Creationism takes less faith

reply to post by Krazysh0t


So you're suggesting that God created the universe in such a way that it wouldn't need him. What's the point of defending his theoretical existence then?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I would like to point out that I never said I disagree with the Big Bang theory? I said that it is more logical to assume an intelligent being guided the process, rather than assume everything happened by random chance.

That's assuming you possess all of the information necessary to make an informed assumption. Personally, I would rather stay away from assumptions period. Stick to informed hypothesis.

edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

1104light

ServantOfTheLamb


God is eternal. Outside of the third and fourth dimensions. So the laws of physics and time have no effect on him? You don't believe the universe had a first cause. If you don't believe in God you believe matter is eternal, and that definitely doesn't work when the laws of physics are applied now does it.

God is eternal?
Says who?

Says the Bible, which is the only God that I believe exist.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Nothing is eternal. Nothing. Everything changes. No exceptions.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

Because even if it is a bullcrap story, it's still more convincing and scientifically compatible than the Bible. In other words, it's higher quality bullcrap than God theory.

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I would like to point out that I never said I disagree with the Big Bang theory? I said that it is more logical to assume an intelligent being guided the process, rather than assume everything happened by random chance.

That's assuming you possess all of the information necessary to make an informed assumption. Personally, I would rather stay away from assumptions period. Stick to informed hypothesis.

edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

I'm fascinated by the cognitive dissonance you display. When on earth are you going to apply the same standard of evidence to your bible that you apply to evolutionary theory? Refusal to acknowledge evidence doesn't mean it goes away like magic. You can't cover your eyes and plug your ears to drown out the world.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

And what does that response have to do with me pointing out that you used a logical fallacy to try to disprove evolution?

Maybe you are referring to the link I posted, the one I posted to preempt your inevitable claim that we don't have missing links or whatever. I posted that link to show you that we have MANY MANY MANY transitional fossils, so lines are so complete you can literally follow it from one species to the next. So no you are very NOT aware of the fossil record. I believe your words were "try again." Please do so.

You are leaving out the fact the vast majority of taxonomic orders and families are found today as fossils, but have no transitional forms.

The similarities between distinct types is not a sure footing on which to base an ancestral relationship, as proved by the many mutually exclusive cladograms advanced by evolutionists.

www.icr.org...

For example, you say monkeys and humans have a common ancestor because we have 98% of the same DNA. 2% of our DNA is a ridiculous amount of information. Don't believe me.

A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.

Source

700 terabytes worth of information in just one gram. You are talking about 2% of our entire DNA. That is a huge amount of information that differentiates us and monkeys. The same logic applies to the fossil record. Just because they look similar or have common DNA doesn't mean there isn't a huge amount of information that is different between the forms.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Nothing is eternal. Nothing. Everything changes. No exceptions.

Please, prove this statement using logic and science.

peter vlar

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I would like to point out that I never said I disagree with the Big Bang theory? I said that it is more logical to assume an intelligent being guided the process, rather than assume everything happened by random chance.

That's assuming you possess all of the information necessary to make an informed assumption. Personally, I would rather stay away from assumptions period. Stick to informed hypothesis.

edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

I'm fascinated by the cognitive dissonance you display. When on earth are you going to apply the same standard of evidence to your bible that you apply to evolutionary theory? Refusal to acknowledge evidence doesn't mean it goes away like magic. You can't cover your eyes and plug your ears to drown out the world.

Um, I haven't refused any evidence. There is no evidence for me to refute....

A case can be made by fossil "splitters" that new species can be found as one ascends the strata. However, speciation within basic kinds is different from the introduction of new kinds, and evolution requires a dizzying array of basic new kinds. The origination of a new form has never been documented in the modern world of scientific observation, while perhaps several species every day go extinct. The opposite of evolution occurs today, and fossils show that the opposite of evolution also occurred in the past.

