It's all about belief and faith right?

[lonelybird]

As to LonelyBird, I confess that I skim past most of your postings, but staunchly defend your right to post them. We are asked to share our thoughts and opinions and that is exactly what you do.

 

However, my opinion will change if you start seeking monetary donations!

thank you very much

[disgracian]

Adam had a free will that meant he could choose. If he was perfect with no choice, then one would say he was a robot.

You miss the point. A perfect being can still have free will, they would simply make the best choice possible, not the worst. Please try to avoid the robot canard: it's a total non-sequitur.

I would guess that believing man came from dust that was molded by an Almighty Creator takes less faith than to believe that the dust "by a chance happenstance" came together to form a complicated cell. Of course, I guess if one has millions of years, even monkeys cane write the works of Shakespeare.

No, it takes significantly less faith. The evidence is right there in our genes. On the other hand, there is not a shred of evidence for an Almighty Creator, nor where such a being came from, nor how it could exist or why. The very notion introduces a totally unnecessary element in the equation that only serves to raise more questions than it could ever hope to answer. In fact, it answers nothing.

 

Evolution also does not state that man came from dust. If you want to be serious about this for a second, it doesn't even say anything about the origins of life at all. Try not to confuse evolution, cosmology and abiogenesis because it will only convolute the discussion.

Incorrect. Micro evolution (evolution within species) has much evidence, while macro evolution (amoebas turning into man) has not that much. Actually, it is much theoretical suppositions.

Nobody other than creationists draws the (false) distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. They are the same thing, just on different time scales.

Creationism has evidence. One just needs to read the many books written by the many scientists who can see that there is a lot of evidence for some Creator...rather than those books written by scientists who begin their assumptions and interpretations with the world view that a God cannot exist.

Irony in action. So the scientists who start with a preconceived idea that a superbeing must exist and must have created everything are not making assumptions, but those who derive conclusions from the available evidence are? Surely you jest.

 

Perhaps you could do me a favour and point to some actual evidence for Biblical creation, because I have surely not seen any presented, not once. Before you do, however, I will make a few upfront requirements:

• 'Evidence' against evolution does not count as evidence for creationism, any more than it counts as evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It has to be actual evidence for divine creation.
• Appeals to complexity or odds don't count either. It's tantamount to saying "Wow, this is so complicate/cool/unlikely, therefore God has to exist!" This doesn't take into account the even greater statistical unlikelihood of god existing in the first place.

During my investigations, I read books about evolution, creation, and even the idea that we were placed here by some civilization that is farther advanced than we are.

I am skeptical of this; you don't seem to have much of a grasp on what evolution even is at its most basic level (you confuse it with the origin of life, the earth and the universe), let alone its scientific validity. Which books did you read, may I ask?

One can hardly argue that it takes less faith and is less "far fetched" to think that we are here by chance rather than by some design.

I am doing it right now. To date, there is a mountain of evidence in many scientific disciplines to back up evolution. There is currently zero evidence for creationism or for the superbeing that allegedly created us. Therefore the measure of faith is far less.

However, if you refuse to see or even investigate that possibility, then you MUST choose a theory that fits your basic assumption.

Does not follow. I have investigated many things, and it is telling that you assume otherwise without knowing anything about me.

What was in this universe prior to the beginning of the Earth...if you believe in evolution? Did Time exist? And if it did, how many years passed before the chance occurrence that caused our world to begin? And if time did not exist, when did it begin?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I can only assume by "Earth" you mean this planet. Therefore, 99.9999999999...% of the Universe existed before this Earth, since the Universe is a very, very, very big place. And why would time not exist? You seem very confused about the topic here.

I will rephrase your question. Did God have a beginning or does HE have an ending? And I think one could say that the answer to both is no. It is rather simple, and not that difficult actually...in one sense. Yet it is incredibly difficult to grasp the concept.

Perhaps more difficult than you imagine. Allow me to explain:

 

The appeal to a Creator is the result of faulty, self-contradicting logic. It hinges on the crucial premise that like life or the universe requires a creator because it could not come about any other way: "by chance" as it is often put. So God had to be around to create it. This begs the question "Who or what created God?", and it is a very valid question because of the premise put forth in the first place. At this junction, there are only two choices: 1) fall into the trap of infinite regress and concede that God was created by something, which was created by something else, which was created by something else, ad infinitum; or 2) violate the original premise and claim that God is eternal and doesn't need to be created.

 

You may have picked up on the problem here: by violating that premise that everything needs a creator, you are in effect saying that "NOT everything needs a creator" and thus there is no reason to appeal to a creator in the first place. The universe is the sum of...well, everything. All matter, energy, and time. It is quite capable of existing eternally for, as you seem to notice, the idea of before or after time is meaningless.

 

Cheers,

D.

[SierraMarie]

You miss the point. A perfect being can still have free will, they would simply make the best choice possible, not the worst. Please try to avoid the robot canard: it's a total non-sequitur.

 

You're just not getting it. The definition of perfect(or one of them) is: Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

 

God MADE everything perfect. Everything was perfect to Him. But he also gave people free will. Do you get it? Perfect and free will. It doesn't mean they behaved perfectly.

 

You seem to be very frustrating to have a debate with because 1) You think you know everything and 2) You spew your opinions as if they're facts, which there not.

