Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

dad · Jul 9, 2006

Beastt said:
Are you forgetting that our sun is not the only source of light in the universe?

The stars and sun were made the same day. What other significant light is it you refer to?

NASAg03 · Jul 9, 2006

USincognito said:
That's what happens when certain individuals get involved. The ignore button is there for a reason.

I'm not sure if the "NASA" in your user ID is related to the space shuttle or not, but there's another government entity you might want to check out and that's the U.S. Geological Survery. www.usgs.gov

Geothermal energy comes from water that is below ground and is pressurized because it is near a heat source, namely magma, not gravity, not the Sun, not anything other than being in a contained area (the ground) and near a heat source (hot liquid ground).

Geothermal vents have nothing to do with atmospheric heat what so ever.

read again what i wrote. geothermal energy is due to pressure, which is due to gravity.

gravity is inversely proportional to the distance from the object. as we go to the center of the earth, the gravity is stronger, compressing the matter inside (pressure) and causing it to melt. this pressure causes the magma to flow to the surface in the form of both liquids (lava) and gasses.

anyways, lets get back to the discussion of genesis. here is what I read:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

God created the universe, and this creation included the earth and the water that would be on the earth, both of which are WITHOUT FORM AND VOID.

void: not occupied, containing nothing, being without something specified.

3 Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

creation of the sun as a form of light, and God defining the terms "day" and "night".

6 Then God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

God forming the planets. Planets contain water, and are made up of water. Well, the earth at least. Still, we know water exists beyond the "firmament" in icey comets. the firmament could be the atmosphere which is beginning to settle into place.

9 Then God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

"waters under the heaven" would mean those on earth. those waters are collected into one place. perhaps the water was previously frozen, and it now melts and flows into the oceans and seas. we know we have an atmosphere from the previous day, so this means heat is being retained from both the sun, and heat generated from the core of the earth.

Plants need heat to survive and grow energy. perhaps the earth was covered in so many clouds, or other atmposheric conditions that the sun could not be seen? either way, it was still warm enough for liquid water, and enough heat on earth for plants to begin to grow.

14 Then God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

God now allows the light to be seen, both the sun and the moon. God already created the light, so we know he isnt' re-creating the sun and the moon. they have already been formed, but were not previously visible, in the same way that the sun and the moon are not visible with clouds in the way.

so now that we have direct light from the sun, more plants can grow and God can finish molding his creation.

20 Then God said, Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

what am i trying to say? this account of the creation of the universe, written 3500 years ago, is one of the best, most accurate accounts of creation. it talks about the universe getting created, the sun being formed, the earth and it's atmosphere, the plants, then animals, then man.

isn't that exactly what abiogenesis and evoluation stated happened??? yes, only yall stretch it out over many thousands of years. i'm not going to debate the time frame because i dont know what is meant by a day. God defines a day before the earth has even been created as a spinning mass orbiting around the sun.

still, it's a great account - one of the best and most accurate we have for this period of time.

Beastt · Jul 9, 2006

NASAg03 said:
read again what i wrote. geothermal energy is due to pressure, which is due to gravity.

gravity is inversely proportional to the distance from the object. as we go to the center of the earth, the gravity is stronger, compressing the matter inside (pressure) and causing it to melt. this pressure causes the magma to flow to the surface in the form of both liquids (lava) and gasses.

anyways, lets get back to the discussion of genesis. here is what I read:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

God created the universe, and this creation included the earth and the water that would be on the earth, both of which are WITHOUT FORM AND VOID.

void: not occupied, containing nothing, being without something specified.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

creation of the sun as a form of light, and God defining the terms "day" and "night".

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

God forming the planets. Planets contain water, and are made up of water. Well, the earth at least. Still, we know water exists beyond the "firmament" in icey comets. the firmament could be the atmosphere which is beginning to settle into place.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

"waters under the heaven" would mean those on earth. those waters are collected into one place. perhaps the water was previously frozen, and it now melts and flows into the oceans and seas. we know we have an atmosphere from the previous day, so this means heat is being retained from both the sun, and heat generated from the core of the earth.

