Creationists...What will it take?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I think we've got a good discussion going here, but it seems most of this stuff has been explored before. It doesnt seem like we are goin anywhere with this back and forth "evolution happened"..."no..no it didnt" crap.

Put your personal beleifs aside and tell me, just like i asking in my original post, what will it take for you to beleive or start believing in evolution/creationism.

Some one talked about fossile records missing. Will that be enough to convince ever doubter of evolution??....WAT IS???

Same question to the evolutionist. Wat will it take to beleive in creation??
Wat is enough evidence???




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Considering that so far there has been no evidence whatsoever to support creationism, I highly doubt any evidence would convince me short of God coming down and saying it happened. Even then I'd be skeptical as to this person's real identity and truthfulness. I think those who deny evolution in favor of creationism are just ignorant.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
There are two type of people in the world, one that admits that they are wrong and the other that doesn't.

Gee, I wonder what side the creationists are on.

Surf



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
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]


Hi Alec,

If the sword of truth had struck more true, I would have expected a little more of a hue & cry. Still, thou protest at a sufficiently ranting level to satisfy. In truth, the scientific process as in the scientific method seeks the furtherance of knowledge and understanding through repeatable experimentation. Even the science of forensics establishes the likelihood of the specifics of past events based on the performance of repeatable experments. The analysis of past events that are not repeatable belongs to the purvue of the historical proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No aspect of macroevolution has ever been successfully repeated in the laboratory environment.

It is so often true in these discussions that one who adds nothing to reason will resort to more pedestrian means of discreditation. What a shame.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Both make sence to me. God created all life on Earth. Evolution made animals adapt to the changing environemnt on Earth. Think about it. Would God want all the animals he just created to die when the Earths environemnt changed? No, so he gave them the ability to evolve. I am an evolutionist and a creationist



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Both make sence to me. God created all life on Earth. Evolution made animals adapt to the changing environemnt on Earth. Think about it. Would God want all the animals he just created to die when the Earths environemnt changed? No, so he gave them the ability to evolve. I am an evolutionist and a creationist


Well most scientists have this thing called, you know the scientific method. They only accept the theories derived and tested numerous times using that method.

Since God doesn't really come through scientific method, they don't really accept it, why is why both don't get along so well.

Surf



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I will simply state on what i think annoys most people is that, evolutionists can argue the fact the a deity had a hand in creating life, since we cannot prove otherwise. The thing that does annoy people is that people seem so certain is was the christian god, i will take creationists seriously when they open their mind to the fact that it could be a diety that they never thought even existed that created life.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wang
I will simply state on what i think annoys most people is that, evolutionists can argue the fact the a deity had a hand in creating life, since we cannot prove otherwise. The thing that does annoy people is that people seem so certain is was the christian god, i will take creationists seriously when they open their mind to the fact that it could be a diety that they never thought even existed that created life.


Well they argue that evolution is wrong and it is God's hand in the background working to create "decent with modification", alias evolution, they can't be proven wrong either. But how many people are going to taken them seriously, apart from those who can't understand science.

True it could have been any God, hell it could have been Satan, but that proves that their God is lesser to someone else's, so they simply assume that it was their Supreme God.

Surf



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
It doesnt prove their god is lesser is proves their god is wrong.
Anyway there will never be any proof on which god it was, or even if it was a god. So i think people should stop searching through creationism for answers and look at evolution to give us more answers.
Evolution and creationism could be the same thing, yet creationism cant be dispelled, while evolution can, thats why its called scientific theory.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by managerie
Hi Alec,

If the sword of truth had struck more true, I would have expected a little more of a hue & cry. Still, thou protest at a sufficiently ranting level to satisfy. In truth, the scientific process as in the scientific method seeks the furtherance of knowledge and understanding through repeatable experimentation. Even the science of forensics establishes the likelihood of the specifics of past events based on the performance of repeatable experments. The analysis of past events that are not repeatable belongs to the purvue of the historical proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No aspect of macroevolution has ever been successfully repeated in the laboratory environment.

It is so often true in these discussions that one who adds nothing to reason will resort to more pedestrian means of discreditation. What a shame.


