Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bible is very clear in describing the creation in 6 days. It is God's Holy Word, and so I believe it. The same word for "day" used in Genesis 1, is the word used throughout the OT, so there is no reading that as billions of years or any such nonsense.
Secondly, I don't understand how anyone can look at the creation of a new baby, or any living thing and say that is not the creative hand of God. Man, with all his technology cannot create living organs to replace the ones that are defective in our bodies. They can't even make a machine that works as good as a kidney or heart or lungs. Yet, we are asked to believe that our wonderful bodies and all the creatures, are just accidents that happened all by themselves with no intelligence creating them at all. Considering all that, who are the ones believing in fantasies?
three things.
1) I am saying your god did it through evolution. Not weather it is there or not.
2) looking at a baby and feeling 'awe" is an emotional feeling. It's ok, but we have to be honest about that. I mean, I feel, a woman giving birth is not a miracle ... It's an retrofitted engineering nightmare. So who's FEELING" is more valid? you or me?
3) The bible says created in 6 days. It does not say how and it does not give a "absolute" time frame. Sure god used "Jewish time", but that makes sense for a logical god. Any good teacher puts new ideas in the student terms until such time as they are ready to learn more.
so ... God created man through evolution and is not done yet. That is a reasonable conclusion. "poof there it is" is not logical and your god is not irrational. He is logical and loving. if he is there that is.
How did God assemble Adam?
Please, some type of piece by piece assembly method according to the bible? You know feet first? skeleton? whatever.
No, it absolutely does not. In a prior post here, I provided only one link
which thus far has not been addressed. Would you care to address it ?
Tell me how ancient peoples drew, sculpted, and wrote about anatomically
correct representations of dinosaurs without digging up any fossils if, as
the evolutionists maintain, dinosaurs died hundreds of millions of years ago.
I really don't want to engineer another evolution debate, but by all means start one in a more appropriate place. But to be going on with, the supposed representation of dinosaurs are at best dubious (like the Narmer palette or the Ta Phrom Stegosaur), at worst fake (like the Ica stones and Acambara statuettes) or misunderstandings like the cave -sculpted diplodocus or the Babylon dragons.
In any case, even if there were some dinosaurs that had survived into modern times, how does that disprove evolution any more than any other '#living fossil'?
You are just not picking and fault finding and trying to make a case against established science with some rather dubious questions.
I have read that some think Genesis does talk about evolution. The above link is not the best article about this, but the only one I could find now b/c I'm too lazy to look for the other ones I've read.
well, I going to check it out. Are you sure you want me too?
I mean even the stance that a smart man would not see/claim that man may have come from the dirt 20,000 years ago is a stupid stance. I mean look around and list the possibilities 20,000 ago. dirt is a reasonable guess for even the likes of me.
Not only is it reasonable, it's logical and employ's common sense and control. My trinity. I have posted many time that for what they didn't know back then they were spot on. I am impressed.
I have read that some think Genesis does talk about evolution. The above link is not the best article about this, but the only one I could find now b/c I'm too lazy to look for the other ones I've read.
This is rubbish, frankly. This is just the weary old trick of trying to fiddle Genesis to make it look like it fits evolution (trusting that none of their readers will actually do a comparison of the development of life (as a mark of monumental ignorance of this article, it talks about the making of Light which is nothing to do with evolution -theory, but relates to cosmology - which of course for creationists is all part of what it calls "Darwinism") and then pretends that Genesis was describing evolution all the time.
well, aside from thanking the peddlers of such tripe for saying that evolution is true, and it is just a case of trying to pretend that genesis agrees with it, it actually doesn't. The animals were not all made in one lump, if the evidence of the strata is anything to go by. I suppose one could argue that light was in the cosmos before any stars were made, but really, does the Book of Genesis look like it is describing the Big Bang?
Ps. I tried to find out more about this professor Parker whose new book 'The Genesis enigma' is being touted by the Mail (one of the UK's two right wing Biblesucking rags) but he is elusive. However a perusal of this analysis of the subject matter will show that it is yet another collection of Genesis -apologetic garbage by someone who is either pretty ignorant or knows that you can rely on sales to believers, destaerate to have their bias confimed.
