The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Choose!

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>
WASH On June 04, 2012




LINCOLN, California
#1New Post! Feb 29, 2012 @ 21:13:02
RELIG0N6 12-11-1988
ATHIESTIC AGNOSTIC, RELIGIOUS
I believe thatthe atheist, the agnostic, and the
believer when they say that there was no GOD and that there
may not be a GOD. I also agree with the Christians, Jews,
Moslems, and others in their basic belief that there is a GOD.
And they are absolutely right in the context of their inability
to view humanity as a continually evolving species.
There is no reason to deny Darwins "theory of
evolution" and there is no reason why we should not believe
in the existence of a universal super entity uniting all life
which was EVOLVING to the next level.
So life began with the formation of organic material,
which instinctively clung to life by adapting to changing
environments and progressively became more complex over
several tens of millions years to configure as humans such as
we.

Then ten or twenty thousands (maybe hundreds of
thousands) years ago an event occurred which added an unique
"quality" to the life of one or more humans- not physically
or mentally- but spiritually. I call it the "light of life".
An energy force uniting the life lines of the living progeny
to everlasting life after the carrier perishes..
EVOLUTON! It is not the last!
WASH
BozieFozie On August 08, 2017
Life's a Beach





Paradise, Florida
#2New Post! Feb 29, 2012 @ 21:16:25
uh, what are the choices again???
treebee On April 13, 2015
Government Hooker

Moderator




London, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Feb 29, 2012 @ 21:19:09
ummm yeah, evolution does not disprove god, it just disproves that the world was made in the way we thought it was made according to ancient scripture.
xLETHAL_VIXENx On January 22, 2015
Logical Alien





Your pants, United States (gen
#4New Post! Feb 29, 2012 @ 21:48:09
He spelled Muslim wrong.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#5New Post! Feb 29, 2012 @ 23:45:12
@treebee Said

ummm yeah, evolution does not disprove god, it just disproves that the world was made in the way we thought it was made according to ancient scripture.


Evolution, as taught by science and scientists dishonours God because it does not give Him the credit He deserves for His amazing design and creation of every living thing.

It attempts to remove God from the equation because it's strongest supporters insist that God is a delusion.

It doesn't disprove God, because as a theory it doesn't work. All the evidence that is available so far fits the creation account perfectly in it's form. Only man's interpretation of the evidence is at odds with that fact.

Creation happened exactly as described in the Genesis account, and if you ignore the scientist's guesses at how old things are, everything happened in the order that the Creation account gives us, right down to the fact that the bible describes the "earth" as being a single continent (which Geologists have named "Pangea" ) in the middle of a single Ocean, which eventually split.

It's all there in scripture, in exactly the order science describes it. Is it any wonder then, that as I listen to them describing the history of this planet I feel like screaming "Listen to yourselves please" at the TV screen.
xLETHAL_VIXENx On January 22, 2015
Logical Alien





Your pants, United States (gen
#6New Post! Feb 29, 2012 @ 23:46:46
@MadCornishBiker Said

Evolution, as taught by science and scientists dishonours God because it does not give Him the credit He deserves for His amazing design and creation of every living thing.

It attempts to remove God from the equation because it's strongest supporters insist that God is a delusion.

It doesn't disprove God, because as a theory it doesn't work. All the evidence that is available so far fits the creation account perfectly in it's form. Only man's interpretation of the evidence is at odds with that fact.

Creation happened exactly as described in the Genesis account, and if you ignore the scientist's guesses at how old things are, everything happened in the order that the Creation account gives us, right down to the fact that the bible describes the "earth" as being a single continent (which Geologists have named "Pangea" ) in the middle of a single Ocean, which eventually split.

It's all there in scripture, in exactly the order science describes it. Is it any wonder then, that as I listen to them describing the history of this planet I feel like screaming "Listen to yourselves please" at the TV screen.



If one cannot provide proof of his amazing design, he doesn't and will not deserve the honor of credit.
chaski On 16 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7New Post! Mar 01, 2012 @ 00:01:32
@MadCornishBiker Said

Creation happened exactly as described in the Genesis account


Except that each of the six days was really 1000 years... (or was it 7000 years?) even though the bible doesn't actually say that.

So it wasn't "exactly" as in Genesis.

