It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people belive in Creationism, how could they think that?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
Okay. What about the arrangement of dna in living things, especially humans. how can you even say that the proteins that make up a strand can just match up like that. if you put it in a pot and shook it up what are the odds of them coming together like they are. tell me that one.

It took about 3 billion years for single-celled organisms to evolve into multicellular organisms. It took another 50 million years before true primates began to appear. It isn't random chance, it works very differently. Given this span of time, and the fact that natural selection doesn't just work randomly but preserves the gains and discards the weak.

Some people liken it to the chances of a monkey typing out Hamlet on a typewriter. But if the monkey were to work like natural selection does, and every letter it gets right is preserved while the letters it gets wrong are thrown out, it would take about a week to finish.


If no one believes it came from nothing, then who or what was there to cause the explosion, or make sure every tiny molecule that needed to be there was there and in exactly the right place it needed to be? And where is the proof.

Where is the proof? Well where's the proof of this 'God'? There's more evidence pointing toward the Big Bang than there is toward God.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Ikku]




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ikku
And where is the proof? Well where's the proof of this 'God'? There's more evidence pointing toward the Big Bang than there is toward God.


Just a reminder, the title of the post is: Why do people belive in Creationism, how could they think that? The words here to highlight are: believe and think.

Proof proof proof. What Hail is trying to say is the proof is all around you in what you see unless you're bent on the 'cosmic accident' idea which by the way requires a tremendous leap of FAITH in order to believe since there is no proof demonstrating how things got to the way they are. So my friend, you either have faith in God or faith that something bumped into something else accidently. It's clear what people put their faith in. The argument is what they establish as proof.

My proof in God comes with my experiences and interactions. They were made for me in order to believe, so my telling of my story will not make anyone believe because they would have to experience it for themselves. How can you prove you love your spouse? By history? By what you tell her/him? By actions? It could all be a front, there's no proof. I cannot 'see' your love therefore it must not exist. Is that it? You cannot 'see' God therefore He does not exist, right? Wrong. As someone said on an earlier thread, lack of evidence does not prove non-existence.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
Okay. What about the arrangement of dna in living things, especially humans. how can you even say that the proteins that make up a strand can just match up like that.

I don't. No one says that it just magically 'matched up'. Proteins are a result of the chemical properties of DNA and RNA, basically. But no one is claiming that human dna assembled out of nothing.



if you put it in a pot and shook it up what are the odds of them coming together like they are. tell me that one.

Are you being serious here? You think that that is a reasonable criticism? No one claims, like I said in the orignal post, that this happens. The chances of that happening are astronomically small and its not likely to happen. Do you think evolutionists and scientists posit that the pre-biotic earth as nothing more than a boiling pot with some acid in it?



If no one believes it came from nothing,

On life, its not that it came from nothing, its that it came out of replicating chemicals that something like natural selection could act on, such that the ones that were good at making copies 'outbred' the chemicals that weren't. On the universe itself, there is no claim that the 'big bang' started out of nothing, or that inflation began with nothing. The claim is that there is no evidence as to what was going on before the period known as inflation and no information about it.



then who or what was there to cause the explosion,

The 'big bang' was a derogatory word made up to make the theory of inflation sound stupid. It caught on because its intutitive. But its not really an 'explosion' that someone had to set. Its inflation. Its a universal expansion of space-time. It doesn't require anyone to 'set it off'.



or make sure every tiny molecule that needed to be there was there and in exactly the right place it needed to be?

What molecules 'needed' to be anywhere? The idea is that at the earliest phases, the universe was -super- hot, so hot that atoms themselves 'melted', and that their smallest sub-atomic constituents were moving around unattached. As the universe expanded, especially during the inflationary period, it 'cooled', and the sub-atomics coagulated into 'stuff', lie hydrogen and other low atomic number elements. There were no 'molecules' that had to be put into any particular place


And where is the proof.

There is no proof. Its a theory that is corroborated by the evidence and that hasn' t been refuted by any evidence. Where's your proof?



