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

[EnigmaticCam]

Wow. What a true and utter shame. Here I brought in some personal touches on why I believe in God, not why you should believe in God, but why I believe in him, and you couldn't even have the least bit of respect for that. That really brings things into perspective. You are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You talk about how I'm insulting you with my 'ad hominem', yet you have the gaul to insult me with this....crap. Yes, you really had me fooled. This whole time I thought i was having an intelligent, respectful discussion with an intelligent, respectful person. Turns out this person was just a condescending showoff.

 

[Crimson King]

In addition, since Crimson King is making it difficult for people to come into this board with password protection (which I totally agree with),

In response to that, you have to apply before you are admitted to the room. I am advertising this as best as I can.

 

[Uncle Meat]

I'm not sure if this point has been made, as I haven't actually read the thread (not enough time), but here goes nothing.

Generally in these types of discussions, the question will be asked, "Who created God?", to which most would answer that he always existed. But, by bringing up this point, they may be contradicting themselves by having a conflicting belief that evolution is imposible by the logic that if mass can not be created or destroyed, it is impossible that it ever existed.

I'm not sure if I'm communicating this point too well, I've never been very articulate.

 

[Mediocre]

Generally in these types of discussions, the question will be asked, "Who created God?", to which most would answer that he always existed. But, by bringing up this point, they may be contradicting themselves by having a conflicting belief that evolution is imposible by the logic that if mass can not be created or destroyed, it is impossible that it ever existed.

Matter has always existed, and will continue to exist forever.

Oh, you say God has the same properties? He's always existed, and He always will?

Sure He does, but He has a few other properties that make His existence far less plausible. First off, He breaks the laws of physics on a regular basis. Matter doesn't. Moreover, I interact with matter pretty frequently. I've never interacted with God.

 

[Master Fox]

You know what? You're absolutely right. It is an ad hominem. But ad hominem or not, it still doesn't change the fact that it's true. You don't see ahteists refuting the entire bible, only the parts they don't like.



But honestly, I can refute everything you said, and you can reply back and refute everything I refuted, and we can keep going back and forth. In addition, since Crimson King is making it difficult for people to come into this board with password protection (which I totally agree with), and since I really have no interest to put forth that effort just to continue this discussion, I'm going to just leave everything as is. But first, I'd like to say one last thing:



When you lose someone you dearly love in the future, whether a spouse, parent, sibling, or friend, I would really doubt that you wouldn't at least wish there were a God, even if just for a few minutes, because as an atheist and evolutionist, you know you are never going to see that person again. And then it'd be interesting to try to rationalize as to why evolution would have even given you the ability to feel that kind of pain and loss in the first place, as it has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I know this is an emotional argument, so don't take it as an argument, but it's just something to think about. This is where I think God is the most real.



I don't want to leave on a bad note though, so please at least understand why I believe in God. It's definitely not something that would hold in a logical debate, but whether or not God exists, at least I'll live a happy life with some amount of hope. Peace?

When I hear this, it sounds like your just surrendering, admitting defeat in a way that doesn't show it so you can keep your pride. But I usually see through these things mostly.

...And to say that its all true (creation) shows how closed minded YOU are. We show evidence, you ignore them. You show us your so-called evidence straight from the Bible which we have claimed (and have shown evidence at the beginning of this debate) that the Bible is majorly flawed and contradicts itself many times over and over again. Read the first few pages to see what has been discussed. And besides, the Bible isn't physical nor is it scientific evidence and much of its stories are too farfetched anyway to be taken as evidence. Those who think is evidence just seem...brainwashed by fantasy or just want to believe in fairytales much like children. To think about the bible being correct seems like a nice but it's just too imaginative to actually be true...plus, there's little or no evidence to back it up and tons of evidence to prove it wrong. We have provided some of the evidence though the evidence is apparently being ignored. To ignore evidence because it goes against in what you believe in is very, very closed minded and very ignorant. So you can't say that we are closed minded when Christianity has been very closed minded to science for centuries. Example: Heliocentric Universe VS Geocentric Universe. The Church had no way of backing up their claims that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around the universe. The Bible was the Churchs' source...their only source. The scientists who refuted the churchs' claims was the studies of the Greek philociphors (spl) and the invention, the telescope. After over a couple of centuries of debating, the Church admits that they were wrong. This isn't the first time the Bible and the church have been proven wrong by scientist and science. I have never heard of it in reverse in a debate...at a trial yes but not at a debate.