Plants need heat to survive and grow energy. perhaps the earth was covered in so many clouds, or other atmposheric conditions that the sun could not be seen? either way, it was still warm enough for liquid water, and enough heat on earth for plants to begin to grow.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

God now allows the light to be seen, both the sun and the moon. God already created the light, so we know he isnt' re-creating the sun and the moon. they have already been formed, but were not previously visible, in the same way that the sun and the moon are not visible with clouds in the way.

so now that we have direct light from the sun, more plants can grow and God can finish molding his creation.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

what am i trying to say? this account of the creation of the universe, written 3500 years ago, is one of the best, most accurate accounts of creation. it talks about the universe getting created, the sun being formed, the earth and it's atmosphere, the plants, then animals, then man.

isn't that exactly what abiogenesis and evoluation stated happened??? yes, only yall stretch it out over many thousands of years. i'm not going to debate the time frame because i dont know what is meant by a day. God defines a day before the earth has even been created as a spinning mass orbiting around the sun.

still, it's a great account - one of the best and most accurate we have for this period of time.

Did you not notice that you're re-writting the account as you go? Verse 3 doesn't say God created the source of light, it says he created light itself. Verse 14 is where the source of Earth's light is created in the form of the sun, moon and stars. Genesis 1:15 clearly states that the lights in the firmament were "to give light upon the Earth". According to your edits, there is already light on Earth. And you do this because you know that the Bible already has plants growing in Genesis 1:11, which can't happen without light. You're purposely distorting what is said, in an attempt to make a non-sensical account make sense.

I also noticed that you arbitrarily turned the water into ice. The Bible doesn't say "ice", it says "water". Then you just arbitrarily melt that ice. What caused the melting? There wasn't any event mentioned that would account for this.

And your water above the firmament is a rather sad explanation and not at all what those reading the original Hebrew read in Genesis. It talks about separating the water above from the water below, that's one of the functions offered for the firmament. But if the "water above" is referring to comets and other cosmic sources of water, they're already separated from the water on the Earth.

What you're doing is what so many believers do when they read the scripture. They first picture what science shows us to be the correct configuration. Then they attempt to warp the scripture to fit. But it's obvious that isn't what the early Hebrew interpretation shows. The etchings show what the Bible actually describes. It happens to be wrong, but it is what the Bible says.

NASAg03 · Jul 9, 2006

Beastt said:
What you're doing is what so many believers do when they read the scripture. They first picture what science shows us to be the correct configuration. Then they attempt to warp the scripture to fit. But it's obvious that isn't what the early Hebrew interpretation shows. The etchings show what the Bible actually describes. It happens to be wrong, but it is what the Bible says.

Because evos, abios, and atheists dont do the same things with their data!?!?

you have the same ending point that we do - humanity - and are trying to get to the starting point. yall have a few peices of data, and yall draw up all the interpolations you want to fill in the gaps. you warp the data to show what tells the story you want to told, a story devoid of a Creator.

when you approach a gap, you fill it in with a theoretical organism or "self replicating protein", even though such organisms dont exist in nature, and all of them cant' even be produced in the lab. yet, you still believe in them, and say "they could be produced".

why don't protobionts exist NOW? they are such simple creatures, and the conditions now are better for them to appear than before. if so many of these organisms developed into bateria, then there must have been more protobionts than bateria. there is much more amino acids than bacteria, but mysteriously the bridge has now disappeared, along with all of the other links you have.

the bible devotes less than 30 verses to creation, and considering the scientific knowledge back then (or lack there of), God had to put it into rather basic terms that those humans could relate to. they also wrote it down as it was told to them, relating their observations and understanding with what God told them. is it wrong? no, just a reflection in obervation, understanding, and point of view.

maybe God told them more facts that would have appeased you, but because they had no idea what God was saying, and no words for what he discribed, maybe that information didn't get captured.

when i present you with missing information and gaps in your theory, you state "well some day we will find the answers, but until then we wont stop questioning".

THAT IS FAITH. you have faith in science and that observing this world will provide you with all the answers you need. FAITH. call it what it is.

if you didn't have faith in science, you would stop following so closely after it.

you follow science because your belief in a genie god let you down, a god you claimed belief in, asking to help you in your hardest times, and in the down times that were easy in life you all you cared about was you. god took a 2nd place until you needed him to make your life better, and when he didn't answer your questions and pleas, you lost faith in him. was your faith even real? professing a belief in God and talking to him every now and then is not faith.

now, you've placed your faith in science to tell you the meaning in life. any time you have questions about that faith in science, you say "well, some day we'll know all the answers. maybe not today, but just give us time".

but when you bring up questions about the existance of God, or creation, you immediately cry fallacy and contradiction. we go seek more information, and you say we are fooling ourselves.

and your belief in these non-existant, hypothetical gap fillers called "protobionts" is any different?

maybe if you spent 1/2 the efforts you do on seeking God, understanding the bible and it's various translations, maybe you would start to have some faith in God. but, just like us, you've already made your choice, and now all the answers you are seeking after only serve to promote that belief.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2006

I swear, Beastt, you're giving me a black eye. You haven't accepted the Bible yet??? After all this time you've spent among us Christians? What's holding you back?

