Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation
- Thread starter BigBirdZ28
- Start date
adamsj
Gaint Hobbit!
I believe that Gods caused the Big bang and then Evolution did it is part!
I am a Christian!
I am a Christian!
"Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason so many mammoths are found half-buried in mud at the Arctic circle might be because they were washed in that direction by the Flood? And then deposited on the shoreline by either the run-off or the tide? And half-buried by those very same forces? Gosh, that almost makes sense, in a perfectly logical way... Still, it involves God, so we'll have to invent another way......whether or not it's even vaguely scientific when we're done, if it doesn't involve God, it'll have to be true."
More likely, the Earth's crust slipped and the equatorial regions were translocated and buried under the arctic and antarctic regions. We can see the remains of plants and trees at the poles that could only have come from tropical regions. This is a fact. Physicists will tell you that the Earths magnetic poles have reversed thousands of times, and there have been many cataclysmic periods in Earths history. Maybe an massive and uneven accumulation of ice at the poles causes the solid crust to slip on the lava foundations - this is something that Einstein thought quite credible.
A nice side effect being, if this did occur and the ice-laden Poles found themselves centrifugally translocated to the equator, what would happen to the ice? Wouldn't there be a massive flood of melt-ice? Yes indeed.
And there is plenty of evidence that the Antarctic was free of ice at some stage or other of it's existence.
Like all good science, this is only a theory, but I like the sound of it.
But of course, since it doesn't mention it in the Bible or involve God it can't possibly be true, can it?. No, it must have been just the Flood, sent by God.
More likely, the Earth's crust slipped and the equatorial regions were translocated and buried under the arctic and antarctic regions. We can see the remains of plants and trees at the poles that could only have come from tropical regions. This is a fact. Physicists will tell you that the Earths magnetic poles have reversed thousands of times, and there have been many cataclysmic periods in Earths history. Maybe an massive and uneven accumulation of ice at the poles causes the solid crust to slip on the lava foundations - this is something that Einstein thought quite credible.
A nice side effect being, if this did occur and the ice-laden Poles found themselves centrifugally translocated to the equator, what would happen to the ice? Wouldn't there be a massive flood of melt-ice? Yes indeed.
And there is plenty of evidence that the Antarctic was free of ice at some stage or other of it's existence.
Like all good science, this is only a theory, but I like the sound of it.
But of course, since it doesn't mention it in the Bible or involve God it can't possibly be true, can it?. No, it must have been just the Flood, sent by God.
Sixchan
Emperor
Firstly,If the poles were to melt it wouldn't make a difference. IIRC, 90% of polar ice is already underwater, and if you think back to chemistry class you'll know water expands when it freezes, so...
Seconly, if the poles were at the equator losing ice and melting, the equator would be at the poles, gaining ice and freezing. There would be very little change.
Seconly, if the poles were at the equator losing ice and melting, the equator would be at the poles, gaining ice and freezing. There would be very little change.
This helps back up my point exactly, that before the global flood there was a tropical climate over the whole earth. That makes more sense than such a sudden and unexplained shift in the earth's crust.
-october-
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
So, you don't think that water in sufficient amount to cover Mt Everest to a depth of about twenty fathoms would have enough turbulence to scour some topsoil?
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason so many mammoths are found half-buried in mud at the Arctic circle might be because they were washed in that direction by the Flood? And then deposited on the shoreline by either the run-off or the tide? And half-buried by those very same forces? Gosh, that almost makes sense, in a perfectly logical way...Still, it involves God, so we'll have to invent another way...
(S)cience.
First of all, I am talking about fossils, which are not found in topsoil, they are found in rock.
Second it occurs to me that a mammoth could fall into the mud, get trapped and then be frozen there as the temperature changed. It does not occur to me that something that hairy got washed from a warm region to that particular area and deposited by any run off or tide.
The problem is that you accept as basic fact that Mt. Everest was covered with 20 fathoms of water. Your proof is the bible. That is fine, but I'm just not going to buy that that happened. Hence, we will continue to have differences on this.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
So it is more likely that the earth did things of a bizarre nature, than that a large flood occurred? A flood whose source waters, prior to that, were overhead, as water vapor, thereby neatly explaining longevity of early men, the worldwide tropical climate, etc...
So a recent, massive shift in the earth's axis, with no remaining tell-tale wobble(IE it magically settled down in an infinitesemal paltry few thousand years, a mayfly's life by astronomical view) that only explains the odd locations of tropical plants, is more likely than a single explanation that covers that, and longevity, and climate, and this, and that, and the other thing?
I think you just cut yourself shaving with Ockham's Razor...
And will only explain one thing. The odd location of tropical fossils.
