you want more proof that evilution is a lie here you go

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I am not quoting any religions beleifs when I stated that we had to have been created by intelligent design I am only posting what is logical.

It is illogical to think that something as complex as the human being could have created itself from raw materials on the earth. It is way more sci-fi to think that we were all created in a sludge pit of amino acids than to think of travelling at light speed. The dynamics that would need to be in place to have that interaction take place are staggering. Add to that the fact that after this first form of life created itself it would have to be able to reproduce itself or it would die out.


I dont think it is that far fetched when you consider the time involved.
It has been estimated that the first steps in the development of life took over a billion years.


So think about what you are saying

1. Somehow everything just came together and chemicals that are not supposed to interact, interacted and created life.


Please explain. What chemicals are not supposed to interact?


2. This one life has created every form of life on earth that you now see. (If this is so then why and how did it change into different things) Why did certain creatures evolve just to be the food of other creatures. True evolution would mean everything would evolve to be the best not less than the best.


And who says that a cows life isnt the best?


Seriously. Look at every vertebrate animal, birds, mammals, reptiles. They are all remarkably similar arent they? Four limbs, two eyes, a backbone, ribs, same general reproductive cycle etc.



3. This first life somehow found a way to reproduce itself after it created itself.

A little far-fetched don't you think?


Not really, a billion years is a loooooooong time.




posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
In regards to people who ask why we can't find fossils of ancient creatures to find the missing gaps in evolution. Well, how is it I can walk through a forest and not find one single bone from an animal that might have been killed recently? With all the animals that hunt and kill others, we should be seeing bones all over the place with your line of thinking, but we don't. Nature cleans it up so to speak. Only in special conditions do things get fossilized as far as i know. So creatures from hundreds of thousands of years ago are going to be rather hard to find I would think.



Well quite alot of generations would have gone past inthose times..that's alot of deaths and bones...



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
1. Somehow everything just came together and chemicals that are not supposed to interact, interacted and created life.


What do you mean with chemicals that are not supposed to interact? There are self-organizing chemicals. In the case of life these are sequences of amino-acids. Amino-acids have been to proven to be created in ancient slime. Think about prions, proteins with the special property that they can change other proteins into their own form. Why can't something like that happen in the millions of years?


2. This one life has created every form of life on earth that you now see. (If this is so then why and how did it change into different things) Why did certain creatures evolve just to be the food of other creatures. True evolution would mean everything would evolve to be the best not less than the best.


That first 'lifeform' spreaded to different places with different environmental conditions. It adapted itself and by geographical isolation the two populations got sexually isolated. You have two different species now.


3. This first life somehow found a way to reproduce itself after it created itself.


I agree this is a bit of a problem that scientists are still dealing with today. Prions can 'reproduce' themselves, but they are far from actual life. Still, I am convinced that we will one day find out. I think random processes in combination with self-organizing chemicals could have started life.

Now I would like to address a few problems with the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

1. Intelligent Design can not explain itself. How were the higher beings that started life created?

2. Intelligent Design requires unprovable assumptions to be made.

3. There is no proof for Intelligent Design, while there is a lot of proof for Evolution. At best, Intelligent Design is a unneccessary supernatural extension of evolution. But I guess Occam's Razor can solve that.

[Edited on 16-2-2004 by amantine]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
What do you mean with chemicals that are not supposed to interact? There are self-organizing chemicals. In the case of life these are sequences of amino-acids. Amino-acids have been to proven to be created in ancient slime. Think about prions, proteins with the special property that they can change other proteins into their own form. Why can't something like that happen in the millions of years?


The failure of scientists to produce life in the test tube is notable. After a flurry of excitement of the possibility in the 1960s, the following quote expresses the current state of affairs. It was written by Klaus Dose, a prominent biochemist working in the field:

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." Modern science has confirmed the principle of biogenesis, that life only comes from life.

Concerning the prebiotic soup from which life supposedly arose, there is no reason to believe that it even existed or that life has a tendency to emerge even when the right chemicals are present. Modern chemistry now indicates that, in fact, organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. As such, the scientific evidence continues to mount against evolution.

