evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous

and now a question to all scientific/logic/ minded people how did you come across your knowledge/thoughts on this discussion?

Originally posted by On the Edge

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by On the Edge
[ex

Evolution has been used to justify every major genocide and wicked philosophy--i.e. Naziism, stalinism, communism--in history by killing off the weak.

the same logic can be used to say that a certain religion is the right on to justify the crusades,inquisitions,witch trials, and the torture of the knights templar i mean seriously that was messed up did you know the church tied weights to the members of the templars male region and just dropped them?

You're speaking of Catholicism,which is not the same as having a relationship with the Lord,Jesus Christ.

Rome is the harlot of Revelation and has nothing to do with Jesus.
Sorry you are misinformed.

I have nothing but contempt for the church of the anti-christ and the atrocities they have commissioned.

does my point have no validity what so ever? i still think it does

Originally posted by ashanu90
and now a question to all scientific/logic/ minded people how did you come across your knowledge/thoughts on this discussion?

I basically started with an intense interest in animals, particularly dinosaurs and other extinct critters when I was a child. reading on these guys led me to the fascinating topic of evolution, and I've been studying since.

Originally posted by ashanu90
a question to all spiritual/religious/superstitious persons

why do you beleive what you do?

I sort of hold on to some "cultural" trappings of religion. I'm not exactly religious / spiritual, and only a little superstitious, but if asked, I generally consider myself a "pagan" (actually more of an animist with a dash of Tengriism, but nobody ever knows what the heck that means). I do this because I enjoy it. For me my spirituality is perhaps more of a hobby, a cultural practice.

The two fields don't cross much - I'm under no struggle to reconcile faith and science. if there's a conflict, then science wins, because I can go "Look, I have proof!" with science.

Originally posted by On the Edge

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by On the Edge
[ex

Evolution has been used to justify every major genocide and wicked philosophy--i.e. Naziism, stalinism, communism--in history by killing off the weak.

the same logic can be used to say that a certain religion is the right on to justify the crusades,inquisitions,witch trials, and the torture of the knights templar i mean seriously that was messed up did you know the church tied weights to the members of the templars male region and just dropped them?

You're speaking of Catholicism,which is not the same as having a relationship with the Lord,Jesus Christ.

Rome is the harlot of Revelation and has nothing to do with Jesus.
Sorry you are misinformed.

I have nothing but contempt for the church of the anti-christ and the atrocities they have commissioned.

Oh, put this tripe back in the can. First you try to equate evolution with communism and Naziism and any other unpleasant -ism you can come up with, and then when the crimes of religion are tossed at you, you go "But that's not MY religion!"

Well, guess what, On the edge; You're not a Catholic? Then I'm not a Nazi. And you may want to do some research on your particular flavor of ice cream, and then do some research into Evolution; Given that Hitler's ideas were not Darwinian at all, yet i'm certain whatever faith you profess hinges on a book that calls for at least SOME mass murder...

[edit on 14-3-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

quote]Originally posted by ashanu90
hello ats i would like to start off by saying evolution is a FACT not a theory this man said it best ...science has backed up evolution time and time again it's true!! watch cosmos!
I agree to disagree but I'll get back to this later..

For now I'll concentrate on the 'Creation' side: this will be a little bit long so please bear with me.

and creotionism has no backing other than the bible and many christians will say that the fact the bible exists proves everything about god, angels and, creation.

Again you are wrong on this one.

As a Christian I know where you are coming from and I don't blame you for religion itself bear a great responsibility of not educating the public as to what the bible really say about creation. As a JW here's what we believe (probably totally different from what you've heard from Christendom's preachers/teachers).

But before I begin, let me clarify somethings in the bible that led others to the wrong conclusion.
The word 'day' mentioned in Genesis 1 does NOT necessarily mean a 24 hr day as some believe nor a 1000 years each day. No it's longer than that – millenniums and millenniums. Also, the Genesis account was written from the perspective of a human being on earth. So the things that Moses wrote was from his perspective. I'll also show you that the things he wrote are scientific even though he didn't have the instruments like we have today (Q: did he just made up the events he wrote or someone provided it to him, someone with the knowledge of space and time?)

Now let me show you where you got it wrong.

1) The Genesis creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.

Absolutely NOT, the Genesis creation account DOES NOT conflict with the order of events that are known to science. In fact they are in complete agreement. Lets start:
Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite. Your explanation of Gen 1:1 is incorrect.
Gen 1:1 simply states that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This simply means that the “heavens and the earth” were created by God. There's no mention of sequence of events, no before or after. This could also mean that the earth was created billions and billions of years ago – in fact according to the latest calculations it's about 4B.

