It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cosmogony, Abiogenesis, & Evolution

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Why use "days" as a code phrase?


I can`t answer that, but the bible does say that 1000 years passes like one day to God, meaning that God views times different than we do, a being with no beginning and no end isn`t worried about it.

See my answer to your other question in my last edited post.


So according to that, it only took around 7000 years to create life...we know for a fact that is total hogwash too.




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





It seems a little disingenuous to accept some of the findings of science and dismiss others that have just as much evidence for them simply because they don't fit what amounts to an ultimately unscientific telling of the origin of the universe.


Not really, if the bible can support it, or has no comment on it, I have no problem with what science tells me, but it`s the touchstone.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by iterationzero
 





It seems a little disingenuous to accept some of the findings of science and dismiss others that have just as much evidence for them simply because they don't fit what amounts to an ultimately unscientific telling of the origin of the universe.


Not really, if the bible can support it, or has no comment on it, I have no problem with what science tells me, but it`s the touchstone.

The Bible can support everything that science has produced so far, given a wide enough latitude of interpretation.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So according to that, it only took around 7000 years to create life...we know for a fact that is total hogwash too.


No, it just means God views time measurement different than us.
Even humans can use the term to mean more than 24 hours. We could use the expression ``in my grandfathers day``, and we don`t literally mean one day of his life, we mean when he lived over many years.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by iterationzero
Sorry, looks like we crossed replies.


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
As to mans time on this earth, I do stick to the literal points in the bible which means 6035 years.

How do you make decisions regarding which parts of the Bible to take literally and which to interpret?


Easy...you just take the ones you agree with literally, and make stuff up for the rest

Dude! Shhhhh! I seriously want him to answer this.

I really find it fascinating that the OP is willing to interpret the Bible enough to say that God didn't really create the Earth and everything on it in seven days, as is literally stated, but they're not willing to interpret it in such a way that it agrees with other scientific findings. I think, if we dug deep enough, we'd come back to the argument that morality can only come from God so anything that suggests that man didn't directly come from the hand of God must be wrong.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So according to that, it only took around 7000 years to create life...we know for a fact that is total hogwash too.


No, it just means God views time measurement different than us.
Even humans can use the term to mean more than 24 hours. We could use the expression ``in my grandfathers day``, and we don`t literally mean one day of his life, we mean when he lived over many years.


So first you say we can't know how long a day is in god's terms. Then you claim the bible says 1000 years is like 1 day to god. Then you backtrack saying it's not known again and whatever science comes up supports what the bible says. Makes total sense...I guess whatever best supports your world view is the right answer, right?


And during all those posts, you still haven't answered why the people who wrote the bible would use DAYS when talking about creation. Notice how the text is in the 3rd person "God created the earth...". Those people who wrote the bible knew about numbers, days...they could have said "4.5 billion years" instead. Why use a code that makes no sense and only confuses people? The bible wasn't written by god, it was written by MEN (yes, plural) over several hundred years.
edit on 22-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





How do you make decisions regarding which parts of the Bible to take literally and which to interpret?


This is the key, symbolic interpretation verses literal interpretation, how you do the book of Genesis verses the book of Revelation for example they have to have different parameters. Knowing this is very critical to understanding the bible with any degree of accuracy. For example when Jesus said to his disciples drink my blood and eat my flesh, those that interpreted it literally left off following him as they interpreted as literal, and that it was gross and cannibalism. Of course it was symbolic, not literal. God expects us to get the Holy Spirit so that we can understand which is literal and what is symbolic.

John 4:24


24God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).


Back to the Genesis account
So the six literal days creation of the entire universe is impossible because of empirical evidence, thus they must be longer periods of time which would support all the science and vice versa. I have made this point before, God did not change basic physics to fit the Genesis account, light traveling from the farthest reaches of the universe just reaching us now that traveled billions of light years to reach us proves the literal belief of young earth creationism to be false.

