Creation vs. Evolution

Duke · Jul 12, 2005

Burnout
A note on something that Duke said, about the sophisticated methods used to dating, how do we actually know that they're giving us accurate results? Who was alive 48 Trillion years ago, or however long ago they're saying, to tell us that we're indeed getting accurate results?

God was, and that's all you need to know. Good night.

Pako · Jul 12, 2005

Trying to find the energy.....O.k., here goes...

God is and always will be, and that is just the starting point of what you need to know. Good afternoon.

Famine · Jul 12, 2005

There is one question belief in an omnipotent being cannot answer (well, there's several, but one fundamental one).

Where did it come from?

The answer that it didn't - it's always been doesn't address the question and, with no available evidence for this position it is fundamentally untenable.

PS · Jul 12, 2005

Tacet_Blue
You guys are so hung up on belief it's funny If you jump off a building with the belief that you can fly, do you believe that it will make any difference as to the outcome

Try Google if you really want to know...me thinks you don't

Here's the answer...Woman popped out of a 900 year old mans rib, and their two sons created the whole population....obviously with some more rib tricks as there weren't any women

My avatar knows some rib tricks too, and they call him the Anti-christ. Maybe christians have it backwards.

Danoff · Jul 12, 2005

A note on something that Duke said, about the sophisticated methods used to dating, how do we actually know that they're giving us accurate results? Who was alive 48 Trillion years ago, or however long ago they're saying, to tell us that we're indeed getting accurate results?

There was this one dude... Grog. we had him write down what year it was when a particular dinosaur died. Then we read the year and checked our radioisotope dating techniques against Grog's original recordings. That's how we calibrate the machine... it all rests on how accurate Grog's measurements were.

Ok no, there was no dude (that we know of) who was alive 48 Trillion years ago.

...and even if there was, we could still poke holes in his measurements.

Let me pose a parallel scenario

Let's say you're a park ranger. There are lots of very old trees in your park and some very young ones. You need to clear some saplings out of the way so that you can make a path for navigating the park. You notice that when you cut down one of the very young trees, it has 3 rings on the inside. Then you remember that it was exactly 3 years ago that you saw this tree just start to grow. You start to get curious so you plant some trees - one per year. 10 years later you cut open the first tree you planted. It happens to have 10 rings. Then you cut down the second tree - 9 rings. You cut down the 3rd tree - 8 rings...etc. Each tree seems to have one ring for each year of its life.

Later that month one of your oldest trees gets hit by lightning and dies. You have to cut it down to prevent it from being a hazard and when you do so you count 550 rings at the cross section.

How old do you think that tree is?

That, is a very parallel situation to what scientists do to figure out the age of rocks. They use dating techniques that they correlate using lots of other dating techniques (looking at the layers in the ground and so on) all based on deductive reasoning from observations they and their predecessors have made during their lifetimes. They're extrapolating based on observations. As with the tree example, there is no certainty that the tree is 550 years old, but our best observations of the behavior of the environment (tree) and our understanding of the anatomy of the tree and what causes it to have rings etc. etc. tells us that it is 550 years old.

You can choose not to believe that because there was not a person who watched the tree all 550 years - but you'd limit yourself and your understanding of your environment to very little knowledge. Computers, cars, rockets... nearly everything that we have invented in the last 100 years would not have been invented if people did not rely on flawed deductive reasoning to tell them about things that they cannot see with their limited abilities as a person.

Think about the tree sitution and then think about how unreasonable it is to assume that people who spend their entire lives trying to measure this stuff and disprove each other are all full of crap. They might be, it is true, but it is very unlikely.

Burnout · Jul 12, 2005

danoff
There was this one dude... Grog. we had him write down what year it was when a particular dinosaur died. Then we read the year and checked our radioisotope dating techniques against Grog's original recordings. That's how we calibrate the machine... it all rests on how accurate Grog's measurements were.