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Faith? What does faith have to do with science? I hate it when the religious bring this into it and tell us that we "believe" in evolution, that we take a huge leap of "faith" when we say how the universe could have formed. Science is not a religion. I "believe" in evolution as much as I "believe" I have five fingers on each hand.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ikku
Faith? What does faith have to do with science? I hate it when the religious bring this into it and tell us that we "believe" in evolution, that we take a huge leap of "faith" when we say how the universe could have formed. Science is not a religion. I "believe" in evolution as much as I "believe" I have five fingers on each hand.


You don't know for a fact that you have five fingers on each hand? Or do you claim you have irrefutable evidence that evolution is absolutely true? Please say you do, I'd like to see the melee ensue as a result. Science does require faith to fill in the spaces inbetween what we know to be true. This is the essence of theory. We trust certain things to be true based on the patterned behavior of the universe around us in order to apply science practically. Trust, faith, belief, all part of science.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
why would anybody become a christian, a hindu, a muslim etc? is it so you can have that personal relationship with god that i hear so many religious people talk about? if you grow up with a religious background then of course you are more likely to become a religious person yourself...afterall everybody is shaped by the community and people around them. this is because what you see around when you are young is what your beliefs and values of life will be. if your parents are christian then they will take you to church, they will teach you of jesus and the bible, they will tell you right from wrong. so in theory unless that child somehow breaks out of their closed minded and ignorant ways then they will likely become a christian themselves. my question is why even if the bible is right, why would you be a christian? is it the fact that god and jesus help you through life? is it the fact that you are garenteed a place in heaven?
the ten commandments in my eyes were basic laws that were set out for everyone whether you believed in god or not. just because in the bible it says god handed them to moses does not mean we should take this literaly. moses would have said they were from god because in that time religion was all people had, there was no real science that governed our lives. so if i ran out in to the street at that time and said god has cured my son from a devil fever...people would have believed there was really a god.
this idea of promoting god was done so people would be scared to go against the 10 commandments. it was a way of controlling the masses, and it is still controlling people to this day. if there was really one true god, then there would have only ever been one true religion and there would not be all these other religions. even if you say that people made all the other religions i don't really care, because in all truth if there was only one true god, and that god was the christian one then that would be what every person on the planet would worship. god would not have allowed other religions to be promoted, he would not let us fool ourselves in to thinking maybe christianity is wrong. from this i believe that there is no one true god, theres no savour, if there really was an anti-christ then it was jesus...he was a fake miracle performer, who lied and cheated his friends and believers, he was nothing but a guy who wanted to become a god to a nation...and he succeded at the expence of billions of people being so ignorant that they cant open there eyes for one second because they want to believe there's more to life than death, suffering and decay. those people are the people who need something to hold on to, like a safety blanket...well it's all lies and your so ignorant that you cant even see how wrong you really truely are. peace.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
Okay. What about the arrangement of dna in living things, especially humans. how can you even say that the proteins that make up a strand can just match up like that.

I don't. No one says that it just magically 'matched up'. Proteins are a result of the chemical properties of DNA and RNA, basically. But no one is claiming that human dna assembled out of nothing.



if you put it in a pot and shook it up what are the odds of them coming together like they are. tell me that one.

Are you being serious here? You think that that is a reasonable criticism? No one claims, like I said in the orignal post, that this happens. The chances of that happening are astronomically small and its not likely to happen. Do you think evolutionists and scientists posit that the pre-biotic earth as nothing more than a boiling pot with some acid in it?



If no one believes it came from nothing,

On life, its not that it came from nothing, its that it came out of replicating chemicals that something like natural selection could act on, such that the ones that were good at making copies 'outbred' the chemicals that weren't. On the universe itself, there is no claim that the 'big bang' started out of nothing, or that inflation began with nothing. The claim is that there is no evidence as to what was going on before the period known as inflation and no information about it.



then who or what was there to cause the explosion,

The 'big bang' was a derogatory word made up to make the theory of inflation sound stupid. It caught on because its intutitive. But its not really an 'explosion' that someone had to set. Its inflation. Its a universal expansion of space-time. It doesn't require anyone to 'set it off'.



or make sure every tiny molecule that needed to be there was there and in exactly the right place it needed to be?