But the question must be asked, if scientists actually do produce life in the lab, would that prove evolution or would it prove the importance of intelligent interference? I beleive that it would merely demonstrate the latter. For now, the world waits for evolutionists to show some evidence for their theory.


That first 'lifeform' spreaded to different places with different environmental conditions. It adapted itself and by geographical isolation the two populations got sexually isolated. You have two different species now.


So what you are saying is that this one single lifeform spread to different places and became plants, trees, fish, birds, dinosaurs, humans, etc... all because of different enviroments? And remeber this is one single organism. Sounds just a tad far fetched to me.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Let me get one thing clear, this is a discussion of non-intelligent design vs. intelligent design. Evolution only happens when there is already life and evolution has a lot of supporting evidence.


Originally posted by BlackJackal
The failure of scientists to produce life in the test tube is notable. After a flurry of excitement of the possibility in the 1960s, the following quote expresses the current state of affairs.


Absence of proof for life being created with intelligent design does not support intelligent design. It simply means that we don't know yet. It's stupid to say we will never find out. Think about what leaps science has made last century.


Modern science has confirmed the principle of biogenesis, that life only comes from life.


This is wrong, absence of proof is not proof for intelligent design.


Concerning the prebiotic soup from which life supposedly arose, there is no reason to believe that it even existed or that life has a tendency to emerge even when the right chemicals are present. Modern chemistry now indicates that, in fact, organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. As such, the scientific evidence continues to mount against evolution.


I would like to read about that. As far as I'm concerned, the [url=http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/miller_urey_experiment.html]Miller-Urey experiment still proves that the chemicals needed for life were created in that period. Give random processes enough time and eventually a simple lifeform (maybe even something we don't call a lifeform now, like a replicating protein complex) that can reproduce will be formed. One simple lifeform is enough. It can reproduce and evolve to become more complex. What can be explained by random processes does not require a supernatural explanation.


But the question must be asked, if scientists actually do produce life in the lab, would that prove evolution or would it prove the importance of intelligent interference? I beleive that it would merely demonstrate the latter. For now, the world waits for evolutionists to show some evidence for their theory.


It will not be proof of intelligent design, because all the scientists will do if they don't want to ruin their own experiment, is speeding up reactions that could have happened by random processes.

There is already enough proof for evolution, but we're talking about intelligent design here, so I'm not to write about that here.


So what you are saying is that this one single lifeform spread to different places and became plants, trees, fish, birds, dinosaurs, humans, etc... all because of different enviroments? And remeber this is one single organism. Sounds just a tad far fetched to me.


No, not different places, but different conditions. Some lifeforms might develop photosynthesis possibilities and become spread to places were the other lifeforms can not live. They will be sexually isolated and evolve into a different species.

You didn't address any of the problems I told you about intelligent design that make it a flawed theory. I countered your arguments, if you want to convince me you should counter mine.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
1. Intelligent Design can not explain itself. How were the higher beings that started life created?


Your question seems to boil down to "If the complexity of design in the universe argues for a creator, then how can a Creator, who is more complex, not be created?" We must tackle two issues here: first how we categorize things, and how we define those categories.

The first issue raised is one of category. In the entire realm of existence there are only two types of things: created things and non-created things. Those are the only two types of things that can exist. When we look at man-made objects surrounding us, we see created things. We know they had a beginning, because we've seen them in production, or we have read about their manufacture, etc. These things are easy to classify.

Other things, like those that are found in nature, are also created things. We sometimes understand the processes that began their formation, but we also base that conclusion on the fact that they're following the law of entropy. Things are decaying, eroding, or dying. We can understand that they had a beginning because left to themselves they will deteriorate into something less than what they started. Now, this is not to say that everything that is eternal is not created, but only anything that is not eternal must be a created thing by definition.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need a Creator to exist.