Now I do believe in Gods but their not in control and they are just controlled by the laws of the Universe and nature just like all mortals although they can allude death for billions of years. I don't have a source like the Bible or any sort of anything but experience. No sources, no religion, nothing at all. I once had a dream where I see a man (with dove-like wings on his back, gold, long and spiked up hair on his head, a long tail completely covered with armour with a claw on the tip of the the tail (part of the armour), something resembling a black and red jewel in the shape of a "D", a black sleeveless shirt, grey pants and brown boots, no facial hair), standing on a hill surrounded by shadows that reveal themselves to be barbaric humans with shields and swords, ready to slice up this other man I discribed as detailed as I can. They all attack him at once but he is able to take all the humans out with little effort, using martial arts and powers (resembling Dragon Ball Z powers seemingly and I had this dream long before I knew about DBZ). One of the humans lands a hit with his sword but the sword just shatters when it strikes. With a flick of his tail, the angel smashs that human away along with many others. When the battle was over, the angel had their King in his grasp (along with the King's wife). He does hurt them...he only captures them and takes them away.

Now, I know what your saying, "its just a dream! And your talking about us being imaginative! You shouldn't be talking!" But I'm not the only person who has had this dream. I've spoken to a lot of people who have had this dream with the same exact details...and no, they don't know know each other...live in different areas, even different states, its based on no story, no influences, basically nothing, yet some people with no connection all dream it up separately but usually keep it a secret from others. rhidecule is the reason. The reason I got it out of some of them was they accidentally slipped it out and I dug it out of them basically. Well anyways, I've actually tried finding out more about this dream and as I did, more dreams began to form around the first dream. After almost a decade of pondering on this dream and learning more about it, the more I began to stray away from religion and go towards science (this dream supports the sciences I found out btw). I completely believe whats this dream by at first I thought it was just an interesting plot for a movie or anime tv show but then, something happened...I encountered some of the characters from the dream...I won't go into it. And the previous man in the first dream, I have found out that he's is God and he has no children, no wife either but had a half-brother who was identical to him who had a wife who was killed in the battle in the first dream and a daughter who was killed, painfully, by a demon completely by accident durring a rescue attempt. Want to more? PM me about it...its time to get back on topic. This isn't a place to discuss dreams and belief, this is a place to debate facts, to debate which is right...Creation or Evolution/the Big Bang.

Now, lets see...

Wow. What a true and utter shame. Here I brought in some personal touches on why I believe in God, not why you should believe in God, but why I believe in him, and you couldn't even have the least bit of respect for that. That really brings things into perspective. You are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You talk about how I'm insulting you with my 'ad hominem', yet you have the gaul to insult me with this....crap. Yes, you really had me fooled. This whole time I thought i was having an intelligent, respectful discussion with an intelligent, respectful person. Turns out this person was just a condescending showoff.

You believe in God? Good for you but this is a debate. Who cares as to why you believe in God. We only care about proving that creationist are wrong with the aid of science and our weapons are science, ecidence, facts & logic. As the opposing side, it is your job, your soul purpose in this debate is to prove that the Genesis that happens as the Bible states by using other sources then the Bible with physical, reliable evidence other than the Bible (due to the fact that the Bible isn't reliable), and it is your job to protect your argument as best you can. We want you to see the truth and accept the truth as you should and you want us to believe in what you believe is the truth. That's how debates work. Don't like it!? Tough! That's how a debate works ; that's how life works!

...Pathetic Earthlings!
...
...
Now back on topic...

B.T.W.: The brother of God, who lost his wife and lost his daughter...I have found out years ago that this poor soul is none-other-than me. That's right, Me!...but that was a a long, long time ago...

 

[snex]

The reason I got it out of some of them was they accidentally slipped it out and I dug it out of them basically.

right there is your problem. in psychology there is a condition called false memory syndrome. it happens when psychologists attempt hypnotism or some other form of regression therapy. even very subtle cues given to the patient by the psychologist can coax up memories of events that never happened. unfortunately, many parents have been sent to prison for molesting their children because of this syndrome.

you can actually test this if youd like. take any particular dream youve had, or one anybody else has had, or even use an obscure movie. then ask around on some dream forums for vaguely similar dreams. talk to the people 1v1, ask them questions, try to lace in your pre-picked plot, and watch as their dream seemingly converges on it. if you do actually do this, make sure to include control groups so you can compare the differences. youd be surprised how mallaeble the human memory is.

 

[Master Fox]

right there is your problem. in psychology there is a condition called false memory syndrome. it happens when psychologists attempt hypnotism or some other form of regression therapy. even very subtle cues given to the patient by the psychologist can coax up memories of events that never happened. unfortunately, many parents have been sent to prison for molesting their children because of this syndrome.