INTERPRETATION.
Codrus On June 01, 2012




t***sville, Florida
#8New Post! Mar 01, 2012 @ 00:30:32
I choose not to believe a book that has been incorrectly translated,misinterpreted, selectively edited, used for hypocrites personal gains, used to justify the deaths of untold numbers and used as a tool to control peoples lives .....but I'm a wingnut,..what do I know....
nooneinparticular On August 11, 2020




, Hawaii
#9New Post! Mar 01, 2012 @ 01:10:08
@MadCornishBiker Said

It attempts to remove God from the equation because it's strongest supporters insist that God is a delusion.


Which is a non sequitur. Just because proponents insist God is a delusion does not mean that the theory does the same.

Quote:

It doesn't disprove God, because as a theory it doesn't work. All the evidence that is available so far fits the creation account perfectly in it's form. Only man's interpretation of the evidence is at odds with that fact.

Creation happened exactly as described in the Genesis account, and if you ignore the scientist's guesses at how old things are, everything happened in the order that the Creation account gives us, right down to the fact that the bible describes the "earth" as being a single continent (which Geologists have named "Pangea" ) in the middle of a single Ocean, which eventually split.


I have a question. Even assuming that radiation from the sun can throw off ALL dating methods to such a massive degree, and all with different half-lives that still magically agree with each other anyway, how does that in any way, change the relative order in which these species appeared on Earth? If they all appeared at the same time, then shouldn't the individual dates, with respect to each other, reflect that?

Quote:

It's all there in scripture, in exactly the order science describes it. Is it any wonder then, that as I listen to them describing the history of this planet I feel like screaming "Listen to yourselves please" at the TV screen.


In exactly the order science describes it? I don't remember science claiming that aerial creatures came after aquatic creatures and before land animals...
xLETHAL_VIXENx On January 22, 2015
Logical Alien





Your pants, United States (gen
#10New Post! Mar 01, 2012 @ 06:34:34
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#11New Post! Mar 01, 2012 @ 08:58:32
@nooneinparticular Said

Which is a non sequitur. Just because proponents insist God is a delusion does not mean that the theory does the same.


Non sequitur, in your eyes, or not it does just that. It precludes God by calling His word a lie and by claiming it is all down to "natural selection", and by turning the adaptation He so lovingly designed into things into a purely accidental event.

It certainly wasn't Darwin's intention to, as he put it "harm God", but whatever the intent the effect is the same. His "innocent theory" has been seized on and hijacked by the "anti-god brigade".

Intent is often invalidated by the results gained.

@nooneinparticular Said

I have a question. Even assuming that radiation from the sun can throw off ALL dating methods to such a massive degree, and all with different half-lives that still magically agree with each other anyway, how does that in any way, change the relative order in which these species appeared on Earth? If they all appeared at the same time, then shouldn't the individual dates, with respect to each other, reflect that?


The sun can have an awful lot of effects on things, as can other natural effects we still don't even begin to understand or even have to invent to explain what we observe ("Dark Matter" and "Dark Flow" for instance, both things invented to describe observed effects).

Admittedly the Creation account doesn't mention everything everything in detail. Dinosaurs, for example don't get a specific mention. If God has decided we don't need to know, then maybe we should listen to Him?

@nooneinparticular Said
In exactly the order science describes it? I don't remember science claiming that aerial creatures came after aquatic creatures and before land animals...


Scientists have tried to claim many things, but as far as I am aware, there is no evidence to contradict that order either.

I have to admit it is a pleasant change to dispute with someone who actually reads what I post, it is becoming a rare event on here as most just seem to see in whatever they read, whether mine or not, solely what they wish to see.

Of course the downside is that you catch me out in genuine oversights or errors at times, but that is good for me also, lol. Keeps me human.
nooneinparticular On August 11, 2020




, Hawaii
#12New Post! Mar 01, 2012 @ 13:32:43
@MadCornishBiker Said

Non sequitur, in your eyes, or not it does just that. It precludes God by calling His word a lie and by claiming it is all down to "natural selection", and by turning the adaptation He so lovingly designed into things into a purely accidental event.


1) Natural selection only pertains to living organisms.

2) Variation within species works in a 'purely accidental' nature. (well not entirely but thats a technical discussion about genetics that I don't really feel like going over.)

Quote:

It certainly wasn't Darwin's intention to, as he put it "harm God", but whatever the intent the effect is the same. His "innocent theory" has been seized on and hijacked by the "anti-god brigade".

Intent is often invalidated by the results gained.


Which could be equally said of the Bible, but doesn't actually seem to be relevant in either case.

Quote:

The sun can have an awful lot of effects on things, as can other natural effects we still don't even begin to understand or even have to invent to explain what we observe ("Dark Matter" and "Dark Flow" for instance, both things invented to describe observed effects).

Admittedly the Creation account doesn't mention everything everything in detail. Dinosaurs, for example don't get a specific mention. If God has decided we don't need to know, then maybe we should listen to Him?


Well its not exactly logical or fair to say that the reason someone believes something is false is because there could be unknown forces at work that affected the means by which it was tested. That kinda just kills discourse, discussion, and understanding right there.

Quote:

Scientists have tried to claim many things, but as far as I am aware, there is no evidence to contradict that order either.


Um the fossil record alone kinda does that...

Not to mention that land was considered to have come before water on Earth in terms of science, while the bible claims the opposite.

And like I said before, gathering the waters all in one place does not imply a landmass encircled with water, it implies that the water was surrounded by a landmass.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#13New Post! Mar 01, 2012 @ 14:42:12
@nooneinparticular Said

1) Natural selection only pertains to living organisms.


Yes, but then so does Evolution.

@nooneinparticular Said

2) Variation within species works in a 'purely accidental' nature. (well not entirely but thats a technical discussion about genetics that I don't really feel like going over.)


You think? I don't, to me it is a planned system built in. Of course man couldn't design anything like it. As for "a technical discussion about genetics", there is a lto in any such that doesn't make sense. People just like to find a genetic excuse not to exercise self control. The "homosexual gene" is a cop out, as are all the other such.

Whilst it may be true that one is predisposed to such things that doesn't mean one has to give in to that predisposition.

@nooneinparticular Said

Which could be equally said of the Bible, but doesn't actually seem to be relevant in either case.


Whilst I am not sure exactly what you mean by that, the difference between the bible and all other books is that it has one author who spent thousands of year inspiring humans to write it down.

The creation account is an eye witness account, which makes it unique.

The results of actually following what the bible teaches are always beneficial to those who take things to heart. Again that makes it absolutely unique.

The guidance in the bible is perfect, if only because it comes from a perfect author.

@nooneinparticular Said

Well its not exactly logical or fair to say that the reason someone believes something is false is because there could be unknown forces at work that affected the means by which it was tested. That kinda just kills discourse, discussion, and understanding right there.


It is both logical and fair. It is not logical or honest to declare that something is accruate despite all the unknowns.


@nooneinparticular Said

Um the fossil record alone kinda does that...

It either does or it doesn't (and it doesn't). Of course it doesn't confirm it either, all it shows is that there is still evidence to find, in either direction. However it still fits creation better than it does any Evolutionary theory since the "Punctuated Jump" theory of the 80's.

Not to mention that land was considered to have come before water on Earth in terms of science, while the bible claims the opposite.


I would imagine it did come before water, but that would have been in the formative periods of the planet which were over before the creative account started.

The creative account doesn't say when either were created, it merely talks about gathering all the seas into one place. Well if the land hadn't already been there then the seas would have been in one place anyway, and that one place would have been everyplace.


@nooneinparticular Said

And like I said before, gathering the waters all in one place does not imply a landmass encircled with water, it implies that the water was surrounded by a landmass.


Actually it doesn't imply either, it merely implies that the two were both separate but unified parts. In fact if you think about it both could be said to be true, depending on which there was most of. One would assume that anyone on that landmass would certainly view it as land surrounded by water though.

However it is almost certain that water, as a liquid, was not present until the earth had cooled down enough not to turn it straight back into vapour, meaning land would automatically come before water in the formulative period, before the creative days started.

Don't forget the creative account says nothing about either land or water being created, only gathered together.
nooneinparticular On August 11, 2020




, Hawaii
#14New Post! Mar 03, 2012 @ 01:05:18
@MadCornishBiker Said

Yes, but then so does Evolution.


Yes indeed, but not everything is reduced to life.

