NationStates Jolt Archive

I need help. We have a debate comming up in Ancient history class on this and I forgot waht side I'm on. Could you guys help me by providing serious points for each one?

I am going to a catholic school.

No flaming/flamebating/trolling at all! You will be reported.

an odd response for you. you are caught in a chicken and the egg dilemma. perhaps the chicken was created with the egg inside.

Just read some old threads. There are PLENTY of them on evolution/creation.

Why?

Why couldnt we talk about the weather? "Hey..how bout that hurricane, big huh?"

We could talk about anything...at all......

WHY DO WE HAVE TO ALWAYS TALK ABOUT CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION?

It all boils down to to this:

You either believe in God, or you dont.

Either way.....you cant prove it.

Why?

Why couldnt we talk about the weather? "Hey..how bout that hurricane, big huh?"

We could talk about anything...at all......

WHY DO WE HAVE TO ALWAYS TALK ABOUT CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION?

It all boils down to to this:

You either believe in God, or you dont.

Either way.....you cant prove it.

So, what's your favorite color?

So, what's your favorite color?


*sigh*


Seriously?

*sigh*


Seriously?

No. I just wanted you to calm down. Start a thread. About anything. I'll post.

Well, it's not really a question of belief or disbelief. Nothing stops a Christian from having a scientific world-view. Very few mainline Catholics or Protestants really believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis, anyway.

You can check out www.talkorigins.org for their discussions on this topic. It's very illuminating.

In any case, the Creationists are a fringe element in both scientific and religious communities. If you're arguing against them, you have the benefit of massive amounts of scientific evindence, theological reasoning and public consensus.

an odd response for you. you are caught in a chicken and the egg dilemma. perhaps the chicken was created with the egg inside.


Easy one.

The Egg came first.

What hatched from it?

A HUGE DINOSAUR!! ROAWWRRRR!!!!

Good morning two eggs sunny side up for me please.

evolution is good to debate over because it has evidence.
some sources of evidence of evolution........

1) Embryology: during earyly stages of embryos, we can compare the similarites and differences betweent he embryos of humans and animals, we can see they are very alike, thus coming form a common ancestor.

2) Homology: Similar parts, but with different functions. IE: Whale fin, cat leg, human leg, all share a very similar bone structure, which indicates we were all descended "with modification" from common ancestors.

3) Molecular Biology: all living things have the same biochemical structures, like......DNA

Creationism..........
some sources of evidence of creationism.......
NONE <------------- i think.....can we REALLY prove creationism? nope. we cant really prove that evolution started the whole process, but at least we have some sort of evidence.

some parts of that, maybe all of it probably didnt make sense, but thats my opinion and research :)

I agree with you mince meat,now where are those eggs?

evolution is good to debate over because it has evidence.
some sources of evidence of evolution........

1) Embryology: during earyly stages of embryos, we can compare the similarites and differences betweent he embryos of humans and animals, we can see they are very alike, thus coming form a common ancestor.

2) Homology: Similar parts, but with different functions. IE: Whale fin, cat leg, human leg, all share a very similar bone structure, which indicates we were all descended "with modification" from common ancestors.

3) Molecular Biology: all living things have the same biochemical structures, like......DNA

Creationism..........
some sources of evidence of creationism.......
NONE <------------- i think.....can we REALLY prove creationism? nope. we cant really prove that evolution started the whole process, but at least we have some sort of evidence.

some parts of that, maybe all of it probably didnt make sense, but thats my opinion and research :)

Some sources of creationism ...

1) Embryology: God made it simple for Himself and everything starts out the same way.
2) Homology: See above.
3) Molecular Biology: See above.


Not that I'm anti-evolution. Just trying to show you that you have faith that your science isn't lying to you.

Why are they Kangaroo's only in Australia?

Why are they Kangaroo's only in Australia?

Because that's where they belong.

How did they get there from the Ark?

Why are they Kangaroo's only in Australia?


Beucase whatever animal Kangaroos evolved from, THAT animal must have been located in the same vicinity before the break-up of the larger land mass, Austraila once belonged to.

How did they get there from the Ark?

Hopped. It's what kangaroos do.

Bit tricky over the oceans though.

Bit tricky over the oceans though.

Not for kangaroos.

Bit tricky over the oceans though.


They were excellent waterskiers.
Thats why they have those big long feet.

Did you know South America is drifting away from Africa at the same speed your fingernails grow. Just goes to show how old this planet is eh?

There's a problem with both sides:

Evolution. Sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life. Changes must happen instantly. Example: the egg. In order for life to have come out of the ocean onto dry land, the water had to be internalized. The egg had to come into being instantly. It could not have taken hundreds of thousands of years to develop. I will explain this further if anyone needs it.

Creation. Works nice when you can't be bothered to explain something in a rational way, but Creationism can never finally answer the question of, "Ok ... so which God did it and why?" For those of you who say that there is only one God, then answer the why. You can't, your god can't, your liturgy can't. If any question is left open, then by all scientific principles, it is just a hypothesis.

So ... I'm saying neither. You're all wrong and can go screw yourselves. :p

Talking about eggs,are mine done yet?

Talking about eggs,are mine done yet?


Did you have the poached or the scrambled?

depends on how long they take,I am not waiting thousands of years,where do you think I am Burger King?

Well if you really want to get into the philosophy of either creationism or evolution, scientists are becoming increasingly aware of the concept of "design" in the natural world. Although there is also evidence for a long history of the world. So whichever way you are leaning in your beliefs, one possible way of thinking about it might be:

1. Is there evidence of a designer?
- No = Atheistic Evolution
- Yes = then....go to 2.

2. Is there evidence of a long history for earth?
- No = Recent Creation
- Yes = then....go to 3.

3. What mechanism did God use?
- Theistic Evolution
- Successive Creation

If your answers brought you to a recent creation, there are options in this:
a. Perfect creation (where everything was perfect - no killing or dying)
b. Natural creation (where fully functioning ecosystems were created - including killing and dying)

If your answers brought you to 3. Then there are millions of years involved. Your options here could be:
a. That humans were unique.
b. That Eden was a unique "haven" while the rest of the world was left alone.
c. That there was a "double fall". ie. That sin first invaded the "outer world" when Satan left heaven and then invaded Eden when Eve and Adam sinned.

Either way you look at it, as soon as science becomes involved it becomes murky business. Science and religion, historically, have not had a good track rrecord.

Remember


If you get stuck in a question, just say,

"Screw it. There is no God, and Darwin's Full of Shit. The Truth is, IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!"

Remember


If you get stuck in a question, just say,

"Screw it. There is no God, and Darwin's Full of Shit. The Truth is, IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!"



Well what more can be said... Love Lisa.

You are a liar. If it was a real debate, you would be assigned a side. You would not have to "remember" what side you're on.

What? Really. He (my teacher) assigned me a side but I can't remember which one.

From my point of view there is no need to debate about the subject. Evolution is a theory developed from the scientific analysis of evidence, creationism is a myth, written in an ancient book.

There's a problem with both sides:

Evolution. Sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life. Changes must happen instantly. Example: the egg. In order for life to have come out of the ocean onto dry land, the water had to be internalized. The egg had to come into being instantly. It could not have taken hundreds of thousands of years to develop. I will explain this further if anyone needs it.

Please, read a book on the subject. Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable is a good start.

Amphibian eggs are surrounded by a membrane. Think about an amphibian who lays eggs with a slightly thicker membrane. Think about the gradual accumulation of small changes over millions of years. Think about the "intermediate stages" in this process which we can still see, e.g. the Midwife toad -- an amphibian which carries its eggs around with it, out of the water, protected by a proto-shell and a coating of slime. The differences between frogs and toads are good basic evidence for the development of increasingly land-based animals: frogs spend most of their time in the water, and lay their (thin-membraned) eggs in the water. Toads spend most of their time on land and several species keep their (thick-membraned) eggs out of the water until hatching.

Obviously, as a membrane grows thicker, the hatchlings require more and more strength to break out of them -- even developing an "egg tooth" for this purpose. These chance developments obviously have to happen in parallel with the development of an egg shell. All that is required is lots and lots of hatchlings, and lots and lots of time. Trillions of eggs, and millions of years. There is no need to invoke the supernatural.

Please, read a book on the subject.

I have ... many. Including many semesters of biology in college in preparation to become a vet. I find that currently accepted Evolutionary theory has about as much scientific merit as Genesis 1:1.

Like I said, I don't accept either.

I have ... many. Including many semesters of biology in college in preparation to become a vet. I find that currently accepted Evolutionary theory has about as much scientific merit as Genesis 1:1.

Like I said, I don't accept either.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion -- but if you think evolution can be so easily disproved, why haven't the legions of biologists noticed this? After all, anyone who can successfully undermine such a central pillar of modern science would be a shoo-in for a Nobel prize. Have you thought of mentioning this central flaw that you perceive to any of your biology lecturers?

Bottom Line Folks!! We have the Bible. It contains over 300 prophesies. Most of them have been proven true, and none of them have been disproven (I'm talking about the KJV not the Catholic version). Take your scientific minds and apply general statistics and quatitative analyis and figure out what the odds are of just a few of these prophesies coming true (let alone over 300). You will find that to not believe every word of the Bible would be crazy (statistically that is).

Once you come far enough to understand the Bible to be 100% accurate (because statistically there is no other conclusion), then all you need to do is follow it. One needs to accept Jesus as their personal savior to go to Heaven. The alternative is Hell, and we know from the Bible that most people end up going there (the broad road). Let me know if you have any questions.

Statistics can prove anything.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Bottom Line Folks!! We have the Bible. It contains over 300 prophesies. Most of them have been proven true, and none of them have been disproven (I'm talking about the KJV not the Catholic version). Take your scientific minds and apply general statistics and quatitative analyis and figure out what the odds are of just a few of these prophesies coming true (let alone over 300). You will find that to not believe every word of the Bible would be crazy (statistically that is).

Really? Can you name a few of these prophecies? Cite chapter and verse, please.

Once you come far enough to understand the Bible to be 100% accurate (because statistically there is no other conclusion), then all you need to do is follow it. One needs to accept Jesus as their personal savior to go to Heaven. The alternative is Hell, and we know from the Bible that most people end up going there (the broad road). Let me know if you have any questions.

The King James bible -- and other versions, too, since in this case it's an accurate translation of the original Hebrew -- says that grasshoppers, beetles and locusts have four legs. So either a) they've grown an extra pair since Leviticus was written (evolution?!) or b) Leviticus is wrong.

Leviticus 11:22-23: 22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

I'm a YEC (young earth creationist), and debating this subject is kind of a hobby for me. Before I get into this debate, I want to make some things clear.

1. I believe in a literal Genesis.
2. Natural selection is proven fact, unlike evolution. Natural selection only deals with existing genetic information, but evolution requires additions of genetic information.

So if you want to prove to me that evolution is true, don't be lazy and give me an example of natural selection. Any idiot can see that animals change.

Evolutionists:
Where's the evidence? I would prefer that the evidence you give to be in the field of biology, because studying the past is not real science. (If you wish to know why, just ask.)

I'm a YEC (young earth creationist), and debating this subject is kind of a hobby for me. Before I get into this debate, I want to make some things clear.

1. I believe in a literal Genesis.
2. Natural selection is proven fact, unlike evolution. Natural selection only deals with existing genetic information, but evolution requires additions of genetic information.

So if you want to prove to me that evolution is true, don't be lazy and give me an example of natural selection. Any idiot can see that animals change.

Evolutionists:
Where's the evidence? I would prefer that the evidence you give to be in the field of biology, because studying the past is not real science. (If you wish to know why, just ask.)

If you believe in a "literal Genesis", I think it's up to you first to provide some justification for this belief. Perhaps you could start by explaining how all the kangaroos got to Australia, and only Australia, after Noah dropped them off at Ararat?

The evidence, at a basic level, for evolution comes from physics (radiological dating of rock layers, indicating an earth approximately 4 billion years old). These rock layers start to hold fossils of simple forms of life. As we move up through the rock layers, the forms of life get more complex, and we see evidence of many species which no longer have any counterpart today (evidence for extinction). Unless you're going to claim that God planted all these fossils, and fiddled with their radiological clocks to make them look many millions of years old, presumably to "test our faith" (but are you sure that the Bible isn't here to test our gullibility?), please provide me with a literal-Genesis explanation of where these fossils, and their radiological dates, come from.

I need help. We have a debate comming up in Ancient history class on this and I forgot waht side I'm on. Could you guys help me by providing serious points for each one?

I am going to a catholic school.

No flaming/flamebating/trolling at all! You will be reported.

Technically, these points can't be debated, because even though they seem to be equal, they are not. Creationism is a matter of religious faith, and can't be verified scientifically; the only evidence for creationism is the Bible. Evolution, which can be verified (to the best of our ability) scientifically, doesn't have any religious verification.

SInce you can't use two different standards to compare two things, there is no real valid debate. Creationism is simply a matter of faith, despite evidence. Evolution is a matter of scientific evidence, with no reliance on faith.

One very important point is that Creationism exists because people want Genesis to be true. Nobody wanted Evolution to be true, they merely discovered evidence that it is. They accepted the theory because it is proper scientific practice to accept the theory with the most supporting evidence. People accept Creationism because they like the idea, regardless of its infeasibility.

Jeldred:
I see two possibilities for the kangaroos:
1. They migrated from the ark while the earth was still in a state of pangea.
2. The ice age (which I believe occured after and was caused by the flood) lowered the ocean level so they could cross on dry land.

You are obviously familiar with the story of Noah's flood. If a global flood occured, what would you expect to be left behind? I would expect billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!

All dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions. Radiometric dating methods are based on three basic assumptions:
1. That we know the amount of the parent and daughter elements present at the beginning.
2. That the decay rate has remained constant.
3. That neither the parent nor the daughter element has been contaminated.
This is why I prefer biology. When you try to use science to study the past, all you end up with is unprovable assumptions.

Tevae:
As I have demonstrated above, evolutionists do rely on faith. Creationists rely on faith for many things, but at least we can admit it. Most evolutionists believe what they do because they don't like the idea of being accountable to their Creator.

Clonetopia:
You can make all the claims you want, but backing them up is an entirely different matter.

Clonetopia:
You can make all the claims you want, but backing them up is an entirely different matter.

If you want backing up, ask an actual expert in the field, however, I suspect you don't want to hear any evidence, as it would make your job of denying what you don't like the sound of that much harder.

All I was doing in my previous post was making a point that could be used in a debate.

What you want to believe is your own concern, but I will stick to science.

Excuse me? If I wanted to hide in a hole from reality, why would I be here? I've heard what experts have to say. If you're going to automatically reject what creationists have to say, why not start with Sir Isaac Newton? Or Louis Pasteur? It's ironic when you say "I'll stick to science" considering your posts contain none.

Excuse me? If I wanted to hide in a hole from reality, why would I be here? I've heard what experts have to say. If you're going to automatically reject what creationists have to say, why not start with Sir Isaac Newton? Or Louis Pasteur? It's ironic when you say "I'll stick to science" considering your posts contain none.

It's well known that Isaac Newton had some barmy ideas. He spent most of his life trying to make gold through alchemy and once claimed that a hippopotamus was a kind of rat.

My posts are not intended to explain the science of evolution, because you can find that anywhere, no doubt written far more eloquently than I could write it.

Perhaps my words are overly harsh. Perhaps I have even jumped to conclusions. Any such errors are entirely inadvertant, and you have my apologies therefor.

I never heard those things about Newton. Where did you hear them? If possible, please give a link to the info.

I accept your apology, for I too can be over zealous sometimes.

Not that I'm anti-evolution. Just trying to show you that you have faith that your science isn't lying to you.

except that science simply explains the exact same things you just did without invoking an invisible cloud man.

It's well known that Isaac Newton had some barmy ideas. He spent most of his life trying to make gold through alchemy and once claimed that a hippopotamus was a kind of rat.

My posts are not intended to explain the science of evolution, because you can find that anywhere, no doubt written far more eloquently than I could write it.

Perhaps my words are overly harsh. Perhaps I have even jumped to conclusions. Any such errors are entirely inadvertant, and you have my apologies therefor.

actually, newton had more of a thing about having counterfitters executed than trying to turn lead into gold. and in those days, everyone dabbled in alchemy.

but yeah, his day job was at the mint, he actually came up with the idea of putting the little ridges on the edge of coins so prevent people from shaving them down to make things out of the metal.

Jeldred:
I see two possibilities for the kangaroos:
1. They migrated from the ark while the earth was still in a state of pangea.

If the land mass known as Pangea had broken apart during the time of man it would have been noticed by at least one civilisation and recorded. The rate at which the current continents are moving apart is not consistent with any recent breaking apart.

2. The ice age (which I believe occured after and was caused by the flood) lowered the ocean level so they could cross on dry land.

Uh huh, where's this evidence that so much ice developed as to practically dry up the oceans?

You are obviously familiar with the story of Noah's flood. If a global flood occured, what would you expect to be left behind? I would expect billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!

First of all, if the flood occurred ALL the fish in the world would be dead. As the waters rose the oceans would start mixing with fresh water streams and lakes. The salt water would kill the fish within. For the waters to cover all the land in the world it would be MUCH more than the oceans currently hold and would thus destroy their salinity as well, causing all ocean dwelling creatures to die.

Secondly, water is more compact than ice. If you have a cube foot of water and a cube foot of ice, the water will weigh more. In the Wisconian plains the land there is still rising after the last ice age (I think the figure is 2-3cm a year but I think it's less than that, I can't remember). The sheet of ice that was covering this was about 2% of the water that would be needed for the flood (height, not total mass). Imagine that much water pounding down all over the earth! There wouldn't be a single mountain for Noah to land on!

All dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions. Radiometric dating methods are based on three basic assumptions:
1. That we know the amount of the parent and daughter elements present at the beginning.
2. That the decay rate has remained constant.
3. That neither the parent nor the daughter element has been contaminated.
This is why I prefer biology. When you try to use science to study the past, all you end up with is unprovable assumptions.

Some stuff on radiometric dating (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/constant_rate.html)

As I have demonstrated above, evolutionists do rely on faith. Creationists rely on faith for many things, but at least we can admit it. Most evolutionists believe what they do because they don't like the idea of being accountable to their Creator.

No, most creationists do not bother enough with reading and looking up the facts, thus, assume evolutionists base it on faith. Find a biologist that doesn't believe in evolution and you'll find 1000 more that think he's off his rocker.

You can make all the claims you want, but backing them up is an entirely different matter.

Talk Origins was already mentioned. (http://www.talkorigins.org/)
Here's a place with vast amounts of info from all sorts of areas. Try to argue some of this stuff in their forums. The PHDs there will show you how wrong you are. (http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml)

Has anyone noticed the bible never says how God created everything. The whole 7 day thing is obviously a not a day as wed know it. Isn't it possible that God directed evolution much as we cross breeds of dogs and such? I am probably the only nutcase out there who things religion and science are compatable. But at least I admit my theories are odd.

There's a problem with both sides:

Evolution. Sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life. Changes must happen instantly. Example: the egg. In order for life to have come out of the ocean onto dry land, the water had to be internalized. The egg had to come into being instantly. It could not have taken hundreds of thousands of years to develop. I will explain this further if anyone needs it.



Don't bother, because I know that argument already (try me). The idea of "irreducible complexity" in eggs, eyes, ears etc. is easily proven false. Evolution happens in rapid bursts, but not in a matter of seconds. It doesn't have to. When intermediate stages are sub-optimal enough, the pressure to evolve becomes all the more higher.

By the way, some amphibians lay their eggs on dry land. The mucous tissue that surrounds the developing tadpole hardens at the surface, preventing further evaporation. This, to me, seems like a possible transitional step.

One needs to accept Jesus as their personal savior to go to Heaven. The alternative is Hell, and we know from the Bible that most people end up going there (the broad road). Let me know if you have any questions.

TM or post here? Posting here anyway.
What you are saying is that you can lie, cheat, steal etc and still go to heaven just by accepting Jesus as your saviour.....

Evolutionists:
Where's the evidence? I would prefer that the evidence you give to be in the field of biology, because studying the past is not real science. (If you wish to know why, just ask.)

Evidence for evolution (http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html#micro&macro)
Scroll down to "5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

To Jeldren...

Okay, I forgot what it was like posting messages....lol. Let me give this a shot. I do a lot of research on www.christiananswers.net , and this is an excerpt from there.

******
Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.
***********************

As far as Leviticus goes...here's what I found. I've never heard this one brought up before, but it does make for interesting research.
*****
Q: In Lev 11:20-21, is it wrong to say there are four-footed insects (an atheist asked this)?
A: The Hebrew idiom, "on fours" means it does not walk upright. Thus a dog with a leg cut off still goes "on fours." The Hebrews apparently did not have the word parallel. Come to think of it, even in English or Chinese, how would you briefly explain to someone how four-, six-, and many-legged animals all walk in common without using the word parallel?
Even if you do not accept this answer and want to be hyper-literal about this, arithmetic says that any insect that has six legs has four legs, since six is greater than four. Thus any animal that walks on six legs is walking on at least four legs.
*******

I have been a born-again crhistian for about 3 years now, and I have done a lot of researching since then. The biggest thing I would say to "try to convince" someone of becoming born again would be to do the research for yourself. I'm amazed at how easy the Bible is to understand if you just look at it objectively. Again, apply statistics to the accuracy and you HAVE to accept it. If the probability for the lottery were even close to the same as the Bible, then everyone would be millionaires.

I understand the skepticism folks have. I said the same things before I just plain evaluated it objectively. It makes so much sense, it explains everything in the world, and it is EASY to understand if you give it a shot. I pray for everyone that reads this thread to consider the Bible objectively and let God open your heart.

Jeldred:
I see two possibilities for the kangaroos:
1. They migrated from the ark while the earth was still in a state of pangea.
2. The ice age (which I believe occured after and was caused by the flood) lowered the ocean level so they could cross on dry land.

To add to the astute critique of these points provided above by Pudding Pies:

Why did the two kangaroos, and practically all the other pairs of marsupials on the ark, rush off to Australia, leaving all the mammals behind? And why did the two North American bison hare off in the other direction to catch the North American continent before it zoomed away from Europe and Africa? And just how did Noah and his family manage to house, feed, water and muck out the thousands of pairs of animals, herbivore and carnivore, not to mention the millions of pairs of insects, required to so selectively repopulate the entire planet?

And how could a global flood "cause" an ice age? And why doesn't the Bible mention this not inconsequential event which dried up the oceans without producing impenetrable walls of ice in their place?

You are obviously familiar with the story of Noah's flood. If a global flood occured, what would you expect to be left behind? I would expect billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!

We find a whole bunch of things that don't exist today. In fact, most fossils are of creatures which do not exist today. Little things like all the dinosaurs, for one. Did Noah forget these, or did they all suddenly expire after the flood and somehow arrange to be interred alongside the flood victims? Or rather, above some flood victims but below others?

Also, how did a flood of 40 days and 40 nights manage to lay down kilometres of rock? Mud, silt and sand I could accept: rock is something else entirely.

Think: if life has existed on earth for millions of years, and the earth has been subject throughout that time to the same slow processes of geological movement, sedimentary deposit, erosion and so on that we can see in progress today, what would you expect to find? Fossils of ancient, long-extinct forms of life, buried in dateable layers, where dinosaurs are separate from sabre-toothed tigers and trichordates lie far beneath the first reptiles, where all organic material has been replaced over huge periods of time by minerals leaching down through the slowly forming stone. And lo and behold, there they are. But why believe the evidence of our eyes, when we have a big old book of stories, penned by a small tribe living in the Near East in the Iron Age, to believe instead?

All dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions. Radiometric dating methods are based on three basic assumptions:
1. That we know the amount of the parent and daughter elements present at the beginning.
2. That the decay rate has remained constant.
3. That neither the parent nor the daughter element has been contaminated.
This is why I prefer biology. When you try to use science to study the past, all you end up with is unprovable assumptions.

If we're going to start debating "unprovable assumptions", let's start with this one: the belief that the Bible (but which version?) is the inerrant Word of God.

It is possible, if you wish to indulge in such asinine games, that various physical constants are not constant, for example that radioactive decay was, for some mysterious reason, far faster in the very recent past than it is now. Such statements, however, are witless in the extreme: you might as well argue that the entire universe, including all my memories, and yours, were sneezed into existence last Tuesday, or five minutes ago for that matter.

Another constant you could quibble with would be the speed of light: if God spooked up the universe in 4004 BC as per Bishop Ussher's scriptural calculations, how is it that we can see objects which are many hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, of light-years away with the naked eye? Did God, when he said "Let there be light", produce light already in motion between the stars and earth? Increasingly, your arguments seem to imply that God made all things some 6000-odd years ago, but deliberately made everything look much, much older. Why?

One final why? for you: why did God make the universe so staggeringly huge? Did he think we'd be claustrophobic?

I can accept and respect faith, a belief in an existence beyond the physical, a divine presence or purpose in life. I don't get it myself, but I have no problem with it. But this clinging to a literal belief in one particular ancient superstition is just crazy. You might as well believe that the earth is flat, as implied by the Devil's ability to show Jesus "all the cities of the earth" from the top of a high mountain. Or believe that the world is fixed and immobile, as explicitly stated in Psalm 93:

the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

If the land mass known as Pangea had broken apart during the time of man it would have been noticed by at least one civilisation and recorded. The rate at which the current continents are moving apart is not consistent with any recent breaking apart. After the flood, not many people survived. There wouldn't have been people all over the world to see and record it. Why do you assume that the continents have always moved at a constant rate?
Uh huh, where's this evidence that so much ice developed as to practically dry up the oceans? Evolutionists believe the ice age lowered ocean levels too, so don't be asking me.
First of all, if the flood occurred ALL the fish in the world would be dead. As the waters rose the oceans would start mixing with fresh water streams and lakes. The salt water would kill the fish within. For the waters to cover all the land in the world it would be MUCH more than the oceans currently hold and would thus destroy their salinity as well, causing all ocean dwelling creatures to die. This is only true if you assume fish (as well as other ocean creatures) were just as specialized as they are today. We don't even know for sure how salty the oceans were then anyways. If the earth's surface were smoother in the past, there would have been plenty of water to cover the whole earth.
Secondly, water is more compact than ice. If you have a cube foot of water and a cube foot of ice, the water will weigh more. In the Wisconian plains the land there is still rising after the last ice age (I think the figure is 2-3cm a year but I think it's less than that, I can't remember). The sheet of ice that was covering this was about 2% of the water that would be needed for the flood (height, not total mass). Imagine that much water pounding down all over the earth! There wouldn't be a single mountain for Noah to land on! The flood would have caused tectonic plates to shift, forming the tall mountains and deep trenches we see today.
Some stuff on radiometric dating Not only does it fail to prove decay rates can't change, but it doesn't even discuss assumptions 1 and 3.
No, most creationists do not bother enough with reading and looking up the facts, thus, assume evolutionists base it on faith. Find a biologist that doesn't believe in evolution and you'll find 1000 more that think he's off his rocker. We don't look at facts? I'm the one who wanted to discuss science, you are the one making assumptions and calling them "science." Since when is truth decided by popular opinion? What if we had taken that attitude with geocentrism or spontaneous generation?
Has anyone noticed the bible never says how God created everything. The whole 7 day thing is obviously a not a day as wed know it. Isn't it possible that God directed evolution much as we cross breeds of dogs and such? I am probably the only nutcase out there who things religion and science are compatable. But at least I admit my theories are odd. God says specifically what happened. Who are we to tell Him what He means? If God wanted to tell us He used evolution, why didn't He say so in plain, simple language?
The idea of "irreducible complexity" in eggs, eyes, ears etc. is easily proven false. Evolution happens in rapid bursts, but not in a matter of seconds. It doesn't have to. When intermediate stages are sub-optimal enough, the pressure to evolve becomes all the more higher. Do you even understand the meaning of "Irreducible Complexity"? What sort of advantage could a "partially formed" organ convey? Where did it get the information for this organ in the first place?
What you are saying is that you can lie, cheat, steal etc and still go to heaven just by accepting Jesus as your saviour..... You obviously don't believe in Him if you don't try to avoid those things.
Evidence for evolution
Scroll down to "5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation" I thought I said no examples of natural selection. DNA duplication isn't new information, it's the same information used twice. If a student were asked to write a 500 word essay, and he turned in a paper of 250 words and a photocopy of it, would he pass?

