God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[EnigmaticCam]

And don't tell me that your heart stopped in the hospital and you saw the afterlife then came back, even when the doctors couldn't explain what was going on. Let me shed some light on this.

Sorry, I stopped reading after that. You see, if you're going to pre-judge everything I say before I even say it, then I'm not going to bother. Please re-read my post where I state I have logical evidence, not near-death experiences. Before I post anything, I want a unanimous concensus that people want to hear supporting evidence of Creationism and God.

 

[8000]

The Law of Conservation of Matter is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, just changed, where did the matter come from in the first place is what i would like to know.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

Actually, it isnt that i have given up or gone away. Ill hold my faith in creation forever. The problem is i have a large project in my timeschedule and like Lanowen says, we have lives outside of smash, and yes, i am aware that he/she is going to insult me once again because i said this. I can hear him talking right now "What life? I wasnt aware that you had a life?". So i will save you the trouble. Anyways, many will see my school project as an excuse, but truthfully, this project is extremely time consuming. I dont have the ability that some of you do to type fast. So i will debate when i can. Here goes.

To lanowen's post replying to my questionnaire.

"WTF, why are you even here? Dinosaurs for one huge obvious fossil? What do you think they were? The are Petrified/fossilized bones. 65 million years is not current by many people’s standards too."

How is this proof for evolution? What exactly did dinosaurs turn into? The fossils of the dinosaurs are there but that doesnt show anything. The Bible even mentions dinosaurs. It talks of giants roaming the earth before the great flood. The flood was why according to Christian belief, the dinosaurs died out and the fossils are so many. The immense pressure of the water. And then the Bible goes to say that there were giants AFTER the flood. Well, noah took 2 dinoasurs on his ark. There you go.

"I cut it up, it is still there. Open you eyes for once."

Cutting something up isnt exactly verbatim. Take your own advice.

"Chimpanzees have bare skin, it under the hair. I am pretty sure that the organs have about the same about of efficiency, if very little more if at all.

The creation of building could be described as intelligence, which can be attributed to evolution. Adaptation to be precise, early human began to develop speech, which eventually made the brain grow larger."

Chimps have been living in the heat for a while now. If it truly was evolution the force at work, wouldnt the chimps lose hair to keep themselves cool? And if at all anything, their skin dark?


"It's a big difference, I though you were trying to relate it to a 1.2% difference. Speaking in that relation, the dictionary doesn't have a 1.2% difference to the government records. If you can put a price on an average persons life, for example, someone working at about minimum wage making 30,000 a year from when they are 20, to when they are 60, that’s $1.2 million. Do you see the large difference? 10 & 1,200,000 ??"

Either way, 1.2 can play out to be alot. 1.2 interest on 1 billion dollars. 12 million a year. Even though a billion is a lot, 12 million is a lot too.

"False says who? Insufficient.

Who is this they who found the skull? Insufficient."

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Reserch the rest on your own, i have too much to do, and having 56k dialup doesnt help.

"You set yourself up for it."

Thats no excuse. A debate is supposed to be an "inteligent discussion". I dont see insults in any way inteliiigent.

"Let's see, it says 'Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.', in that ten paragraph essay of yours.

When you try to quote me, quote everything I said."

Well there you go, its hard to see macroeveoltion. That doesnt explain where it has been seen before though.

"Sooo....oxygen couldn't have come before the cell did?

.............

oxygen------>cell

You were talking about the first cell, and oxygen (2 things). I assumed by 'both' that you ment the cell and oxygen."

Well, my previous reply should have cleared everything up.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenine

Adenine as an example there. You can see that it is made up of elements to form a molecule.

Some think that was what the first one was made up at the origin of life on Earth. Read it."

Thats what some people think. Not what we know for sure.

"So I suppose that is where the saying 'dumb as a rock came from'....

Plants are not really inanimate, they have life. They have a different immune system too, it is an extra membrane on its cells (cell wall). They also have Lysosomes I think.

As for the prokaryotic cells, what about when their genetic makeup changes to form a resistance to harmful substances? During binary fission when it exchanges DNA to help form these resistances? It's almost like a type of immune system, it works for the cells atleast."

Well, how do you see these evolving? Obviously, an aoemba wasnt created with one. And allegedly, we came from rocks which arent compsed of cells. Spontaneous life is impossible.

"Care to explain your reasoning behind it then smarty pants?"

Care to look it up lazy arse?

"What data? I haven’t seen NASA's calculations yet, so therefore I cannot deem that they are true, therefore, it is not included in my data."

Look it up. I would if it wasnt 1 AM and im as sleepy as **** and my 56k is lagging for some reason and it isnt even peak hour.

"Because they came from a different planet? Or were formed in a different part of the solar system?"

You cut off this part of your reply to ?8. Pure assumtion. Bacteria obviously cant live very long alone with no host. So there used to be many but a few survived, none would be able to survive a billion years but a few thousand? Most likely.

"So no comment? I win that one? You didn't say what technique, so it is Insufficient. "

I never said anything about NASA having the most advanced technique. From what i know, NASA seems to be biased, strictly basing their thoughts upon evolution and the big bang. Oh, this just screams conspiracy.

"It's the best possible reason available. Floods happend all over N.America all the time. I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel, people dug a whole in the ground (some where in Afgahnistan), looked at the siolf profile, and they had alot of floods (one large one a long time ago expecially, around the time of Noah's Arc), that were localized, that means that some early civilization could have 'mistaken' it for a mericle, and thus a story was born."

Best reason? Legends originate long ago. They didnt have logical reasoning as developed as we do now. Do you think they know how fossils form or a reason why dinosaurs would die out? And its weird, legends all over the world. Do you believe that ever single one "logically" came up with the same idea? Scientists nowadays cant agree on anything, but ancient cultures can and without contact? Wow, we really were more efficent back then, werent we?

"I don't know that you are counting, but you keep adding to the evolution arguments. (2-3 of your fail arguments, which you still probably don't realize)"

Actually, my replies should bring them back to creation. It stands 10-0.

To the replies to the "Why doesnt man have..." questions.

Humans eat a variety of things. Why do sharks have more sets of teeth? Why not just a couple strong pairs like us? Shouldnt humans have "evolved" to have more sets of teeth? The "older human" forms chewed on bones and what not. That would require more teeth. No? The people in the arctic dont have the web of blood vessels.Id think it rther hard to make a fire or develop it in cold weather, snow, sleet, etc.. Id think one should develop one rather fast if you were in a cold environment all your life. Since we allegedly evolved from all these types, shouldnt at least some of us humans have kept a couple of these. No dice. There can be no explanation for that.

"People living there? By people I am sure you mean current or near current (last couple hundred years) humans. This is because they have fire! Again. And cloths also.

Last thing to this question, evolution takes longer."

People have been living there since the ice age. Oh, when was that? A LONG time ago. I could deveolp one if i had that kind of time.

"You must remember, evolution is a tree, it starts from one organism, then branches outward. Humans are only one branch. Other organisms may have gotten theses special abilities, and humans did not necessarily evolve from those animals. So when you keep saying that, man doesn't have what other animals have, and this is main because we never needed it, and keep in mind, we probably never lost it, we just never had it."

