evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous

page: 16
13
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

The fact remains, it's a gazillion times more proof than anything creationists have ever presented. In order to PROVE creationism, you'd have to prove the existence of a CREATOR. and guess what...drumroll...there is ZERO evidence that supports his/her/its existence. All they rely on is a book that's been written (and rewritten, and rewritten again, and ...) by MEN! And we all know how clever we humans are, always telling the truth, never lead by greed or the wish to control the masses, ...


I'm pretty sure papers and documents are written by MEN and you believe them. So were all the hoaxes that were written by MEN and you believed it. Science is no more credible then the Bible if you want to express it that way. The only difference is you choose to believe in one over the other. Besides evolution doesn't discredit a Creator; people like you do who just don't want to believe in one. Your opinion isn't final and it's not going to sway 85% of the American population that does believe in a Creator or the 2.1 billion individuals worldwide. The Bible even supports evolution but that's something you have failed to see because you already have a biased opinion. You act like every "creationist" is a YEC when any competent believer would notice a lot of holes in YEC view; though many YEC's won't admit them.

Perhaps you are unaware of the Incompleteness Theorem by Kurt Gödel? Gödel proved, mathematically, that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. "The theory of everything".

The Bible hasn't been rewritten it has been translated into different languages. If it was rewritten we would see different characters and themes. All we see is variation in the meanings of certain words derived from the original Hebrew text. The English language has ca. 4,000,000 different words/meanings while the Hebrew language is around 8,700. Please try not to be so arrogant in your presuppositions.

Do you honestly believe you came from a fish? That's the general idea I'm getting since you said fish grew "legs" and walked onto land.
That's a pretty big leap of faith considering fish don't really have a need to come out of the water and that their lungs would have to develop in conjunction with their fins to legs idea. Two beneficial mutations happening at once in nature sounds like a miracle if you ask me! The Chance god was at work 387 million years ago!


[edit on 16-5-2010 by novastrike81]




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
evolution only (tries) to prove how life in its evolved state came from a single celled organism. it will NEVER explain how life began. how did that single cell organism come about?

and dont say by accident because thats the biggest load of pap ive heard



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 


I wish you would have taken as much grammar as you had biology.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 


I think there is good evidence for common ancestry, but none for a mutation series accounting for it. I am very "unconvinced" by evolution as conventionally presented.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Evolution could happen at God's command, if he wanted things to happen that way.
Creation couldn't happen through evolution, at least not by any means I could imagine.

Therefore, as long as there is doubt (as there should be for a long time for any scientific theory as vast as this), creationism cannot be discounted.

Evolutionists and atheists arguing for a world based on reason, whose reasoning clearly fails. Kinda kills your argument. Try harder next time (or better yet, learn why you shouldn't have bothered posting this thread in the first place.)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I'm just a new kid on the block and don't want to ruffle any feathers -- My understanding on what you have just stated is strictly theology from a different teaching. There is an oral Torah and a written Torah. both must be taught together for a more complete theological understanding. When Adam and Eve had Cain and Able they also had twin sisters. The time came when Cain wanted to take his own sister as a mate but Adam did not agree. Adam wanted Cain's sister to breed with Able and Able's sister to breed with Cain. The matter caused such a issue that Adam decided to let God settle the dispute. This is when both brothers took their offerings before God. Killing was not allowed nor taught at this time. The offering which God choose was consumed by God. The result was that God consumed Able's offering and that is what led to the murder of Able. The reason Able was pardoned by God for the murder of his brother is that Cain did not understand exactly what murder was at this time and struck out against his brother from the natural anger which is instilled in all flesh. A sin is when we do an act against our own knowledge of a wrong understanding. Cain did not understand this as a sin because this had not happened in the human family.

As I said, i'm a new kid on the block but love to hear other people's take on subjects like this. Thanks for the cahce to bend your ear.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
You may be correct in your thoughts but don’t you think that this is a matter of theology? Let us take the light theory first. God spoke light into existence to prepare the earth for His creations. Light and darkness are the same to the creator according to our bible. As God made the earth and heavens, the first light is known to us as the creative light or “Primeval Light.” This light is believed to be as a spear that penetrates the entire creation of heaven and earth in the same fashion as the sun before it was set in motion during the forth era. The world was set in motion during this era. As the sun was placed in the second heaven in the forth era this creative light was reduced seven fold. The reason given for this act of God was to show the world that the artificial sun had no creative power at all and to discourage men from worshiping the sun.

