Creationism vs. Evolution

[gasp!] That is a very powerful argument. I feel almost powerless in its grip. All I can think of is... uh ... 'Some scientists are bald.'

I'm sorry. I know that was lame.

I think you've got me.

 

consider yourself OWNED DanT!

 

Irrelevant. The fact that science works has nothing to do with scienctists. It worked long before there were humans on the earth.

And I don't think God made scientists, I believe all scientist were created by a chemical and biological process that began when a sprem fertilized an egg.

And thier hair is jacked up because science is frustrating! They pull, and yank, and stress-out and this causes bad hair! 99 percent of science is finding problems with thier theories and having to change them to in order to support experimental observations. As opposed to accepting 2000 year old theories as absolute and refusing all evidence that contradicts them.



Faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. Science the attempt to understand and explain that which is not know. You can have both! However, I wish more people would adapt and change thier "faith" to meet with science.

 

Great minds . . . .

But you have to admit his hair is more 'jacked up' in my photo.

 

HOWS THAT GLOBAL WARMING WORKING OUT FOR YOU!?

 

You're a great mind too DanT
HEY MARK you are funny man I'm wiping tears here

 

WTF<-->FTW

 

I'll get started. Now, you explain to me how the universe has no beginning. Explain to me why humans have a conscience and why there is right and wrong. How can the sun possibly be as old as scientists say when it is shrinking as fast as it is. Why is there order to the universe and not total chaos? How did the first cell form? Why can some recently created rocks carbon date to millions of years old? Why is there so little helium in our atmosphere from the breakdown of uranium if the earth is so old? Please don't respond with theory. If you have facts, I would love to hear them. I'll get you more but that should get you started.

 

I believe in God. im pretty content that way.

 

By the way, I'm not staying up past midnight to appease you. I'll look at your post and respond as needed.

 

SCIENTISTS ARE GAY? OR
DID SCIENTISTS CREATE GAY!?

 

I AM WITH YOU AND I WILL GO A STEP FURTHER.

I BELIEVE IN GOD, AND DAMN IT I BELIEVE FIGHTER JETS CAN'T OUT WIT,

GODZILLA!

 

I'm glad. Many people are not content.

I guess I believe in something. The physical laws our universe operates on had to come from somewhere. However, earth, humans, roaches, birds, and tacomas. All pure luck, IMHO, consequences of an environment and the given set of laws.

Someone earlier posted a joke about changing the water in the fish bowl. My beliefs are closer to this than anything. Our universe is the water in the bowl.

I certainly don't believe any of the major organized religions are anywhere even close.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris4x4
"Welp......My thing is.....Lets say that this big swirling ball of crap somehow formed a rock on its own, that We call "Earth", .....And Dinosaurs came about. Then, for one reason or another, They were wipped out. Why didnt they come back? Why are WE here, rather than them? .....I mean....If they were here once, they should have been able to come back."

I missed this the first time around. I'm dying here. I'm beyond laughing . . . tears . . . chest hurts . . . cheeks (all four of them) contracted in to painful spasms.

I'm 'wipped out.'

I actually had a serious response to . . . nevermind. I can't do it.

 

Macroevolution, no. Mircoevolution, yes.

As soon as science thinks they have solid proof of evolution in humans and animals, then they can start on... minerals, rocks, gasses, magnetism, plants, energies of various types... the list goes on.

What did all those things evolve from?

Why is the scientific search always for life?

Hasn't anyone thought that we make up probably a millionth all of the substances we are surrounded by... Where did the other million substances come from?

 

Why not-when you actually stop nitpicking a bad keystrike on a laptop, you'll find a good question there. Deserves some thought too. Leave your cheeks out of it.

 

dude...............skeptics annotated Bible? Looks very familiar...