So explain the insect tree. Ive been dying to find a decent reply. So please do.

To master fox:

Adaptaion is alot different than evolution. In SSBm, you ADAPT to your opponents strategies in a way to counter them. Thats not evolving.

"Why doesn't God just create more natural resources so we can survive? Now, if creation was the truth, we would have no problems with natural resources. Why is it that we are running out of natural resources then?"

Oh, shouldnt humans be able to evolve to fit that? See, that is the problem with you evolutionists. You do no reserch. You always ask questions like, if God loves us, then why is there hell? DO SOME RESERCH!!! Ask any true Christian and theyll tell you. This question is such an example. Learn more about christianity and then come back.

The above applies to Mew2Mad as well.

What accounts? Flesh disintegrate over time. So how would we know? In that link i provided lanowen, it shows the faults. It could be some disabled human.

"You fail; you are trapped by your own circular logic. You cannot argumentatively win with an illogical statement. Game over. It's that simple, Creationism is based off of irrational belief, therefore it is irrational in nature, and irrationality doesn't belong in a debate."

You know whats irrational? Teaching something in school that has no proof to support it and teaching under the guise of "science". Last time i chekced, no proof, cant be tested, cant be repeated isnt science. And all the "proof" you say you give isnt proof. So may people believing something with no true proof, thats what i find irrational.

"No matter how discredited Evolution will be, it'll always be logical, and that will always place it superior to Creationism."

Once again, i dont find humans coming from rocks in any way logical.

"Once again, the evolutionist are winning. Either TheKeyboardist has given up, has accepted the truth or is away for a while."

Winning? Hardly the case. Just becase i had schoolwork to attend to doesnt mean you guys win. And itll never be settled here. Theres a worldwide debate going on. Win that, and you truly win (which i doubt).

"This is how the topic ends ALL the time. One side gets the upper hand(secular), the other side gives up(religious), the topic flatlines."

We'll see about that.

law of conservation of matter - a fundamental principle of classical physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system

Well, first, youll have to prove the bible wrong to prove this. The bible says that God is ALL POWERFUL. It means you can do ANYTHING, even chew gum in my social studies teacher's class without getting caught. And yes, the bible has authenticity to it. So, first, youll have to disprove the bible. Good luck getting past the billions of people steadfastly defending it and the unending list of truth, discoveries, testimonies, miracles, prophecies, etc..

EDIT: Sure EnigmaticCam, id like to hear it. And im pretty sure the evolutionist side would like to hear it too seeing as how theyve been asking creationists for years to prove the Bible and such.

 

[Crimson King]

Now we may have a real debate on our hands if we can get another creationalist arguing.

All I ask is prove the bible is without doubt and I will accept Creation.

 

[Master Fox]

Adaptaion is alot different than evolution. In SSBm, you ADAPT to your opponents strategies in a way to counter them. Thats not evolving.

I'm talking about physical adaption, not situation adaption. And adaption having to do with a physical change to become emmune to things that can harm you or kill you, even if this adaption isn't visible appearance on the creature. An Example is how bacteria are killed by anti-biotics but then some of the bacteria stop dying and begin to multiply even with the antibiotics. The anti-biotics were meant do destroy these bacteria but the bacteria have evolved to withstand it. Our bodies do the same thing against bacteria. Our body must learn how to fight off new threats to the body each day. Failure to adapt to threats means death. The doctors give us shots to help us adapt to new microscopic threats. Its evolution, but very slight evolution none-the-less. Evolution is not only major natural mutations that can only be seen visibly, Evolution also takes place in the micro-universe and is much more rapid than in the Macro-universe and we see evidence of micro-evolution everyday as we have to develop more complex antibiotics to fight the ever changing bacteria and viruses. New types of both groups are still being discovered and some have witnessed change under microscopes. Some microorganisms show physical change when adapting to antibiotics and sometimes, the effect the new microorganism has is far more dangerous then before it got used to the antibiotics. Some hospital patients die because of this.

Well, first, youll have to prove the bible wrong to prove this.

We have to disprove the Bible again?!

Another question to ask those "Creation believers"...If everything must have a beginning and God Created the Universe and nothing was before the universe, Who or what created God when nothing was there to created the almighty? He couldn't of created himself for you need matter to create something and there was no matter. "He's God! He can do anything!" Not only is that scientificly impossible, its just plain impossible! If there is no matter at the time, that would mean no universe, no God, NO Us, No Super Smash Bros., No Nintendo, ETC. There would be nothing but the color black cause black is a lack of light.

He couldn't of created himself. As you said:

Spontaneous life is impossible.

There is no way he could of created himself. Not only is it scientifically impossible, its mathematically impossible.
0 X Anything = 0

I find the bible overly convinient, because jesus said to st peter the first pope, that what ever is held true on earth is held true in heaven. Which conveniently says that what ever we think of or more precisely the church thinks is always right. Whiich gives church all the power to see who deserves to go to heaven or not. But its a good thing that isn't the case.

I always thought that God was wise and generally good but to moses he said that he is a jealous God and didn't like idol worship ( failed miserable pop idol for one) That in my mind makes God very petty. Whcih comes to my belief that the bible written by humans for human to control humans, is nothing more than a creation by humans to justify control and obedience of other people. And the concept of free will is convenient because it means God isn't held accountable for other people misery and wouldn't be expected to reveal him self to justify the misfortune of a good person. Teh same for all other cliches gods plans, god is strange and mysterious. I believe in a superior being becsue there always is but I doubt that the bible represents their true intentions.

Now, since we can pretty much all agree that our basis for Creation is the bible, then how is it possible that the bible says man began the same time as animals when we have evidence of dinosaurs? That's such a vital flaw that points out the bible isn't completely accurate.

As I've been lead to believe, the Bible was only there to explain what couldn't be explained. I don't at all believe what the Bible says, what the Torah sayes, what the Koron sayes. Your supposed to use them as guidelines but see the stories and preaching to God as fiction. Most of the stories never really happened like Noah's Ark. Other stories did actually happened but they were juiced up to make it magical. And the Bible HAS been proven wrong many times in the past. At one point, It actually stated the the Earth was the center of the Universe, that it was flat, that the moon and sun revolved around the Earth and that God created everything. All of this has been proven wrong (although some people still believe in Creation when there is evidence on the table supporting Evolution and the Big Bang...and the Rubberband Theory and my modified RB Theory.). Also, complete study on the story of Moses, most of the plagues and the Parting of the Red Sea were actually caused by a tragic Volcanic eruption gone wrong on an Island off the Coast of Egypt in the Mediterrainean which is connected to the Red Sea. The Volcanic Eruption was scaring a lot of creatures to Egypt, some lava rocks actually reached Egypt. When is was time to cross the Red Sea (actually, it was the most shallow and narrow part of the Red Sea), the Volcano collapsed into the Mediterrainean and a super tsunami went through the Red Sea, first, pulling back the water, making it look like the waters were parting and leaving a path to cross (the Hebrews crossed it at that time...running since the Egyption charietes were on their tails), then as the Egyptians began to cross, the giant tsunami finally rose and swept them away. Other parts of Egypt were hit by the wave as well. Also, these researchers that found this out traveled to MT. Sinai but found no marks the Bible stated were left there (12 stones, imprint of the "15...*oops! Droped one tablet* (Anyone seen History of the World Part 1?)"...10 commandments). They travelled north and found those marks on another mountain 200 miles North of MT. Sinai. (My source for this a documentary on the Discovery Channel.) My point is that you can't believe the Bible, Torah, etc. because there are tons of physical and mental evidence against it...plus they really weren't ment to be taken seriously. Science is ment to be taken seriously. Religious Ideas were preached but never proven. Science has been proven to be right.