No, I didn't use methods like that, just pesting them till they tell me or simply by asking them. Some just come out and tell me. I didn't put stress on them or anything about that. Hardly called methods! No therapy, no hypnosis, nothing of the sort. Just simple conversation...

 

[snex]

nobody here knows your methods, and it doesnt even have to be intentional. try my experiment if you dont believe me.

 

[Apollonian]

There is no way I can prove to anyone that God exists

There is no way I can prove to anyone that God does not exist

Perhaps the most important question of our lives, and finding a definitive answer derived from fact is impossible (please, don't try to convince me either way)

I'm a Christian. Perhaps that discredits whatever I will say in your eyes...please read on for I will not try to convince you of anything with my "superior intellect" or whatever.

My roommate is not a Christian...we have had many conversations regarding the existence of God, absolute truth vs. relative truth, etc. You get the picture. He continually comes to the conclusion that if God existed He would reveal Himself to us. Reasonable conclusion from his point of view, except that he probably cannot accurately predict how the creator of the universe would deal with said universe.

Anyways, all that to say that a recurring theme of the bible is that God desires faith. Faith in itself requires there to be some element of trust involved...if I were able to methodically prove God's existence to you, it would require no faith on your part (or mine) to believe in Him. Plain and simple, from a biblical perspective, no one should expect to see proof of God's existence that would cause us to come to the conclusion that His existence is undeniable.

Suspiciously convenient? Perhaps...but that is certainly not a disqualifier

Yet it would seem logical that if God's existence can IN NO WAY be proven, then He, being the benevolent creator of the universe, would not **** disbelievers to eternal torment. Of course, I know what your response will be.

"God works in mysterious ways."

He sure does.

 

[Apollonian]

You know what? You're absolutely right. It is an ad hominem. But ad hominem or not, it still doesn't change the fact that it's true. You don't see ahteists refuting the entire bible, only the parts they don't like.

But honestly, I can refute everything you said, and you can reply back and refute everything I refuted, and we can keep going back and forth. In addition, since Crimson King is making it difficult for people to come into this board with password protection (which I totally agree with), and since I really have no interest to put forth that effort just to continue this discussion, I'm going to just leave everything as is. But first, I'd like to say one last thing:

When you lose someone you dearly love in the future, whether a spouse, parent, sibling, or friend, I would really doubt that you wouldn't at least wish there were a God, even if just for a few minutes, because as an atheist and evolutionist, you know you are never going to see that person again. And then it'd be interesting to try to rationalize as to why evolution would have even given you the ability to feel that kind of pain and loss in the first place, as it has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I know this is an emotional argument, so don't take it as an argument, but it's just something to think about. This is where I think God is the most real.

I don't want to leave on a bad note though, so please at least understand why I believe in God. It's definitely not something that would hold in a logical debate, but whether or not God exists, at least I'll live a happy life with some amount of hope. Peace?

Indeed. I understand completely your reasoning for believing in God. In fact, I pray to a Savior for the exact same reason. I want to believe, desperately want to believe, that there is a God, and there is an afterlife. I find that being a Universalist allows me that comfort, while removing any limitations that would come from a strict adherence to Christianity. Food for thought.

Peace.

 

[Master Fox]

nobody here knows your methods, and it doesnt even have to be intentional. try my experiment if you dont believe me.

I get what your trying to say and I believe you as well but this isn't the only reason that I believe the dreams to be true. I mean, once you start meeting people from these dreams and seeing the stuff they can do can really blow your mind on reality. I mean, physically meeting them when your awake as well, talking with them, travel with them. Its...well, its more then I can say for any of the creationist on this board...Physically and personally meeting God and learning his true name: Komedrama! And few of the people I have spoken to have brought this up as well. After getting them to tell me about the dream, they ask me "Have you ever met Komedrama?" and I never meantioned the name to them before! Coincidence or...?!

Well...it doesn't matter...This doesn't refute evolution or the Big Bang. Komedrama denies creating the universe cause he was born within the Universe. The universe was born with a giant explosion after a great implosion...The Big Bang and the Rubber Band Theory. Supports evolution too...I'm very religious with this belief however I don't worship Komedrama. He was once my brother!

Oh well! So...there really is no point in arguing with me over this...

