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.

 

questions for creationists?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dccruibay
1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?

Who told you that Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? LOL What a moron. You are finding 'answers' in the wrong places.


2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?

God didn't create those. The human body is corruptible. The human body is tough, but, relatively speaking, very frail too.


3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?

Who said that the Earth would come to a fiery demise?
There were pits outside cities where they burned their trash. What better analogy for hell? Ever had a burn?


4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?

There aren't any Biblical events that are impossible. Perhaps beyond some peoples' understanding. But then God is beyond human comprehension. Very simply, if you understood all aspects of God then wouldn't you be on par with God? No need to ask questions.

Another example that might spark thoughts... Do you understand why women do the things they do? heh.
How can you expect in your tiny little mind to understand God at that point? Seriously.



5. Why do you call anything unexplainable in the bible evil?

OMG. You've been talking to someone that thinks they have all the answers. They are a god unto themselves and they are spreading lies onto you. God determined what is evil and had it written down long ago.


6. Why do you wrack your brains searching for reasons that blatant scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?

I don't wrack my brains trying to disprove scientific facts. Wisdom as defined long ago, is knowledge, however, it's knowledge of the human condition. Dealing with fellow humanity and relationships on every level. Every language has other words that better describe other aspects of knowledge. Rocket Science!
Doesn't mean you will ever get a girlfriend because other people and tests say that you're 'wise' or 'smart'.


7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?

Rhetorical question. Countering... If you were suddenly told that Janet Napolitano was god because she has 'super powers' over an entire region on Earth would you believe them?



8. Do you really, truthfully believe in all of your answers to the previous 7 questions?


HAHA It's in the human condition to lie, mate. That's just part of what makes us human. It's your responsibility (and that of others) to use your gray matter to decide.

I believe that your OP is somewhat serious although posed lightly. Many people search for answers. That too is part of the human condition. People aren't static. (Wull, politicians and retards are static.)

If you are reading this then you are capable of growing in mind and spirit.
Learning is a challenge. God damns those that deliberately mislead.
God loves those that search to learn more. Consider the source in all things.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
What is the Creationist scientific definition of a "kind" as it refers to species and morphology of organisms?


In the Bible the word species isn't really used. It's a word created by scientists to describe the process of speciation where after a species produces enough descendants the genetics become mutated enough that descendants can no longer mate with other animals except ones that also have the same or similar genetic mutations. Such as, the same amount of chromosomes.Then they are said to be a new species because they can only mate with each other.

However, this isn't concrete or set in stone. For example there have been reports that some brown bears have successfully mated with polar bears, but some consider brown bears and polar bears different species. Also, consider liger's and tiglons even though lions and tigers are considered different species. So if an animal can mate with another animal or not, that doesn't help us determine if they are two separate species or not. Also, deer can mate with each other, but there are 34 species of deer!

Also, there's political correctness issues to take into account. For example, can we define a new species by its chromosomes? No. Because people with down syndrome have an extra chromosome. But you can't turn around and say they're another species if you were a scientist! You'd be hung in the media for calling them non-human right? Even something so drastic as non-matching chromosomes won't do it, but sometimes something as little as a white spot on a moth is enough to say you have a new species. How does this work?

Also there's the issue of if the offspring is sterile or not. If the offspring can't produce its own offspring should it be considered a new species? Well this causes more issues because again, people with down syndrome, the females can be fertile but the males cannot.

So, how do we solve this? Do we say that females with down syndrome are in fact another species and not human because they can produce offspring, while males with down syndrome are still human? Do you think the feminists would let us get away with that? Or do we do it the other way around and say the male is the non-human because he can no longer breed with other humans? Either way, it's not good. You're calling someone with feelings non-human. Okay, maybe they're both still humans, but again, that means chromosome count and sterility doesn't help us either. So we haven't gotten anywhere.

So why do we have this problem? Why don't we have a clear understanding of exactly what a species is? Well first and foremost there are some political issues and another is I believe the scientific media has a bias to prove the Bible wrong. And to do so, the word species has to mean whatever the scientists want it to mean! Today we prove the Bible wrong by saying an animal that can only mate with the same kind of animal is another species, but tomorrow species will mean something else! Tomorrow it's okay if a tiger and a lion can mate. They're still a different species! Either way we win. The Bible is wrong right?

Somewhere they jumped the gun and now the word doesn't make sense anymore. That's why when you ask how many different species there are in the world you'll get an answer that's between 2 million and 100 million different species! Woah! That's a big range! Why so big? Because nobody knows WTH a species is and the scientists are all arguing about it! In the meantime we keep seeing press releases that tell us, NEW SPECIES EVOLVED! And worst of all, unless you look this stuff up yourself. You'll never know that the word species, doesn't really mean anything. The media usually makes no effort to inform the people of this. Why is that?

Wired article

But wait, how can we know if a new species evolved, when the scientists are still arguing about what a species is? It's simple. It's because the scientists get to change the definition of the word species anytime it's convenient for them so they can keep saying, HEY EVOLUTION IS TRUE! BIBLE FALSE!

