Evidence for Creation Video

reply to post by masterweb


I'll take Strawman Arguments for $100 Alex. The theory of evolution doesn't come into play at all until
1. After the Big Bang
2. After the Stars and Planets form
3. Life comes about

THEN the process of Biological evolution starts up. And yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover. I assume then you believe in BOTH of the literary creations mentioned in Genesis? As for the videos, they're hour long emotional pleas that God must have done it.

If you care to take objection, look at this

Originally posted by masterweb
First of all, there is no debate. I posted 2 videos on creation. I'm new here but I'm pretty sure there is a debate area for debates.

yes theres a debate section its called the entire forum, which is where they were posted

new here huhh .. welcome enjoying your visit so far?

Covers the biblical creation account with some scientific findings. I watched this a while ago and I must say it's very informative.

an theres the reason for the debate

it should carry a '100% no science included' sticker becasue it isnt using any and thats usually a selling point for this kind of stuff

its informative only in the context it tells us what the narrator believes and how wrong he is in this an how willing he is to ignore evidence and twist other findings to fit his need

This is total bunk.

There is absolutely no evidence in the least to suggest in what you are implying... none... in fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary that the creation is just crap.

Interesting how when Science is proved wrong, Science changes...

When Science proves religion wrong... there is something wrong with the science and not the religion?

I would suggest you go out and read something else besides a fiction book to get your answers for everything...

You could start by picking up "The Blind Watchmaker" By Dawkins.

have fun!

p.s. shoutout to noobfun! whats up dude!

reply to post by nj2day


hey nj where ya been hiding?

good to see your back ... did you actually go or just not bumped heads?

reply to post by noobfun


I've been lurking a little bit, but for the most part my wife and I are restoring an 1898 victorian we just purchased... which means lots of sweat blood and tears...

I'm here for the next day or two due to work and childcare stuff... no work on the house till friday

watch out young earth creationists! I'm here

The Big Bang theory and Evolutionary theory are not related at all. Furthermore, even if they were, the same question of "where'd it come from?" also applies to god.

I know they are unrelated. You are missing the point. If you can't expalin the origin of matter then you certainly can't explain the origin of a specie. Why because species are made from matter.


I was raised a Christian and remained one until I was roughly 16 years old. I'm now a biology student. I'm very well educated about arguments on both sides.

Then show the scriptures for creation you say science has disproven.


Simply put, it's disappointing to see that people actually believe this stuff, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If you're so content to believe in biblical creationism, why try to find evidence to back up your claims? Isn't your faith good enough?

In other words you like forcing your opinions on people? Who said anyone was looking for evidence? I merely posted a video for creation for those interested. You aren't but you insist on replying because "it's disappointing to see that people actually believe this stuff". Surely you can find something more productive to do with your time. How often do you do this in other forums of this site in areas where you don't believe in what's being discussed?


As I've said, I was raised a Christian and for many years actually enjoyed reading the Bible. I've read the biblical creation account many times, and scientifically it is just plain wrong.

Then show the scriptures for creation you say science has disproven.

And considering you confused the theory of evolution with the Big Bang theory, I think it's kind of a stretch to claim you know "quite a bit about it." From what you've demonstrated to me, you know basically nothing about it.

I didn't confuse the two as I stated before.


Probably because scientific "evidence" backing biblical creationism tends to be ridiculous, unsupported, and ignorant, and scientists hate to see such nonsense being propogated.


More name calling yet no facts to back it up.


Actually, in a 1955 experiment conducted at the University of Chicago, nucleic acids (the building blocks of DNA) were created by applying electricity to a number of compounds. The same effect could have been produced in the highly volatile environment of the Earth 3 or 4 billion years ago.

Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy
1. In the Universe there is a finite amount of matter and energy. We cannot create any new matter or energy nor can we destroy any of the matter or energy we have for the Universe as a whole.
2. We can change matter to energy and energy to matter without gaining or losing any of either to the Universe. Examples:
3. Energy can be changed in form, from one to another, without any loss to the Universe. Examples:
4. Matter can be changed in form, or state, without any loss of matter to the Universe. Examples:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy increases in all natural processes
Third Law of Thermodynamics: We cannot reach absolute zero temperatures
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: If Ta = Tb and Tb = Tc, then Ta = Tc, (shows thermal equilibrium in balance)

You seem to lack basic scientfic knowledge as the link above demonstrates.
www.sciencebyjones.com...
No, dna couldn't have evolved PERIOD. "Could have" isn't science, it's a guess at best.

