|
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
God's creation vs. Science
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 474249
9/22/2008 9:35 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Thirty spokes joined at one hub;
emptiness makes the cart useful.
Clay cast into a pot;
the emptiness inside makes it useful.
Doors and windows cut to make a room;
emptiness make the room useful.
Thus being is beneficial
but usefulness comes from the void.
Lao Tzu |
|
19.47
User ID: 6933
9/22/2008 9:36 AM | |
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508242
9/22/2008 9:41 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Yea ok, I guess all those new strains of bacteria and viruses are just magically appearing out of thin air? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 9:42 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I used to believe in evolution until i found out about archaeological COVER UPS!
Also I dont accept the biblical view on creation either
Man has been here for millions of years.
IF you want the truth find and read this book,or go to the website under the same title.
Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo
 You may not be a creationist, You are a Conspiracy Nut, I doubt you really understand and know anything about evolution other then what you have heard about from other creationist.
I am a conspiracy nut,how do you work that out.
What do you have to say on the subject? instead of being rude and ignorant why don't you engage with the debate?
You sound like you have all the ANSWERS so why don't you share them?
PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ASSHOLE |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508242
9/22/2008 9:46 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
But one is based on faith, the other is based on actual evidence. Take your pick!
WRONG!
Scientists have NO PROOF of evolution, only a THEROY.
Meaning, they have FAITH that they are correct.
So evolution is based on
.FAITH!!! Quoting: Oh, I see.
Evolution itself is a fact.
Human evolution is a theory, though a lot of evidence points in the direction of it probably being a fact. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 9:47 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Michael A. Cremo is an American Hindu creationist whose work argues that modern humans have lived on the earth for billions of years 
Funny isn't it when evo's say we have fossil evidence to prove evolution, they close there eyes when someone offers fossil evidence which does'nt fit there THEORY.
have you ever studied M.A.Cremos work? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508242
9/22/2008 10:00 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Michael A. Cremo is an American Hindu creationist whose work argues that modern humans have lived on the earth for billions of years
Funny isn't it when evo's say we have fossil evidence to prove evolution, they close there eyes when someone offers fossil evidence which does'nt fit there THEORY.
have you ever studied M.A.Cremos work?
Many of Cremo's claims have been debunked.
From wikipedia:
Forbidden Archeology has been criticised for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor) and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century).[8] Many of the specimens on which this evidence was based no longer exist.[1]
Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education criticized the work, noting that "specimens no longer exist" to back up Cremo's claims, and dubbed it pseudoscience.[9]
[link to en.wikipedia.org] |
|
DrPostman  
Forum Moderator
User ID: 51197
9/22/2008 10:44 AM
 | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Lol, that's funny, Postman, and I am waiting for that god particle. No, don't laugh. I do believe in evolution. I'm not one to believe something exists at the snap of God's finger or hands, but I believe the human soul will be discovered, if it already hasn't been.
I think children are wanting more than what they've been taught by church or school. Teachers are a little nervous concerning the subject of Science V Creationism. What do they say? Why can't they combine both? They don't know, because for the most part, people rarely have a spiritual experience. I don't see a difference between the two and know that science and spirituality will merge. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 479477
The problem is that currently there is a very strong desire
to teach only ONE creation myth, and that would be wrong.
I happen to believe that God used the process of evolution to
create our world.
BTW, your post reminded me of a quote from one of my favorite
movies:
"I tell you Sid, that one of these days we'll look in to our microscope and find ourselves staring right into God's eyes, and the first one who blinks is going to lose his testicles."
-- From the 1985 movie Creator
"Sooner or later all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to
live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into
a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve
for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
The foundation of such a method is love."
--Reverend Martin Luther King
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at
DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Want to know if a site is down, or if
the problem is at your end? Go to:
[link to downforeveryoneorjustme.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/22/2008 11:35 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Thank you for opening my eyes, that settles it 
I am a conspiracy nut,how do you work that out.
What do you have to say on the subject? instead of being rude and ignorant why don't you engage with the debate?
You sound like you have all the ANSWERS so why don't you share them?
PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ASSHOLE Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/22/2008 11:48 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
hilarious Thanks for the laugh
"This LIE was created by the devil to keep kids out of heaven" |
|
AC
User ID: 436951
9/22/2008 11:53 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
If Evolution was true, you wouldn't believe in it because you'd be evolved and too smart to fall for the steaming pile of horse shit it is.