Source

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

Because even if it is a bullcrap story, it's still more convincing and scientifically compatible than the Bible. In other words, it's higher quality bullcrap than God theory.

edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Lol show me one point were Science and the Bible are incompatible.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Seems like a pretty nice creation if you ask me. Create a self-sustaining and developing universe that is completely hands off. If a computer engineer were to create a computer that did that, (s)he'd be awarded the Nobel Prize.

In any case all I'm saying is that Evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive. One being true doesn't automatically disprove the other, they both can be true. This is why I'm an agnostic, I believe Evolution is true, but also maintain that God could also be there. In all likelyhood He is nothing like the Christian God describes, but you never know. Atheists are just as wrong as Christians by maintaining absolutes in that there definitely isn't a God.

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

And what does that response have to do with me pointing out that you used a logical fallacy to try to disprove evolution?

Maybe you are referring to the link I posted, the one I posted to preempt your inevitable claim that we don't have missing links or whatever. I posted that link to show you that we have MANY MANY MANY transitional fossils, so lines are so complete you can literally follow it from one species to the next. So no you are very NOT aware of the fossil record. I believe your words were "try again." Please do so.

You are leaving out the fact the vast majority of taxonomic orders and families are found today as fossils, but have no transitional forms.

The similarities between distinct types is not a sure footing on which to base an ancestral relationship, as proved by the many mutually exclusive cladograms advanced by evolutionists.

www.icr.org...

For example, you say monkeys and humans have a common ancestor because we have 98% of the same DNA. 2% of our DNA is a ridiculous amount of information. Don't believe me.

A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.

Source

700 terabytes worth of information in just one gram. You are talking about 2% of our entire DNA. That is a huge amount of information that differentiates us and monkeys. The same logic applies to the fossil record. Just because they look similar or have common DNA doesn't mean there isn't a huge amount of information that is different between the forms.

Because someone was able to insert that much data into DNA doesn't mean that that's how much info is normally stored there. It's what someone was able to cram into it. It's an experiment that shows the potential that DNA holds.
Regarding the DNA percentage we share with other primates, the figure of 2% you quote is common ancestry with other apes, primarily chimps and bonobos. Not monkeys. Monkeys have tails, apes do not. Humans are apes. You can trace the alleles and MtDNA backwards to find the source of common ancestry 7-10 million years ago by accounting for rates of change. I know, I know... It's not in genesis so I'm talking out my butt

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

Because even if it is a bullcrap story, it's still more convincing and scientifically compatible than the Bible. In other words, it's higher quality bullcrap than God theory.

edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Lol show me one point were Science and the Bible are incompatible.

How about you show one depiction of a supernatural event that took place in the bible that has been independently reproduced and verified? Because in science that's how it works. It's not based on blind faith, Bronze Age oral traditions or any other such tomfoolery. Science is constantly updating itself as we learn more about the world and our past. Religion doesn't do that ever which is why so many Muslim countries are living socially much as we did in Western Europe during the Middle Ages where fear and superstition ruled the day.

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

Because even if it is a bullcrap story, it's still more convincing and scientifically compatible than the Bible. In other words, it's higher quality bullcrap than God theory.

edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Lol show me one point were Science and the Bible are incompatible.

Genesis. Start there. does the sun revolve around the earth? What came first plants or animals?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Actually yes it does mean that they are from the same ancestor. You mention that the 2% of DNA that is different from us an monkeys contains 700 tB of information. Well what about the 98% of DNA that is the same? You know the amount that contains 34.3 petabytes of information. Does that not count or something? Anyways the 2% difference makes sense anyways, humans aren't covered in hair, pint size, have tails, and other things. However they do share MANY similarities with monkeys.

Here is a new link for you to look at:
rationalwiki.org...

According to creationists, each and every one of the following fossils is either misinterpreted by scientists, a fraud manufactured by scientists, or do not exist at all. They are utterly wrong in this claim - so they keep claiming it anyway.