Now we can look at the other category, the non-created things. One would expect something that had no beginning to not be constrained to time as we measure it. In fact, most scientists know that time is tied to the universe as a dimension like length, or height, or width (this is why physicists refer to matters as happening in space-time). This idea means that time is a created thing also. A non-created thing would have to exist outside time altogether! We would then expect that non-created thing to never change because, being outside time, it is the same at its beginning, its middle, and its end. A non-created thing must necessarily be eternal.

The question that must be asked, then, is "If something is created, who or what created it?" If the universe is created, and left to itself it will run down, then who put it together in the first place? We know it shows intelligence, design, and balance. It is logical to look at the evidence and argue for the existence of a creator. If the universe is a thing, and it is a created thing, then it had to come from something else. A thing cannot come from no-thing. That would be a logical contradiction. A state of being A couldnt come from an anti-A. Since the state of being anti-A entails a negation of any A (none of A can be around for anti-A to be true), it doesnt make sense to claim that the very thing negated would spring forth from its negator.

So, if the created thing must come from something else, then it must come from something that exists prior to it. If we look at all the created things as a whole, they must come from a non-created thing. That is the only logical option open to us.

So far we have made a lot of head way. We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.



2. Intelligent Design requires unprovable assumptions to be made.


I don't beleive so read what is above and you will find a scientific and completely logical outline of Intelligent design.



3. There is no proof for Intelligent Design, while there is a lot of proof for Evolution. At best, Intelligent Design is a unneccessary supernatural extension of evolution. But I guess Occam's Razor can solve that.


The proof for intelligent design is all around you. If you look at yourself and your DNA and you think hey this all just kinda happened this way you would be making a large assumption. Anyways here is some proof for you scientific and logical.

The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.

Within the universe, cause precedes effect.

If cause, then effect:

If A then B

A

Therefore B

The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause:

If not B then not A,

not B

therefore not A

The universe creates its own purpose. If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic. We observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the universe cannot be totally deterministic.

Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.

Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.

If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.

Therefore:

The universe is an intelligent mind.




posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
There are a few problems I think we need to agree upon before further discussion. These are the definitions of 'created' and 'intelligence'. I propose the definition of 'having an understanding of the world and acting with certain goals in mind' for intelligence and 'brought into existance' for created.

Let's organize your argument into simple numbered statements.

1.1) There are created and non-created things.

2.1) All things with a beginning are created.
2.2) From 2 follows that non-created things have no beginning.
2.3) Created things always come from non-created things.
2.4) Non-created things are eternal.

3.1) The universe has a beginning.
3.2) From 2.1 and 3.1 follows that the universe is created.

4.1) From 3.2, 2.3 and 2.4 follows that the universe comes from a non-created eternal thing.

5.1) That non-created thing is intelligent and can be called God.

The problem with your argument lies in 2.1 or 2.3, it depends on if I attack your definition. If I don't attack your definition of a created thing 2.3 is the problem, otherwise 2.1.

Quantum fluctuations (sometimes called Zero Point Energy) are random particles that form and annihilate in empty space. They are not caused, but do have a beginning. These are not theoretical fluctations, they can be measured in an effect called the Casimir Effect. Because they do have a beginning, but are not created or caused, your premiss 2.1 is wrong. This makes 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 also false.

There was no before the big bang to be accurate. Everything started with it and I agree it has a beginning. It's pointless to debate why the big bang happened as it did, because there is no way to confirm or dismiss any theories except for theoretical reasons. The above paragraph shows that even although the universe has a beginning, it doesn't have to be created.

But, let's assume you are right and the universe is created by a non-created thing. Then we get to your final part of your argument, 5.1, that the non-created thing must be intelligent and can be called God. There is no reason that something that is created by must be created by something intelligent. Light from a heated piece of metal is not created by intelligence.

Decay from an organized state to a more disorganized state, from less entropy to more entropy, can cause very complex things. Look at quartz cristals, very complex, but not created by intelligence. There is no need for intelligence to create complex things.

Your third argument about cause and effect makes the same wrong assumption as your other argument. Nothing everything needs an cause, quantum fluctations are an example again. Your premiss is wrong and therefore your wrong argument is wrong.