Now v2 - “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters” → it says that the earth was 'formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep' – thus the earth at this stage (billions and billions of years ago) was an inhospitable and inhabitable place.

But the time came when Jehovah God put into action his plan for the ages. Make the earth into a habitable place – his crowning glory of all his creations. The perfect planet amongst the other planets in the universe. Situated just right amongst the billions of galaxy's – not too close nor too far from the sun with it's moon.
Note: the verses that you've quoted is the starting point of the six “creative 'day'”
Going back to what you said:

...These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

- I agree it's a “ MAJOR blunder” because your sequence of events are somewhat scrambled or unclear.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by ashanu90
and now a question to all scientific/logic/ minded people how did you come across your knowledge/thoughts on this discussion?

I basically started with an intense interest in animals, particularly dinosaurs and other extinct critters when I was a child. reading on these guys led me to the fascinating topic of evolution, and I've been studying since.

Originally posted by ashanu90
a question to all spiritual/religious/superstitious persons

why do you beleive what you do?

I sort of hold on to some "cultural" trappings of religion. I'm not exactly religious / spiritual, and only a little superstitious, but if asked, I generally consider myself a "pagan" (actually more of an animist with a dash of Tengriism, but nobody ever knows what the heck that means). I do this because I enjoy it. For me my spirituality is perhaps more of a hobby, a cultural practice.

The two fields don't cross much - I'm under no struggle to reconcile faith and science. if there's a conflict, then science wins, because I can go "Look, I have proof!" with science.

Originally posted by On the Edge

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by On the Edge
[ex


Well, guess what, On the edge; You're not a Catholic? Then I'm not a Nazi. And you may want to do some research on your particular flavor of ice cream, and then do some research into Evolution; Given that Hitler's ideas were not Darwinian at all, yet i'm certain whatever faith you profess hinges on a book that calls for at least SOME mass murder...

[edit on 14-3-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

on the edge; regardless of what denomination you stand in all denominations accept the OT even if they apparently don't completely believe it. there were tons and tons of mass murder torture rape you name it hell. this god of yours not only condoned the selling of youn girls into slavery he mafe laws to regulate it's practice. regardless of if the catholic church is not what you follow YOUR god still condones horribl terrble sick things or once did,
God Kills the Curious

And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us? (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Once again God approves of forcible rape.


loving god? i think not

Continuing...
Remember in V2 the “earth was 'formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep” - the earth (Terra-firma – solid ground) was dark because it was enveloped in “watery deep” but “God’s active force (holy spirit) was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters”. Thus God's power became operative. What happens next?

(1st creative 'day') “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5) – the statement “Let there be light” does not mean that light was created at this stage. No, but it simply means that “light” (Hebrew 'ohr) in general sense was now present on earth.

To make this more clearer note how other bibles render v3:
“And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light” NWT
““And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)
This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible. Next event-

(2nd creative day: v6-8) “‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.” → this simply means that a separation of waters occurred as some of the waters was push up the earth like a 'canopy' and the rest remained on earth; the division between these two bodies of water was called “heaven”. Gen 1:20 calls it “the expanse of the heavens” where later birds could fly in.

(3rd creative 'day': v9,10) "Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.” → the account does not describe how this was done of course. But no doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator. Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth. Thus on the 3rd 'day' dry land appeared and water basins formed as “seas”. What's the next obvious event to occur?

Here on the 3rd creative 'day' plant life appeared (v11): “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’ And it came to be so.” → Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”

(4th creative 'day': v14-16) “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.” → Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr′, which means the source of the light. So had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.”
Note also v15, the moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.

(5th creative 'day': v20,21) “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” → Animals of every sort was created - flying creatures, fish including the "great sea monster" and possible dinosaurs appeared at this stage of the creation sequence.

(6th creative 'day':v24) “‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.” → Land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:
v26,27: “And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.” → Finally man was created possessing God's 'image' his foremost attributes of love, wisdom, justice and power.
7th “day': God 'rested' or desisted from his creative activities for it was done.
So to summarize the sequence of the creative 'day':
1)Planets, sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years.
2)Watery earth was formless.
3)Preparation for earth to be inhabited.
Day 1: Light (of some sort) came to be on a formless watery earth.
Day 2: Separation between waters above and waters below, expanse (sky) appeared.
Day 3: Dry land, vegetation, organism appeared and water basins formed (seas).
Day 4: Lights from the luminaries became discernible from earth. Days and seasons.
Day 5: Animals of every sort appeared; fish, flying creatures, sea monsters – dinosours.
Day 6: More animals -wild and domestic and finally man was created.
Day 7: Creation stopped.
Now, here's what science say about the mathematical probability of the Genesis creation account - proof that it must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order:
(1) A beginning.
(2) A primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water.
(3) Light.
(4) An expanse or atmosphere.
(5) Large areas of dry land.
(6) land plants.
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning.
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures.
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals.
(10) man.

Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals.

Here's a question for you: could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced that this could happen?

reply to post by edmc^2


As I asked someone else on another thread - why the deception, why the metaphor? If this supreme being wanted its new favorite primates to know how it created them and the entire universe, why tell them it happened in "days"? Even if trying to keep it to human conception ("Billions" is a really big number that most people can only comprehend in an abstract fashion, after all) then wouldn't "years" or even "ages" or "lifetimes" have been a better choice of word? Why days?

Next, I suggest you re-read Genesis.

Gen 1:11-13. God creates plants. Not just any plants, flowering plants that yield fruit. Okay.
Gen 1:14-18. God takes a break from making plants, and decides to create the sun and the moon. Of course, one wonders how those plants were doing for that thousand-year stretch without a sun ("light" doesn't cut it for most plants, they need a certain spectrum provided best by our own boiling plasma neighbor). Apparently back in these days the moon produced its own light, too.
Gen 1:24-25. God gets around to creating things like bees, beetles, flies, wasps, and other insects. These are the main pollinators of those plants he created back in Gen 1:11. I suppose they could have gotten by with the hummingbirds and bats (bats were a bird back then) that he created in Gen 1:21, but that still leaves a gap of two "days" (a thousand years, remember?) where there was no vector to pollinate all these flowering plants.

God is apparently a really bad gardener.

wow you guys really know what your talking about however edmc a flaw in your logic the stars themselves
doesnt it state that god made the earth then the stars? you realize a stars life time is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy longer than earth has been around and earth is pretty old you must realise many stars have come in and out of existance for untold billions of years. there are so many quazars black holes nebulas you name it. scientists can tell how old a star is correct? then they can give a good estimate of how old the earth is as well yes?

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by On the Edge

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by On the Edge
[ex

Evolution has been used to justify every major genocide and wicked philosophy--i.e. Naziism, stalinism, communism--in history by killing off the weak.

the same logic can be used to say that a certain religion is the right on to justify the crusades,inquisitions,witch trials, and the torture of the knights templar i mean seriously that was messed up did you know the church tied weights to the members of the templars male region and just dropped them?

You're speaking of Catholicism,which is not the same as having a relationship with the Lord,Jesus Christ.

Rome is the harlot of Revelation and has nothing to do with Jesus.
Sorry you are misinformed.

I have nothing but contempt for the church of the anti-christ and the atrocities they have commissioned.

does my point have no validity what so ever? i still think it does

Okay,people use whatever beliefs they hold to justify their actions?
That's a valid statement.

Originally posted by ashanu90
wow you guys really know what your talking about however edmc a flaw in your logic the stars themselves
doesnt it state that god made the earth then the stars? you realize a stars life time is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy longer than earth has been around and earth is pretty old you must realise many stars have come in and out of existance for untold billions of years. there are so many quazars black holes nebulas you name it. scientists can tell how old a star is correct? then they can give a good estimate of how old the earth is as well yes?

stars wouldn't have existed before the earth itself, no point of reference so to speak.

reply to post by ashanu90



Maybe I shouldn't have gotten involved in this conversation. For one,I haven't read all the posts. I did want to add the link to the article I read about the scientific cover-up of facts disputing evolution,which I did.

I'm not a Bible scholar and don't pretend to have the answers for why things happened the way they did. I trust God knows what it all means and that's good enough for me.

I do believe that evolution's intent is to draw people away from being a divine creation of God and equating them instead with something far less.
Which in my opinion is a tactic Satan would use.

Like I said,I haven't read all the posts,and it's kind of late for me here,so I might not do so tonight.

Before I go,let me add...The Bible says that we are to come to God with a child-like faith. It is by faith we are saved,through grace,so that no man should boast. This would include "boasting" about knowledge,etc. Knowledge will not save you,according to my beliefs,but Faith,through grace,will.

Our job is to love one another,and that is what I focus on. Nothing in the New Testament could be used for a Christian to justify murder,as that is not the example Jesus gave when He gave His life for us.

Back to my original post.."Darwin was a renowned racist looking for a scientific excuse for slavery and genocide of "undesirable" and "inferior" races. Evolution has been used to justify every major genocide and wicked philosophy--i.e. Naziism, stalinism, communism--in history by killing off the weak.

Evolution makes a hero out of death and completely negates all morality and humane compassion. When you tell people that they are evolved animals that are floating on a lawless and indifferent planet in outer space they begin to act as just that--lawless animals with no morality or accountability for themselves. "...

That was my point. But I guess it all depends on your perspective.


P.S. My God is not the same God as the Catholic God,no matter how you want to twist things around.

I'm not saying that all Catholics worship the devil,far from it. But as the church stands today,I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by On the Edge]

reply to post by On the Edge


Evolution exists. It is a natural phenomenon that has been observed in nature, and in the laboratory. It is as possible to say that evolution doesn't exist, as it is to say gravity doesn't exist.

The scientific method has been used, by thousands of independent scientists around the world, to try to find an explanation for the mechanisms behind evolution, and all of them (without exception) have come up with evidence that supports the theory of Evolution,

There can be no hidden agenda behind the theory of evolution, as it was entirely discerned by an impartial methodology that only concerns itself with empirical observation.

Darwin was not a racist. He didn't try to excuse slavery or racism. I beg you to cite your sources lest you are called a liar. Evolution was not used to justify the horrors you speak of - in fact those horrors are diametrically opposed to evolution, as they were attempts at unnatural selection, whereas evolution is natural selection. I can see how you got confused, but please educate yourself a bit and realise they are not the same, and not even close.

Evolution describes how we got here. It doesn't tell us how to act, or how to think. If your assertions were true, all atheists would be murderers, and no Christians would.

It would help you to learn more about evolution before wading in to these threads, as otherwise you just look a bit foolish stating patent untruths all over the place. If we weren't talking about the ignorance of a real human being, it'd be funny.

reply to post by On the Edge


The theory of eugenics was not Darwin, but Galton. Furthermore, in order for that to be true, Darwin would have to be the only person who was working on a theory of evolution. However, others had presented other theories, notably Lamarck and Wallace. In fact Wallace's theory is very similar to Darwin's and Darwin even admitted that the theory could have been just as easily referred to as Wallacism.

So if we're essentially a bunch of chemicals organized in a highly complex manner, without a soul or spirit, why didnt the chemicals just remain in their constituent parts? What would be the point of forming complex machines(bodies)? They might as well JUST STAY AS ELEMENTS! There is no gain at all organizing into complex systems if everything is just material.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by On the Edge

 

Evolution exists. It is a natural phenomenon that has been observed in nature, and in the laboratory. It is as possible to say that evolution doesn't exist, as it is to say gravity doesn't exist.

The scientific method has been used, by thousands of independent scientists around the world, to try to find an explanation for the mechanisms behind evolution, and all of them (without exception) have come up with evidence that supports the theory of Evolution,

There can be no hidden agenda behind the theory of evolution, as it was entirely discerned by an impartial methodology that only concerns itself with empirical observation.

Darwin was not a racist. He didn't try to excuse slavery or racism. I beg you to cite your sources lest you are called a liar. Evolution was not used to justify the horrors you speak of - in fact those horrors are diametrically opposed to evolution, as they were attempts at unnatural selection, whereas evolution is natural selection. I can see how you got confused, but please educate yourself a bit and realise they are not the same, and not even close.

Evolution describes how we got here. It doesn't tell us how to act, or how to think. If your assertions were true, all atheists would be murderers, and no Christians would.

It would help you to learn more about evolution before wading in to these threads, as otherwise you just look a bit foolish stating patent untruths all over the place. If we weren't talking about the ignorance of a real human being, it'd be funny.

I see there is an excellent thread on this topic right now,by bwinwright,called "Evolution is Scientifically Impossible"(www.abovetopsecret.com...),
which is pretty much the way I feel about it.

I find your whole tone condescending,and your assumption that "if my assertions were true,all atheists would be murderers and no Christians would" to be beyond comprehension.

This is laughable,when you say "There can be no hidden agenda behind the theory of evolution, as it was entirely discerned by an impartial methodology that only concerns itself with empirical observation."

Laughable,if it weren't so sad.

(P.S. I'm quite sure Evolution never describes how we got here!)



[edit on 14-3-2010 by On the Edge]

on this thread i have read an odd statement
about there being a conspiracy to lead people away from 'god almighty'. but wouldn'y make more sense that christianity is a tool to control the masses in favor of political/economical gain? he who has the children has the future or something like that.

i think most religions are a grift or a lie. the lube that keeps the engines of cons running is the ability to get people to beleive the impossible. i think christianity has sold many people a false miracle and they have bought it.

what makes more sense that a god made us and didn't leave any evidence for his existance or that we made him up so we wouldnt be so alone?

that last phrase was from contact

Originally posted by munkey66

stars wouldn't have existed before the earth itself, no point of reference so to speak.


what do you mean they wouldn't have existed before the earth itself? of course they have what leads you to a statement like that?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


i wish there were more people like you i think the world would be better off. you have been a great help to this thread i appreciate it