There is actual, verifiable, empirical evidence supporting evolution, though. Speciation has been observed literally hundreds of times in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The complete (or near complete) fossil records of many species are available to show the full transition of one species to another (horses and elephants are two examples). We've even found the fused chromosome that resulted in humans having one fewer chromosome than primates!

Just because you don't know about the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, Speciation has never been observed. The very definition of a specie is basically what the bible says animals bring forth after their kind and can only mate with their own kind. If you can show two animals that can mate and reproduce after their own kind then it is what science calls the same specie.

I'll take Strawman Arguments for $100 Alex. The theory of evolution doesn't come into play at all until
1. After the Big Bang
2. After the Stars and Planets form
3. Life comes about

THEN the process of Biological evolution starts up. And yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover. I assume then you believe in BOTH of the literary creations mentioned in Genesis? As for the videos, they're hour long emotional pleas that God must have done it.
As I said above if you can't show the origin of matter you certainly can't show the origin of species, therefore it is useless to try to push the idea of evolution. You have conveniently created a theory that only answers what you pick and choose and you say anything outside of it isn't science. I don't understand how you could have read the bible cover to cover and think that there are more than one creation accounts. That's what I mean by you may want to check out what the other side has to say so you can learn something. Until you understand what we are talking about it's best not trying to argue your side. There aren't multiple creation accounts.lol

If you care to take objection, look at this

Sorry, don't have time.

As far as the rest of the replies you haven't addressed the video or the bible and your responses weren't worth addressing directly.

reply to post by masterweb


Lion/Tiger = Liger
Horse/Donkey = Mule

just to name a few... they are born sterile however... but this isn't the point.

Speciation has been observed btw... many times over... probably the easiest to research is allopatric speciation if you feel so inclined to learn...

Originally posted by masterweb
As I said above if you can't show the origin of matter you certainly can't show the origin of species, therefore it is useless to try to push the idea of evolution.

ooooh can I have fun with this?

If you can't show the Origin of the deity, then you can't show the origin of species though creation!

how's that? am i doing it right?


edit: adjusted for syntax

[edit on 19-11-2008 by nj2day]

anyone remeber which thunderf00t video deals with thermo dynamics im sure theres one but cant remeber which so had to link another guy

Originally posted by masterweb
I know they are unrelated. You are missing the point. If you can't expalin the origin of matter then you certainly can't explain the origin of a specie. Why because species are made from matter.

so what your saying is because we dont yet undertand what caused the singularity of the big bang god is real?

we didnt understand rainbows a few hundred years ago i guess god stopped making those too when we discovered thier source and left them for light refraction to carry it on?

Then show the scriptures for creation you say science has disproven.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

the earth couldnt have been created without the sun unless your saying gravity is wrong too? and the moon was created after the sun and earth so therefore not at the same time as the sun - FAIL

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

deffinatley in the wrong order of what popped up where, whales popped up around 1:25 when land mammals went back to the ocean - FAIL

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

a lake?pool?puddle? so not all in one place - FAIL

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day

he created light before anything to give it off ...... kinda like having electric lighting before we knew what electricity was or invented the electric light bulb - FAIL

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

basic life forms were around before plant life - FAIL

im bored lets turn the page over .....

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

so not from common decent then - FAIL

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

didnt you just say it was the other way around? - FAIL evolution my good friend animals into man not the other way around - Double fail

2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

sexual reproduction over took Asexual reproduction long before mammals let alone man walked the earth - FAIL

In other words you like forcing your opinions on people? Who said anyone was looking for evidence? I merely posted a video for creation for those interested.

and said it had "account with some scientific findings." it doesnt, he is just doing a good deed letting you know so you can correct it

You aren't but you insist on replying because "it's disappointing to see that people actually believe this stuff". Surely you can find something more productive to do with your time. How often do you do this in other forums of this site in areas where you don't believe in what's being discussed?

what would be the point in debating for somthing we dont believe? thats just silly

and if he can find somthing more productive then correct this sillyness surley you can find somthing better to do then post it, or doe this only work one way?

Then show the scriptures for creation you say science has disproven.

see above and thats just 2 pages we havnt even got on to David killing a time traveling greek hoplite with his sling yet, or his great empire with jerusalem as a great city but actually turns out to have been an average town during this time period

I didn't confuse the two as I stated before

you just chose to ignore the differacne thats intellectually dishonest

More name calling yet no facts to back it up

gravity evolution puddles it getting its self mixed up and in the wrong order

No, dna couldn't have evolved PERIOD. "Could have" isn't science, it's a guess at best.

ohh contraire my eager friend


so it doesnt conflict with the second law of thermodynamics at all ok

so just how did it happen .... our best understanding so far goes somthing like




[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by masterweb
No, Speciation has never been observed. The very definition of a specie is basically what the bible says animals bring forth after their kind and can only mate with their own kind. If you can show two animals that can mate and reproduce after their own kind then it is what science calls the same specie.

www.talkorigins.org...

i guess your saying these guys blinked and missed it? or it happened when they turned around for a drink of coffee as they didnt observer it

www.talkorigins.org...

must have gone for donuts this time

and how about the fossil record?

