|
|
I'd say MOST scientists, not all, believe evolution to be truth but it is NOT observable - no one has seen it happen. Natural selection can and does happen creationists do not deny this, if an animal that relies on camouflage to hunt or survive is born a colour that doesn't camouflage it then it will naturally die out thus eliminating the possibility of more of the same being born. So I think you've got the two mixed up there somewhat.
There's only one set of evidence, evolutionists, creationists and anyone else you care to mention all have the same Earth, fossils, animals etc. to work with. It is our interpretation of this evidence that differs and I believe it better fits with God creating everything about 6,000 years ago than of millions of years of earth history.
This leads nicely onto your next point that says it is outside sciences boundaries to explain where the matter came from! What?!? And people accuse Christians saying "God did it" is a cop out, give me a break.
You then go on to say (regarding the origin of life): -
" There isn't a solid consensus on this yet. However, the theory goes that the first life would have started the moment at which the right chemical substances were present in the right proportions and situation to react with each other and form the mitochondria, or other building blocks of life. But honestly, most people don't feel we can answer this yet. It is an acknowledged hole."
An acknowledged hole!!! Leading candidate for understatement of the year right there! At least the Bible tells us where we came from, why we are here and where we are going.
The theory of evolution so wonderfully explains how we got to be how we are today but has no idea how we started out in the first place other than everything had to be just right and the right substances present and then KAPOW! life happens (still doesn't explain where the substances came from in the first place).
The fact that we share common DNA can also be evidence of a common Creator.
Downs Syndrome or any other disability is a result of LOSS of information not NEW information, which would be required for a fish to be born with a claw. Are you suggesting Downs Syndrome is evidence of evolution or evolution in action?
God doesn't need a creator as He as always been – not measurable by time since He created it and is outside it. The evidence of God is Jesus the "God-man" (fully God and fully man) who walked this Earth and died for our sins. He was there at the beginning and witnessed Creation first hand and preserved a record of this in the Bible, the true Word of God.
 Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Just because the Bible tells us why we're here and how we got here doesn't mean it's true. Yes we haven't figured out all of evolution yet, that doesn't mean it's false, given time the answers will be discovered I am confident. At least evolutionists are able to honestly say "we don't know all the answers yet, but we're working on them". Creationists are unwilling to admit that there may even be a DOUBT that they are wrong or that their theories are not sufficient.
Evolution is observable. Look at bacteria. They are living proof that evolution works and that DNA mutations will cause one strand of a species to become dominant over another. It's not natural selection, it's evolution.
I have said it before, the burden of proof is on BELIEVERS to prove that their God exists. As far as I can see you have completely failed to do this, all you seem to be doing is trying to poke holes in a theory which is accepted by almost the entire scientific community and repeat endlessly the "fact" that Jesus is lord. Sorry, but where is your proof? The Bible? One of my first posts on this thread was a list of problems I had with Noah's ark alone and a good portion of those problems weren't answered.
I am pretty sick of this thread, since it's just going in endless circles. The Christian church has forced millions to read the Bible, why don't you read "The Blind Watchmaker" or something. You will be surprised.
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present
http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk - for all non-religious uni students!
|
|
|
Creationists do not have all the answers and freely admit this but we are trying to interpret what we see in the present with what we believe to be true about the past (i.e. the Bible). Evolution looks at what's going on now and says well this must always have happened; they say the present is the key to the past.
Evolution is not observable, bacteria becoming a different kind of bacteria is not evolution – I don't know what your idea of evolution is but mine is one species turning into another and this has simply not been proven. So the burden is also on you to prove your belief system about the past as well.
I answered quite a few of your problems with Noah's Ark but you rejected them or "poked holes" in them. I will continue to fight against evolution being banded about, as fact as long as people carry on saying it is fact.