Ok no, there was no dude (that we know of) who was alive 48 Trillion years ago.

...and even if there was, we could still poke holes in his measurements.

Let me pose a parallel scenario

Let's say you're a park ranger. There are lots of very old trees in your park and some very young ones. You need to clear some saplings out of the way so that you can make a path for navigating the park. You notice that when you cut down one of the very young trees, it has 3 rings on the inside. Then you remember that it was exactly 3 years ago that you saw this tree just start to grow. You start to get curious so you plant some trees - one per year. 10 years later you cut open the first tree you planted. It happens to have 10 rings. Then you cut down the second tree - 9 rings. You cut down the 3rd tree - 8 rings...etc. Each tree seems to have one ring for each year of its life.

Later that month one of your oldest trees gets hit by lightning and dies. You have to cut it down to prevent it from being a hazard and when you do so you count 550 rings at the cross section.

How old do you think that tree is?

That, is a very parallel situation to what scientists do to figure out the age of rocks. They use dating techniques that they correlate using lots of other dating techniques (looking at the layers in the ground and so on) all based on deductive reasoning from observations they and their predecessors have made during their lifetimes. They're extrapolating based on observations. As with the tree example, there is no certainty that the tree is 550 years old, but our best observations of the behavior of the environment (tree) and our understanding of the anatomy of the tree and what causes it to have rings etc. etc. tells us that it is 550 years old.

You can choose not to believe that because there was not a person who watched the tree all 550 years - but you'd limit yourself and your understanding of your environment to very little knowledge. Computers, cars, rockets... nearly everything that we have invented in the last 100 years would not have been invented if people did not rely on flawed deductive reasoning to tell them about things that they cannot see with their limited abilities as a person.

Think about the tree sitution and then think about how unreasonable it is to assume that people who spend their entire lives trying to measure this stuff and disprove each other are all full of crap. They might be, it is true, but it is very unlikely.

All I'm asking is that people give what I, amongst many others, believe, a fair chance. To say, "Ok, hey, that's dumb. There is no way." And then expect me to come over to your table and give your theory, or belief, a serious look, well, that would be completely senseless.

This belief of mine is not with absolutely no backing; The Bible, the highest selling book ever, by far, is full of loads of easily scientifically proven history. Does that give it any credibility, even enough to just look at what its saying with half of an open mind? I guess not, at least not by what youre saying.

Are you saying that my belief, and theory, is completely impossible and that I would have to be absolutely insane and irrational to believe it?

If so, I might as well stop replying to this thread right now, as there is just no point. I can't change your mind. I'm just telling you what I know to be correct.

Ford guy can't walk upto a Chevy guy and say that a Ford is better in every way, even if it is.

Famine · Jul 12, 2005

Burnout
This belief of mine is not with absolutely no backing; The Bible, the highest selling book ever, by far, is full of loads of easily scientifically proven history. Does that give it any credibility, even enough to just look at what its saying with half of an open mind? I guess not, at least not by what youre saying.

The Bible cannot be used as proof of the contents of the Bible.

It's NOT full of "scentifically proven history". It DOES contain locations and events that probably happened, but it ALSO contains a wide variety of things which never happened and has an entire book devoted to prophecy. The amount of story exceeds the amount of history.

Flame-returns · Jul 12, 2005

Yes, the Bible is flawed..

The red sea did NOT part, it was the Reed sea and it parted a few days to early.
Adam/Eve mental disability thing has been covered in a previous post of mine.
Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, and there was NO census at the time.
The plagues of Egypt were spaced over several YEARS and there were probably only 5.

Also Harry Potter is one of the best selling books of all time. That means that the worlds 4th most popular religion should beleive in a platform 9 3/4 (They closed the station recently anyway.) This religion should be motivated to fight the evil Lord Voldermort and worship Daniel Radcliff (my most hated school collegue) for he saved the world from darkness..

We do not follow the teachings of Harry Potter for we all know, IT IS COMPLETE B/S!!!