Quote:

You think? I don't, to me it is a planned system built in. Of course man couldn't design anything like it. As for "a technical discussion about genetics", there is a lto in any such that doesn't make sense. People just like to find a genetic excuse not to exercise self control. The "homosexual gene" is a cop out, as are all the other such.


Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not make it invalid as an argument.

Quote:

Whilst it may be true that one is predisposed to such things that doesn't mean one has to give in to that predisposition.


Which is not what genetics says. Predisposition, even supported by genetics does not predetermine action. That has been acknowledged already... in quite a lot of different scientific fields.

And that kind of raises the question. If you accept that genetics can produce predispositions to morally adverse behavior, and you also believe that God lovingly created each genetic code, then does that not indicate he doesn't worry or care about these morally adverse genetic predispositions?

Quote:

Whilst I am not sure exactly what you mean by that, the difference between the bible and all other books is that it has one author who spent thousands of year inspiring humans to write it down.


Your earlier statement. "Intent is often invalidated by the results gained". Using this logic you claim that even though Evolution itself does not remove God, since some of its proponents do, then by association so to does the theory itself.

Now turning this logic on its ear, the Bible would be equally valid as pertaining to this logic as well. Think about it. If we consider the history of the Bible, and what it has been used to justify it, then the Bible is equally guilty as the Church for the Crusades, the Inquisition and so on and so forth.

Quote:

The creation account is an eye witness account, which makes it unique.


By that logic, all creation accounts are eyewitness accounts.

Quote:

The results of actually following what the bible teaches are always beneficial to those who take things to heart. Again that makes it absolutely unique.

The guidance in the bible is perfect, if only because it comes from a perfect author.


Which then becomes circular reasoning. The guidance of the Bible is perfect because the author was perfect because the guidance of the Bible is perfect, over and over ad infinitum.

Quote:

It is both logical and fair. It is not logical or honest to declare that something is accruate despite all the unknowns.


When the unknowns themselves are themselves unknown, then it is perfectly irrational to bring them up in the first place.

Quote:

I would imagine it did come before water, but that would have been in the formative periods of the planet which were over before the creative account started.


The formative period of the planet occurred, and then we have the word bringing the Earth back into existence? What?

Actually reading Genesis again, it seems to imply that water does not count as 'something'. If it's empty then nothings in/on the Earth...but we assume water exists already... that to me seems contradictory and odd, but maybe thats just because I don't consider water, something tangible, to be part of something that is empty...

Quote:

The creative account doesn't say when either were created, it merely talks about gathering all the seas into one place. Well if the land hadn't already been there then the seas would have been in one place anyway, and that one place would have been everyplace.


One place and any place are two different concepts. You cannot gather all the worlds gold into one place then call it every place. If that were true I could myself claim to have gathered all the worlds gold or silver into one place without having done a single thing.

Quote:

Actually it doesn't imply either, it merely implies that the two were both separate but unified parts. In fact if you think about it both could be said to be true, depending on which there was most of. One would assume that anyone on that landmass would certainly view it as land surrounded by water though.

However it is almost certain that water, as a liquid, was not present until the earth had cooled down enough not to turn it straight back into vapour, meaning land would automatically come before water in the formulative period, before the creative days started.

Don't forget the creative account says nothing about either land or water being created, only gathered together.


Which in itself, taken at its most basic form, implies that matter existed before God did anything. What was that 'absurdity' about matter existing separate from a cause?
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#15New Post! Mar 03, 2012 @ 10:58:20
@nooneinparticular Said

Yes indeed, but not everything is reduced to life.


Not sure what you are saying there

@nooneinparticular Said

Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not make it invalid as an argument.


No but the fact that the alternative simply doesn't make any sense doesn't half make it more likely.


@nooneinparticular Said

Which is not what genetics says. Predisposition, even supported by genetics does not predetermine action. That has been acknowledged already... in quite a lot of different scientific fields.


No, I agree, genetics doesn't but people do. I have lost count of the number of people who have defended their choice of what can only be called unnatural sexual behaviour by saying "I was born that way" when what they really mean is "I want to be that way because I enjoy it and to hell with the harm it does to others who may decide to follow my example".