See, to prove the Bible wrong, they invented this word species and said, LOOK THE BIBLE IS WRONG. IT SAYS NO NEW SPECIES! BUT WE HAVE NEW SPECIES! Okay, but what's a species guys? And the scientists say, well, we're not sure yet. Hmm, okay I see the trick that's being played here. Does anyone else? If you're not exactly sure what it is, how do you know if you have a new one?

However, the Bible never said that. The Bible actually foresaw this problem and instead said an animal would produce other animals of its kind! In science the word closest to what the Bible means by kind is probably genus and not species. Such as a lion and a tiger are a different species, but the same genus. But that's not exactly right either! So be careful if the scientists come around again to redefine what genus means!

And it's true. An animal always gives birth to an animal of the same 'kind'. A bird will always give birth to animal that's still pretty much a bird and a dog will always give birth to an animal that's pretty much a dog and so on.

But what about a million generations down the line? What happens when birds in a million years have evolved and don't look anything like birds today? Well, they may look completely different, but I bet you every single one of them was pretty much the same "kind" of animal as their parents were. Maybe bird 1 million doesn't look anything like bird number 1, but I bet you bird 1 million still looks pretty much exactly like bird 999,999.

Even though bird 1 looks completely different than bird 1 million does, almost like an entirely different animal, I can bet you along the way, All 999,999 birds gave birth to only animals that were pretty much the same "kind" as they were!

But where in the chain does the animal become a new species? How much change should it have to go through before we start calling it something else? Well, that's a human emotional problem. It's not actually a scientific problem. It's a problem of abstraction and is subjective and it's a decision we make emotionally. No different than how scientists are classifying species today! Emotionally! That's why we don't know if there are 2 million species, or 100 million!

As we see, we can start calling it a new "kind" of animal anytime we want! When ever it looks different enough to us that it invokes an emotional response in us that we say, HEY THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL! But as we see it's an emotional decision. And the problem is that emotional decision is different for every person.

But just like we did when humans evolved from chimps! We were a new species right? But guess what? Chimps and humans still share about 95 percent of their genetic code! Still today humans are still giving birth to pretty much the same "kind" of animals. We're all still pretty much big old ape chimps and many of us aren't any smarter either! Different species?? Maybe. Different kind? Not really. We're still pretty much the same kind of animal!

The Bible is correct in that it knew, the answer couldn't really be pinned down. What's one animal and what's another, in the end it's pretty much subjective. Maybe even God couldn't figure out where to draw the line. After all, he let Adam name the animals remember? All species share some genetic code. In a way, we're all really just variations of the same genetic material, RNA and DNA.

But there's no real scientific definition for what the Bible refers to as a kind. There's no exact definition to pin down something so subjective. So why does science try prove it wrong? Well ask yourself that? Why try to prove something wrong if you're not even sure what it says? We can't be absolutely sure what the Bible meant by the word kind. So, you certainty can't disagree with what it says. You can't agree with it either, but they must have some reason to go picking at the Bible other than, they disagree with it. We don't even know what it said!

In the end though we must be careful when mixing words with today's definitions with what the Bible says. The meaning of words is ever changing and language evolves. We must always be careful when comparing our words with the Bible. Even though the Bible may use the same words, back when it was written those words may of had very different meaning, and it's not always clear what that meaning was.
edit on 21-1-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


What I am asking about is the fact that Creationists refer to the term "kind" repeatedly, yet give us no definition of what a kind is, or how they are separated.

The problem with the species definition is that we keep finding exclusions to our definitions, so we've had trouble defining a universal label. Hybrids between distinct species happen a lot, and doesn't discredit the species concept. Species are defined scientifically, and are not fashioned to discredit the bible. That's a blatantly ignorant argument.
edit on 21-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


What I am asking about is the fact that Creationists refer to the term "kind" repeatedly, yet give us no definition of what a kind is, or how they are separated.

The problem with the species definition is that we keep finding exclusions to our definitions, so we've had trouble defining a universal label. Hybrids between distinct species happen a lot, and doesn't discredit the species concept. Species are defined scientifically, and are not fashioned to discredit the bible. That's a blatantly ignorant argument.
edit on 21-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)


That's because there is no concrete definition for the word kind just like there isn't really one for the word species. Kind is just a general guide. It doesn't attempt to pin it down as accurately as scientists do either. It's a more general guideline that doesn't go that far.

It's not something specifically you can pin down and say this is a kind or that is a kind either. And the reason is because it depends on who you're talking to. The Bible just gives a general guide. It's doesn't attempt to scientifically classify anything. It's not making a scientific claim. Sometimes it organized the animals by what kind of feet they had! It's a very general guide.

Species is kinda the same for now, just more specific. Species aren't actually defined scientifically. That's the myth. What a species is and isn't a species can depend on which biologist you're talking to. Why? It's because of all these exclusions to the definitions that your talking about. They're getting closer to a true scientific definition for what a species is, but as of now because of these "exclusions" they're still arguing about it. It's the nature of science. As new information comes in their theory gets refined and so do their classification systems, but they haven't reached a consensus yet. I suspect they will eventually. Probably something based on the animals genetic code once we understand more about it.