Oh, well, I guess I'll go back and critique some of that long love letter you wrote me.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2006

Beastt said:
Why would he do that?

God has an agenda --- and works on a timetable.

What purpose does it serve to want everyone to believe in God, then take all of the evidence away?

Did I say He took the "evidence" away? I said He took the proof back to Heaven with Him, but He left enough "evidence" that we can conclude that "He is".

How did he take this evidence? What exactly was this evidence? How do you know he took the evidence?

Jesus, Himself was the proof. You see, when the Old Testament came to a close, the Jews had an incomplete picture of God. John makes it clear that God came here in person and completed that picture - (John 1:18).

It sounds like a lot of unsupported conjecture. Meanwhile, many Christians continue to proclaim they have evidence. Are they proclaiming that Jesus didn't do what you claim he did?

Again Jesus is the proof - not the evidence - (John 14:6).

Perhaps you should read it again. That's exactly what it's telling you; that "faith" is the substance of what you hope for. In other words, it is belief in anything you hope might be true. And you'll notice that hope doesn't require evidence.

No, Beastt, YOUR hope doesn't --- mine does. You see, Biblical hope is not anticipating that something will go in your favor --- Biblical hope is awaiting the fulfillment of a promise.

If I promised you I'd give you five dollars tomorrow:

worldly hope would say - gee, I hope he means it
Biblical hope would say - I'll be here tomorrow to pick it up

Science and the Bible are not at odds with each other. After all --- God is the Author of Science --- and just like the potsherd cannot ask the potter why he's doing what he's doing --- Science does not ask God questions, either.

Science merely accepts that "God is".

Any and every scientific conclusion that disagrees with the Bible is going to be proven false when the Author shows up.

JohnR7 · Jul 9, 2006

Beastt said:
the lights in the firmament

We are talking about the firmament. Science does have something to say about that. For example, they talk about the green house effect. They talk about the ozone, and on and on and on. The problem here is you need a better knowledge of science. This is clearly a case where science can help us to better understand what God is telling us in the Bible about the firmament and the atmosphere around the earth. They say there is no atmosphere around the moon, so that could give you a point of comparison.

Tomk80 · Jul 9, 2006

NASAg03 said:
Because evos, abios, and atheists dont do the same things with their data!?!?

No.

you have the same ending point that we do - humanity - and are trying to get to the starting point. yall have a few peices of data, and yall draw up all the interpolations you want to fill in the gaps. you warp the data to show what tells the story you want to told, a story devoid of a Creator.

I would like to point out to you that 'evos' and 'abios' can be christians, and indeed many are.

when you approach a gap, you fill it in with a theoretical organism or "self replicating protein", even though such organisms dont exist in nature, and all of them cant' even be produced in the lab. yet, you still believe in them, and say "they could be produced".

Self-replicating proteins have been produced in the lab. rotobionts have been produced in the lab.

why don't protobionts exist NOW? they are such simple creatures, and the conditions now are better for them to appear than before. if so many of these organisms developed into bateria, then there must have been more protobionts than bateria. there is much more amino acids than bacteria, but mysteriously the bridge has now disappeared, along with all of the other links you have.

Are conditions now better for them to appear then before? Why do you think so?

the bible devotes less than 30 verses to creation, and considering the scientific knowledge back then (or lack there of), God had to put it into rather basic terms that those humans could relate to. they also wrote it down as it was told to them, relating their observations and understanding with what God told them. is it wrong? no, just a reflection in obervation, understanding, and point of view.

Or it could just be a mythical description made by nomads 3000 years ago, and completely wrong as a literal history. Is it meant to convene certain morals or lessons, as other myths need to do and not to be taken literal? You can disagree on that. But as a literal description of what happened, it's completely off the mark on all counts.

maybe God told them more facts that would have appeased you, but because they had no idea what God was saying, and no words for what he discribed, maybe that information didn't get captured.

when i present you with missing information and gaps in your theory, you state "well some day we will find the answers, but until then we wont stop questioning".