As I recall the Adam and Eve story, Adam and Even only had 2 sons and one of them killed the other one (Cain I believe his name was). I don't recall the Bible stating that they had more children although it did state other Humans began to show up. Where did they come from? Zapped from nowhere it would seem. Its also impossible for a human to live 500 years. The Bible stated that, I think it was Isaac, lived to 200 and that Abraham's gave birth at the age of 90 years because angels told her she was pregnant. I've noted that the Bible and the Torah have tons of super exaggerations but than again, they are just meant to explain life better, using their imaginations and not meant to be non-fiction. Infact, Religion only exists to explain life until the true answer is proven. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that little detail about religion. Religion is only romantic and reassuring, not logic and fact, unlikgues and the Parting of the Red Sea were actually caused by a tragic Volcanic eruption gone wrong on an Island off the Coast of Egypt in the Mediterrainean which is connected to the Red Sea. The Volcanic Eruption was scaring a lot of creatures to Egypt, some lava rocks actually reached Egypt. When is was time to cross the Red Sea (actually, it was the most shallow and narrow part of the Red Sea), the Volcano collapsed into the Mediterrainean and a super tsunami went through the Red Sea, first, pulling back the water, making it look like the waters were parting and leaving a path to cross (the Hebrews crossed it at that time...running since the Egyption charietes were on their tails), then as the Egyptians began to cross, the giant tsunami finally rose and swept them away. Other parts of Egypt were hit by the wave as well. Also, these researchers that found this out traveled to MT. Sinai but found no marks the Bible stated were left there (12 stones, imprint of the "15...*oops! Droped one tablet* (Anyone seen History of the World Part 1?)"...10 commandments). They travelled north and found those marks on another mountain 200 miles North of MT. Sinai. (My source for this a documentary on the Discovery Channel.) My point is that you can't believe the Bible, Torah, etc. because there are tons of physical and mental evidence against it...plus they really weren't ment to be taken seriously. Science is ment to be taken seriously. Religious Ideas were preached but never proven. Science has been proven to be right.

As I recall the Adam and Eve story, Adam and Even only had 2 sons and one of them killed the other one (Cain I believe his name was). I don't recall the Bible stating that they had more children although it did state other Humans began to show up. Where did they come from? Zapped from nowhere it would seem. Its also impossible for a human to live 500 years. The Bible stated that, I think it was Isaac, lived to 200 and that Abraham's gave birth at the age of 90 years because angels told her she was pregnant. I've noted that the Bible and the Torah have tons of super exaggerations but than again, they are just meant to explain life better, using their imaginations and not meant to be non-fiction. Infact, Religion only exists to explain life until the true answer is proven. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that little detail about religion. Religion is only romantic and reassuring, not logic and fact, unlike science. Many Religions die out thanks to science. Science, on the other hand, is meant to be taken as fact. It is true that some Science has been proven wrong but not from religion...never from religion. Some Science Discoveries have been proven wrong by *gasp* Science. Religion is only useful in maintain a slight order from people doing wrong...then again...What is right and what is wrong? What is Good and what is Evil? Depends on the being! Now...What is the meaning of Life? The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Easy but What meaning does life have? This is an unanswered question that Religion can only fill in an answer (not give the actual answer) but Science can't answer well...That's a first! Anyways...All that religion BS sounds very nice and reassuring but face the facts...! Its nothing but BS created by Humans and I'm sick and tired of everything revolving around it. Its not even a necessity in Life! It doesn't contribute to life and honestly makes people just look stupid and brainwashed.

Its funny but theirs an old prophecy stating that if every human converts to Christianity, God will send a monster on the Earth to destroy all the humans (yes, I do mean God and not Satan) and Jesus will come down in armour and weapons (Sword, Shield, Bow and arrows, etc.) to fight the monster but will lose and the human race will be destroyed!

A Muslim friend told me this...

What would you believe in if you weren't told since birth that there was a God. A God who created everything that we are. That there is no other explination, you have to discover the truth on your on because most parents are too narrow minded or too religious to think outside the box.

Oh, and Dinosaurs and humans never co-existed together...63 million year gap between Dinosaurs death to Humans appearing on Earth.

Is the bible real? Of course it is, I'm holding one now. But is the bible scientifically accurate? We all know its true, it talks about everything including dinosaurs.

Job 41:1 - Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?
Job 41:9 - Any hope of subduing [leviathan] is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering.
Job 41:18-21 - [Leviathan's] snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.

Psalm 104:26 - There the ships sail about; There is Leviathan Which You have made to play there.

So if you can read the bible, it's obvious that there used to be fire breathing sea monsters! They all must have died during the ice age or something (an event which has very little impact on sea creatures). So lets all convert so that we can know about all kinds of other complete and utter rubbish that the bible espouses as true.

Deus Ex[/url] Machina]Leviathan is not a dinosaur, it's a mythical water snake. There are 2 other potential dinosaur-like mentionings and that's the behemoth, and dragon. All these mythical creatures, and all referring to non-existent things with remotely similar aspects to a dinosaur. Therefore the Bible does not mention Dinosaurs. And, erm, all these were derived from Roman mythology maybe...? Nobody thinks about that, geez. Because this Christianity started in the Roman empire so I'd assume they'd have some influence.

God created us to have the potential to betray him and commit to sin. He definitely indirectly created "sin." God's a sadist, or he's stupid, or both, take your pick. God's random because there is no need to create the universe, which would consequently create time. There is no need to make creatures in his own pure, heavenly image and put them on a planet. there is no point in giving these creatures life and an environment to work. There really is no point at all, ever. His also greatest archangel was satan himself, wow God must've blind as a bat. Scartch out omniscient and omnipresent. Deny God, he'll condemn you to burn in hell for all eternity. That does not make a benevolent leader, therefore, God can't be righteous either. Read The Divine Comedy, that'll put the flaw of judgment into light.

Bible's flawed, Quran's flawed, Torah's flawed. Get over it, religion is a fallacy because of such deep rooted zealousness. Creationists, I forbid you to quote such a discredited book as the Bible, and I forbid you to talk nebulously in such mystical terms.

