Creationists...What will it take?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by saint4God


Hey whoa wait a second! Are you saying a scientist cannot be a creationist? There is living proof one can be both.



Your totally right, point taken. I made a mistake by saying that a scientist cant be a creationist. I was really trying to say that an evolutionist would be easier to turn into a creationist, not a scientist.

My bug hang up with evolution is that there are no transistional fossils. everyone says dinosaurs evolved into birds, yet there are no fossils or proof of any kind. That to me is evidence of a higher power at work

thanks for pointing that out.


Originally posted by managerie
By the way, I am an engineer from a top science school in the country, Harvey Mudd College, so I am reasonably well-versed in the sciences and yet find nothing at all that convinces me that evolution is a fact or even remotely probable


So based on this, wat will convince you that evolution is real?

Some people say "find the missing links". And that is a totally acceptable answer to my question. But is that goin to be enough for everyone??...I doubt it. So if that isnt enough for you, then wat is??.

By the way, to all those people that say God created evolution, i am still kinda baffled at this conclusion. He created adam and eve(this is based on the christian point of view) or some primary couple(as is with most religions) and then wat??...evolution stemmed from there??...I am still in the dark with how such a proposition would work. I think its a bit of a double standard.




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Your totally right, point taken. I made a mistake by saying that a scientist cant be a creationist. I was really trying to say that an evolutionist would be easier to turn into a creationist, not a scientist.

thanks for pointing that out.


I gotcha, glad to help. No worries, I understand and agree with this one.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Creationists...What will it take?


How can you argue against blind faith?

Well, you can argue, but you'll never win.


You cannot make one see who does not wish to....



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Saint, you are not going to believe this, but you may be the first person to respond to any of my info with a good response. I will be glad to listen to a response from someone who actually takes the time to look into it. I just figured you to be like the rest...my apologies. I will say though, that I have dealt with that specific question for a few years now, and nothing, aside from oppinion can rectify it.

Oh, its not diversionary by the way. As christians attack the validity of science to prove creation, I attack the validity of the bible.

[edit on 1/21/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Saint, you are not going to believe this, but you may be the first person to respond to any of my info with a good response. I will be glad to listen to a response from someone who actually takes the time to look into it. I just figured you to be like the rest...my apologies. I will say though, that I have dealt with that specific question for a few years now, and nothing, aside from oppinion can rectify it.

Oh, its not diversionary by the way. As christians attack the validity of science to prove creation, I attack the validity of the bible.

[edit on 1/21/2005 by Seapeople]


i havent attacked the validity of science. I just have not seen anything that explain how life starts. Our most brilliant minds have yet to be able to do it. You can show bacteria and fossils and get an idea of how things got to where they are today. What NOONE can explain, is how it all started. And to probe a little deeper, what created the thing that created life? what created the thing, that created the thing that created life? See my point? It can go on to infinity, at which point you need to ask yourself, is it possible that maybe there is a power higher than us ?

Maybe our view is askewed of what that power is a bit. Maybe its not. We dont get to find that out untill we die. So to me, life is a gamble. If there is a god, and there is punishment or rewards based upon how we live our lives down here, I try to be just be a good person. I dont attend church, but I work hard to support 2 step kids, and try to help out people when I can. Treat people the way I want to be treated. If theres something after this, I hope I'll be ok.

Now that being said, I made a post at the top of this page that, when posted only showed the qoute I used. This ticked me off because it was a long post. I'll condense it. The other big problem I have with evolution is a lack of proof. Its called the "theory" because it cant be proven. When I see fossils, I dont see any transitional fossils. I either see, dinosaurs or birds. Yet modern science tells us that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Where are the fossils from the "transitional bird/dino"? The chance that these cells would come together in such a way was to create a human is pretty amazing. The odds must be astronomical.

Now look at those last 2 sentences and consider this: What are the odds of all cells coming together in just the right way so as to produce EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING ! Chew on that thought for a second. Its a lot to grasp. There isnt a number that large.

