I may give evolution a shot.

[Lonnie]

You fail to relize something Lucaspa, either that or you ignore it.

You claim God could do evolution if he wanted(Yes, I do think he could do what ever he wants). He could just created everything in 7 days, without evolution. So you say he can create everything through evolution.

But is that not like taking what creatism involves as well. So that does not support evolution at all. Evolution just took the same Idea and said it could work the other way too, as it can. But I dont believe, that God evolved things. Less then you believe that God created everything in seven days, without evolution.

Lol, this is fun. Lucaspa, do you enjoy talking about evolution? As this is one of my favorite things to do. As it seems many people enjoy it on these forums. (if you did not enjoy it, then why are you here? Lol)

You claim creationism is False. Well that is what you claim. It means little to me, cause it does not change fact to fiction in what you believe.

Just because I dislike something, or dont believe something, does not make to true.

But what the Bible says, is about all I can truely believe in.



Later

 

[Lonnie]

Lucaspa,

Did you even read those links? If you did, then you would know that many (atleast 5)of the links lead to pages that are either locked, and not viewable to the public, or they mention evolution multipul times.

Come one, you betted on the latter, but you did not even read them. Or else you misunderstood what I was saying, but you did quote it Lucaspa, so ill assume that you do understand what you just posted. You betted on the latter, I looked at atleast 5, and they all mentioned evolution. Or they where not currently working links.

So uh, you could say in a way. That none of those link quilified. As they all mentioned evolution.

So are you going to provide a scientific link to support anything.

As I imagine, most of you believe creationists sites, are wrong, many think that about evolutionists sites too. So try, get a neurtol source. It is possible. Mabey you are just not able to do so...

Later

 

[lucaspa]

Can I just address these, as I don't want to read everything...

"1. Go to Barnes and Nobles. Look at all the books with commentaries of Genesis in them. You will find that all of them acknowledge two separate and contradictory creation stories.

2. Since at least St. Augustine in 400 AD Christians have held to a "two books" doctrine. God has two books The Bible which God inspired but men wrote and Creation which God wrote directly. Those books have to agree. In1832 (before evolution) evangelical Christians realized "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;."

I have read the two different accounts, and the same logic that says it's false is the same logic that says Judas died two different ways, and it's false.

Judas obviously only died once. But there are two different stories about it.

Now, remember the claim! The claim was that no one thinks there are two creation stories. This shows that a lot of people have concluded there are two creation stories.

So provided a link to Barnes and Nobles, I'll provide one to a different site, but by personal observation of having read the chapters, I can see nothing wrong.

Really? It's OK that Genesis 1 says 6 days and Genesis 2:4 says one day?
That Genesis 1 has the order plants, fish and birds, animals, and people while Genesis 2 has the order plants, man, animals and birds mixed together, then woman?
That Genesis 1:26 -27 uses the Hebrew plural for "men" and "women" in 'male' and 'female', indicating that many men and women are being created at once, while Genesis 2 has one man and one woman?
That Genesis 1 has animals and people spoken into existence "let there be" while Genesis 2 has man and animals formed from dust?

Perhaps you just have a different Bible than I.

As for science, I can post a list of things science has said were correct that changed, although the Bible stayed the same.

LOL! Of course the Bible can't change! Once you write the text you can't change anything. However, the ideas expressed in the Bible have changed. For instance, in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 Jesus changes the divorce laws. In Acts 19 Peter's dream changes the dietary laws. Jesus changes the Commandments in that now not just the actions but the thoughts of them are sins. All of Jesus' life and manner of death changes the view of what the Messiah is supposed to be. So, your statement doesn't hold testing even before we get out of the Bible, not to mention the changes in Christian theology based on that "same" Bible over the years.

2. Two books, you are right. The original language, and all others. But it's a fallacy to say sound science contradicts either of them.

You need to study Christian history and theology more. We are not talking about original language and translations. We are talking a completely separate book from the Bible. That you can't recognize what it is indicates, to me, that you are now worshipping the Bible and not God. Let me give you a hint:
"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

Got it now?