You did a pretty good job of discrediting yourself when you proclaimed to be reasonably well-versed in science and then stated these two points for not believing in evolution:


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.
1. Abiogenesis explains how we got here, not evolution. 2. Comparing middle-aged mens intentions to natural phenomona has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard, especially since it is coming out of the mouth of one who is "reasonably well-versed in science."


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.
1.Philosphy has nothing to do with science
2. The majority of evolutionists are theists.
3. Science being limited as it is, studys the natural world and sees what works and what doesnt work, it has nothing to do with God and most likely never will.

Now, all that aside, specitation has in fact been observed. Here you go, have fun. talkorigins.org...



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

1. Abiogenesis explains how we got here, not evolution.


Please. Abiogenesis theories attempt to explain how life got here, and do a very poor job of it. What abiogenesis theories would you care to discuss?


2. The majority of evolutionists are theists.

Don't know where you got this info from, but I'd really appreciate seeing the source.



talkorigins.org...]

I'd appreciate being able to discuss this topic with someone who's actually read the PRIMARY refs. contained at TO. I have.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
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.


So are you saying that God is a pillar of cloud? If this is so, then that wasn't God who wrestled with Jacob. Because it says Jacob wrestled with a man, not a pillar of clouds. So please explain that one to me. That is a good argument, please pay attention to the statement," Thus the Lord Used to speak to Moses. What did the Lord USE, a pillar of cloud. Thus the Lord USED To speak to Moses face to face, AS a man speaks to his friends.

All through the old testament God's prescence, remember God is omnipresent, appeared in the tabernacle as a cloud. The cloud was a representation of God's glory. Because as I said God is omnipresent, so this means he is evcerywhere at all times. So his prescence is everywhere, but he used the cloud as a special representative to the children of Israel.

In Ezekiel 9:1-11:25 God's Glory(cloud) left the temple mount completely, known as the shekinah Glory. You can look that up in the bible and the Jewish Talmud. It spoke about God's Glory coming to the temple again. Well that happened through the Messiah. Jesus was the Glory /Word of God incarnate. So we can't put God in a box, he's omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. God is a spirit he doesn't have a literal face as we have. When he speaks of his face he means his immediate prescence. God also doesn't have literal hands, when he speaks of his hands, he's speaks to his might or power.

God is above our finite thinking, he is infinite, so he has to relate himself to us in a way that we will understand. We use our hands to perform task, God uses his spiritual might to perform task, so he say's his hand so we can understand. When someone is in our face they are in our immediate prescence. So when God say's his face he's talking about his immediate prescence.

God is so holy and righteouss, he like a fire, that when anything impure comes in contact with him it is burned down to it's purest form. That's why we have Jesus as a mediator between God and us. We are so impure that we can't stand before God, because he is an all consuming fire. Therefore we would die in his face. Heb 12:29

Speaking of fire, another example is God appearing to Moses in the form of a fire in the bush. Is this God or not?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The entire theory of evolution does not hold water. Our bodies and everything around us hangs in a very delicate balance. Our bodies are made up of water and tissue, yet we are all able to think, to reason, to feel, to process our feelings, to Love, to hate, to run, to laugh, and so on and so on. To insinuate that all of this is part of a big cosmic accident is absurd. I am no accident. There is a goal for life, one that was not determined by a cloud of gas exploding. Scientists need to check out just how delicate this universe is and try and figure out how it stays going.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
The entire theory of evolution does not hold water. Our bodies and everything around us hangs in a very delicate balance. Our bodies are made up of water and tissue, yet we are all able to think, to reason, to feel, to process our feelings, to Love, to hate, to run, to laugh, and so on and so on. To insinuate that all of this is part of a big cosmic accident is absurd. I am no accident. There is a goal for life, one that was not determined by a cloud of gas exploding. Scientists need to check out just how delicate this universe is and try and figure out how it stays going.


This is the kinda thing that just doesnt work for ME. I mean, people say "take a look around you....look at the trees, look at the mountains etc etc.....look how complex it is.....how could all this jsut happen by chance...there must be a creator".

Well you know what? That is jsut simply not good enough reason to beleive GOD created all this. Am I the only one here with this logic??