So what sticks in my head is that "something" way more powerfull than us is at work. He started it, and gave it to us. Its ours to love or destroy. Thats where free will comes in. But, that to me, is why I lean toward creationism.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Evoltuion site

This a site on evolution. Maybe humans into the smart species we are now because they had no chocice. Humans or there ancestors, are/were not built to defend themselves from early predators like lions. Therfore we had to get smarter and use tools or die out. this has been said before in this thread but id like to say it again. Given enough time monkeys could write Shakesspeare.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Saint, you are not going to believe this, but you may be the first person to respond to any of my info with a good response.


Thank you!



Originally posted by Seapeople
I will be glad to listen to a response from someone who actually takes the time to look into it.


I look forward to having a solid answer then.


Originally posted by Seapeople
I just figured you to be like the rest...my apologies.


No worries, a valid question is a valid question. I have a bunch myself. Now I have one more to the list. This one though, I believe has a good answer from what I see so far.


Originally posted by Seapeople
I will say though, that I have dealt with that specific question for a few years now, and nothing, aside from oppinion can rectify it.


Opinion can rectify it? Well, why didn't you say so? *pushes the research aside & cracks knuckles*
Here goes: No, we cannot look God directly in his face.

Related Soliloquy: God is facinated by our curiousity in him. He wants us to discover him, which is why he created truths...or clues if you will, along the way. He wants the truth seekers. Wise men seek God for answers because they are able to see things through his eyes to see what is right. The truth then, looks a lot clearer because we have less 'noise' from how we want to perceive it. The removal of our selfish desires, wants, and ambitions allows us to see it from another perspective. His. Answers tend to come easier but no spoilers before the big show. Science is a set of laws and data created by God as understood by mankind. This however, does not mean God stays within our understanding. If he did, why would God be special? What hope of miracles is there?

Good opinion? Or should I hit the books again?


Originally posted by Seapeople
Oh, its not diversionary by the way. As christians attack the validity of science to prove creation, I attack the validity of the bible.


Fair enough. Turn the gun around and I'll paint the target on my chest.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
Given enough time monkeys could write Shakesspeare.


That's because Shakespeare's works look like they were written by monkeys.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Saint

You answered my question. You did it with an opinion admittedly so. My point is, that it takes interpretations and opinions to make the bible work. Everyone can have unique opinions and interpretations of the same material.

It clearly states 2 contradictory things. You must choose...and form an opinion, of which to believe.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Example of a flaw....ahhhh, so many to choose from. I just talked about one, so I will stick with it.

Can you see the face of God and live?????? Can you??? This is a copy, paste from another one of my threads....

Ex.33:20
"Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live."

Vrs.

Ex.33:11
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Thats pretty freeking specific)

Or try this one:

Jn.1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time."

Vrs.

Gen.32:30
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."


Everyone, get your popcorn out and get ready for entertainment. As Saint here pulls things not out of the bible, but out of his "rear section" to defend this "minor" error in the bible.


See if you read from the beginning of the chapter it says that God appeared in the form of a pillar of clouds. Now I'm thinking that this is just a front, if you will. God never came to moses face to face but he spoke to him through the cloud as two men would speak face to face. So God never actually left the throne in heaven he just spoke through a pillar of clouds. See it says, "Thus the Lord used" what did he use? A pillar of clouds. It never says the Lord came face to face himself.

Notice in the beginning of the chapter it speaks of a pillar of cloud but near the end the Lord speaks of "his glory", not the pillar of cloud. Were talking about two different things here. As far as the Jacob incident I believe that's what's called in Christian circles as a christophany. The Christ is among other things a representative between God and man, but at the same time God himself. So we can see him face to face by order of divine will but the Father thats another story. It's like an attorney, he speaks to the judge on your behalf because he is well versed in the language of the judge which is law.

We can't just say anything to the judge or we would find ourselves behind bars very quickly. By the way just in case your not familiar with the word christophany, it is an early appearance of Christ before his incarnate time on earth for our salvation.

[edit on 1/21/05 by Hailthekingoflights]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Saint

You answered my question. You did it with an opinion admittedly so.


Wohoo! *does the cookie dance everyonen learned at age 4* "I'm gettin' a cookie, I'm getting a cookie"


Originally posted by Seapeople
My point is, that it takes interpretations and opinions to make the bible work. Everyone can have unique opinions and interpretations of the same material.