Duke · Jul 12, 2005

Burnout
A note on something that Duke said, about the sophisticated methods used to dating, how do we actually know that they're giving us accurate results? Who was alive 48 Trillion years ago, or however long ago they're saying, to tell us that we're indeed getting accurate results?

Who was alive even 3,000 years ago to tell us that your Bible was really Divinely inspired? Who tells you you're getting accurate results?

...besides the Bible.

Burnout · Jul 12, 2005

Duke
Who was alive even 3,000 years ago to tell us that your Bible was really Divinely inspired? Who tells you you're/i] getting accurate results?

...besides the Bible.

Good question.

Luckily, you have no clue either.

So where do we go from here?

Famine

but it ALSO contains a wide variety of things which never happened

Click to expand...

How the crap can you say that?

Go on, please tell me. I wouldn't mind evidence, either.

Flame-returns · Jul 12, 2005

Try this

The red sea did NOT part, it was the Reed sea and it parted a few days to early.
Adam/Eve mental disability thing has been covered in a previous post of mine.
Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, and there was NO census at the time.
The plagues of Egypt were spaced over several YEARS and there were probably only 5.

All scientificly proven my friend.

Swift · Jul 12, 2005

Flame-returns
Yes, the Bible is flawed..

The red sea did NOT part, it was the Reed sea and it parted a few days to early.
Adam/Eve mental disability thing has been covered in a previous post of mine.
Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, and there was NO census at the time.
The plagues of Egypt were spaced over several YEARS and there were probably only 5.

I'm chomping at the bit for proof of this.... :dopey:

Burnout · Jul 12, 2005

Flame-returns
Try this

All scientificly proven my friend.

So, you're saying that because there is no scientific evidence proving an event, it didn't happen.

Classic example of if a tree falls and no one hears it, did it actually fall?

Maybe it all happened...

And, yeah, proof against it would be nice.

Swift · Jul 12, 2005

Famine
To ask that question in that context - and even more so with Burnout's "clarification" - is to completely fail to understand what evolution is.

Evolution, as I've come to understand it through this thread. Is on species going through changes to become another completely seperate species but possibly sharing the same traits as the old species.

So why is it such an awkward question to ask, "Has anyone seen a new species come from an old one?"

ledhed · Jul 12, 2005

show concrete evidence that God or a god created anything . Show one thing ! Only one molecule in the universe that you can prove was created by a god or God or GODS .

Swift · Jul 12, 2005

ledhed
show concrete evidence that God or a god created anything . Show one thing ! Only one molecule in the universe that you can prove was created by a god or God or GODS .

Ok, well prove that anything came from the big bang or the primordial ooze. Ooops, can't do it. Ok, so now what?

Danoff · Jul 13, 2005

Ok, well prove that anything came from the big bang or the primordial ooze. Ooops, can't do it. Ok, so now what?

Well then I guess we have just as much reason to believe either one right? I mean, if we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tree is 550 years old, we might as well believe that it's 5000 years old - because we can't prove that either.

Oh but wait, we do have that whole evidence thing don't we...

Famine · Jul 13, 2005

Burnout
How the crap can you say that?

Go on, please tell me. I wouldn't mind evidence, either.

You HAVE read it, right?

Burnout
Good question.

Luckily, you have no clue either.

So where do we go from here?

Well you see, this is the problem. You're citing the Bible as Absolute Truth and saying that, because by your standards of proof which have been derived from it, we cannot prove to you that it's bunk (whereas we actually can), then everything in it must be 100% accurate.

You're drawing a conclusion from an assumption - the Bible is right so the Bible is right.

Swift
Ok, well prove that anything came from the big bang or the primordial ooze. Ooops, can't do it. Ok, so now what?

Again, science is in a position where we have vast amounts of data backing up our claims, yet no tangible (stuff you can pick up) evidence for molecular interaction in the Soup, so you say it's false. Yet religion is in a position where you have one book to back up its own claims, yet no tangible evidence for any part of it, yet you say it is true.