 

[Sephiroth27]

im not taking it out of context. youre ignoring the fact that its irrelevent where or how god exists. if he wants us to discover him, the method we must use to do so is science. until you, or anybody else, provides another way to gain knowledge about the EXTERNAL WORLD (not universe), we are justified in disbelief. and, i never said that a supernatural being cannot exist because it is not studiable by science, i said we are justified to disbelieve in it when we cannot study it using science. there might be an invisible gnome right behind my head, but i cant use science to determine whether such a notion is true or false, so i am justified in disbelieving in it.



hint: dont get your science from kent hovind.

h

lets go back to your kids on a merry-go-round example. what happens if two of those kids collide mid-air? couldnt they reverse their directions of spin? of course they could. and collisions happen all the time in space. they happen every day on earth! also, "big swirling dot" is a strawman invented by kent hovind. NO SCIENTIST ANYWHERE says this. if you want to argue against science, you need to understand what SCIENTISTS are claiming, not what creationists say they are claiming. the big bang has ZERO net spin, so we should expect the universe itself to have ZERO net spin. galaxies spinning clockwise (from above) will equal the number of galaxies spinning counterclockwise. note, this only applies to galaxies, because the things within a galaxy will spin predominantly the same way as the galaxy (unless collisions reverse them).



actually, classical big bang cosmology cannot handle the lumpiness problem. if the big bang were the whole picture, we should expect uniformity throughout space. however, there is a somewhat new idea called "inflationary big bang cosmology" that states that near the beginning of the universe, there was an extremely rapid expansion period, which then gradually slowed down to the expansion period we see today. this rapid expansion magnified small quantum fluctuations in the existing space, which became the lumpiness we see today. the very recent WMAP satellite data has provided strong evidence that inflation is correct. for a better treatment on it than i can give, read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

Hint: I’ll get my information from wherever I want. Thank you.

Nothing could have collided from the big bang because it was the “beginning.” There is nothing to run into because nothing was there yet. Also, the big bang theory does say that it was spinning. ALSO, God does not want us to use science in order to “find” him. In order to “find” God, you need to follow His word and see how you can do so.

FYI: Dr. Kent is a very good debater and Christian. If you don’t believe that, you can check out the video tapes that he has debating some top evolutionists. He says things like “big swirling dot” because he wants people to get the gist of what he is talking about. If you didn’t know, some people don’t understand a lot of scientific terminology. (However, I understand quite a bit so don’t try to shove that back in my face.)

(Oh, and to the person that said gravity is a theory, you are partially right. Only some certain aspects of gravity is a theory, not the whole concept.)

 

[snex]

Hint: I’ll get my information from wherever I want. Thank you.

oh i thought this was a debate, where we use reputable sources to back up our points. i didnt know it was a shouting match. in that case, here are my sources that disprove the bible:

grimm's fairy tales
beowulf
the iliad
the odyssey

kent hovind is not a scientist and does not accurately represent what scientists say. if you continue to use him you are deliberately being dishonest.

Nothing could have collided from the big bang because it was the “beginning.” There is nothing to run into because nothing was there yet. Also, the big bang theory does say that it was spinning. ALSO, God does not want us to use science in order to “find” him. In order to “find” God, you need to follow His word and see how you can do so.

wrong. it was the beginning *as we know it.* it does not state that the universe came from nothing, and if you continue to say this, you are being deliberately dishonest.

how can we follow gods word when we cant verify that it is gods word using science? what criteria do we use to determine what gods words are and what they arent? why doesnt he just speak to us directly?

FYI: Dr. Kent is a very good debater and Christian. If you don’t believe that, you can check out the video tapes that he has debating some top evolutionists. He says things like “big swirling dot” because he wants people to get the gist of what he is talking about. If you didn’t know, some people don’t understand a lot of scientific terminology. (However, I understand quite a bit so don’t try to shove that back in my face.)

he might be a good debator, but he doesnt know anything about science. even other creationists oust him. he says things like "big swirling dot" to CONFUSE the matter. he doesnt want you to really study the big bang, because then you might deny a young universe. if you continue using kent hovind as your source for what real scientists say instead of the scientists themselves, you are deliberately being dishonest.

(Oh, and to the person that said gravity is a theory, you are partially right. Only some certain aspects of gravity is a theory, not the whole concept.)

thats irrelevant. gravity still exists. you need to learn what "theory" means, and getting your definition from kent hovind, somebody who is not a scientist, is deliberately being dishonest.

tell me seph, what does the bible say about bearing false witness?

 

[God]

God or Big Bang/Evolution

Can't it be both?

 

[Moggie]

I'd like to throw my two cents into this debate.

I'm a believer in the Big Bang/Evolution theory, yes.

Why do people believe in God ? :

1. Because having some purpose in life, (in the Bible, worshipping God is the only purpose in life), is very comforting to people. Talk to someone without a purpose; they often seem very alone and very confused. Having the luxury of believing that everything in life has is a purpose is comforting.