Nice post, Heston.

******
Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just ... and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.
***********************

A book that prophecises something in the 1st chapter and then in the 2nd chapter says it's true does not mean it actually happened. I could easily take something written in the past that will say some fictional person will be able to fly in the future, and then write a story saying so and so just flew and claim the prophecy came true! This does not mean it actually happened.

To Jeldren...

Okay, I forgot what it was like posting messages....lol. Let me give this a shot. I do a lot of research on www.christiananswers.net , and this is an excerpt from there.

******
Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

So you don't have any prophecies which could be tested, then, or subjected to critical evaluation. Just vague statements that Daniel predicted something which had already happened by the time the story of Daniel had been written down (or at least was last edited), and some assertions that there are lots more which you can't be specific about. It really doesn't seem like "remarkable prophetic evidence" to me. If there are "over 300 prophecies" which were fulfilled by Christ at his first coming, what are they?

As far as Leviticus goes...here's what I found. I've never heard this one brought up before, but it does make for interesting research.
*****
Q: In Lev 11:20-21, is it wrong to say there are four-footed insects (an atheist asked this)?
A: The Hebrew idiom, "on fours" means it does not walk upright. Thus a dog with a leg cut off still goes "on fours." The Hebrews apparently did not have the word parallel. Come to think of it, even in English or Chinese, how would you briefly explain to someone how four-, six-, and many-legged animals all walk in common without using the word parallel?
Even if you do not accept this answer and want to be hyper-literal about this, arithmetic says that any insect that has six legs has four legs, since six is greater than four. Thus any animal that walks on six legs is walking on at least four legs.

Fair enough. I accept this as a theological dodge.

What's your explanation for the two different descriptions of the Creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? One example: Genesis 1 says that humans -- both sexes -- were made on the 6th day, after the plants (day 3) and the animals (day 5). Genesis 2 says that Adam was made on a desolate earth, before being taken to the Garden of Eden where God made plants and animals and finally Eve. And whereas Genesis 1 says that the animals came out of the waters, Genesis 2 says that they came out of the earth. And finally, why is the literal translation of the Hebrew "Elohim" from Genesis 1 "Gods" plural, and not "God"?

And how did Judas die? Did he kill himself, as in Matthew 27:5-7:

And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field.

or did he burst after falling down (!) as in Acts 1:18:

Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

There's a lot more of this sort of thing, but this is enough for now.

I have been a born-again crhistian for about 3 years now, and I have done a lot of researching since then. The biggest thing I would say to "try to convince" someone of becoming born again would be to do the research for yourself. I'm amazed at how easy the Bible is to understand if you just look at it objectively. Again, apply statistics to the accuracy and you HAVE to accept it. If the probability for the lottery were even close to the same as the Bible, then everyone would be millionaires.

I understand the skepticism folks have. I said the same things before I just plain evaluated it objectively. It makes so much sense, it explains everything in the world, and it is EASY to understand if you give it a shot. I pray for everyone that reads this thread to consider the Bible objectively and let God open your heart.

I have done a fair bit of research too. I find the Bible to be a great, big, variously translated and edited, collection of folk-tales, myths, fabricated and fictionalised history, and vague recollections penned long after the events in question. No great surprise, or shame, in that. It's what we get from all other ancient cultures. What I can't understand is why someone would decide to believe that it's all literally true -- even the bits that blatantly contradict the other bits, let alone common sense and experience.

After the flood, not many people survived. There wouldn't have been people all over the world to see and record it. Why do you assume that the continents have always moved at a constant rate?

Not all over the world but at some point people ended up on these land masses. How'd they get there? They would need to cross a land bridge. This would indicate they were around when Pangaea existed. Do you think they wouldn't have noticed it breaking apart later? I also never assumed a constant rate. The rate needed to have this completed since Noah's flood however would cause massive earthquakes that likely would have destroyed humanity.

Evolutionists believe the ice age lowered ocean levels too, so don't be asking me.

Not to the point where you can cross between any continent you want to.

This is only true if you assume fish (as well as other ocean creatures) were just as specialized as they are today.

That would indicate evolution.

We don't even know for sure how salty the oceans were then anyways. If the earth's surface were smoother in the past, there would have been plenty of water to cover the whole earth.

Ok, show me evidence that would indicate any of this.

The flood would have caused tectonic plates to shift, forming the tall mountains and deep trenches we see today.

Evidence?

Not only does it fail to prove decay rates can't change, but it doesn't even discuss assumptions 1 and 3.

Fail in what way? The fact it cites sources throughout of actual scientific papers and studies? Or maybe you didn't bother to read it? Ugh, here's more than! (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/index.shtml)

We don't look at facts? I'm the one who wanted to discuss science, you are the one making assumptions and calling them "science." Since when is truth decided by popular opinion? What if we had taken that attitude with geocentrism or spontaneous generation?

I'm not making assumptions, I'm just repeating facts already stated by scientists. I'd give you links for each "assumption" but I don't feel like searching for things I read months ago! And science doesn't deal with popular opinion. It deals with facts. When the facts point to certain ends then many people are obviously going to agree. Science is ever changing. Geocentrism was bound to be proven false at some point in time. Spontaneous generation as well.

God says specifically what happened. Who are we to tell Him what He means?

Wrong. A book claims a god did these things. A book written by men.

If God wanted to tell us He used evolution, why didn't He say so in plain, simple language?

Because he doesn't exist.

I thought I said no examples of natural selection. DNA duplication isn't new information, it's the same information used twice. If a student were asked to write a 500 word essay, and he turned in a paper of 250 words and a photocopy of it, would he pass?

There's no way you read all of that. And so you know, natural selection is PART of evolution! You're trying to persuade the argument in your favor. I won't let that happen.

After the flood, not many people survived. There wouldn't have been people all over the world to see and record it. Why do you assume that the continents have always moved at a constant rate?


Do you realize the amount of heat and gasses generated by the fast movement of techtonic plates? Nothing would have survived such a thing, absolutely nothing. No, this doesn't explain how the kangaroo got to Australia, or the bison to America.

Plus, there are fossils left in the rock that belong to animals completely different to those of today. Not only that, they were left in a succession of less complex at the bottom to more complex at the top. How do you explain that using the flood? What happened to the small gallimimous? Surely if an elephant could fit in the ark, a gallimimous would to. What about the ichtiosaur? The trilobite?


Evolutionists believe the ice age lowered ocean levels too, so don't be asking me.


Geologist do, but it's not that they simply believe it, they have evidence, such as tree stumps now underwater, marks of glaciers and rocks eroded and moved by ice, climatic recods in Antartic ice, etc. But although the water level dropped down, it did so by a few meters at most. Certainly not low enough to create a land bridge between Asia and Borneo, let alone Australia.


This is only true if you assume fish (as well as other ocean creatures) were just as specialized as they are today. We don't even know for sure how salty the oceans were then anyways. If the earth's surface were smoother in the past, there would have been plenty of water to cover the whole earth.


Sea salinity levels haven't changed that much in the last few thousands of years, judging by limestone deposits. Sure, we don't know exactly how salty they were but we have a pretty good idea.

To go from a smooth Earth to the current one in just a few thousand years, as I've sais would have generated a lot of heat and gas. It's not impossible for something like that to happen, it's just that nothing would have survived.


The flood would have caused tectonic plates to shift, forming the tall mountains and deep trenches we see today.


How so? And again, what about the heat?


Not only does it fail to prove decay rates can't change, but it doesn't even discuss assumptions 1 and 3.


Well, science is not about not making assumpions. On the contrary, science is about making assumptions and then proving them. C14 dating is known to have limitations and errors, and since these limitations and errors are known, it's possible to use it as a dating tool.

We know that C14's rate of decay is constant because nothing in theory or in the lab has affected the overall half-life of a radioactive substance. So, it's a very fair assumption to make that it has always been the same. We know that the overall amount of C14 on Earth is more or less constant, since it's produced by cosmic bombardment at pretty much the same rate as it's decaying. And we know that living creatures must have been accumulating it in the same way as now because there is nothing indicating that their chemistry would be different then. Now, if you can prove that their chemistry was different then, that'll be something else entirely.


God says specifically what happened. Who are we to tell Him what He means? If God wanted to tell us He used evolution, why didn't He say so in plain, simple language?


So, what if the Bible is just a bunch of lies? It's supposed "prophecies" simply vague references or adjusted in later times to fit a particular situation? What about the other religious texts that also contain prophecies and miracles but tell a different creation story? What if god doesn't exist?

And in my opinion that why religious creationists should refrain from attacking science, especially on the grounds that science makes some "assumptions".


Do you even understand the meaning of "Irreducible Complexity"? What sort of advantage could a "partially formed" organ convey? Where did it get the information for this organ in the first place?


I agree that "partially formed" is not the best way to describe intermediate evolutionary stages. Instead it should be less capable or simpler organs. For example, are a dogs eyes partially formed? or human eyes when compared to hawks? What about ant's eyes? What about me, being shortsighted?

Where does the new information come from? That still remains a mistery, especially considering we have a very crude understanding on how DNA works. However, the fact that we don't know doesn't mean there is a misterious, supernatural force at work. It means simply that we don't know.

When we understand how DNA works perhaps we will find the answer to how new genetic information is created and will give us a better glimpse into evolution. Or it could be that you are right and the science on evolution and biology will have to be rewritten. As of now, the current theories we have fit observable data well enough.

However, if you ask me, I think that people who believe in god should be concentrating in how human consciousness first appeared, rather than evolution or the physical universe. That's a much bigger mistery.

Has anyone noticed the bible never says how God created everything. The whole 7 day thing is obviously a not a day as wed know it. Isn't it possible that God directed evolution much as we cross breeds of dogs and such? I am probably the only nutcase out there who things religion and science are compatable. But at least I admit my theories are odd.

No, your theories are not odd. In fact they are shared by a majority of the world. The problem is that some people believe that the Bible is absolutely 100% literal truth and as such it leaves no place for any compromises. Fortunately these radicals are few, but tend to concentrate in threads such as this, which also attracts masochists such as me.

What's your explanation for the two different descriptions of the Creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? One example: Genesis 1 says that humans -- both sexes -- were made on the 6th day, after the plants (day 3) and the animals (day 5). Genesis 2 says that Adam was made on a desolate earth, before being taken to the Garden of Eden where God made plants and animals and finally Eve. And whereas Genesis 1 says that the animals came out of the waters, Genesis 2 says that they came out of the earth. And finally, why is the literal translation of the Hebrew "Elohim" from Genesis 1 "Gods" plural, and not "God"?

Well...We dive dive dive into obscure Jewish Scripture yet again!

Wheeeeeee!

The Garden of Eden is the Domain of the Angel Jophiel. Jophiel was its protector and was the one whom drove Adam and Eve out. To this day he protects the tree of knowledge with his powerful Sword of Fire.

Also, Eve was Adam's 3rd wife. Ya' just gotta know these things...

Elohim is actually a referrence to refer to Angelic Princes, such as Metatron and Sandalaphon (Whom were actually Enoch and Elijah while in life. These are the only two known instances where humans transubstantiated into Celestial Beings), but Christians nowadays so quickly forget their angels (they're really too much focuses on Jesus and God, or Jesus as God..whatever), that they miss a lot of what religiously happened. The Hebrew Texts are focused *a lot* on Angels, and it's really a shame that most Christians either live in ignorance or don't accept that most of what *God* does, it's almost always the work of an Angel taking his name (Burning Bush, for example, was the Angel Michael).

Well, in most CHristian Genesis texts, the word "water" isn't used. It's "Firmament." With that out of the way, I direct you do my post concerning Leviathan.

You can't really have a debate about creationism vs evolution because creationism isn't even a scientific theory and has about zero positive evidence for it. Creationists just attack evolution and seem to think if evolution is wrong then they win by default. If evolution is wrong, then we need to find a new and better scientific theory, just like Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Isaac Newton's laws. However, Creationists aren't interested in science, but just promoting their dogma.

You can't really have a debate about creationism vs evolution because creationism isn't even a scientific theory and has about zero positive evidence for it. Creationists just attack evolution and seem to think if evolution is wrong then they win by default. If evolution is wrong, then we need to find a new and better scientific theory, just like Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Isaac Newton's laws. However, Creationists aren't interested in science, but just promoting their dogma.

But it's still fun :fluffle:

Jeldred:
I see two possibilities for the kangaroos:
1. They migrated from the ark while the earth was still in a state of pangea.

The age of Pangea precludes building structures of that size(ie the ark).
The speed of plate techtonics shows pangea far older the story of Noah.