[Moai]

You're just not getting it. The definition of perfect(or one of them) is: Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

 

Ok, if that is so, then I am perfect, since being sinful is part of being human, and humans were created "perfect." In the sense that you use "perfect" above, everything everywhere is perfect.

 

God MADE everything perfect. Everything was perfect to Him. But he also gave people free will. Do you get it? Perfect and free will. It doesn't mean they behaved perfectly.

 

If god is perfect, which I am assuming you think he is, then it is impossible to create something that is imperfect.

 

Since eating from the Tree of Knowledge was forbidden, it follows that a being created by something "perfect" would not even consider eating it.

 

You ignore the problem that Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, so they had no way of knowing what "wrong" even meant.

 

The free will thing is also impossible. Another poster mentioned that there is no time for god, as he is outside of it. It is as if he sees everything all happening at once. If this is so, then free will is impossible, since god already knows what I will do in five minutes, five hours, or five days from now. I have read over and over tortured explanations as to how this can be and how free will can still exist, but that doesn't make it logically possible.

 

You seem to be very frustrating to have a debate with because 1) You think you know everything and 2) You spew your opinions as if they're facts, which there not.

 

You confuse facts with his opinion. Everything that Disgracian posted wtih regards to evolutionary biology, cosmology etc. was 100% fact. You can look it up for yourself--in fact, I wish you would.

 

To address another point brought up earlier by another, the Tree of Knowledge cannot have been metaphorical, nor can it not have been magical.

 

For one, if it is metaphorical, then sin is endemic to humans, and we were "created" that way. So, god made us sinful, and there is nothing we can do about it. If the fruit is not magical there is no reason for Jesus. As every Creationist knows (and they are right about this), the Genesis stories must be true or there is no reason for Jesus, and therefore the religion is nonsense. Even though they both contradict each other. Read some articles written by these people sometime. It is truly sad. Whether OE Creationsits, IDers, or YE Creationists the mental contortions they force themselves through are amazing.

 

But I digress. Let us examine the text, shall we? The text is clear that the Tree of Knowledge was magical, and here's why:

 

Genesis 3:22 - "And the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever.'"

 

Genesis 3:23 - Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from wence he was taken."

 

Notice, there is another magic tree, and it gives eternal life if you eat it. Since that tree is thought to be real--god thinks it is--surely the other tree must be real also.

[khudlmee]

and it is telling that you assume otherwise without knowing anything about me.

 

as i came across this, i had this idea to see if it is possible to learn info about someone. so lets see....do a google search on disgracian, and voila! we can learn without assuming.

 

we can learn that d is an atheist who feels that there is no god. we can learn that anyone who believes in a god is not rational or educated. they cannot be or they should have figured out that there is no god.

 

yet he married a christian wife?

we can see where d lives and even see a picture of his street.

 

we can see some of the hobbies he likes. all of this publicly given by him.

 

we do not need to assume. we can see that he has no respect for those who do think there is a god. any of those fundie christians believing that there is a god certainly had never read or been educated cuz if they had they would not be a christian. any rational humans would believe that they came from a monkey. creation is for the "lunatic fringe."

 

so can anybody here discuss with someone who has no respect for those he debates with? highly doubtful.

 

this is where he shows his true colors...

this quote from the following website says it all. if he has this little respect for fellow humans with whom he disagrees, how can he be respected?

 

and i quote from the link below.

 

How does she compare with Lonelybird from LoveShack? Those two could have quite an interesting dumbass-a-thon.

 

Cheers,

 

http://www.heathen-hangout.com/forum1/search.php?searchid=112455

[JamesM]

 

If god is perfect, which I am assuming you think he is, then it is impossible to create something that is imperfect.

Since eating from the Tree of Knowledge was forbidden, it follows that a being created by something "perfect" would not even consider eating it.

 

You ignore the problem that Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, so they had no way of knowing what "wrong" even meant.

 

The free will thing is also impossible. Another poster mentioned that there is no time for god, as he is outside of it. It is as if he sees everything all happening at once. If this is so, then free will is impossible, since god already knows what I will do in five minutes, five hours, or five days from now. I have read over and over tortured explanations as to how this can be and how free will can still exist, but that doesn't make it logically possible.

 

 

 

You confuse facts with his opinion. Everything that Disgracian posted wtih regards to evolutionary biology, cosmology etc. was 100% fact. You can look it up for yourself--in fact, I wish you would.

 

To address another point brought up earlier by another, the Tree of Knowledge cannot have been metaphorical, nor can it not have been magical.

 

For one, if it is metaphorical, then sin is endemic to humans, and we were "created" that way. So, god made us sinful, and there is nothing we can do about it. If the fruit is not magical there is no reason for Jesus. As every Creationist knows (and they are right about this), the Genesis stories must be true or there is no reason for Jesus, and therefore the religion is nonsense. Even though they both contradict each other. Read some articles written by these people sometime. It is truly sad. Whether OE Creationsits, IDers, or YE Creationists the mental contortions they force themselves through are amazing.

 

But I digress. Let us examine the text, shall we? The text is clear that the Tree of Knowledge was magical, and here's why:

 

Genesis 3:22 - "And the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever.'"

 

Genesis 3:23 - Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from wence he was taken."

 

Notice, there is another magic tree, and it gives eternal life if you eat it. Since that tree is thought to be real--god thinks it is--surely the other tree must be real also.