And, as was pointed out earlier, the relocated tropics would freeze just as fast, and no flooding would occur.
Yeah, back when most of the ice covering it now was water vapor overhead, trapping in heat and preventing aging from UV radiation(and, oh yeah, utterly invalidating radioisotope dating methods).
Well, when I'm offered two explanations for something, both of which have a few points of merit, and one is very simple and logical, and the other is complex as all get-out, and convoluted as the Gordian Knot, I choose the simple explanation.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Are you that afraid of people with open eyes? People who think for themselves, rather than mindlessly accepting as gospel any drivel set before them by a man in a white coat?
VoodooAce
Emperor
Oh, noooo, its FAR more likely the work of a deity....a figment of someobody's imagination.
Again, it has to be that deity. And, of course, its the deity YOU happen to believe in if, for no other reason, than where you happened to be born. If you were born in Iran, you'd be Muslim, arguing in favor of Allah, rather than the deity you now blindly follow.
When I'm offered two explanations, one of which has few points of merrit, the other based solely on superstition, I go with the one that has ANY merits at all.
I had to read this one a couple times.....I thought maybe you'd finally seen the error of your ways. I thought it read...."People who think for themselves, rather than mindlessly accepting the gospel".
Well, I'm much more likely to believe somebody that researches, experiments and SEARCHES for the truth, rather that some guy that reads it from a book and TELLS ME what to think....
And you accuse believers in Science of blindly following something as gospel???????
God, that's funny.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
You use the Internet. You play Civ. You must, by default, have seen at least a couple of Monty Python episodes. Do you realise that simply gainsaying me does not constitute an argument?Originally posted by VoodooAce
Nope. Doesn't make sense to me, FL2. Not at all.
I think you're trying far too hard to get fact and events to mesh with what you BELIEVE.
(G)od
Look at my second to last post. An argument is offered. A point made by someone else is refuted in fairly clear language, and a counterpoint is made. That is an argument.
Why don't you try it?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
VooDooAce, you do more to discredit yourself than anyone else ever could. Thank you so much for making yourself a non sequitir.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Couldn't have time that any better, huh? 
I didn't time it that way to make you look foolish.....well, not on purpose, anyway.
I didn't time it that way to make you look foolish.....well, not on purpose, anyway.
VoodooAce
Emperor
FL2, I have another statement you can argue.
You would have me believe that you would have bought into the Copernican theory, and would have been burned at the stake clutching your bible......chained to it, I think you said.
Other times you argue semantics....'That's Dogma, not Christianity'....or 'its Dogma that changes, not Christianity'.
Or, you just make the square peg work scientists have done fit into your round holes of religion.
Let me ask you. Has science proven anything during the last 500 years that you would have argued against in 1500 of the common era? Things that you would have explained away with God or the Bible or religion back then?
If so, can you not admit that there are things yet to be proven? Things you think can be explained based on this book or that superstition?
Just a thought for you to ponder should that dastardly myopia you suffer from clear up.
You would have me believe that you would have bought into the Copernican theory, and would have been burned at the stake clutching your bible......chained to it, I think you said.
Other times you argue semantics....'That's Dogma, not Christianity'....or 'its Dogma that changes, not Christianity'.
Or, you just make the square peg work scientists have done fit into your round holes of religion.
Let me ask you. Has science proven anything during the last 500 years that you would have argued against in 1500 of the common era? Things that you would have explained away with God or the Bible or religion back then?
If so, can you not admit that there are things yet to be proven? Things you think can be explained based on this book or that superstition?
Just a thought for you to ponder should that dastardly myopia you suffer from clear up.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I'm not the one that looks foolish in that exchange.Originally posted by VoodooAce
Couldn't have time that any better, huh?
I didn't time it that way to make you look foolish.....well, not on purpose, anyway.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
No, I said I wouldn't have cared, because it was irrelevant to the Bible's message. If the only people arguing against it were the people I was living in mortal terror of finding out I owned and was reading a Bible, I probably would have said nothing. The man wasn't preaching the word of God, just pointing out a scientific discovery. That's truth, but not a truth worth dying over. I may well have agreed with him, based only on his opposition and what I thought of them. But I surely wouldn't have risked my life to say so.
To make that clearer: Had I been caught in possession of a Bible back then, I would have been burnt at the stake by the Catholic Church, not for agreeing with Copernicus, but for OWNING AND READING A BIBLE. Note that, had I been caught, as they were piling up the wood, I might well have tried saying things like 'Copernicus is right!', just to get even. Assuming they didn't rip my 'lying' tongue out of my head first... More likely though, I would have preached to the crowd that gathered for the bonfire. What the hey, it's not like they can burn me twice. Would have been a short sermon though...