Your now going in circles by bringing up the Blind Watchmaker again, I've already told you what I think of Richard Dawkins. Lots of people are still getting things out of this thread so if you don't want to post then just keep checking until a new topic is brought up.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
I'd say MOST scientists, not all, believe evolution to be truth but it is NOT observable - no one has seen it happen. Natural selection can and does happen creationists do not deny this, if an animal that relies on camouflage to hunt or survive is born a colour that doesn't camouflage it then it will naturally die out thus eliminating the possibility of more of the same being born. So I think you've got the two mixed up there somewhat.
No, evolution is fact. Genetic data changes over populations. Farmers breed the best-of-breed animals to get animals better suited for their purposes, and have done for a long time. That's evolution by artificial selection. You yourself are an example of evolution; you aren't a clone of your mother or your father. (Are you?)
Quote
There's only one set of evidence, evolutionists, creationists and anyone else you care to mention all have the same Earth, fossils, animals etc. to work with. It is our interpretation of this evidence that differs and I believe it better fits with God creating everything about 6,000 years ago than of millions of years of earth history.
If you use power from a nuclear power station; if you've ever had a medical check where doctors have put radioactive substances in your blood to track where how it goes through your body, but you do not accept the evidence from radiometric dating, then your belief system is inconsistent with both itself and reality. You'd rather try and pretend reality isn't there rather than accept the world.
Quote
This leads nicely onto your next point that says it is outside sciences boundaries to explain where the matter came from! What?!? And people accuse Christians saying "God did it" is a cop out, give me a break.
Science is not a religion and doesn't feel the need to explain everything. It deals with what we can observe and what we can draw from that. Before the beginning of the universe is by definition outside of that.
Quote
You then go on to say (regarding the origin of life): -
" There isn't a solid consensus on this yet. However, the theory goes that the first life would have started the moment at which the right chemical substances were present in the right proportions and situation to react with each other and form the mitochondria, or other building blocks of life. But honestly, most people don't feel we can answer this yet. It is an acknowledged hole."
An acknowledged hole!!! Leading candidate for understatement of the year right there! At least the Bible tells us where we came from, why we are here and where we are going.
Yes, and I can write a book that tells us that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I've been touched by His Noodly Appendiage. What's your point? The Bible is a book, not reality. You might as well believe Harry Potter.
Quote
The theory of evolution so wonderfully explains how we got to be how we are today but has no idea how we started out in the first place other than everything had to be just right and the right substances present and then KAPOW! life happens (still doesn't explain where the substances came from in the first place).
Then put your favourite god in that hole, if you like. Plenty of people do. Evolution is more consistent with reality than your theory of creation.
Quote
The fact that we share common DNA can also be evidence of a common Creator.
Downs Syndrome or any other disability is a result of LOSS of information not NEW information, which would be required for a fish to be born with a claw. Are you suggesting Downs Syndrome is evidence of evolution or evolution in action?
Incorrect. You said the production of new information of variation was impossible. Down syndrome is where there an extra 21st chromosome. If this is not adding information, I'm not sure what is.
Quote
God doesn't need a creator as He as always been – not measurable by time since He created it and is outside it. The evidence of God is Jesus the "God-man" (fully God and fully man) who walked this Earth and died for our sins. He was there at the beginning and witnessed Creation first hand and preserved a record of this in the Bible, the true Word of God.
That's a cop-out! You can't attack logical arguments with arguments that rely on "revealed truth". From a logical point of view, your favourite god having existed forever is just as likely as the universe "just happening".
Your answers are "god dunnit". Science's answers are "we're working on it, and likely will be for a while". One is intellectually stimulating, the other is for fanatics only, relies on you putting unfounded faith in a cultural artifact and essentially reduces you to a religious fanatic unwilling to take things as they are in the world but instead twisting them and claiming they prove God.
there he goes. one of god’s own prototypes: some kind of high-powered mutant never even considered for mass production. too weird to live and too rare to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would rather see humankind discover how the planet formed, and not be told what to think and simply accept it without testing.
evolution doesn't disproove god's existance. It merely captures the zetigeist and the people who wrote this bible. Their explainations to questions they had no way of ever answering.
