not the original Answer. Maybe if the Answer hovered above the Comments and after two or three comments they then go under it so it remains always in sight, it would help everyone keep on the subject matter?
by Adeptone on September 28th, 2010
by thaer35
on February 25th, 2010
voted:
Yes
Sure, six long billion-year periods(!) Not a cop-out at all...
by Isaac on February 26th, 2010
no, I think it was one period, which we can arbitrarily divide into six parts
by purplecows on September 25th, 2010
by Werewolf87
on February 24th, 2010
voted:
No
use your brain wolf87! There would be no science if it weren't for GOD! GOD MADE SCIENCE!!! GOD MADE IT SO THAT ONE DAY ON EARTH IS A THOUSAND(S) YEARS!!!!! IT WAS 6 DAYS! HE SAID SIX DAYS NOT 6 THOUSAND YEARS DUH!
by Ferrari_Enzo on February 27th, 2010
Note the fact that I said it took 6 Heavenly days and used the words possibly and could've. It's a theory not fact.
by Werewolf87 on February 27th, 2010
There would be no science if it weren't for the FIVE GODS!
THE FIVE GODS MADE SCIENCE!!!
by purplecows on September 25th, 2010
And... just who are these "FIVE GODS"?
by Werewolf87 on September 26th, 2010
The Five Gods are the Creators of the Four Heavens and the Earth.
It says so in the Five Books.
by purplecows on September 26th, 2010
by Scuba_Steve on February 24th, 2010
open your mind and let this in...God= who created; Science= How he created.
by Werewolf87 on March 14th, 2010
Bible= Wrong description of how he created.
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
Biblical data is simply not appropriate to this mode of discussion.
by canoeguide on July 12th, 2010
by Ferrari_Enzo
on February 24th, 2010
voted:
Yes
Evolutionists have evolved well beyond the point of believing in the stuff of ancient supernatural imaginations.
by kakskee on February 24th, 2010
Ferrari- A creature with missing bones or other vital parts would be unlikely to survive long, the theory of evolution and natural selection teaches us that, we do have unused parts, what do you think appendix is?
Your assertion is based on a total lack of understanding of how evolution works.
I find it interesting how you attempt to insinuate that those who regard evolution are somehow atavistic, whilst adhering to an anachronistic bronze age religion.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 25th, 2010
Ferrari_Enzo don`t listen to them i have proved PocketNut wrong over and over .these 2 here know nothing about nothing . all that brain with nothing to show for it but evolutionery lies ,what a waste of school :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
Don't worry, he won't.
His brain has not evolved beyond the concepts of ancient supernatural beliefs. Like yours I guess.
by kakskee on February 26th, 2010
kakskee glad to hear his brain did not evolve as his brain was created by god as was yours
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
My brain was not created out of clay; it evolved.. must be an advantageous difference.
by kakskee on February 26th, 2010
kakskee ...ok fair enough your brain evolved if thats what you want
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
i know one thing my brain didnt evolved from no monkey!
by iLOVEJESUS on February 26th, 2010
HKP-Thus far you have proven nothing, not one single shred of evidence beyond whichever version of the bible you read.
You have repeated the same, easily debunked, creationist nonsense a number of times, and deliberately misinterpreted evolutionary theory, but have not produced any evidence to back up your claim, preferring instead to mock the research of people who are far more qualified than either you or I, in an attempt to push your unproven dogma on to others.
Teaching evolution to you is like expecting a cat to walk along the mantlepiece without knocking off any ornaments, it could, but it just doesn't want to.
You have proved nothing beyond your ignorance of scientific method.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 27th, 2010
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i8f.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
two site's that prove evolution wrong.
by P4ganiZonda on February 27th, 2010
come on PocketNut the appendix does serve you but it's fine if you take it out!
Your right kakskee your brain did evolve from a monkey thats why you have no logic!
Thanks hong kong phooey
by Ferrari_Enzo on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut you obviously did not take any notice of the videos .
as for living transition the only example you had was what i gave you ,tadpole turning into a frog and that is how you show you have won a debate , i`m going to start drawing pictures for you soon because how many tadpoles when they get older do not turn into a frog ......none they turn into frogs now on just that alone you have proved to me you will try and use anything to debunk even if it does not work or even if it has nothing to do with the debate ,now tell me how have you won any thing , PocketNut you are a paleantolagist right so if you are shown something that destroys your beliefs destroys your job then of course you will try every thing to keep people thinking that you are really cleaver i bet you any money that when you go into a debate you expect every body to pat you on the back telling you how great you are but this time you came unstuck and found that your beliefs was just a fable .so you tell me now who has got there tail between their legs ....ps one of your evolutionary friends tried to tell me to go easy on you because of all those years you done getting educated and i should show more respect because of it ...why should i, you have been taught a pack of lies and now you are trying to get everybody thinking you deserve respect ,how do i respect someone like that ,you have no idea what is going on other than what you see as physical ,you have not got a clue ,i debunked you easily i even screwed your ideas up . with your supposed infinite wisdom you cannot even tell the difference between a tadpole and a fossil . so now you know were you stand in the world you can get off that high and mighty horse and and eat humble pie or are you just going to cry and get offended you never know that could work as a debate winning tactic, one day when you lose your next debate just stamp your feet and cry because that is the only way you can get out of a debate ,,i bet you wish you never even entered that debate with me now i bet you thaught "oh great another chance to show every body how cleaver i am " but this time it did not go your way did it . oh would you like more proof as i have not shown you every thing would you like me to prove my self over and over but this time i will keep it simple i will use pictures just so you under stand ,be careful now as this will destroy what credibility your science has got left and you will have to change your job title .
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut take a look at this video . can all of you take a look at this video and then you will see where pocketnut tried to debunk me , he thinks tadpoles change into anything but a frog, you all watch it to see the truth of evolution and it is told by a scientist so pocketnut cannot debunk this he`s tried but failed miserably http://vimeo.com/3080507
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut did you send spam to my message box , i bet it was you ,is that what you do when you lose a debate .like i said stop stamping your feet you are a grown man are`nt you, with all them qualafications and supposed brains , very immature to say the least and to be honest with you i expected that off a evolutionist ,once they lose an argument they resort to name calling ....why.....have they got to have every thing there own way ,i mean how can an evolutionist win a debate by pointing out spelling mistakes because thats what a lot of them try instead of keeping to the facts of the debate .
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
P4ganiZonda i see them sights, great info cheers :)
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
Ooh, now we're getting heated!
HKP- No, I have not spammed you, and yes I did watch the video you posted, which whilst for the most part presents facts, is still wrong.
I have far from lost this debate, if you think hurling accusations and having a paddy is going to somehow cow me into silence you've got another think coming.
The process of changing from a tadpole to a frog is not an example of one creature turning into another, any more than a foetus growing into an adult is, it's called metamorphosis and lots of species do it.
The video also misrepresents the speed at which evolution occurs, some species change rapidly, like the elephants who now have shorter tusks, others don't change for millions of years, such as cockroaches, dragonflies, mosquitoes, lamprey, coelocanth, crocodilians, and so on, evolution is not a constant progression, but driven by the environment.
New species do appear in the fossil record, apparently without any kind of forebear, however since fossilisation is such a rare ocurrence, I am amazed we have any remains to study at all, all the lack of evidence means is that we haven't found it yet, or it has been destroyed.
The same could be said of Eoraptor, it is the earliest known dinosaur, but not necessarily the first dinosaur.
Science does not have all the answers, because it relies on evidence, creationists think they have all the answers because their preachers tell them so, let's face it, they'd be out of a job if they didn't keep the churches full of paying worshippers!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut it does not misrepresent any thing and also you said
"The process of changing from a tadpole to a frog is not an example of one creature turning into another, any more than a foetus growing into an adult is, it's called metamorphosis and lots of species do it" but this is the reason that you gave that you say backs up your story of transition of one animal into another
and now you are saying different mmmmm how much more are you going to twist then change ? are we going to finish the debate off ,i say this just to give you a fare chance , now what are you going to finish the debate or make excuses ?.. oh as for church i do not go to one i do all that at home ,four walls and a cieling does not make a church it comes from with in so that idea of yours is gone . so are you going to finish the debate before you anounce how great you are because as you know that is just foolish ..?????????????
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
I have never pretended to have knowledge beyond the ken of others, the information I am sharing is freely available to anyone who cares to look, and has a thirst for learning, rather than trying to justify blind dogma, I constantly question my motives and beliefs, if any creationist ideas had any merit I would pursue and research them, as I have done on many occasions, the video you posted was interesting, but fundamentally flawed.
The metamorphosis of the young of a species is not evolution, it's maturation, the tadpole was always going to grow into a frog, you have plainly not understood what I'm trying to say.
The offspring of a creature is genetically a combination of its parents' DNA, therefore different, if that difference is beneficial it survives and breeds, and passes that benefit on to future generations, the next generation is again, subtly different to its parents as well, so we then have two mutations, follow this train of logic for long enough and you will find that the creatures descendants will begin to show less and less resemblance the original species.
It's not difficult to comprehend, where you are coming unstuck is in assuming that everything happens at a set rate, and that every life form that ever lived was preserved in the fossil record.
A lack of some of the evidence does not invalidate the rest, the lack of any evidence whatsoever, not even the merest iota, discredits creationism utterly.
Whether or not you attend church, you are still being fed this creationist garbage by someone who has something to gain, and by promoting it you are doing their dirty work for them.
Making personal attacks on my character (if I wanted to spam you I'd have put my name to it, if nothing else, I am honest), ignoring every fact I pass your way, and repeating the letter 'm' in that irritating manner will never prove your point.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 27th, 2010
PocketNut go back to the other thread and read what you used to debunk it`s all there . so it does not look like you are willing to finish the debate off as i have still got a lot more evidence to show and it won`t be someone or a text book that says "this is true" ....well are we going to finish the debate and i promise not to say mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ?