It`s a huge straw man for the non-believer to say you have to take the Genesis account as literal. Especially when they don`t even believe in the bible, it kind of funny really.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

So the six literal days creation of the entire universe is impossible because of empirical evidence, thus they must be longer periods of time which would support all the science and vice versa.


Or maybe, just maybe...it's nothing but man-made stories like Harry Potter. They might of course still have symbolic worth as do many stories.

Anyway, what I really would like to know is how you can say men has only been on earth for 6035 years...when reality clearly shows us that homo sapiens has existed for 250,000 years. So according to you, the bronze ages never even happened.

And now you expect us to believe in the same 2000 year old book that lead you to believe men has only been on earth for 6035 years when it comes to the age of the universe and how long it took to create life?? Are you serious?
edit on 22-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
What a disappointing thread. I was hoping to see a few more facts... sorry, 'facts' about cosmogony, abiogenesis and evolution. Right now there is nothing to discuss.

Perhaps the OP should begin with a short description of what he or she believes actually happened, according to whatever sources he or she puts his trust in.

Or are we just supposed to read Genesis and leave it at that? Genesis is a bit lacking in detail.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





Perhaps the OP should begin with a short description of what he or she believes actually happened, according to whatever sources he or she puts his trust in.


OK

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.



What About the Dates?


Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?

Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.” For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before. Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.” The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.
In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”

When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.

edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: Carbon dating information



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


And your scientific proof for that is...

Unless you post scientific proof, this is nothing but an OPINION based on pure faith.

EDIT (to reflect the additional stuff you posted):

First of all, at least quote the source of your post. You just copy/pasted that from some creationist blog...at least that's what pops up if you copy/paste your text into google.

Secondly, a ton of the info you posted is full of blatant lies:

1) The text you pasted starts of by quoting "some scientific journal" and then directly quotes that fictional journal by using quotation marks.



“Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”


If you google that, and the article would really exist, you'd find it. But you don't...instead, all you get are creationist blogs quoting and requoting it over and over again without ever stating the original source. That's laughable!!

2) It then states there was a science conference to "compare notes" (lol) with a ton of experts. The conclusion was that carbon formation hasn't been consistent...



For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.


Well, that's a blatant lie as well!!



Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).


Source

3) It then states the following blunder:



The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.


As we know it took way way way way longer than for man to evolve from an ape-like ancestor to modern man than a few thousand years. We have fossil records of the first homo sapiens (modern man) show up as early as 250,000BC!! And during that time we still had parallel species like neanderthals. We have a very clear picture of how humans evolved.

4) It then quotes Libby as a source of why radiation dating is wrong...

Well, nothing against Libby, he accomplished great things during his lifetime. But since he died 30 years ago (!!!!) science made great progress in that field. For example, our dating methods aren't only based on carbon anymore, we have alternatives. Don't believe me? Check it out!

5) They then quote Malcolm Muggeridge to support their scientific blunder against evolution.

That guy was a journalist, author, and satirist. Nothing he studied would ever qualify him to make statements regarding evolution. That's like asking Glenn Beck about evolution and taking his word for it...laughable!!

Look, if you really wanna attack science, you shouldn't get your "information" from pseudo-scientific creationist websites that either misinterpret scientific concepts at best, and often lie at worst as the example you posted shows.

At least you didn't waste much time copy/pasting this hogwash instead of writing it all up yourself


If you really believe the scientific community is split over evolution, you really don't know what you're talking about...and you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

Here's what scientists think about evolution and how certain they are!!

Oh, and if you say the bible is all the proof you need, consider this is written in the same book:



Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."


So not only is slavery ok, but you can also beat your slave to death if he continues to live another day before dying. Yeah...I'd definitely trust that book

edit on 23-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
if we were in a science fiction movie it would be called the "earth system"

No, "we" are in many sci-fi movies and the all refer to our planetary system as either the Sol System or the Solar System. It's logical to identify a planetary system by the large object that is central to it rather than by one of the many little rocks spinning around the central object.