Until they do, there's no real hard objective definition for what a species is and what it isn't. That makes it impossible to define a species scientifically. One scientist will agree with you and another will disagree with you based on this thing and that thing and that other thing. And both will be right! Because we're not finished defining what a species is yet and sometimes they move the definition around a bit to fit their needs.

But there's nothing in the Bible that even tries to disprove or discredit the species theory right or wrong. The Bible doesn't care about species. The Bible doesn't even try to classify animals at that level. It's an idea made up by scientists and the Bible doesn't care if they're right or wrong because even if it's right, it doesn't mean the Bible was wrong.

The Bible never addressed that issue. Even if you could truly classify every animal objectively into another species, it doesn't matter to the Bible. Because no where in the Bible does it say new species can't be born. That's the myth. New species are perfectly fine for the Bible. The concept of a species was thought up later by people as a more specific grouping of the different kinds of animals. The Bible never went that far. Maybe they're right, or maybe they're wrong, but the Bible doesn't care.

However, I have seen the opposite. Do you know how many forum threads I've seen across the internet every time the scientists publish a report on a new species and they all say BIBLE WRONG! BIBLE WRONG! So maybe it is a blatantly ignorant argument, but that's okay. In the end it doesn't matter because the Bible doesn't need to discredit the species argument.

But if it's a blatantly ignorant argument then how come the Bible seems to come up every time someone mentions a new species? They have nothing to do with each other. In this thread about the Bible, why does the topic of evolution to come up? Why are you asking what a kind is? It's because you want to shove the concept of a "different species" so you can say BIBLE WRONG! You say it's a blatantly ignorant argument, but then turn right around and do exactly what I'm talking about.

But it doesn't matter. The two are unrelated. So the scientists can sit in their little rooms and classify the animals however they want. It's their system that they made up. So it works however they want it to work. There is no way to prove that wrong. But the Bible uses a different system. Even if the scientists are right it doesn't mean the classifications used in the Bible are wrong. They're two totally different classifications and both can be right.

It's not really any different than how I organize my bookshelf. Why does this book go over here? Cause that's where I feel like putting it today! Maybe I'm doing alphabetical order, or I'm doing chronological! Maybe I made up an entirely new system! You don't know! I'm not telling you what my system is! That's what scientists are doing with species right now. They won't tell us exactly how their system works and it's because they don't know! They're still working on it.

But to say the Bible is wrong is no different than if I said, I feel like putting this book over there! The Bible is wrong! It said I should put the book over there! But if you read the Bible you see it didn't say anything about how I should classify my books, and even if it did, how would organizing my books in the "wrong" order on purpose prove the Bible was wrong?

If I invent the classification system for my books, of course I'll always be right. I just put them on the shelf however I want and then say, well that's my system! To come in say that's wrong would be stupid. It's my system. I get to organize them however I want. So of course the scientists are right. It's their system. They've organized the books how they think is best.

They've made up a system based on species and then organized their collection accordingly, but it has no bearing on the Bible. The Bible used a different more general system and to prove it wrong, well you can't. Just like the Bible can't discredit my book shelf. It's my system so the rules are what I say they are until I'm done inventing the new system I plan on using to organize my books.

In the end it's completely subjective. You can say animals are defined scientifically, but they're really not. All it is, is that after you've organized enough books, rules start to appear out of the madness, and so some books have to be put in certain places to keep the system internally consistent with itself. But in the end it's still just a system we made up. If we wanted to we could make up an entirely different one tomorrow and start using that instead. It still wouldn't prove the Bible wrong. The Bible doesn't care how you organize your books.

EDIT: Sorry, Windows update, reboot crap. Anyway.
For example, the scientists could change their mind tomorrow and instead of organizing animals by species, they could start organizing them by color instead. The brown ones over here, the red ones over here, the blue ones over there. And they'd be right. Certainty you can't argue that a blue bird isn't blue! It's their system, they'll always be right.

But what happens when a black animal gives birth to a white animal? It would be foolish to say, SEE THE BIBLE IS WRONG! It said only animals of its kind! A black animal can't give birth to a white animal! But that would be foolish. The Bible used a different system and color isn't what it meant by kind. It never said an animal can't give birth to another animal with a different color. That's a completely different way to classify animals and the Bible doesn't care about that way. Just like it doesn't care about species either.

So even if species are right, it doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. They're two different ideas.
edit on 21-1-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dccruibay
1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?


Simple. He didn't create the universe 6000 years ago. The dates are arbitrary dates placed on the age of the texts written, NOT on the actual dates that these things came to pass.



2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?


Humans were created to adapt. To answer your question, let me ask you one. What will beating these diseases enable us to defeat or resist later on? Couldn't they be being used as a means to strengthen us in preparation for some as yet unforseen obstacle?



3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?


Who says that it's "without a doubt"? Our Sun could go Nova and kill everything here and burn this little rock to a crisp, or it could simply whimper out and go cold, forcing this little pebble we're currently on to freeze as hard as Pluto is now. We really know next to nothing about the universe, as we've barely stepped out into it. It's like we're poking a dead animal from a distance with a stick, unsure if it's really dead or not. I think the question is flawed.



4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?


Such as? And be specific...