It is not at all a semantic argument. The dogma of the Catholic Church bears as much resemblance to Christianity as a stick figure does to a charcoal sketch. They're just vaguely similar enough to cloud the issue, which was Satan's whole point in the first place.
Nice imagery. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that all science is a round peg. Only Science is a square peg...
No. Everything that science has PROVEN in no way contradicts the Bible's message. Further, many of the things that science has proven overlap with what the Bible says:Originally posted by VoodooAce
Let me ask you. Has science proven anything during the last 500 years that you would have argued against in 1500 of the common era? Things that you would have explained away with God or the Bible or religion back then?
Yes, the universe had a beginning.
Yes, the heavens(IE stars and galaxies and such) are mentioned before the earth, so planets came last in that category.
Yes, the sea got life first, then the land, plants first, then animals.
The Bible whole-heartedly concurs with science in these regards.
Then there is other stuff science has proven:
Yes, iron and oxygen react with each other to form rust. I've seen it for myself, I've seen the math. The Bible has nothing to say one way or the other, so thanks for the extra knowledge. Ditto for algebra, rocket science, computers, and yogurt. Thank you scientists everywhere for your manifold contributions to the quality of life.
But now let's leave reality, and check into the FantasyLand Hotel.
Evolution? The Ice Age? Come on!! The first one is based on two naturally occurring phenomena doing the exact opposite of what they actually do, and the second is an assumption based on the first being true, and both are solely supported by peer review that is only accepted from those who study in these fields.
Right now I am unconvinced that man will ever conquer gravity or interstellar travel. Should someone come up with a useful anti-gravity machine, and thereby pave the way for interstellar travel, I will gladly eat those words. If.Originally posted by VoodooAce
If so, can you not admit that there are things yet to be proven? Things you think can be explained based on this book or that superstition?
Just a thought for you to ponder should that dastardly myopia you suffer from clear up.
You seem to be basing your opinion of Christianity on the actions of groups of blatantly un-Christian people who claim to be Christians, rather that basing your opinion on its message. Think what you want to of the Church, or any of the other 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins false Christianity. I despise their lies as well. But the truth that leads to eternal life, the truth that shall set all who listen free, has nothing to do with them.
You're not guilty of ignoring the message because the messenger is displeasing to the eye. On the contrary, you've apparently never seen the message, because a false message bearer has convinced you that there is no message to see.
There is a message. Stop listening to the man in the chicken suit, squawking and clowning your attention away from it. He doesn't like the message, so he is trying to distract you from it, by making up a false one that looks like it on the surface, and then discrediting even that with his antics.
Open YOUR eyes. See the clown for what he is. The right hand of Satan, there to decieve you. Don't let them tell you what the message is, find out for yourself.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Your opinion of God, even supported by your sarcasm as it is, is not nearly a sufficient refutation of the point I made. Try again.Originally posted by VoodooAce
Oh, noooo, its FAR more likely the work of a deity....a figment of someobody's imagination.
Actually, had I been born in the Middle East, I'd probably be a secular humanist, and a very unhappy one at that.
Again, an attempt at refutation that is based soley upon your opinion of God, and not supported by any sort of evidence. At least I am using a document, however maligned by those who support other theories, as evidence. You are basing your objections solely upon your own opinions.
Ah, more sarcasm, backed by opinion. A heady argument indeed!
Experiments? Experiments? Oh, I double-dog DARE you to try to back that claim up. Show me one experiment that any evolutionary biologist or IceAger has performed. ONE.
There are scientists, who do what you said above, and then there are Scientists, who do part of it, and fake the rest. The first group is okay by me, the second group are nothing but charlatans.
Yes, I absolutely do. I've demonstrated why I think so, now prove me wrong.Originally posted by VoodooAce
And you accuse believers in Science of blindly following something as gospel???????
God, that's funny.
Greadius
:yeah:
People still believe in Creation
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Yep, and they still SPAM too. 
Dogberry
****** of the Pack
I find no contradiction in belief in God & recognising the theory of Evolution as the most plausible means of reconstructing the history of life on this planet. To me, evolution is simply God's way of helping things along.
Fearless... you into "Orcish" now ?
Dog
Fearless... you into "Orcish" now ?
Dog
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I would like to hear from any non-Christian posters (if there is any)
Are there any people of the Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu faiths or even Pagans
Out there who would like to give us their view on the creation / evolution debate?
I would like to hear some different views.
PS
It is amusing to see this thread surviving so long!
Are there any people of the Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu faiths or even Pagans
Out there who would like to give us their view on the creation / evolution debate?
I would like to hear some different views.
PS
It is amusing to see this thread surviving so long!
Similar threads
- Poll