 

First, you are asking why did God give Adam the ability to sin...if I can put words in your mouth. I had a philosophy teacher..who was not a Christian say, "If you ask me why God did something, my best response will always be that I am not God." So, when I read the Bible, which I am guessing that you consider not of much value...but in this case does tell the story as Creationists believe, I find that God gave Adam the ability to sin. Did God know this would happen in the future? I think the Bible is pretty clear that He did. And yes, then I would ask...why?

 

Did He create an imperfect creation? No, but did it become imperfect? Yes, because of the sin of Adam. How could He allow this? No answer can be written in a short paragraph, but I know that books have been written both ways. In philosophy class, it provided for a lot of interesting discussions.

 

Does God know what I will do in the future? Yep. That one is in the Bible also. There is a big difference in knowing what someone in the future will do and deciding what they will do. So yes, He sits outside of time and is all-knowing...according to the Bible. I am not sure what all of the other religions say about His Omniscience and Omnipresence.

 

As every Creationist knows (and they are right about this), the Genesis stories must be true or there is no reason for Jesus, and therefore the religion is nonsense.

 

True, I agree with you here.

 

Read some articles written by these people sometime. It is truly sad. Whether OE Creationsits, IDers, or YE Creationists the mental contortions they force themselves through are amazing.

 

 

Actually, I think it is good to read some articles by "these people" sometimes. One will find that they do NOT put themselves through mental contortions. One will find that there are many that show that there is proof for a creation. I know personally I feel that on both sides are respectable people who feel that there is evidence to show their theory has validity. I know for a fact that both sides have very educated people doing articles and research showing how the evidence supports their theory.

 

And when one reads the evolutionists, one can find that there are many inconsistencies there as well. No, evolutionists do not believe that we came from dust, but they do feel that some mix of chemicals came together by chance. This implies that a chance mixture of chemicals is somehow more factual than a Supreme Creator.

 

No, many things Disgracian says are not fact, but many are theories. Even when I read articles written by evolutionists, they will say that. Yes, they feel that there is much support for this theory, but it is still not fact. No one can go back to the beginning of time and "see" how the world began. No one can demonstrate in a laboratory how the world began.

[JamesM]

as i came across this, i had this idea to see if it is possible to learn info about someone. so lets see....do a google search on disgracian, and voila! we can learn without assuming.

 

I wonder what there is about me. As for where I live or if I am tall, short, fat or skinny probably has no bearing on what respect should be given to my beliefs. I know I am not perfect...or am I just a perfect sinner....but my beliefs as are Disgracian's, Moai's, lonelybird's, and others here at LS ARE based on our education, research, and life experiences. Debating with someone who believes differently should be about the beliefs...not about the person.

 

yet he married a christian wife?

 

This I find interesting. It makes Disgracian even more interesting to debate with..if he has a Christian in the house.

 

so can anybody here discuss with someone who has no respect for those he debates with? highly doubtful.

 

I have not seen yet that he "has no respect"...maybe I see things too optimistically. Yes, he thinks he is right, but hey, I think I am right, too.

 

How does she compare with Lonelybird from LoveShack? Those two could have quite an interesting dumbass-a-thon.

 

Cheers,

 

http://www.heathen-hangout.com/forum1/search.php?searchid=112455

 

Now if he did say this on another website about a member here, this does show a lack of respect. But it must be taken out of context. Name calling is usually done by those who do not have an answer to one's arguments. And disgracian seems to have answers to everyone's arguments.

 

I would say that your post, khudlmee, shows a lack of respect as well. Just my 2c.

[JamesM]

You miss the point. A perfect being can still have free will, they would simply make the best choice possible, not the worst. Please try to avoid the robot canard: it's a total non-sequitur.

 

No, an ability to choose one way or another does not mean that the choice will be perfect, because logically speaking, if I have a free will but cannot choose the "wrong" choice, I have no free will. So, the "robot canard" is not a logical fallacy. It makes the proper comparison.

 

No, it takes significantly less faith. The evidence is right there in our genes. On the other hand, there is not a shred of evidence for an Almighty Creator, nor where such a being came from, nor how it could exist or why.

 

I assume that the "evidence in our genes" is the supposition by evolutionists that common genes in different species shows that evolution must have taken place. Yet one could argue quite easily that there are other possible reasons for this. And yes, one does not necessarily expect that a Creator would make every species completely different from the next. Many species share similar genes because they were created by a common Creator. Why did HE not created everything completely different? I doubt any human could answer that question.

 

We disagree here. When I look outdoors, I see the complexity and the beauty of a world that could not have just "happened" and evolved through adaptations. I look around and do not see species that are made up of wrong adaptations. No, our world today has all critter that have adapted.

 

Evolution also does not state that man came from dust. If you want to be serious about this for a second, it doesn't even say anything about the origins of life at all. Try not to confuse evolution, cosmology and abiogenesis because it will only convolute the discussion.

 

And you accused ME of splitting evolution into macro and micro? For the sake of brevity, I have used the term loosely. Yes, technically by the definition it does not include the origin. So, if that makes you feel better, we will use them separately. However, when discussion about creation and evolution comes up, all of these subjects are handled as one. But I guess it helps if the evolutionists can make the creationists appear uninformed.

 

Evolution between species...ie from a fish to an amphibian, I cannot agree with. The common aspects between species have other interpretations. I have mentioned that a God who creates does not need to create everything completely different. If there is no God, then other models regarding the beginning of the world have other interpretations.