OMNG: scientist .. made .. up .. the .. rate? You don't know how to believe do ya? I am going to lose another a debate with stupid. But I am so stupid than I think I can out stupid the stupid.
ok we have two claims on how god did it.
Scientist made up rate with little data. We call that god given data "geophysics".
-or-
some Christian made up a story with no data. we call that data "no data"
Which one is a more reasonable claim based on those two choices. "god did it using what he shows us in the
rock record" or "god did it using "no data".
let me ask you. Why is saying god did it through evolution so wrong to you?
You are assuming I believe in the creation story. I don't. However, I don't believe evolution either.
Franlkly, the carbon dating method and the uranium-lead method of dating both have major flaws. In the early 1900's these methods determined the earth was 1.6 and 1.7 million years old respectively... then debated again and again until finally our good scientists settled at 4 million-ish years old using radiometric dating. Good thing they re-dated the universe too because I'd hate to see the earth being older than the universe.
If I say that a piece of dirt is in the 10 year ago layer, then this other piece of dirt must be in the 4000 year layer and so on...Sounds very scientific to me. If I had done this sort of crap in my bio-chem lab with any other substance and any other topic, my teacher would have failed me.
There is no way my science degree warped brain can agree with evolution just simply because of the misinformation like the age of the earth. If you take that out of evolution, the whole thing crumbles. You can't have early lifeforms crawling out of the sea after evolving legs they wouldn't need in water if the earth is only 20,000 years old...
You are going to have to do better than that. early 1900's we had nothing but estimations based on the rock strata. A million or so years old may have been the best guess they could do at the time. Though I imagine as more and more work was done up to the 1930's it became clear that you had several geological ages, each with their own distinctive fossils and each a couple of million of years or so they might have reckoned. It would only be later on that they realized the geological ages were tens of billions of years.
Then the method of dating came along and revised those dates, too. But you must see that it is a question of improving knowledge not a question of "major flaws". No more than the original Biblical idea of of a flat earth with a dome over - which without the work of science we'd probably still believe - was replaced by the ptolemaic planetary system and that by the Copernican one that put the sun at the centre rather than the earth. and then Kepler worked out that the orbits were ellipses rather than circles. and we had new planets discovered and even more new ones, leading to a reconsideration of the status of Pluto - and yes, the reclassification of Pluto is also being wagged about as 'science changing its mind'.
It is based on new information which has to be accepted - not rejected because it contradicts an old book of religious myths. No more that the new information is rehected because of reverence for the old science books. It just doesn't work that way. We welcome better information, not push it away because it makes us think again.
Now, I said I wouldn't make this another 'Evolution' thread and I won't, but the stock apolgetics designed to rubbish science just have to be rubbished themselves. And that doesn't take too long.
You are assuming I believe in the creation story. I don't. However, I don't believe evolution either.
Franlkly, the carbon dating method and the uranium-lead method of dating both have major flaws. In the early 1900's these methods determined the earth was 1.6 and 1.7 million years old respectively... then debated again and again until finally our good scientists settled at 4 million-ish years old using radiometric dating. Good thing they re-dated the universe too because I'd hate to see the earth being older than the universe.
If I say that a piece of dirt is in the 10 year ago layer, then this other piece of dirt must be in the 4000 year layer and so on...Sounds very scientific to me. If I had done this sort of crap in my bio-chem lab with any other substance and any other topic, my teacher would have failed me.
There is no way my science degree warped brain can agree with evolution just simply because of the misinformation like the age of the earth. If you take that out of evolution, the whole thing crumbles. You can't have early lifeforms crawling out of the sea after evolving legs they wouldn't need in water if the earth is only 20,000 years old...
I am assuming you have no training in science based on this post.
Carbon dating is not used for dating things by itself. Uranium dating is also not used by itself. Radiometric decay can be off as much as 20%. Index fossils can narrow that range down quite a bit. Although, I agree even 10% error is a lot, it is still all we have. Toss in everything else at this point.