Read more of the topic to find more...I just skimmed through it.
And now, you have a simple mathematical equation to disprove.
Also, your not the only one that can't type fast. I'm pretty much on the same boat in typing. Honestly, I type at 50 wpm. That's pretty **** slow.

 

[8000]

This is directed to the Keyboardist:

Could you please discover the QUOTE tool. It is very simple and makes reading your posts a lot easier. All you have to do is type in [ QUOTE = TheKeyboardist ] without the spaces in between and end with [ / QUOTE ]

It makes things so much easier

SEE HOW EASY THIS IS!?

 

[NG7]

You ignored 8000's question. Where did the matter from which the universe is made come from?

Not only is it scientifically impossible, its mathematically impossible.
0 X Anything = 0

 

[EnigmaticCam]

The Law of Conservation of Matter is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, just changed, where did the matter come from in the first place is what i would like to know.

Um, this is absolutely untrue. Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, means that energy can be changed into matter, and matter can be changed into energy. The Law of Conservation of Matter is no longer true due to this equation. Plus, the equation was proven true during the tests of the first nuclear bomb where the end result of matter was less than what they started with; the difference in matter was converted to energy.

So you want to know how God could have created the universe? Easy. Being "abundant in dynamic power", as stated in the Bible, he can easily use his energy to create matter.

All I ask is prove the bible is without doubt and I will accept Creation.

This is exactly where I'm going. I'd be willing to show you evidence, and counter any counter-evidence, of the authenticity of the Bible. There seems to be a lot of discussion here already though, so maybe it might make sense to start a new thread? I want it to be a very intelligent and rational discussion.

 

[Crimson King]

Um, this is absolutely untrue. Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, means that energy can be changed into matter, and matter can be changed into energy. The Law of Conservation of Matter is no longer true due to this equation. Plus, the equation was proven true during the tests of the first nuclear bomb where the end result of matter was less than what they started with; the difference in matter was converted to energy.

It's called a LAW meaning it's been proven enough for the science community.
If you really think you can prove it, go a head and get your work published.

This is exactly where I'm going. I'd be willing to show you evidence, and counter any counter-evidence, of the authenticity of the Bible. There seems to be a lot of discussion here already though, so maybe it might make sense to start a new thread? I want it to be a very intelligent and rational discussion.

Gideon did a challenge thread where he would prove misconceptions in the bible. If that's the idea of your topic, fine. But, not based solely off evolution.

 

[Master Fox]

Um...I don't actually agree with a lot of Einstein's theories. He once made a theory that stated that a black hole is made out of space-time and the use of a Black Hole will lead you to another time period but the center of the 2 funnels is as thick as a hydrogen atom which only stays open for a fraction of a second, then will open up a few minutes later to another time period. To control the black holes, your going to need 2 infininte lengths of this stringy substance as thick as atoms in which 2 miles of the stuff weighs as much as the Earth. Putting the stuff next to each other and put it through the opening of the black hole funnels and pull the 2 substances away from each other to open up the hole to fit one man through who can potentially be torn apart anyway.
This has been proven false. We now know that a black hole is a giant star with such immense gravity that not even light can escape it, which is why its black. A black hole is not made out of space time, its not a rip in space thats forms a funnel underneath. There can be no rips in space...nothing that can be ripped, hence the name, space. I'm afraid Einstein couldn't get us into the fifth dimension. Time travel is still not possible. And the things blown up in the atomic explosion were vaporized but only vaporized which means the mass that was distroyed in the blast were turned to ashes, not destroyed.
My point is, I don't believe Einstein's Theories.

 

[Lanowen]

Um...I don't actually agree with a lot of Einstein's theories. He once made a theory that stated that a black hole is made out of space-time and the use of a Black Hole will lead you to another time period but the center of the 2 funnels is as thick as a hydrogen atom which only stays open for a fraction of a second, then will open up a few minutes later to another time period. To control the black holes, your going to need 2 infininte lengths of this stringy substance as thick as atoms in which 2 miles of the stuff weighs as much as the Earth. Putting the stuff next to each other and put it through the opening of the black hole funnels and pull the 2 substances away from each other to open up the hole to fit one man through who can potentially be torn apart anyway.
This has been proven false. We now know that a black hole is a giant star with such immense gravity that not even light can escape it, which is why its black. A black hole is not made out of space time, its not a rip in space thats forms a funnel underneath. There can be no rips in space...nothing that can be ripped, hence the name, space. I'm afraid Einstein couldn't get us into the fifth dimension. Time travel is still not possible. And the things blown up in the atomic explosion were vaporized but only vaporized which means the mass that was distroyed in the blast were turned to ashes, not destroyed.
My point is, I don't believe Einstein's Theories.

Maybe it's because you don't understand them. That's what I get when I read what you think.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

It's called a LAW meaning it's been proven enough for the science community.
If you really think you can prove it, go a head and get your work published.

Whether or not that law coexists with Einstein's theory, my point still stands - God could easily have created all matter within the universe from his own source of energy.

Gideon did a challenge thread where he would prove misconceptions in the bible. If that's the idea of your topic, fine. But, not based solely off evolution.

Well, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not here to disprove evolution. But, I am here to at least shed some evidence for creationism and the Bible. So maybe I'll start another. Or, I'll just look for the topic you mentioned

My point is, I don't believe Einstein's Theories.

Well, if you want to conveniently pick and choose what you want and what you don't want to believe, there's nothing I can do about that. But if you want to make an honest argument towards evolution and use science to back it up, you have to take into account the whole picture and not weed out what doesn't support your claims.

 

[8000]

Maybe it's because you don't understand them. That's what I get when I read what you think.

Why don't you enlighten us?

So where did matter come from? Or do you all agree it came from energy(?) or "God"

Because again the Law of Conservation of Matter states that Matter cannot be created or destroyed just changed. Really i don't know and would like to.

 

[Lanowen]

Why don't you enlighten us?

So where did matter come from? Or do you all agree it came from energy(?) or "God"

Because again the Law of Conservation of Matter states that Matter cannot be created or destroyed just changed. Really i don't know and would like to.

I was referring to Master Fox's understanding of Einstein's theories, and I would rather not take alot of time typing things. I have things to do.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

I'm talking about physical adaption, not situation adaption. And adaption having to do with a physical change to become emmune to things that can harm you or kill you, even if this adaption isn't visible appearance on the creature. An Example is how bacteria are killed by anti-biotics but then some of the bacteria stop dying and begin to multiply even with the antibiotics. The anti-biotics were meant do destroy these bacteria but the bacteria have evolved to withstand it. Our bodies do the same thing against bacteria. Our body must learn how to fight off new threats to the body each day. Failure to adapt to threats means death. The doctors give us shots to help us adapt to new microscopic threats. Its evolution, but very slight evolution none-the-less. Evolution is not only major natural mutations that can only be seen visibly, Evolution also takes place in the micro-universe and is much more rapid than in the Macro-universe and we see evidence of micro-evolution everyday as we have to develop more complex antibiotics to fight the ever changing bacteria and viruses. New types of both groups are still being discovered and some have witnessed change under microscopes. Some microorganisms show physical change when adapting to antibiotics and sometimes, the effect the new microorganism has is far more dangerous then before it got used to the antibiotics. Some hospital patients die because of this.