God did not create us as intelligent, independant, smart, free thinking beings to live in line and under control, thats a socially constructed world, not God's. He taught us to be loving and respectful of one another, but not to be under control. which is why I for one, refuse creationism. just doing what I am told to think, with evolution I can see the common traits of different species and the archaology and skeletons/fossils of intermediate species over the millenia. I can see it for myself.
there are cultures and religons that teach their god made the earth from the inside of a giant eggshell, or made man from the flesh in his thighs, but we dont accept those ideas... just the christian version that our culture and society supports. I cant live like that, its unfufilling to not fully comprehend, to just accept someone elses story from centuries ago.
Also I want to point out Downs syndrome isnt the result of a loss of genetic information, it is a result of an EXTRA chromasome, not a lack of one. Mutation works both ways.
21/08/04 :: 20/12/04 :: 22/11/06 :: 16/06/07 :: 16/08/08 :: 28/08/11
Have you seen fattys leg? Its fucking fucked! :: Matt
ZAFO!
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC
Creationists do not have all the answers and freely admit this but we are trying to interpret what we see in the present with what we believe to be true about the past (i.e. the Bible). Evolution looks at what's going on now and says well this must always have happened; they say the present is the key to the past.
Which is surely the right way to go? Building things on belief about the past is subject to the belief falling down; building things based on what we know to be true right now is not belief and is as such much more reliable. Starting with fact and working backwards has to be more reliable than starting with belief and shoehorning the world into it.
there he goes. one of god’s own prototypes: some kind of high-powered mutant never even considered for mass production. too weird to live and too rare to die.
|
|
|
can we just state, we are talking about "human" evolution; that has not been proved as fact, no matter if you say it is.
how can say with so much confidence that the earth and the universe was created by "emergent" behaviour? where did you get this information from, did someone witness it? did Aliens observing it write it down on Golden tablets and bury it in mesopatamia? i just have no idea how tiny man who is dwarfed by something like the sea, let alone, the world, galaxy or universe can say; WAIT, this is how it was done.
has this evidence revealed itself to you so you can say with confidence; with a gun to your head = this is true, i can think nothing else.
please explain?
Christians believe in God, because he has revealed himself to us. you might say "prove it", but the thing is, that until you open yourself and let God reveal himself to you, you wont believe.
the creation of the world doesnt reveal itself to you; it is undocumented past (according to you), so how on earth can you draw conclusions being so distant in the future and not even understanding how to cure Cancer or AIDS, we can obviously work out how the universe works.
because God revealed himself to us, and we know it to be a 100% true and would take it to death, we trust! can you do the same? and our living all-powerful God says he made it all, and we have no reason to doubt him.
|
|
|
To takkaria - No, evolution is not fact; do you have a grasp of what evolution teaches? Farmers (or whoever) artificially selecting which animals to breed for the best offspring is not evolution, it is artificial selection. My parents' producing me is not evolution it is reproduction.
Both examples you gave are one kind of "species" producing offspring that is of the same kind, one was by artificial selection an done by sexual reproduction.
Evolution of one species to another (i.e. fish to reptiles) is NOT FACT CANNOT be OBSERVED and has NOT been PROVEN – there are NO intermediate species or "missing links" to give it the common title.
There are many issues and assumptions with radiometric dating methods; for example, new rock formations from volcanoes, which are known to be less than fifty years old, have given ages ranging from 35,000 years to 2.8 million years!
I'll group your next two points in one if I may. Yes science is not a religion but evolution is a belief system about the past but by your own acknowledgement it cannot explain our origins or the origins of anything around us. So evolution says we all have a common ancestor but we don't know how that came into being. Can you not see how deeply flawed that is?
I will ignore your "spaghetti" comments because this is mainly a serious discussion, if you want it to become a stupid name calling thread I'm sure we could sort something out.
IF Downs Syndrome is the result of new information (which I don't believe it is) are you saying this is evolution in action? If so how is this evolving us? How is it making us better? Are the next sets of humans on the evolutionary scale all going to have Downs?