What molecules 'needed' to be anywhere? The idea is that at the earliest phases, the universe was -super- hot, so hot that atoms themselves 'melted', and that their smallest sub-atomic constituents were moving around unattached. As the universe expanded, especially during the inflationary period, it 'cooled', and the sub-atomics coagulated into 'stuff', lie hydrogen and other low atomic number elements. There were no 'molecules' that had to be put into any particular place



And where is the proof.

There is no proof. Its a theory that is corroborated by the evidence and that hasn' t been refuted by any evidence. Where's your proof?


Nygdan you are riding circles around the issue at hand. You keep saying what people aren't saying, but you're not posting what they are saying, or more correctly what they believe in.

Because like my friend saint4god says,"you have to believe in something." You have to put your faith in something. whether it be God, a god, a process, a force, or whatever your imagination can conjure up. The point is what do you have faith in. The fact that you have to have faith in something is proof enough that there is a God all in itself, because we must without a doubt look toward something outside of ourself for answers.

We cant say we created this. We can't say it created it's self. So if you say by chance, then your faith is in chance, but you're faith is still in something outside of yourself. God wanted it to be that way so we could have no choice but to choose a side. Whether right or wrong is up to you. But there will never be a middle ground for you to stand on.

God won't leave a middle ground because he's going to judge us, and he wouldn't leave a loop hole or escape hatch for us to get out of making a choice be it for him or whatever your mind wills. But don't tap dance around the biggest issue, that being what do you have your faith in. Is it buddah, muhhamed, confuscious, Jesus, chance, darwin, scientific theories(i.e not fact), or whatever you're mind can imagine . What outside of yourself do you have faith in. God gives every man a measure of faith, where are you investing yours.

[edit on 12/22/04 by Hailthekingoflights]

[edit on 12/22/04 by Hailthekingoflights]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
What do you mean? Alright then, let's say that I "believe" in the big bang and evolution to an extent. I have a "belief" backed up by evidence and it's a belief that has yet to be refuted. On the other hand, your evidence is a book written by men thousands of years ago. Which one sounds better?

And no, not everyone has to have something to believe in. There are agnostics and skeptics who think that God is a possibility but refuse to believe for or against him. There are people who have never heard of God and simply live their lives without a second thought of a higher power. Tell me, what is it that they believe in?



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
In the book of Daniel, it says that the anti-christ, or lawless one will worship a god of forces. Is this the god that you guy's are worshiping? An invisible mindless force, that put this universe together on a whim. We have no point, no decision on our outcome. We just die and are forgotten in the sands of time. We are just born to die, without a purpose but just to live a life of struggling with vices, ills of the world, try to make it to who know's where, I guess on top of the world as some people say. If we don't get there tuff luck, if we do, like celebrities, we still end up with problems in life. Then we just die, gone bye-bye, poof begone. Wow what a universe.

Some people try to say that mankind can make this world better, but it seems like this world and mankind are regressing instead of flourishing. Don't get me wrong, we are advancing as far as knowledge and discoveries. But to what end? Man uses it to hurt other men, people are still dying of starvation, people. Becuase greedy men sit at the head of major corporations, there are job's being loss, outsourcing and all of the above just to save a buck. Wake up people and be real. most of our so called discoveries are to make another buck, not to help our fellow man.


People are still dying, despite our knowledge. Who can we turn to in times like these? I'll tell you who, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Everyone doesn't want to hear that because they would rather live in darkness, but to those who are tired of it, turn to him before it's to late.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ikku
What do you mean? Alright then, let's say that I "believe" in the big bang and evolution to an extent. I have a "belief" backed up by evidence and it's a belief that has yet to be refuted. On the other hand, your evidence is a book written by men thousands of years ago. Which one sounds better?