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
I think a reason creationists fight so hard to try to defeat evolution is because of their fear that the theory of evolution indicates the bible is not literal truth. 'Course another reason is that evolution may suggest there may not even be a need for a God to create. Creationists really have no solid basis of argument for creation without concrete evidence of a supernatural creator. Saying they believe in a God but not proving there is a God to believe in means that they are agnostics weather they like it or not. Agnostic/Christian. Wishful dreamers.
by kakskee on February 27th, 2010
I have not used anything of the sort, go back and read it again, at no point have I suggested that a species changes between birth and adulthood, I have repeatedly stated that each offspring is a combination of its parents' DNA, and therefore subtly different from its parents.
If you had any evidence to start with, I have yet to see it, nothing you have used to support your ideas has so far escaped my ability to see where it is wrong, despite "dr" Marc Surtees' quote mining for tracts he can deliberately misrepresent, and yes he does if you read the full version of the quotes he uses, he is little more than a mild mannered, English version of Kent Hovind, albeit more plausible, he still clings to the "lack of evidence" raft, as if discrediting evolution will leave the way clear for his spurious religious convictions.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 27th, 2010
PLEASE READ!!!
Listen kaskee...listen to this. How come when i study lets say photosynthesis, it has a perfect logical explanation!!! One after another it tells me how it happens and all other stuff like, the human body it's organs, cells, mitochondria, and so on....untill it comes to the very beginnig. Scientests say that the earth was created but the earth was was full of gases and valcanos and they made life impossible. These gases were simple gases. And there was lighting and stuff like that and somehow it made a spark and it collided with the simple gases and made more complex gases that were not poisonous. And they say it was an accident.
How can every part in science be explained...every detali! And then out of no where the world was an accident!!!!!! The made it up!
Oh, and don't find a mistake in what i am saying becasue i said what the scientests said word for word!
by Ferrari_Enzo on February 27th, 2010
You keep studying, you keep learning. I can't really find a mistake in what you said because you didn't say much.
Once living organisms got started -presumably by some process of abiogenisis- they spread over the lands and oceans and over about 2 billion years were able to alter the atmosphere enough so that creatures with lungs and gills could evolve and expand the varieties of species..
I guess I could agree with you on some things but I primarily disagree about any concept of a supernatural element existing -if you would keep in mind my previous comment.
by kakskee on February 27th, 2010
kakskee
how long do you think it takes for the process of fossilisation to occur
a. tens of years
b. thousands of years
c. millions of years
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
It takes more than a few thousand years to make a fossil, we can still extract DNA samples from Neanderthal teeth, and they died out around 10,000 years ago, the same goes for the remains of mammoths, wooly rhinos,giant sloth and glyptodonts.
The amount of time it actually takes to fossilise a corpse depends entirel upon the conditions in which it was buried,how porous the remains were and how invasive the surrounding minerals were.
Life as we know it is probably incapable of survivng the conditions present in the atmosphere when the Earth was still young, however we do know that some species of micro-organism can live in volcanic springs that are frequently above boiling point, and inside the outside layers of rocks in some of the coldest places on the planet, so it is not entirely implausible that similar life forms could have survived way back in pre-history, in fact there is one species of fish, the largest such animal to dwell in such an inhospitable environment, that lives in volcanic springs that are on slightly cooler than boiling point.
There are stories about the cold virus surviving for a number of years on the outside of equipment left, and later retrieved from, the moon, after several years in a vacuum and being bombarded by cosmic radiation, the virus gradually became more and more active once back in our atmosphere.
It is this that has caused scientists to theorise that life on Earth may have been brought here in the ice of a comet, which opens up a whole new can of worms!!!!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 28th, 2010
It takes more than a few thousand years to..
Oh, I just noticed that PocketNut already said just exactly the same thing as I was going to about two hours ago.. Thanks PocketNut.
by kakskee on February 28th, 2010
PocketNut
so that calcified hat ,the problem we got with what you say about the material from the hat would still be present this is true but because it was in that solution in the mine for only fifty years not millions or even thousands of years like your fossils, it would not have had time to rot under all that deposit .
give the hat say a four thousand years time period it would have rotted away thus leaving a true fossil .... i`ll see you on the other question for the answer as we need to keep this debate going without other peoples witt
by hong kong phooey on February 28th, 2010
The problem with your statement is that the hat wasn't buried, it was coated and soaked by a lime solution, it wasn't fossilised, certainly over tens of thousands of years it may have become fossilised, but should the cave collapse upon it, the likelihood of it being crushed and destroyed beyond all recognition is high.
Fossils on the other hand are preserved by being buried, and very often compressed, by layers of sediment, and are only likely to be destroyed by erosion or volcanic activity.
This is a seperate debate to the other, to suddenly start talking about hats would be confusing to everyone but you and I, and we really don't need to confuse things any further!!!
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on February 28th, 2010
Evolution EXPECTS to be "stupid" to those who have never fairly studied it! Passing judgment on anything not first studied and investigated is itself the HEIGHT of STUPIDITY. It is identifiable as "Contempt prior to proper examination."
by Adeptone on September 28th, 2010
by thatsJustme
on February 23rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
by bLOGGER on February 23rd, 2010
Actually we are still in the 7th day of rest. That's why God seems to be MIA in the eyes of atheists.
by LarryH54 on February 23rd, 2010
Actually we are still in the 7th day of rest. That's why God seems to be MIA in the eyes of atheists.
by LarryH54 on February 23rd, 2010
Not MIA, it can't be MIA if it does not exist.
by lucas6 on February 23rd, 2010
Whatever. :p
by LarryH54 on February 23rd, 2010
wait ... He worked half of the seventh day ?!?!?
by purplecows on April 25th, 2010
by hong kong phooey
on February 22nd, 2010
voted:
Yes
And that proves that the world was made in 6 days?
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 22nd, 2010
no the bible proves that on it`s own
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
the bible proves nothing.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 22nd, 2010
Why do you think 1 day is equal to 1,000 years? What evidence outside of the Bible suggests a young earth?
by Maerdyn77 on February 22nd, 2010
Omg again someone who says there is no evidence to evolution. OMG!!!!!
I feel like tearing my hair of my head. Why do you creationist always bring evolution into the creation of the world? Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the earth of how life began only how life adapts to its soroundings.
by warex255 on February 22nd, 2010
Hong Kong Phooey....How old are you? If you're old enough to use the internet, or drive to the library, then you can find evidence of evolution.
by Blackberry. on February 22nd, 2010
Hong Kong Phooey: Before discrediting hundreds of year's worth of scientific research and proof that the earth was created over BILLIONS of years, learn proper grammar. Then come argue with me.
Your sentence (1000 years is one day, etc.) reveals nothing to me except that some people still take the bible literally.
by Meg on February 22nd, 2010
by Meg on February 22nd, 2010
prove evolution ?
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
There is more evidence that animals evolved to what they are now, than there is evidence of complex animals simply appearing out of nowhere on God's command.
Take dogs for example. This is an example of artificial selection. Do you think God suddenly created all the breeds of dogs we have today when he created the earth? Natural selection is the same concept, except we're doing the selecting.
by Meg on February 22nd, 2010
no dogs came from one animal the wolf . name one animal in recorded history that evolved from one animal to another species
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
Please read this interesting article from 'Nature' journal:
Thewissen, J G, Cooper, L. N., Clementz, M T, Bajpai, S., & Tiwari, B N (Dec 20, 2007). Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India. Nature, 450, 7173. p.1190(5). Retrieved February 22, 2010, from InfoTrac General Science eCollection via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.rap.ocls.ca/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=ko_acd_cec
It proves how whales evolved from an animal called 'indohyus', a furry, four-legged mammal resembling a capybara. They prove this by comparing the bone structure & density, and the composition of the teeth of both specimen. It's a fascinating article.
by Meg on February 22nd, 2010
start with an animal with a short lifespan like a fly surely even over 10.000 yrs there would be fossilised fly`s that show everdence of some sort of change seeing as a fly breeds qicker and lives shorter lives than most animals what about a 10.000 yr old lump of amber with an insect in it i bet your bottom dollar that you still find that sort of insect nowadays with no change yes they may adapt to the environment but not change into a different species, so you see we do not even need an animal that is as you lot say millions of yrs old to prove your point just an animal that reproduces quicker take the worm for example they reproduce about every 30 days such a quick reproduction there must be some change there mmmmm no there is not compare a worm fossil of say oh i don`t know in your terms 1 milllion yrs old now take that fossil to your back garden dig up a worm and look for the changes mmmmm non .......
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
Yeah... I'm done arguing with you. I could go on forever about this, but there's no point. Sadly, you'll never understand.
by Meg on February 22nd, 2010
what like the bone structure of a chicken is the same as a t rex because it has one similer bone no does not calculate oh hold on a minute was we not tought that all land life came from the see but you just devolved the whale from land to sea so the 'indohyus came from the land then evolved back into a sea creature no thats devolution you can`t have it both ways . so there is the ancester of the whale came from a furry land animal and the ancester further back came from the sea very confusing how does that work mmmmm it does`nt . you can`t have evolve and have devolve
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
:)
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
hold on i have not told you about how man and dinosaur lived on the planet side by side or how i can prove the earth is really as young as the bible says and i won`t use the bible to prove it come back i promise i will not use the bible for either argument and i will still prove my case. where are you going you have not heard my latest facts wich i can use nature to prove what i say .