It might interest some readers to know that there are literally rivers of waters in the heavens. The separation of the waters also created our air that we breath now.

Now as far as science is concerned, I was not aware that science is a fact. There are some laws that we observe as science but those laws are changing very rapidly. One example is the speed of light. The speed of light which was believed by Einstein is no longer believed by the Hadron Collider or Cern Project and changes the entire science if proven correct. The ramifications of this alone will upset the entire scientific field for many years to come. So your so called science is actually just a yardstick of knowledge that is proven false in many cases.

Actually religion is nothing but theology, and faith is but one unturned stone of theology. Science is man made observations which do change through time just as "the earth was flat science" that was spouted by men at one time. While the flat earth science was taught, the Christian bible stated very clearly that the earth was round. So in this event the bible authors knew more than scientists knew.

Seede



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
My opinion?


how could evolution exist if there was nothing to "create it"?

thats how i see it.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
I'm pretty sure papers and documents are written by MEN and you believe them. So were all the hoaxes that were written by MEN and you believed it. Science is no more credible then the Bible if you want to express it that way. The only difference is you choose to believe in one over the other. Besides evolution doesn't discredit a Creator; people like you do who just don't want to believe in one

Are you joking? Science is repeatable, testable and falsifiable. If you don't believe it, do the research and experiments yourself and you'll come to obvious conclusion that the method works and isn't even close to the same thing as blindly believing a set of stories from thousands of years ago. Science is not a religion, it's a method of study. I'd agree that evolution doesn't negate a creator, simply because evolution isn't about the origin of life. It's about the diversity of life.



Your opinion isn't final and it's not going to sway 85% of the American population that does believe in a Creator or the 2.1 billion individuals worldwide.

Evolution isn't opinion, and appeal to popularity is a fallacy.



Perhaps you are unaware of the Incompleteness Theorem by Kurt Gödel? Gödel proved, mathematically, that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. "The theory of everything".

And that proves what exactly about evolution or god?



The Bible hasn't been rewritten it has been translated into different languages. If it was rewritten we would see different characters and themes. All we see is variation in the meanings of certain words derived from the original Hebrew text. The English language has ca. 4,000,000 different words/meanings while the Hebrew language is around 8,700. Please try not to be so arrogant in your presuppositions.

If it hasn't been re-written then why are there at least 3 different versions of the Torah that refer to 3 different names and variations of god? This is before they were compiled into one. Do you know for a fact that the stories you have heard are the originals? The early bible stories date back AT LEAST 10,000 years. Evidence of this is the documented great flood, which refers to the end of the last ice age, when the ocean level rose significantly. It was referred to in many other culture's ancient stories as well. The bible is a collection of stories that were written over thousands of years and compiled into a single book. They ignored the dead sea scrolls and covered them up until they were eventually found intact. They continue to uncover new gospels and stories that were intentionally not included in the bible This determination of what makes it and what doesn't was determined by men. There's simply no way to tell what's original, what's historically accurate, and what's just bedtime stories for kids.



Do you honestly believe you came from a fish? That's the general idea I'm getting since you said fish grew "legs" and walked onto land.
That's a pretty big leap of faith considering fish don't really have a need to come out of the water and that their lungs would have to develop in conjunction with their fins to legs idea. Two beneficial mutations happening at once in nature sounds like a miracle if you ask me! The Chance god was at work 387 million years ago!

Worst argument I've ever heard. Do you honestly believe you came from a a lump of dirt? That's how god did it in the bible. The fossils and dna evidence proves that life slowly changed over millions upon millions of years. You're making a huge jump from fish to humans, which is also pretty much a fallacy. You said evolution doesn't negate a creator, so why are you making such a broad generalization about evolution? Have you even attempted to study it?
edit on 15-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   


My opinion? how could evolution exist if there was nothing to "create it"? thats how i see it.


My opinion? How could god exist if there was nothing to "create it"? That's how I see it.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Way behind the curve, I no longer believe that nonsense.