Originally posted by masterweb

Sorry, don't have time.

kinda reminds me of this lil beauty

A) Priorities
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

www.answersingenesis.org...

its not in the bible its a lie the devil did it!!! *sob*

[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Jesus man you're doing your homework over there lol

I'm still waiting for a response to the infinite regression argument that came up earlier

if you can't explain the origin of the deity, how can you explain the origin of life?

the slight twist I tossed out there after the "big bang" argument.

Originally posted by nj2day

Jesus man you're doing your homework over there lol

I'm still waiting for a response to the infinite regression argument that came up earlier

that should be interesting ... i figure it will go

God was just there the bible says and christians know it your just lying becasue your afraid of god and becasue you freidns with satan and you love sinning thats why your an athiest and your gonna burn in hell

my next question would be ..well if he was just there, where exactly was he as he hadnt created anywhere to be

if you can't explain the origin of the deity, how can you explain the origin of life?

paul daniels said it "youll like this, but not a lot" waves magic wand *poof* the earth appears .. i mean a dove

so if there wasnt a paul daniels there obviously couldnt have been a dove that he created ... the bible says so

[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]

Lion/Tiger = Liger
Horse/Donkey = Mule

just to name a few... they are born sterile however... but this isn't the point.

Speciation has been observed btw... many times over... probably the easiest to research is allopatric speciation if you feel so inclined to learn...

You raised a good point to show that after a while animals won’t go any further. They won’t be able to branch off into another kind. Animals like Ligers will go extinct. Evolutionist have taken other such animals and said they were a cross between 2 other kinds of animals.

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive. Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

So a kind of animal would be a bird for example. A sort of a bird would be an eagle, hawk, falcon etc. I agree if the various sorts of animals mate that you will begin to see new sorts. However, they are still the same kind. That doesn’t disprove the creation account, it agrees with it. What it doesn’t show is that birds can go outside of its kind no matter what sort it is. It just will never happen. You take the various species and then try to use that as animals changing to other kinds of animals.

ooooh can I have fun with this?

If you can't show the Origin of the deity, then you can't show the origin of species though creation!

how's that? am i doing it right?


edit: adjusted for syntax

The creation account says God created the heavens and the earth. God has no origins he has always existed. However matter hasn’t and the creation account states when it was created.

1Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

1Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

There are verses dealing with God Being before the world was created and the creator of all things. So yes we can show it.

so what your saying is because we dont yet undertand what caused the singularity of the big bang god is real?

we didnt understand rainbows a few hundred years ago i guess god stopped making those too when we discovered thier source and left them for light refraction to carry it on?

Strawman

the earth couldnt have been created without the sun unless your saying gravity is wrong too? and the moon was created after the sun and earth so therefore not at the same time as the sun – FAIL

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.

Genesis1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

The Earth or the World isn’t the same as the earth in Genesis 1:1. earth with the lowercase “e” refers to dirt and Earth with an uppercase “E” refers to the world. How could there be gravity would out there being a sun and/or moon first? Also it doesn’t say the order of the moon and sun being created. I would have to say that they were created at the same time judging from the verse.

deffinatley in the wrong order of what popped up where, whales popped up around 1:25 when land mammals went back to the ocean – FAIL

I’m really not sure what you are saying here, please clarify. Please not that it doesn’t mention oceans also, it clearly says seas.

a lake?pool?puddle? so not all in one place – FAIL
I’m really not sure what you are saying here, please clarify

he created light before anything to give it off ...... kinda like having electric lighting before we knew what electricity was or invented the electric light bulb – FAIL
Yes, no need to invent a lightbulb if there is no such thing as light.

basic life forms were around before plant life - FAIL

im bored lets turn the page over ....

so not from common decent then – FAIL
I’m really not sure what you are saying here, please clarify

Originally posted by masterweb

You raised a good point to show that after a while animals won’t go any further. They won’t be able to branch off into another kind. Animals like Ligers will go extinct. Evolutionist have taken other such animals and said they were a cross between 2 other kinds of animals.

science doesnt understand kind and sort of

thats silly talk, please if your going to talk science try and get even close to the terminoligy

evolution has said they are the same ahhh that must be it, care to prove that point?