Intelligent design is a supernatural and unfunded extension to processes than can be explained in terms of science and random chance.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine

Quantum fluctuations (sometimes called Zero Point Energy) are random particles that form and annihilate in empty space. They are not caused, but do have a beginning. These are not theoretical fluctations, they can be measured in an effect called the Casimir Effect. Because they do have a beginning, but are not created or caused, your premiss 2.1 is wrong. This makes 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 also false.

There was no before the big bang to be accurate. Everything started with it and I agree it has a beginning. It's pointless to debate why the big bang happened as it did, because there is no way to confirm or dismiss any theories except for theoretical reasons. The above paragraph shows that even although the universe has a beginning, it doesn't have to be created.


Let me begin by addressing two commonsense notions: (1) you cannot get something from nothing, and (2) the order of the universe requires the pre-existence of an active intelligence to do the ordering. I will address the physics issues implied by the creation of the universe from nothing. In physics terms, creation ex nihilo appears to violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics is equivalent to the principle of conservation of energy: the total energy of a closed system is constant; any energy change must be compensated by a corresponding inflow or outflow from the system.

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.

Furthermore, within the framework of Einstein's relativity, time is the fourth dimension of spacetime. Defining this fourth dimension as ict, where t is what you read on a clock, i = sqrt(-1), and c is the speed of light, the coordinates of time and space are interchangeable. In short, time is inextricably intertwined with space and came into being "when" or "where" (language is inadequate to mathematics here) spacetime came into being.

So, where did the order of the universe come from, if it did not exist at the "beginning"? Where did the laws of physics come from, if not from some great lawgiver? We are now beginning to grasp how the laws of physics could have come about naturally, as the universe spontaneously exploded in the big bang.


But, let's assume you are right and the universe is created by a non-created thing. Then we get to your final part of your argument, 5.1, that the non-created thing must be intelligent and can be called God. There is no reason that something that is created by must be created by something intelligent. Light from a heated piece of metal is not created by intelligence.


There may not be any direct contact by an intelligent being but there definitely is indirect interference from an intelligent being. Even if the heat was produced by lava that lava was created by the creation of the universe.


Decay from an organized state to a more disorganized state, from less entropy to more entropy, can cause very complex things. Look at quartz cristals, very complex, but not created by intelligence. There is no need for intelligence to create complex things.


Quartz is very complex indeed but pales in comparison to one strand of human DNA. I just don't see how DNA could have formed itself it is just way to complex.



Your third argument about cause and effect makes the same wrong assumption as your other argument. Nothing everything needs an cause, quantum fluctations are an example again. Your premiss is wrong and therefore your wrong argument is wrong.


Quantuam Fluctuations are not completely understood yet and there are many theories on the matter including many that aid intelligent design as the one I outlined above and Parrallel Dimensions. In Parrallel Dimensions the Cause would come from another dimension.


Intelligent design is a supernatural and unfunded extension to processes than can be explained in terms of science and random chance.


Yes, In your own opinion, Intelligent design is a supernatural and unfunded extension to processes than can be explained in terms of science and random chance. But thats if you look at only some of the facts and theories in the world. The truth is Science will never fully explain the begining of life or the creation of the Universe because it is far too long ago and far too complex. Any theory you subscribe to, be it Evolution, Creationism, or Intelligent Design requires alot of faith.




posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but if my only choices are evolution or creatism then I am going with the one that at least has some sort of logic thought behind it.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Let me begin by addressing two commonsense notions: (1) you cannot get something from nothing, and (2) the order of the universe requires the pre-existence of an active intelligence to do the ordering.


I agree with the first notion, but I would to add that this is not the case at the beginning of the universe. The second notion I don't agree with. In the following paragraphs, you actually support my idea, that no pre-existing intelligence is needed for the beginning of the universe.

