Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

Ummm. What?

Primordial Soup theory plays no part in Evolution because it is a process which occured LONG BEFORE Evolutionary theory picks up. Primordial soup had no living beings in it and never had sex, so Evolution doesn't cover it. Evolution follows on AFTER Primordial Soup theory.

It's like the Apollo 11 mission, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. No part of Big Bang theory was involved in plotting the mission. The Big Bang happened 18.5 billion years previously - but obviously if the Big Bang hadn't happened, Apollo 11 couldn't have taken place.

The one begets the other without interaction.

 

[Swift]

Ummm. What?

Primordial Soup theory plays no part in Evolution because it is a process which occured LONG BEFORE Evolutionary theory picks up. Primordial soup had no living beings in it and never had sex, so Evolution doesn't cover it. Evolution follows on AFTER Primordial Soup theory.

It's like the Apollo 11 mission, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. No part of Big Bang theory was involved in plotting the mission. The Big Bang happened 18.5 billion years previously - but obviously if the Big Bang hadn't happened, Apollo 11 couldn't have taken place.

The one begets the other without interaction.

To me that's direct interaction. If one event needs to be preceded by another to occur, is that not the very definition of dependence?

 

[Famine]

For the theory of evolution to work, we were just proteins hanging out one day and lightning struck or a volcano erupted and life began? Then it took umpteen billion years to evolve to what we are now? Hmm...

No. Primordial Soup is not part of Evolutionary Theory. Evolutionary Theory covers the observable change in species throughout generations to further species more suited to their environment. What species is Primordial Soup?

The original statement was incorrect. The theory of Evolution cares not for "we were just proteins hanging out one day and lightning struck or a volcano erupted and life began" because it doesn't deal with how life began. It deals with how life continues. Primordial Soup, on the other hand, doesn't deal with how life continues but how life began.

The two theories form just part of the chain, along with the Big Bang theory, M-theory and the Accretion Disk theory to how life got to where it is now from the beginning. Evolution doesn't particularly care that "we were just nothing hanging out one day and a singularity exploded and life began", or "we were just nothing hanging out one day and a bubble formed in an 11th-dimensonal brane and life began" because it doesn't deal with those processes in any way. Sure, Evolution requires life at the start of it which, to the best of our knowledge, came from Primordial Soup which, to the best of our knowledge, came from conditions on early Earth which, to the best of our knowledge, came from the accretion disk which, to the best of our knowledge, came from the Big Bang which, to the best of our knowledge, came from a singularity formed by an 11-D brane, but the processes described in it do not cover ANY of these things.

 

[Swift]

The original statement was incorrect. The theory of Evolution cares not for "we were just proteins hanging out one day and lightning struck or a volcano erupted and life began" because it doesn't deal with how life began. It deals with how life continues. Primordial Soup, on the other hand, doesn't deal with how life continues but how life began.

The two theories form just part of the chain, along with the Big Bang theory, M-theory and the Accretion Disk theory to how life got to where it is now from the beginning. Evolution doesn't particularly care that "we were just nothing hanging out one day and a singularity exploded and life began", or "we were just nothing hanging out one day and a bubble formed in an 11th-dimensonal brane and life began" because it doesn't deal with those processes in any way. Sure, Evolution requires life at the start of it which, to the best of our knowledge, came from Primordial Soup which, to the best of our knowledge, came from conditions on early Earth which, to the best of our knowledge, came from the accretion disk which, to the best of our knowledge, came from the Big Bang which, to the best of our knowledge, came from a singularity formed by an 11-D brane, but the processes described in it do not cover ANY of these things.

And this is more substancial or easily explained the Devine Creation why?

 

[Famine]

Because each and every principle has observational proof, peer reviewed and reliably repeated in remote locations. Those principles that can be experimentally tested have been experimentally tested, to strict scientific principles and also peer reviewed and reliably repeated in remote locations.

Just because one does not understand M-theory does not make it invalid. It, at least, has been arrived at through the scientific method.

 

[Swift]

Because each and every principle has observational proof, peer reviewed and reliably repeated in remote locations. Those principles that can be experimentally tested have been experimentally tested, to strict scientific principles and also peer reviewed and reliably repeated in remote locations.

Just because one does not understand M-theory does not make it invalid. It, at least, has been arrived at through the scientific method.

You know what I don't like. When people call me a "religous fanatic" because I believe that I and the rest of the world was created by God.

But I dont' believe in that any less then you believe what you're saying, but I'm the fanatic.

Science is fine, but science can't explain your soul. Science can't even explain what keeps us breathing when we're asleep. I'm not saying there is not a place for science. There most certainly is and I'm a fan of it.