So a kind of animal would be a bird for example. A sort of a bird would be an eagle, hawk, falcon etc. I agree if the various sorts of animals mate that you will begin to see new sorts. However, they are still the same kind. how about whales/porpouises and dolphins sevral of each can interbreed and they are all different kinds of animal

The creation account says God created the heavens and the earth. God has no origins he has always existed. However matter hasn’t and the creation account states when it was created.

told ya lol

There are verses dealing with God Being before the world was created and the creator of all things. So yes we can show it.

we can also show the bible is wrong next please ...wait lets go back a second .. you havnt proven anything the bible proves what the bible says it does not prove it true

Strawman

an example to show just becasue we dont fully understand it now doesnt mean god did it like rainbows 200 years ago

other wise when we understood what produced it then god would have to stop doing it and let the natural process take over

The Earth or the World isn’t the same as the earth in Genesis 1:1. earth with the lowercase “e” refers to dirt and Earth with an uppercase “E” refers to the world. How could there be gravity would out there being a sun and/or moon first? Also it doesn’t say the order of the moon and sun being created. I would have to say that they were created at the same time judging from the verse.

and totally missing the point

the earth the planet the lump of rock we call home could not have been created unless the sun already existed unless you manage to prove gravity is wrong which will be good as i can jump out a window and float to the store instead of walking. so can you disprove gravity to prove god did it instead?

the moon is made from a chunk of the earth

the bible says earth > sun/moon

gravity chemical analysis astrophysics geology and others all say

sun>earth>moon

the bible is wrong unless it manages to disprove all sceince as a whole wrong

I’m really not sure what you are saying here, please clarify. Please not that it doesn’t mention oceans also, it clearly says seas.

it says whales were around swimming in the sea before land mammals were created, whales are land mammals that went into the oceans/seas what ever you want to call the large bodies of saltywater

we have practically the entire fossil record to prove it .. bibles wrong again next

I’m really not sure what you are saying here, please clarify

ill avoid making jokes its a struggle

Yes, no need to invent a lightbulb if there is no such thing as light.

light is a product chemical reaction and the release of energy

if theres nothign to release the energy there is no light, so there wouldnt be any light ther wouldnt be day or night there would be totaly darkness until he decided to make the sun and stars to be all shiney

unfortunatley the bible thinks day and night are things not time events dependant on the local star - its in the wrong order so wrong - bible fails

basic life forms were around before plant life - FAIL

im bored lets turn the page over ....

so not from common decent then – FAIL

I’m really not sure what you are saying here, please clarify

seems to be a common thing lack of understanding willingness to deny it

there were early life forms single cell little fellows(classed as animals) and the grew and some became what we now designate plants and other became what we designate as other species of animal

you cant have plants before animal life, but god doesnt start making animal life until after plants

im bored becasue i was still on the same page with a pile of found wrong things already

god made man, all the evidence says no to god - bible fails


[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by masterweb

The creation account says God created the heavens and the earth. God has no origins he has always existed. However matter hasn’t and the creation account states when it was created.

hrm... the question is, how do you know matter hasn't been around forever?

You know the big bang doesn't even imply that matter wasn't around before the bang... especially if you're an oscillating universe fan. There are plenty of supporting arguments for both the big bang and the oscillating universe theory that are supported by physics and measured observation.

However, I digress, as your assertion that we need to provide for the origin of matter and the cosmos before we can provide a theory for the beginning of life is just absurd and akin to demanding to know how the stones of stonehenge were quarried before you will accept that it exists.

It is absolutely absurd. However, if you have it on good authority and have absolute proof that matter did not exist indefinitely, You should probably call every science foundation you can think of...

physicists have been pondering over that question for decades. Although I doubt they will accept your postulation, as you have absolutely no evidence.

Notice I said Postulation? I'm not even willing to give these ideas the distinction of being called a hypothesis, nor the distinct honor of being called a theory. If you need a starting point to understand how rock solid the evidence has to be before we call a hypothesis a theory, look no further than Atomic Theory...

Thats right... Its "only a theory" when it comes to atoms. Do you denounce Atoms so easily as well?

reply to post by yadda333


Actually, both the video and you have a misunderstanding about the Mitochondrial Eve. Indeed, it does refer to a single person. This Eve is the most recent common ancestor of all female humans on the planet, via the mitochondrial DNA pathway.

That does not mean that this person is the most recent common ancestor of all people on the planet, since the Mitochondrial Eve is only concerned with maternal ancestry. Other ancestors' genes, in the nuclear DNA pathway, are passed on in the paternal line.

en.wikipedia.org...