It clearly states 2 contradictory things. You must choose...and form an opinion, of which to believe.


Point well received. Regarding the contradiction though, perhaps but perhaps not. I've been reading into the difference between English and Hebrew and will post findings if I'm convinced. This has been fun and interesting so far. Who knows what'll turn up?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
To all Creationists - If god created everything, who created god?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
See if you read from the beginning of the chapter it says that God appeared in the form of a pillar of clouds. Now I'm thinking that this is just a front, if you will. God never came to moses face to face but he spoke to him through the cloud as two men would speak face to face. So God never actually left the throne in heaven he just spoke through a pillar of clouds. See it says, "Thus the Lord used" what did he use? A pillar of clouds. It never says the Lord came face to face himself.


I agreed right up until that very last sentence there. The New International Version (my fav.) does say "face to face". Hear me out please. What version are you using? And question to all: What is the Hebrew word that got translated to 'face-to-face'? I'm on to something so please humour me. Things that make you go hmm.....


Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
As far as the Jacob incident I believe that's what's called in Christian circles as a christophany.


A whosawhasa? Hehe, not the first time I've been 'out of the loop'



Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
The Christ is among other things a representative between God and man, but at the same time God himself. So we can see him face to face by order of divine will but the Father thats another story. It's like an attorney, he speaks to the judge on your behalf because he is well versed in the language of the judge which is law.


Interesting theory but here's something else to consider. Jacob uses the same phrase 'face-to-face' per our friend Seapeople's quote (validated by New International Version). So. You said last time the phrase 'face-to-face' experience with Moses meant it was God's presence, not his face. Why would this be different? In Hebrew, the same word is used.


Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
We can't just say anything to the judge or we would find ourselves behind bars very quickly. By the way just in case your not familiar with the word christophany, it is an early appearance of Christ before his incarnate time on earth for our salvation.


Ah, already answered my question. I know he was there since the beginning, but I hadn't heard of his appearing to manking before so it was news to me. Again, an interesting thought for me to work on. Additional info always a help. A pleasure as always Hailthekingoflights


Hey Seapeople, you should start threads now and then with one of these topics for us to chew on and discuss



[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
To all Creationists -


Am I a 'creationist'? I don't know. Well, I'm a Christian to I'll take a stab at the question.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
If god created everything, who created god?


*shrugging* God only knows who created Him.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Yeah, but evolution has countless empiral statistics to back it up. I mean, how many of us saw Yahweh creat mankind? He could have least left a note on a mountain saying: "YAWEH WAS HERE"

For Christs sake..

Deep



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
He could have least left a note on a mountain saying: "YAWEH WAS HERE"

For Christs sake..

Deep


You hit the nail right on the head! Christ's sake was to show "YAWEH IS HERE"


[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Hailthekingoflights,
God appeared to moses face to face as it says. If you read the beginning oif the chapter and see the pillar of clouds...that in itself is not an explanation and you are a fool for trying to construe it that way. It in itself is a contradiction.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by MemoryShock
If god created everything, who created god?


*shrugging* God only knows who created Him.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]


That would imply a larger force than god himself. If that is to be true than we have the "mirror across from the mirror" effect. How can god be god if he himself had a god?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by managerie
Hi,

The main problems I have with evolution as more than a simple theory are:

1. The absence of transitional forms. Everyone knows that microevolution occurs where features of an animal change in small ways to better adapt to the environment. However, macroevolution is a different story. If survival of the fittest is the mechanism of change, then somewhere one has to have an appendage that is effective as neither a fin nor wing nor leg and, under survival of the fittest, he is most likely dinner soon.

2. The string of accidents that must occur to go from non-life to DNA is absolutely incredible. If anyone has watched our government in action where they try to do the right thing by intelligent intent and screw it up, then you realize the level of faith it takes in evolution to continue in that train of thought.

3. The major scientific philosphies of prominent evolutionists explicitly rule out the possibility of God as the creator and therefore bias the conclusions to such a degree that even a tiny probability that they calculate that it could have happened becomes "proof" that it did happen by those whose real agenda is to eliminate the notion of a God to whom we are all accountable. That is the real agenda.