5. Why do you call anything unexplainable in the bible evil?


I don't. Just because I'm a Creationist doesn't mean that I disregard the Biblical accounts. Personally, I believe that Creationism and Science mesh perfectly. It's just that we have yet to get the order right because we're afraid of what that may imply about our OWN history.



6. Why do you wrack your brains searching for reasons that blatant scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?


There are many reasons for this. Primarily, and this is my opinion only, the reason most do this is to try and somehow prove their religion right, in the absence of faith. Creationism requires faith, which is something that most have very little of. Everyone says they do, but when it comes down to it, most don't. Simple fact.

Secondly, people, like myself, like to see these things proven as it illustrates the authoritative nature of one of the oldest books on the planet.



7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?


That's an unfair question. What other texts have I read? How was I raised? Simply not having heard of religion isn't enough information for me to give a qualitative answer to that question. Perhaps you could clarify it a bit?



8. Do you really, truthfully believe in all of your answers to the previous 7 questions?


Do you really think I would have spent all this time answering these if I didn't?


TheBorg

ETA: I think I should point out that God created ALL things, diseases included. To say that He didn't do so is to take Him out of control of His Creation, which is something that I cannot buy.
edit on 21-1-2011 by TheBorg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dccruibay
 



1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?

He didn't create the universe six thousand years ago.


2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?

He didn't. They are affects of the Fall.


3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?

It would seem, from the Christian perspective, that the Earth isn't going to meet a fiery demise.


4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?

I don't think that I've ever met a YEC (whom this thread is geared toward) disregard Bible stories as impossible. I can't think of any OEC that would think that either. Can you give an example of such a story?


5. Why do you call anything unexplainable in the bible evil?

I don't.


6. Why do you wrack your brains searching for reasons that blatant scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?

I don't try to disprove scientific facts.


7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?

No, I wouldn't. Just like if I had never heard of biology I wouldn't necessarily believe everything written in a book called Biology if I had just picked it up and read it. In either case there would need to be research done.


8. Do you really, truthfully believe in all of your answers to the previous 7 questions?

Yes. Yes, I do.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 



Originally posted by DrMattMaddix

Originally posted by dccruibay
1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?

Who told you that Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? LOL What a moron. You are finding 'answers' in the wrong places.


Argument from ridicule, argument ad hominem, straw man argument. The claim is against creationists, not Christians. There are some Christians who are creationists, but there are plenty who are not.





2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?

God didn't create those. The human body is corruptible. The human body is tough, but, relatively speaking, very frail too.


What does HIV/AIDS have to do with the human body? It's a separate living organism. Why would an all loving deity allow for the most pernicious of microorganisms to exist? What about Ebola? Dysentery? All sorts of organisms which are entirely separate from the human body live only through injuring and killing other organisms.





3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?

Who said that the Earth would come to a fiery demise?


Anyone who understands stellar cycles. The Earth is going to burn eventually, whether through divine intervention or through naturalistic causes, it will burn.



There were pits outside cities where they burned their trash. What better analogy for hell? Ever had a burn?


I dunno, I liked Dante's take on the place.





4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?

There aren't any Biblical events that are impossible.


Noah's flood is impossible on myriad levels.



Perhaps beyond some peoples' understanding. But then God is beyond human comprehension. Very simply, if you understood all aspects of God then wouldn't you be on par with God? No need to ask questions.

Another example that might spark thoughts... Do you understand why women do the things they do? heh.
How can you expect in your tiny little mind to understand God at that point? Seriously.


Special pleading, argument from ridicule. Man, there's a competition for most logical fallacies per line going on lately, isn't there?





5. Why do you call anything unexplainable in the bible evil?

OMG. You've been talking to someone that thinks they have all the answers. They are a god unto themselves and they are spreading lies onto you. God determined what is evil and had it written down long ago.


Ok, what is evil according to your deity? Mass rape? Genocide? Human sacrifice? Punishing rape victims? Discriminating against women? Infant genital mutilation?

Those are all horrible things commanded by the deity of the Bible.





6. Why do you wrack your brains searching for reasons that blatant scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?

I don't wrack my brains trying to disprove scientific facts.


Then you're not a creationist. Creationists actively fight against established science.



Wisdom as defined long ago, is knowledge, however, it's knowledge of the human condition. Dealing with fellow humanity and relationships on every level.


Um...by long ago does that mean when you made this post? I've studied philosophy at University level for three years now and have not come across this definition.



Every language has other words that better describe other aspects of knowledge. Rocket Science!


And you're clearly not one who studies linguistics...or understands that 'rocket science' is actually a fairly simple science. It's the engineering that's really an issue with rocketry. What's more difficult would be something like theoretical astrophysics.



Doesn't mean you will ever get a girlfriend because other people and tests say that you're 'wise' or 'smart'.


Argument from ridicule, argument ad hominem. You're quite keen to spread quite a lot of ignorance.





7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?

Rhetorical question.


No, it's a quite honest question.



Countering... If you were suddenly told that Janet Napolitano was god because she has 'super powers' over an entire region on Earth would you believe them?


...idiocy. You just dodged a legitimate question. If you were born in Pakistan, would you be a Christian? If you were born in India, would you be a Christian? If you were born in China, would you be a Christian?
Probably not.