 

Nobody other than creationists draws the (false) distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. They are the same thing, just on different time scales.

 

Making the stretch that they are the same thing is what is needed to make the case for evolution/abiogenesis/cosmology. There IS a distinction, because we have many examples of micro evolution in the world, but one does not see the macro evolution at work. But I guess we have to live for millions of years to see that, nay?

 

Since the "Nobody other than creationists" includes only those who believe in evolution/abiogenesis and hence believe that macro and micro evolution are the same, then I guess that this is circular logic. Obviously, if you think it is a false distinction, then you won't split them. But since I see it as a distinction, then I split them.

 

So the scientists who start with a preconceived idea that a superbeing must exist and must have created everything are not making assumptions, but those who derive conclusions from the available evidence are? Surely you jest.

 

Yeah, that was a joke.

 

Perhaps you could do me a favour and point to some actual evidence for Biblical creation, because I have surely not seen any presented, not once. Before you do, however, I will make a few upfront requirements:

 

First off, no one gave you the "permission" to make the requirements. Sorry.

 

'Evidence' against evolution does not count as evidence for creationism, any more than it counts as evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It has to be actual evidence for divine creation.

 

I agree. However, evidence against macro evolution does strengthen the other side...in one sense. If it is shown that something could not have evolved but must have come about spontaneously, then this supports any theory that states that we came about spontaneously. And any refutation of one theory does give credence to all other theories. But yes, a negative for one does not necessarily mean a positive for the other.

 

Appeals to complexity or odds don't count either. It's tantamount to saying "Wow, this is so complicate/cool/unlikely, therefore God has to exist!" This doesn't take into account the even greater statistical unlikelihood of god existing in the first place.

 

Incorrect. The complexity of our world does show evidence that it was planned, and it did not come about through a series of unexpected adaptations by chance. The complexity of nature, the complexity of cells, and the virtual impossibility of making complex life from a chance mixture of protoplasm DO indicate that there was some greater plan that started this world.

 

The complexity of the cell supports a creator because if it evolved and adapted, there is no possible way that it could have survived. Looking at how each part works could not have come about step by step. This cell is the basis for every living thing. It is easy to overlook the complexity of each creature and say that "accept it, it DID adapt" but when we look at each cell and how they have their own function, we cannot sit back and say...."Wow, isn't it marvelous how great chance is?"

 

And when I look at humans, I see how each is designed. The intelligence we have been given could not have evolved. It shows a design not a random occurrence.

 

When the evidence is looked at for nature, it can be seen that the world is de-evolving rather than evolving and getting better. Genetic disorders are becoming more prevalent not less. This shows that we are not evolving to better creatures, but we are becoming less perfect. And going to the Bible, this correlates with the idea that sin entered the world and brought more imperfections as time passes.

 

The concept of evolution is contradicts the Secnd Law of Thermodynamics. Devolution and the Bible are both consistent with this well-established law.

 

Paleontology has shown that plant and animal life thrived much more in the past. Everything was much bigger. This is consistent with the Biblical record of the pre-flood earth. The Bible reports that men lived to about nine hundred years of age prior to the flood. (Yes, I know that the Flood is a whole different discussion).

 

None of these are explained to much length, but these do show that the possibility of a real creation exists.

 

What statistics show that there is a high unlikelihood for a Creator?

 

I am skeptical of this; you don't seem to have much of a grasp on what evolution even is at its most basic level (you confuse it with the origin of life, the earth and the universe), let alone its scientific validity. Which books did you read, may I ask?

 

Sorry, the only answer I can give for the books I have read regarding evolution and the origin of life is...I don't remember the titles. Yes, it has been a couple of years. I think my biggest stumbling block has always been when reading them that I was expected to believe that we all got here through some chance mixture of chemicals...which has been given a nice definition of abiogenesis by you...not evolution. And yes, I have used the term evolution loosely. I made the assumption that you would be smart enough to know that since creation has been used for everything from the creation to changes in nature, I could use evolution for the beginning of life to the changes of nature (as explained by evolutionists/cosmologists/abiogenesists. This does not mean I do not have a grasp on the complete theory, but it does mean I am simply making it less confusing.

 

I am doing it right now. To date, there is a mountain of evidence in many scientific disciplines to back up evolution. There is currently zero evidence for creationism or for the superbeing that allegedly created us.

 

So, I guess in your esteemed opinion, anyone who believes in a Higher Being is uneducated and irrational? When I see all of the books written about a Creation, they contain no evidence? Are they all written by humans who have less intelligence and education than those who believe in evolution/abiogenesis?

 

Does not follow. I have investigated many things, and it is telling that you assume otherwise without knowing anything about me.

 

Grammatical error. The word "you" should have been the generic "one." My intention was not to point the finger at you.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I can only assume by "Earth" you mean this planet. Therefore, 99.9999999999...% of the Universe existed before this Earth, since the Universe is a very, very, very big place. And why would time not exist? You seem very confused about the topic here.