Sensible, no? Other then that we do not say we will find the answer, only that we will not conjure up some mythical being to substitute 'we don't know'.

THAT IS FAITH. you have faith in science and that observing this world will provide you with all the answers you need. FAITH. call it what it is.

No, that is reality. When you don't know, you don't know but keep investigating. Regardless of whether you think you'll find the answer. You just don't invent a being for which there is no evidence because you are to afraid to admit you don't have the answer.

if you didn't have faith in science, you would stop following so closely after it.

But I don't have faith in science. I use it, because it produces good results when researching questions, just as I use a hammer because it produces good results if I want to get a nail in the wall. It's got little to do with faith, it's just pragmatism.

you follow science because your belief in a genie god let you down, a god you claimed belief in, asking to help you in your hardest times, and in the down times that were easy in life you all you cared about was you. god took a 2nd place until you needed him to make your life better, and when he didn't answer your questions and pleas, you lost faith in him. was your faith even real? professing a belief in God and talking to him every now and then is not faith.

You keep going on like faith and science are diametrically opposed. Nothing is further from the truth. Just because someone doesn't believe in a God because the evidence for one is absent, doesn't mean someone beliefs in science like you believe in God.

now, you've placed your faith in science to tell you the meaning in life. any time you have questions about that faith in science, you say "well, some day we'll know all the answers. maybe not today, but just give us time".

Sorry, but no. Science does not give us the meaning of life, just as a hammer doesn't give me the meaning of life. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Unless you learn that important lesson, you will keep having misconceptions about what science is and does.

but when you bring up questions about the existance of God, or creation, you immediately cry fallacy and contradiction. we go seek more information, and you say we are fooling ourselves.

Because with the reasoning you give us, you do. You either let the bible say something it doesn't, and pretend that's perfectly alright, or substitute 'I don't know' with 'goddidit' with no valid reason. Both are fallacies. If you would say you had faith in God for personal reasons, I could state that I didn't believe that were the actions of God and we would bicker back and forth a little, but there would be no strong argument. Your experiences are your own, and I cannot gain complete insight in them, being the mere mortal I am. But as soon as you claim to have some evidence or 'proof' of God, I want to see it. And if you then come up with logical fallacies, I'll call you out on them.

and your belief in these non-existant, hypothetical gap fillers called "protobionts" is any different?

Yes, because those are hypotheses and theories that can be tested, unlike your God.

maybe if you spent 1/2 the efforts you do on seeking God, understanding the bible and it's various translations, maybe you would start to have some faith in God. but, just like us, you've already made your choice, and now all the answers you are seeking after only serve to promote that belief.

Nope. Did that, read more of the bible than was worth my time and it didn't help one bit. You'll have to accept that many atheists and agnostics are not nitwits when it comes to faith or the bible. Many have deconverted, many have studied the bible in depth, especially on forums like these. My experience on these forums is that many of them often have a better knowledge on the bible and christian history than the many literalists on here pretend to have. They've only come to a different conclusion (maybe because of that?).

Nathan Poe · Jul 9, 2006

NASAg03 said:
Because evos, abios, and atheists dont do the same things with their data!?!?

No they don't. Prove otherwise.

you have the same ending point that we do - humanity - and are trying to get to the starting point. yall have a few peices of data, and yall draw up all the interpolations you want to fill in the gaps. you warp the data to show what tells the story you want to told, a story devoid of a Creator.

Science is not Atheism -- try again, without the persecution complex.

when you approach a gap, you fill it in with a theoretical organism or "self replicating protein", even though such organisms dont exist in nature, and all of them cant' even be produced in the lab. yet, you still believe in them, and say "they could be produced".

What exactly can't be produced in a lab? Which ones don't exist in nature?

why don't protobionts exist NOW? they are such simple creatures, and the conditions now are better for them to appear than before. if so many of these organisms developed into bateria, then there must have been more protobionts than bateria. there is much more amino acids than bacteria, but mysteriously the bridge has now disappeared, along with all of the other links you have.