And no, not everyone has to have something to believe in. There are agnostics and skeptics who think that God is a possibility but refuse to believe for or against him. There are people who have never heard of God and simply live their lives without a second thought of a higher power. Tell me, what is it that they believe in?


They believe in themselves, that's who they believe in, or better yet the world around them. And those theories that you say you believe in could never stack up to a book that was written over thousands of years by many different men, and still have the same thread or common idea throughout the whole book. You tell me another book that even comes close to that and I will burn my bible.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Technicly you have four fingers and a thumb.
The one thing I noticed as I read through the posts is, that theres only two
people arguing for religion, which in my opinion is good (though I'd rather see none).
I fyou go back through history youll see that almost every western religion argues that theres is the right religion, this shows us that the only reason people argue for there religion is because they dont want to give up believing in the lie there fed all there life.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Technicly you have four fingers and a thumb.
The one thing I noticed as I read through the posts is, that theres only two
people arguing for religion, which in my opinion is good (though I'd rather see none).
I fyou go back through history youll see that almost every western religion argues that theres is the right religion, this shows us that the only reason people argue for there religion is because they dont want to give up believing in the lie there fed all there life.


arguing? No. Presenting facts? yes.

First, what is truth? Second, are there absolutes in the universe?

Is there an absolute distinction between good and bad? Would it be tolerant, good or would it be evil, to allow people to sacrifice babies because their god said so. What does it meant to be truly tolerant? Is it to allow people to do what they want, or to allow everyone besides christians to practice their religion or beliefs freely.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ikku

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
Okay. What about the arrangement of dna in living things, especially humans. how can you even say that the proteins that make up a strand can just match up like that. if you put it in a pot and shook it up what are the odds of them coming together like they are. tell me that one.

It took about 3 billion years for single-celled organisms to evolve into multicellular organisms. It took another 50 million years before true primates began to appear. It isn't random chance, it works very differently. Given this span of time, and the fact that natural selection doesn't just work randomly but preserves the gains and discards the weak.

Some people liken it to the chances of a monkey typing out Hamlet on a typewriter. But if the monkey were to work like natural selection does, and every letter it gets right is preserved while the letters it gets wrong are thrown out, it would take about a week to finish.


If no one believes it came from nothing, then who or what was there to cause the explosion, or make sure every tiny molecule that needed to be there was there and in exactly the right place it needed to be? And where is the proof.

Where is the proof? Well where's the proof of this 'God'? There's more evidence pointing toward the Big Bang than there is toward God.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Ikku]


Looks like I have been missing out on an exciting topic here




It took about 3 billion years for single-celled organisms to evolve into multicellular organisms. It took another 50 million years before true primates began to appear.


On the one hand we have people arguing about some texts that were written a couple of thousand years ago, and now we have factual evidence of what happend 3 billion years ago? Come on, give me a break.



Some people liken it to the chances of a monkey typing out Hamlet on a typewriter. But if the monkey were to work like natural selection does, and every letter it gets right is preserved while the letters it gets wrong are thrown out, it would take about a week to finish.


But that is where it fails. Get the monkey, put him in front of a typewriter and see what he does!



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Ikku
Faith? What does faith have to do with science? I hate it when the religious bring this into it and tell us that we "believe" in evolution, that we take a huge leap of "faith" when we say how the universe could have formed. Science is not a religion. I "believe" in evolution as much as I "believe" I have five fingers on each hand.


You don't know for a fact that you have five fingers on each hand? Or do you claim you have irrefutable evidence that evolution is absolutely true? Please say you do, I'd like to see the melee ensue as a result. Science does require faith to fill in the spaces inbetween what we know to be true.

No sir, i must respectfully disagree. It requires no more faith than what one has to know that one has five fingers when one's hand is in ones pocket. Ok, fine, if your hand was numbed with anaesthetic.



This is the essence of theory.