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
ok i won`t even use any thing on this planet to prove the age of the earth i will use another celestial body mmmmmm
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
I can't understand a word you're saying due to your deplorable grammar and lack of punctuation, so yes! I believe you! whatever it is you're saying...I QUIT TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS, SO YOU WIN!
by Meg on February 22nd, 2010
i won because i was right and no other reason and resorting to insults is just bad sportmanship
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
I've come to the conclusion that Hong Kong is simply a sarcastic kid on the internet, I don't want to believe there are people still so mind-numbingly ignorant on the planet.
by Blackberry. on February 22nd, 2010
if i`m so ignorant then prove what i say is wrong Blackberry or prove evoloution take your pick
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
Hong Kong, to understand evolution you need to understand that living organisms adapt to their environment. If the environment changes very little, than its habitants will most likely not undergo drastic changes. The crocodile is a rough example of this. So even a fly, with its short reproductive stages, will not change as much if its surroundings are stable.
In the case of the whale, it was advantageous for its ancestor to return to the water (I'm not familiar with whale evolution, but Meg was able to provide an article). This is not devolution. There is not such thing as devolution. It is an adaptation to its changing environment.
by Maerdyn77 on February 22nd, 2010
"no dogs came from one animal the wolf . name one animal in recorded history that evolved from one animal to another species"
For the record, evolution does not suggest that cats turn into dogs or anything else. Every new species still belongs to the same category as its ancestors. Do you deny that we are vertebrates? Or mammals? Or primates? Where do you draw the line and why?
by Maerdyn77 on February 22nd, 2010
ok a fly won`t change much if the environment stay stable so if the environment does get unstable it will change into a different species then answer me this if the earth is billions of years old why have we not got changes in fly`s ,the earth as you say is billions of years old and in all that time the earth has gone through cataclismic changes ie pangea , asteriod hitting the earth causing mass extinction ice ages global heat waves that`s enough unstability to change an animal into another species is`nt it . adaptation is not evolution and enviromental changes can not change species but can adapt . were`s evolution gone to mmmm
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
as for your argument about the whale you have just explained the process of evolution not adaptation . for a mammal to lose it`s legs and go back in the water that`s one species turning into another not adaptation and you are correct in one thing devolution is wrong and so is evolution
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
The fly has not remained the same over millions of years. It belongs to the order Diptera, for which there are over 85,000 different species. Entire families of this order have already gone extinct. In the case of the housefly, they can survive in cold environments so long as there are other animals to mooch off of. What really gets them is the heat, but they are also migratory insects (again, so long as they're hitching a ride), which means they can change their environment rather than be changed by it.
I'm not sure if I comprehend your perpective of whale evolution exactly. I think there's a discrepancy between our understandings of it. Do you think that the whale's four-legged ancestor gave birth to an animal with no legs, or something similar?
I also asked earlier why you believe that one day is equal to one thousand years in the Bible. Since you said you were able to prove a young earth without refering to holy scripture you can leave the issue alone if you want, but I'd appreciate an answer all the same.
by Maerdyn77 on February 22nd, 2010
well we will start with the earth then progress onto the moon then asteroids . firstly if the earth is billions of years old and we are getting bombarded with meteorites over billions of years where are all the billions of impact craters and for that point where are all the meteors shorly after billions of years with all them meteor strikes we would find meteors littering the earth even if alot of them sinking under ground level after impact there would still be far more than there is now as for disintigrating on impact it would leave a crater admitidly there are a few but not enough to suggest billions of years worth of impacts why are they so rare to find i mean the earth gets hit by meteor showers were are these rocks sure most burnt up in the atmosphere but what about the ones that never you may argue that they hit the sea or hit the jungle so they are hidden witch gets me to the moon , so if most of them got lost at sea or where ever then what about the craters on the moon there is not enough impact craters to even suggest being hit by meteors over billions of years as for moon dust covering up these craters i don`t think so there is only a couple of inches of the stuff not enough to cover billions of years of impacts even with dust getting kicked up by other impacts it would not cover it ,so now onto asteroids if asteroids are that old made of ice why have they not melted away with each passing of a star we all see tails on comets that is the ice escaping the asteroid demineshing it each time so now we now the universe is not that old aswell as the earth and the moon and also asteroids they all look very young now so how is the earth billions of years old . and i bet you thaught i was going to use solar dust by itself to prove my point ?
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
The creation account is found in Genesis 1–2. The language of the Genesis account makes it clear that all of creation was formed from nothing in six literal 24-hour periods with no time periods occurring between the days. This is evident because the context requires a literal 24-hour period. The description specifically describes the event in a manner that a normal, common sense reading understands as a literal day: “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” (Genesis 1:5). Further, each sentence in the original language begins with the word “and”. This is good Hebrew grammar and indicates each sentence is built upon the preceding statement, clearly indicating that the days were concurrent and not separated by any period of time. The Genesis account reveals that the Word of God is authoritative and powerful. Most of God’s creative work is done by speaking, another indication of the power and authority of the His Word.
God’s creative work is complete at the end of the sixth day. The entire universe in all its beauty and perfection was fully formed in six literal, concurrent, 24-hour days. At the completion of his creation, God announces that it is very good.
Need more proof anybody?
www.answersingenesis.org
by DarkShadowX Off AB for a while on February 22nd, 2010
1 day as a 1000 yrs and 1000 yrs as 1 day is not what i meant about in the beginning i meant history . 6000 yrs has passed on earth since the beginning so that`s six days and on the 7th day god rested that`s the 1000 yr reign with christ so i say genesis explanes the history of the earth as well as the beginning of creation does this make sence DarkShadowX ps this is just my theory
by hong kong phooey on February 22nd, 2010
Thanks DarkShadow. I was just about to argue this point, but you've made it as well as I ever could.
I disagree with your position as an explanation for the origin of the universe, but at least your biblical scholarship is sound.
by Stepper on February 22nd, 2010
That "scientific jargon" bought us into the technological age. It heals your disease, build your car and even made those buttons your typing on.
There is evidence of transition in living creatures even today. Hind limb rudiments in whales, coccyx bone in humans ( the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail), there are vestiges of the hindlimbs in the form of a pair of pelvic spurs in some snake species and don't forget the now useless human appendix. Are they gods mistakes or evidence of evolution?
This evidence is provable, readily available and completely ignored by religious people.
by Davidsays on February 22nd, 2010
hong kong phooey=100% correct.
Evolution sounds soooooo retarded and un-thought through that it's nearly proving it's self wrong..
how could people evolve from APES??
I haven't heard a more retarded statement in my entire life!
Scientist are just desperate to find prove that God does not exist.
And do they have prove that evolution is still active?
if so then why the heck don't we see half ape-people coming out of the forest every day?!?!?!
by P4ganiZonda on February 23rd, 2010
i was asked to prove evolution is a load of croc and how young the earth with out using the bible how did i do what do you think P4ganiZonda
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
"Scientist are just desperate to find prove that God does not exist"
Scientist try and find reason for things, there not trying to disprove God, but that might be a natural side effect of logic.
by Reptar on February 23rd, 2010
Earth has been hit with relatively few meteors because of the gravitational pull of other planets. In particular, Jupiter's pull is over three hundred times stronger than ours and consequently intercepts a great number of projectiles as they enter our solar system (Jupiter is my favourite planet). The sun's gravitational pull is an even bigger force to be reckoned with. Despite this protection, we have still been hit with many, many meteors which have left evidence in the form of shocked quartz, glass microspherules, etc. Also, remember that 75% of this planet's surface is covered with water, and meteors and meteorites have a greater chance of landing in the ocean. As for the moon, it has no atmosphere to protect it as ours does, and it is completely loaded with impact craters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_craters_on_the_Moon)
Comets do not always have tails. They only start to lose dust and vapour when they come within a certain proximity of a heat source, like our sun. Moreover, all comets were not created during the Big Bang. Those in our solar system, like the planets themselves, are products of the collapse "giant, diffuse cloud of gas and dust about 4.6 billion years ago."
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
P4ganiZonda, I love it when people can't understand a subject, so they assume it to be false. Here is the categorization of a primate. Why don't you find a trait in this list that DOESN'T apply to humans?
“Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
science can`t disprove god but can prove god, this is scientists biggest fear if the truth was known then nearly every scientific theory about evolution and how the earth is that young will have to be re written ,in other words they would not have a job to go to by the morning .
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Maerdyn77 how big is the orbit of jupiter does jupiters gravitational pull affect the opposite end of it`s orbit does all asteroids come in the influance of jupters orbit ....no and the same can be said about every planet alot of these astaroids get through . as for we evoloved can you show me were the animals in between us coming from apes to us being human now , we`ve got the ape ok that`s the beginning and at the end is us so my question is were has the middle gone mmmmmm strange there does not seem to be one , Davidsays this goes for you as well it works with any animal. as for the moon were is the rest of the impact craters from billions of years of impacts i did ask this before . also Davidsays the appendix have been proved that it works with the splein to rid your body of poisons it was never useless and i got my own ideas about that why was they taken out in the first place but i won`t go into that right now it`s a bit conspiracy theory at the moment when i prove my idea i will tell you why they took out glands from us that get rid of poisons
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
I'm guessing the earth is still the centre of the universe too, and flat.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 23rd, 2010
no you are the centre of the universe and i`m flat bha ha ha
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
lol.
On a serious note though;
"The Biblical Account is Self-Authenticating and Self-Attesting."
That's the limit of your argument.
Maybe evolution didn't happen and it can't be proved but just because one is wrong it does not instantly validate the other.
Say for example you hear a knock on your door, you don't go to open it but you say its not a man, that doesn't mean its definitely a woman. A gorilla can learn to knock on doors.
"The whole message of the gospel falls apart if one allows millions or billions of years for the creation of the world."
Again this sounds like I'm right because I am, I don't need to argue my point.
And finally, a day is measured based on how long it takes the earth to rotate on its axis. No earth, no days.