I would appreciate it if you didn't call my faith unfounded and just because I put my faith in the living God who doesn't lie rather than fallible man does not make me a fanatic. I am perfectly willing to take the world as it is and supply the answers as to why the world is as it is.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Downs syndrome isnt proof of evolution in action, its an example of mutations caused by new information. It isnt impossible. as stated in that weblink someone gave ages ago, therefore opening the possibility that new information could in fact be possible to aquire.
I apologise if i called your faith unfounded, that wasnt supposed to be offensive just in my veiw nothing can be prooved. everything is unfounded so, sorry about that 
Wembley Arena 22/11/06
Wembley Stadium 16/06/07
|
|
|
Eh? Were you posting on someone elses username?
Yeah, I say again IF it is new information (I think it is a copying mistake) it only causes degeneration. Even on the off chance that the mutation is beneficial it is still a decrease in nformation.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
(sorry that was meee (holly) screeny, sorry haha)
Wembley Arena 22/11/06
Wembley Stadium 16/06/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC
I would appreciate it if you didn't call my faith unfounded and just because I put my faith in the living God who doesn't lie rather than fallible man does not make me a fanatic. I am perfectly willing to take the world as it is and supply the answers as to why the world is as it is.
Of course your faith is unfounded: all faith, regardless of religion, is unfounded, otherwise it wouldn't be faith - it would be fact.
130200Bristol 250600Glastonbury 080401Notts 190801VFest 011101Leicester 240802Reading 281103Nottingham 031203NEC 050604RockAmRing 201204EarlsCourt 280606ShepB 200806Lowlands 181106Sheffield 221106Wembley 160607Wembley 101109NIA 280811Reading 301012LG
|
|
|
Quote
KradBlade :
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html
Interesting reading..
pretty interesting, but it pretty much applies to most organized mainstream religons, not just christianity.
Wembley Arena 22/11/06
Wembley Stadium 16/06/07
|
|
|
Quote
Evolution is not observable, bacteria becoming a different kind of bacteria is not evolution – I don't know what your idea of evolution is but mine is one species turning into another and this has simply not been proven.
Er .. yes it has, otherwise every species known (including man) would appear throughout the entire fossil record. They don't.
130200Bristol 250600Glastonbury 080401Notts 190801VFest 011101Leicester 240802Reading 281103Nottingham 031203NEC 050604RockAmRing 201204EarlsCourt 280606ShepB 200806Lowlands 181106Sheffield 221106Wembley 160607Wembley 101109NIA 280811Reading 301012LG
|
|
|
No 'missing links'? I would classify neanderthols in this group. Simple because they have a more humanoid shape than apes, a more ape-like shape than humans and died out because they were not as well adapted as the humans (their offspring). there were findings recently about this actually, I will try to find them for you. Evolution is clearly happening. It's like language, we adopt new language and classify it as English still. Yet retrospectively we can see Old English, Middle English and Modern English. If we look at a human 3000 years ago and compare it to one today, there will be many differences, nevermind the clothes and music.
[url=[/url]
|
|
|
shark whales are exactly like whales. same shape, same size, same set up. but one is a fish, and the other is a mammal. think about that before you say, oh, neanderthals are very similar to humans, they must be related some how.
to simuse. a Christians faith is different. we can have a personal relationship with God. in that way it is more founded than any other religion; Islam does not have that, Judaism doesnt have that, the various beliefs in Hinduism dont have that. the only other religion that probably has that is Satanism, but its a shame they're on the losing side.
faith is a highly molested word. this is faith; to put your trust in something. to put your trust in something, it has to be revealed. Jesus Christ is revealed to all Christians; we have faith, we trust in him. however, nothing / nobody is personally revealed in any other religion, they have no personal experience; do they really have faith then?
evolution, as you have said, hasnt fully been revealed; how can it be trusted then?
and dont say, Jesus has not been revealed to me, how can it be true? because if he had been revealed to you, you'd be a Christan brother.