8. Do you really, truthfully believe in all of your answers to the previous 7 questions?


HAHA It's in the human condition to lie, mate. That's just part of what makes us human. It's your responsibility (and that of others) to use your gray matter to decide.


And it's seemingly in your condition to repeatedly use the argument from ridicule.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 



Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by dccruibay
 



1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?

He didn't create the universe six thousand years ago.


So you're an old Earth creationist? What is your reasoning behind the Earth being more than 6000 years old?




2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?

He didn't. They are affects of the Fall.


So...an entirely new organism (HIV) came about due to 'the fall'? What about Ebola? Was that a new organism that came about due to 'the fall'? What about influenza? Also an entirely new organism that was caused by 'the fall'?




3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?

It would seem, from the Christian perspective, that the Earth isn't going to meet a fiery demise.


Have you not read Revelations?




4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?

I don't think that I've ever met a YEC (whom this thread is geared toward) disregard Bible stories as impossible. I can't think of any OEC that would think that either. Can you give an example of such a story?


Noah fitting 10 million living things in a boat. Actually, 10 million is a conservative estimate, especially since most YEC individuals consider that every animal in the fossil record was alive at that time.

Now, I'm not saying that creationists would consider this impossible, it's something that's impossible for anyone who understands science and reason.





6. Why do you wrack your brains searching for reasons that blatant scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?

I don't try to disprove scientific facts.


Good for you.




7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?

No, I wouldn't. Just like if I had never heard of biology I wouldn't necessarily believe everything written in a book called Biology if I had just picked it up and read it. In either case there would need to be research done.


Except that there's research that supports biology, yet none that supports the Bible.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Lions and tigers mating produce infertile offspring, that is because successful reproduction can tend to occur within a genus, but the offspring will not be fertile. It's like a mule. Mules are never fertile, but they exist.

As for your distinction on individuals with chromosomal disorders...that's not a form of speciation. The rest of your lengthy post has absolutely nothing to do with speciation as it's primarily founded in not understanding much of biology. The issue isn't defining what a species is, it's sorting out the outdated classification system as we get more genetic information.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


Good lord don't be so harsh on the kid. I think he/she is just about discovering that the world is bigger than depicted by organized religions.

We're supposed to help him/her sort out the sense and the nonsense. Most of us were probably brought up by strict organized religion and getting out of it wasn't easy for all. (i can get imprisoned for my beliefs, where i'm from)

Anyways, the question of HIV, AIDS, Cancer- why god made it?
Cause we were made to learn and develop. If god made out lives perfect and peachy, we wouldn't be learning # would we?

It's like parents doing everything for their children and get surprised to learn they can't do anything for themselves.

We are here to develop in our own individual ways. Doesn't matter where you start, what matters is how far you develop- that's how you get people born in starvation and people born to wealthy families be seen as equal.

Kampai!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dccruibay
1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?
2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?
3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?
4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?
5. Why do you call anything unexplainable in the bible evil?
6. Why do you wrack your brains searching for reasons that blatant scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?
7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?
8. Do you really, truthfully believe in all of your answers to the previous 7 questions?


I think I qualify. As a man who truly believes there has to be someone more than just you scientific academics. to trust in. Surely there is someone who knows all that you wish you knew. All you strive to know must already be known.

1. Because the speed of light increases exponentially when induced by the speed of sight.
2. He didn't. They are results not creations.
3.That hasn't happened yet.
4.I don't disregaurd any Bible stories as impossible. Hasn't anyone told you nothing is impossible.
5.I don't. I don't know of anyone who does.
6.I don't rack my brains over anything.
7. Yes. It dosn't matter what I hear about religion. What matters is what I hear about God.
8.Beyond any doubt.

Bei:
edit on 23-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Damn that wasn't even fun.
edit on 23-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Definetely like The Borgs answers.
edit on 23-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dccruibay
1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?
2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?
3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?
4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?
5. Why do you call anything unexplainable in the bible evil?
6. Why do you wrack your brains searching for reasons that blatant scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?
7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?
8. Do you really, truthfully believe in all of your answers to the previous 7 questions?


Okay i should make an attempt at this.

1. It's okay to disbelieve that the world was made 6000 years ago. Some people believe it is, it's okay, let them be.

2. I answered this about 2-3 posts up.

3. Doesn't matter how the world ends, (fiery or not). But every project has an end. From your christian background, don't you believe in life after death? We know that everyone will die. Everything that dies moves on to the next phase. We can only guess what that would be.

4. I don't think i can answer this one. Sounds very rhetoric.

5. Can't answer this either. Sounds very personal.

6. Because some people NEED religion. They NEED it to be true because it explains a lot of the unexplainable. If their religion is false, they would feel the fear of the unknown. Everyone wants to be right, and feel special. Insecurities and religion have quite a relationship together.

7. Nah, I would've preferred the sacred texts of Middle-Earth. Anytime. I mean, you can't COMPARE the two. If the Bible was such a good book, they would've made videogames and trilogies out of it.

8. Yea. Belief is overrated. I observe, analyze, believe. If i messed up on any of those steps, no biggie. Just fix it. It won't shatter my world.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dccruibay
 


1. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away?