 

Since scientists who do not believe in Creation DO put an age on the universe (but they do not agree on how old), then time did have a beginning according to the theory of abiogenesis. I think I have read that the age of the universe is believed to be 14 to 20 billion years, while the earth is around 4 billion years old. (Of course, since these numbers change every few years, I should check recent documents). I am saying that in either theory, at one time...there was no time. As confusing as this may be, it HAS to be the truth for us to give an age to anything. Creationism puts an age to the earth and universe, and then prior to that God has existed when there was no time. He had no beginning and has no ending. And if you call the Universe eternal or ageless, then we agree on point at least...there was a time that there was no time. What existed prior to the universe is unknown unless one believes in a God.

 

This begs the question "Who or what created God?", and it is a very valid question because of the premise put forth in the first place. At this junction, there are only two choices: 1) fall into the trap of infinite regress and concede that God was created by something, which was created by something else, which was created by something else, ad infinitum; or 2) violate the original premise and claim that God is eternal and doesn't need to be created.

 

Either the universe is ageless and by chance life began on earth, or God is ageless and life began as the result of His creating it.

 

I knew this would be your logical fallacy that you knew I would fall into. This is usually the next question...who created God? And when we make the statement that God always existed and was not created, we are told that this is not possible. That is why when you read my last post directed at you, then you find that I answered this. He had no beginning. This does not violate the premise that the world was created...just as the belief that the Universe is timeless does not violate the abiogenesist's belief that the earth began 4 billion years ago. They are two separate ideas.

 

God had no beginning and we did. Did the Universe have a beginning?

 

You may have picked up on the problem here: by violating that premise that everything needs a creator, you are in effect saying that "NOT everything needs a creator" and thus there is no reason to appeal to a creator in the first place.

 

I am not sure that I said everything needs a creator, but yes, I did say that everything was created by God. Because he created the world and the universe...this does not mean HE needed to be created. That is why we have such a difference between abiogenesists/evolutionists and creationists. One side feels that life began from non life and evolved from simple creature to more complex creatures (adapting as needed to the harshness of reality), while the other side believes that a Supreme Being planned and created the Universe and everything in it.

 

The reality though...if there is a Creator, then do we need to be concerned that we may meet Him after death?

[Moai]

First, you are asking why did God give Adam the ability to sin...if I can put words in your mouth. I had a philosophy teacher..who was not a Christian say, "If you ask me why God did something, my best response will always be that I am not God." So, when I read the Bible, which I am guessing that you consider not of much value...but in this case does tell the story as Creationists believe, I find that God gave Adam the ability to sin. Did God know this would happen in the future? I think the Bible is pretty clear that He did. And yes, then I would ask...why?

 

I am not asking why god would give Adam the ability to sin. I am just using the assertions themselves to show that they are illogical (and silly).

 

Did He create an imperfect creation? No, but did it become imperfect? Yes, because of the sin of Adam. How could He allow this? No answer can be written in a short paragraph, but I know that books have been written both ways. In philosophy class, it provided for a lot of interesting discussions.

 

I am not aware of ay Christian sect that assumes man to be perfect. As I wrote before, a perfect being, created or otherwise, by definition CANNOT make a mistake.

 

It is also unfair to create a being with imperfect knowledge (right from wrong was missing) and then expecting said creation to understand what a "mistake" is.

 

THousands of books have been written about this, none of them make any sense, and I think that such is a total waste of time really. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

Notice that a Christian believer wouldn't consider Hindu apologetics worth their time, or Muslim apolgetics worth anything, and on and on. Why is it that believers in one can so easily dismiss the beliefs in the other, when they all have the same evidence?

 

Does God know what I will do in the future? Yep. That one is in the Bible also. There is a big difference in knowing what someone in the future will do and deciding what they will do. So yes, He sits outside of time and is all-knowing...according to the Bible. I am not sure what all of the other religions say about His Omniscience and Omnipresence.

 

I do not see the difference. If the god in the Bible actually is The One, then the second everything came into being, he knew I would exist, what i would do, and whether or not I would be saved or damned. He knew the Holocaust would happen, that the Plague would kill millions, and that the Internet would be invented. Such means that my notion of free will is illusory.

 

Here is where prophecy is so pathetic, in my view. Nowhere in the Bible is the Internet mentioned (possibly the greatest singel invention EVER), nor are there any hints into medicine, mathematics, or engineering. As Sam Harris noted, there is not one sentence in the Bible that could not have been written by a man or woman living at the time.

 

Actually, I think it is good to read some articles by "these people" sometimes. One will find that they do NOT put themselves through mental contortions. One will find that there are many that show that there is proof for a creation. I know personally I feel that on both sides are respectable people who feel that there is evidence to show their theory has validity. I know for a fact that both sides have very educated people doing articles and research showing how the evidence supports their theory.

 

I do read their stuff, and they don't have a "theory." Their position actually explains nothing, nor do they have any evidence. None. They hope to poke wholes in the biological theory and then claim that proves theri side true (which is fallacious). I would also disagree that they are respectable people. Duane Gish has been caught lying several times, and yet still repeats them, Carl Baugh is an outright liar and thief, Kent Hovind got his degree from a diploma mill and cheated on his taxes (he also thinks that the government watches us through our televisions), etc. They also produce a book of "quotes" that they claim proves even biologists don't really accept evolution. It is all quote-mining, taken out of context, and misrepresents the positions of those quoted EVERY TIME. This is not only dishonest, it is slanderous--and dangerous. Why does god need people to lie for him?

 

And when one reads the evolutionists, one can find that there are many inconsistencies there as well. No, evolutionists do not believe that we came from dust, but they do feel that some mix of chemicals came together by chance. This implies that a chance mixture of chemicals is somehow more factual than a Supreme Creator.