(yes that is a joke)
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 23rd, 2010
You all might get a laugh at this: Creation science 101.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
by Reptar on February 23rd, 2010
but one does not allow for millions or billions of years as this is a darwinian lie , as for a day being measured based on how long it takes the earth to rotate on its axis this is true but when the bible tells about 1 day as 1000 years and 1000 as 1 day this is gods time he is infinite and there for does not live in time as we know it , time is not constant in the universe and niether is the speed of light . , we judge time on earth by watches ,sun cycles , moon phases besides a few other things , time slows down the faster we travel . so when we say god does not dwell in time that does not mean the earth has just stopped it means god is infinite he know`s the past present and future , we do not, we live in time at a rate of 1 second per second whereas if you go into deep space we could be living 1 second per 10 years or vice a versa so you see you do need to argue the point because you are wrong yet again and if you need any more answers then look at the rest of this thread as i am not about to repeat my self
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
try this one reptar
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Hong Kong you're not addressing my argument.
I did say that last part was a joke.
The point is the bible is a single source, you can't say because evolution has these flaws it makes the bible infallible.
Nor can you say because the bible says its infallible, that it becomes infallible.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 23rd, 2010
LePoupon is not very helpful .lets agree to disagree other wise this will just go around in circles . i have got an aswer for that but i suspect you will disagree ,so it would be pointless .have a nice day and god bless you :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Please indicate where I stated that ALL asteroids were intercepted by Jupiter. I said no such thing.
As for transitional fossils between ancestral apes and homo sapiens sapiens? Sahelanthropus tchandensis, Orrorin tugenesis, Ardepithecus kadabba, Ardepithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus aferensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and finally Homo sapiens. These are only the ones thought to be in our specific line. Other human-like apes that went extinct are Homo neanderthalensis, the entire Paranthropus line, etc. Keep in mind that in many cases there is more than one fossil of these organisms.
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
As for scientists waking up without a job in the morning? Nonsense. The books were rewritten when evolution was introduced, they were rewritten when the aether was debunked, when DNA was discovered, and so on. Those who revolutionize areas of science are made famous, a la Darwin, Einstein, etc.
By the way, you should not believe what Kent Hovind says. I've seen videos where he's claimed that clouds stop x-rays, and that a baby was conceived by the mother's and father's DNA helixes splitting in half and rejoining together. He also thinks that the ice age was brought about by ice comets hitting Earth, and uses the terms chromosome and genome interchangeably as if they mean the same thing. He knows nothing about anything remotely connected to science.
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
firstly i said "how big is the orbit of jupiter does jupiters gravitational pull affect the opposite end of it`s orbit does all asteroids come in the influance of jupters orbit ....no and the same can be said about every planet" and in what way was all those homo`s connected what proof have you got that they was related , is they got the same jaw bone shape or maybe the same dence bone structure or even that they had 2 arms 2 legs and a head ,well impressive i like the way you think very text book . where is the connection .
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
if it is all evolution then why do we save animals from exstinction cant they just evolve into something better no! the bible says beware of science but every theory i ever herd is stocked with new evedence every year that points the science in a way like the first planets came from a dust cloud in space . was not god who said we came from dust and dust we return !and he lives in the heavens maybe behind the planet making dust cloud
by davidmarler on February 23rd, 2010
that`s a good point about extiction i`m gonna keep that one davidmarler very good point :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Well, your grammar could use a bit of work, I have to admit that for the other people.
However, your points are solid.
by Anonymous on February 23rd, 2010
what`s wrong with my grandma bha ha ha
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Where do you think people of different races came from. Did God say "I think I will put white people here, some Asians here and how about some blacks here." Then he threw some people around.
People are different races for a reason. Humans have adapted and evolved to the area they originated from. Some have darker skin for hotter areas so they may not burn in the sun. Some have lighter skin in cooler areas. Then man learned to travel and places like America became a melting pot.
And who is to say Christianity is the right religion and the right theory on where it all started?
Take a look at this quote from Do Buddhists Believe in God? -- by Kusala Bhikshu (A talk given at a high school in Los Angeles.):
Sometimes a student will ask me how everything in this world got started... "If you don’t have God in Buddhism then who or what caused the universe?"
When the Buddha was asked how the world started, he kept silent. In the religion of Buddhism we don’t have a first cause, instead we have a never ending circle of birth and death. In this world and in all worlds, there are many beginnings and ends. The model of life used in Buddhism has no starting place... It just keeps going and going.
Now having said that... If you’re a Buddhist it’s OK to believe God was the first cause... It really doesn't go against the teachings of the Buddha, his focus was on suffering... It's also OK to believe science has the answer… Like the big bang theory, etc... Some Buddhist’s don’t even care how it all started, and that’s fine too. Knowing how the world started is not going to end your suffering, it’s just going to give you more stuff to think about.
I hope you can see that God is not what Buddhism is about... Suffering is... And if you want to believe in God, as some Buddhists do, I suppose it's OK. But, Buddhist's don't believe God can end suffering. Only the teaching's of the Buddha can help us end suffering through wisdom and the activity of compassion.
In his whole life and in all his teachings the Buddha never said anything about the One God of the desert.
Or this comparing Christianity and Hinduism:
http://www.rimi.org/ChristianityHinduismComparison.shtml
Take a look at all religions beliefs in creation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Who are you to say your religion is the right religion? And who are you and your religion to say others are wrong?
I cannot say if there is a God but I do know there is many ways to look at it. Most religion comes done to the belief in God but the idea of how it was all created varies. I will say it again, who are you and your religion to judge and be the judge of all mankind?
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
The ones that were extinct failed to match up to survival of the fittest, I think that was Darwin's main theory.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 23rd, 2010
DavidMarler, to answer your question about why we save animals from extinction: evolution doesn't happen that quickly. Mankind is altering the environment so steeply and within such a short time period that for the most part, natural selection does not have time to respond. Since we are usually the ones responsible for putting the animal in danger of extinction, it only makes sense that we be the ones to rescue it from that predicament.
Hongkongphooey, when arranged in chronological order the fossils show a clear transition into modern humans. They are all consistent with one another and show a gradual shift of traits that we consider distinctly characteristic of humans, and humans only, such as bipedalism and an expansion of the prefrontal cortex. There is more to it, but the Internet is just as available to you as it is to me. What you type here could just as easily be typed into Google.
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
yes i meant to prove a point i just need you to spell google .please you think if people don't believe in the big bang there dumb. i have probable studied the mater more than you. but if you base your belief on google good luck with that .but can you show me one animal you seen evolve not googled just one .not that you heard this and that and if your that smart how many of the science books are changed every year and are waiting to change from new facts .do you know that there much changed about usa facts from proof being found every year much less the earth. google that i am done talking about some one else dis proven facts ps when your in trouble and you thinking inside o no please dont let this or that happen it is god that hears you not google pleas look in to it before you post any thing if you know how to google . do facts on big bang withdrawn big bang info no proof if the facts you write on. had a speck of truth and i know this from study not what some one said but cant prove oh and i think i can find never mind google got it
by davidmarler on February 23rd, 2010
when noah entered the ark he took with him his three sons named, Shem, Ham, and Japheth and there wives they had children . now ham was darker skinned (i think it was ham ) there children mixed that is where you get the different races ,and where we get our diffrerent languages from is from when god crushed the tower of babel and dumbfounded the people so they could not under stand each other and then scattered them across the earth .i know god has nothing to do with buddhism why would he , the delai lama reads from the book of the dead just like the ancient egyptians , meditates to open the third eye wich god strictly forbid , he chanels the ascended masters they are the spirits of the fallen angels lives in high places just at the very point where the ascended masters have there dwelling place , during world war 2 he sent three hundred monks to germany to chant with hitler so as he could go in a trance and comunicate with the ascended masters they even gave him the nick name "the carpet biter" because when he went into a trance he used to bite the carpet ,when he was finished with the monks he had them ritualy slaughter with the delai lama`s blessing .so why would god have anything to do with buddhism oh one other thing where do you think hitler got the swastika from ......abby82..... and believe there is a god and he want`s you to come away from that way of life and false religion .if you do not believe me look it up on the web it`s all there just be brave and open your eye`s god bless you and be safe abby82
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Maerdyn77 so a characteristic trait is proof of kinship proof that they was related ,HOW . i don`t need google thanks i get all my information from god and so far destroyed all of your darwinian theory`s .you can keep google it`s useless :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
"firstly if the earth is billions of years old and we are getting bombarded with meteorites over billions of years where are all the billions of impact craters"
Have you heard of techtonic plates? They happen to be moving and they just happen to be creating new ground all the time so the billions of craters are gone under the or into the earths crust.
Yes we do get a lot of meteor striking our atmosphere but not all of them actually impact the Earth. Most of them are too small and brake up because of our dense atmosphere.
by warex255 on February 23rd, 2010
warex255 so the moon has tectonic plates also ... no, so where is all the impact craters ,surely there would be more ,now we know the moons serface does not move . if you want to know more about what i say look at the rest of my comments on this page ,you are asking questions i have already answered :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Let say you are right hong kong. Let's say your "god" exists. Why haven't people in the amazon heard of him? Why do people all over the world have different religions? Do you think the bible is the one and only true book with actual stories that originate from that time.
by warex255 on February 23rd, 2010
warex255 satan has churches all over the world he has them compeating with gods true church so he can drag as many souls to hell . the bible has been proven correct with the torah,the dead sea scrolls and a few other things . missionary`s went out to the rain forrest to spread the gospels to the natives and they are there to this day ,it`s upto them natives if they want to recieve god or carry on with there traditional lives
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
"no, so where is all the impact craters ,surely there would be more" If your talking about earth there are impact craters. There is the Chicxulub crater which is pretty large, then there is the Vredefort crater which is the biggest crater on earth, and the Barringer Crater those are some there are more of course
by warex255 on February 23rd, 2010
warex255 they maybe large but they are few witch proves my point ,if the earth was billions of years old then there would be millions of these huge craters infact the surface of the earth would be at least 10 miles thicker with all them meteors
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
I don't know if anyone already said this, (i can't read it all i don't have time:), but do you know that proffesional scientists and researchers have found fossils of dino footprints right next to man footprints in layers of rock? also they have found fossilized trees going right through layers of rock that were each supposed to be millions of years old? Only proving that there was a major catastrophe that rapidly buried things like trees in deep layers of rock and hardened sediment. Oh, yeah, they also found fish bones on top of mountains. Genisis 7:20 "Fifteen cubits upward did prevail; and the mountains were covered." (I wonder how that can be? the flood? hmmm...)