But for people to think that we came from some ooze umpteen billion years ago is simply saying, "there is no God". Then for some reason, I hold to my faith and I'm a fanatic.

Famine, you've got this thing down tight, only problem is that the evolutionary theory doesn't explain a lot. You gave a very detailed description of what goes on in the human mind to cause pathways to be created and what not. That's great and true as far as I can tell. But it still doesn't explain what the soul or essense of a person is.

BTW, what makes you trust the results from these remote locations anymore then I should trust in the Bible?

 

[Delirious]

precious pearls to swine...

 

[smellysocks12]

There is no such thing as a soul. People have thoughts, thoughts are chemical reactions in your brain. That's all.


Creation is a story you tell children before they start thinking for themselves and find out that there's something like evolution. Just like you don't tell children that they were created by shooting a load of semen into their mother.

 

[Famine]

But I dont' believe in that any less then you believe what you're saying, but I'm the fanatic.

I believe nothing.

Science can't even explain what keeps us breathing when we're asleep.

Actually, it can.

But for people to think that we came from some ooze umpteen billion years ago is simply saying, "there is no God". Then for some reason, I hold to my faith and I'm a fanatic.

It's not enough to say it. That's the bit you're missing.

In order to become accepted as "scientific", something must be shown to have factual basis, a hypothesis and null hypothesis, a scientific method, proper statistical analysis against chance and reproducible results. One person's word is NEVER good enough.

BTW, what makes you trust the results from these remote locations anymore then I should trust in the Bible?

Because they are reproducible. That's what that bit means. Anyone with a suitable scientific understanding (they know what they're doing and won't contaminate or prejudice the results) can pick up any peer-reviewed scientific paper and do it themselves. You want to know what the chemical make up of early Earth's atmosphere was? Pick up a paper - they'll tell you where they took the rock core samples and how they analysed it. You can go take your own rock core samples and perform the same analyses in your own lab, which could be on the other side of the world, and get the SAME answer.

 

[smellysocks12]

Rule #1 everyone should keep in mind in these type of topics:


Do not go into discussion with religious people. You can't change their mind.

 

[Swift]

Rule #1 everyone should keep in mind in these type of topics:


Do not go into discussion with religious people. You can't change their mind.

And you're not changing yours so how does that make you different?

 

[Famine]

As I said earlier, religion is based on doctrine which doesn't change over time, despite evidence.

Science is based on theory which does change over time depending on evidence.

You show me that God created everything - in six literal days or not - and I'll happily believe it. IF the evidence exists (unlike most creation websites, which make it up), has been peer-reviewed in mainstream scientific journals and has yielded reproducible results. AND the evidence over-rides the teraquads of evidence against it. However if I show a devout Christian evidence that God created squat - and I have - they'll ignore it away because they don't understand it (usually with phrases like "You believe THAT and tell me I'm crazy for believing in God!").

 

[smellysocks12]

And you're not changing yours so how does that make you different?

Nothing, yet a lot of (not all) religious people don't respect one's opinion if he doesn't share the same values / beliefs.


I respect people who have a different view, yet I do believe that thinking that jesus is the son of god, and the world was created in 7 days, is a bit naive / ignorant. Especially since these ideas were created at a time that people didn't know as much about existence as we do now.

 

[smellysocks12]

You show me that God created everything - in six literal days or not - and I'll happily believe it.

Look, the evidence is written right here on page 10023, section 656, paragraph 343, line 34.

 

[Swift]

Nothing, yet a lot of (not all) religious people don't respect one's opinion if he doesn't share the same values / beliefs.


I respect people who have a different view, yet I do believe that thinking that jesus is the son of god, and the world was created in 7 days, is a bit naive / ignorant. Especially since these ideas were created at a time that people didn't know as much about existence as we do now.

But the fact that they found Noah's ark, Jesus' tomb, and a host of other popular bible items means absolutely nothing right?

 

[Famine]

Don't take offence at this, Swift, but with your earlier "factual" statements, I'd LOVE to see what evidence there is of any of these things.

 

[smellysocks12]

But the fact that they found Noah's ark, Jesus' tomb, and a host of thoer popular bible items means absolutely nothing right?

It means that Jesus did exist, I'll believe that. I believe he was a cult leader who was very good with words. He had a charismatic personality and verbally more able than most others of his time. That's how he could get a following. Since most people living at the time had a very simple state of mind this following could spread Jesus' thoughts to many. I bet Jesus is rolling in his tomb right now (well actually he walked out... or actually more likely got carried out by his followers and buried elsewhere) from laughter that 2005 years later people still believe everything he said about him being the son of god.