That's natural selection for you. The old species comes into competition with the new species for the resources -- and loses.

the bible devotes less than 30 verses to creation, and considering the scientific knowledge back then (or lack there of), God had to put it into rather basic terms that those humans could relate to. they also wrote it down as it was told to them, relating their observations and understanding with what God told them. is it wrong? no, just a reflection in obervation, understanding, and point of view.

And a point of view not reflected in what we have learned since "back then."

maybe God told them more facts that would have appeased you, but because they had no idea what God was saying, and no words for what he discribed, maybe that information didn't get captured.

And maybe God didn't say it at all -- but that possibility's forbidden to even consider, isn't it?

when i present you with missing information and gaps in your theory, you state "well some day we will find the answers, but until then we wont stop questioning".

THAT IS FAITH. you have faith in science and that observing this world will provide you with all the answers you need. FAITH. call it what it is.

So it's faith. Who said scientists didn't have some form of faith?

If we don't get the answer today, we'll keep working on it until we do -- maybe tomorrow, next Tuesday, next year, next decade, or possibly never -- but why give up?

Call it faith if you like, it's sounds more like perseverence -- not that it matters one way or the other.

if you didn't have faith in science, you would stop following so closely after it.

So what? We've found somethign that's worked in the past, works in the present, and we have no reason to believe that it will continue to work in the future.

For some reason, you seem to look upon this as a bad thing.

you follow science because your belief in a genie god let you down, a god you claimed belief in, asking to help you in your hardest times, and in the down times that were easy in life you all you cared about was you. god took a 2nd place until you needed him to make your life better, and when he didn't answer your questions and pleas, you lost faith in him. was your faith even real? professing a belief in God and talking to him every now and then is not faith.

Then what is faith? And what makes your Genie God any different from his, except the fact that you ask less?

now, you've placed your faith in science to tell you the meaning in life. any time you have questions about that faith in science, you say "well, some day we'll know all the answers. maybe not today, but just give us time".

It's called "we're working on it." Is that so evil?

but when you bring up questions about the existance of God, or creation, you immediately cry fallacy and contradiction. we go seek more information, and you say we are fooling ourselves.

What information can you seek? How does one know anything definitive about God -- even His existence, or lack thereof?

and your belief in these non-existant, hypothetical gap fillers called "protobionts" is any different?

maybe if you spent 1/2 the efforts you do on seeking God, understanding the bible and it's various translations, maybe you would start to have some faith in God. but, just like us, you've already made your choice, and now all the answers you are seeking after only serve to promote that belief.

Ok, NASA, you've made your point: You're a better Christian than he was. God's heard you; can we move on now?

Mary_Magdalene · Jul 9, 2006

***********MOD HAT ON************

I have cleaned up this thread. Please read and follow forum rules on flaming and baiting.

If your post has been deleted, it either violated flaming and/or baiting rules or it quoted a post that violated one of those rules.

Thanks.

-Godschosengirl

***********MOD HAT OFF*********

steen · Jul 9, 2006

NASAg03 said:
Because evos, abios, and atheists dont do the same things with their data!?!?

you have the same ending point that we do - humanity -

That is a false characterization. Science doesn't have an endpoint, no final goal or peak of evolution.

and are trying to get to the starting point.

Actually, the power of a Scientific Theory lies in its PROVEN ability of accurate predictions.

yall have a few peices of data, and yall draw up all the interpolations you want to fill in the gaps. you warp the data to show what tells the story you want to told, a story devoid of a Creator.

A documentation of the evidence, nothing more. You are seriously misrepresenting science here.

When you approach a gap, you fill it in with a theoretical organism

Rather, if there is a gap, we conduct research to explore it.

or "self replicating protein",

Could you enlighten us as to what Scientific Theory relies on self-replicating proteins?

even though such organisms dont exist in nature,

You have never heard of prions? The self-replicating proteins that causes mad Cow disease, among others?

and all of them cant' even be produced in the lab.

Hmm, that's kind of what we said about the sub-atomic particles 50 years ago. Oh, but wait, scientific research predicted their existence and make-up, and guess what, science was accurate and we indeed did find the Quarks, the Mu's and so on, JUST as scientific research had predicted.

yet, you still believe in them, and say "they could be produced".

Seems like you are talking about Scientific HYPOTHESES rather than Scientific Theories here. I hope you understand the difference?

why don't protobionts exist NOW? they are such simple creatures, and the conditions now are better for them to appear than before.