Creationists also define transitional forms in inherently absurd or vague ways that cannot be met by the evidence. For example, they may insist that each of a proposed transitional organism's parts (its legs, eyes, wings) should be "partially formed" instead of "fully formed", even if those parts have nothing to do with the transition. What "partially formed" means is not always clear.

Even more nebulously, it is argued that a true transitional would be an "incomplete creature", a fantasy that creationists will contrast with the known fossil record of "fully formed" or "fully functional" creatures. A similar idea is that "real" transitionals would be Frankenstein's monsters, stitched-together assemblages of the parts of the two species. (It is akin to asserting that if teenagers were really between children and adults, they would have baby heads on adult bodies.) In short, if biologists believe the species's members were healthy enough to survive for more than a few days, then it can't be transitional, because it must have been "fully formed". The thinking here may be a product of biological essentialism — a thing is either A or B, and something "between" A and B is logically impossible or convoluted.

Some creationists propose that the common ancestor of two species would necessarily look like a blend of them, such as Kirk Cameron's infamous Crocoduck. This ignores that the evolutionary model involves traits arising without having to be present in the common ancestor. Otherwise, the world's earliest life forms would somehow look like combinations of every species alive today. Also, a given distant ancestor species with living progeny (for example, the reptilian ancestor of ducks and crocodiles) will also have many different-looking descendants, not just two. Evolutionary lines do not "run out" of divergences any more than the surname Smith would run out of acts of reproduction.

Another mistake/lie made by creationist is that a transitional fossil has to be the direct descendent of one species and the direct ancestor of another. What they do not understand is the true definition of a transitional form. A transitional form illustrates an evolutionary link, as it can have features of two species, but have no other species as descendants. For example, your mother would be a 'transitional form' between you and your grandmother, as she shares traits with both of you. However, if your mother had a sister, she would also be a "transitional form" between you and your grandmother, having traits from both of you.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


All the evidence in reality proves that this theory is likely to be the closest to the truth. I dont know why people still believe in the "biblical God" when there is no proof in nature or reality to support what the bible dictates.

1104light

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Then why do you assume that Macro-evolution occurs over a long period of time? There is no observable evidence that this is the case.

Because even if it is a bullcrap story, it's still more convincing and scientifically compatible than the Bible. In other words, it's higher quality bullcrap than God theory.

edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Lol show me one point were Science and the Bible are incompatible.

Genesis. Start there. does the sun revolve around the earth? What came first plants or animals?

Where in genesis does it say the sun revolves around the earth? I will say that a 6 day creation is very possible.

his was the dilemma which Dr. Russell Humphreys (physicist at Sandia National Laboratory) set out to solve as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the “Big Bang”. During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location. Rather than start with these arbitrary assumptions (a universe having no center and no edge), Dr. Humphreys decided to take the most apparent meaning of the Biblical text and see what model of the universe developed. He reasoned that if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a “man on the street”, a brilliant physicist, or a theologian. The Bible clearly indicates three things about God’s formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God’s attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God’s creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been “stretched out”. Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location. Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Albert Einstein rejected the idea that the Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, “Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the convictions that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true.” How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein’s work has shown to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys’ work, can be found in his book.

Source

And according to the genesis account vegetation came before animals.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


on the first day light and day and night were created, (though the sun and moon
were not created until the fourth day....this cannot be supported by science or common sense thus genesis is clearly based on a fable.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Please, prove this statement using logic and science.

Seeing as how you are evidently incapable of utilizing Google effectively, sure:

physics.bu.edu...

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of nature, having profound implications. In essence, it says this:

The second law - The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.

My belief is that the universe is in a constant state of degradation, but that the process of degradation is such that numerous opportunities are provided for the natural laws of the universe to assert themselves and continually establish as stable a condition as can be achieved given the immediate circumstances. Sometimes this works out the way a diamond is polished to pristine quality...sometimes, it all goes straight to hell and nature has to wait for a chance to start over again.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Lol show me one point were Science and the Bible are incompatible.

God wasn't created. He simply has always been and always will be. That is scientifically incompatible.