About Noah's ark, he got 2 of every species on his ark, right? Now explain to me how one man can build a boat with primitive tools and not much knowledge about physics which can carry 4 elephants (2 indian, 2 african), two pairs of every sort of rhino, bears, apes, and thousands of other creatures on this planet? Did he go around and collect every tropical frog around the world? I'm sure they found an ark, but the story behind it is far from realistic.

The bible, I'm sure they found it, the bible was written by lots of different people. Re-written many times the way kings and other mighty people thought it would be most suitable to them. Why do you think most catholic traditions resemble Medieval traditions more than the Roman ones?



Until I was like 12 I considered myself a Christian, mostly because I liked reading the stories. Some of the stories are good and definitely have a message in it, but most of it is fiction. Old fiction. That's what I realized when I got older.

 

[Famine]

Actually, I still want to know if there were cats in the Garden of Eden and on the Ark.

And why did God let Noah save all the animals then, unlike Adam who was surrounded by hundreds of thousands of the buggers, let him eat meat? Surely you'd want to conserve livestock when there's only two of each kind..?

 

[Delirious]

dead sea scrolls, anyone?

doesnt sound like a problem that cats were in the garden of eden

and everything was very good, no bloodshed of ANY kind (human or animal) until adam and eves sin

 

[Famine]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!

Keep digging...

 

[Delirious]

elaborate on your nice laughter, famine

 

[Famine]

I'd love to, but none of you ever read it anyway.

Put simply, if you're relying on the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove ANYTHING, you're on even shakier ground than you were before.

 

[Swift]

It means that Jesus did exist, I'll believe that. I believe he was a cult leader who was very good with words. He had a charismatic personality and verbally more able than most others of his time. That's how he could get a following. Since most people living at the time had a very simple state of mind this following could spread Jesus' thoughts to many. I bet Jesus is rolling in his tomb right now (well actually he walked out... or actually more likely got carried out by his followers and buried elsewhere) from laughter that 2005 years later people still believe everything he said about him being the son of god.


About Noah's ark, he got 2 of every species on his ark, right? Now explain to me how one man can build a boat with primitive tools and not much knowledge about physics which can carry 4 elephants (2 indian, 2 african), two pairs of every sort of rhino, bears, apes, and thousands of other creatures on this planet? Did he go around and collect every tropical frog around the world? I'm sure they found an ark, but the story behind it is far from realistic.

The bible, I'm sure they found it, the bible was written by lots of different people. Re-written many times the way kings and other mighty people thought it would be most suitable to them. Why do you think most catholic traditions resemble Medieval traditions more than the Roman ones?

The Jesus you believe in is a nut. Because he KNEW he was going to be killed. So why would anyone do that and then die on a cross? Well, you believe what you would like.

BTW, it took Noah 120 years to build the Ark. He also brought seven of the clean beasts on the ark with him. These were the Kosher beasts that could be eaten while the flood was taking place. Also, God being God, simply commanded the animals to come to the Ark when it was time.

If you dont' believe the current translations are true or effective. Then learn the hebrew and ancient Greek to read the manuscripts. Saying that the bible is poorly translated is a copout.

 

[smellysocks12]

The Jesus you believe in is a nut. Because he KNEW he was going to be killed. So why would anyone do that and then die on a cross? Well, you believe what you would like.

BTW, it took Noah 120 years to build the Ark. He also brought seven of the clean beasts on the ark with him. These were the Kosher beasts that could be eaten while the flood was taking place. Also, God being God, simply commanded the animals to come to the Ark when it was time.

If you dont' believe the current translations are true or effective. Then learn the hebrew and ancient Greek to read the manuscripts. Saying that the bible is poorly translated is a copout.

You might be right, jesus might have been a nut. That wouldn't surprise me, recently some nuts crashed some planes into buildings on American soil as you might have noticed a couple of years ago, they knew they would die as well. They also thought they were going to heaven for sacrificing themselves.

If God is God, then why didn't he just deliver the ark along with the animals? Why would someone start building an ark 120 years before the flood? That's one hell of a tsunami warning system he had.


I doubt you read the ancient hebrew manuscripts either. As a matter of fact I thinkt hose wouldn't be legible at all even if you know the language. There is will not be any structure in it at all. So how do you know these manuscripts will hold the truth?

 

[Swift]

You might be right, jesus might have been a nut. That wouldn't surprise me, recently some nuts crashed some planes into buildings on American soil as you might have noticed a couple of years ago, they knew they would die as well. They also thought they were going to heaven for sacrificing themselves.

If God is God, then why didn't he just deliver the ark along with the animals? Why would someone start building an ark 120 years before the flood? That's one hell of a tsunami warning system he had.


I doubt you read the ancient hebrew manuscripts either. As a matter of fact I thinkt hose wouldn't be legible at all even if you know the language. There is will not be any structure in it at all. So how do you know these manuscripts will hold the truth?