Theories do not need to be 'beleived'. They merely need to be provisionally accepted. Think of it this way, one need not beleive a theory in order to make use of it. A scientist who has absolutely no faith in a theory can use it in the same way and to the same effect as a person who has 'faith' in it.

We trust certain things to be true based on the patterned behavior of the universe around us in order to apply science practically.
Technically, scientists don't use this type of logic for science, well, at least they aren't supposed to. Apparently one can not say that, merely because something is true in one place or at one time that its true in other tiems and places. The sun, in all likelyhood, will rise tommrrow, but there is no proof that it will, and, certainly, just because its allways done so, doesn't force it to occur tommrrow or forever. But I think that thats a 'off target' point here.

Generally, people say that they 'beleive' that somesuch scientific theory is true, but that not what science in the abstract is doing. Scientists are supposed to be accepting one theory over another for the time being, or until a better theory comes along or a peice of evidence refutes a theory. Faith has nothing to do with refutation or provisional acceptance. True, one can loose faith, but one doesn't do it based on evidence.

For example, a catholic eucharist is composed of bread chemicals, before, during, nad after transubstantiation. But pious catholics have faith that its actually human flesh. Thats faith. When the scientist analysing the chemical makeup of the host says 'the IR spectroscopy indicates that this is composed soley of simple carbon to carbon bonds, ie starches' he isn't using faith to accept that the theories behind IR spectroscopy work.

SImilarly, when a scientist looks down a microscope, he doesn't need faith to 'know' that there aren't little demons that fill his eyes. I mean, sure, there might be demons, but we can't detect them, and the scientific explanation of how polished glass lets people see microbes is a better and more logical statement, so its temporarily accepted.

Similarly, the wider theory of evolution is accepted. Might not be true. Infact, its almost certainly not completely true and will change over time. As for how much 'theory' is required to say that populations of organisms change over time, which is something that is normally accepted as a fact, well, I don't think that thats particularly important.


hail
Nygdan you are riding circles around the issue at hand.

I apologize if I am but I do not see how.


but you're not posting what they are saying, or more correctly what they believe in.

How am i supposed to know what another poster beleives, especially if they don't post it?


We can't say it[existence, the universe as a whole, etc] created it's self

Demonstrate this.

So if you say by chance

have specifically said that chance had nothing to do with it.


that being what do you have your faith in. Is it buddah, muhhamed, confuscious, Jesus, chance, darwin, scientific theories(i.e not fact),

Firstly, I am rather tired of people thinking that science making use of theories is a 'bad' thing. And find it ridiculous that, of all the things listed above, you single out science as being non factual. But beleif in jesus is based on fact? What fact demonstrates that? But, more to the point of what you are asking.

I do not beleive, in the strict sense, in any scientific theory. I accept them based upon the evidence invovled, but I have no idea whether they are accurate reflections of some 'metaphysical ground' or 'The Truth' (note the capital t). Moreso, I do not care. Well, thats not entirely true, but if somehow i was shown some otherwordly Truth, and it revealed that science was an interesting toy or a system that only thinks it works but is really missing out on things, well, what the hell do I care? I'm not going to lament the downfall of science or anything like that. So, er, short of Divine REvelation, I'll stick to accepting scientific theories and using them where there are appropriate. Interestingly, there is a neuroscientist who infact had a 'ecstatic vision', apparently while waiting for the train one day. But he didn't haev any faith in it, decided to investigate it further, and has now built a machine that, by manipulation of EM feilds, can cause 'profound ecstatic visions' in some subjects. Infact, in some, despite understanding that its an experiment, come away from the induced visions with a sense of profound meaning. I suppose that they have faith in it. But no reason for that faith.


hail
Is this the god that you guy's are worshiping?