This said, realize it was in a living language that uses nuances, idioms, and 'people language' but that language is still used, so we can find out what these are.

The idioms and nuances of the time aren't used. Go back just 100 years in American English and see what the idioms are. Do you know what they meant by "spooning" or "bundling"?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

As long as you are aslong as you dont make stuff up or force the evidence to fit into what you believe.

Exactly. That's what creationists do.

See its up to you to decide which one you believe in.

However belief does not equate to truth. People still believe that the earth is the center of the solar system despite the evidence to the contrary. That doesn't mean they're right.

Science works on evidence, not belief. Scientific theories are accepted or rejected, not believed. You have been corrected on this numerous times already.

Not all theorys are correct.

Exactly. Young earth creationism is false. Reasons have been presented and you have ignored them. Since others have given loads of biological evidence, here's the geological evidence:

[url]http://www.christianforums.com/t41209[/url]

As I imagine, you cant believe in both of those at once, if you can please explain how.

Obviously it's not possible. Since all available evidence indicates a 4.55 billion year old earth and that evolution has occurred and still occurs, that leaves creationism false.

Oh, and the more I am on here, the more I learn of evolution, and why people believe in it.

Then how about humoring us and telling us what you have leared?

Considering you keep repeating that "people believe in it," you don't seem to be learning much. Why do people accept the theory of evolution? Come on, show us what you claim to have learned?

Now I believe in creation more than ever, now that I can see all the errors in evolution, while I have yet to see any one post a link from a non-(creation vs evolution) site.

Links have been given to you of that sort already. The aforementioned link in this thread also gives unbiased evidence that falsifies creationism. You consistently ignore the information given to you.

If you can see the errors in evolution and an old earth, then why not humor us and tell us what they are?

All of the links to support you guys,(and myself) seem to be based on either creation, or evolution, based sites.

That's demonstrably false. Arguments presented in the thread I linked to above contain no links to biased websites. Furthermore, plenty of references to scientific papers have been given to you, I have noticed. Why do you simply ignore that?

Id like some to provide a link that would support evolution, without having it mention, creation, or evolution on it, while not mentioning, billions, or millions of years,

Wait...you want to learn about the evidence supporting evolution...from a site that doesn't even mention evolution?!? How would that be possible? How would it be possible to ignore timescales as well? You are asking for the ridiculously impossible.

Thanks! Just trying to get non-deluted facts.

[url]http://www.christianforums.com/t41209[/url]

Then stop reading creationist websites.

Can you do it? (But you will have trouble, hehehe)

In all honesty, it's a ridiculous request. How can we give evidence supporting evolution without using a reference that mentions evolution? How can we give evidence of an old earth without using a reference that mentions billions of years? Of course one will have trouble coming up with something that is impossible.

However, you can get non-diluted/non-deluded facts from the thread I linked above. Either make an effort to address them and stop ignoring them or please stop complaining that people haven't been giving you information that you requiest.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

That none of those link quilified. As they all mentioned evolution.

Are you serious?!?

You want a source that gives evidence for evolution...but it can't actually mention evolution?!? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

So are you going to provide a scientific link to support anything.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? How does ignoring the information people give you from scientific sources qualify as learning anything?

So try, get a neurtol source.

Ironically you can't seem to spell "neutral" much less understand what a neutral source would be.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Now, are you actually going to go and look, or will you declare any article on evolution as not being acceptable but "biased"?

I'm betting on the latter. Anyone want to bet a beer?

Man, I would have bet you the Guiness brewery if I had the chance. He was simply too quick to automatically dismiss them...

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa,

Did you even read those links? If you did, then you would know that many (atleast 5)of the links lead to pages that are either locked, and not viewable to the public, or they mention evolution multipul times.

Well, don't you think that when there is evidence for evolution that it is going to mention evolution? DUH!

Anybody bet me a beer? No? Darn.

You betted on the latter, I looked at atleast 5, and they all mentioned evolution. Or they where not currently working links.

Did you look at all of the links. Aren't they all to science sites and not connected to the evolution/creationism controversy.

How do you expect to see evidence about evolution but not mention evolution!

So uh, you could say in a way. That none of those link quilified. As they all mentioned evolution.