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
There are many issues and assumptions with radiometric dating methods; for example, new rock formations from volcanoes, which are known to be less than fifty years old, have given ages ranging from 35,000 years to 2.8 million years!
That's because it gives off so much carbon dioxide. It would obviously bias the results.
Quote
I'll group your next two points in one if I may. Yes science is not a religion but evolution is a belief system about the past but by your own acknowledgement it cannot explain our origins or the origins of anything around us. So evolution says we all have a common ancestor but we don't know how that came into being. Can you not see how deeply flawed that is?
No, I can't.
Quote
I will ignore your "spaghetti" comments because this is mainly a serious discussion, if you want it to become a stupid name calling thread I'm sure we could sort something out.
Honestly: what is the difference between me believeing I have a connection to the supreme creator, His Noodly Self, who lets me know that evolution is what happened and that the universe was created 3.7 billion years ago, and you claiming what you claim? You could be saying what you're saying just to wind me up for all I know.
Quote
IF Downs Syndrome is the result of new information (which I don't believe it is) are you saying this is evolution in action? If so how is this evolving us? How is it making us better? Are the next sets of humans on the evolutionary scale all going to have Downs?
Evolution does not mean to make better. It means to change. As above mentioned, it is showing that new information can come into existence, contradicting the premise on which you base your devolution claim.
there he goes. one of god’s own prototypes: some kind of high-powered mutant never even considered for mass production. too weird to live and too rare to die.
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
There's only one set of evidence, evolutionists, creationists and anyone else you care to mention all have the same Earth, fossils, animals etc. to work with. It is our interpretation of this evidence that differs and I believe it better fits with God creating everything about 6,000 years ago than of millions of years of earth history.
Except your interpretation is based on pseudo science and personal uniformed gut feeling. I am sure you are aware of tax evasionist and creationist Kent Hovind, he made certain claims about his scientific credentials, and it turned out that his degree was from a Bible college. I am almost certain that there doesn't exist a single real scientist who supports young earth creationism. This is because the two mindsets are mutually exclusive. Period.
Quote
This leads nicely onto your next point that says it is outside sciences boundaries to explain where the matter came from! What?!? And people accuse Christians saying "God did it" is a cop out, give me a break.
Saying that we don't know how something happened and are unsure whether we will ever be able to know isn't a cop out. Why do you seem to expect that a worldview has to have an explanation for everything in order for it to be plausible?
The important difference is that science says it doesn't know the answer to a question and doesn't attempt to answer it with some wild speculation, whilst theism just fills any holes with a God. We used not to know how lighting came about, so it was an act of God. Would you say a scientist were a cop out if he said 1000 years ago that we may never be able to know how lighting comes about?
Quote
You then go on to say (regarding the origin of life): -
" There isn't a solid consensus on this yet. However, the theory goes that the first life would have started the moment at which the right chemical substances were present in the right proportions and situation to react with each other and form the mitochondria, or other building blocks of life. But honestly, most people don't feel we can answer this yet. It is an acknowledged hole."
The origin of life (ambiogenesis) is completely separate issue from evolution, as I am sure you know. He was just putting forward an theory which isn't well enough supported yet, unlike the theory of evolution which is supported and fits in with every single piece of pertinent evidence.
Quote
An acknowledged hole!!! Leading candidate for understatement of the year right there! At least the Bible tells us where we came from, why we are here and where we are going.
life happens (still doesn't explain where the substances came from in the first place).
Just because something claims to explain everything, whilst something else claims to have limited knowledge isn't an argument for choosing the former over the latter. In fact, in my experience something which claims to have the answer to everything is usually further from the truth than something which honestly admits it can't know everything: "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance".