82.When did the women buy the spices?
(a) After "the Sabbath was past" (Mark 16:1)
(b) Before the Sabbath. The women "prepared spices and ointments." Then, "on the Sabbath they rested
according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)
83.At what time of day did the women visit the tomb?
(a) "Toward the dawn" (Matthew 28: 1)
(b) "When the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2)
84.What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb?
(a) To anoint Jesus' body with spices (Mark 16: 1; Luke 23:55 to 24: 1)
(b) To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28: 1)
(c) For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the Sabbath
(John 20: 1)
85.A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived?
(a) They saw that the stone was "Rolled back" (Mark 16:4) They found the stone "rolled away from the
tomb" (Luke 24:2) They saw that "the stone had been taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1)
(b) As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed
with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew
28:1-6)
86.Did anyone tell the women what happened to Jesus' body?
(a) Yes. "A young man in a white robe" (Mark 16:5). "Two men ... in dazzling apparel" later described as
angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each
case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5
footnote)
(b) No. Mary met no one and returned saying, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not
know where they have laid him" (John 20:2)
87.When did Mary Magdelene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react?
(a) Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb.
They took hold of his feet and worshipped him (Matthew 28:9)
(b) On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did
not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that Jesus' body is laid to rest
somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him
and called him "Teacher." Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me..." (John 20:11 to 17)
88.What was Jesus' instruction for his disciples?
(a) "Tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me" (Matthew 2 8: 10)
(b) "Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and
your God" (John 20:17)
89.When did the disciples return to Galilee?
(a) Immediately, because when they saw Jesus in Galilee "some doubted" (Matthew 28:17). This period
of uncertainty should not persist
(b) After at least 40 days. That evening the disciples were still in Jerusalem (Luke 24:3 3). Jesus
appeared to them there and told them, stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high"
(Luke 24:49). He was appearing to them "during forty days" (Acts 1:3), and "charged them not to depart
from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise ... "(Acts 1:4)



Cut and paste? You can do better than that. You left a lot out by the way but I'll get back on in the morning

 

Each of these deserves its own debate . . . maybe. Take one, prove your underlying facts, then the theory you have applied to the alleged facts, and I'll respond to each. What I'm suggesting is that instead of throwing out several issues, you take them one at a time in the kind of detail I just did about a single specific time period the NT deals with.

That having been said, before I go to bed, I'll respond to the first one because that does not involve a lengthy factual issue. I simply asserted in an earlier post that there are two choices about the beginning of the universe [or god]. 1. that it came into existence from nothing, or 2. that it [in one form or another] has always been.

#2 simply makes more sense to me intuitively. Since I can't except that something came from nothing, I'm left with the notion that the universe has always existed. BTW, this is exactly the same proposition as the Christian explanation for God. The only difference is that Christians use the label 'God' and I use the term 'universe.'

 

Rather than address the form, address the argument.

I was quoting myself, BTW. I was a cut and paste job, from something I wrote and posted previously in a different venue. When I quote myself, I don't give attribution. But it really does not matter. Address the issues presented, not the origin. If I've misquoted the NT, that's a legitimate argument.

I have many close friends who are Christians. But they make better arguments than the ones I've seen here. Christians who have actually done the scholarship required, don't disagree with me on the basic facts I've laid out. There arguments don't dispute any factual issue I've stated, nor do they dispute what I say about what the gospels say. After all, it's there in black and white.

But I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Let me give one more unassailable fact. We have no, none, zero, original documents when it comes to the NT. We only have copies of copies of copies.

Despite what amateur apologists like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel [neither are lawyers] claim, none of the 'evidence' of the life of Christ would be admitted in a court of law. It's all hearsay piled on hearsay at least 40 years after the events they claim they are reporting on.

My contention is not that one must be a lunatic, ignorant, or stupid to be a Christian. What I claim is that most Christians haven't done their homework. They don't understand the basis for their own beliefs. I simply suggest one investigate thoroughly before going off making ridiculous statements one can't back up, claims that seem absurd in the face of what we understand in the 21st Century.



say

 

This is another easy one I might as well address while I'm in the mood. A conscience is learned. We learn what is right and wrong from our parents and our culture.

Is it really impossible for you to understand this without relying on some theory about the supernatural?

This is the trouble with many religionists. They give up too quickly trying to reason things out. Instead of looking for rational, natural explanations, they say, 'God made it that way.' This is an absurd cop out.

Use your truck as an example. When it won't start, you don't look for some supernatural explanation. You use reason and the knowledge you've accumulated. You check to see the battery is fully charged. If the starter turns over, but the engine doesn't start, you check to see if you have fuel, or a problem in the fuel line. And so forth.

Today we can explain thousands of things that we did not have a clue about 2000 years ago when we used 'the gods' as an explanation.