2. Perhaps because they'd like to believe that once they die, they do not die forever(in the case of the Bible, their soul lives on, going to Heaven or Hell). Yes, I would like to see my Grandmother again, but just because I would LIKE TO doesn't mean that I'll accept an illogical form of reason in order to believe that I will.

3. Because, seemingly, the "world is too complex for life to have existed without a design in mind." Yes, I admit, life is EXTREMELY complex. Because the chances of so and so molucules doing so and so, life had to be designed by God. Well, people always seem to think that we would have been LOWER forms of life if things had been different. That is cynnical. Ever care to believe that, according to evolution, if things had been different, we would have become a HIGHER, more complex lifeform ?

And Christians will believe in God even IF logic is against them because, possibly, they believe that God will reward them for their undoubting faith. Basically, what they're doing is saying 1 + 1 = 3 because God tells them/rewards them for believing so, even though reality proves that 1 + 1 = 2

Just my two cents. And by the way, I do not discriminate/hate anybody for believing in God. I do not believe you are stupid, or idiotic. I just think you're wrong. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

 

[Semmeh]

how can we follow gods word when we cant verify that it is gods word using science? what criteria do we use to determine what gods words are and what they arent? why doesnt he just speak to us directly?

The answer is faith. It takes faith to believe in God. I also believe it takes faith to belive in the Big Bang/Evolution. Both require faith.

What if you're right? The Big Bang is the reason for existence. What do I lose? I lose nothing, all I did was make a fool out of myself my entire life.

What if I'm right? God created the universe. What do you lose? Everything.

Really something to think about. It requires faith to belive in both. Which faith is right?

 

[cwolf]

so basically the Sun does NOT exist. And anyone who suggests otherwise will be committed to an institution of some sort. That is, if that is the argument you're using to defend your position

UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

 

[Moggie]

The answer is faith. It takes faith to believe in God. I also believe it takes faith to belive in the Big Bang/Evolution. Both require faith.

What if you're right? The Big Bang is the reason for existence. What do I lose? I lose nothing, all I did was make a fool out of myself my entire life.

What if I'm right? God created the universe. What do you lose? Everything.

Really something to think about. It requires faith to belive in both. Which faith is right?

Having something to lose doesn't make a difference in whether your beliefs are correct or not. Of course, fearing God and Hell are also reasons to believe in the Bible. Conveniently enough, not believing in the Bible or Hell will get you thrown into the latter. Funny the way a loving, Almighty God uses fear to convey his existance to the world.

But yes, I agree with you, that both require faith. Believing in God requires trusting in his "word." Believing in the Big Bang requires lack of fear of hell, or faith that such a place does not exist. Plus, Evolutionists also have cumulative facts, which are a plus.

 

[cwolf]

Here's my opinion in a nutshell. Then I'll leave. I only popped in because the one post I responded to was being laughed at by 90 posters on another bulletin board when it was shown to them.

I'm Right. I win. Feel free to debate among yourselves. *grin*

 

[snex]

The answer is faith. It takes faith to believe in God. I also believe it takes faith to belive in the Big Bang/Evolution. Both require faith.

that is not an answer. its an excuse to continue believing in the face on contrary evidence. faith cannot tell us which religion, if any, is correct IN REALITY. evolution and the big bang do not require faith. they are built on evidence.

What if you're right? The Big Bang is the reason for existence. What do I lose? I lose nothing, all I did was make a fool out of myself my entire life.

What if I'm right? God created the universe. What do you lose? Everything.

Really something to think about. It requires faith to belive in both. Which faith is right?

pascals wager is nonsense.

if im right, then you lose a lot. you lose the only life you have. you waste it worshipping something that doesnt exist. you miss out on the true nature of reality. you spend time and money on people trying to exploit you.

and you arent right. there is no chance that you are right, because your doctirine is self contradictory. but lets assume that there is some god out there, not necessarily the christian god. who is to say i lose anything at all by disbelieving in him? maybe he doesnt care what i think. maybe he rewards atheists and punishes christians, because atheists are intellectually honest, and he has set the world up so that only intellectually honest people can conclude that god does not exist.

again, evolution and the big bang are built on EVIDENCE. creationists claim otherwise because they know they cannot win on fair ground.

Believing in the Big Bang requires lack of fear of hell, or faith that such a place does not exist.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. christians are the ones who CAME UP WITH the big bang! hugh ross, an old earth creationist, espouses the big bang all the time. when people say stuff like this, its no wonder christians hate science. sheesh.

 

[Moggie]

Christians created the Big Bang ? THAT'S wrong. Christians have no business coming up with a theory that could possibly contradict their God.