Either way, thats not proof for evolution. God could have made us and then He could have given us the ability to adapt to our environs. Its as much proof for evolution as it is for creation.

We have to disprove the Bible again?!

Pray tell what you mean by that. The Bible has NEVER, i repeat, NEVER, been disproven. And if you can, please delight us with your nonsensical babblings on this subject matter.

He couldn't of created himself. As you said:

Well, obviously, you havent done your reserch. The Bible says, God was ever there. He wasnt created, He was just there from the beginning of infinity.

There is no way he could of created himself. Not only is it scientifically impossible, its mathematically impossible.
0 X Anything = 0

Mathmatically...blah blah blah. No one cares. Any by the way, it IS possible if you are all powerful. How many times must i keep saying this? Thats right, no one ever listens. Maybe thats why you are all continuously repeating arguments that i refuted.

Read more of the topic to find more...I just skimmed through it.
And now, you have a simple mathematical equation to disprove.
Also, your not the only one that can't type fast. I'm pretty much on the same boat in typing. Honestly, I type at 50 wpm. That's pretty **** slow.

I just disproved it.

Matter cant be transformed or made out of nothing. Thats the equation. Now heres the restriction: Unless one is onmipotent, which God is. Therefore, God is the exception to this rule. And you also have to attend to EnigmaticCam's post. And to the theory of relativity. Thats one heck of a firewall for the creationist on that argument.

And once again, thats the problem with most creationists. They blatantly abstain from looking at it from the creationist view. In other words, fanboys. All those quotes just prove master fox to be a fanboy. If you just did a teeny bit of reserch or asked a Christian a couple of questions, you would get an answer. Yet, you believe that evolution is the one and only way. I doubt most of you have ever read the Bible. Yet, creationists are forced to learn about evolution, the false "science". How could we not? Our bilolgy teachers pound it into our heads daily. Ill bet practically no biology teachers are christian, truly. Im pursuing a biology major but if it means i have to denounce creation, the to he11 with it. I dont care if i fail every class possible. And dont you DARE call us fanboys because we have taken tests, been forced to read books, all on evolution. You know what? Evolution is a religion. You follow Darwins teachings. Your bible would be the evolution manuscripts. You believe youre ancestors to be gekos and worms. So much for that state/ religion separation in schools.

And thank you for the quoting knowledge 8000.

Um...I don't actually agree with a lot of Einstein's theories.

So what? I dont agree with ALL of evolutionary concept. But who cares? Schools teach it in class anyways? Why are youre opinions in a debate anyways? If a debate was made of opinions, then it would get nowhere. "Uhhh, i think evolution is right because in my opinion, creation sounds like a bunch of hooey..." Bottom line, NO ONE CARES!!

Maybe it's because you don't understand them. That's what I get when I read what you think.

Finally, something we agree on.

And something to end my post:

I was arguing with a teacher on evolution and creation. In the end, he gave up but one think he said that stuck out was that darwin on his deathbed, said evolution was all a fake. Im not sure if its true or not, just what i heard from a teach. Youre following the works of a leader who himself didnt believe in what he theorized. Id say thats a pretty shaky basis.

 

[Crimson King]

It has been supposed that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. Shortly after his death, temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope claimed she visited Darwin at his deathbed, and witnessed the renunciation. Her story was printed in a Boston newspaper and subsequently spread. Lady Hope's story was refuted by Darwin's daughter Henrietta who stated, "I was present at his deathbed ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier."

Source .

 

[TheKeyboardist]

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0724_Darwins_Final_Recant.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

The second link shows of Henrietta lying. His biographer said Henrietta wasnt present but her wife was. But this is somewhat off topic anyways, so we should get back to the debate...

 

[Crimson King]

It's like the bible then, not proveable.

 

[NG7]

Um...I don't actually agree with a lot of Einstein's theories. He once made a theory that stated that a black hole is made out of space-time and the use of a Black Hole will lead you to another time period but the center of the 2 funnels is as thick as a hydrogen atom which only stays open for a fraction of a second, then will open up a few minutes later to another time period. To control the black holes, your going to need 2 infininte lengths of this stringy substance as thick as atoms in which 2 miles of the stuff weighs as much as the Earth. Putting the stuff next to each other and put it through the opening of the black hole funnels and pull the 2 substances away from each other to open up the hole to fit one man through who can potentially be torn apart anyway.
This has been proven false. We now know that a black hole is a giant star with such immense gravity that not even light can escape it, which is why its black. A black hole is not made out of space time, its not a rip in space thats forms a funnel underneath. There can be no rips in space...nothing that can be ripped, hence the name, space. I'm afraid Einstein couldn't get us into the fifth dimension. Time travel is still not possible. And the things blown up in the atomic explosion were vaporized but only vaporized which means the mass that was distroyed in the blast were turned to ashes, not destroyed.
My point is, I don't believe Einstein's Theories.

What exactly did your post have to do with this debate MasterFox?

I assume you meant to say that you don't beleive Einstein's theories and therefore don't believe that they disprove the Law of Conservation of Matter. If you don't think anything can disprove the Law of Conservation of Matter then I return to 8000's question because i haven't seen it answered yet. Where did the matter that created the universe come from? I can think of 2 answers you can give me:

1) I don't know where it came from.
2) The matter has existed indefinitely.

I don't think science would agree with something existing indefinitely.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

What exactly did your post have to do with this debate MasterFox?

I assume you meant to say that you don't beleive Einstein's theories and therefore don't believe that they disprove the Law of Conservation of Matter. If you don't think anything can disprove the Law of Conservation of Matter then I return to 8000's question because i haven't seen it answered yet. Where did the matter that created the universe come from? I can think of 2 answers you can give me:

1) I don't know where it came from.
2) The matter has existed indefinitely.

I don't think science would agree with something existing indefinitely.

Wait, I'm confused. Who are and who are not the atheists here? Anyways, I believe I already answered that question.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

Well, im a Christian and definetly FOR creation (if you havent extracted that yet).

 

[Master Fox]

And now, you have a simple mathematical equation (0 X Anything = 0) to disprove.

I just disproved it.

No you didn't. You didn't at all disprove it. Do some math! You can't disprove this mathematical equation. To say that you can. You say God is all powerful, has infinite power. Guess what TheKeyboardist?! "0 X infinity = 0" Nothing times infinity still equals nothing, no matter what you say. This little equation shows you that no matter what, even god can't bypass this equation. And this seems to be your opinion because this isn't even in the Bible that God can dispove this equation nor does it say that God's power is an exception to this equation. So, you didn't disprove anything. You weren't even remotely close. Give it up! This little equation completely disproves Creation and the Bible though it doesn't prove evolution...doesn't affect evolution at all actually.

How many times must i keep saying this? Thats right, no one ever listens. Maybe thats why you are all continuously repeating arguments that i refuted.

That's because you have yet to prove anything.