 

No, evolution starts AFTER life appears. And it is a fact. There are a great many things that biologists disagree about regarding evolution, but the fact that it is happening and explains all of the diversity of life we see is not.

 

And abiogenesis does not postulate chance. Chemicals behave according to their properties. Given the right circumstances (and there may be many versions of the "right" circumstances), these chemicals will being to self-relicate--the definition of life. And once they start replicating, they are subject to mutation. Abiogenesis is still in its infancy, but we have already created self-replicating RNA in a lab.

 

Let's say that at some poiint god did create life. You would still have to prove that it was the god of Abraham and not some other god or gods. It could also be a god not yet described. However, since we can explain all of this without invoking magic, why do it? What purpose does that serve?

 

No, many things Disgracian says are not fact, but many are theories. Even when I read articles written by evolutionists, they will say that. Yes, they feel that there is much support for this theory, but it is still not fact. No one can go back to the beginning of time and "see" how the world began. No one can demonstrate in a laboratory how the world began.

 

You are equivocating. Theories explain facts. Evolution is a fact. Common descent is a fact. We have a theory, subject to modification, that explains these facts. It's been around for over 150 years and is still going strong. In fact, every time more evidence comes in the theory gets stronger, not weaker. DNA fits perfectly. What we find in the fossil record agrees perfectly. Speciation events we can witness during our lifetimes agree perfectly. It's a great theory. It has predictive value as well.

 

I suggest you read those book again with the definition of "theory" and "fact" in mind.

[disgracian]

we can learn that d is an atheist who feels that there is no god.

We can (wrongly) assume that based on some lazy, amateur detective antics. I am a Buddhist, not an atheist. Granted, I do not acknowledge any prepackaged god, but so what? How is this relevant to anything? Everything I've said on other forums, I've said as much here.

we can learn that anyone who believes in a god is not rational or educated. they cannot be or they should have figured out that there is no god.

Your skills of deduction are lacking.

yet he married a christian wife?

Yes, I'll bet that one threw you into a state of psycho-kinetic meltdown. Let me know when you've figured it out. I'll give you a clue: start with what is real and draw your conclusions from that.

we can see where d lives and even see a picture of his street.

I have another eStalker. I'm flattered.

we do not need to assume. we can see that he has no respect for those who do think there is a god. any of those fundie christians believing that there is a god certainly had never read or been educated cuz if they had they would not be a christian. any rational humans would believe that they came from a monkey. creation is for the "lunatic fringe."

This verges on slander. Never mind that it's completely contradictory. Tell me why I am happily married to somebody that I apparently have no respect for. I can't wait to hear your theory on that. Don't wrap up believing in god and young earth creationism as the same thing, because it's not. You're committing so many logical fallacies here in your urge to assassinate my character, that it is making me wonder who you are, and what your true motives might be. Clearly you didn't stumble here by accident and just decide to trawl the internet for my handle.

 

I know a couple of people who have taken an unhealthy fascination with me in the past. Could you perhaps be one of them?

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

because logically speaking, if I have a free will but cannot choose the "wrong" choice, I have no free will.

I wonder if you would be willing to extend that assertion to its logical conclusion, that God has no free will. Or is it only true up until the moment it ceases to serve your argument? Not many Christians I know would say that God lacks free will, but that is certainly where that argument points.

Yet one could argue quite easily that there are other possible reasons for this. And yes, one does not necessarily expect that a Creator would make every species completely different from the next...

That is true. If I were a Creator, I'd no doubt reuse whatever I could rather than reinvent the wheel. So while there are a multitude of possible explanations for the way life on this planet is, that isn't the issue. The point is that the only thing proponents of creationism can do is attack other theories, they can't advance their own. Even if evolution were to be disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow, creationism still wouldn't have a leg to stand on, scientifically speaking. God is beyond the probe of science, so it's a non-issue really. People who have faith in such things should be content with that faith. Science and religion aren't the same thing: they can complement each other but it's a big mistake to try to make either one do the job of the other.

We disagree here. When I look outdoors, I see the complexity and the beauty of a world that could not have just "happened" and evolved through adaptations. I look around and do not see species that are made up of wrong adaptations. No, our world today has all critter that have adapted.

We do indeed. The argument from complexity is one I don't have much regard for. Whether something can form naturally or not is not contingent upon our being able to imagine or conceive how. Human capacity to understand probability is generally not up to the task. We as humans also tend to assume a fated outcome, which distorts the numbers by an astronomical amount. A quick example:

 

The odds of laying out a stanard deck of 52 cards in any particular sequence is 1:52!, or 8.065818e+67, which is a pretty big number. However, the odds of a sequence is 1:1. That's a big difference. All you see before you is an outcome, so odds don't really apply in the way you're using them. It's like stopping at a red light behind another car and thinking "Of all the cars in the city, what are the odds of me stopping behind one with that particular license plate?" and concluding that it's statistically impossible (or too far-fetched) to stop behind any car.

Yes, technically by the definition it does not include the origin. So, if that makes you feel better, we will use them separately. However, when discussion about creation and evolution comes up, all of these subjects are handled as one.

Have you ever stopped to wonder if that is what's wrong with the debate in the first place?

But I guess it helps if the evolutionists can make the creationists appear uninformed.