Are you just going to throw around accusations of being worshippers of satan and the anti-christ at anyone you disagree with or are you going to have a discussion on the subject? I know of no one who worships any 'forces' in the way you speak. Perhaps you have been deceived into worshiping an anti-christ, one that appears very similar to christ but infact is not him. Many copies of the bible exist, perhaps the devil has been able to alter some of them in some ways, or exclude some texts from it at the old synod that put the bible together. Or perhaps the devil highlights certain portions in your mind's eye when you read the word, and thus the master of tricks tricks you. Perhaps the scientists who don't mix the world of forces, evidence, and material with their religious beleifs are the good guys, and people, apparently like you, who want materialistic confimration of your beleifs, are the ones that have been deceived.

People are still dying, despite our knowledge.

Irrelevant. Science makes no promise of immortality.

[quiote]hail
a book that was written over thousands of years by many different men, and still have the same thread or common idea throughout the whole book. You tell me another book that even comes close to that
I'd prefer if you didn't burn your bible anyway, but what is the 'consistent theme' thru it all? Worship god? Be pious? Be good? The vedic sciprtures are much larger and make the same claim too. Lots of religious texts written over the millenia have this. Infact, the OT is part of Hebrew Religious Literature, which includes lots of other books written by even more people, and it contains a consistent message.


iori
this shows us that the only reason people argue for there religion is because they dont want to give up believing in the lie there fed all there life.

Why do you get that impression? THe religious have faith in their beleifs. The ferverently beleive in it, they aren't just cynically trying to deny that they have no faith. Some people are just very spiritual, that doesn't make them liars.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Ok, first people, to answer were God came from, God exsisted before time began, because he created time, and exsists in a place totaly outside of time.

Second, When God created Adam and Eve, he would have created them with as perfect a genetic structure as possible. Therefor, it would be a very long time before they interbred enough for the problems of interbreding to surface.

Also, people lived longer in the bible because it it theorized that before the flood of noah there was another protective layer in the atmosphere, with was destroyed in the flood. This protective layer kept of more harmful rays and kept the earth warmer, and people lived longer. If you look in the bible, the later you go, the shorter the lifespans of the people, suporting this theory.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I didn't say that science wasn't fact. I said that theories aren't fact. Science isn't bad. True science just proves that this universe is so complex in it's design that it had to be created. Faith is not a blind leap into something as some would have it. but it is a desicion to believe something based on something that you're senses have percieved. whether it be, seeing something, hearing, tasting, smelling, or it could be experiance.
for example because I tested a chair before I sit in it I have faith that it will hold me up, so therefore I decide to sit in it.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
I didn't say that science wasn't fact. I said that theories aren't fact. Science isn't bad. True science just proves that this universe is so complex in it's design that it had to be created.

Ok, i can seee that you aren't willing to have a conversation about this. This is what, the second time you've said this? Complexity is not evidence of design. YOu haven't addressed this yet, nor have you addressed that the structure of the universe can be natuarlly explained by random variations in the fluctuations of the early superheated universe. If you want to address the issues, then go ahead.


phantom chatter
God exsisted before time began,

Why shoudl anyone beleive this? What demonstrates that only one god existed before time? If stuff can exist before time, why couldn't the universe?

Therefor, it would be a very long time before they interbred enough for the problems of interbreding to surface.

The problems from interbreeding are only that dangerous alleles that are recessive can combine in double doses. This woudl happen very quickly even with a 'perfect' original mating pair.

Also, people lived longer in the bible because it it theorized that before the flood of noah there was another protective layer in the atmosphere, with was destroyed in the flood[/quopte]
The so called 'vapor canopy' is an excellent exmple of whats wrong with creationism. A vapor canopy resting atop the regular atmosphere woudl result in tremendous pressure on the earths surface. Furthermore, if it collapsed as water, it, beign so huge, woudl result in an unthinkable amount of energy being released, enough to boil the water and scorch everthing, not to mention that it'd be comming down in such massive amounts that it'd smash anything on the planet, let along an unstable wooden ship. Also, the amount of water required to submerge all land on the planet can't just magically disappear or be sucked up into some underground cave, its just too much. Also, a flood of that type woudl leave evidence of its occurance, and result in a fossil record with a mix of flood victims, not a well stratified and faunally seperated fossil record. And, finally, eliminating UV radiation does not make people like a thousand years. The vapor canopy has no evidence for its existence, its only suggested to cover up an obvious problem in the bible, its refuted by actual evidence, and it doesn't even answer the problem that its supposed to. And yet, creationists push it. Thats why creationism isn't scientific, thats why its garbage.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
There is a verse in the Bible that says 'Faith is to be sure of what you hope for and certain of things you can not see' yet the Bible clearly directs us to have faith in God and Christ and not worship things of stone and wood 'like the pagans do'.

You can have faith in an all powerful being that will yield results: Christ said that he has come so we can have life 'exceedingly abundant' or you can have faith in a rock that makes no promises at all.

Science tries to dismiss faith by providing an answer for everything 'a little like doubting Thomas in the Bible'. The problem is, science can NOT explain everything and in some instances simply will not.

For instance, how can science explain demon possession? How can science explain the supernatural acts of the witch doctors in Vanuatu? How can science explain evolutions failure in man and their incessant need for belief in a 'God'. The reality is, scientists are so divided on what they believe, that they create a mockery of the term 'science'. How many scientists have given different versions of the effects of Global Warming? Why can't they unit on opinions?

Fortunately, humans and their scientific endeavors do not hold the keys to the universe. They can pull apart puzzles and put the pieces in different spots, but that is a far call from being a creator.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
I didn't say that science wasn't fact. I said that theories aren't fact. Science isn't bad. True science just proves that this universe is so complex in it's design that it had to be created.

Ok, i can seee that you aren't willing to have a conversation about this. This is what, the second time you've said this? Complexity is not evidence of design. YOu haven't addressed this yet, nor have you addressed that the structure of the universe can be natuarlly explained by random variations in the fluctuations of the early superheated universe. If you want to address the issues, then go ahead.


phantom chatter
God exsisted before time began,

Why shoudl anyone beleive this? What demonstrates that only one god existed before time? If stuff can exist before time, why couldn't the universe?

Therefor, it would be a very long time before they interbred enough for the problems of interbreding to surface.

The problems from interbreeding are only that dangerous alleles that are recessive can combine in double doses. This woudl happen very quickly even with a 'perfect' original mating pair.

Also, people lived longer in the bible because it it theorized that before the flood of noah there was another protective layer in the atmosphere, with was destroyed in the flood[/quopte]
The so called 'vapor canopy' is an excellent exmple of whats wrong with creationism. A vapor canopy resting atop the regular atmosphere woudl result in tremendous pressure on the earths surface. Furthermore, if it collapsed as water, it, beign so huge, woudl result in an unthinkable amount of energy being released, enough to boil the water and scorch everthing, not to mention that it'd be comming down in such massive amounts that it'd smash anything on the planet, let along an unstable wooden ship. Also, the amount of water required to submerge all land on the planet can't just magically disappear or be sucked up into some underground cave, its just too much. Also, a flood of that type woudl leave evidence of its occurance, and result in a fossil record with a mix of flood victims, not a well stratified and faunally seperated fossil record. And, finally, eliminating UV radiation does not make people like a thousand years. The vapor canopy has no evidence for its existence, its only suggested to cover up an obvious problem in the bible, its refuted by actual evidence, and it doesn't even answer the problem that its supposed to. And yet, creationists push it. Thats why creationism isn't scientific, thats why its garbage.



So are you telling me that I can just go to the junk yard, get every piece of a mercedes and lay it out for billions of years that it would just somehow manage to become a car. And how could the universe be heated to create things without something triggering it. That means that something or most likely someone had to be there to trigger this. Then you keep saying universe, how was there a universe bfore the universe. You said that the early universe was superheated. Where did this early universe come from. You're purposefully riding around the subject which is origins i.e beginning. You said the early universe not the beginning of the universe. The question is how did the universe begin. Not, what happened in the EARLY universe. why do you keep saying early universe? what was before that.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment-A.E


sounds bout right to me.

www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join