And for the evolutionists,
Have you ever seen any famous artists paintings? They all have a similer design right? That is because the same artist (or creator) has his own style of painting. All authors have their own style to write. If you made something,it always have something to show that you made it. Everyone has their own way to do things. God also has his. I bet if you created the earth, you would make some stuff similer to other things. I'm bad at explaining it but I'm guessing that you know what I'm saying. By the way Hong Kong, your doing great.
by DarkShadowX Off AB for a while on February 23rd, 2010
DarkShadowX cheers ,all thanks to the living god . i liked the way you put that about own styles
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
ps DarkShadowX keep an eye on this thread i need you for scriptures , i ain`t to good on that ,i know some but not all thanks :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
sure thing.
by DarkShadowX Off AB for a while on February 23rd, 2010
DarkShadow, those human footprints you're refering to are the Paluxy Footprints and they've been thoroughly debunked.
(http://talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html)
The fossilized trees, found in such locations as Joggins, Nova Scotia, are generally called polystrate trees by creationists and contrary to their claims these trees do not go through several strata. This has been known since the 19th century.
(http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html) In any case, a flood does not create layers of separate sediments, but one layer of graded sediment (categorized by size/weight rather than by type).
Bones are found atop mountains because of plate tectonics. The sediments that are at the top of mountains were once the seabed, as any basic geology textbook will tell you.
I understand what you're trying to say when you bring up "same genes, same designer." However, this does not explain ERVs and other such tell-tale mutations, the latter of which are discussed here:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE)
HongKongPhooey, the lack of copious amounts of meteors has been explained to you. Most meteorites landing on the continental areas probably suffer severe erosion before eventual burial. Those which fall into the ocean may eventually be subducted with the oceanic plate into the earth's mantel or metamorphosed and thrust up in a mountain chain. The vast majority of people who drill or dig in the earth are not looking for meteorites and would not recognize one if it fell into their lap. After a little erosion, a stony meteorite looks just like any other pebble or rock; iron meteorites would likely have rusted out long ago. Thus, it would be a truly rare meteorite to survive initial erosion and chemical decomposition, to be uncovered by erosion, and, finally, to have somebody stumble upon it and identify it.
From: (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof4)
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
First off I can barely read what you wrote because of grammar, lack of any sentence structure and missing punctuations.
Second, why are you saying all other religions are false? Please explain to me why the way you follow your beliefs is the correct way?? I also want to know why is there so many different religions out there? Did you even look at the link for the "Creation myth"? I still can not see why one is right and the other is wrong.
As for the different human races, I think what I was saying makes much more sense. Animals adapt to climate and the area, as do humans. Think of the areas where different races originated from and what those people look like. Their whole make up is equipped differently depending on where the race started.
Take a look at this link on skin color: http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm
Why do you think a wild cat in Africa would be different than one in Antarctica?
Evolution
A 2010 study published in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution has given insight into the exact evolutionary relationships of the big cats. The study reveals that the Snow leopard and the tiger are sister species, while the lion, leopard, and jaguar are more closely related to each other. The tiger and snow leopard diverged from the ancestral big cats approximately 3.9 Ma. The tiger then evolved into a unique species towards the end of the Pliocene epoch, approximately 3.2 Ma. The ancestor of the lion, leopard, and jaguar split from other big cats from 4.3-3.8 Ma. Between 3.6-2.5 Ma the jaguar diverged from the ancestor of lions and leopards. Lions and leopards split from one another approximately 3.1-1.95 Ma.[3]
This is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_cat
I am sorry but I do not see how one's view on religion is the "only" and "right" way of thinking. Are you saying billions of people with different beliefs than you are wrong? Take a look at this chart of religions and beliefs around the world:
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
Here is one comparing Eastern and Western religions:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/east_west.html
People who are over religious seem so brainwashed, intolerant, and close minded. Everyone around them has the wrong idea and beliefs. They're way of living is the only way. And God seems to be cruel and vengeful in the eyes of some religions.
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
Sorry that was all @hong kong phooey
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
Maerdyn77 if the water runs like a torrent it does leave layers of sediment and as for the meteors that do land there would be quite a few after 5 billion yrs don`t you think , how many hit the earth each year quite a few randomm ones and quite a few each time we get a meteor shower , how long ago was this meteor that caused extinction and thats the only big one that`s hit earth what about all the big impact craters on earth how far apart in history did they hit if you look at it in your scientific way your theory`s destroy them self
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Abby82 there are so many different religions because satan has got his churches all over the world competing with gods real church ,he wants to take as many people to hell with him as possible as for your question on evolution i have already explaned that one how how it is a false teaching i proved what i said and i did not even use the bible , if you read it again you will see that. god bless you and be safe. ps i just prayed for you oh and sorry about my gramma :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Why is anyone questioning science? Where would we be without it? Scientist have brought us a long way as humans.
I trust the judgment of them rather than someone reading from a book that was made to give people a meaning of life before science was fully understood. It gave structure and "laws" for people as a society to follow.
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
I really don't get why you people keep arguing with Hong Kong Phooey. Unfortunately he chooses to believe his little book. I gave up trying to correct his grammar and explain this to him yesterday. With the time I saved, I was able to study for my anatomy midterm!
Obviously, regardless of what information you give him (scholarly or not), he will still continue his grammar-less ramble.
You win HKP! Case closed!
by Meg on February 23rd, 2010
I can not believe you really think other religions are run by Satan, wow. So all others are going to hell because they do not think the same as your religion? Incredible...This goes to show how close minded and intolerant Christianity is.
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
@Meg, I completely agree with you. The things that are being said blow my mind. I thought humans were smarter than this and saw how far science has brought us as a species.
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
Abby82 science has used mankind for one big experiment ,yes it`s helped us but it has also been used as a tool to try and destroy the reality of god and blinded people to god , science gave us sophisticated weapons i don`t think i need to list them ,how many people have died in wars with the use of technolagy how many places on earth are contaminated with depleated uraniam ,how many extra chemicals are in our food talking of food how has science fed the world if science is so helpful to mankind why is there no the food for the starving in the world and to think every body blames god for our own greed and selfishness and destruction .
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Ok so if science is evil, you need to never get medicine when sick, stop driving your car, turn off your computer, get out of your house and live in a shack in the woods
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
Abby82 there are 7 types of church in the bible that keep gods holy scriptures and laws ,so no not every body is going to hell if you read the bible you will find out about that :) .........Meg... i told you i have won because my information comes from god . if you study the scriptures you will see the truth it`s all in the bible .it`s not about winning it`s about the truth :) .ps sorry about my gramma i will try and improve :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
Science is not a being either. It does not exist as life form to control and brainwash humans.
by Abby82 on February 23rd, 2010
"how has science fed the world"
One name: Norman Borlaug. Through genetic crop engineering, we've been able to feed another billion people who otherwise would have starved to death. Science has also brought us medicine and infrastructure, technology and space discovery, and so much more. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil depending on whose hands you put them in, but science ITSELF cannot be labeled as an evil.
"if the water runs like a torrent it does leave layers of sediment"
No, it doesn't. It mixes them up together into an undistinguishable mud. After time when the sediment is able to separate, it separates into graded layers. If the Great Flood really came down in torrents like you insist, then it would have destroyed all the coral reefs and other delicate environments, not to mention all the manmade structures.
"there are so many different religions because satan has got his churches all over the world competing with gods real church"
How do you know that your church isn't one of the evil ones?
"as for the meteors that do land there would be quite a few after 5 billion yrs don`t you think"
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=470
At the end of the article it states that most meteorites are too small to actually fall all the way to the surface. The vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of meteors reach the earth's surface as dust particles.
And before you ask, over 5 billion years the amount of dust over the entire surface is calculated to be about 66cm assuming that it can accumulate without interference. However, earth's surface has been constantly changing over these billions of years, with land submerging and emerging, freezing and melting, and being eaten away by wind and erosion. Meteors are not evidence for a young earth.
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
meardyn77 i guess i under estimated your source of info and knowlege i stand corrected
by davidmarler on February 23rd, 2010
Maerdyn77 not if its in waves , also you forgot about the moon that does not have an atmosphere does it ,so these meteorites have`nt got that privaledge of breaking up or disintigrating , no erosion, no submerging ,no freezing and melting , so were are they ? and yes they are evidence of a young earth
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
it`s not about winning a debate it`s about facts ,observation and most of all GODS word the bible ?
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
i know nothing of science I TRUST GODS WORD and so far he`s been CORRECT !
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
ps there is man made structures on earth that made it through the flood, the piramides of egypt ,they have water marks around the inside of there base (or is it just one or to of them ) anyhoo there you go :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
"not if its in waves"
But you said torrents, not waves (torrents, as I understand it, means a powerful, rushing force). You're telling me that if you mix all the sediments together and then smooth them out with waves, that they will assort themselves according to type?
As aforementioned, the moon has millions of impact craters.