The human DNA is the product of billions of years of evolution. Ofcourse it didn't start as large as it is now. The DNA is actually a combination of a few simple chemical groups: nucleotides, deoxyribose and a phosphate group. All simple molecules with less than 20 atoms. A piece of DNA with just 20 nucleotide pairs can already store information. There is no need for DNA to be as complex and long as it is now in the beginning. The theory is actually that the first organisms started out with only RNA, a simpler version of DNA with only one half of DNA. There is no complexity that can not be explained through random processes and evolution.

I have never read of quantum fluctuations being caused by parallel universes and I would be interested in reading about it. But even if that was a mathematically and physically sound theory, I can't think of any way to prove or falsify the theory. I also don't see how linking quantum fluctuations to parallel universes supports intelligent design. Does God have many parallel universes that are all made after his intelligent design and influence eachother?

Evolution without intelligent design is the simplest explanation for the empirical evidence. It requires the least belief and is therefore the best candidate. The simplest explanation is often the right one.

Let me add the fact that intelligent design is not supported by any scientific evidence. There have been no suggestions by the advocates of intelligent design how to test or falsify their theory. All they have done so far is give some bad arguments against evolution.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by amantine]



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   


The truth is Science will never fully explain the begining of life or the creation of the Universe because it is far too long ago and far too complex. Any theory you subscribe to, be it Evolution, Creationism, or Intelligent Design requires alot of faith.



How nice of you to be able to predict the future!!

There is no need for faith in science(!) and evolution(!)
because these are ongoing researches in the 'sensible' world. There is always time and possibilities to change hypothesies and theories. And they are just hypothesies and theories and nothing more. Never was it stated that science at this time holds the ultimate undoubtable truth.
Thank god for that


I bet a long time ago there were people like you who would say :" We will never know what is over the horizon because it's too far away so let's not try to find out" or "We will never know what the egyptian hieroglyphs are saying they are too complex".
Still science and human curiosity was able to find out.

To want an creator or god or designer meddling with the universe you are mixing the 'sensible' with the 'nonsensible' in an inappropriate way. Because the distinction between the two is there not for nothing.

So maybe it's not about faith but about mind.
One needs an open mind to explore things and to want to know these.
One needs a closed mind to be able to say this is too complex too diffcult for me to understand.

People who can't make the distinction between spirituality and organised religion will see the horizon as the edge of the world where one will drop off.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
power of mind

GOOD

heres a thought- maybe those who fall of the edge of the world do so because that is how they have created it.

i have no problem with the theory of evolution. and saying it is a "lie" is a problem, seeing how it is THEORY, not FACT and therefore cannot be false. well it can be, but you know what i mean, its not standing there lying to you with its fingers crossed behind its back.

and what i just did is the reason ANY old theory is debated upon. what people meant by their words. the fact that darwin isnt around to say "you know i meant blah blah blah" or "you moron i didnt mean in THAT way" is a problem. thats why its a theory. thats why its wonderful. thats science, and thats faith too.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by BlackJackal
Let me begin by addressing two commonsense notions: (1) you cannot get something from nothing, and (2) the order of the universe requires the pre-existence of an active intelligence to do the ordering.

If you can not get something from nothing and there had to be a creator than where did the creator come from? No one has ever answered that question for me.

Something had to make him after all you cant get something from nothing ....right



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!! let me guess....ur one of those christians that ignore scientific truth all the time and base ur ideas on a very very very old book that was written by human hands, which are capable of lying. well hate to break it to u but if u want some fossils, how about velociraptors with feathers? half bird, half reptile? sry to say, but ur christian bull fails again, freak!



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
o yea! 1 more thing...personally, i wouldn't even bother even bother listening to any1 who spells evolution, "evilution." But then again, this post was so full of crap that i had to respond! HAHAHAHA!!!



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
i dont remeber the name of the dude who posted right before me but thats ok, im tlaking to you.

you said something about hte bible being written by human hands, whic are capable of lying.

im ust say....i agree with you 100% HAHAHAHAH

i hate it when people run around saying "JESUS SAID blah blah blah, SEE? ITS RIGHT HERE IN MATHEW blah blha blah!" or "GOD SAYS SO IN HIS BOOK!"

sheesh, thes people make it sound like god sat down at his typewriter, wrote up the bible in a few hours (after he created the planet and all) and then fed-exed it to us!

i love it, and i love asking these people how long it took god to write it. they say years and years blah blah blah. i respond with- it took him DAYS to create a planet and every single perfectly mapped out organism in it, but it oook him YEARS to write a book?