LOL, God told Noah 120 years early for the reason you said. The tools were not there for him to make it quickly. He was also preaching the flood during this time. But only convinced his family and they were the ones that were saved. Much like it is today.

Also, when I said Jesus was a nut. I meant YOUR Jesus was a nut. To compare Jesus to the guys that flew into the world trade center is sacriligous. But since you have no faith, you don't care. My Jesus died on a cross for me for my sins that I may get into heaven. But before that, I have a better life on this earth because of him.

No, I don't read the ancient hebrew or greek manuscripts. Because I believe that God wouldn't have his word twisted. The mormons have twisted it and the Roman Catholics have changed it. (Sorry to any mormons or Roman Catholics but that's the truth). The word of God is proven in my life and in every life that I know. Look at the people that do harm to others to get ahead, and see where they end up. Look at those that care nothing for others and only themselves and see where they and their families end up.

 

[Famine]

My Jesus died on a cross for me for my sins that I may get into heaven.

How does that work anyway?

Guy gets nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to each other for a change. That suddenly means that people born 2,000 years later can live forever in a nice place because...?

Did no-one get into Heaven before Jesus died?

 

[Swift]

How does that work anyway?

Guy gets nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to each other for a change. That suddenly means that people born 2,000 years later can live forever in a nice place because...?

Did no-one get into Heaven before Jesus died?

That's exactly correct. Infact there is more then one "heaven"

The one that nobody got into until Jesus died was the one that we all think of as the paradise with the streets of gold. There are other realms of heaven that exist. There is a second heaven. This is where the hebrews went before jesus died. and the third heaven that's probably our atmosphere and what we would call space.

It works because Jesus rose from the dead. That is the validation. God always required a blood sacrifice for sin. The only way to redeem all of mankind at one time is to sacrifice the Lamb of God. Hence God put on flesh and became a man. he was scourged and died on the cross. That's the sheding of the blood that covers our sin. When he rose he conqured death. Giving access to all people from all times the ability to get to heaven. Would you like scripture references on this?

BTW, what's the big deal with cats?

 

[smellysocks12]

LOL, God told Noah 120 years early for the reason you said. The tools were not there for him to make it quickly. He was also preaching the flood during this time. But only convinced his family and they were the ones that were saved. Much like it is today.

Also, when I said Jesus was a nut. I meant YOUR Jesus was a nut. To compare Jesus to the guys that flew into the world trade center is sacriligous. But since you have no faith, you don't care. My Jesus died on a cross for me for my sins that I may get into heaven. But before that, I have a better life on this earth because of him.

No, I don't read the ancient hebrew or greek manuscripts. Because I believe that God wouldn't have his word twisted. The mormons have twisted it and the Roman Catholics have changed it. (Sorry to any mormons or Roman Catholics but that's the truth). The word of God is proven in my life and in every life that I know. Look at the people that do harm to others to get ahead, and see where they end up. Look at those that care nothing for others and only themselves and see where they and their families end up.

You are calling my jesus a nut? Well, my jesus might be a nut, but he's pretty cool... wouldn't hesistate to drink a couple of beers with me every now and then. His taste for fashion is a lot better than your jesus as well, with only a towel wrapped around his crotch.

Though your jesus might not be a nut, I'm definitely starting to think that you are!

Now on a more serious note, you say God wouldn't have his word twisted so you don't read the original manuscripts, yet you say mormons and catholics did twist God's word? Ehhh.... right.... so what makes your christian view right and the others wrong? Because your parents told you so?

Well, actually lets forget about these serious notes, because I already broke my #1 rule I mentioned earlier.

 

[Delirious]

i believe in the Jesus that is written in the infallible and preserved word of God, i dont know which one you believe in, smellysocks

 

[Swift]

Now on a more serious note, you say God wouldn't have his word twisted so you don't read the original manuscripts, yet you say mormons and catholics did twist God's word? Ehhh.... right.... so what makes your christian view right and the others wrong? Because your parents told you so?

Well, actually lets forget about these serious notes, because I already broke my #1 rule I mentioned earlier.

I'm not even going to dignify the first part of you comments.

As far as what my parents said. I'm the one that brought my mother to church. So I have my own faith. Don't go thinking you know someone when you don't.

Second, the mormons added to the word of God Joseph's Smith's own interpertation of some stones that he read out of a hat. Roman catholic's have added things that enforce their beliefs about Mary, salvation and Jesus.

How do I know mine is right. Just as evolutionist know they are right. Faith. I can show you all kinds of things in scripture that have or will soon come to pass. But you wouldn't believe that anyway. So, I will just say that I have the faith with verification from God that his word is true.