We have fish today that can walk between water holes. Then let me offer one word to show an intermediate step between fish and land dwellers: China's giant salamanders.
But the question is "how do you think we got here?" saying eveybody is wrong isn't an answer.
I am assuming you have no training in science based on this post.
Carbon dating is not used for dating things by itself. Uranium dating is also not used by itself. Radiometric decay can be off as much as 20%. Index fossils can narrow that range down quite a bit. Although, I agree even 10% error is a lot, it is still all we have. Toss in everything else at this point.
We have fish today that can walk between water holes. Then let me offer one word to show an intermediate step between fish and land dwellers: China's giant salamanders.
But the question is "how do you think we got here?" saying eveybody is wrong isn't an answer.
So what do you say?
They are using circular science. Pulling a fossil from a layer dated by the fossil. If we've only been recording human history for a couple thousand years, there is no way to precisely date anything, let alone the whole planet or solar system. It's all just speculation.
As to "how do you think we got here?"...Frankly I don't really care. We are here so what does it matter. All theories of this nature are mere speculation. We can't replicate it nor observe it so why bother believing any of it. It's just as plausible that some alien species created life on earth. Where is the alien smiley???
They are using circular science. Pulling a fossil from a layer dated by the fossil. If we've only been recording human history for a couple thousand years, there is no way to precisely date anything, let alone the whole planet or solar system. It's all just speculation.
As to "how do you think we got here?"...Frankly I don't really care. We are here so what does it matter. All theories of this nature are mere speculation. We can't replicate it nor observe it so why bother believing any of it. It's just as plausible that some alien species created life on earth. Where is the alien smiley???
Wrong. Mind you, I for a long time thought that rocks are old because fossils were found in them. in fact is doesn't take that long for a fossil to form. It is because the evidence of what the strata of rocks were and how long we must be looking at that first made it clear that if the rock were tens of thousands of years old, or even a million or so, so must the fossil bones of the animals found in them.
As I explained, more study kept pushing the evident date of those rocks back until a method of radiation -dating the rocks told us more accurately the date of the rocks, and thus, the fossils. no more speculation even of there was a degree of it before.
They are using circular science. Pulling a fossil from a layer dated by the fossil. If we've only been recording human history for a couple thousand years, there is no way to precisely date anything, let alone the whole planet or solar system. It's all just speculation.
As to "how do you think we got here?"...Frankly I don't really care. We are here so what does it matter. All theories of this nature are mere speculation. We can't replicate it nor observe it so why bother believing any of it. It's just as plausible that some alien species created life on earth. Where is the alien smiley???
accurately and precisely are two different notions. and no, it is not circular. There is a starting point and a stopping point. That lack of understanding makes it seem circular, it is not. Think of them more of parallel and complimentary. Different lines of evidence converge on the same point. We call that point things like plate tectonics and evolution stories.
We can put reasonable sequence together. Just because they are not down to the year doesn't mean we shouldn't look. and the notion that we can't know for 100% certain so why care is just stupid to me. That's a Moderator cut: Yes they will stance to justify the fear and inaction. or in this case, making a reasonable prediction.
Yes, you are right, there are a few reasonable answers. Von Neumann probes are very likely. "poof there it is" is not a reasonable conclusion. 'I don't need it" is a personal response and should not be stated as the "only logical conclusion". Because a conclusion on what you don't know is not logical,no matter how you slice it.
You are wrong about the blanket statement about looking for the how and whys of course. I mean to you it don't matter but to peeps looking for the how's and why's it is what drives us. Then we use what we learn to make the good stuff for you people that don't care. you know, So they can get on with their meaningless little sequence of "nows". lol, just kidding with that last part.
Last edited by mensaguy; 05-20-2015 at 05:53 AM..
Reason: Totaally unnecessary political remark removed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am going to lose another a debate with stupid. But I am so stupid than I think I can out stupid the stupid. 
Where is the alien smiley???