I win my beer! I bet you would say they were all biased.

So are you going to provide a scientific link to support anything.

I did. Go to any with "sciencemag" or "pnas". Or "nature". If you can't get in, you will just have to buy a subscription or go to the public library (horrid thought!) and read the hardcopy. I'll give you the hardcopy links.

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/index.html
http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/descent/denton.jpg
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992732
www.genetic-programming.com
http://www.discover.com/aug_03/gthere.html?article=feattech.html
http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave_flagella.htm
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mmateos/reznicketal.pdf

I'm interested in seeing how you decide to reject these.

It's interesting that you are rejecting evidence not on it's accuracy, but on wholly artificial criteria. If it mentions "evolution" it is out.

Oh, yes, here is the ultimate site for you to reject!
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

Couldn't possibly read DARWIN now, could we? I bet you'll call this the ultimate in bias. When in fact it's the beginning of the accumulation of evidence.

 

[Lonnie]

Ah...

All evolutionists think the same way so far...

They both are not looking at what they say... Lol

So say, and funny Lol!

They are saying creationists are making stuff up. That is what I claim too. I also claim that evolutionists do the same thing. So why believe either?

"please stop complaining that people haven't been giving you information that you requiest."

Are you complaining? Lol, or are you requesting? People dont have to do anything on these forums, if they dont want to reply to my request... then dont. You have a free will.

You all say creation is false, yet you dont post why. You say God evolved things right? Well we said that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything in em. (dont you)

Everything in the earth was created. That would involve. Everything that we did not make!

Why are you saying creation is false, and believe evolution?
While you have nothing to explain why God did not create the earth and every thing in it.

You use the same excuse why to believe in evolution, as the creationsts first used it to support creation. What you are saying is logical. But its supports, both evolution, can creation.

OFF TOPIC:
_________________________________________________________________________________________

And one more thing, Lucaspa. Would you be willing to help in a theard that I would start, that would help prove to evolutionists that do not believe in God, that evolution would be impossible without God?

As we all know well, (atleast Lucaspa should, as long with some others) that Evolution, and creation would be impossible, without God.

And I think it realy matters little wether or not you believe God evolved things, or just created things.

Aslong as you believe that you are saved.

Later

 

[Lonnie]

Lol, the reason I did not want creation or evolution to be mentioned, was because then they would be only, and or only supporting evolution.

I thought you could get everday, Facts that all scientists believe in, and is known as a fact to most, creationists, and evolutionists. And see which it would support. You failed to do so(but I did not read the links yet in your above post)

I realy enjoyed your last post thought it was clever(I am not being sarcastic, as I greatly dislike sarcasim)

And what else... Oh ya

Would you be willing to join in that thread, I could realy use your help. To help convice people that evolution, and creationism, cannot happen without God.


I should have bet to that you would not support any links that would not mention evolution. Lol
Good Job, you won the bet, but no one esle betted. Lol

Later

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

They are saying creationists are making stuff up. That is what I claim too. I also claim that evolutionists do the same thing. So why believe either?

Because we have repeatedly demonstrated how "making stuff up" is a crucial basis for creationism. You have not done anything remotely close for scientists.

People dont have to do anything on these forums, if they dont want to reply to my request... then dont.

That's why I used the word, "please."

You all say creation is false, yet you dont post why.

Alright, this borders on lying at this point. You are lying if you say people haven't posted why creationism is false upon your request several times already.

I posted a thread that contains several reasons:

[url]http://www.christianforums.com/t41209[/url]

Others have posted their reasons. You ignore them.

As we all know well, (atleast Lucaspa should, as long with some others) that Evolution, and creation would be impossible, without God.

That's simply not true and you can't demonstrate that it would be impossible in any way. Besides, this is not the apologetics forum; this is the science forum.

I suggest you stick to what you've started already and instead of ignoring the responses, actually address them and learn.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Facts that all scientists believe in

Science is not about belief, for the umpteenth time!

Fact: varves are bi-annually deposited sedimentary rhythmites--two layers per year.
Fact: a varve formation in the western United States is millions of layers thick.