It's inconsistent. You say the Bible can't prove anything, so it's true, yet science can't prove anything so it's false...

Pako · Jul 13, 2005

The Bible can't prove that the Bible is truth? Then I suppose that I can't say that you exist because your birth certificate says so? Is it reasonable to say you do exist because your birth certificate says so? Yes, but that isn't the kind of proof you were looking for. Faith? Ah yes, faith. The very thing that all atheists hate to hear and almost boil at the thought of the idea. It's cool though, I'll ask Him all about His existence when I get finally see him.

Swift,

To answer your question, we don't exist. This is all a figment of your imagination, if you can even have such a thing. Actually, it must just be some consciousness that is creating these things bound by some limits of some kind of psyche, because we all know that if you can't prove something scientifically then it must not exist.

ledhed · Jul 13, 2005

Actually science can prove a lot . The theorys are based on facts . god is based on myth and what ? What is God based on ? What tiny bit of evidence or fact ? If you cant even prove God how can you prove God created anything ? Because of a book that men wrote and edited ?

Swift · Jul 13, 2005

Pako
Swift,

To answer your question, we don't exist. This is all a figment of your imagination, if you can even have such a thing. Actually, it must just be some consciousness that is creating these things bound by some limits of some kind of psyche, because we all know that if you can't prove something scientifically then it must not exist.

Oh yeah, my bad.

ledhed
Actually science can prove a lot . The theorys are based on facts . god is based on myth and what ? What is God based on ? What tiny bit of evidence or fact ? If you cant even prove God how can you prove God created anything ? Because of a book that men wrote and edited ?

Can you prove that Jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead?

Famine · Jul 13, 2005

Pako
The Bible can't prove that the Bible is truth? Then I suppose that I can't say that you exist because your birth certificate says so? Is it reasonable to say you do exist because your birth certificate says so? Yes, but that isn't the kind of proof you were looking for. Faith? Ah yes, faith. The very thing that all atheists hate to hear and almost boil at the thought of the idea. It's cool though, I'll ask Him all about His existence when I get finally see him.

A birth certificate is proof of a birth certificate. I am proof of myself. A birth certificate is not proof of me, nor am I proof of a birth certificate - but this is all irrelevant since the issue is that a birth certificate is not proof of all of the information contained in it.

For instance - are my parents REALLY who it says on the certificate? Bloodwork - secondary corroborative evidence - suggests so. A DNA test - more secondary corroborative evidence - would be more conclusive. But the fact it says their names on the certificate is not proof that they are my parents. Head back 200 years and neither DNA testing nor blood typing existed and only the doctor and the mother knew who the baby's father was. In fact, our royal family is replete with such instances - see "The Baby in the Bedpan".

Showing the Bible as proof that the events contained within it is not proof at all, just as showing my birth certificate as proof that my parents are who it says on my birth certificate is not proof at all. There MUST be corroborative evidence.

Do you not see how circular this is? You're using information contained within a book to prove that the information contained within the book is true, because the information contained within the book says it is.

Swift
Can you prove that Jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead?

This question sums up religion in one short line.

Swift - you're not thick. You can think and reason - I've seen it. So why do you have this blind spot which prevents you from seeing just how ridiculous this question is?

Let me put it another way - can YOU prove that no-one ELSE hasn't physically risen from the dead? Can you prove that you can't?

ledhed · Jul 13, 2005

Show me evidence that he did . If he did were is he ? What evidence is there that he even exsist as a resurected entity ? We have some evidence that he existed at one time . But no evidence that he rose from the dead . What proof is there that Jesus is or was God or a God ?

Danoff · Jul 13, 2005

Can you prove that Jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead?

If I claimed that last night I was visited by the ghost of my dead relatives who told me that there is no afterlife (which is a funny idea). Can you prove that it didn't happen? If I told you that I was abducted by aliens last night, can you prove it didn't happen?