"We live in prime real estate", says Scientific American magazine. It is obvious that this spot was chosen as the best spot for humans to live in the galaxy. Pure chance? Never!

Blue_Jay, if life has evolved in many different places throughout the universe, as is probable, and humans were going to evolve and survive to discuss their beginnings, do you believe they would be more likely to be on a planet suitable for their survival, or a planet unsuitable for their survival?

Or, to put it another way, In a disaster movie, in which only one person survives, who's more likely to be talking at the end of it, the one who survived, or the many who didn't?


The forth day was the creation of vegetation, the fifth day dinosaurs, . . .

to quote from Genesis 1 (King James version):

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.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas,
and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


Or perhaps you may prefer The Revised Standard Version:

And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures,
and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds,
and every winged bird according to its kind.
And God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas,
and let birds multiply on the earth."
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.


The Bible clearly states God used the 5th day to create creatires which can swim (or otherwise exist in the water,) and creatures which can fly, (or more specifically, winged birds).

Please enlighten us; did tyrannosaurus swim in the water or did it have feathery wings and fly?


For example when Jesus said to his disciples drink my blood and eat my flesh, those that interpreted it literally left off following him as they interpreted as literal, and that it was gross and cannibalism. Of course it was symbolic, not literal.

Over half the world's Christians are Catholics, and Catholicism espouses the doctrine of transubstantiation, a belief that the eucharist magically transforms into the body and blood of Christ.


I was wondering, Blue_Jay, which account of creation is correct, Genesis 1, which statesGod first made creatures, and then created man and woman together, or Genesis 2, which states God created Man, then created animals, and then created Eve from Adam's rib?

Genesis 1:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Astyanax
 

What About the Dates?


Biblical chronology indicates . . . .
(typical creationist nonsense)
. . . . so widely and recklessly applied.


Is this how a "Christian" argues? - By stealing another person's words, copy/pasting whole pages form a book and claiming them as one's own?

Blue_Jay, you know both the moral issues and the ATS policy concerning plagiarism.

For the sake of other posters, the source is page 94 - 96 of
Life - How Did it Get here? By Evolution of Creation?

By the way, that book is so appallingly bad the authors don't even know which skull is which . . .
www.watchtowerlies.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by iterationzero
 





How do you make decisions regarding which parts of the Bible to take literally and which to interpret?


God expects us to get the Holy Spirit so that we can understand which is literal and what is symbolic.

What about the people that are just as sure that parts you're taking as symbolically should be taken literally, based on what their faith (i.e. "the Holy Spirit") tells them?


So the six literal days creation of the entire universe is impossible because of empirical evidence, thus they must be longer periods of time which would support all the science and vice versa. I have made this point before, God did not change basic physics to fit the Genesis account, light traveling from the farthest reaches of the universe just reaching us now that traveled billions of light years to reach us proves the literal belief of young earth creationism to be false.

But empirical evidence refutes your claim of man only being on Earth for 6ky. God is unwilling to tamper with physics, by your account, but completely willing to tamper with other facets of science, like biology and geology. If he's willing to simply place man on Earth in such a way that contradicts empirical evidence, why wouldn't he be willing to simply create the universe in such a way that contradicts empirical evidence?


It`s a huge straw man for the non-believer to say you have to take the Genesis account as literal. Especially when they don`t even believe in the bible, it kind of funny really.

I don't think anyone here has said that Genesis as a whole must be taken literally, but you have to see why people would be incredulous that you're willing to resign one chapter to symbolism while taking the next chapters literally.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I was trying to give a quick answer on Carbon dating, but my researched answer has been rejected, that's fine I am moving on. You can refute all my points, this thread is more for people that are interested in hearing why creation is plausible even from a scientific view, from a certain perspective that lines up with the bible. I don't want to get to sidetracked with other "issues" that are being brought up and they are for other threads.