When making a decision, it always helps if one side can be shown to be uninformed. That's how most reasonable decisions are made. Pardon my bluntness, but the truth is that most creationsts are uninformed. I've lost count of the times when they throw around arguments that have been in AiG's black-list for ages. They have been shown constantly to be guilty of dishonest quote-mining, biased methodology, lack of understanding and sometimes outright hoaxes. Neither side is perfect, I will grant you that, but science is generally much more accepting of evidence that contradicts previously held knowledge than creationism is.

There IS a distinction, because we have many examples of micro evolution in the world, but one does not see the macro evolution at work. But I guess we have to live for millions of years to see that, nay?

Unfortunately, yes. Given that humans have only very recently (relatively speaking) begun to keep records and document things without churches burning the information as heresy, and given that we are a pretty self-centred being, we don't tend to see the bigger picture that well. Things that take many generations to see patterns and trends go largely unnoticed or misunderstood. The global warming debate is an excellent example of this: we have great difficulty discerning between man-made trends and natural cycles.

Yeah, that was a joke.

Phew!

First off, no one gave you the "permission" to make the requirements. Sorry.

They save us both time, and I raise them because they are oft-repeated mistakes that I have no inclination to sit through any more. If you can't or won't comply then that is no skin off my nose at all. It just means that I still am yet to see any real evidence for creationism, as opposed to (alleged) evidence against something else.

 

As I have said before, knocking down some other argument doesn't automatically advance your own. If evolution is disproved, then we still have every other creation story as well as the Biblical one, plus alternative theories such as life originating elsewhere in the universe, and so on. The "strengthening" you speak of is just an illusion. Ultimately, knocking down another theory doesn't contribute any evidence towards yours. It's just one less fish in the sea; yours is not any bigger or stronger as a result of having slightly less competition.

Incorrect. The complexity of our world does show evidence that it was planned, and it did not come about through a series of unexpected adaptations by chance. The complexity of nature, the complexity of cells, and the virtual impossibility of making complex life from a chance mixture of protoplasm DO indicate that there was some greater plan that started this world.

Complexity is relative. If you remove bias from your thinking, complexity merely shows that the universe is complex. Could you please explain to me the mechanism that prevents complex things forming naturally? So far it has just been an empty assertion, an opinion dressed up as fact.

 

Even if I concede that the world was planned, it's still an enormous assumption to conclude that God did so, and not some alien species with advanced terraforming machines. Incidentallym, both of these explanations have the same amount of evidence for them: zero. They are attractive, however, because they provide an easy way out. It doesn't solve the problem of the origin of complex beings, however. The question has to be asked: "Who/what created these aliens, or this god?" And this leads to "Who/what created the thing that created..." ad infinitum. The only way out is to break your own logical rule.

The complexity of the cell supports a creator because if it evolved and adapted, there is no possible way that it could have survived. Looking at how each part works could not have come about step by step...

What are your qualifications in biology, to be speaking so authoritively on the subject of what can and cannot happen?

And when I look at humans, I see how each is designed. The intelligence we have been given could not have evolved. It shows a design not a random occurrence.

And so you repeat this assertion over and over and over...It could not have evolved, it must have been designed (x10). Saying it over and over isn't going to make it any more or less true. Surely you realise this.

When the evidence is looked at for nature, it can be seen that the world is de-evolving rather than evolving and getting better.

Evolution is quite upfront about not claiming any inclination towards perfection. It's not about "getting better". Anybody who has read more than the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia should know this. Evolution is driven by natural selection, which is about the ability of a species to reproduce in a competitive environment. Creatures have, in the past, evolved themselves out of existence. Why should humans be exempt from this?

The concept of evolution is contradicts the Secnd Law of Thermodynamics. Devolution and the Bible are both consistent with this well-established law.

Sorry to be rude, but this statement confirms it: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

 

I think this discussion on matters of science is wrapped up.

 

Cheers,

D.

[lonelybird]

Evolution didn't give 100% sure answer. but you choose to believe it.

Creation didn't give 100% sure answer, but you choose to NOT believe it.

 

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."

 

It is about HEART, not some visible "evidence". It is about "surrender and humble"

 

[directx]

I never understood why God wouldn't have created evolution.

I mean, it only makes sense he would.

 

To me, they are not mutually exclusive.

I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Makes sense to me.

 

Go GOD!

[disgracian]

At least Lonelybird admits that evidence plays little or no part in her views. If only other Christians would be as upfront.

 

Cheers,

D.

[lonelybird]

At least Lonelybird admits that evidence plays little or no part in her views. If only other Christians would be as upfront.

 

Cheers,

D.

I meant that from view point of non-believer.

 

I totally believe Creation

 

cheers

[disgracian]

I know you do...in spite of the fact that there is zero evidence for it. You believe it because it makes you feel better to do so. It's okay to admit that. I do the same thing from time to time.

 

Cheers,

D.

[lonelybird]

I know you do...in spite of the fact that there is zero evidence for it. You believe it because it makes you feel better to do so. It's okay to admit that. I do the same thing from time to time.

 

Cheers,

D.

Holy Spirit told me so as well, Holy Spirit guide us to read the Bible

[sb129]

Holy Spirit told me so as well, Holy Spirit guide us to read the Bible

 

:rolleyes:

 

Oh yes that well quoted 100% accurate, non-contradictory "reference" book.