2. The ice age (which I believe occured after and was caused by the flood) lowered the ocean level so they could cross on dry land.

The Ice age did not cover the earth.
Ice does not lower the ocean.
The fossil record does not shows Kangaroos anywhere else.


You are obviously familiar with the story of Noah's flood. If a global flood occured, what would you expect to be left behind? I would expect billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!

The problem with "the flood" is there should be a layer with many many fossils and they a layer or two with none or very little due tot he mass death.

The only recorded instance of this falls in line with the dinos.


All dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions. Radiometric dating methods are based on three basic assumptions:
1. That we know the amount of the parent and daughter elements present at the beginning.
2. That the decay rate has remained constant.
3. That neither the parent nor the daughter element has been contaminated.
This is why I prefer biology. When you try to use science to study the past, all you end up with is unprovable assumptions.

You keep telling yourself that.

Actually dating methods are pretty acurate. Contamination is an issue as always but the guys who do it look for that.


Tevae:
As I have demonstrated above, evolutionists do rely on faith. Creationists rely on faith for many things, but at least we can admit it. Most evolutionists believe what they do because they don't like the idea of being accountable to their Creator.

No they don't. They follow things that give evidence to the possibilities. Sorry but they don't wave their hands and go "booga boooga" and say this is what happened.

As to the accountable comment. Strawman so I won't bother.

So speaks a primatologist. I will leave the Geology specifics to the geologists. You want to talk Primates and primate history; I'm your man.

This forum moves way too fast for me to keep countering every argument. So I'll just leave you with Answers In Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org). Read their FAQ section or e-mail them if you can't find the info you need. Goodbye.

This forum moves way too fast for me to keep countering every argument. So I'll just leave you with Answers In Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org). Read their FAQ section or e-mail them if you can't find the info you need. Goodbye.

I am reading the ape stuff and already found BS.

"‘Piltdown man’—constructed in 1912 from stained, fossilized fragments of an orang-utan jaw and a human head—was claimed by evolutionists for more than 40 years to be proof that humans had descended from ape-like creatures. The Piltdown remains were accompanied by a piece of elephant bone which had been carved into a shape like a cricket bat—an appropriate accessory for the supposed ‘first Englishman’."

Piltdown man was NEVER accepted by the evolutionary world. Some English Anthropologists in their desperation to "disprove" the African origon theory grabbed on to it. However, It was heavily argued in England as well so the author is either mistaken or telling a lie.

Well just from scanning their ape stuff, I think the site is crap.

For example:

"Not so long ago, newspapers around the world hailed the ‘Missing Link Found in Ethiopia’. In our June issue we pointed out what was actually found in regard to this creature, named Australopithecus ramidus—a few tiny, chewed-up bits of bone, some over hal"

Missing Link is not discussed anymore. If you hear "missing link" it is usally the reporter talking and not the anthropologist.....

Many of the articles take the approach of talking about previous claims(some from a long time ago) were proven to be false. So that means evoltution is flase because they said this and they were wrong. How about, we didn't know much at the time and now we know more.

Many of the authors list PhD but they don't say in what. Just from the primate stuff, I can tell they are not primatologists and most likely not anthropologiests. Probably theologians.

Ahh well.

Okay...I just finsished lunch so I'm ready.


To Jeldred and Everyone...

Jeldred, I could go surf a site and find all the evidences and mathematical equations behind some prophecies. Then you'd find some other evidences to the contrary. Then it would go on and on and on and on. My friend in academia recently told me that for every PHD there is an equal and opposite PHD as well. Pretty interesting.

I guess if I was to make any point it would be this. Go do some research YOURSELF and do it OBJECTIVELY!! (I'm not being a smart alec here). What does this mean? It means that I can tell in a few short threads that you are biased toward the Bible not being factual and literal. Go beyond objective for a moment and actually pretend that you want the Bible to be true and do your research with that mindset. I think you will be amazed at how much it makes sense on the other side. Again, I'm applying plain logic, statistics, and proponderence of evidences.

So far, I've only been talking about logic and objectivity, and have failed to mention the spiritual/faith side of it. While doing my studies, I focused on a part in the Bible that said "knock and the door will be opened", "take steps toward God and he will take steps toward you". (forgive my not finding the actual scripture here...for brevity sake). I can tell you I experienced this in a very real way! These experiences only cemented my feelings in faith and secondarily statistics.

To anyone reading this thread who is not saved by grace through the blood of Jesus Christ. You will remember these words FOR ETERNITY!!! This is just one more chance for you to be saved and if you don't, then you will remember back to now. Now is the time for you to search "how to be born-again" and go read on your own and get saved now. Remember, you are only one heartbeat away from an eternal Hell if you are not saved. You, can be saved in an instant by trusting Jesus as your savior. The Bible says you have until the 11th hour to be saved, but how many of us know when that 11th hour is. If this scares you......then good.....because the Bible says fear is the beginning of wisdom. A good resource is www.christiananswers.net . I'll be praying for you all. Thanks.

I guess if I was to make any point it would be this. Go do some research YOURSELF and do it OBJECTIVELY!! (I'm not being a smart alec here). What does this mean? It means that I can tell in a few short threads that you are biased toward the Bible not being factual and literal. Go beyond objective for a moment and actually pretend that you want the Bible to be true and do your research with that mindset. I think you will be amazed at how much it makes sense on the other side. Again, I'm applying plain logic, statistics, and proponderence of evidences.


That's not being objective. Objective research would mean taking a look at the fact being discussed, come up with possible explanations, trying to obtain proof for every explanation and then ranking them.

Go, do that.

This forum moves way too fast for me to keep countering every argument. So I'll just leave you with Answers In Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org). Read their FAQ section or e-mail them if you can't find the info you need. Goodbye.

I've been to that site before. I quickly left it for the smell of crap was just too strong. I've got links to other creationist sites that I go into from time to time, just for laughs: Dr Dino (http://drdino.com/index.jsp) Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) Objective: Christian Ministries (http://objective.jesussave.us/index.html)

I've been to that site before. I quickly left it for the smell of crap was just too strong. I've got links to other creationist sites that I go into from time to time, just for laughs: Dr Dino (http://drdino.com/index.jsp) Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) Objective: Christian Ministries (http://objective.jesussave.us/index.html)


Eww Dr. Dino. Talk about a snakeoil salesmen. A few people have put in for his $250000 challenge and he won't respond. :eek:

I read somewhere the IRS is after him as well.

Luckly that idiot only preeches to the choir......

Go beyond objective for a moment and actually pretend that you want the Bible to be true and do your research with that mindset. I think you will be amazed at how much it makes sense on the other side. Again, I'm applying plain logic, statistics, and proponderence of evidences.

I could believe any amount of bullshit if, before researching it, I believed it to be true beforehand! Science and logical reasoning does NOT do that. Science will take an educated guess (hypothesis) and see if it works in the world. If not, the evidence found is used to reshape that hypothesis. This keeps happening until an answer is found that can predict what else would, should, or has happened, in which it becomes a model (or theory). The Bible doesn't teach that. It says this, this, and this are true. Don't try to disprove it, it just is. Uh huh. I guess Superman existed as well. Remaining skeptical is how science showed the world to be round, that the universe didn't revolve around us, and that we didn't appear suddenly 6000 years ago!

You take advantage of all the accomplishments science has provided for you in the past few hundred years (electricity, computers, cars, etc...) yet laugh in its face when it produces evidence of the ancestry of man being different then your ignorant, shallow view?! It's absurd and a total kick in the head to 200 years of research done by thousands of biologists and geologists!

Eww Dr. Dino. Talk about a snakeoil salesmen. A few people have put in for his $250000 challenge and he won't respond. :eek:

I read somewhere the IRS is after him as well.

Luckly that idiot only preeches to the choir......

Hehe, yeah, but it's a funny read. The IRS is after him for unpaid taxes. And a bunch have put in for his challenge only to have him give them the run around. (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_bogus_challenge.htm) I had another link with more stories but can't find it right now. Basically, they ask for clarification of the panel of judges (which he has claimed the right to pick, whether they're biased or not) to be non-partisan, that he give better details to what he wants, and whether he actually has the money. A quick search on the net will probably land you some good stories :)

BTW - Answers in Genesis cite - Debunked! (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/answers_in_genesis.htm)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heston State
I guess if I was to make any point it would be this. Go do some research YOURSELF and do it OBJECTIVELY!! (I'm not being a smart alec here). What does this mean? It means that I can tell in a few short threads that you are biased toward the Bible not being factual and literal. Go beyond objective for a moment and actually pretend that you want the Bible to be true and do your research with that mindset. I think you will be amazed at how much it makes sense on the other side. Again, I'm applying plain logic, statistics, and proponderence of evidences.

That's not being objective. Objective research would mean taking a look at the fact being discussed, come up with possible explanations, trying to obtain proof for every explanation and then ranking them.

Go, do that.

*******************

CLAIRIFICATION!!

Good point! I meant to write that one should be aware of their own biases and consider that when doing reasearch. It's a good mental exercise to look at things from other angles. That was my poorly made point.

Bottom Line Folks!! We have the Bible. It contains over 300 prophesies. Most of them have been proven true, and none of them have been disproven (I'm talking about the KJV not the Catholic version). Take your scientific minds and apply general statistics and quatitative analyis and figure out what the odds are of just a few of these prophesies coming true (let alone over 300). You will find that to not believe every word of the Bible would be crazy (statistically that is).

Once you come far enough to understand the Bible to be 100% accurate (because statistically there is no other conclusion), then all you need to do is follow it. One needs to accept Jesus as their personal savior to go to Heaven. The alternative is Hell, and we know from the Bible that most people end up going there (the broad road). Let me know if you have any questions.

Duck and cover, people! Jack Chick plays Nationstates!

Why can't there be Evolution WITH Creationism? Someone posted something like this earlier on. My theory is that if God created everything, this includes space and time for us lowly mortals to live in. Thus when he created time, he created a past and future for all things to exist. This would make it possible for God to have created the earth several thousand years ago, but that point in time was when the past was created (allowing everything to evolve up until Creation) and the future.

I'm just a dirty pagan who thinks earth's life is so interwoven to help each organism exist (if we're all made of atoms, what's the difference between us who try to survive as opposed to rocks which seem to lack any conscience), that it is really some kind of miracle that we are here at all. :p

Jeldred:
I see two possibilities for the kangaroos:
1. They migrated from the ark while the earth was still in a state of pangea.
2. The ice age (which I believe occured after and was caused by the flood) lowered the ocean level so they could cross on dry land.

You are obviously familiar with the story of Noah's flood. If a global flood occured, what would you expect to be left behind? I would expect billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!

All dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions. Radiometric dating methods are based on three basic assumptions:
1. That we know the amount of the parent and daughter elements present at the beginning.
2. That the decay rate has remained constant.
3. That neither the parent nor the daughter element has been contaminated.
This is why I prefer biology. When you try to use science to study the past, all you end up with is unprovable assumptions.

Tevae:
As I have demonstrated above, evolutionists do rely on faith. Creationists rely on faith for many things, but at least we can admit it. Most evolutionists believe what they do because they don't like the idea of being accountable to their Creator.

Clonetopia:
You can make all the claims you want, but backing them up is an entirely different matter.

Wow this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "They migrated from the ark while the earth was still in a state of pangea."? What, so in 10 000 years (as it says according to Genesis) Australia moved over 2000 KM? Wow, I didn't know that at the time of Christ North America and Europe were that close together. Plus, where's the, oh, couple meters a year the Earth's plates should be moving now?

"The ice age (which I believe occured after and was caused by the flood) lowered the ocean level so they could cross on dry land."

A couple things here: 1. There have been hundreds of Ice Ages.
2. The area between Australia and either Antarctica or India is some of the deepest ocean in the world. Unless the water level dropped a couple of kilometres, I highly doubt this.

"You are obviously familiar with the story of Noah's flood. If a global flood occured, what would you expect to be left behind? I would expect billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!"

That doesn't explain why one fossle is 10 metres deeper than another. Unless all of a sudden 10 metres of sediment were dropped at an even level throughout a very large area of the Earth, shut up and sit down.

I'm not even going to touch your arguments againsts Radio-carbon Dating, they're so bad.

Get a brain, then come back and see us all.
That goes for all other Creationists.

Why can't there be Evolution WITH Creationism?

Until science, the tool we've used for many many years to get humanity to where it is today, shows evidence of a creator there's no way it should be taught.

It does seem that evolution has the upper hand and does seem more likely, but we can never fully know.

except that science simply explains the exact same things you just did without invoking an invisible cloud man.

Thanks for assuming what I mean by "God," although I suppose in a debate about Creationism it'd make sense to assume I meant the Judeo-Christian idea.

Science explains this stuff if you have faith in science being correct. It's invoking invisible universal forces that would cause molecules to act a certain way, would cause genetics to mutate on occasion, and would cause myriad other amazingly improbable things to happen in specific ways.

Science only works if you BELIEVE it works. Of course, you have "proof" because things happen the same way (almost) every time you run an experiment, and you can see this with your own eyes ... oh, wait, that's involving "scientific" proof to prove science.

Originally Posted by Heston State
Bottom Line Folks!! We have the Bible. It contains over 300 prophesies. Most of them have been proven true, and none of them have been disproven (I'm talking about the KJV not the Catholic version). Take your scientific minds and apply general statistics and quatitative analyis and figure out what the odds are of just a few of these prophesies coming true (let alone over 300). You will find that to not believe every word of the Bible would be crazy (statistically that is).

Once you come far enough to understand the Bible to be 100% accurate (because statistically there is no other conclusion), then all you need to do is follow it. One needs to accept Jesus as their personal savior to go to Heaven. The alternative is Hell, and we know from the Bible that most people end up going there (the broad road). Let me know if you have any questions.