Pray tell what you mean by that. The Bible has NEVER, i repeat, NEVER, been disproven.

What are you talking about?! Its be disproven countless times. Every time its been officially disproven (except in the last 300 years), the church is forced to update the Bible to make it seem like its right. Before debates on Evolution VS Creation, there were debates on Geocentric Universe (Bible) VS Heliocentric Universe (Astronomy). According to the Bible at the time, We lived in a Geocentric Universe, meaning that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolves around the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of the Astronomers, especially Kelper and Galileo, it is scientifically proven that we are in a Heliocentric Universe, which stats that Earth revolves around the Sun and Earth nor the Sun are the center of the universe. Do some research on history...you may learn something logical.
Even on this very thread (if you go back an read the entire thread but you seem to refuse to), you would of seen someone (forgot who) used the Bible as a source to disprove itself. Contradictions... Also, in the Bible, Moses went to MT. Sinai and got the 10 commandments and left a few signs behind marking it. Well...a couple of researches went to MT. Sinai and found no signs. They went to another mountain 200 miles north of MT. Sinai and they found those signs (BTW...these signs were made by moses and the hebrews, not God). My source for this part on MT. Sinai was the Discovery Channel and the History Channel.

So, the has Bible been proven wrong before and has been wrong before in general.

Also, there are other, more reliable methods to see how old something is then carbon dating. Have you ever heard of radioactive decay as one example? Radioactive Decay has shown that the Earth is actually 4 billion years old though Radioactive Decay shows that atoms can multiplied though the daughter atoms would be a lot smaller than the mother atom.

Now heres the restriction: Unless one is onmipotent, which God is. Therefore, God is the exception to this rule.

Prove it! This seems to be a major obsticle for creationist though you don't seem to notice. You can find some evidence to disprove evolution in the bible, yet, you haven't proven that God is all powerful. The Bible says so but, to my knowledge, the Bible has been written by Humans, all in opinion and none of it was really studied. The Bible is only meant to be a guide on how to live. It doesn't mean that its all true stuff in there. Its fictional for some stories and magical explinations of actual history that some else was happening.

I was arguing with a teacher on evolution and creation. In the end, he gave up but one think he said that stuck out was that darwin on his deathbed, said evolution was all a fake. Im not sure if its true or not, just what i heard from a teach. Youre following the works of a leader who himself didnt believe in what he theorized. Id say thats a pretty shaky basis.

If he did, I'd say his reason was fear of death. He was afraid to die or afraid of being proven wrong in the afterworld and have to suffer in Hell. Doesn't mean he actually believed that evolution was incorrect or fake. It was all fear.

 

[8000]

Wait, I'm confused. Who are and who are not the atheists here? Anyways, I believe I already answered that question.

Being an atheist myself i cannot believe in that answer so i was wondering if there were any "science" people who could take a stab at that question.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

"0 X infinity = 0" Nothing times infinity still equals nothing, no matter what you say. This little equation shows you that no matter what, even god can't bypass this equation.

Who is to say that God has to conform to the laws of the universe? You see, the flaw with the Can-God-create-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift rationale is that you base the assumption that God exists within this universe. If God created the universe, then obvisouly he existed before it. Therefore, God exists outside the universe. He does not have to conform to its laws. Sorry, this equation means nothing.

According to the Bible at the time, We lived in a Geocentric Universe, meaning that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolves around the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of the Astronomers, especially Kelper and Galileo, it is scientifically proven that we are in a Heliocentric Universe, which stats that Earth revolves around the Sun and Earth nor the Sun are the center of the universe.

Show me where in the Bible it states that the Earth is the center of the universe? The example you cite is merely the church misrepresenting the Bible, and misinterpreting it. They claimed that the earth was flat too, yet had they looked in their own Bibles, they could have seen that the earth is described as being in the shape of a "circle".

Also, there are other, more reliable methods to see how old something is then carbon dating. Have you ever heard of radioactive decay as one example? Radioactive Decay has shown that the Earth is actually 4 billion years old though Radioactive Decay shows that atoms can multiplied though the daughter atoms would be a lot smaller than the mother atom.

This we can agree on. Most of religion today believes that the universe and everything was created in six literal days. Not true. The word "day" used in the Genesis account is not literal, and can mean anywhere from the thousands to the millions of years. You see, the Genesis account does coincide with science.

Prove it! This seems to be a major obsticle for creationist though you don't seem to notice. You can find some evidence to disprove evolution in the bible, yet, you haven't proven that God is all powerful.

I have evidence to suggest that the Bible is truly authentic and, although written by human hands, was inspired by God. But I'm only willing to post that if you're willing to discuss it in a logical manner. Would you like to see it?

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Being an atheist myself i cannot believe in that answer so i was wondering if there were any "science" people who could take a stab at that question.

Why? Because it's coming from a theist? You can't fathom a theist who can think logically? Oh, okay. Well, the facts that support my argument I believe, but any facts that don't I choose not to believe /sarcasm. Like I said before, if you want to choose not to believe one scientific fact but believe another with no consensus as to why, be my guest. But I'm still waiting for a logical reason as to why you disagree with my conjecture, and it's apparent I better not hold my breath.

 

[8000]

I cannot beleive in that answer because i do not beleive in god. If i do not beleive in god nothing you can say will convince me that your answer is the right one.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

I cannot beleive in that answer because i do not beleive in god. If i do not beleive in god nothing you can say will convince me that your answer is the right one.

Perhaps I'm confused then. Was the question of how all matter got here directed towards us theists, or was it a discussion between one atheist to another? I'm sure I read a post somewhere down the line of an atheist asking us how God could have created the universe if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

If that's not the case, my apologies.

 

[8000]

No i'm sorry if i didn't make it clear earlier. I was asking everyone for their opinions on the question. What do atheists beleive and what do theists beleive? I just wished to explain why i do not beleive "God" created all matter. It is your own opinion and i respect that yet i do not beleive it and would like other views on the topic.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

No you didn't. You didn't at all disprove it. Do some math! You can't disprove this mathematical equation. To say that you can. You say God is all powerful, has infinite power. Guess what TheKeyboardist?! "0 X infinity = 0" Nothing times infinity still equals nothing, no matter what you say. This little equation shows you that no matter what, even god can't bypass this equation. And this seems to be your opinion because this isn't even in the Bible that God can dispove this equation nor does it say that God's power is an exception to this equation. So, you didn't disprove anything. You weren't even remotely close. Give it up! This little equation completely disproves Creation and the Bible though it doesn't prove evolution...doesn't affect evolution at all actually.

Where in the world did you get that eqation from and how in the world does that refute my argument? And actually, God IS an exception. Well, Hes all powerful. That means he can do anything, nothing is impossiblf for Him and the least of His limits of is to create the earth out of nothing. And that equation in no way refutes creation. Are you crazy? First, explain the dynamics behind it, then go tell it to every creationist. Go publish a book like Crimson King suggested.

That's because you have yet to prove anything.

No, its because youre being an ignorant stuck up. Now, care to reply to the other half of my post?

What are you talking about?! Its be disproven countless times. Every time its been officially disproven (except in the last 300 years), the church is forced to update the Bible to make it seem like its right. Before debates on Evolution VS Creation, there were debates on Geocentric Universe (Bible) VS Heliocentric Universe (Astronomy). According to the Bible at the time, We lived in a Geocentric Universe, meaning that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolves around the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of the Astronomers, especially Kelper and Galileo, it is scientifically proven that we are in a Heliocentric Universe, which stats that Earth revolves around the Sun and Earth nor the Sun are the center of the universe. Do some research on history...you may learn something logical.
Even on this very thread (if you go back an read the entire thread but you seem to refuse to), you would of seen someone (forgot who) used the Bible as a source to disprove itself. Contradictions... Also, in the Bible, Moses went to MT. Sinai and got the 10 commandments and left a few signs behind marking it. Well...a couple of researches went to MT. Sinai and found no signs. They went to another mountain 200 miles north of MT. Sinai and they found those signs (BTW...these signs were made by moses and the hebrews, not God). My source for this part on MT. Sinai was the Discovery Channel and the History Channel.

So, the has Bible been proven wrong before and has been wrong before in general.

Also, there are other, more reliable methods to see how old something is then carbon dating. Have you ever heard of radioactive decay as one example? Radioactive Decay has shown that the Earth is actually 4 billion years old though Radioactive Decay shows that atoms can multiplied though the daughter atoms would be a lot smaller than the mother atom.

I believe you have EnigmaticCam to reply to on this. And also, could it be that someone forged the sign and moved it? A lot can happen in 2000-3000 years you know. And also, you know there is an even more reliable method than that? Try the earth's magnetic field. The following processes are usually selectively screened out by evolutionists because they indicate a relatively young age for the earth and solar system and thereby deprive them of their evolutionary time frame.

The strength of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for well over a century. This provides scientists with exceptionally good records. In an important recent study, Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 1,400 years. That is to say, 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of the earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we extrapolate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star! This is, of course, highly improbable, if not impossible. Thus, based on the present decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, 10,000 years appears to be an upper limit for the age of the earth.

Keep in mind that any objections to this conclusion must be based on rejection of the same uniformitarian assumption that evolutionists utilize to derive a great age for the earth.

In defense of their long-age chronology, evolutionists have proposed a reversal hypothesis. They suggest that the earth's magnetic field has remained relatively stable throughout geologic time, except for certain intervals in which it went through a reversal, dying down to zero and rising up again with the reverse polarity. The last such reversal is alleged to have occurred about 700,000 years ago.

Unfortunately for evolutionary scientists, the reversal hypothesis has absolutely no valid scientific theoretical basis. Furthermore, rock magnetization cannot be used to support these so-called reversals because there is a self-reversal process known to exist in rocks, completely independent of the earth's magnetic field.

Finally, it is believed that the earth's magnetic field is due to circulating electric currents in its core. If we extrapolate backward about 20,000 years, we find that the estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth. Clearly, the testimony of the earth's magnetic field is strongly in favor of a relatively young earth, not an ancient one.

Theres lots of other reliable methods to disproving the earth of having an age of 4 billion years.

The Mississippi River delta offers additional evidence to support the concept of a relatively young earth. Approximately 300 million cubic yards of sediment are deposited into the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River each year. By carefully studying the volume and rate of accumulation of the Mississippi River Delta and then dividing the weight of the sediments deposited annually into the total weight of the delta, it can be determined that the age of the delta is about 4,000 years old.

Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. In many cases, the pressures are extremely high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years in many instances. Thus, the assumption that such fossil-fuel deposits have been confined for millions of years, having not leaked out through their cap rock, becomes preposterous.

Furthermore, recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the conversion of marine and vegetable matter into oil and gas can be achieved in a surprisingly short time. For example, plant-derived material has been converted into a good grade of petroleum in as little as twenty minutes under the proper temperature and pressure conditions. Wood and other cellulosic material have also been converted into coal or coal-like substances in just a few hours. These experiments prove that the formation of coal, oil and gas did not necessarily require millions of years to form as uniformitarian geologists have assumed and taught.

Creationists believe that the great coal deposits of the world are the transported and metamorphosed remains of the extensive vegetation of the antediluvian world. This catastrophic interpretation is further supported by the presence of polystrate fossils in coal beds which indicate rapid formation. Also, the type of plants involved and the texture of these deposits testify of turbulent waters, not a stagnant swamp.

Evolutionists propose that coal was formed millions of years before man evolved. However, human skeletons and artifacts, such as intricately structured gold chains, have been found in coal deposits. In Genesis 4 we learn that metalworking was already highly developed; Tubalcain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron. In Genesis 7 and 8, the Deluge later buried the antediluvian civilizations in sedimentary layers of the earth's crust.

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old, as uniformitarian geologists insist, and it has been slowing down uniformly, then its present rotation should be zero! Furthermore, if we extrapolate backward for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equatorial regions and the overall shape of the earth would have been more like a flat pancake. But, as is commonly known, the shape of the earth is spherical; its continents are not confined to the equatorial regions, and it continues to rotate on its axis at approximately 1,000 mph at the equator. The obvious conclusion is that the earth is not billions of years old.

There you go, 4 reliable methods. Go and disprove them.

Prove it! This seems to be a major obsticle for creationist though you don't seem to notice. You can find some evidence to disprove evolution in the bible, yet, you haven't proven that God is all powerful. The Bible says so but, to my knowledge, the Bible has been written by Humans, all in opinion and none of it was really studied. The Bible is only meant to be a guide on how to live. It doesn't mean that its all true stuff in there. Its fictional for some stories and magical explinations of actual history that some else was happening.

Oh youre a laugh. You obvilously lack the common sense to understand what im saying. "Prove It!" What does that have to do with anything? I dont have to answer that. In our belief, we believe that God is all-powerful, so its true to us. That would explain it then and there for us. Now its YOUR duty to DISPROVE that, not my duty to prove it.

If he did, I'd say his reason was fear of death. He was afraid to die or afraid of being proven wrong in the afterworld and have to suffer in Hell. Doesn't mean he actually believed that evolution was incorrect or fake. It was all fear.

Who are you to say it was all fear? It could be that he didnt have anymore evidence to back up his arguments. Thats what i find in most evolutionists i encounter, none of them are knowledgeable enough to back up their points.

This we can agree on. Most of religion today believes that the universe and everything was created in six literal days. Not true. The word "day" used in the Genesis account is not literal, and can mean anywhere from the thousands to the millions of years. You see, the Genesis account does coincide with science.

Somewhere in the bible i read that a day for God is something like a thousand years for us.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Somewhere in the bible i read that a day for God is something like a thousand years for us.

A day is a thousand years to God. But taken into context, that's merely a juxtaposition of God's frame of refernece to ours. I don't remember the exact reference, but the seventh day is said to not have ended, even after Jesus' time. Thus, the word "day" used in the Genesis account can exceed even a thousand years.

Although I can't attest to exactly how old the Earth is, I can definitely say the Universe is much older than 6,000 years. The simple fact that we can see galaxies some millions of light-years away suggests that the only reason we can see them is that the light had time to reach Earth. Thus, if you can see a star that's 100-million light years away, the universe is at least 100-million years old.

No i'm sorry if i didn't make it clear earlier. I was asking everyone for their opinions on the question. What do atheists beleive and what do theists beleive? I just wished to explain why i do not beleive "God" created all matter. It is your own opinion and i respect that yet i do not beleive it and would like other views on the topic.

My apologies then. Turns out I was the babbling fool I thought you were directing that question directly at us creationists. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Crimson King]

A day is a thousand years to God. But taken into context, that's merely a juxtaposition of God's frame of refernece to ours. I don't remember the exact reference, but the seventh day is said to not have ended, even after Jesus' time. Thus, the word "day" used in the Genesis account can exceed even a thousand years.

Incorrect. The bible was written by people who were from the area of Sumer (Sumerians). One thing the Sumerians did was create a solar calendar and created a day as 24 hours. When they said one day, they meant it.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Incorrect. The bible was written by people who were from the area of Sumer (Sumerians). One thing the Sumerians did was create a solar calendar and created a day as 24 hours. When they said one day, they meant it.

No, I'm right on this one. Genesis 2:4 - "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Here, the six days were grouped together as one day. This signifies the use of "day" as not being a literal 24 hours. At Hebrews 4:1-10, Paul states that God's seventh day of rest has still not ended, and that's 4,000 years after that day began.

 

[Crimson King]

So, whoever created the bible just expected the people of the land to accept that what was written didn't actually mean what was written?

Maybe that's why it took 3,000 years to actually have the Old Testament created.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

So, whoever created the bible just expected the people of the land to accept that what was written didn't actually mean what was written?

Maybe that's why it took 3,000 years to actually have the Old Testament created.

I don't understand why you have to put it like that. It's just a metaphore, even one we use all the time. Phrases like "Back in my father's day..." or "Back in the day of my childhood...." would certainly not be interpreted as literal days.

If you're going to take every little thing literally, don't even go near the Psalms or Proverbs. The Bible is more than just written documents; it's very poetic.

 

[Crimson King]

And that's why it has no credibility.

If you say some of it is literal and some is not, then what is and what isn't literal?
If Psalms can't be taken literally, then why can Jesus. His life consisted of just his childhood and then his final years, so how do we know he was that man and not just a some crazy person that the poor people followed? It's alot easier when you don't question things.

Bibilical scholars agree that the earth is only 6,000 years according to the bible, even though we have evidence to disprove this.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

And that's why it has no credibility.

If you say some of it is literal and some is not, then what is and what isn't literal?
If Psalms can't be taken literally, then why can Jesus. His life consisted of just his childhood and then his final years, so how do we know he was that man and not just a some crazy person that the poor people followed? It's alot easier when you don't question things.

Bibilical scholars agree that the earth is only 6,000 years according to the bible, even though we have evidence to disprove this.

It has no credibility because it uses metaphores? So what you're saying is the use of a metaphore immediately discredits yourself? I'm sorry if the Bible wasn't written in a lawyer's sentence, but if you seriously think it has no credibility because of this fact alone, then we're done talking.

Biblical scholars can believe what they want, but as the scriptures that I quoted state, the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

 

[Crimson King]

Typical Christian logic. Deny what doesn't make sense and believe what does at the time.

If you really feel like believing in something that has that many flaws.

Go for it.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Typical Christian logic. Deny what doesn't make sense and believe what does at the time.

If you really feel like believing in something that has that many flaws.

Go for it.

Typical atheist logic - I don't want to believe in God even if he slaps me in the face, but I love to beat a dead horse. Here are the flaws in your logic:

Flaw #1: The six days in the Genesis account are either literal or metaphorical. If they're metaphorical, the account is false because it concedes to ambiguity and confusion. If they're literal, the account is false because Science proves the universe is much older than 6,000 years. Thus, the genesis account is not false in your eyes because of logical deduction; it's false because you refruse to see it any other way. In other words, you're arguments have nothing to do with whether or not the Genesis account is true, but rather that you don't give a crap in the first place and just want to throw logic out the window. Thus, your arguments on this account are completely invalid

Flaw #2: Any logical mind will begin reading the Genesis accont and think, "Okay, it seems like the universe and earth were all created in 6 days." They, they will read Genesis 2:4, conclude and say, "Oh, since they're all grouped in a single day, the day is just a metaphorical sense of definition and interval between the stages of the creation of the universe," and move on. Obviously that makes sence, since everyone says that January has "31 days" and not "31 days and nights", since a day can encompass both day and night while still differintiating itself from night (day vs. night). You, on the other hand, refuse to look at the forest and instead are too focused on this possibly 'dying tree'. Whoops! Did I use a metaphore? Guess that means I've discredited myself.

 

[Crimson King]

Actually, I am a deist, but regardless, I don't really care that much anyway.

 

[Hoefler]

Typical atheist logic - I don't want to believe in God even if he slaps me in the face, but I love to beat a dead horse. Here are the flaws in your logic:

Flaw #1: The six days in the Genesis account are either literal or metaphorical. If they're metaphorical, the account is false because it concedes to ambiguity and confusion. If they're literal, the account is false because Science proves the universe is much older than 6,000 years. Thus, the genesis account is not false in your eyes because of logical deduction; it's false because you refruse to see it any other way. In other words, you're arguments have nothing to do with whether or not the Genesis account is true, but rather that you don't give a crap in the first place and just want to throw logic out the window. Thus, your arguments on this account are completely invalid

You just gave two great reasons for why it is false man. You are falliciously implying that he is on-face denying objective reason. This is an ad hominem. Give a legitimate discourse as to why his accounts are invalid.

Hah, and don't tell anyone not to talk, please. This is a place for civil argumentation and is thus a platform for free discourse.

Flaw #2: Any logical mind will begin reading the Genesis accont and think, "Okay, it seems like the universe and earth were all created in 6 days." They, they will read Genesis 2:4, conclude and say, "Oh, since they're all grouped in a single day, the day is just a metaphorical sense of definition and interval between the stages of the creation of the universe," and move on. Obviously that makes sence, since everyone says that January has "31 days" and not "31 days and nights", since a day can encompass both day and night while still differintiating itself from night (day vs. night). You, on the other hand, refuse to look at the forest and instead are too focused on this possibly 'dying tree'. Whoops! Did I use a metaphore? Guess that means I've discredited myself.

Don't necessarily think of a rejoinder's logic as looking into a forest from the macro and seeing this dead tree (which I assume you to mean discrepency), rather think of it as the rejoinder looking at a chain and seeing a weak or corrupt link in that chain. If that link is indeed defective than the entire chain can hold no weight. This is the underlying implication of all anti-metaphorical arguments made in this thread.

And yes, metaphors have no weight in a debate based upon facts. Merely begging the question, "Well, it could exist... and ****ed be him who thinks otherwise" doesn't prove causuality.