Why? With all the bacteria around, they would be gobbled up right away.

if so many of these organisms developed into bateria, then there must have been more protobionts than bateria.

Until they became substrate for bacterial growth, yes.

there is much more amino acids than bacteria, but mysteriously the bridge has now disappeared, along with all of the other links you have.

Huh? This doesn't make sense. Can you clarify?

the bible devotes less than 30 verses to creation, and considering the scientific knowledge back then (or lack there of), God had to put it into rather basic terms that those humans could relate to. they also wrote it down as it was told to them, relating their observations and understanding with what God told them. is it wrong? no, just a reflection in obervation, understanding, and point of view.

Absolutely. The Bible is not wrong. neither is science. Science is wrong, though, when it tries to say anything about God and the bible, just as the Bible and creationists are wrong when trying to say something about science.

maybe God told them more facts that would have appeased you, but because they had no idea what God was saying, and no words for what he discribed, maybe that information didn't get captured.

GASP!!!! The Bible is not literal? Funny how this is what TE has pointed out.

when i present you with missing information and gaps in your theory, you state "well some day we will find the answers, but until then we wont stop questioning".

Ah, like when you point out things that don't disprove the already-existing data? OK, whatever.

THAT IS FAITH. you have faith in science

Ah, more misrepresentation. Science is not about faith, but rather about evidence.

and that observing this world will provide you with all the answers you need.

Hmm, who exactly have claimed this? It seems an exaggeration.

FAITH. call it what it is.

Well, science isn't faith, so I don't see a justification for your claim.

if you didn't have faith in science, you would stop following so closely after it.

Rather, the evidence fits, that is why it is accepted.

you follow science because your belief in a genie god let you down, a god you claimed belief in, asking to help you in your hardest times, and in the down times that were easy in life you all you cared about was you.

Hmm, that sure doesn't fit me. I still have a solid belief in God, a belief NOT threatened by science. So this claim seems to not fit a lot of people.

god took a 2nd place until you needed him to make your life better, and when he didn't answer your questions and pleas, you lost faith in him. was your faith even real? professing a belief in God and talking to him every now and then is not faith.

Hmm, this "analysis" seems very much like pop-psychology.

now, you've placed your faith in science to tell you the meaning in life.

Sorry, I missed where Beastt made such a claim about science. Could you direct me to where he said anything about this?

any time you have questions about that faith in science, you say "well, some day we'll know all the answers. maybe not today, but just give us time".

but when you bring up questions about the existance of God, or creation, you immediately cry fallacy and contradiction. we go seek more information, and you say we are fooling ourselves.

Hmm, I missed that as well?

and your belief in these non-existant, hypothetical gap fillers called "protobionts" is any different?

Where did Beastt express a "belief" in something here?

maybe if you spent 1/2 the efforts you do on seeking God, understanding the bible and it's various translations, maybe you would start to have some faith in God.

Hmm, seems like your problem with beastt is not the science but that there is no Faith in God? What does that have to do with anything in this tread? You are generating red herrings here.

but, just like us, you've already made your choice, and now all the answers you are seeking after only serve to promote that belief.

Well, that certainly fits creationists, which is why claiming that creationism is scientific would be dishonest. But it certainly is not an accurate description of science.

Beastt · Jul 10, 2006

NASAg03 said:
When you approach a gap, you fill it in with a theoretical organism

Physical, biological organisms are demonstrably factual. (You happen to be one, as am I.) Supernatural entities are not. I'm not sure what examples you have in mind to support your assertion but I find it ironic that you make such a comment since the entirety of creationism is one big gap from start to finish. There is no credible mechanism for puffing dirt into a fully formed human. Perhaps a few tiny gaps have been filled with credible organisms in Evolution, though I don't know of any specific examples. But the whole of creationism is nothing but one big gap that creationists fill start to finish with God.

NASAg03 said:
the bible devotes less than 30 verses to creation, and considering the scientific knowledge back then (or lack there of), God had to put it into rather basic terms that those humans could relate to. they also wrote it down as it was told to them, relating their observations and understanding with what God told them. is it wrong? no, just a reflection in obervation, understanding, and point of view.

This is one of the first claims you find from those who wish to believe that the Bible is accurate. But the problem isn't with the simplicity of the explanation, it's actually in the details. Because it's the details given in the Bible which are demonstrably wrong. There would be no problem in declaring that God created human, (and non-human), life. But the Bible attempts to present an account of this creation, and in so doing, exposes itself as not only simplistic, but clearly wrong.