Christians do not hate science, either. Christians hate the fact that perhaps they are wrong, or that people do not believe as they do.

 

[snex]

Christians created the Big Bang ? THAT'S wrong. Christians have no business coming up with a theory that could possibly contradict their God.

ok after this.. i hope none of you theists dare to say im biased..

your scholarship is just as poor as that of the people im criticizing here. even if we agree about god not existing, you are completely wrong about this statement. before the 1920s, most physicists held to the steady state idea, ie, that the universe was not changing in size, and has always existed the way it was right then. THIS is more against god than anything, because it requires no creation event at all. the universe always was this way, and always will be.

einstein's general relativity predicted that the universe must either be expanding or contracting, but he introduced a "cosmological constant" to make the universe "steady state" again. he later described this as his greatest mistake, as you will see why.

in 1929, edwin hubble discovered that all galaxies were rushing away from us, and the farther they were, the faster they were rushing away. they were also rushing away from each other in the exact same manner. this showed that einsteins cosmological constant was fallacy.

but, it was not until georges lemaître, a CHRISTIAN MONK, decided to extrapolate hubble's data into the past until all galaxies met at a single point that the big bang started to take off. in fact, the big bang was a great triumph for theists, because it soundly disproved the steady state idea that had dominated. the big bang showed that the universe (as we know it) BEGAN at some finite point in the past.

but regardless, scientific theories HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEF. science is based on evidence, not "faith in the lack of hell" or faith in anything else.

 

[Moggie]

Ooooh... Well, you sir, are correct :D

The way you said it made it seem like Christians in general had invented it. And now that you mention it, I remember Einstein not wanting to give scientists the constant of variation because THAT would further disprove the existance of God.

I concede sir, for I have been pwn'd.

edit : Oh, and as for "faith of lack of hell," I only meant that people who don't believe in God are confident enough in their beliefs to NOT be afraid of the possible existance of hell. It's weird, I know.

 

[Semmeh]

To believe in evidence, you need faith. Believing in Science requires faith. No matter what, everything to a certain degree, requires faith.

As to which religion to choose, you might consider Christianity's differences from other religions.
There is a link here for a link to a wikipedia article.

Click here for an article on christianity. (For those who are unimformed)

Many beliefs hold some of Christianity's beliefs yet clearly, Christianity holds some clear differences also. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm only showing you.

Again, it requires faith. If you want to fly a plane into a building in the of Allah that is your choice. This is not an argument to which religion one should follow.

 

[snex]

To believe in evidence, you need faith. Believing in Science requires faith. No matter what, everything to a certain degree, requires faith.

As to which religion to choose, you might consider Christianity's differences from other religions.
There is a link here for a link to a wikipedia article.

Click here for an article on christianity. (For those who are unimformed)

Many beliefs hold some of Christianity's beliefs yet clearly, Christianity holds some clear differences also. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm only showing you.

Again, it requires faith. If you want to fly a plane into a building in the of Allah that is your choice. This is not an argument to which religion one should follow.

no you do not need faith to believe in evidence. no you do not need faith to believe in science. stop being dishonest.

so what if christianity is different from other religions? all religions are different from each other. there is no objective criteria by which we can determine which is correct, if any. every time you say "well science requires faith too" what you are really saying is that your own beliefs are baseless and irrational, and to avoid changing them you need to attack others by claiming they are also baseless and irrational.

 

[Semmeh]

evidence

Give me a peice of evidence that you have for evolution and the Big Bang. I'm sorry. Science doesn't require faith. My thoughts were jumbled up. Forgive me. It does though require faith to belive in your evidnece for evolution. Evolution/the Big Bang, is not science. Neither can be proved in a labratory. The definition of science is: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. My source is Dictionary.com. You may veiw the page here .

 

[snex]

list of ALL the evidence? you must be kidding. it would take up an entire library! if you want a BASIC layperson understanding of these ideas, you are going to have to do a LOT of reading. for evolution i would suggest starting with www.talkorigins.org, and for cosmology i would suggest hawking's a brief history of time. if you want to get more advanced knowledge, buy a textbook or consider taking a college course. no single person will ever have ALL the evidence memorized, because there is just an insane amount of it.

here is a teaser though.

mammals have 3 ear bones and 1 lower jaw bone. reptiles have 1 inner ear bone and 3 lower jaw bones. if mammals evolved from reptiles, then there must have been a switch in the function of those bones. here is an image (from talkorigins) of SOME of the fossils found that demonstrate this switch of bone function.