"i know nothing of science"
Why are you trying to challenge something you know nothing about? If I were on a mission to debunk the Koran, I would read the Koran. You seem to want to refute science and yet refuse to use even a search engine, prefering instead to garner facts from people whose claims are rejected by the scientific community. What's your objective?
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
we are talking about the biblical age of the earth are`nt we and i`m proving it with gods word and observation as for using a search engine why would i need to, i got GODS word . the BIBLE is not science and science is not the BIBLE ,so my objective is to show YOU that GODS word is CORRECT !
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
ps do you think it was a calm sunny day when the flood started , i would say not there was probebly waves and torrents , it did fill the earth you know so no little breezes or light showers there then :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
oh and if you want to know my sources look in the BIBLE start with the first book GENESIS you will find most what you need there for the purpose of this debate, you can google it , oh look there is a use for google bha ha ha:)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
"the piramides of egypt ,they have water marks around the inside of there base"
Please cite a source, I can't seem to find evidence of this. There are a few sites claiming that the Pyramid of Giza shows signs of water damage, but they both state that it happened 12,000 years ago and that the pyramids were not built by the Egyptians (in which case, you and I are both wrong).
"we are talking about the biblical age of the earth are`nt we and i`m proving it with gods word and observation as for using a search engine why would i need to, i got GODS word"
You may be attempting to prove the age of the earth on behalf of your god, but you have been using science to do it. You haven't used scripture (and thank you for not quoting Psalms 14:1 at me like so many like to do), but have used calculations of meteor impacts, formations of strata, and so on. These are all physical data that fall under the umbrella of testable, scientific claims. In my opinion, it would be in your best interests to find out whether your calculations are in fact correct. You are using natural evidence to prove your point, but if your evidence is inaccurate then you will quickly find yourself back at square one.
"there was probebly waves and torrents"
If I can better understand what you believe the earth was like before and after the Flood, then I can better address your question.
- Where do you think the water came from?
- Were the sedimentary layers in place before the Flood?
- If not, how were they organized?
- Were there mountains and deep oceans, or was the land relatively level?
- Was absolutely everything covered with water?
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
"start with the first book GENESIS you will find most what you need there for the purpose of this debate"
Genesis, and much of the Bible, is very vague on the formation of things. It says God made the earth. Whoop-de-doo. I'm interested in how it was made, what laws govern it, etc. He made the land animals. From what? How? Were they poofed into existence? It leaves a lot unanswered.
Edit: I've got to go to bed, so I won't be responding for awhile.
by Maerdyn77 on February 23rd, 2010
how did they date it ,with carbon c14 dating ,it is not accurate . a few creationist scientics got a couple of samples of one dead decaying animal ,sent them in as 2 different samples and got 2 seperate readings thousands of years apart even that kent hovine debated a couple of proffesers in public in front of the school and the internet and proved this point and the proffessers had nothing to say they had to agree it is not accurate , if you do not believe me then look it up on google you will find it easy . don`t try say you can`t get a dating off a stone remember there was a flood it lasted nine months before it stop raining it would have grown algae .and just because it stoped raining it did not subside for a lot long after and if you look in genesis you will see that some of the waters came from beneath the earth and from above the earth . oh look you have all the evidence there that i have been writing today over 24 hrs of it , i`m tired i have debated alot on this subject for today i need to sleep but will be happy to carry on tomorrow ,in mean time try reading genesis you can find it on the web very easy ,try and find the king james bible it has been proved to be the most accurate translation . have a good read and i will continue tomorrow . god bless and be safe :)
by hong kong phooey on February 23rd, 2010
HKP, do you have a link to this video? Hovind has mentioned C-14 several times so I'd like to know what animal he used and why he claims it is inaccurate.
by Maerdyn77 on February 24th, 2010
Maerdyn77 if you go to google video and type in kent hovind you will find all his video`s there ,when you have typed it in select the 20 minute + video length and you will have all of his full length debates on every subject you need . god bless you :). ps his facts are absolutly solid :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
"so these meteorites have`nt got that privaledge of breaking up or disintigrating , no erosion, no submerging ,no freezing and melting , so were are they ?" Do you know how fast a CEO(Close Earth Object) moves in space? Around 60 000km/h and without any atmosphere or friction to slow it down it slams onto the surface of the moon exploding and sending debris into space. Now where do you think that the meteorites remains are?
You keep on saying 5 bil years old, why? The earth is about 3.8bil years old. Where have you got your 5bil from?.
I would like to know how Noah got all the animals into one ship. How he captured polar bears, Tigers, Lions, Gorillas and kept them from eating the other animals like antilopes dears mongooses?
by warex255 on February 24th, 2010
warex255 i was just giving an estamate because that multi billion year theory keeps changing . if you want to know about noah all you have to do is type in noah`s ark on google video`s and look at the third video down from the top and you will have proof of his existence ? as for meteor remains well what about the crater it leaves ,you don`t really need a meteor to prove it was hit :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
warex255 as for the story of noah`s ark just put the same title on the web
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW54W9y6-eU
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
My goodness, your comment section has filled in my inbox XD.
by Anonymous on February 24th, 2010
oneday it was nearly a 30 hoar debate ,how did i do ?:)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
sorry i meant to say 30 hour debate ,how did i do?:)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Incoming! Huge block of text!
I watched both videos in their entirety. Hovind makes a number of fallacious claims so I'll try to address them "in bulk" for the sake of space constraints, but this will be a long comment anyway.
Hovind first argues that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is evidence for a young earth, as it has not yet reached equilibrium. He uses an analogy of a barrel of water to demonstrate this. One fatal flaw in his calculations, however, is that he assumes the amount of water (C-14) leaking out is constant. This is not the case, as it has been shown to fluctuate in the past (Source 1). Hovind first got this idea from Henry Morris, who got it from a paper by Lingenfelter. Despite Lingenfelter's hypothesis that carbon dating fluctuated based on the earth's magnetic field, Morris left it out because it would have otherwise destroyed his argument. Same goes for his loyal devotee, Kent Hovind (Source 2).
Next, he says that UV radiation was blocked out due to a canopy of ice that encased the earth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he postulated elsewhere that this shield remained in place until the Great Flood, which was two thousand years after its creation. However, energy from the sun would have dissipated/melted half a meter of ice every day. For the canopy to last two thousand years, it would have had to have been about 1000 km thick. The picture Hovind displays in his video, if he had it drawn to scale, is consistent with this. However, such a thick shield would not only filter out all radiation, but it would filter out all light as well. His claims about a canopy are impossible (Source 3).
He then goes on to list a number of seemingly unreliable dates retrieved through carbon dating. Most of these are marine animals or mammoths. Marine animals have unreliable carbon dates and have to be measured more cautiously because they get their carbon through the water, where it is more highly concentrated. Two of the articles he sources actually makes a point of saying this as a warning to other scientists, but Hovind conveniently leaves this out. Most of the mammoth information he got from a single report that lists a number of different samples collected, and he went ahead and said they were all from the same animal even though the authors of the report never implied such a thing (Source 4).
Carbon dating was also alleged to be in error when measuring the age of dinosaur bones and the fossil of a homo erectus. In both cases the fossils had been mineralized, which means that there is no carbon in it. In the case of the dinosaur that was dated to be 24,000 years old, what had actually been dated was the shellac, an organic preservative that the fossil was coated with (Source 5). I suspect the same can be said for homo erectus. For the latter, Hovind does not cite any kind of peer-reviewed article and the only sites I find the NewsWeek article on are creationist sites.
He also mentions discrepancies of lunar rocks and other materials for which I can find no source and for which he gives no context, so its credibility is suspect.
Oh, and who can forget the quote mining? There are several in the video, but perhaps the most egregious is one accredited to Pensee. "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it." Hovind acts as if this scientist is describing the common practices of modern archaeologists. If you read the complete article, you quickly realize that Pensee was not refering to that at all. Instead, he was alluding to a "prevailing attitude among early Egyptologists." (Source 6)
by Maerdyn77 on February 24th, 2010
I know you only want to use your Bible as evidence so you probably won't visit the links I've provided, but if my short, summarized explanations are confusing in any way then you can go to the actual source to verify for yourself.
(1) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/126/3273/557
(2) http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o
(4) http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie001.html
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
(6) http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5132133630&topic=3595
by Maerdyn77 on February 24th, 2010
HKP, for your information, I used to be a devout Christian, so I have heard both sides of the story. You won because arguing with you is like arguing with an insane person. You go around in circles and go off on tangents.
