Wake Up And See The Real World!!!!

[LittleNipper]

I am following the posts on this forum for about a week or 2 now, and i was wondering something: ARE YOU CREATIONISTS STUPID?? OR JUST BLIND??
My guess is that the evidence of evolution, and also for the theorie of evolution(which will be corrected until it matched evolution correctly), is so overwhelming that they just don't see.

But because evolution contradicts the bible u say:"it is wrong!"

The only base u have is a book written BY HUMANS a long time ago, full of contradictions.
Genesis is was written by people to try and copmrehend the world based on what they knew in that time.
That is the reason why science has proven the creation wrong.
And the only leg u have to stand on is:"But it is written" or "It was the hand off god who made the bible".
So a ask of u:"Do u believe all that u read?"
But if the bible is the hand off god, or the breath, why does genesis contradict not only SCIENCE, But also ITSELF??

The only thing i can think why some of u follow an old book is because u r brainwashed, and take no effort in trying to understand something, but just take the easy way out, and believe.

I pity you!

(oh yeah : Why in Gen1 does god create man and woman both at the same time, and in Gen 2 first Adam and then Eve)

Dr John Baumgardner is a geophysics professor who obtained a Ph.D in geophysacs from UCLA. He became an advocate for the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics and the chief developer of the TERRA program for computer modeling of the dynamics o f the earth's mantle. I would suggest that you are the one blinded by pseudo science under the veil of secular reasoning to the exclusion of anything of a religious feel....

In Genesis 1 the Bible is speaking of General Univeral creation & in Genesis 2 the Bible narrows the scope to the creation of man in GOD's image. Just exactly what a scientist does. He first sees a big picture but must then narrow in on specifics....

 

[llDayo]

I think a better choice of wording could have been stupid, indoctrinated, or ignorant. A majority of creationists are the latter. Some are indoctrinated and probably a very, VERY few are stupid (of course, stupidity isn't focused on just creationists, it can occur in any subject). Next time, please think about what you are going to post before doing so in anger. Anger clouds the mind, young padawan.

 

[Industriaan]

Dr John Baumgardner is a geophysics professor who obtained a Ph.D in geophysacs from UCLA. He became an advocate for the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics and the chief developer of the TERRA program for computer modeling of the dynamics o f the earth's mantle. I would suggest that you are the one blinded by pseudo science under the veil of secular reasoning to the exclusion of anything of a religious feel....

Pseudo science: indeed you got me, that's why i am studing to be an engineer, and make it my hobby to try and follow what the evolution theory has concluded yet.
And Who is Dr John Baumgardner?

In Genesis 1 the Bible is speaking of General Univeral creation & in Genesis 2 the Bible narrows the scope to the creation of man in GOD's image. Just exactly what a scientist does. He first sees a big picture but must then narrow in on specifics....

And now we are interprating(srry for the spelling) because we do not now all the facts...
Gen1 contradicts Gen2 (in creation order ect) because is was written down by to differnt orders of hebrews. in the original tekst Gen1 talks about ELOHIM en Gen2 about JAHWE.
They aslo both are stories past on from generatio to generation until in the 8e century BC Gen1 was written down, and in the 6e century BC Gen2 was written down.
And it is believed that in the 5 century BC both stories were artifficaly merged into one creation myth, as there were (and still are) a lot of them
But the biblical creation is just a myth that has it's rooth's in a time were people used "primitive" ways to explain the excistance of mankind, the earth, Ect.

--
Ni Hao

 

[Osiris]

Hi Industriaan, I understand where you are comming from... but I agree with the rest of the posters here about toning down a little. You may see the creationists as the enemy, but you must realise that they are human beings, just like yourself, who are honestly searching for the truth, it's just that they are going the wrong way about it but it's not their fault. Just imagine this... what if creationists are right (not probable but let's assume), we were wrong this whole time but we were honestly searching for the answers.

 

[Industriaan]

Hi Industriaan, I understand where you are comming from... but I agree with the rest of the posters here about toning down a little. You may see the creationists as the enemy, but you must realise that they are human beings, just like yourself, who are honestly searching for the truth, it's just that they are going the wrong way about it but it's not their fault. Just imagine this... what if creationists are right (not probable but let's assume), we were wrong this whole time but we were honestly searching for the answers.