On to the next point

Our moon is the perfect moon for our planet size. It's diameter measures just over a quarter of that of the earth. Thus compared with other moons in our solar system our moon is unusually large in relation to it's host planet.
The moon is the principle cause of ocean tides, which play a vital role in earth ecology. The moon also contributes to the planets stable spin axis. Without it's tailor-made moon, our planet would be less habitable maybe even inhabitable.

Pure Chance?
Never!
edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I really like this video posted in another ATS thread I was looking at.
It has to do with the Cosmogony part of the discussion.



This scientific understanding of energy transfer is stated in scripture
Isaiah 40:21,22 & 26


Do YOU people not know? Do YOU not hear? Has it not been told to YOU from the outset? Have YOU not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.....

“Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Ah, so this is going to be one of those threads where my rebuttals are ignored.

Eh, I'll keep trying for the sake of the people reading this.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
On to the Sun and earth location

At about 93 million miles from the sun, this orbit lies within a limited zone that is habitable because life neither freezes or fries.


Yes, it's in the "Goldilocks zone", after the fairy tale of a girl who does a B&E on a bear's house. Well, the length of this zone is...more or less anywhere between Venus and Mars...it's a fairly big space. We could be 50% closer to Mars or 50% closer to Venus and we'd still be in this area.



Moreover, earth's path is almost circular, keeping us roughly the same distance from the sun year round.


Actually, our distance from the sun is variable over time, and it is decaying and changing slightly each year.





The sun, meanwhile, is the perfect powerhouse. It is stable, it is the ideal size and it emits just the right amount of energy. For good reason, it has been called a very special star. (Perfect Planet, Clever Species-How unique are we?)


...um...actually, the sun is quite typical for stars in the universe. It's not all that special, it's just at one of the longest points in its lifetime, just like so many other hundreds of billions of stars.

And the 'perfect amount of energy' isn't a valid argument. If it emitted less energy, we'd have to be closer to it, if it emitted more, we could be further away.



Pure Chance?
Never!


Reasoned arguments and an understanding of science?
Never!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Genesis 1:1 is an unspecified amount of time that agrees with our current understanding of the time line of the beginning of the universe estimated to be anywhere from 10-15 billion years give or take, the exact number is unknown to both scientists and creationists alike.


Well, scientists were the ones that came up with a number. And 'an unspecified amount of time' doesn't agree with our current understanding, it just didn't give an answer so that it didn't disagree.

Though I do remember it giving 'days'...but you ignore that.



It also includes the creation of our Sun and our earth.


Yes, with the unscientific description that the Earth was formed before the Sun, which completely disagrees with our understanding of the universe.



So first God transformed his unlimited energy into all the atomic matter we have in the universe, it would look as a big bang of matter coming into the universe.


Except...it would also look like that if a giant magical kangaroo farted everything into existence after a night of bad Mexican food.



The creative days laid out in the Genesis after that are also of unknown length of time, they include the earth developing from just a round hunk of rock into something that a biological creature could live on.


I'm sorry, no. The Bible lays out things as if they 'popped' into existence in a manner that is entirely inconsistent with the fossil record.



They include the ages of the dinosaurs, before man arrived.


There are no dinosaurs in the Bible. And no, leviathan and behemoth are not dinosaurs.



Also those days could differ in there times, some days may not have been as long as others, it is most likely that, although only a theory, that each day would get progressively shorter.


And yet not a single one of them matches up with how we understand the Earth to have developed.



Because it simply did not need to be as long as the previous one for development of the ecological systems that were forming up.


And it was entirely inconsistent with the development of life via the fossil record.



The forth day was the creation of vegetation,


Which is incorrect. Vegetation would have been preceded by marine life, that's what the fossil record shows.

Genesis:

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.