By the way, I am an engineer from a top science school in the country, Harvey Mudd College, so I am reasonably well-versed in the sciences and yet find nothing at all that convinces me that evolution is a fact or even remotely probable

Bullsh!t. You clearly have no idea how the scientific process works, or what evolution actually says. 2 and 3 are borderline retarded, you might want to study the scientific process again and what evolution actually states before making moronic statements.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Alec Eiffel]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
i havent attacked the validity of science. I just have not seen anything that explain how life starts. Our most brilliant minds have yet to be able to do it. You can show bacteria and fossils and get an idea of how things got to where they are today. What NOONE can explain, is how it all started. And to probe a little deeper, what created the thing that created life? what created the thing, that created the thing that created life? See my point? It can go on to infinity, at which point you need to ask yourself, is it possible that maybe there is a power higher than us ?

Oh I think it's possible, but I don't see any reason to actually believe it. Logic tells me that if God doesn't need a creator, neither should the universe.

And what do you mean no one can explain how it started? We have ideas of how it started, there are timelines of Earth's history, from its formation to life to present. There are a lot of leading scientific theories on the formation of life, the formation of Earth before that, the formation of the sun, the cause of the solar system, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. I don't think no one can explain it, I think no one can explain it to YOUR liking (ie God).

And you shouldn't see it as "what created that which created life." You're looking at this from a religious viewpoint, it has been skewed by our perspective. Man, the maker of tools, buildings, and knowledge, wants to know who created everything else because that's a view he holds. Everything has a creator. But that is not necessarily true. Nothing made the Earth, it formed on its own.


The other big problem I have with evolution is a lack of proof. Its called the "theory" because it cant be proven.

I'm not sure how well you understand the basis of science, but a theory is pretty much the highest level a hypothesis can reach. The "theory" of gravity. The "theory" of evolution. I don't see how that makes it any less valid. Evolution is a theory, scientifically, creationism is not even that.


When I see fossils, I dont see any transitional fossils. I either see, dinosaurs or birds. Yet modern science tells us that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Where are the fossils from the "transitional bird/dino"?

This is a common misconception among creationists who don't do their research. Saying that there are no transitional fossils is either denying evidence or not even looking for any.

I refer you to the FAQ at Talk Origins on this subject:
www.talkorigins.org...


The chance that these cells would come together in such a way was to create a human is pretty amazing. The odds must be astronomical.

Although I won't argue that it is indeed amazing, the odds are hardly astronomical. Evolution isn't just random chance. Natural selection is a means by which species are preserved if they are more likely to survive. I don't know if you've noticed but humans are very well suited to the environment. Now I know that creationists use this very argument to support the notion that the world was made for us. But that's backwards logic, "the way water fits so nicely in a puddle." Fact is, WE are adapted for the world. Over time, a series of changes that made us more suitable to survive were PRESERVED while most everything else was discarded. That's the whole logic behind natural selection.


Now look at those last 2 sentences and consider this: What are the odds of all cells coming together in just the right way so as to produce EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING ! Chew on that thought for a second. Its a lot to grasp. There isnt a number that large.

See my last paragraph. Every species that is alive today was able to survive, and is either still going strong or starting to fall behind. I think that a lot of environmentalist thinking that we should save endangered species is not necessary. We're trying to carry over our victory over natural selection (helping the weak to survive thus preserving weaker genes, although I'm not saying this is bad) to other species that are too far behind to bother with. Chances are they're endangered for a reason.

Earlier I believe you (or someone) said that if you take all the elements of a blade of grass and put them together, they don't form a blade of grass. Anyone that actually expects a blade of grass out of this is mad. I actually think mattison was a little more believable when he said that you don't get life even when all the essential ingredients are there, but even this thinking is flawed. I don't get a cake when I put all the ingredients in a bowl, now do I?

A lot of things formerly only explainable by supernatural phenomena (for instance, free will is a gift from God given only to humankind) have, in the light of modern science, been able to be explained naturally (free will comes from subtle quantum effects in neurons within our brains, and brains of many other higher mammals). I think that creationism is just another one of these passing explanations that will in time be forgotten.

Good day to you all.




new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join