 

Its the wikipedia for Christians.

[Moai]

In reference to lonleybirdwriting that evolution doesn't give an answer...

 

Evolution is a biological process. That's it. It is a fact. You can see it in your backyard right now. There is no dispute about this whatsoever within the scientific community.

 

The question that requires an answer, with regards to evolution is, "How does it work?" This is the same question we ask with regards to gravity, quantum reality, etc. To answer this question, people look around and come up with a hypothesis that explains it. They then design experiments to support their hypothesis. If evidence supports it, it becomes a theory, and that is used as a model. If not, the hypothesis is thrown out and the process starts over.

 

This is the best way yet devised to understand and describe the world we see around us.

 

Interestingly, we understand evolution exponentially better than we understand gravity, yet nobody disputes gravity. And evolution is just as evident as gravity. Of course, gravity doesn't show anyone's creation myths to be just that--a myth.

 

Those who believe the Bible to be literally true claim, as lonleybird does, that the Holy Spirit informs her of truth, and the Holy Spirit has spoken to her heart that evolution is not happening. It doesn't tell her that the theory is wrong (which is probable but unlikely), it tells her flat-out that evolution isn't happening. How can this be, considering that there is so much evidence for it no person who has seen it (and understands it) rejects it? Why is it that as more evidence is gathered, it falls right in line with what our current model predicts?

 

Would trust an airplane designer who prayed about building an airplane, earnestly telling you that the Holy Spirit told him how to make a stable aircraft? Would you get on such a contraption?

 

To suggest that evolution is not a fact is also to say that learned men, who have dedicated their lives to understanding the world around them within the most rigorous system yet known are all wrong, and that all of the evidence that we have is either a lie, not there, or interpreted incorrectly. Or, science is the domain of Satan.

 

If science is the domain of Satan, then why does medicine work? Why do cars work? Why does my computer work? And on and on? It is all the same science. How can it be right about everything else but wrong about biology? How can it be that it fits perfectly with geology, chemistry, cosmology, et al? Is it that we know how to do science perfectly in every way except biology, and with respect to biology we are horribly misguided?

 

Obviously not. It is too bad for those who must struggle with their religious beliefs because of the reality around them, but that is their problem. As I wrote above, there is no dispute about evolution being a fact within the scientific community. The people who understand it best all agree. I don't know near as much as they, but even I can see what's in front of me. There is no doubt in my mind about it, either.

 

Lonleybird is obviously filled with what she calls the Holy Spirit. It comforts her, helps her through tough times, and informs her about moral decisions. She is sure she has the Truth, and says so. Would it be wise to listen to her, or the people who actually spend decades studying a subject, writing peer-reviewed papers, and gathering evidence?

 

Is her argument that evolution answers nothing (which is naive and patently false) really worth anything? She has mentioned before that scientific reasoning is prideful, yet isn't it the height of arrogance to think that a "spirit" informs her of truth, but not the thousands of biologists around the globe?

 

Evolution makes no claim about what happens after you die, what it means to be a good person, etc. Nor should it. But it does show that the Genesis stories are at best quaint stories written by primitives to explain how humans arose. I would assert, though, that since the Holy Spirit can be so patently WRONG about a simple fact of biology--one that anyone can see by going outside--why should I or anyone else trust the Holy Spirit about eternity?

[lonelybird]

In reference to lonleybirdwriting .....

you imaged so much what Holy Spirit did tell me, Moai, please don't invent something I didn't actually write

 

We trust in unseen, and we are very happy, I just feel God's love and power so great. I believe in God and his power, so I can see his supernature power working in my life and others' life:love:

 

God offers his love to everyone, just that not everyone WANTS and open their hearts to God

[Moai]

I meant that from view point of non-believer.

 

I totally believe Creation

 

cheers

 

Holy Spirit told me so as well, Holy Spirit guide us to read the Bible

 

you imaged so much what Holy Spirit did tell me, Moai, please don't invent something I didn't actually write

 

I apologize if I misrepresented what you wrote, but I am referring to the above statements that you made. You say above that the Holy Bible guides you to read the Bible, and that it helps the Bible to interpret the Bible correctly. Is that not so? That being the case, doesn't the Holy Spirit tell you that the Creation story is 100% accurate and the Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc.?

 

If the Holy Spirit did not tell you Creation was true, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

We trust in unseen, and we are very happy, I just feel God's love and power so great. I believe in God and his power, so I can see his supernature power working in my life and others' life:love:

 

I am glad that you are so filled with joy, but one must certainly question if that which gives you joy is real or not, given what it leads you to believe about biology, cosmology, and geology.

 

If one were to take morphine, it feels great, has a seemingly miraculous calming effect, etc., but that doesn't mean it is a good thing to take morphine recreationally or that the state one is in while on morphine is real.

 

Perhaps you might enjoy reading about confirmation bias. Here is an excellent description of it. http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

 

 

God offers his love to everyone, just that not everyone WANTS and open their hearts to God

 

That would seem to be the case, no matter which god one opens his or her heart to.

[knaveman]

It's all about what you believe. If you are bothered by someone elses belief the problem most likely lies with you, not the other person and their beliefs. Why be bothered by what someone else believes or does with that belief? If your faith is strong then nothing else should matter, let the others do and say as they will and you just go right on believing what you do. That's the way I look at all of it.