Keep your ideals and I'll keep mine, stop being so self-righteous. You don't know me or what I do.
by Meg on February 24th, 2010
I believe in science and believe that God is in people, not that he is an invisible man in the sky.
by Meg on February 24th, 2010
Meg your not the only one who used to be a christian. I was raised in a christian household i was sent to sunday school and i went to a christian school. Every subject had something about how jesus loves us and how god is all mighty. Then i actually took the time to read through the bible and that is when i started having doubts. That book disgusted me. Then i opened my eyes to science and what it actually gives us. HKP i hope one day you might open your eyes.
by warex255 on February 24th, 2010
Maerdyn77 you said"Next, he says that UV radiation was blocked out due to a canopy of ice that encased the earth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he postulated elsewhere that this shield remained in place until the Great Flood, which was two thousand years after its creation. However, energy from the sun would have dissipated/melted half a meter of ice every day. For the canopy to last two thousand years, it would have had to have been about 1000 km thick. The picture Hovind displays in his video, if he had it drawn to scale, is consistent with this. However, such a thick shield would not only filter out all radiation, but it would filter out all light as well. His claims about a canopy are impossible (Source 3)." .......this shield as you call it is called th firmament ,it would not have to be that thick if it had a dence covering of cloud beneath it renewing it from underneath as it defrosts on top , so the earth had 50% more pressure then than it did now and probably a bigger atmosphere because of the abundance of rain forest ,this cloud covering covered the whole earth so as to keep the ground moist and block out the uv rays as for the sun it would have been like a tropical greenhouse with plenty of light getting in ,in that sort of environment things grow alot faster and alot bigger . the c14 debate did you see it if so then you would have seen the professers admit that c14 is not accurate they admited it on a debate with an audience in front of cameras ,they had nothing to say so are you saying there was not any proof ,if they had proof why did they say they had no proof that it was accurate ,why did all of them admit it surly if it worked they would have said so did you see it . the ice in the canopy i don`t know about that much other than the atmosphere was bigger and reach out into space a bit further . all i`m doing is showing you the age of the earth and proof of evelutionary lies witch i think i covered quite well ok with bad grammer but it is the truth and that is obvious . i go by the bible and i know it is the truth as i have shown you , we went through over 25 hrs of it yesterday if you have not got the concept of it yet then you should go through the whole debate again read every little bit of it but this time think differently think with out the scientific mind because the bible is not supposed to be read like that ,science has nothing to do with the bible i am explanig in a biblical way not a scientific way and i have already shown you that the earth is young and that evolution does not work . there is nothing to link the species to ancesters of different species nothing not one bit of evidence in the history of the planet ,it can`t even be proved by science ,but the bible can prove creation as i proved . no i don`t find your short summeries confusing ,i may not have good grammer but you can`t prove me wrong about ...creation.....and a YOUNG EARTH wich i proved correct with the bible and nature also proved darwin false this was my mission and it has been completed it`s up to you if you want to believe gods word or not that is your choice or be stuck in your scientific world wondering about why you are hear on this planet :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
Meg how is god in people and i`m not being self righteous i answered all your questions that you asked when you could not prove me wrong ,you resorted to insults so how is it you are the one that is offended, all i done was give you proof that there is no such thing as transition of one animal species into another . i know i can not be proved wrong on it because darwins theory`s are false and just theory`s as i have proved . so far not one person i have debated on this has proved me wrong or for that matter proved them self right ,but i have proved the age of the earth is not billions of years old and that evolution is rubbish :)
by hong kong phooey on February 24th, 2010
I never insulted you. I said arguing with you was "LIKE arguing with an insane person", meaning that I do not understand a word you are saying. It was not a judge of character.
I am not saying I gave up because you are right. I gave up because you seem to be sticking to your ideals with no intention of changing, so my arguments are futile.
Also, you seem to be making many assumptions. I am in no way offended. I am just annoyed with that classic "We're right, you're wrong and going to hell" hardcore, Christian attitude. That's part of why I left. Who's to say Buddhists don't have answers? or Muslims? or Hindus? What if no one has an answer?
No one has proved themselves right in your eyes. In your eyes, everyone here is wrong.
by Meg on February 24th, 2010
hong kong phooey, you have made some really good comments in trying to show people, that infact, God did create the universe, the earth and everything under and above the earth. The problem you have is that God has not revealed the truth to everyone. God has not revealed alot of things to scientists, ect, but has revealed things to the ordinary man. Jesus said, In Matthew: 11-25 At the time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure". So, you see, alot of people are blind to the truth, it has not been revealed to them, they just do not understand, they can not understand. Instien spent almost his whole adult life trying to prove evolution, to prove that God did not exist, he failed, because The Lord did not reveal the truth to him.
Jesus said in Deuteronomy: 29-29 "The secret things belong to The Lord Our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of the law".
by Account Closed on February 25th, 2010
Eliza Beth when you put it that way it has proved what i said near the beginning that "people are limited by what they know" ,to much knowledge of one side of a story and no knowledge of the other dooes indeed put bounderties up so your mind can not and will not accept any thing else as proof no matter what evidence that is placed down , science has blinded alot of people , they say to each other there is no god ,look at what we have achieved , have we not built large towers that reach into the sky , look how WE have invented flight , WE have put man on the moon , all these vaine achievements to justify the none existance of god . there will be a day in the very near future when all these man made abominations will be utterly destroid and man will be defenceless and naked before god ,answering to him and only him and not a machine or any thing man made thing , the love of wealth is stopping every body that chases it not follow god and to fall .i understand what that means now that the ordinary man has gods plan revealed to them it`s because we have not filled our heads with man made science and other useless things that block out gods message . oh well i tried to get the message across but i think it was a waste of time well there might be at least one person who comes across this and turn to god through seeing the truth, if that happens then my mission is definatly not been a waste of time . i have not done all this debating on the hope that every body will see the truth as i know that would be a massive task and just would not happen , all it takes is just one person to get this message and they will tell the next person then that next person will hand it on and so on . so i stated my case against evolution no one proved me wrong ,you only have to look at the entire debate to see that . it was not about winning or losing , it was about getting the truth out , it is up to who ever reads this debate to see where the truth lays . god bless every body that took part and may god open peoples eye`s to the truth . thank you everybody it was a great debate to bad we did not see eye to eye but then who does in a debate . ps this is the longest debate i have ever had and i am very happy that i took part . pps meg your ok cheers for your time aswel as every body that took the time to debate me , it was very interesting and i have learned a bit aswel ,so i say until next time have a nice day and hope to debate with you again some time god bless all of you i had fun :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
I think they hired a maid.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 25th, 2010
Did all the comments disappear for you too?
by Maerdyn77 on February 25th, 2010
Maerdyn77 please read very important the case is reopened www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
HKP, you don't need to point out your lack of grammar skills as I've never criticized you on that subject. What you've written is perfectly legible to me (my classmates are often much worse).
If there was an ice canopy (in another video Hovind says it might be 10, 20, or 30 inches thick) lying in contact with the atmosphere, it would compress the atmosphere, not expand it. That is, if the canopy lasted...barometric pressure would fracture it within hours.
The vapor canopy is not a valid hypothesis either. If this canopy contained enough water to cover the top of the mountains, there would be so much of it that it would slow C-14 decay to 1/100. As soon as that canopy had dissipated after the Flood, C-14 would resume its normal input (100/100). This sudden discrepancy would create a built-in age for pre-Flood objects, which works out to be about 35,000 years. Your hypothesis thus predicts that no object should be carbon-dated to be between 4,000 and 35,000 years old (Source 1). Of course, this does not jive with reality. We find plenty of items between four and thirty-five thousands years old, so the idea that a vapor canopy existed is erroneous.
So here are the three options (mix and match them as you wish):
- Ice canopy. If it's thin (because of extra water vapor) then it would be fractured. If it's thick (no extra water vapor) it would block out
sunlight.
- Water canopy. Frictional heating would heat the water to incandescence and it would fall to earth, sterilizing the entire planet.
- Water vapour. It's existence would mean that no material should be dated between 4,000 and 35,000 years old, which is false.
The claims of two professors cornered by a professional debater (which is what I consider Hovind to be) do not negate the validity of a dating method with mountains of evidence behind it. Normally in such debates, neither side has instantaneous access to texts or the Internet. Therefore, if Hovind makes a number of bogus claims pointing out the flaws in C-14 dating, his opponents are unable to verify his assertions. That's why I generally prefer to look at the evidence itself rather than hear it from individuals who are desperately trying to convince people of their ideas. I say "desperately" because Hovind sincerely believes that evolution is evil and an invention of Satan, and if he is that dead-set against it then a small fudging of the facts would not even enter his conscience. It's more than a debate about the validity of evidence for him, he's fighting for peoples souls.
You're asking me to examine facts without a scientific mind? So basically you're saying that if I am to believe the Bible, then I must already have faith in it; in other words, I must already have a strong bias so that I can see things through "Biblical glasses." If one can't support a hypothesis without already having faith, then its because the evidence isn't strong enough on its own.
You have not proven that the earth is young. You have suggested hypotheses as to how a young earth may come to be, but all of these contradict the laws of physics and the evidence we have gathered thus far. As for evidence of our genetic relationship with other primates as the result of divergence, I would direct you to our second chromosome or to neandertal DNA.
1. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-misc.html#appendix1
by Maerdyn77 on February 25th, 2010
The site you linked to, by the way, is not a credible website. They just reiterated all of the things Hovind said, plus some other material from creationist sources (which they cite at the very bottom of the page).
by Maerdyn77 on February 25th, 2010
carbon c14 detereorates over time besides c14 does nothing to take any credit away from what i have told you about creation . the piramids if the water mark is 12000 old as you say then that still does nothing to the billions of years time frame , 12000 tyrs time frame does not even change nothing to a 5 billion yr time frame it`s as insegnificent as 6000 yr as far as billions of years go, the bible truth still stands .as for the canopy i know nothing of that so i can not say but discrediting what i say because of c14 or the ice canopy still does not disprove all of creation and the age of the earth as we are not debating what the canopy was made of or are we debating c14 we are debating the age of the earth that is all ...so are we going to stick to the age of the earth or are we changing the debate to another topic ?. :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Maerdyn77 show me what you know and you can look at it how ever you want i`m not asking you to have faith are we going for round 2 ? . i will show you evidence of the bible this time with pictures and fossils but you must do the same .
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Maerdyn77 as for not being a credible sight, well any thing to debunk even if it is got nothing to do with the debate ..if that is all you got to discredit all of creation then you are just backing off because you know you have nothing solid that is why you will use any excuse to withdraw and not back up what you got , i see one of your evidence sights , it is a blog and not an official sight ,what i gave you has far more credibilaty than a blogsight
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
"sorry i meant to say 30 hour debate ,how did i do?:)"
Pretty well, pretty well and continuing to do so.
by Anonymous on February 25th, 2010
oneday thanks it has been very tiring as i have another debate on this same subject going at the same time ,have a look and tell me what you think ? :) ps it is the only other one that has nearly as many comments on it 80 something comments i think :)
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
hong kong phooey, thanks for your comment it is very good. Yes, if you can bring just one person to The Lord, that is another soul saved.
by Account Closed on February 25th, 2010
Eliza Beth . when you think about it science has done really alot of good BUT it has also been the reason we are in the state we are now . technolegy has become our down fall not our saviour . our own selfisionous and greed has bought gods wrath down and we deserve it , when you look at it that way nobody can deny it. look at revelations :(
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
our father speeks the truth ... without a doubt.....he loves us no matter what BUT we have got to change our ideas about who we follow ?????