 

[Semmeh]

What does that prove? It proves nothing. Nothing other than the structure of a mammal's and a reptile's ear and jawbone design. Elephants have two eyes and so do we. Does that mean we evolved from elephants? Tell me the fossil examples of this switch.

 

[snex]

willful ignorance only makes you look foolish. not only do the fossils show a clear transition, but they are in the correct rocks as predicted by evolutionary theory. what you just did is akin to saying "so what, the apple fell? that doesnt prove gravity and nothing you say shows otherwise. neener neener."

ok mr smart guy, lets hear YOUR interpretation of the fossils. remember, your hypothesis must be TESTABLE (which, by the way, i just proved to you that evolution was).

 

[Sephiroth27]

Correct. You proved evolution was testable. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

[snex]

so look at the image i posted. it is clearly a passed test. then go to www.talkorigins.org and read about the hundreds of other tests it passes. then go to a library and read about the thousands of tests it passes.

 

[Jimayo]

so look at the image i posted. it is clearly a passed test. then go to www.talkorigins.org and read about the hundreds of other tests it passes. then go to a library and read about the thousands of tests it passes.

That requires a person with an open mind willing to reexamine their beliefs. Not many people on either side are capable of that.

 

[Master Fox]

This leaves me to these questions: Has creation been tested? If so, whats the persentage of passing tests? From what I have looked upon over the internet, there have been no successful tests on creationism. So, why this fight for the belief of creation? No successful tests means it false so why? Because you want to believe in the Bible, your so-called "Holy" Bible? Fear? Faith? But no facts! I have looked upon some Creation points but I have found out that there are sections of the sites of what not to bring up in Evolution/Big Bang VS Creation debates. That section seems to grow while the other sections decrease. Creation gives way to Evolution.

Now, I got into a little debate in school about this topic and I basically looked for their views and I questioned them. They believe what the Bible says basically. Geocentric universe, no evidence in evolution and the big bang, God created everything is what they'd say. (I really didn't debate them like I do here.) Then I asked them "Who is God?"and they answered "Jesus!". I asked "But isn't Jesus God's Son?" and the reply was "Yes!". "But you just said that Jesus was God!" "It's complicated...". I know, it was a short debate but next time I see them, I'll give out more then I did with them yesterday...be more difficult.

That requires a person with an open mind willing to reexamine their beliefs. Not many people on either side are capable of that.

That's because Humans are closed minded usually. That's why wars usually break out and the only way Creationist will see that they are wrong is when they die...and not come back to tell about it. Providing evidence proves the fact that Evolution and the Big Band accured but Creationist won't believe it. I know that they'd die for their belief...Just like so many times in history. Lots will die for their religion. Ex: 9/11 (Muslims brainwashed into thinking they will be rewarded by Allah if they sacrifice themselves), The Crusades, etc. It foolish to die for a religious belief...primitive...! Now, to die for love or dying for freedom are another story.

Evolution/the Big Bang, is not science. Neither can be proved in a labratory. The definition of science is: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. My source is Dictionary.com. You may veiw the page here .

Yet there are so many tests that test evolution and the Big Bang. Evolution is tested through genetics and fossil records and the Big Bang is tested through Astronomy. So...Evolution/Big Bang ARE Sciences.

Can't it be both?

No! If it were both, that would be Intellegent Design unless ID is a cover name for Creationism. This is if you mean "Can't God of created the universe through the Big Bang and Controlled Evolution". But if your asking "Can't God and Big Bang/Evolution", possible but he would have no influence in any of it. I'd say that God was conceived within this Universe, not created but born by the hands of a mother and father and he was just gifted with ultimate power though not all powerful. All powerful doesn't exist. If one being had all the power, there wouldn't be power to support anything like life. We would exist if one being was all powerful. Now if this being planted power into life of other's, the being would no longer be all powerful. These is but one idea that brings me to conclude that God isn't all powerful. The other more reliable sources on God I unfortunately can't bring up. You will soon learn the truth but believe what you want until then but don't go crying on me. This is all if God truly exists which is highly doubtful in the idea of religion.

...TheKeyboardist hasn't finished his report yet?

 

[Crimson King]

I am interested the most in how Creationist can accept that Dinosaurs existed the same time as humans when fossils show otherwise.

How can someone explain that?

 

[Jimayo]

I am interested the most in how Creationist can accept that Dinosaurs existed the same time as humans when fossils show otherwise.

How can someone explain that?

Well, I've heard the argument that there were no dinosaurs and the fossils were placed in the ground by god.

 

[Sephiroth27]

It's simple really. Christians obviously believe in God. In the bible it says in the beginning, God created Adam. That means Adam was made before dinosaurs. Also, the dating system for fossils is considered flawed by Christians.