NASAg03 said:
maybe God told them more facts that would have appeased you, but because they had no idea what God was saying, and no words for what he discribed, maybe that information didn't get captured.

So much for "God's word" and the idea that God wanted to accurately present his message to man.

NASAg03 said:
THAT IS FAITH. you have faith in science

That which is held in belief based on evidence is not faith.

For what it's worth to you, I don't believe things simply because they are proclaimed to be true by science. I first have to examine the concept for myself and then the claim of science. When possible, I then like to evaluate the scientific claim against that evidence to which I may have access. Certainly I'm not able to do this for every claim of science but I prefer to apply this when I can. I didn't believe that the majority of Earth's layers beneath the crust were molten magma even when this was commonly taught as a scientific conclusion. I've never believed that animals are incapable of thought because I grew up around animals and interacted with them my whole life. The evidence simply didn't meet the claims. When it comes to evolution, the claims of science and the evidence work in reasonable and logical harmony so I believe it to be true. As far as creationism and the Bible, it offers nothing of substance in which to believe.

NASAg03 said:
FAITH. call it what it is.

I just love how when believers proclaim that they base their belief on "faith", they do so proudly as if it were nothing to be ashamed of, but when they wish to discredit science or, evolution in particular, they attempt to proclaim it is held on faith.

NASAg03 said:
if you didn't have faith in science, you would stop following so closely after it.

Exactly backward. If science required faith in order to believe, I wouldn't believe in it. Anyone who proclaims that faith is necessary in accepting anything they're offering is trying to swindle or mislead you.

NASAg03 said:
you follow science because your belief in a genie god let you down, a god you claimed belief in, asking to help you in your hardest times, and in the down times that were easy in life you all you cared about was you.

Even when I believed in God I didn't disbelieve evolution nor did I find reason to discount other claims of science based on my belief. You seem to be forgetting that outside of the U.S., the vast majority of Christians are theistic evolutionists.

NASAg03 said:
any time you have questions about that faith in science, you say "well, some day we'll know all the answers. maybe not today, but just give us time".

Science has never claimed to have all of the answers nor has it claimed to have attained all of the answers possible. If you spend a short time following science, you'll note that there are always new discoveries being made. Why would anyone assume that science is finished making new discoveries? And as long as science can offer demonstrations of the vast majority of a concept while the Bible can't offer anything more than "God poofed it", there is no logical or reasonable reason to believe the Bible over science. The Bible works at a severe disadvantage but it is one which it brings upon itself by being proclaimed to be the word of God. Science can be wrong, discover errors and fix them without ever violating the nature of what science is or claims to be. The Bible simply can't do that because it is claimed to be the word of God. If it's shown to be wrong, (and it's demonstrably wrong on many points), then it can't continue to hold credibility as being what it claims to be. You're attempting to compare science and the Bible on equal terms. But the two do not make equal claims.

NASAg03 said:
maybe if you spent 1/2 the efforts you do on seeking God, understanding the bible and it's various translations, maybe you would start to have some faith in God.

What would be the point? If I can simply believe out of faith, why spend the efforts you suggest in attempting to twist the Bible's claims into something credible? It seems you've forgotten what faith is all about.

NASAg03 said:
but, just like us, you've already made your choice, and now all the answers you are seeking after only serve to promote that belief.

I examined religion under the belief that it was real for 33-years. In the 13-years since determining it to be nothing more than ancient superstitious beliefs, I've not abandoned a close examination of religion. After all, I'm here, aren't I? But the more I look into religion, the more I debate with Christians and the more intently I examine the Bible, the more convinced I become that there is no God and the Bible and all other religious books are nothing more than what they can be shown to be; the writtings of superstitious men.

Beastt · Jul 10, 2006

AV1611VET said:
I swear, Beastt, you're giving me a black eye. You haven't accepted the Bible yet??? After all this time you've spent among us Christians? What's holding you back?

Reason

AV1611VET said:
Oh, well, I guess I'll go back and critique some of that long love letter you wrote me.

See it as you wish. I'm sure you'll do your best.

Beastt · Jul 10, 2006

dad said:
The stars and sun were made the same day. What other significant light is it you refer to?

You're right, dad. I overlooked that.