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
GOD or MAMMON ?
by hong kong phooey on February 25th, 2010
Hong kong.... I will convert to your all loving and forgiving god the moment he stops giving kids cancer, letting wars happen, letting rape, theft and murder happen, shows himself and explains all of lifes unexplained answers! Till then i think i'll stick to what i'm doing.
Also, if all churches (besides yours of course) are run by Satan, then God needs to employ a much better recruitment agent because his numbers are dismal.
by Davidsays on February 26th, 2010
Davidsays as usual blaming god for man`s wrong doing . and yes gods church member quantity is low that is because god requires quality . :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
Maerdyn77 i have found the missing link and now i can ride my bike now the chains fixed :)
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
HKP explaine how a loving god would even concider creating diseases like Bubonic Plague which is estimated to have killed of 1/3 of the population of Europe or what about Malaria which claims about 2.7mil deaths per year. Doesn't seem too loving to me. Why would a all loving, caring and forgiving god create such diseases which claim millions of lives every year and thousands per day? Couldn't this god also stop all of these diseases if he really existed.
by warex255 on February 26th, 2010
Bubonic Plague was not gods doing , how many plagues today are man made , as for can he stop the deseases and death that is what he is coming back for , god has got a time plan and every thing he does is done in his time , how do you know these people who died did not get saved just before death , they may have asked for forgiveness before dying (not that you should wait that long ). god is very forgiving he gives every body a chance of redemption some time in there lives . so why is god getting the blame for our misdoings and when things are going great no body says "thank you father for what you have done for me" we just curse him when we mess up ,how is that fair ?
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
God does not make all of this stuff happen.
Some disasters in the past, yes (Think Egypt).
However, the Earth does move its plates by itself (Earthquakes), nor do bacteria ask God for permission to infect a person. Nor can all of these horrible things be blamed on Satan.
Sometimes, shit just happens.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
and why did god bring plagues on egypt ? because of the hebrew captivity and they would not let gods people go until he showed egypt how wrong they was .
by hong kong phooey on February 26th, 2010
"Bubonic Plague was not gods doing" Then who is the one that created a virus because humans hadn't even seen micro organisms in that time. HPK You are just blaming people for diseases which they never created and which they have no controle over is as usefull as blaming volcanic eruptions on Humans.
"how many plagues today are man made" None that i know of. List all the man made plagues and lets compare it to all the plagues that weren't man made.
"how do you know these people who died did not get saved just before death" Let's see... They are dead thats how i know.
"so why is god getting the blame for our misdoings" I don't know why god is getting blamed for someones misdoings why don't you go and ask them why they are blaming god.
Anyway according to Christians god created every living thing so why create disorders? Why create disorders that handicap people and stop them from doing the things normal people get to enjoy. Why take away that from certain people?
Why does god seem to have human traits in the bible?
by warex255 on February 26th, 2010
If god is all powerful why didn't he just ask the egyptians to release the jews rather than killing them all?
by Davidsays on February 26th, 2010
warex255 look up the jesuits and the vatican , do you think the technoligy we have is new , i have not got all the answers but i can tell you that science goes further back in history than you think . would you like to see proof of ancient technoligy ? do you think the wright brothers invented flight ,the ancient egyptians had electrisity and a light bulb , do you want me to show you proof of early flight from the ancient world , would you like to see our real ancesters just say yes and i will show you every thing you only got to ask ,now would i be willing to say that and not be able to prove my self ?
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
"If god is all powerful why didn't he just ask the egyptians to release the jews rather than killing them all?"
A. Not all of the Egyptians died.
B. He sent a messenger, and when Pharaoh refused to let the Jews go, his Kingdom was punished as such.
"Why does god seem to have human traits in the bible?"
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
"Anyway according to Christians god created every living thing so why create disorders? Why create disorders that handicap people and stop them from doing the things normal people get to enjoy. Why take away that from certain people?"
I've asked myself that quite often, still no answer. Micro-evolution has been proven, so perhaps these awful infections started out as harmless and became harmful. Why allow that to happen? Not sure.
by Anonymous on February 27th, 2010
"look up the jesuits and the vatican"
ooooooh Illuminati. :D
Hong Kong Phooey, be careful where you tread, not a warning, advise as a friend. These things, if true do not prove Christianity, but step into something much darker.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 27th, 2010
LePoupon is not very helpful i am well aware of the implications of what i say , i have done a long study on them besides other religions ,and to be honest you would be very supprised at what i found out ,you think the vatican and the jesuits are bad you wait till you see what buddhism really teaches and the delai lama is no man of god he`s the absolute opposite . i was horrified at what i found out , satanic is not the word for it ,it goes much deeper than that and alot darker than you could imagine .
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
Buddhism isn't as connected to the lama as people make out. True Buddhism is a philosophy as opposed to a form of worship.
I you've got that far you must have found Jesus's relation to Sun worship. You've got to have found his birth links to people like Horus and even death links.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 27th, 2010
yeah i have seen all that but you have got to remember in the bible jesus warned us of a another christ with a different teaching from the true christ and you don`t have to look quite far for that to see it`s the vatican , there jesus is shown with the sun disc behind his head like a halo , that`s the sun worshippers christ not the true christ of the bible . if i can find that set of video`s about the delai lama and buddhism i`ll show you what i mean . also the vatican show`s jesus as having blond hair and blue eye`s ,the real massiah was a jew so as far as looks go he would have had a jewish appearance not european .
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
So what do you think of Horus (the sun god) having a very similar origin to Christ?
And also Christmas being celebrated based on the suns movements.
Buddhism's origins in Nepal are mainly with Sidhart Gautum. He lived as a man and died as a man and introduced a philosophy to escape sorrow. It should have ended there but as usual humans are built to submit and so they submitted.
That's my whole objection to religion, its a way to promote submission.
Judaism does not pre-date all religions so the God of the Jews was not the God of all mankind. It speaks of his chosen people for many years, what happened to all the unchosen ones?
This God has too much favouritism, if he made everyone, to love all equally.
The thing is, they own everything. They fight from both sides of every conflict (like the emperor in star wars) so they can always be on the winning side.
Whatever side you fight from HKP you fight from there side.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 27th, 2010
LePoupon is not very helpful
i don`t celebrate christmas or easter or any other pagan ritual .
satan plays both sides of the coin , do you think our country elected leaders are really elected? no chance. as for star wars i have been wondering about that story line ,i was starting the think it really was a story about mithra what do you think ? .
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
Have a look at the storyline for 2001 a SO. Think about that one and take into account Kuberick's influence, knowledge and symbology throughout his films.
You're avoiding the topics about Christianity I noticed.
Try letting go of the idea of Christ and anti-Christ and see why its done.
They don't function for evil, they function for control.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 27th, 2010
no not avoiding nothing because what i said about star wars story line ties in with what we are talking about also i am answering you on christianity and the false christianity because the story of mithra ties in with the catholic christ . i have seen 2001 but it was years ago and i can`t remember much of it but i tell you what i might watch it tonight on the web now you come to mention it ,what have i got to look for when i watch it ?
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
Who made man.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 27th, 2010
watch this vid of an ancient inscription that was found in a 5000 year old pyramid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxllptqVSYk
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
It won't let me get to it.
What is it about?
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 27th, 2010
read this sight .this is a christian web sight that talks about the christ of the bible and the ufo phenomina
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.world-mysteries.com/new_sci.shtml&ei=nX-JS7v8H5KTjAeO1LyXBg&sa=X&oi=breadcrumbs&resnum=10&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CCEQ6QUoAA&usg=AFQjCNGvqnlfN20plnh6R7-F4Nnt1ujWuQ
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
this is the vid again it works fine here so should be ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxllptqVSYk
its about carvings of helicopters and other modern things that was found in a 5000 yr old pyramid .
by hong kong phooey on February 27th, 2010
http://www.pbase.com/andrys/noah
by TjoeBaxter is Hot Yo on September 12th, 2010
-_-
by warex255 on September 13th, 2010
by canoeguide
on July 12th, 2010
voted:
No
On what date in 1976 was Black History Month started?
by Answerbag Staff on May 13th, 2011
| 4 people like this
When was the first Black History Month celebrated?
by Answerbag Staff on May 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
When was Black History Month first celebrated?
by Answerbag Staff on May 11th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
When is withholding information a really bad idea? When isn't it? Why?
by A One hour ago
| 1 person likes this
How do you express your concerns?
by A One hour ago
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Was the World Created in Six Days?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
LoL!
by Ramblin Ricky on February 23rd, 2010
As long as there are men, there will be idiots.
by 404 on February 26th, 2010
Add a comment...
by chyortanas on February 27th, 2010
my opinion on this is, everyone has a different view on how quick, how, when the world was created. no one is ever going to know the "real" answer. as humans we all have different beliefs and you and only yu believe in what you want. some people follow the bible with how the world an everything was created when others follow the "big bang" theory. what ever u theory u believe is iin your choice and no matter what someone tells you, your always going to stick with what you think you know, and as far as this subject goes anything could be possible
by creationsoflife on March 1st, 2010
I like the way the creationist's argument was based purly on the belief that the bible is 100% true and accurate... if thats a valid argument whats the point in debating?
by stevie2100 on April 18th, 2010