But some of you do believe in Evolution, which proves that there is none.
:) |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/22/2008 12:07 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
If Evolution was true, you wouldn't believe in it because you'd be evolved and too smart to fall for the steaming pile of horse shit it is.
But some of you do believe in Evolution, which proves that there is none.
:) Quoting: AC 436951
We don't believe its true, we know its the best explanation that we currently have, you are one of those people who ask, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 206565
9/22/2008 1:08 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I personally don't find evolution a proven fact. Let me say first, i am not a christian biblebeliever.
I look upon the world with my own views and i do study subjects that are relevant to my interests.
The basis on which evolution is build upon is chance, or more precise randomness.
Only this fact alone makes it easy to debunk because chance is nonexistent. This may sound stupid, but hear me out. The observers role in quantum mechanics is a well known fact, and i dare say that all lifeforms have the ability to observe.
That said, i believe that trying to solve the evolution problem with bones alone is never going to work. They will never be able to find when coldblooded creatures became warmblooded or even how this was accomplished. Only speculation will find an answer to that, it can not be found in fossil records. Of course this is just one example of things that can only be speculated about and will never be discovered in bones.
The mechanisms that are to counter wrong dna duplications are evidence of cells itself fighting against evolution. It does not seem natural. It is not embraced by nature as a way to grow and become better, even though evolution theory says this is the way nature came to be.
I find the argument about the lack of transitional fossils a strong argument against evolution. Although Theorists have given a few cases of transitional fossils that number is small and keeps being disproven. And many evolutionists don't even agree on the same matter, because of this.
And although attacked many times, forbidden archeology can not be put aside as non-existent.
As for creation out of nothing, i've read some interesting things about that and i believe it has been done by at least one scientist. I haven't found evidence of someone replicating the experiment, thus i remain skeptical but optimistic because the experiment was simple and easy to replicate. The outcome however very controversial of course.
My personal conclusion is that micro evolution is a fact, macro evolution however is not. I don't find chance + time a strong base to build on and fossil records are not in constant check with that theory. Creation is not so far fetched as it seems anymore. Although i must admit that there is no proof of this in our present, but for that matter none exists for evolution too.
I hope this debate continues until we get to the bottom of this. I hope we become smart enough not to say: now we know, we can stop searching now. People (on both sides) became overly enthusiastic about their theory, thinking that it is the truth. Well i have this to say about that: when you are absolutely certain that you hold the truth and you find somebody else that thinks the same, but you can't find a common ground to stand on, then both are wrong:
We stryve as dide the houndes for the boon. ‥Ther cam a kyte, whil that they were so wrothe, And baar awey the boon betwixe hem bothe.
[Knight's Tale 1177]
History teaches that lesson ;) |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 403211
9/22/2008 1:20 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I have scientific proof earth is younger
Care to share some of that "proof"?
His Pastor told him so 
you have just proven you are a sheep .i have never claimed to go church. |
|
fallenmonk
User ID: 414223
9/22/2008 1:46 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
ok for the evolutionists -you have faith in your theory? go and have all your "useless organs" removed including The Coccyx.then I will believe.Even just one of you will be enough.Be brave and have faith. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 457129
9/22/2008 1:47 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
According to the book of Genesis, God created vegetation (the 3rd day) before he created the sun or the moon (4th day). Obviously, vegetation cannot grow without sun light.
So what gives?
Also, according to Genesis, birds were created before land creatures. Birds created on the 5th day, land creatures created on the 6th day.
This model goes entirely against evolution.
According to the evolutionary model, birds evolved from land dwelling creatures.
So what can explain God's unusual time line of creation that goes against science?
Genesis:
[ link to www.biblegateway.com]
Simple!
The bible is fantasy written by primatives trying to understand nature.
There are no gods. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 414223
9/22/2008 2:03 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
lets talk about Saturn and her age.Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance,how could ammonia have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.Saturn is much younger than claimed. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508267
9/22/2008 2:16 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
lets talk about Saturn and her age.Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance,how could ammonia have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.Saturn is much younger than claimed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 414223
References? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508267
9/22/2008 2:20 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
lets talk about Saturn and her age.Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance,how could ammonia have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.Saturn is much younger than claimed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 414223
Here's your answer.
[link to www.tim-thompson.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508267
9/22/2008 2:32 PM | |
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 2:47 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
The crux of the argument between atheist evolutionists and creationists isn't about whether or not the machinations of evolution do or do not exist.....
it's about whether an Intelligent Designer was or was not involved in the evolutionary process and creation of all of nature.