U r right, but if we r wrong, we will find out the truth someday after a long search, that doesn't go the other way around

 

[Osiris]

U r right, but if we r wrong, we will find out the truth someday after a long search, that doesn't go the other way around

in this you may be correct... but perhaps in the future, religion will die out.

 

[Industriaan]

let us all pray 4 that moment

PS: Kid Buu is cooler then cell!

 

[Osiris]

PS: Kid Buu is cooler then cell!

Kid Buu is pink... I mean, I guess it's okay to think pink is cool if you're into that sort of thing...

 

[Joman]

My guess is that the evidence of evolution, and also for the theorie of evolution(which will be corrected until it matched evolution correctly), is so overwhelming that they just don't see.

Your statement is irrational or your definition of overwhelming is wrong.

But because evolution contradicts the Bible you say:"it is wrong!"

If you contradict the AV Bible you are indeed wrong.

The only base you have is a book written BY HUMANS a long time ago, full of contradictions.

No true.
There are no contradictions in the AV Bible.

The Bible is inspired by God.

And, you cannot negate the testimony of witnesses.

Genesis is was written by people to try and comprehend the world based on what they knew in that time.

False assertion, that is consequently unsupported by any proof.

That is the reason why science has proven the creation wrong.

Science cannot prove that there wasn’t an act of God that created all things. Furthernore, science doesn't prove any of the scriptural record to be false.

And the only leg you have to stand on is: "it is written" or "It was the hand of God who made the Bible".

It is enough when necessary. But, science doesn't contradict the Bible.

So a ask of you:"Do you believe all that you read?"

No. I don't believe you for example.

But if the Bible is the hand of God, or the breath, why does Genesis contradict not only SCIENCE, But also ITSELF??

The AV Bible isn’t contradictory.

The only thing I can think of as to why some of you follow an old book is because you are brainwashed, and take no effort in trying to understand something, but just take the easy way out, and believe.



You apparently aren’t very thoughtful. There is nothing easy about faith is there?

Why in Gen1 does God create man and woman both at the same time, and in Gen 2 first Adam and then Eve?

To teach a deep truth to all the witnesses of heaven and all future believers in Christ. Eve was hidden in Adam (for a reason). Eve’s body was not cloned from Adam’s rib until later. Adam told you the truth when he described her as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. So, the truth is that in the day Adam was created, Eve was hidden inside of him which God the creator states clearly.

The point being taught is this. God the Father sits on the most high throne seemingly alone. But, hidden in God is his Son Jesus Christ who is the Word of God. This truth was a devastating fact that suprised the adversary of God (the Devil).

In Christ Jesus is hidden the bride of Christ consisting of Christians. One day the sons of God hidden in Christ will be revealed plainly for all creation to see. But, not yet.



Joman.

 

[Dannager]

False assertion, that is consequently unsupported by any proof.

Unsupported by proof, perhaps, but science doesn't deal in proof. It is definitely supported by evidence:
- The people of the time were scientifically ignorant.
- The people of the time had no concept of "history", and were not terribly concerned with the events of the past.
- The Bible contains a creation story similar to dozens of other creation stories written by cultures world-wide. The themes used in the Bible are traditional creation-story themes.
- Observation and scientific study contradicts the timeline stated in the Bible.
These evidences lead to a single conclusion - that the Genesis account is meant as allegory and not literal fact.

Science cannot prove that there wasn’t an act of God that created all things. Furthernore, science doesn't prove any of the scriptural record to be false.

Science doesn't "prove" anything, ever. Regardless, you can't "prove" that there was an act of God that created all things, and the one that does not invoke a supernatural deity is always the most parsimonious explanation (and therefore more likely to be correct).

As for contradicting scriptural record, the flood account comes to mind.

 

[AirPo]

I am following the posts on this forum for about a week or 2 now, and i was wondering something: ARE YOU CREATIONISTS STUPID?? OR JUST BLIND??
My guess is that the evidence of evolution, and also for the theorie of evolution(which will be corrected until it matched evolution correctly), is so overwhelming that they just don't see.

But because evolution contradicts the bible u say:"it is wrong!"

The only base u have is a book written BY HUMANS a long time ago, full of contradictions.
Genesis is was written by people to try and copmrehend the world based on what they knew in that time.
That is the reason why science has proven the creation wrong.
And the only leg u have to stand on is:"But it is written" or "It was the hand off god who made the bible".
So a ask of u:"Do u believe all that u read?"
But if the bible is the hand off god, or the breath, why does genesis contradict not only SCIENCE, But also ITSELF??