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Let's see, proof of evolution? DOLPHINS! They have dolphins going from land to water. There is no missing link, all there, about 5-6 of them. The blowhole goes from nose to blowhole in a couple million years. We have proof of evolution! And christians have..........a book.



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

Originally posted by Scat
i dont remeber the name of the dude who posted right before me but thats ok, im tlaking to you.

you said something about hte bible being written by human hands, whic are capable of lying.

im ust say....i agree with you 100% HAHAHAHAH

i hate it when people run around saying "JESUS SAID blah blah blah, SEE? ITS RIGHT HERE IN MATHEW blah blha blah!" or "GOD SAYS SO IN HIS BOOK!"

sheesh, thes people make it sound like god sat down at his typewriter, wrote up the bible in a few hours (after he created the planet and all) and then fed-exed it to us!

i love it, and i love asking these people how long it took god to write it. they say years and years blah blah blah. i respond with- it took him DAYS to create a planet and every single perfectly mapped out organism in it, but it oook him YEARS to write a book?


RIGHT ON, SCAT! RIGHT ON!



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Well, ever since some reasonable people posted, the christians have seem to stop lieing. Well, posting.

Anyways, I have offered proof of Macroevolution. Dolphins. Also, you can breed two dogs to make a better dog. Then take two dogs, and repeat. Say you want a better attack dog. So you breed a Pit Bull with a German Shepard. You do that with 5000 Pit Bulls and 5000 German Shepards. You now have a dog that is bigger than a Pit Bull, but is more likely to be more vicous than a German Shepard. Say this happens for a few years, 5000 of each breeding a month. After about ten years you have a new type of dog that is better than the ones it came from. Sure, this is evolution from breeding, but still a form of evolution.

Hmmm, also, evolution of certain fish have been seen through fossil records to today fish. Same with reptiles. So, science has proof. Christians have.......a book with monsters, magicians, and all powerful invisable people that live in the clouds. Sorry, I'll go with science, for they have something called proof, evidence, logic, reason, facts, and on and on.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   


TextHow many millions of years? The only why we havent had enough time is if you believe the creationists threoy that the world is about 6-7 thousand years old
reply to post by Amuk
 


There are some creationists who do claim that the world is 5000 to 6000 years old and there are some who do not agree with their fellow creationists. More and more creationists are beginning to realize that the descendants of Adam may be 5000 to 6000 years old but this world may indeed be many millions of years old. Also many creationists are beginning to understand that many other civilizations may have existed prior to this present one .
Even supposing that the world is young or old, one thing to consider is that the Hebrew bible does not say that the universe was created in their creation story but only that this earth and it's heaven were created within the membrane of the universe. The universe may very well have been an existing container of the trillions of planets when the creator did create this world. The Hebrew bible also does not state that there were not trillions of planets existing when the Creator created this one. The Genesis account states that God placed the stars in the heaven for light but does not say that other worlds did not exist at this time.

Reread the Genesis account and and you might realize that science and religion may be on the same page. Evolution must have it's foundation in that the material being evolved was the existing evolutionary substance from the onset. It might not be the case and there is no way to prove that the substances that science uses today were the same substances that existed millions of years ago.

Did a human of today evolve from the very substances that existed several million years ago? Were these substances in like proportions of several million years ago? Was the universe in like proportion as it was millions of years ago? So much is assumed that it boggles the mind to even contemplate this. I wonder what science and religion both would think if the entire chemistry of existence was not as we suppose it has always been.

Lots of answers come from the ice samples of the frozen poles but not all is answered from geologists by any means. We do know that the oxygen ratio has changed and there might be other changes that we simply do not know but just assume. Can anyone out there give some light on this?





 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join