I am sure this is obvious to you, and you are probably suitably embarassed at ever having suggested otherwise.
|
|
|
thats not a very intelligent comment; the "id be better off following something that claims not to be perfect than something that does" one.
ill let you reflect on the intelligence of your last paragraph; maybe you'll be "suitably embarassed" at the stupidity of such a statement.
of course being unsure is a cop out, why would you try and be sure about something when theoretically it is impossible on the premise that you're running with? why on earth would you believe something if you're unsure? sounds like "blind faith" to me.
this is the thing about human evolution; no one can talk about it with authority. no one has witnessed it, no one ever will (even if you believe it or not). Christians can talk with authority, because God has let his plans known to us through his Spirit and his Word.
it might interest you to know that a theological degree can double as a historical one as well. so before you write off Kent Hovind, think about the rules that the system works with.
i respect that man much more, for going out and telling it, in 100% certainty what the Bible says (even if he got an embarassing slot on the Ali-G show). other than limp-wristed evolutionists who flow with the mainstream and say well "we guess this is probably 80% fact".
if it is not 100%, it aint fact brothers.
fact is in no way subjective, and God has laid down the fact. there are two ways to go with it; ignore and place all your trust in unreliable mortal mankind, or worship the everlasting Creator.
it seems most of you have made your choice, but there's still time to welcome a change. i expect that most of you won't hold these views to the grave.
|
|
|
Quote
nat smythe :
this is the thing about human evolution; no one can talk about it with authority. no one has witnessed it, no one ever will (even if you believe it or not). Christians can talk with authority, because God has let his plans known to us through his Spirit and his Word.
Here again, we have gone back to the point where Neither party can in fact talk with authority because, as you wisely put it, with the creation theory, No one has witnessed it. no one ever will, (even if you beleive it or not).
If the creation theory was correct, it would mean man was created after the earth and its oceans and its days and nights, man did not witness the creation, and it was man (although inspired by god, the bible was still personal accounts from mortal men) who wrote the bible. Where is the authority there?
both theories are unconfirmed, as of this moment in time. Unfortunately, evolutionism works through the ingestion of new information, and learning and dating and theorising the physical, archaeological evidence we are given.
Creationism seems to work, from what I have seen in the websites some creationist supporters have so far posted, creationism works by picking the holes in the evolution theory, where our understanding isnt full, as said above, 1000 years ago, lightning was an argument towards the existance of god, because no one could explain it. Not the case nowadays though.
21/08/04 :: 20/12/04 :: 22/11/06 :: 16/06/07 :: 16/08/08 :: 28/08/11
Have you seen fattys leg? Its fucking fucked! :: Matt
ZAFO!
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
How have humans "evolved" over the last 200 years?
They've got approximately 1 inch taller for a start. Obviously though, most evolutionary signs, you can't see.
Try
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html
Also
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
I also read an interesting theory, which I can't find now, that a larger female gene base is responsible for a wider genome divergence in recent years (more females per male being born, and less females dying in childbirth)
Here's another
http://www.genome.gov/12513430
More than 1,000 new genes have been identified, that arose in the human genome after our divergence with rodents some 75 million years ago. Most of these arose through recent gene duplications and are involved with immune, olfactory and reproductive functions.
Even if you don't believe this, how do you explain the easily observed phenomenon of beneficial gene divergence in humans?
Quote
Creationism seems to work, from what I have seen in the websites some creationist supporters have so far posted, creationism works by picking the holes in the evolution theory, where our understanding isnt full, as said above, 1000 years ago, lightning was an argument towards the existance of god, because no one could explain it. Not the case nowadays though.
I think I mentioned gravity earlier, as well. I could say "Personally, I think that everything is connected to the earth by giant invisible rubber bands that exist in a fourth dimension. Now you prove that isn't true." and I would be using exactly the same tactics as Creationists.
130200Bristol 250600Glastonbury 080401Notts 190801VFest 011101Leicester 240802Reading 281103Nottingham 031203NEC 050604RockAmRing 201204EarlsCourt 280606ShepB 200806Lowlands 181106Sheffield 221106Wembley 160607Wembley 101109NIA 280811Reading 301012LG
|
|
|
Quote
nat smythe :
thats not a very intelligent comment; the "id be better off following something that claims not to be perfect than something that does" one.
ill let you reflect on the intelligence of your last paragraph; maybe you'll be "suitably embarassed" at the stupidity of such a statement.