@nooneinparticular Said

And that kind of raises the question. If you accept that genetics can produce predispositions to morally adverse behavior, and you also believe that God lovingly created each genetic code, then does that not indicate he doesn't worry or care about these morally adverse genetic predispositions?


Which is the main reason I don't accept genetic predisposition as anything more than a feeble excuse for not exercising self control. Of course God cares about it, that is why He has caused so much to be written against it in His word. Why He has always advocated self control in the face of temptation.

@nooneinparticular Said

Your earlier statement. "Intent is often invalidated by the results gained". Using this logic you claim that even though Evolution itself does not remove God, since some of its proponents do, then by association so to does the theory itself.

Now turning this logic on its ear, the Bible would be equally valid as pertaining to this logic as well. Think about it. If we consider the history of the Bible, and what it has been used to justify it, then the Bible is equally guilty as the Church for the Crusades, the Inquisition and so on and so forth.


Yes I guess that is exactly what I am saying. Darwin, as I have said, didn't intend his original theory to do that, but the way others have twisted it afterwards has done so.

If the term "evolution" had stopped at its original base meaning of "improvement via change" there would be nothing wrong with it, but it has been warped into more than that. It has been warped into something accidental, not something planned and designed, which is why I now only use the term "adaptaion" to describe it.

Evolution has also been warped into an "origination of everything alive" theory, whereas the evidence shows some basic things appearing, apparently from nowhere and then developing into other varieties according to changes in environment for whatever reason, just as mankind has done.


@nooneinparticular Said

By that logic, all creation accounts are eyewitness accounts.


That doesn't follow. All other creation accounts are copies or distortions of the original. The fact the the traceable written records of them may predate the ones we now know of for the biblical accounts does not mean that there were not other copies of it lost long ago, before Moses put them all together. Think about it.

@nooneinparticular Said

Which then becomes circular reasoning. The guidance of the Bible is perfect because the author was perfect because the guidance of the Bible is perfect, over and over ad infinitum.


That is not what I am saying, mine stops at "The guidance of the Bible is perfect because the author was perfect." The fact is that His guidance is perfect is because He is perfect, not the other way around. You are the one who is bending it into a circle, not me.

@nooneinparticular Said

When the unknowns themselves are themselves unknown, then it is perfectly irrational to bring them up in the first place.


That doesn't actually make sense. At least, not as you have written it there.

@nooneinparticular Said

The formative period of the planet occurred, and then we have the word bringing the Earth back into existence? What?

Actually reading Genesis again, it seems to imply that water does not count as 'something'. If it's empty then nothings in/on the Earth...but we assume water exists already... that to me seems contradictory and odd, but maybe thats just because I don't consider water, something tangible, to be part of something that is empty...

Then you need to read it again.

Nowhere in the creative days is the planet spoken of as being created again. The dry land is called earth, not the planet in this case, just as we often use the word "earth" instead of saying "soil". The two words are often used interchangeably. The same can be said for the waters becoming seas. After all what were they in the first place? both.

Using your logic you cannot have a spadeful of earth, only a spadeful of soil. You can only have a spadeful of some components of earth, so why do we use the word differently.


@nooneinparticular Said

One place and any place are two different concepts. You cannot gather all the worlds gold into one place then call it every place. If that were true I could myself claim to have gathered all the worlds gold or silver into one place without having done a single thing.


That too is not exactly a logical statement.

For a start God didn't "do nothing". For another since we are only talking about the dry land, or at least I was, then if the whole of the dry land is in one continent then any place is gathered into one place, but not without action on God's part. The same could be said for the seas because by gathering the dry land into one place the waters automatically ended up in one place by the same action.


@nooneinparticular Said

Which in itself, taken at its most basic form, implies that matter existed before God did anything. What was that 'absurdity' about matter existing separate from a cause?


Nothing I have said even comes close to implying that, only the way you have chosen to bend things, as you have.

The absurdity is that everything has to come from somewhere and if it didn't come from God, where did it come from?
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Sat Mar 17, 2012 @ 17:58
2 961
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Sun May 29, 2011 @ 17:55
61 6131
New posts   Football (US)
Mon Jan 17, 2011 @ 02:35
1 2382
New posts   Poetry
Wed Jul 11, 2007 @ 05:07
0 663
New posts   Science
Thu Feb 02, 2006 @ 03:17
3 2504