Oh, sorry snex. I didn't catch your post on page 23 until now. Considering that ALL scientific theories on how the universe came to be are ONLY theories, I can use whatever sources I need in order to disprove it. That is NOT bearing false witness. I find it funny that a person, such as yourself, does not trust in God or his teachings, yet you try and trap somebody with their own beliefs. Not only is that low, but it didn't work.

 

[Jimayo]

It's simple really. Christians obviously believe in God. In the bible it says in the beginning, God created Adam. That means Adam was made before dinosaurs. Also, the dating system for fossils is considered flawed by Christians.

Oh, sorry snex. I didn't catch your post on page 23 until now. Considering that ALL scientific theories on how the universe came to be are ONLY theories, I can use whatever sources I need in order to disprove it. That is NOT bearing false witness. I find it funny that a person, such as yourself, does not trust in God or his teachings, yet you try and trap somebody with their own beliefs. Not only is that low, but it didn't work.

Your making the assumption that a theory in science means what you want it to mean. As has been stated what used to be termed laws are now called theories(as scientists accept the fact that things can change, and that law is too strong a term). A theory is quite solidly evidenced, unlike your beliefs.

 

[Sephiroth27]

Theory-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That's from dictionary.com if you don't believe me.

It's an assumption. No matter how you look at it, a theory is ALWAYS an assumption. It can be widely accepted, but it is going to ALWAYS be an assumption. I don't automatically look at an idea and think that it is wrong. I have looked deep into the big bang theory, and it is not a very impressive theory for such "smart" scientists.

 

[cwolf]

actually, it's considered flawed by several scientists not just Christian scientists. There've been a few papers written about the fact that all they can do is estimate carbon dating as accurately as possible. How do you accurately estimate something anyway? They weren't alive when the creature was fossilized.

It's simple really. Christians obviously believe in God. In the bible it says in the beginning, God created Adam. That means Adam was made before dinosaurs. Also, the dating system for fossils is considered flawed by Christians.

Oh, sorry snex. I didn't catch your post on page 23 until now. Considering that ALL scientific theories on how the universe came to be are ONLY theories, I can use whatever sources I need in order to disprove it. That is NOT bearing false witness. I find it funny that a person, such as yourself, does not trust in God or his teachings, yet you try and trap somebody with their own beliefs. Not only is that low, but it didn't work.

 

[snex]

Theory-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That's from dictionary.com if you don't believe me.

It's an assumption. No matter how you look at it, a theory is ALWAYS an assumption. It can be widely accepted, but it is going to ALWAYS be an assumption. I don't automatically look at an idea and think that it is wrong. I have looked deep into the big bang theory, and it is not a very impressive theory for such "smart" scientists.

why are you bearing false witness? you very much know that the definition SCIENTISTS use is not the one you cited. in fact, you neglected to mention that the one SCIENTISTS use is right there on dictionary.com!

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Considering that ALL scientific theories on how the universe came to be are ONLY theories, I can use whatever sources I need in order to disprove it. That is NOT bearing false witness. I find it funny that a person, such as yourself, does not trust in God or his teachings, yet you try and trap somebody with their own beliefs. Not only is that low, but it didn't work.

WRONG. first of all, ive shown you why your use of "theory" is flawed, and it will be dishonest if you continue to do so. secondly, you CANNOT use arbitrary sources at will, because if such a thing is allowed, the sources i listed are equally valid. no, in science we use EVIDENCE. just like the EVIDENCE for mammal-reptile common ancestry i just showed you. the bible is not EVIDENCE. it is a story book.

Also, the dating system for fossils is considered flawed by Christians.

this is a LIE. christians are among the ones inventing dating methods and refining them. CREATIONISTS are the ones who do not accept them, because it conflicts with their ALREADY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS. not because of evidence. in fact, here is PROOF that christians accept radiometric dating.

i suggest you stop lying unless you want to make yourself and your religion look even worse.

edit: carbon dating is not used on fossils. fossils are dated by other radiometric methods done on igneous layers sandwiching the sedimentary layer containing the fossil. other radiometric methods are much more solid than carbon dating because 1) the elements involved have longer halflives than c-14, 2) the elements involved are not produced by processes that currently run on the earth, they were here from the start, 3) isochron methods can be used to determine when a sample has been contaminated.

carbon dating is only good for organic matter (fossils are not organic) up to about 50,000 years, and it must be calibrated by other dating methods such as tree ring dating, ice cores, and varves. you also cannot use carbon dating on marine objects, because they may get their carbon from other sources other than the atmosphere (where c-14 is produced).