All stars are at the same distance from Earth, because they are all fixed to the firmament.


2. Why did god create HIV, AIDS, and Cancer?

To keep the queers, junkies, liberals, and other vermin down. Obviously.


3. Why would he create the Earth knowing that, without a doubt, it would come to a fiery demise?

Why the heck not? He's God, He can always create a new one.


4. Why do you disregard some bible stories as impossible, but model you're view of life off of others?

No Bible story is impossible. What part of 'omnipotent' don't you understand?


5. Why do you call anything unexplainable in the bible evil?

Nothing is in the Bible is inexplicable. What part of 'omniscient' don't you understand?


6. Why do you rack your brains searching for reasons that scientific facts are false, just to prove that your 2000 year old book written by an anonymous author is correct?

Because if it isn't correct, I'm a sucker. And I ain't no sucker.


7. If you were born without ever hearing of religion, then picked up and read a book called the bible, would you take the stories as truth?

Creationists don't read the Bible. They read web sites.


8. Do you really, truthfully believe in all of your answers to the previous 7 questions?

Honest injam.


edit on 24/1/11 by Astyanax because: I spelled 'injam' wrong the first time.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




So you're an old Earth creationist? What is your reasoning behind the Earth being more than 6000 years old?

I'm assuming that you mean biblically speaking here. In a nutshell, Genesis 1:1, in my opinion, isn't a part of the creation week. It takes place sometime before the six days of creation. "Heavens and Earth" is a Hebrew merism for everything; since they didn't have a work for universe. So before the first day of creation, God set everything into motion. Afterward, when God would do his creative work, he "fashioned" things; not make them in the creative sense, like the English implies. The word for day in Hebrew has four literal meanings, one of which is a long but finite period of time. Judging by the data from the "book of Nature", as the Reformers would call it, the universe is really, really old. The Earth is too. So long periods of time seems to be the best definition to the Hebrew word for day in this case.


So...an entirely new organism (HIV) came about due to 'the fall'? What about Ebola? Was that a new organism that came about due to 'the fall'? What about influenza? Also an entirely new organism that was caused by 'the fall'?

I didn't mean so much that new things were created after the fall. I meant more that the way that they affect the human body, and other life on the planet, in the present is an affect of the fall. In other words, these things would have operated differently and served a different purpose before the fall, but man's sin messed things up.


Have you not read Revelations?

I have. I assumed though that the OP wasn't referring to God's re-creation, but the idea of the sun becoming a red giant and engulfing the inner planets.


Now, I'm not saying that creationists would consider this impossible, it's something that's impossible for anyone who understands science and reason.

You would have to think though that the YEC would say that there weren't as many species of animals back during the flood period. There were fewer animals that had more chance for genetic variation.


Good for you.




Except that there's research that supports biology, yet none that supports the Bible.

I beg to differ. For example, for millennia the Bible has claimed that the universe had a beginning. Science has only recently acknowledged this.
edit on 1/24/2011 by octotom because: Fixing BBcode



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


i love that you raised some ideas that i have never ever thought of before:




Maybe this wasn't his first Earth and he hoped for a different outcome. Maybe he just likes creating. Who knows?


to me these are some fantastic thoughts that really got me thinking.... im still an atheist though



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
to me these arguments always come back to this, the Omnipotence paradox:

Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with

i have not yet had anyone be able to give me an answer that satisfies the argument

ref: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 



Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




So you're an old Earth creationist? What is your reasoning behind the Earth being more than 6000 years old?

I'm assuming that you mean biblically speaking here.


Eh, didn't want to exclude any possibility so I didn't point to the Bible specifically. You could have simply said "The Bible was written by people who didn't understand cosmology, so it's wrong" and I would have taken that.



In a nutshell, Genesis 1:1, in my opinion, isn't a part of the creation week. It takes place sometime before the six days of creation. "Heavens and Earth" is a Hebrew merism for everything; since they didn't have a work for universe.


Ok...then why does it fit into the creation week specifically? I mean, it does say that the



So before the first day of creation, God set everything into motion. Afterward, when God would do his creative work, he "fashioned" things; not make them in the creative sense, like the English implies.


Alright...so I'm guessing you're implying that Genesis 1:5 is where the measure of a week begins. Am I right?



The word for day in Hebrew has four literal meanings, one of which is a long but finite period of time.


Yes, but you derive these meanings from context:


And the evening and the morning were the _____ day.


Is the form in which days are used (except when God separates "Day" from "Night" in Genesis 1:5). Now, I can see how you could interpret the chapters prior to Genesis 1:5 as referring to an indefinite period of time, but I don't see how, within context, you can think that the 'day' is anything other than a 24 hour period. It's even phrased in the ways Hebrews considered a day to pass, from sunset to sunset.



Judging by the data from the "book of Nature", as the Reformers would call it, the universe is really, really old. The Earth is too. So long periods of time seems to be the best definition to the Hebrew word for day in this case.


So you're taking external data and using it to interpret something whose context is quite clear as referring to a 24 hour period of time?




So...an entirely new organism (HIV) came about due to 'the fall'? What about Ebola? Was that a new organism that came about due to 'the fall'? What about influenza? Also an entirely new organism that was caused by 'the fall'?