Conclusion: the earth cannot be merely a few thousand years old if there are millions of varve couplets present. Young earth creationism is false.

The only way to get around that is to ignore and/or twist facts, but that is the logical conclusion.

That is a brief discription of one of the geologic facts in this thread:

[url]http://www.christianforums.com/t41209[/url]

You can address those facts there.

 

[Lonnie]

Sorry,

That was very sloppy, I was not being specific. I meant, that I have yet to read. And/or on this thread. Thats what I get for being sloppy.

SorryMechanical Bliss vbmenu_register("postmenu_1384692", true);

There, I am always tempted to fix my statement that I have errored apon. But I dont, cause I dont need to hide that I am not perfect, cause only God, and christ are perfect.

Later

 

[Lonnie]

"Conclusion: the earth cannot be merely a few thousand years old if there are millions of varve couplets present. Young earth creationism is false"

Pff, do you know what many creationists believe in? If you do, then you know that proves nothing, or it would actualy suppor creationism. Cause creationism(or alteast what me and many other people believe) think that when God created the earth, and everything in it.

Then we think he created, everything in it. Just like the bible says. We think God created the layers. why not? Pff...

I have still yet too see anything that is against creationism. That does not actualy follow what creationists believe in.

Creationism seems to be biblicly sound.

 

[Jaci Fan]

Science says Life must come from Life

therefore science agrees with the bible

because God created the world! Nothingness can't create anything and is only a silly absurd fairy tale theory! and I must add a dumb one!

Anyone who disagrees with Science that says "Life must come from Life" is wasting all their time and effort when the matter is as simple as A B C

you don't gotta get tangled up arguing with silly ppl
you have the facts that science teaches the obvious Life comes from Life
uh oh, evolution says, but if we believe that then something with Life must have created us, but if we believe this way, we'll have to answer for our sins!

No we'll believe one of the hundreds of silly theorys umm what about we were once monkeys! well still someone had to make the monkey.. ok what about a big bang! yeah sure a Big bang exploded and then caused beautiful creation to exsist! -smart- hehe hmmm ok what about ummmmmmm

dont give up guys!! we have got to come up with something!!!

God bless and take care kids

 

[Lonnie]

Good Post. I like it.

I like your Signature! But I cant Vote for Bush, lol. Cant vote for atleast 3 years.
Yup, it is rather stupid to believe in anything, if you dont believe there is a God.

Later

 

[David Gould]

I still have trouble coming to terms with the fact that there people exist who think the way Jaci Fan does ...

 

[Lonnie]

"That's simply not true and you can't demonstrate that it would be impossible in any way. Besides, this is not the apologetics forum; this is the science forum."


Its impossible. Can you prove it is possible?

Later

 

[Arikay]

Um, ok. that was funny

Your right, we shouldn't believe in stupid theories...

Or

Your right, we shouldn't believe in those stupid theories, like germ theory or the theory of gravity. I think im going to go eat some anthrax and jump off a roof, because those theories are obviously so stupid they cant be true.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Pff, do you know what many creationists believe in? If you do, then you know that proves nothing, or it would actualy suppor creationism.

Substantiate your statement or retract.

How does millions of years of accumulated varves support a 6,000 year old earth?

Cause creationism(or alteast what me and many other people believe) think that when God created the earth, and everything in it.

Then we think he created, everything in it. Just like the bible says. We think God created the layers. why not? Pff...

= God is a liar. You're back to that argument again. That's because you can't refute the facts.

What purpose does it serve to create an earth with millions of layers that form in lakes due to specific processes and yet those processes never actually happened? Deception.

Never mind the fact that the dating of the varves simply by counting them correllates with radiometric dating of volcanic tuff and ash in the area as well as known periodicity of sunspot cycles and Milankovitch cycles. All that is just an illustion/coincidence too?

I have still yet too see anything that is against creationism.

Then stop reading with your eyes and mind closed.

[url]http://www.christianforums.com/t41209[/url]

Creationism seems to be biblicly sound.

It's not scientifically sound.

 

[Lonnie]

Lol, you are right, if you are stupid. Do so.