Lets get this straight now, in one breath, you tell us that Bible contains over 300 prophecies, which have been "proven true", and that anyone who read these proofs would have to become born again, and hence "saved". You state that you know these prophecies, having researched them yourself, to bring yourself to this state of salvation. Then once someone calls you on your brash, and rather explicit statement, you come back with:

I guess if I was to make any point it would be this. Go do some research YOURSELF and do it OBJECTIVELY!!

Therefore, you claim to have undisputable evidence supporting the bible as being 100% literal truth, and that accepting this truth would leave one with no choice but to accept Jesus, and thus (according to your belief system anyway) be saved. You then withhold this "evidence" which would save all of us poor heathens --- I don't know, sounds like a pretty unchristian thing to do if you ask me.

Simply put, if there are 300 + irrefutable and explicit prophecies in the bible, which have all come to pass, then lets see them. For one who has done so much "research", it should be a simple thing to do....

either that, or you were just blowing steam in the hopes you wouldn't get caught, but oops...guess what you did!

Pretty lame way of back peddling out of your words, to bad your foot's still stuck in your mouth!!

Science explains this stuff if you have faith in science being correct.
Science has done tons of stuff to make our lives better. We can see it in the world around as evidence for its accomplishments. Where's the evidence that God has done anything? And no, life is not evidence since there's no notion it was done by a creator.

It's invoking invisible universal forces that would cause molecules to act a certain way, would cause genetics to mutate on occasion, and would cause myriad other amazingly improbable things to happen in specific ways.

If they happen, they're not improbable. The laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc... are what allows us to understand why these things happen. The Bible does not.

Science only works if you BELIEVE it works. Of course, you have "proof" because things happen the same way (almost) every time you run an experiment, and you can see this with your own eyes ... oh, wait, that's involving "scientific" proof to prove science.

Yes, we can see it and we know the stuff in science has happened. That's why it's proof. It's not faith, it's logic, and once you throw logic out the door, you have God. You can't use faith to prove faith. You need evidence.

To Joseph and others...

Going back to what I wrote earlier..."I guess if I was to make any point it would be this. Go do some research YOURSELF and do it OBJECTIVELY!!"

Let me clarify this. I invite anyone who reads this to research the topic of the Bible/Salvation/Hell/Heaven, etc. themselves. The reason I say this is because one will get way more out of their own wondering clicking and reading than being spoonfed an idea that would shortly thereafter be countered by some else's statement. I have not personally researched all prophesies. However, every hour I have researched only proves more and more the Bible is 100% true. As I have previously stated, I was as skeptical as anyone posting here. The more I have researched the Bible the more I see its truth. I am as open to anything as anyone I know. I try to approach things as a realist and objectively as possible. I have approached the Bible objectively, and biased for it, and against it. All roads seem to overwhelmingly point the the Bible being 100% true and accurate.

I have not withheld the way to be saved from anyone. I simply implored you to seek it on your own, under your own interest. I regularly use a website called www.christiananswers.net . This website will answer anything you can think of. The answers they give should satisfy the greatest of skeptics. They include mathematical equations, third party sources and professionals from every discipline.

I'll post shortly how to be saved and I'll also see if I can drum up some stats on proven prophesies. See you in a bit. If anyone wants to contact me personally through email let me know. I hope and pray that everyone can come to the saving knowledge of Jesus as their savior.

Bottom Line Folks!! We have the Bible. It contains over 300 prophesies. Most of them have been proven true, and none of them have been disproven (I'm talking about the KJV not the Catholic version). Take your scientific minds and apply general statistics and quatitative analyis and figure out what the odds are of just a few of these prophesies coming true (let alone over 300). You will find that to not believe every word of the Bible would be crazy (statistically that is).

Once you come far enough to understand the Bible to be 100% accurate (because statistically there is no other conclusion), then all you need to do is follow it. One needs to accept Jesus as their personal savior to go to Heaven. The alternative is Hell, and we know from the Bible that most people end up going there (the broad road). Let me know if you have any questions.

THis is correct. However, just because God created everything does not mean that he did not create everything through evolution. It may just be one of his tools. I am very glad that someone understands that the scriptures are divine revelation from the Supreme Being of the universe, namely God, and that, when used properly, is the guide to "come unto Christ and be perfected in him." I know that God created the universe, and no matter what someone says contrary to it, they are wrong. "The wisdom of the wise will be confounded, and the understanding of the prudent will be hid." NOt only are there hundreds of prophecies, please note this: there has never been a prophet and never will be a prophet who did not testify of Christ as the Redeemer of all mankind, and the only way that we can be saved is if we become humble, repent, and follow Christ. To finish with a quote:
(These are all about Christ)

He is Alive: "The life of the world... a life which is endless." (Mosiah 16:9.)

He is Constant: "The same yesterday, today, and forever." (2 Nephi 27:23.)

He is the Creator: "He created all things, both in heaven and in earth." (Mosiah 4:9.)

He is the Exemplar: He "set the example .... He said unto the children of men: Follow thou me." (2 Nephi 31:9-10.)

He is Generous: "He commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation." (2 Nephi 26:24.)

He is Godly: He is God. (See 2 Nephi 27:23.)

He is Good: "All things which are good cometh of God." (Moroni 7:12.)

He is Gracious: "He is full of grace." (2 Nephi 2:6.)

He is the Healer: The "sick, and... afflicted with all manner of diseases... devils and unclean spirits... were healed by the power of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 11:31.)

He is Holy: "O how great the holiness of our God!" (2 Nephi 9:20.)

He is Humble: "He humbleth himself before the Father." (2 Nephi 31:7.)

He is Joyful: "The Father hath given" Him a "fulness of joy." (3 Nephi 28:10.)

He is our Judge: We "shall be brought to stand before the bar of God, to be judged of him." (Mosiah 16:10.)

He is Just: "The judgments of God are always just." (Mosiah 29:12.)

He is Kind: He has "loving kindness... towards the children of men." (1 Nephi 19:9.)

He is the Lawgiver: He "gave the law." (3 Nephi 15:5.)

He is the Liberator: "There is no other head whereby ye can be made free." (Mosiah 5:8.)

He is the Light: "The light... of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can never be darkened." (Mosiah 16:9.)

He is Loving: "He loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life." (2 Nephi 26:24.)

He is the Mediator: "The great Mediator of all men." (2 Nephi 2:27.)

He is Merciful: There is a "multitude of his tender mercies." (1 Nephi 8:8.)

He is Mighty: "Mightier than all the earth." (1 Nephi 4:1.)

He is Miraculous: A "God of miracles." (2 Nephi 27:23.)

He is Obedient: Obedient unto the Father "in keeping his commandments." (2 Nephi 31:7.)

He is Omnipotent: He has "all power, both in heaven and in earth." (Mosiah 4:9.)

He is Omniscient: "The Lord knoweth all things from the beginning." (1 Nephi 9:6.)

He is our Redeemer: "All mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer." (1 Nephi 10:6.)

He is the Resurrection: He brought to pass "the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise." (2 Nephi 2:8.)

He is Righteous: "His ways are righteousness forever." (2 Nephi 1:19.)

He is the Ruler: He rules "in the heavens above and in the earth beneath." (2 Nephi 29:7.)

He is our Savior: "There is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ... whereby man can be saved." (2 Nephi 25:20.)

He is Sinless: He "suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation." (Mosiah 15:5.)

He is Truthful: "A God of truth, and canst not lie." (Ether 3:12.)

He is Wise: "He has all wisdom." (Mosiah 4:9.)

Yes, I am Mormon, but we do not practice polygamy, and we worhip Jesus Christ.

I couldn't write this any better myself, so here is a copy from some site...
*************************************
THE BIBLE EXPLAINS GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION

Is it possible for a person to know where they will spend eternity? How can a person be sure that they will spend eternity with God, in Heaven? Listed below are some Bible verses with a brief explanation. You can open your Bible to the sixth book of the New Testament, called Romans, and read these verses right out of the Bible, God's Holy Word.

1. Every Person's Condition "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

This explains that we are separated from God by sin. Notice the word sin is singular, it is not just he sins we have committed but the sinful heart, that causes us to commit these sinful acts, that keeps us from God.

2. Result Of Our Condition "For the wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23a

This is not just the physical death that we know everyone will eventually experience, but it refers to spiritual death. This is to be separated from God forever. Wages are received for work done. What we receive for the sin we have done is spiritual death, forever separated from God. The wages of our sin is like a DEBT that we owe for our sin.

We have all heard about the LOVE of God. God does love us and has done something to show us that LOVE.

3. Christ Paid Our Sin Debt "But God commendeth (demonstrated) His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

All people owe the debt for their sin but Jesus Christ, God's Son, died on the cross of calvary to pay our sin debt. He did this because He loves us.

4. God Offers Us Forgiveness Of Sin And Eternal Life As A Free Gift "...But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23b

God will do this because Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the debt of our sin. The person who gives a gift pays its price but the person receiving the gift gets it free. Jesus paid for our sin with His own blood shed on the cross so He can give you the free gift of eternal life.

Your choice is to receive God's free gift of forgiveness of sin and eternal life or you can pay your own sin debt. Remember the debt is spiritual death, which means, you will be forever separated from God and heaven.

5. How To Accept God's Free Gift "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9,10

To believe in thine heart means to trust God with your soul and life. To believe means more than to agree with your mind some facts of history about Jesus Christ. Romans 10:13 says, "For whosoever (put your name here) shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." There are two parts to this verse. God's part is to save, our part is to call (ask) God to forgive our sin and save us.

How about you? Do you believe that what these Bible verses say is true about you? If you do --- will you put your faith, trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and His death on the cross and resurrection from the dead to pay for your sin debt?

If you want to be saved bow before God and pray. You can personalize this prayer and make it yours or pray in your own words expressing these thoughts. "Lord, I know that I am a sinner and need your forgiveness; I believe that Christ died in my place, paying the debt of my sin; I am willing to turn from my sin; I ask you to forgive all of my sin. I invite Jesus Christ to come into my heart and life as my personal Savior. I am willing, with God's help to follow and obey Jesus Christ. Amen"

HERE YOU GO.....READY, SET....START DEBUNKING.
I picked these prophecies because they have taken place since 1948.
*************************************************

10 fulfilled recently
These 10 Bible prophecies were fulfilled after 1948, when Israel became an independent country for the second time in history. These prophecies find fulfillment in Israel's stunning military victories and in its transition from a desert wasteland to a comparatively prosperous nation.

1. Israel will ultimately prevail over its enemies
Bible passage: Isaiah 41:12-14
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Isaiah 41:12-14, the prophet proclaimed that the tiny nation of Israel ultimately will prevail over its enemies, and that although its enemies will cease to exist one day, Israel will survive. This prophecy is interesting from an historical perspective. The country of Israel has been conquered and destroyed at different times by very powerful nations and empires, such as Assyria, Babylon and the Roman Empire. Those conquests led to the exile and worldwide dispersion of the people of Israel, and to the desolation of the land of Israel. Even so, Israel is again a sovereign nation today, and the empires of Assyria, Babylon and ancient Rome have vanished long ago. The Nazis tried to destroy the people of Israel during the 1940s. But that decade saw the rebirth of the county of Israel and the destruction of the Nazi empire. From the perspective of various Christian scholars, this prophecy has found partial fulfillment so far, and will be completely fulfilled in the future when all enemies of Israel are destroyed.

Isaiah 41:12-14
Though you search for your enemies, you will not find them. Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all. For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you. Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you," declares the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

2. The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt
Bible passage: Amos 9:11, 13
Written: about 750 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Amos 9:11, 13, the prophet said that God would restore the land of David. King David ruled Israel from about 1010 BC to about 970 BC. During that time, Israel was a united and sovereign nation. Afterwards, the land was divided into two kingdoms and later conquered by a succession of world powers. For much of the past 2000 years, the people of Israel have been living in exile in countries around the world, and the land of Israel has been in a state of ruin. During the past two centuries, however, many Jews have returned from exile and have rebuilt and reconditioned much of the land of Israel. The soil is again productive, producing food exports for many countries. And the nation is again sovereign and united.

Amos 9:11, 13
"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be,'' … "The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills."

3. Ezekiel prophesied prosperity for a restored Israel
Bible passage: Ezekiel 36:11
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Ezekiel 36:11, the prophet said that there would come a time when Israel would be more prosperous than it was in the past. The Bible describes Israel as being a prosperous nation during the time of King David and King Solomon about 3000 years ago. But, Ezekiel knew a very different Israel. In Ezekiel's day (he lived about 2600 years ago), the northern part of the land had been decimated by the Assyrians, and the southern part, called Judah, was being destroyed by the Babylonians. The land of Israel suffered greatly, falling into a state of poverty and desolation that would last for many centuries. But today, Israel again is a sovereign nation. And it is a prosperous nation. In 1999, Israel had the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product of any nearby country, even though the surrounding countries have many oil resources.

Ezekiel 36:11
I will increase the number of men and animals upon you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

4. Trees would flourish again in a desolate Israel
Bible passage: Isaiah 41:18-20
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Isaiah 41:18-20, the prophet's talk of a future restoration of Israel coincides with an occurrence in modern Israel - the construction of a vast irrigation system to improve farming. The lack of available water, including rain, is one reason why Israel had been a desolate, unproductive land during much of the past 2000 years. But, during the 1900s, when many Jews returned to their ancient homeland, they built a network of irrigation systems. And during the past century, more than 200 million trees have been planted in Israel.

Isaiah 41:18-20
I will make rivers flow on barren heights, and springs within the valleys. I will turn the desert into pools of water, and the parched ground into springs. I will put in the desert the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive. I will set pines in the wasteland, the fir and the cypress together, so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the Lord has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has created it.