Simply becasue its complex and beautiful doesnt mean there is a creator/god behind it all.

I read a very interesting book for one of my university courses, that showed how people find patterns in seemingless random events and they then continiue to put meaning to those events. The point is, we as humans, have a tendency to put meaning to seemingly random chain of events. THis is why i dont accept this notion of "look how complex it is....it has to be GOD"....

Am i wrong in this view???



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
The entire theory of evolution does not hold water.

You state this and then give nothing to back it up, but instead go off on a tangent. Good job.


Our bodies and everything around us hangs in a very delicate balance.

What are you trying to say? This doesn't really make much sense. You say the universe hangs in a balance, but don't explain how or why. Care to tell us what exactly you mean?


Our bodies are made up of water and tissue, yet we are all able to think, to reason, to feel, to process our feelings, to Love, to hate, to run, to laugh, and so on and so on.

Yes, and that is all explainable by science. Feelings, thoughts, actions, they are all the result of chemicals and effects within the neurons of our brains. It isn't part of some spiritual dimension, all we feel is very real.


To insinuate that all of this is part of a big cosmic accident is absurd.

How so? It just happened, I don't see how that's absurd. Things happen all the time. Many of them by accident. Are all of them absurd?


I am no accident. There is a goal for life, one that was not determined by a cloud of gas exploding.

That's man's egotistical self-justification. We're here, but why? That's a very dangerous question, especially because there just isn't an answer. We aren't part of some big plan, we just are. Can you accept that?


Scientists need to check out just how delicate this universe is and try and figure out how it stays going.

I don't quite know what you mean when you say the universe is delicate, but scientists have figured out much more than you think. We know how the universe stays going. Maybe you should try to research topics instead of taking your Sunday school lessons as fact.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
So you believe that you are an accident, and that when you die that you just cease to exist. People are getting too smart for their own good. So smart that we feel that we have the answers for everything.
Have you stopped to realize that millions of people throughout history have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ? I guess that all of those people were wrong. Or have you stopped to think that if the Moon was just a few feet closer to us that the Earth could not sustain life, or that if the waters on this earth contained one more molecule of oxygen or hydrogen that we would also perish. Have you stopped to think that if we were any closer to the sun, or farther away this planet could not sustain life.
According to evolution, a large cloud of gas accidently exploding, accidently building planet Earth, accidently filling it with H2O, accidently making the Sun, accidently then made single celled organisms, then they accidently evolved into multicellular organisms, then they accidently grew fins and learned mobility, then they accidently grew legs and crawled up out of the oceans, then accidently stood upright to better serve themselves on land, then accidently became intelligent and ultimately became masters of all the Earth. That is a serious chain of accidents.
It would seem to me that it takes a far greater amount of faith to believe in an accidental theory than to believe in GOD. Remember, if you believe in God and are wrong, what have you lost? If you were right then you've gained eternity.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Thoughts are a result of chemicals,,,,,,, give me a break. That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You believe that you are just a chemical soup that can think and feel and reason based on your chemical composition? Frogs, and cows have the same chemical composition and yet they do not have the intelligence that we have.
Get real,,,,
If it makes you feel better to think that you are an accident, then by all means enjoy your accidentalness.
I am not the result of some cosmic accident. I have a creator who made me and Loves me, and I pity you.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
While scientific evidence is mounting for the evolution theory on earth, science fails to reveal the *cough* creation of the universe itselve.

This leaves enough room/uncertainty for a Godlike being to exist, but his name could be Allah as well, or it could be aliens having brought the seeds of life to eart, or it was a mishap in Dexters laboraty.... we just don't know...


[edit on 23-1-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
OH and by the way maybe you need to take a few Sunday school lessons and a little less whacked out scientology books.
I have given my opinion on a theory, not your religion which you apparently do not have, be careful when knocking a man's religion.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
convince me why I should choose sundayschool over talmudschool or quranschool, just who is the Real McCoy?

I know, your heart, your lord and your bible tells you, but so does jewish and arab hearts tell them,...Why should their religions be a phony , aren't the mullahs saying that christianity is phony and actually an instrument of Satan ? ....I'm confused....


[edit on 23-1-2005 by Countermeasures]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join