I didn't mean so much that new things were created after the fall. I meant more that the way that they affect the human body, and other life on the planet, in the present is an affect of the fall. In other words, these things would have operated differently and served a different purpose before the fall, but man's sin messed things up.


But HIV, Ebola, Influenza...how else would they have operated? How would viruses serve any other purpose?

Also, what about carnivores?




Have you not read Revelations?

I have. I assumed though that the OP wasn't referring to God's re-creation, but the idea of the sun becoming a red giant and engulfing the inner planets.


Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up.




Now, I'm not saying that creationists would consider this impossible, it's something that's impossible for anyone who understands science and reason.

You would have to think though that the YEC would say that there weren't as many species of animals back during the flood period. There were fewer animals that had more chance for genetic variation.


Except that would mean a YEC would have to accept superfast evolution...




Except that there's research that supports biology, yet none that supports the Bible.

I beg to differ. For example, for millennia the Bible has claimed that the universe had a beginning. Science has only recently acknowledged this.


It was a 50/50 shot. Science took the concept of a universe without a beginning because there was no evidence to show that it had a beginning...but then there was evidence that the universe had a beginning, so they decided "Hey, we were wrong about this" (much to Einstein's dismay). Not only that, but other ancient cultures considered that the universe had a beginning...so it's not like the Hebrew scriptures had a leg up on everyone.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Ok...then why does it fit into the creation week specifically?

I'm not catching exactly what you mean I think. But, I don't think that Genesis 1:1–2 fits into the creation week at all; or at the very least, Genesis 1:2 is the very start of the creation week because that is when God starts making the earth habitable.


[Alright...so I'm guessing you're implying that Genesis 1:5 is where the measure of a week begins. Am I right?

No. I am of the opinion that the Creation week starts at verse three.


I don't see how, within context, you can think that the 'day' is anything other than a 24 hour period. It's even phrased in the ways Hebrews considered a day to pass, from sunset to sunset.

The days going from sunset to sunset could just be a way to set off the specific eras. Fact of the matter is that "yom" can mean a long but finite period of time. So, as I would see it, on day five for example, God starts to create all the birds and sea creatures. At some point, he stops this creative "era".


So you're taking external data and using it to interpret something whose context is quite clear as referring to a 24 hour period of time?

I wouldn't be so quick as to say that the context makes it quite clear. After all, if it were, I don't think Christians would have been having this debate since the early days.


But no, the external data is used in order to show that the literal, plain reading of the text can't be correct. (Unless I want to just get rid of science.)


But HIV, Ebola, Influenza...how else would they have operated? How would viruses serve any other purpose?

That's a good question. And there are some things that we just won't know until we're on the other side of eternity.


Also, what about carnivores?

What about them?


Except that would mean a YEC would have to accept superfast evolution...

Nah. It's just variation within kind. A brown horse and a black horse isn't an example of evolution.


so it's not like the Hebrew scriptures had a leg up on everyone.

That wasn't my point. It was just an example of how research has backed up the claims of the Hebrew Scriptures.


By the way, I'd like to thank you for having a civilized discussion! Too often in my experience, things like this have grown into nonsense by this point!



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Ok...then why does it fit into the creation week specifically?

I'm not catching exactly what you mean I think. But, I don't think that Genesis 1:1–2 fits into the creation week at all; or at the very least, Genesis 1:2 is the very start of the creation week because that is when God starts making the earth habitable.


My mistake. I figured out what you were saying and didn't fully delete part of my post. I get what you meant.




[Alright...so I'm guessing you're implying that Genesis 1:5 is where the measure of a week begins. Am I right?

No. I am of the opinion that the Creation week starts at verse three.


Why at verse 3?




I don't see how, within context, you can think that the 'day' is anything other than a 24 hour period. It's even phrased in the ways Hebrews considered a day to pass, from sunset to sunset.

The days going from sunset to sunset could just be a way to set off the specific eras.


Except...there's never a reference to that in Hebrew. Sure, the word is used sometimes to mean 'long period of time', but never with the context of a sunset to sunset period.



Fact of the matter is that "yom" can mean a long but finite period of time.


But there's no context to say that it's supposed to be a long period of time.



So, as I would see it, on day five for example, God starts to create all the birds and sea creatures. At some point, he stops this creative "era".


Furthermore, this doesn't make sense. Even if we accept the premise that these are long periods of time...why do birds precede land animals? Why do plants precede the sun and the moon? The general ordering of events in Genesis is bizarre to say the least.




So you're taking external data and using it to interpret something whose context is quite clear as referring to a 24 hour period of time?

I wouldn't be so quick as to say that the context makes it quite clear.


And the evening and the morning...how much more clear can it be? It refers to the passage of the day. It doesn't say something vague like the [yom] ended.



After all, if it were, I don't think Christians would have been having this debate since the early days.



I've yet to see evidence of early Christians debating how long the period of creation in Genesis was in the "early days"...hell, I've not even see evidence that Aquinas was pondering how long the creation period was, and that was centuries later.



But no, the external data is used in order to show that the literal, plain reading of the text can't be correct. (Unless I want to just get rid of science.)