It was the people on this board that re-opened my eyes to the world.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


There are many people that believe that the heavens and earth were created in six literal twenty four hour days. Then there are also many creationists who believe that it was not literally six twenty four hour days. Also there are some creationists who believe that there were many creations which were created and destroyed by the Creator. All of this is theology. We have no proof of any of this outside of the fact that we exist and we do not know how we got here. That is the best we can do at this time.

The Hebrew bibles and Greek bibles are nothing but copies of copies. We have no original manuscripts whatsoever to prove anything of value. Most all of any history was at one time tradition before it was written and when it was written there was much embellishment which is natural in any tradition. So when we quote the bible we should bear in mind that even the copies of copies have had word changes in our modern days to suite the doctrines of the many denominations that exist.

An example of this is as follows –
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,
the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, -- This verse was from the 1611
KJV of the Hebrew Bible –

Notice that the author states that the heavens and earth were created in generations and yet
calls these generations a day. Was this a figure of Speech? The author is not referring to a
generation of a human because there were no humans during the first five days of generating.
Could the author be telling the reader that a day is actually an eon or as some theologians
believe, from one light to another?

There are some theologians who believe that the world rotated much faster during its beginning and has now slowed down such as a toy top would do. This would explain the reason that Adam lived such a long period in comparison to this living generation. Now a generation of generating could be many of our years and they could vary in length of time. This is only theology and nothing more because we have no proof of any of this any more than so called science can prove any thing of this nature.

Now let us see another version of this very same verse. This was taken from the “Hebrew Names Version” bible.
Gen 2:4 These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation at the time that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Notice the word change from “generations” in the KJV bible to the word “records” in this “Hebrew Names Version” -- Also notice that the word “day” has also been changed to the word “time” -- With our English understanding today it changes the entire concept of what the author could mean. The point here is that transliteration has changed this meaning and influences other scriptures as well.

If a student from both seminaries believed what they are being taught, then you have a division of thought and this is what leads to the theological differences that we have today. The master teaches the pupil and the pupil becomes a master and so it goes on and on.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


Whoops, I apologize. I didn't realize I was responding to a post from over a year ago.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
The Bible said it best.

Look around you. Look at the plants, animals, stars, etc. The bible even mentions God's unseen wonders (Gravity, etc)


The evidence is all around.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 





I'm pretty sure papers and documents are written by MEN and you believe them. So were all the hoaxes that were written by MEN and you believed it. Science is no more credible then the Bible if you want to express it that way. The only difference is you choose to believe in one over the other.


No, it's not the same. Science is based on OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, which is why I tend to trust it. Religion isn't based on logic/rationality or objective evidence, and even worse, is often demonstrably wrong...like when it comes to that silly global flood, or humans just popping up without evolution, or people surviving inside whales


Please learn what objective evidence and facts mean...




Besides evolution doesn't discredit a Creator; people like you do who just don't want to believe in one.


Of course it doesn't exclude a creator, it makes no statement regarding how life started. What it DOES prove is that the genesis account is demonstrably wrong though...




Your opinion isn't final and it's not going to sway 85% of the American population that does believe in a Creator or the 2.1 billion individuals worldwide.


Doesn't change the fact that they base their belief not on logic or rationality, and that they're simply wrong in a lot of cases...




The Bible even supports evolution but that's something you have failed to see because you already have a biased opinion. You act like every "creationist" is a YEC when any competent believer would notice a lot of holes in YEC view; though many YEC's won't admit them.


How does the bible support evolution? For crying out loud, it states humans just popped up without evolution...which is 100% WRONG





Do you honestly believe you came from a fish?


Not from any fish living today...but yeah, if you go far enough back in time, you realize that we indeed evolved from a fish-like creature...and single celled organisms before that.




That's the general idea I'm getting since you said fish grew "legs" and walked onto land. That's a pretty big leap of faith considering fish don't really have a need to come out of the water and that their lungs would have to develop in conjunction with their fins to legs idea. Two beneficial mutations happening at once in nature sounds like a miracle if you ask me! The Chance god was at work 387 million years ago!


We have fish with legs today for crying out loud!! And it's not even up for debate, the theory confirms it...DNA confirms it, the fossil record confirms it, the fact that we're atively using the theory in modern medicine proves it...

Again, I'm not saying there isn't a creator...but we have no proof of one. And one thing's for sure, the bible together with pretty much every religious text is demonstrably wrong when it comes to evolution.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Of course evolution beats creationism. It would die out if it didn't.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join