Well for one I never said that, I said that: "in my experience something which claims to have the answer to everything is usually further from the truth than something which honestly admits it can't know everything". It appears you didn't really understand what I was trying to say. For example Dr. Phil or a self help book might claim to be able to solve all your problems, this is probably not true.
A theory which explains everything by invoking a unprovable god may well be right, but we have no reason for believing in it. The only way one can come to such a belief is to turn one's mind for a second and really believe. I want to believe that Arsenal are the most virtuous football team in the UK, and althought in my idiocy I sometimes do believe this, I know in reality that it is not true.
Quote
of course being unsure is a cop out, why would you try and be sure about something when theoretically it is impossible on the premise that you're running with? why on earth would you believe something if you're unsure? sounds like "blind faith" to me.
this is the thing about human evolution; no one can talk about it with authority. no one has witnessed it, no one ever will (even if you believe it or not). Christians can talk with authority, because God has let his plans known to us through his Spirit and his Word.
it might interest you to know that a theological degree can double as a historical one as well. so before you write off Kent Hovind, think about the rules that the system works with.
i respect that man much more, for going out and telling it, in 100% certainty what the Bible says (even if he got an embarassing slot on the Ali-G show). other than limp-wristed evolutionists who flow with the mainstream and say well "we guess this is probably 80% fact".
if it is not 100%, it aint fact brothers.
fact is in no way subjective, and God has laid down the fact. there are two ways to go with it; ignore and place all your trust in unreliable mortal mankind, or worship the everlasting Creator.
it seems most of you have made your choice, but there's still time to welcome a change. i expect that most of you won't hold these views to the grave.
One of your fundamental arguments against evolution (science) and for creationism seems to be that your theory claims to be divine truth and can explain everything, whilst mine is just the idea which is best supported by the evidence we have collected thus far.
You are missing the most important point! Evolution isn't 80% fact and 20% fabrication, everything that is accepted science at this point in time is fact. It is the best available theory explaining the universe based on the available evidence. In some point in the future it may all be debunked, but that is no reason to dismiss it at this point in time when it is the best explanation! For example Newton's gravitation has been replaced by a more expansive theory, this in no way means that people who accepted gravitation before th 20th Century were wrong to do so. They were just following the best available theory at the time.
I am all for you believing in a god, but please stop trying to justify it with facile statements like this: "ignore and place all your trust in unreliable mortal mankind, or worship the everlasting Creator." Just because it may feel nicer to believe in a god and make for an alltogether cosier world isn't an argument for believeing in god. Believe in god or don't, I don't think there is any way of justifying either standpoint completely.
Oh and btw, Kent Hovind is a convicted tax evasionist, I don't want to resort to ad hominems, but if he lies about taxes and several other "facts" in his lectures, then this is good enough reason for me to doubt everything he says.
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
There's only one set of evidence, evolutionists, creationists and anyone else you care to mention all have the same Earth, fossils, animals etc. to work with. It is our interpretation of this evidence that differs and I believe it better fits with God creating everything about 6,000 years ago than of millions of years of earth history.
And can we nail this one, please?
If you turn round to me and say "I believe that God created the universe 5 billion years ago" or whatever, that's one thing - that's what we're debating now.
But it is provable that the universe existed more than 6,000 years ago. Not a belief - provable.
*Fossil record
*Carbon dating
*You are standing on rocks that would have needed more than 6,000 years to form.
*How could we photograph stars that are more than 6,000 light years away?
etc.
130200Bristol 250600Glastonbury 080401Notts 190801VFest 011101Leicester 240802Reading 281103Nottingham 031203NEC 050604RockAmRing 201204EarlsCourt 280606ShepB 200806Lowlands 181106Sheffield 221106Wembley 160607Wembley 101109NIA 280811Reading 301012LG
|