The only thing i can think why some of u follow an old book is because u r brainwashed, and take no effort in trying to understand something, but just take the easy way out, and believe.

I pity you!

(oh yeah : Why in Gen1 does god create man and woman both at the same time, and in Gen 2 first Adam and then Eve)

Poe's Inverse Law???

 

[Industriaan]

If you contradict the AV Bible you are indeed wrong.

Lol which means the bibel is wrong ==> if u contradicte it u are wrong, but because the bible contradictes itself it is wrong

HMBW(from the'ongerijmde')


What is poe's law
--
Ni Hao

 

[Joman]

Unsupported by proof, perhaps, but science doesn't deal in proof. It is definitely supported by evidence:

- The people of the time were scientifically ignorant.

No evidence provided for this assertion.

The people of the time had no concept of "history", and were not terribly concerned with the events of the past.

No evidence for this assertion either.

The Bible contains a creation story similar to dozens of other creation stories written by cultures world-wide.

No it doesn't. If Genesis were as are other creation stories from other sources it would have dissapeared like they did. this is merely a boast that any schoolchild can discern is nonsense when put to the test.

The themes used in the Bible are traditional creation-story themes.

There is no evidence of this assertion.

Observation and scientific study contradicts the timeline stated in the Bible.

Not true.

These evidences lead to a single conclusion - that the Genesis account is meant as allegory and not literal fact.

Then you should have no problem debating me.

Science doesn't "prove" anything, ever.

And, you can't prove it can you? Don't you realize that this statement of yours only serves one purpose?

As for contradicting scriptural record, the flood account comes to mind.

The flood of Noah is historical fact not fiction.

Joman.

 

[Hydra009]

But, science doesn't contradict the Bible.

Right. Regardless of whether one's religious beliefs are true or untrue, science cannot contradict religious beliefs, except those that are falsifiable.

This is how you know there is a problem occuring is when you take accounts from the Bible, and interpret them in ways that are manifestly untrue with regards to science.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Dr John Baumgardner is a geophysics professor who obtained a Ph.D in geophysacs from UCLA. He became an advocate for the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics and the chief developer of the TERRA program for computer modeling of the dynamics o f the earth's mantle. I would suggest that you are the one blinded by pseudo science under the veil of secular reasoning to the exclusion of anything of a religious feel....

In Genesis 1 the Bible is speaking of General Univeral creation & in Genesis 2 the Bible narrows the scope to the creation of man in GOD's image. Just exactly what a scientist does. He first sees a big picture but must then narrow in on specifics....

Are you talking about the same John R. Baumgardner who published this paper in the April 1998 issue of Science? (emphasis added)

Time Scales and Heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models

Hans-Peter Bunge, * Mark A. Richards, Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni, John R. Baumgardner, Stephen P. Grand, Barbara A. Romanowicz

Computer models of mantle convection constrained by the history of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions explain some deep-mantle structural heterogeneity imaged by seismic tomography, especially those related to subduction. They also reveal a 150-million-year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the mantle, comparable to the record of plate motion reconstructions, so that the problem of unknown initial conditions can be overcome. The pattern of lowermost mantle structure at the core-mantle boundary is controlled by subduction history, although seismic tomography reveals intense large-scale hot (low-velocity) upwelling features not explicitly predicted by the models.

 

[Opethian]

I think a better choice of wording could have been stupid, indoctrinated, or ignorant. A majority of creationists are the latter. Some are indoctrinated and probably a very, VERY few are stupid (of course, stupidity isn't focused on just creationists, it can occur in any subject). Next time, please think about what you are going to post before doing so in anger. Anger clouds the mind, young padawan.

I would agree that the majority (more than half, probably nearing 3/4th) of creationists are ignorant. They simply have an incredibly limited knowledge of science, and thus have a very loose grasp on reality. That is why they cannot be convinced by our arguments: they don't know what they mean, and they don't fit in the view they have on this world. Me and Industriaan (we went to school together) experienced this in school, as there were both a muslim as a protestant there who would not accept evolution, and make ridiculous remarks like "I can't believe you think that we suddenly changed into a human from an ape", and stuff like that, and when we questioned their motives, they would simply answer "It is written in the Bible/Koran". How frustrating is that? The protestant is currently studying for doctor, and still does not accept any part of the evolution theory, last time I asked. I would say as her lack of knowledge is dissipating, it is becoming clear she is also part of the brainwashed group, that in spite of gaining knowledge, choose not to view reality as it really is (her entire family is very protestant, which could explain things).
I would also have to say, that it's not a very, VERY few that are stupid. I think this forum has proven that a non-neglectable percentage (I would guess at least 10%, but that depends on the borders of stupidity that are set) of creationists are indeed quite stupid. That's not an insult, that's a fact that's observable. I do have to add to that that these are usually YECs (which is also quite logical).
I think another percentage would be those that do possess adequate intelligence and knowledge, but can't live without the benefits of their religion. They have been brainwashed, and have become, shall I say, addicted to the thought of an afterlife, and being part of the religious communion, and the ability to pray and hope for miracles.
Then there's also the percentage of creationists that have found a way to combine the evolution theory and the rest of science with their religious (more spiritual than truly following a religion in some cases), that I really have respect for. If these people were at first fully religious (ie not accepting the evolution theory, accepting the litteral meanings out of the holy books etc...), and managed to break out of the confines of their religion, and create their own view on the world, then I must say that's something I can admire. Sadly, this group only makes out a small percentage of creationists.

I would have to say I agree with Industriaan, only I would replace the word creationist in his words with anti-evolutionist/YEC.

 

[LittleNipper]

Pseudo science: indeed you got me, that's why i am studing to be an engineer, and make it my hobby to try and follow what the evolution theory has concluded yet.
And Who is Dr John Baumgardner?



And now we are interprating(srry for the spelling) because we do not now all the facts...
Gen1 contradicts Gen2 (in creation order ect) because is was written down by to differnt orders of hebrews. in the original tekst Gen1 talks about ELOHIM en Gen2 about JAHWE.
They aslo both are stories past on from generatio to generation until in the 8e century BC Gen1 was written down, and in the 6e century BC Gen2 was written down.
And it is believed that in the 5 century BC both stories were artifficaly merged into one creation myth, as there were (and still are) a lot of them
But the biblical creation is just a myth that has it's rooth's in a time were people used "primitive" ways to explain the excistance of mankind, the earth, Ect.

--
Ni Hao

Actually, you're doing the interpetation. I merely accept what the Holy Spirit has caused me to be very comfortable with. The Bible was written by GOD through selected men. The GOD of Israel is not a Hebrew invention. You cannot believe everything some modern german theologians concocted. And actually the Genesis Creation is far from the sun riding around in chariots and mother gods giving birth. I suggest you re-read the Bible with the realization that the account was the work of a nation of sheepherders, and not the culture capital of the the world.

 

[Joman]

Lol which means the bibel is wrong ==> if u contradicte it u are wrong, but because the bible contradictes itself it is wrong

Unsupported assertion. Is making unsupported assertions all you know to say about science and the Bible?
How about posting some of your 27 page essay?

Joman.

 

[Opethian]

No it doesn't. If Genesis were as are other creation stories from other sources it would have dissapeared like they did. this is merely a boast that any schoolchild can discern is nonsense when put to the test.

It's not nonsense, it's a fact that can't be proven, but can be accepted by logical thinking.

And, you can't prove it can you? Don't you realize that this statement of yours only serves one purpose?

We can never prove it 100%, that is only possible by mathematical proof. We can however though, get very very close to 100%, something like 99,9999%. You probably can't get even past 0.0001% proving the creation fable.

The flood of Noah is historical fact not fiction.

ROFLMAO! You sure live in a fantasy world, why don't you join dad in his merged physical/spiritual fable?

 

[Industriaan]

To Joman:
1) Genesis still exsistes becaus of the many followers of the christian religion.
Another undeniable fact is that the church used (uses) it's opperive force to keep the masses in oblivian.
2)The people of that times did not have o good knowlagde of the past because all that they knew is from tales past on from generation to generation, and were exagerated.
They did not keep good records of the events taking place back then.
3)The flood is a good example of such a story. It is based n the "local flooding" of the black see; probebly some people lived to tell aout it, but could not understand why all that they knew was flooded. That's were the god comes in.
Those flooding tales have been past on from generation to generation until in the 5th century bc someone wrote them down.

--
Ni Hao