You wouldn't be using the 'creation' of the internet if it were not for intelligent DESIGNERS of software, etc...
you wouldn't be driving a car, or riding in airplanes if it were not for intelligent DESIGNERS of both modes of transportation...
so the question is......how can atheists look at the inherent intelligent machinations in nature and all that is encompassed under the biosphere, and think it created itself?? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 361147
9/22/2008 2:52 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
If Evolution was true, you wouldn't believe in it because you'd be evolved and too smart to fall for the steaming pile of horse shit it is.
But some of you do believe in Evolution, which proves that there is none.
:) Quoting: AC 436951
I don't think you understand evolution.
Evolution isn't a mechanic that specifically tries to create more intelligent beings, it's also not as portrayed in either X-men or Spore... |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 361147
9/22/2008 2:59 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
The crux of the argument between atheist evolutionists and creationists isn't about whether or not the machinations of evolution do or do not exist.....
it's about whether an Intelligent Designer was or was not involved in the evolutionary process and creation of all of nature.
You wouldn't be using the 'creation' of the internet if it were not for intelligent DESIGNERS of software, etc...
you wouldn't be driving a car, or riding in airplanes if it were not for intelligent DESIGNERS of both modes of transportation...
so the question is......how can atheists look at the inherent intelligent machinations in nature and all that is encompassed under the biosphere, and think it created itself?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508451
*shrug*
There are dozens of examples where species adapt into different (new) species which fit in perfectly within the natural selection theory and show nothing of divine intervention (see the peppered moths and for example Flavobacterium, Sp. K172) .
There are no examples which clearly indicate that god had a bigger plan or intervenes with a specie in a miraculous change.
If you do wish to insert a god somewhere you can at the moment of the big bang and possibly at the creation of the first single celled creatures (both fields are currently hypothetical although you should keep in mind that in essence you won't be doing anything different then what our ancestors did when they thought lightning was made by the gods, namely creating a god of gaps). |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508267
9/22/2008 3:02 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
The crux of the argument between atheist evolutionists and creationists isn't about whether or not the machinations of evolution do or do not exist.....
it's about whether an Intelligent Designer was or was not involved in the evolutionary process and creation of all of nature.
You wouldn't be using the 'creation' of the internet if it were not for intelligent DESIGNERS of software, etc...
you wouldn't be driving a car, or riding in airplanes if it were not for intelligent DESIGNERS of both modes of transportation...
so the question is......how can atheists look at the inherent intelligent machinations in nature and all that is encompassed under the biosphere, and think it created itself?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508451
Who/what created God? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 3:15 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
*shrug*
There are dozens of examples where species adapt into different (new) species which fit in perfectly within the natural selection theory and show nothing of divine intervention (see the peppered moths and for example Flavobacterium, Sp. K172).
I didn't say evolution is a myth, now did I?
My point was of the conclusion of there being an Intelligent Designer who wrote the DNA code for the evolutionary machinations of every living thing under the biosphere.
You might want to take a deeper look at the big picture, because the machinations of the 'survival of the species' relies not only on the biochemistry of each species intricate fail-safe biological systems.....
but is also apparent in the food chain, not to mention the beneficial symbiotic relationships between species....
as well as the perfect mix of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the balance of oceanic and fresh waters.
there is an intricately created Grand Symphony taking place in nature that cannot be explained away by MERE CHANCE....or 'the Luck of the Draw'....as you atheists ignorantly believe. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 3:21 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Who/what created God? Quoting: Anonymous Coward
For your better understanding, I could explain that God was birthed from some vast benevolent wellspring of intelligence......a cosmic spiritual primordial soup, as it were.
but why get ahead of yourself?
connect the dots that are closer to the source. :) |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 399014
9/22/2008 3:24 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
lets talk about Saturn and her age.Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance,how could ammonia have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.Saturn is much younger than claimed.
References? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508267
chemistry |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 3:24 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 399014
9/22/2008 3:26 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
lets talk about Saturn and her age.Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance,how could ammonia have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.Saturn is much younger than claimed.
Here's your answer.
[ link to www.tim-thompson.com]
I have no problem reading your link.if I learn something new all the better. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 3:27 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
"Darwins theory has always been closley linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is strictly not true."-The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrased by the fossil record because it didnt look the way he predicted it would, the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." It goes on to say that after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transistion than we had in Darwins time |
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