Note: The Jewish National Fund web site, at www.jnf.org, has information about how people can contribute to the effort to reforest Israel.

5. Isaiah said Israel's fruit would fill the world
Bible passage: Isaiah 27:6
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Isaiah 27:6, the prophet said Israel would one day blossom and fill the world with fruit. This prophecy has been at least partially fulfilled so far, literally and spiritually. Today, the land of Israel, which had been barren for centuries, is a leading producer of agricultural products, exporting food to many countries. This prophecy also has been fulfilled spiritually with the worldwide spread of Christianity, which began with Jesus in Israel.

Isaiah 27:6
In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit.

6. Jerusalem would become the world's most important religious site
Bible passage: Micah 4:1
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: Partially in modern times
In Micah 4:1, the prophet said that the Temple mount in Jerusalem would become the focal point of the world. Various Christian scholars regard this as a prophecy that is to be fulfilled in the future. But it is interesting to note that Jerusalem is, and has been for centuries, the world's most important religious site. Christians and Jews have always regarded the city as important. Followers of Islam later adopted Jerusalem as an important city in their beliefs. No other city in the world is a religious focal point to as many people.

Micah 4:1
In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it.

7. Egypt would never again rule over nations
Bible passage: Ezekiel 29:15
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1967, etc.
In Ezekiel 29:15, the prophet says that Egypt would recover from a desolation (perhaps Babylon's attack about 2600 years ago), but that it would never again rule over other nations. Up until the time of Ezekiel, Egypt had been a world power for centuries, dominating many nations, including Israel. But for most of the past 2500 years, Egypt has been controlled by foreign powers, including the Romans, Ottomans and Europeans. Today, Egypt is an independent nation again. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, Egypt tried to dominate Israel but was unsuccessful each time, despite the fact that Egypt is 10 times larger than Israel. Egypt today, in many respects, is an impressive nation. But since the time of Ezekiel, it no longer rules over other nations.

Ezekiel 29:15
… I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations.

8. Zechariah prophesied the Jews return to Jerusalem
Bible passage: Zechariah 8:7-8
Written: between 520 and 518 BC
Fulfilled: 1967, etc.
In Zechariah 8:7-8, the prophet said God would bring the Jews from exile back to their homeland (Israel) and that they would be able to live in the city of Jerusalem again. This prophecy has been fulfilled more than once. About 2600 years ago, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and took many Jews as captives to Babylon. But many Jews later returned from Babylon. The Jews rebuilt Jerusalem but the city was destroyed about 1900 years ago by the Romans. The Romans killed more than 1 million Jews and forced many more into exile. And, the Romans banned Jews from living in Jerusalem. More than 1800 years passed before the Jews had control of Jerusalem again. They reclaimed control of their ancient capital during the Six Day War of 1967.

Zechariah 8:7-8
This is what the Lord Almighty says: "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God."

9. Israel's deserts will become like the Garden of Eden
Bible passage: Isaiah 51:3
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: Being fulfilled now
In Isaiah 51:3, the prophet said that God will restore Israel and make it a paradise, like the garden of Eden. This foreshadows what is currently happening in Israel. The Jews have been irrigating, cultivating and reconditioning the land during much of the 1900s. Many of the country's swamps, which had been infested with malaria, have been converted into farmland. And water from the Sea of Galilee has been channeled through portions of the deserts, allowing some of the deserts to bloom. Much work remains, but parts of Israel are blooming again. Although it was described as a wasteland as recently as the late 1800s, Israel is now a food source for many countries. And at least 200 million of trees have been planted there during the past century.

Isaiah 51:3
The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like Eden, her wastelands like the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of singing.

10. Isaiah foretold of the worldwide return of Jews to Israel
Bible passage: Isaiah 43:5-6
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Isaiah 43:5-6, the prophet said that the people of Israel would return to their homeland from the east, the west, the north and the south. Isaiah lived 2700 years ago. Beginning at that time, a succession of empires conquered the land of Israel and forced many into exile. This led to a worldwide scattering of Jews. But, during the past century, millions have returned to Israel.

From the east: Many Jews living in Middle East countries moved to Israel during the 1900s. After Israel reclaimed independence in 1948, more Jews moved to their ancient homeland after being forced out of various Arab countries in which they had been living for centuries.

From the west: During the mid-1900s, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West (Europe and the United States) began moving to Israel to escape various persecutions, most notably, the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

From the north: Hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the former Soviet Union have moved to Israel since the 1980s.

From the south: During the 1980s and 1990s, Israel struck a deal with Ethiopia's communist government to allow Jews of Ethiopia to move to Israel. On the weekend of May 25, 1991, for example, 14,500 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel.

Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the north (Russia) and the south (Ethiopia) would have to be persuaded to allow their Jews to move to Israel. Many countries pressured Russia for years before it began to allow its Jews to leave. And Ethiopia had to be paid a ransom to allow its Jews to leave.

Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the Jews would return "from the ends of the earth," and Isaiah said that many centuries before the Jews had been scattered to the ends of the earth. During the past 100 years, Jews living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the United States, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as South Africa, Australia and South America, have moved to Israel.

Isaiah 43:5-6
"Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth…"

Yes, we can see it and we know the stuff in science has happened. That's why it's proof. It's not faith, it's logic, and once you throw logic out the door, you have God. You can't use faith to prove faith. You need evidence.

You believe that your logic is the right answer. As I said, and you have restated, you're using something that is scientific in nature (logic and the "evidence" you ask for) to prove science.

By the way, I'm not a creationist. I just don't think that science is definitely correct. There's still some faith that what you're looking at really is happening because of the reasons you think.

I love how prophecies that "foretell" the future only seem to surface after the fact.

All I will say on this topic is that if you don't believe in evolution in any shape, way or form then you have to ignore puberty, earthquakes, continents forming, and basic forms of growth. If you deny evolution entirely then you are denying what is going on right in front of your eyes. But I don't think we evolved from apes, I have a very weird theory on birds and their intelligence when it comes to our 'evolution', as such. If you believe in creationism then you have to believe in evolution as well. If there was no evolution we'd all be decendants from Noah and all be Arab. Wouldn't today's modern bible thumpers love that?

This is all I have to say.
Since humans weren't even around when the earth was created/evolved, there is no way that we can scientifically prove what happened. You MUST take what you believe about the beginnings of the world by faith.

To Joseph and others...

Going back to what I wrote earlier..."I guess if I was to make any point it would be this. Go do some research YOURSELF and do it OBJECTIVELY!!"

Let me clarify this. I invite anyone who reads this to research the topic of the Bible/Salvation/Hell/Heaven, etc. themselves. The reason I say this is because one will get way more out of their own wondering clicking and reading than being spoonfed an idea that would shortly thereafter be countered by some else's statement. I have not personally researched all prophesies. However, every hour I have researched only proves more and more the Bible is 100% true. As I have previously stated, I was as skeptical as anyone posting here. The more I have researched the Bible the more I see its truth. I am as open to anything as anyone I know. I try to approach things as a realist and objectively as possible. I have approached the Bible objectively, and biased for it, and against it. All roads seem to overwhelmingly point the the Bible being 100% true and accurate.

I have not withheld the way to be saved from anyone. I simply implored you to seek it on your own, under your own interest. I regularly use a website called www.christiananswers.net . This website will answer anything you can think of. The answers they give should satisfy the greatest of skeptics. They include mathematical equations, third party sources and professionals from every discipline.

I'll post shortly how to be saved and I'll also see if I can drum up some stats on proven prophesies. See you in a bit. If anyone wants to contact me personally through email let me know. I hope and pray that everyone can come to the saving knowledge of Jesus as their savior.

Sorry for being so late to reply, but in the evenings and on weekends, I belong to my children. My point, if it was somewhat unclear, was if your going to come on and make a statement like "there are 300+ unrefutably fulfilled prophecies in the bible", and don't provide them, or least easy access to them, then you have no argument. I have far to much to do, as do many others, to run around trying to prove your arguments for you. Now of course you don't have to provide proof of you arguments when you make them, but you undermine your own arguements when you get called on it and don't deliver.


e HERE YOU GO.....READY, SET....START DEBUNKING.
I picked these prophecies because they have taken place since 1948.
.
.
.


now here you finally give us a little bit to back up your statements (hardly 300+ prophecies, but it's a start. The problem with these "prophecies" is that you have people from a "fallen nation" prophesizing that they will one day return to their former glory. The problem with these however is that members of every nation prophesize similar future "greatness" for their people, and "defeated" or displaced peoples all prophesize about a return to greatness. My own people's oral tradition tell that one day Gloosecap will return to us, and return our land to us for all of eternity. The Basque peoples of France and Spain have many member who "prophesize" the eventual return of the Basque homeland to them. There are countless of examples of displaced peoples making similar "prophecies". That Israel was "returned" to the Jews is more of a testament to the more than 100 years of Jewish will to regain their homeland, and the will of several nations to get rid of them. Although the bible "foretelling" the return of the Israeli nationstate is an interesting coincidence, I'd hardly call it irrefutable proof of "God's" power.

Hey, in the end, maybe you are right about your "God", but somehow I have problems with an all loving and merciful God condeming the vast majority of humanity to eternal torment for the despicable crime of not selecting the correct pair of dice, and calling the right number in some kind of cosmic crapshoot. I hear from Christian's how their God love's all of us as his children. Well, I have 3 children of my own, how are my world, and when they do wrong I punish them as fits the error of their judgement, in the hopes that they grow up to be strong and active members in their communities. If I was as "loving" as your "God", I would chain them up in the basement, and inflict horrible punishments on them for the rest of their natural lives if they commited any "sins"! Any normal person would condem me as being evil if I attempted such a stupid means of enforcing morality, but for some reason God is great and wonderful and all loving and caring, when he inflicts a punishment untold times greater on billions of people because they didn't cow tow to his obvious self-esteem problem.

I'm sorry, but such a "God" is monster greater then all of the butchers of mankind rolled into one.

One last thing Heston, I have objectively explored your "God", in an open an honest manner. I took many "steps toward's him", and I'm sorry, but there was no fuzzy warm feeling to tell me that I was on "the right path". If God were so concerned about my "salvation", or the salvation of his children, and were truly a loving God, I honestly believe that the road marker he'd leave would be undeniable, and open to everyone on the planet at all points in history, not just a select group of people lucky enough to be born in the right place at the right time.

anyway, not trying to flame, just my opinions for what they are worth.

This is all I have to say.
Since humans weren't even around when the earth was created/evolved, there is no way that we can scientifically prove what happened. You MUST take what you believe about the beginnings of the world by faith.

Is it just me or are all Creationists so intellecutally dishonest? Please refrain from equivocation (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm).

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Evolution would be 1. Creationism would be 2. Even then it's pretty obvious to see the thinly-viewled attempt to slander evolution, especially considering the common person's notion of what faith means.

The theory of evolution is, like all scientific laws or theorems, arrived at by inductive logic (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/) which has the consequence that you could be wrong. That's why science is open to find new ways of understanding to replace old ones, to get closer to the right answer.

This is all based on experiment and evidence, peer-reviewed and tested by the entire scientific community. It's there for anyone with the right tools and knowledge to see for themselves. It's not like scientists assume their conclusion and try to rationalize it like someone people whose name I've forgetten. C-- cream pies? They don't pretend to have absolute knowledge derived from texts written by ancient people who held beliefs such that the world rests on four pillars and the sky is a dome over it either.

I was an athiest until I started reading this thread. Now I realise I was wrong and I want change my beliefs before it is too late. Unfortunately I'm new to this, and I'm not quite sure which religious book to use. There are so many different ones out there. I've found the bible, the koran, the torah and many other ones and variations also. And it gets even harder when I have to pick the correct religion too. Islam, Christianity, Paganism, Satanism, Buddism, Shintoism and so many more. So if someone could please tell me which religion and religious books is correct and why the others are wrong, I would be very grateful. Thanx in advance.

I was an athiest until I started reading this thread. Now I realise I was wrong and I want change my beliefs before it is too late. Unfortunately I'm new to this, and I'm not quite sure which religious book to use. There are so many different ones out there. I've found the bible, the koran, the torah and many other ones and variations also. And it gets even harder when I have to pick the correct religion too. Islam, Christianity, Paganism, Satanism, Buddism, Shintoism and so many more. So if someone could please tell me which religion and religious books is correct and why the others are wrong, I would be very grateful. Thanx in advance.

Jingoism, because Fred the great and all loving giant red squirrel told me in my dream last night.

Definitions of jingoism on the Web:

an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


fanatical patriotism
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

First of all, thanks goes out to my friends over at The Internet Infidels Forums (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=98679) for helping me out with some of these "prophecies" as I don't know a lot about the history of Israel or the supposed prophecies the Bible has stated about them. And yes, I will be using most of their arguments for the reason just stated. But I'm not afraid to cite my source, which brings me to...

Second, shame on you Heston for copying, WORD FOR WORD, the arguments posted on THIS SITE (http://100prophecies.org/page2.htm) which you tried to pass off as your own. :mad: Anyways...on to the show:

I'm going to venture a guess you're using the KJ Version of the Bible, just for sake of argument. Let it be stated that many of these verses have nothing to do with modern day Israel. They actually are talking about the Kingdom of Israel coming back AFTER the captivity of Babylon!

1. Israel will ultimately prevail over its enemies
Bible passage: Isaiah 41:12-14
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s

Israel is still threatened by its enemies, who it is surrounded by.

2. The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt
Bible passage: Amos 9:11, 13
Written: about 750 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s

After Babylonian captivity.

3. Ezekiel prophesied prosperity for a restored Israel
Bible passage: Ezekiel 36:11
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s

Again, this is not talking about modern day Israel.

4. Trees would flourish again in a desolate Israel
Bible passage: Isaiah 41:18-20
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s

Note: The Jewish National Fund web site, at www.jnf.org, has information about how people can contribute to the effort to reforest Israel.

So it wasn't God that reflourished Israel but the hands of man? And there's an actual national fund to help out with this. Can't God just do it?

5. Isaiah said Israel's fruit would fill the world
Bible passage: Isaiah 27:6
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s

MANY countries have agricultural exports around the world! It's part of the world economy and Israel's, by far, does not fill the world.

6. Jerusalem would become the world's most important religious site
Bible passage: Micah 4:1
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: Partially in modern times

I'm not sure what to make of this. Mecca is prayed to by millions of Muslims multiple times during the day and is visited by many as well. To me it's clearly more important than Jerusalem.

7. Egypt would never again rule over nations
Bible passage: Ezekiel 29:15
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1967, etc.

Egypt has ruled over other nations since this prophecy was made.

8. Zechariah prophesied the Jews return to Jerusalem
Bible passage: Zechariah 8:7-8
Written: between 520 and 518 BC
Fulfilled: 1967, etc.[/quote]

The prophecy doesn't refer to today's Jerusalem.

9. Israel's deserts will become like the Garden of Eden
Bible passage: Isaiah 51:3
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: Being fulfilled now

So the Garden of Eden was irrigated and made into farmland?

10. Isaiah foretold of the worldwide return of Jews to Israel
Bible passage: Isaiah 43:5-6
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s

Again, taken out of context. This has to do with after the fall of Babylon, NOT with today's Israel.

Incidentally, showing a few "prophecies" to come true out of the Bible still disregards the many that haven't. Now, can we get back to the discussion the thread is about?

I was an athiest until I started reading this thread. Now I realise I was wrong and I want change my beliefs before it is too late. Unfortunately I'm new to this, and I'm not quite sure which religious book to use.

Bullshit.

Definitions of jingoism on the Web:

an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


fanatical patriotism
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


gee, I'm guessing you missed the sarcasm. I'm entirely aware what jingoism is..
Thanks though

Bullshit.

Ah yes, the famous Book of Bullshit. This particular religious text at least has the advantage of being honest about its nature. :)

Using science to prove evolution is impossible. Science doesn't "prove" anything, science can only disprove things, and model things. The Theory of Evolution is a theory. That means two things.

1) It has not yet been disproved.
2) It has made predictions which have been observed to come true.

A scientist cannot in complete honesty say "The Theory of Evolution is 100%, completely and utterly true." He would say "The Theory of Evolution is a model which correctly predicts the behaviour of species over several generations."

Put simply, the currenly accepted Theory of Evolution (which is very very different from the original theory outlined in Orgin of Species) can be simplified down into two parts. "Natural Selection" and "Mutation". There is more, of course, like the stop/start concept and such, but we can leave them out for now.

Mutation is fairly easy to explain. It involves transcript errors in the copying of dna from one generation to the next. This happens, we can observe it everyday. The vast, vast majority of mutations occuring within a species are either bad for the idividual which has the bad luck to get it, or has no effect at all. Some mutations, however, have positive effects.

Some of these mutations breed true, ie the next generation birthed from an indivdual with it also gets it. This is where natural selection kicks in. If the mutation is beneficial, the individual is more likely to surive and have offspring. If it is bad, the individual is less likely to survive and have offspring. Within a few generations, good the individuals with the good mutation outnumber the ones without it.

Mutation happens all the time. Natural selection is a very simple, logical idea. The problem people who "don't believe in evolution" have, is taking the conceptual step from this, which can be called "microevolution" to the next level, "macroevolution", also called speciation.

Not even speciation can be denied though. It happens, there is plenty of observational evidence of species divergance. In insects, fish and amphibians mostly, but that is becuase their lifespans are so much shorter than ours on average. Seeing evolution in action is easy in flies for example, where one generation can be as little as 24 hours.

I'll dig up some evidence of that, but it might take a while. If you are bored, try reading The Science of Discworld II. It brings up many of these points in a concise and easy to understand way.

I guess if I was to make any point it would be this. Go do some research YOURSELF and do it OBJECTIVELY!! (I'm not being a smart alec here). What does this mean? It means that I can tell in a few short threads that you are biased toward the Bible not being factual and literal.

I'm not any more "biased" against the Bible being factual and literal than I am against the Rig Vedas being factual or literal, or the epic of Gilgamesh, or the story of Theseus and the Minotaur, or the Tain bo Cualinge, or the Coyote stories, or any of the other myth cycles and folk tales from around the world. These are all works of the imagination. Why do you think that this one particular collection of stories is "factual and literal", even though, like all myths, it's filled with inconsistencies and contradictions?

Go beyond objective for a moment and actually pretend that you want the Bible to be true and do your research with that mindset. I think you will be amazed at how much it makes sense on the other side.

If I pretended hard enough that I want The Lord of the Rings to be true, would that make it true? Or how about some piece of Nazi racist propaganda? I mean, it must be very uplifting to believe oneself to be a superior being. It might be very life-affirming for me. It wouldn't stop it from being rubbish, though.

I don't think I could stretch my credulity to believing in the literal truth of the Bible, anyway: how do you deal with the bits that contradict the other bits -- like, for example, the two different versions of Creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? And how are you able to worship a God who is so remorselessly horrible throughout the Old Testament?

Again, I'm applying plain logic, statistics, and proponderence of evidences.

No, you're asking me to shut off my common sense and swallow one particular set of myths, for no apparent reason other than these are the particular myths to which you have attached yourself. Please provide some of this logic, statistics and evidence of which you speak.

Wow......I thought we were having a conversation. I'm now feeling the animosity.

Joseph.....I caught the sarcasm...I was just posting the definition for everyone elses benefit.

Pudding.....Forgive me for not using parenthesis or citing the source. I thought it was obvious by the text the info was copied.

Anyhow....I'm out....nice chatting. I don't have the time or energy to invlove myself in hostile arguments. If anyone is genuinely interested in continuing this conversation. Please email me at jason.sargent@gmail.com. Also, check out www.christiananswers.net for more info. I'll pray for you all!

Wow......I thought we were having a conversation. I'm now feeling the animosity.

I have no problem with debating and having innocent conversations about these topics, it's when claims come about that have no evidence to back them up that irks me.

Pudding.....Forgive me for not using parenthesis or citing the source. I thought it was obvious by the text the info was copied.

This is another thing that gets to me. I knew right aways it was copied and pasted and a quick search on Google turned up the site. Problem is, MOST people won't realize that and it doesn't give credit to the original authors, whether they're writings are correct or not. Copy and paste all you like as long as you cite the source when doing a debate within a forum.

Anyhow....I'm out....nice chatting. I don't have the time or energy to invlove myself in hostile arguments.

There was nothing hostile, you were just making claims and telling us to do the research. That's just annoying.

If anyone is genuinely interested in continuing this conversation. Please email me at jason.sargent@gmail.com. Also, check out www.christiananswers.net for more info.

Don't worry, we won't.

I'll pray for you all!

Save your breath, kthxbai!

I was an athiest until I started reading this thread. Now I realise I was wrong and I want change my beliefs before it is too late. Unfortunately I'm new to this, and I'm not quite sure which religious book to use. There are so many different ones out there. I've found the bible, the koran, the torah and many other ones and variations also. And it gets even harder when I have to pick the correct religion too. Islam, Christianity, Paganism, Satanism, Buddism, Shintoism and so many more. So if someone could please tell me which religion and religious books is correct and why the others are wrong, I would be very grateful. Thanx in advance.
All of them.

All of them.

Heh, a better statement would be "They're all correct because they say so, but they're all wrong because they all claim to be right."

after reading this I felt I had to respond, understand I am an Agnostic, meaning I don't know if God exists or not, and thus, I feel that I have a fairly unbaised stand here. I have read the bible, cover to cover, and most other Judeo-Christian texts and I feel that there is no one is a true literalist. Todays "literalists" take an interpertaion of the Bible that they like, not what it actually says. I will use the Noah example which has been used heavily in this discusion.

Genesis 7:1-7:10 Then the LORD said to Noah: "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for you alone in this age have I found to be truly just. Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate;likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female. Thus you will keep their issue alive over all the earth. Seven days from now I will bring rain down on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and so I will wipe out from the surface of the earth every moving creature that I have made." Noah did just as the LORD had commanded him. Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters came upon the earth. Together with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives, Noah went into the ark because of the waters of the flood. Of the clean animals and the unclean, of the birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, (two by two) male and female entered the ark with Noah, just as the LORD had commanded him. As soon as the seven days were over, the waters of the flood came upon the earth.

That tells us exactly what Noah brought on with him on the Ark, because in Leviticus 11 it tells the bible says which animals were clean and which were unclean. Elephants, Kangaroo, Hippo, dinosaur, whatever were not included in this because the Ancient Hebrews didn't even know they existed. Also the mention of the Clean and Unclean animals indicated that this was written after Leviticus (which some believe was written by Moses) and the tale of Noah can be paralleled in a story in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, and even furthur back to ancient Sumaria, thus the Hebrew people most likely incorperated it into Genesis after the Babylonian Exile, a period in which many books of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) were actually written down, before that they were primarily oral stories. And thats my imput at the moment.

Stay on track people.

This isn't Bible talk.

This debate like Evolution is not about proving or disproving God(s).

Look, on the whole issue of evolution, there are good arguments on both sides. I'm not a biologist (in fact i hate biology), but to me it seems highly improbable that spontanious generation occurred (even the simplest organism on earth is extremely complicated), and how in the world did the first organism have a mechanism to reproduce? Then somehow developed into another creature and another and another. It doesn't seem logical.

On Christianity vs. other religions,
Which has produced the best civilizations?

Look, on the whole issue of evolution, there are good arguments on both sides. I'm not a biologist (in fact i hate biology), but to me it seems highly improbable that spontanious generation occurred (even the simplest organism on earth is extremely complicated), and how in the world did the first organism have a mechanism to reproduce? Then somehow developed into another creature and another and another. It doesn't seem logical.

On Christianity vs. other religions,
Which has produced the best civilizations?

This is why this argument still exists today, people don't read up or research why science takes evolution as a basic fact. If you can't trust the people who spend their whole lives conducting experiments for the good of mankind who can you trust? The guy in the pulpit spewing the same information that he took without question? Information that's been shown to be highly unlikely or complete bunk? So, it seems to YOU that it's highly improbable, yet you admit you don't know a damn thing. How the hell can you draw a conclusion without even looking into the claims?! Critical thinking is lost today. Too many people don't want to think for themselves. It's sad.

When the truth hits a little close to home, a lot of people become angry instead of answering the questions.

I have researched this topic quite a bit. And as i said, there are valid arguments on both sides. The questions i asked are valid, and should be asked and answered. Some things to be considered:
*We cannot reproduce spontanious generation in the laboratory. Granted we are not working with millions of years, but in truth, the probability of life forming and surviving is practically nill, even on many planets and over billions of years.
*If life spontaniously generated, it would have had to have been generated with a mechanism for reproduction. I said I do not like biology, that is not to say I have not had some at the college level. There would have been no possible way for that organism reproduce, unless a miracle would have been performed --- and that would defeat what macro-evolution is all about.

I find it disturbing that so many scientists turn a blind eye to evolution's flaws, but there are credible scientists with a creationalist worldview. And just because a majortiy of people say something is right, doesn't mean it's true.

and Pudding Pies, i am using logic and thinking for myself, while u seem to be blindly accepting other's opinions.

When the truth hits a little close to home, a lot of people become angry instead of answering the questions.

I have researched this topic quite a bit. And as i said, there are valid arguments on both sides. The questions i asked are valid, and should be asked and answered. Some things to be considered:
*We cannot reproduce spontanious generation in the laboratory. Granted we are not working with millions of years, but in truth, the probability of life forming and surviving is practically nill, even on many planets and over billions of years.
*If life spontaniously generated, it would have had to have been generated with a mechanism for reproduction. I said I do not like biology, that is not to say I have not had some at the college level. There would have been no possible way for that organism reproduce, unless a miracle would have been performed --- and that would defeat what macro-evolution is all about.

I find it disturbing that so many scientists turn a blind eye to evolution's flaws, but there are credible scientists with a creationalist worldview. And just because a majortiy of people say something is right, doesn't mean it's true.

and Pudding Pies, i am using logic and thinking for myself - using truth.

ummm, except that "spontanious generation" of life has nothing to do with evolution. This would be abiogenesis your arguing against, nor evolution. Get your arguments straight.

as for macro-evolutionary change, if you believe that "micro-evolution" exists, then what is the limiting factor for macro-evolution? What is the trigger that stops long term micro-evolution from eventually causing speciation to occur? Little note, not seeing it occur (which seems to be a common argument), is not proof that it does not occur, or can not happen.

ummm, except that "spontanious generation" of life has nothing to do with evolution. This would be abiogenesis your arguing against, nor evolution. Get your arguments straight.

as for macro-evolutionary change, if you believe that "micro-evolution" exists, then what is the limiting factor for macro-evolution? What is the trigger that stops long term micro-evolution from eventually causing speciation to occur? Little note, not seeing it occur (which seems to be a common argument), is not proof that it does not occur, or can not happen.
My apologies, u r correct on spontanious generation, in that it is not really part of evolution. It is the foundation that evolution is usually built on, so I usually link it with evo.

About the "little note," i did say that we haven't had time to do experiments for billions of years, so if we where operating under the usumption that evo is true, then it is flawed, as i said.

If you really believe that the first organism, though, would have had the ability to reproduce (and thus start evolution.) U must be seeing something i am not.