And it also ignores that ferns, which are not grass, have no seeds, nor produce fruit, were the very first plant forms on the Earth.



the fifth day dinosaurs,


Um..no....

Again, Genesis:

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.


Ok, so they finally get to sea life and then they entirely give land life a miss and move straight to birds...which are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.

And no mention of dinosaurs here.



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.


Ok, marine mammals and other sea creatures...but no dinosaurs here...



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.


Nope, no dinosaurs.



the sixth day mammals in line with the fossil records,


Except that birds precede dinosaurs, and in no way does the account of Genesis differentiate between mammals and non-mammals, it just says:

Genesis:

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.


No mention of cattle, it just says that all land animals came forth at once...



and finally man & woman only around 6000 years ago right at the end of the sixth creative epoch.


And now you're entirely wrong.

Let me use an example dear to my heart. I'm currently living in the Republic of Malta, a tiny island nation you may never have heard of. If you have, good for you.

What's remarkable about our island is that you can't dig a whole without uncovering some piece of history. This includes quite a few stone age temples, the oldest of which date back to 7000 years ago. So you're saying that there are man-made structures that I have personally seen that are older than humanity

The truth is that humanity is actually a lot older than that.



I want to go back to the very beginning of the universe.


Alright, that's random though.



Energy can create matter we know that, what a person must ask themselves is where did that initial energy come from?


Nonononono...energy doesn't create matter, it is matter. E=mcc (or E=mc^2)



At the starting point how can raw energy form all the atomic particles in the universe the building blocks of everything?


Well, it would eventually form into hydrogen and helium, which would go through nuclear fusion to create the atomic elements...this is one that's without a doubt. Nuclear fusion happens.



And how could raw pure energy form many different atomic particles at the same time, these atomic structures never existed before, this energy is creating them and they are all different in structure.


...again, the major portion of the universe is hydrogen and helium (well, it's actually mostly empty, but you know what I mean), This forms into stars which then undergo fusion which creates new elements.



Pure Chance?
Never!


Demonstration that you've done your research into science before attacking it?
Never!

 


I would suggest that, before you make statements that are clearly founded in a lack of scientific understandings (see: 6000 year history of humans, formation of atoms), you read up first.

And your argument so far is still: Everything is so great for us to exist that it must have been designed for us.

Let me whip out Occam's razor:

Everything is so great for us

Oh wait, even that statement is incorrect. There are large swaths of uninhabitable and barely habitable land on this planet and it's mostly water, we are prone to overexposure to sunlight, and the only reason we have such high life expectancy is our defiance of nature.
edit on 23/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


There are some pretty huge strawmans in your entire post, stating some things as facts as what we should believe about what the bible says, that we don't have to. One example




Yes, with the unscientific description that the Earth was formed before the Sun, which completely disagrees with our understanding of the universe.


I don't believe that, never have, and the bible doesn't teach that either.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
double

edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


But I will add something anyway, we know dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, the fossil records prove this. Which means to believe in creation the dinosaurs were created and lived within that time frame this disproves the young earth creation version of events. I love it it when I get attacked for supporting the known fossil record, what are we arguing about as to the time-line, we agree, are only disagreement on how it all started, and perhaps developed. I am not opposed to adapting dinosaurs. However the Crocodile hasn't changed too much and he is estimated to be around 200 million years old. So really how much adaptation really took place, the Crocodile actually works against evolution.
No changes in 200 million years!
Meditate on that one.



They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; crocodiles survived great extinction events.

edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


They're not straw men when they're supported by the book you're relying upon. Please point out the other supposed straw men and explain why they are straw men while I demonstrate that the Bible does state that the Earth existed prior to the sun.

Genesis:


1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
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.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


...so the two great lights, one to rule the day and one to rule the night (the sun and the moon), were formed after the Earth.

They were also formed after grass and other greenery.

Now please try to demonstrate that all my other arguments are straw men, I'll show you exactly where your book says the things I laid out.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join