There is no point in asking this question. It is almost completely impossible to prove or disprove anything - especially when one invokes the supernatural as an explanation. All we have is probability based on observations.

Swift · Jul 13, 2005

ledhed
Show me evidence that he did . If he did were is he ? What evidence is there that he even exsist as a resurected entity ? We have some evidence that he existed at one time . But no evidence that he rose from the dead . What proof is there that Jesus is or was God or a God ?

The fact that he rose from the dead is proof that he was God.

The reason I mentioned this is that Jesus quoted much of the old testaments and many of "unbelievable" events therein. So, if he wasn't ressurected, then everything that he said was false. But since he was ressurected, this justifies his claims. I'm sure that concept is "circular" and all. So I won't be surprised by the ensuing bashing. :dopey:

EDIT:

This question sums up religion in one short line.

Swift - you're not thick. You can think and reason - I've seen it. So why do you have this blind spot which prevents you from seeing just how ridiculous this question is?

Let me put it another way - can YOU prove that no-one ELSE hasn't physically risen from the dead? Can you prove that you can't?

Thank you for that compliment.

Well, that's what I'm saying. You want me to believe that I am a random creation that just happened to come along after billions of years of lesser beings. And you want me to except it with a lot of huge gapping wholes(BTW, I did accept it at one time).

But to have faith in someone that has power in heaven and earth is unreasonable?

ledhed · Jul 13, 2005

The fact that he rose from the dead is proof that he was God.

Thats not a fact . That is a belief .

Swift · Jul 13, 2005

ledhed
Thats not a fact . That is a belief .

The eye witnesses, the acenension into heaven mean nothing right?

Oh, and the evolution of humanity is a belief not a fact.

Famine · Jul 13, 2005

Swift
Well, that's what I'm saying. You want me to believe that I am a random creation that just happened to come along after billions of years of lesser beings. And you want me to except it with a lot of huge gapping wholes(BTW, I did accept it at one time).

But to have faith in someone that has power in heaven and earth is unreasonable?

No. I don't want you to "believe" anything. In fact, "believing" is the problem. But honestly, I don't care waht you "believe".

Believe or don't believe. Accept or don't accept. Whatever. It doesn't change that which is true - and whether or not the truth makes you feel comfy and warm, or so scared you have to run off to a big-sky-fella, it is STILL the truth.

The only gaping holes in evolutionary theory are where you've not read up. There are no "missing links".

(and I'd rather trust an account scrawled in blood by a serial killer than an eyewitness)

Danoff · Jul 13, 2005

But to have faith in someone that has power in heaven and earth is unreasonable?

You have strong corroborated evidence on one side, and weak uncorroborated evidence on the other side. Yet you choose to go with the weak side because it makes you feel better.

Burnout · Jul 13, 2005

Pako
The Bible can't prove that the Bible is truth? Then I suppose that I can't say that you exist because your birth certificate says so? Is it reasonable to say you do exist because your birth certificate says so? Yes, but that isn't the kind of proof you were looking for. Faith? Ah yes, faith. The very thing that all atheists hate to hear and almost boil at the thought of the idea. It's cool though, I'll ask Him all about His existence when I get finally see him.

Period.

If you guys wanna believe that you're a scientific mistake that took billions of years to create, yet ironically ever since we evolved into human have so quickly grown in every area (as would suggest that we've only been alive for so long), go ahead. I'm not here to change your mind.

However, there are undeniable large gapping holes in the Evolutionary theory, deny it, and I'll have fun laughing.

Perhaps it takes a little Faith to believe what I believe (as it should; I wasn't around 2,000 years ago to witness the events myself), but it takes more Faith to believe what you keep saying you do, whether you like it or not.

Creation vs. Evolution

Keep 'em separated

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Keep 'em separated

GT Sport is looking good...

GT Sport is looking good...

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Similar threads