Now i'll answer your question. Every animal seems to have been given some genetic freedom, as has been shown in natural selection. But what we haven't seen is genetic material being added to existing codes. If an animal where to change dramatically, it would require massive changes in the genetic code, which we don't see. (Unless we talk about mutations, which are almost always, if not always, bad.) And even then genetic material is being modified.

Now i'll answer your question. Every animal seems to have been given some genetic freedom, as has been shown in natural selection. But what we haven't seen is genetic material being added to existing codes. If an animal where to change dramatically, it would require massive changes in the genetic code, which we don't see. (Unless we talk about mutations, which are almost always, if not always, bad.) And even then genetic material is being modified.

Actually there are mutations that add genetic material. These mutations usually involve the copying of all or part of other genes into the new DNA twice. Since you already have one working copy, the other has plenty of room to develop over time into a whole new protein.

And, no, mutations are not always bad.

Actually there are mutations that add genetic material. These mutations usually involve the copying of all or part of other genes into the new DNA twice. Since you already have one working copy, the other has plenty of room to develop over time into a whole new protein.

And, no, mutations are not always bad.


Awe, but it's still the same info, just copied twice. And please cite a helpful mutation. I have yet to hear of one.

*If life spontaniously generated, it would have had to have been generated with a mechanism for reproduction. I said I do not like biology, that is not to say I have not had some at the college level. There would have been no possible way for that organism reproduce, unless a miracle would have been performed --- and that would defeat what macro-evolution is all about.

Check out the latest articles on prion production. Scientists have artificially created prions (which are self-replicating molecules) in the lab. All that early reproduction would have been was self-replicating molecules.

I find it disturbing that so many scientists turn a blind eye to evolution's flaws, but there are credible scientists with a creationalist worldview. And just because a majortiy of people say something is right, doesn't mean it's true.

Scientists are well aware of problems in evolution - that is why they are trying to work them out. As for "credible scientists with a creationist view," if you mean scientists who believe in a creator who set up the system, yup there sure are *raises hand*. If you mean actual Creationists, they are not scientists.

I have researched this topic quite a bit.
As we will see, you have not.

And as i said, there are valid arguments on both sides.
There are no valid creationist arguments. I've debated this long enough to know that.

The questions i asked are valid, and should be asked and answered.
The questions are not valid, as we will see.

*We cannot reproduce spontanious generation in the laboratory. Granted we are not working with millions of years, but in truth, the probability of life forming and surviving is practically nill, even on many planets and over billions of years.
First of all, spontaeneous generation is a misleading term, referring to an idea held a while back that certain creatures develops spontaeneously fromvarious things, like maggots from meat, and mice from grain. This was disproved by Louis Pasteur. What you are trying to talk about is abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution. As for not being able to reproduce abiogenesis in a lab, or course we can't. The conditions on the early Earth are nearly impossible to replicate in a lab.

*If life spontaniously generated, it would have had to have been generated with a mechanism for reproduction.
They're called self-replicating molecules. Read up on them.

There would have been no possible way for that organism reproduce,
Once again, self-replicating molecules.

I find it disturbing that so many scientists turn a blind eye to evolution's flaws,
What flaws? It's the most robust scientific theory in existance.

but there are credible scientists with a creationalist worldview.
None of whom use creationism in their credible work. Also, none of them are in fields relating to evolution, such as biology, palaeontology, or geology.

And just because a majortiy of people say something is right, doesn't mean it's true.
Unless, of course, when the majority of people who actually study and know what something is about say that it's right, then it most likely is.

and Pudding Pies, i am using logic and thinking for myself,
Regurgitating the same old tired creationist "arguments" does not qualify as thinking for oneself.

while u seem to be blindly accepting other's opinions.
So looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that is supported by said evidence is "blindly accepting other's opinions"? Because, I'm pretty sure that that's what he did.

I have a mix of both.

I am a strong Methodist Christian, however, I don't deny the existence of evolution. I think God started out all the organisms on this earth, and they've evolved and changed since then.

I just can't buy that whole "organisms just happened thing." A cell is way too complicated to just be made. And how did organisms make the bridge from single to multicelled? It makes absolutely no sense.

Awe, but it's still the same info, just copied twice. And please cite a helpful mutation. I have yet to hear of one.

You missed it - I told you that something copied twice lets the new copy mutate a lot more without causing bad effects to the organism.

Think about it this way. Protein A gets copied twice so now we have Protein A and Protein A*. Protein A cannot mutate very much without causing adverse effects to the organism. But Protein A* is extraneous - it can withstand any mutations that are caused in it. Over many mutations, it can develop into a protein with an entirely different function.

Helpful mutation - antibiotic resistance.

A cell is way too complicated to just be made.
Once again, abiogenesis did not form cells. It formed self-replicating molecules.

And how did organisms make the bridge from single to multicelled? It makes absolutely no sense.
By collecting in aggregates, like sponges and many cnidarians.

Here's something to think about.

Sexual organisms. How did they get going from the asexual ones?

Once again, abiogenesis did not form cells. It formed self-replicating molecules.

Well, how did they form into cells? And why did they have the urge to reproduce?

Awe, but it's still the same info, just copied twice.
Actually, it isn't. In many cases the DNA fragment gets flipped around, split apart, mixed up, et cetera. By your logic, DNA only consists of 4 pieces of information. Also, the effect of DNA depends not only on the order of bases, but on its location in the DNA strand.

And please cite a helpful mutation. I have yet to hear of one.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The nylon bug. Human hemogloblin... C, if I remeber correctly. The gene found in European survivors of the Black Death that confers partial to near total immunity to AIDS. Resistance to AIDS in African prostitutes. The INDY (I'm Not Dead Yet) gene in Drosophilia.

Originally Posted by Matoya
Well, how did they form into cells? And why did they have the urge to reproduce?

Reproduction is one of the most basic instinces all living things (and even some unliving things like viruses, and reproduction is all a virus does which is why it is not alive, I think). The other insticts are staying alive and eating. Thats it, every living thing, even humans, feel the need to survive, feed, and fornicate.

Well, how did they form into cells?
Certain molecules are naturally attracted to each other. Some of these molecules make up cells. Read up on it.

And why did they have the urge to reproduce?
They didn't have an urge to reproduce. They divided when they absorbed enough energy to facilitate the process, or, in the case of self-replicating molecules, caused nearby components to assemble into more self-replicating molecules. Once again, read up on it. I don't know enough about the early stages of the evolution of life on Earth to give you much more than a basic answer.

Heh, a better statement would be "They're all correct because they say so, but they're all wrong because they all claim to be right."
I would say rather that no matter what they claim or how they are practiced, they all have at their core the same basic truths.

When the truth hits a little close to home, a lot of people become angry instead of answering the questions.

No, we get angry when evidence is positioned right in front of someone's face and it's disregarded because some old book says different. It's called ignorance.

I have researched this topic quite a bit. And as i said, there are valid arguments on both sides.

As was said before, I've never seen any valid arguments from the creationist side.

The questions i asked are valid, and should be asked and answered. Some things to be considered:
*We cannot reproduce spontanious generation in the laboratory. Granted we are not working with millions of years, but in truth, the probability of life forming and surviving is practically nill, even on many planets and over billions of years.

I also don't know much about abiogenesis as I'm still learning about evolution. There's so MUCH evidence and studies out there that it takes a long time!

*If life spontaniously generated, it would have had to have been generated with a mechanism for reproduction. I said I do not like biology, that is not to say I have not had some at the college level. There would have been no possible way for that organism reproduce, unless a miracle would have been performed --- and that would defeat what macro-evolution is all about.

Go here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php) and ask those questions. You WILL find someone who can answer them. There's a lot of posters there who have published works and acquired PHDs in fields of study relating to biology, chemistry, etc...

I find it disturbing that so many scientists turn a blind eye to evolution's flaws, but there are credible scientists with a creationalist worldview. And just because a majortiy of people say something is right, doesn't mean it's true.

What are these flaws? The model (theory) of evolution is not perfect (nor is any other scientific model) but it is slightly revised whenever new evidence shows something new. That's the beauty of science! It doesn't start with an ending and then force evidence to fit it while ignoring other evidence that doesn't. It forms with an idea which is changed to fit the evidence until it becomes so well supported that it turns into a model.

and Pudding Pies, i am using logic and thinking for myself, while u seem to be blindly accepting other's opinions.

Believe me, you're not. If you were you would have found the correct answers to your questions by now. And just so you know, I was a devout christian for about the first 21 or 22 years of my life before I really started questioning things. It's not like I haven't ingested both sides of the story. But, I did learn to be skeptical when stuff doesn't fit what I believe. Skepticism and critical thinking can be some of the most important tools for a person's mind. I suggest you start looking at both sides of the story and THEN decide for yourself. If you start learning about the scientific side of evolution (and I don't mean skim over things, I mean really sit down and read about it) and still don't believe in it, then that's your decision. I won't agree with it and no respecting biologist will either, but sometimes people just don't want to accept facts. If you truly want to look at evolution, I suggest you start here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/) That is one of THE BEST sites on evolution on the web. It cites its work and is explained in much detail. I'm not even a third of the way through the site and I was pointed to it about 4 months ago (of course, I've read up on other sites as well so it will take me awhile). Good luck.

Come on, where are the creationists? As soon as we refute your points, you disappear. That isn't good debating.

You're all idiots, everyone who gets in these petty arguments. Don't you think it might have been possible for God to create a fully formed Earth that looked like it had formed through gradual evolutionary processes 6000 years ago, plop Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and leave every bit of physical evidence for evolutionism, but still have divinely created the Earth and Universe 6000 years ago? For all I know the world was created fully formed yesterday, but it has evidence of a history that didn't take place. The point is, physical laws can change by God's will, and anyone who says that creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive is therefore a dumbass.

www.Answersingenesis.org

This is a great website, look at the faq section.

You're all idiots, everyone who gets in these petty arguments. Don't you think it might have been possible for God to create a fully formed Earth that looked like it had formed through gradual evolutionary processes 6000 years ago, plop Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and leave every bit of physical evidence for evolutionism, but still have divinely created the Earth and Universe 6000 years ago? For all I know the world was created fully formed yesterday, but it has evidence of a history that didn't take place. The point is, physical laws can change by God's will, and anyone who says that creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive is therefore a dumbass.
Oh please. Occam's razor.

www.Answersingenesis.org

This is a great website, look at the faq section.
Pretty much shot in the head by the talk-origins faq.

You're all idiots, everyone who gets in these petty arguments.

Since you responded, I guess that includes you. :rolleyes:

Don't you think it might have been possible for God to create a fully formed Earth that looked like it had formed through gradual evolutionary processes 6000 years ago, plop Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and leave every bit of physical evidence for evolutionism, but still have divinely created the Earth and Universe 6000 years ago?

So God is deceptive? Like Satan? Yep, that's the God people know and trust. :confused:

For all I know the world was created fully formed yesterday, but it has evidence of a history that didn't take place. The point is, physical laws can change by God's will, and anyone who says that creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive is therefore a dumbass.

Physical laws are a human definition to explain how nature works and there's never been any evidence to show that they've changed. They've been constant since the Big Bang.

www.Answersingenesis.org

This is a great website, look at the faq section.

That site sucks ass.
Here's a better one http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

Why?

Why couldnt we talk about the weather? "Hey..how bout that hurricane, big huh?"

We could talk about anything...at all......

WHY DO WE HAVE TO ALWAYS TALK ABOUT CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION?

It all boils down to to this:

You either believe in God, or you dont.

Either way.....you cant prove it.

But you can believe in God and evolution at the same time. If God created everything that means he made the rules - which doesn't rule out evolution.

Besides, there are two creation stories in Genesis - if anyone wants to argue for creation you've got to decide which story you think is the truth.

By the way, has anyone seen/read Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure? His encounter with the creationist was hilarious.

ok tried to read through this thread. all the bible quotes gave me a headach, so skipped the last couple.

earlier on people talked about the flood and noah, etc....
maybe it has some validation. maybe there was a flood where ever noah was. But a world wide flood that covered the entire planet? everything under water? Come on, who the hell could honestly beleive that??
I've heard people say, what about all the dead animals that should be lying around, etc...
My question is, how could there be any animals left? first of, a world wide flood would have wiped out the land based animals. The salinity in the sea would have wiped out the fresh water fish. The huge flooding would have sucked up all the soil and earth and hugely poluted the sea. ever seen a fish in muddy water? they die, can't breath. If noah had taken 2 pairs of each animal, how would they breed over the generations? bit limited the stock no? or you guys don't beleive that inbreeding is true (side affects and all)? Also if it was for 40 days and 40 nights, how did he feed all the animals, as well as himself and whoever else was on board? probably lost a few species that way.

also if anyones been out to sea, you know what weather conditions can be like. imagine if the whole world was a sea.
where did they get fresh water from aswell?

bump

bump

Do you really need to bump this thread? There are a million other bigoted mouthpieces just like this one smeared all over this forum.

Go on. Flame me.

bump

if there's a creator, then who created the creator? (he couldn't have done it himself, coz he didnt exist before his creation). Or has the creator always been there? Is it possible to exist infinitally long?
So it all comes down to the question: does infinity exist? ;)

if there's a creator, then who created the creator? (he couldn't have done it himself, coz he didnt exist before his creation). Or has the creator always been there? Is it possible to exist infinitally long?
So it all comes down to the question: does infinity exist? ;)

probably get someone say. God just IS.

if there is infinity and time will go on infinitely. Then the past goes on infinitally as well. so no start and no end.....

if there is infinity and time will go on infinitely. Then the past goes on infinitally as well. so no start and no end.....

And if time goes into the past infinitely, we could not be here, since it would have taken an unlimited amount of time to get here.