Well, the general, nonspecific reading can't be correct either. Unless you're just going to say it's a pure myth that has purely symbolic meaning.




But HIV, Ebola, Influenza...how else would they have operated? How would viruses serve any other purpose?

That's a good question. And there are some things that we just won't know until we're on the other side of eternity.


So you propose an idea without evidence...ok, I'll just dismiss it with no evidence. You can't just explain away viruses as being organisms that couldn't have survived any other way by simply saying that we won't know until we're dead.




Also, what about carnivores?

What about them?


How did (non-talking) snakes live prior to 'the fall'? How did sharks live prior to 'the fall'? What did all of the carnivores eat prior to 'the fall'? They wouldn't have been able to survive on a herbivorous diet, simply because they lacked the capacity to properly digest it.

...also, why doesn't Genesis consider plants as living things?




Except that would mean a YEC would have to accept superfast evolution...

Nah. It's just variation within kind. A brown horse and a black horse isn't an example of evolution.


It's a change in allele frequency over time, it's evolution.

And I've still never seen a definition of 'kind'. It's a silly term used by people who had a complete ignorance of biology...which is now adopted by people whose understanding of biology seems to be rooted in the bronze age.

I've heard examples like "A horse turning into a horse is still a horse" and "A dog turning into a dog is still a dog" and "A fly turning into a fly is still a fly" etc...but they all seem to be steeped in an ignorance of taxonomy.





so it's not like the Hebrew scriptures had a leg up on everyone.

That wasn't my point. It was just an example of how research has backed up the claims of the Hebrew Scriptures.



Again, it hasn't. It was a coin flip chance. You can't say something with a 50/50 chance can back up anyone's predictive ability. The Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament are consistently not backed by science.

Geocentric cosmology, a flat Earth, plants preceding the Sun and Moon in existence, the classification of bats as birds, birds coming about prior to land animals, a global flood which left no geological evidence, the mustard family containing a tree (hint, there are no trees in the mustard family), the mustard family containing the smallest seeds (hint, they don't), etc.

I can write quite a list of things where the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament aren't backed by science.



By the way, I'd like to thank you for having a civilized discussion! Too often in my experience, things like this have grown into nonsense by this point!


Thank you as well and you're welcome.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


With all due respect (not just words, I mean it), but science and religion can't find common ground because, science is about laying everything out in the open for all to see.

Please try to stay with me here, this is very important... ( I don't mean that disrespectfully, I mean it in the sense that most non-believers ignore these things)

Religion is a PERSONAL experience.

God and the afterlife can be proved, but not the same way gravity can be proved. It is done through months-years of prayer and meditation (it took me nearly three years to accept something so heavy. I was an atheist (occasionally new age satanist) myself. From age 11 - 30, I had to be one of the most close-minded people to the existence of a creator.

Prayer and Meditation changed that. It would be next to impossible for me to prove it works for you without saying, 'try it yourself'.

I say that to some people, and they are usually quick to say something like, 'I meditated everyday for 2 months and I didn't feel any different'. They never felt any different, because they quit, and probably even knew from the beginning they would not stick with it.

Science can't prove God, because it is not in our best interests. As I said earlier in this thread, faith is what matters when it comes to God and the afterlife. Not proof. Undeniable proof that God exists would end faith. faith is what helps us to evolve. You can't possibly deny that faith, in ourselves especially, is what makes the impossible possible. Faith is what built the world. Scientists have faith in their master theories. Atheists have faith that a cruel and wrathful God does not exist. An atheist will say they do not believe in God, but the idea of a wrathful god is what brought them to that idea. And more specifically, a lot of atheists I've known, seem to have rebeled against the concept, because of the people who preach it.

These simpletons that "witness" Hell to the reluctant listeners are the only people in the world that need worry of God's judgement. THEY ARE NOT TRUE CHRISTIANS (or whatever other religion they use out of context to inspire fear and turmoil).

I believe it is the self-righteous Hell-God cults (like fundaMENTAL "christians") that help to increase the populations of atheists and agnostics.

You made statements in your previous posts about what "christians" have stated as "fact" throughout history. Earth being flat, ect... Those were ignorant people, not (by any means) spokesmen for The Tetragrammaton.

These people were not and will never be christians. These so-called "servants of God" are more the enemy of God than any satanic church or atheist. Point being, the quiet and observant individual is the one who finds God in meditation or the bible, not the blind obtuse collective.

Also, it doesn't matter what or whom you believe God to be. It does not even matter that you believe in God. What mattered to Jesus more than anything, is that all love and forgive each other.

The faith in the basic goodness of man is the most important thing in any religion or belief. God cares little in wether or not we believe in him, but that we believe in ourselves.

Like I also said earlier....faith sustains the soul after death.

Fires of Hell = Anger from your life that was never resolved and has leaked over into your afterlife.

I'm still new to my faith, so I haven't figured out exactly how to say all these things the way I want, but I really do hope you understand what I'm trying to say about faith.

And I do not consider myself any better than an atheist, agnostic, or even satanist. My religion is helping to save my life...

How can anything be wrong with that?

(Once again, all due respect to you. I hope I didn't come off as sanctimonius to you)


edit on 24-1-2011 by applesthateatpeople because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join