I suppose it might be said that the photon itself was created before sources for emitting photons, but that seems a bit backward to me. Of course I find no credibility in Genesis so I don't feel compelled to try to make Genesis 1:3 make sense along side Genesis 1:14.

Beastt · Jul 10, 2006

JohnR7 said:
We are talking about the firmament. Science does have something to say about that. For example, they talk about the green house effect. They talk about the ozone, and on and on and on. The problem here is you need a better knowledge of science. This is clearly a case where science can help us to better understand what God is telling us in the Bible about the firmament and the atmosphere around the earth. They say there is no atmosphere around the moon, so that could give you a point of comparison.

Do a little Google search for "firmament", John and then click the links to Christian sites. Count the number which equate "firmament" to "atmosphere". The Bible clearly claims that the sun, moon and stars were created in the Earth's atmosphere, which is understandable when considering the perception of the men who wrote the Bible. But when considering the claim that the Bible was inspired by God, it seems an obvious indication that the claim is fraudulent.

You never seem to tire of proclaiming yourself to have superior knowledge of science. Yet you openly admit that you believe anything which conflicts with the Bible can't be correct. Since many points of science conflict with the Bible, it's obvious you're not as versed in science as you proclaim yourself to be.

dad · Jul 10, 2006

Beastt said:
Beastt said:

You're right, dad. I overlooked that.

I suppose it might be said that the photon itself was created before sources for emitting photons, but that seems a bit backward to me.

Click to expand...

One can suppose, I suppose. But I see no reason to suppose that photons were made anytime at all near this time period. We had light, that was before the sun, and we have the light that was at the time from the sun and stars. I assume that that was a different light than we know today.

Of course I find no credibility in Genesis so I don't feel compelled to try to make Genesis 1:3 make sense along side Genesis 1:14.

Click to expand...

I do. So I will. (hold on, I have to look it up).
OK, got it. God made light in verse three. It was not the light of the sun. That came in verse 14, when the sun was made. Simple.

JohnR7 · Jul 10, 2006

Beastt said:
You never seem to tire of proclaiming yourself to have superior knowledge of science.

I know enough to know that science does not know as much as they claim to know and they can not deliver on as much as they claim to be able to deliver on. How much more do I need to know than that? I only need to know enough to catch them at their own game

Beastt · Jul 10, 2006

JohnR7 said:
I know enough to know that science does not know as much as they claim to know and they can not deliver on as much as they claim to be able to deliver on. How much more do I need to know than that? I only need to know enough to catch them at their own game

To be perfectly fair, John, if you tell someone else their knowledge in science is lacking, then you need to know more than they do about it. I find that not to be the case with you the vast majority of the time.

OdwinOddball · Jul 10, 2006

JohnR7 said:
I know enough to know that science does not know as much as they claim to know and they can not deliver on as much as they claim to be able to deliver on. How much more do I need to know than that? I only need to know enough to catch them at their own game

In order to "catch them at their own game" you need to know more than them, otherwise you are most often confusing your own ignorance for defeciencies in science. Which to pretty much everyone on these boards, seems to be closer to the truth than what you like to believe.

Time and time again you are shown how evolution and science in general confirm themselves, and contradcit with a literal Bible. You often admit to not knowing that much about science, yet you contniue to assert that science is wrong. Yet when we call upon you to back up such statements, you continually fail to do so.

So I ask you, how can you expect us to draw any conclusion other than that you are wrong if you won't support your claims?

JohnR7 · Jul 10, 2006

OdwinOddball said:
In order to "catch them at their own game" you need to know more than them

That is why I read books written by people who have a Phd in science. So the arguement does come from someone that knows what they are talking about. It is pretty easy to condense a chapter down to one paragraph to open up a conversation on it.

Time and time again you are shown how evolution and science in general confirm themselves, and contradcit with a literal Bible.

Evolution does not contradict the Bible. If it did contradict the Bible then you can be sure the Bible is right and evolution is wrong. For everytime you want to argue evolution, I can argue creationism. That is what we do here on this board. You have been shown time and again that creationism is right and evolution is wrong. For some reason the truth has not sunk in. Sooner or later you will come to the light and see the truth. The Bible says you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. You will see how well science and the Bible get along and compliment each other.

Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

Undefeated!

Active Member

Legend

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Titleless

Well-Known Member

AKA..Godschosengirl

Lie Detector

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Legend

Atheist Water Fowl

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency