Should we take the bible literal?

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by nihilistic


Don't pull that majority/minority crap. The furor is over the fact that even though your theories have been completely debunked by reason numerous times, you still cling to them and insist upon others accepting your unsupported and infantile "facts" rather than other's thoughtful and substantiated "opinion".

I guess the difference you and them is that the court lawyers and scientists actually have a case, and perhaps an inkling of intelligence.

show me where i tried to force my views on someone else . I try my best to respect others but just because I'm a creationist doesn't make me stupid and not thinking . to say that we creationists has no evidence is a bad understatement . Not only has Jesus Christ totally change my life but also so many in my church.
Some in my church was ex-prisoners, ex-drunks , even ex-homosexuals and some who was raised in church . the fact that the flood is recorded by some many different people and language is evidence that supports the creationists claimn . In a court of law these are called witnesses.( God uses people as His witness not science.) then there is the apostles who claims to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and give their lives preach that . now you can claim that these witness was false witness if you like but they are witness none the least. so my evidence are other christians and the bible while yours is evolutionists . I choose to believe the Bible and other Christians . of course i know some christians believes evolution (and I'm not at odds if they are some here). but I sure a christian (who believes evolution )wouldn't insult another christian ( who believes in creation) and vise versa.

personally I believe God is going to creat a new heaven and a new Earth in revelation so i have no problems believe he created just as Genesis describes it .( notice I respect the evolutionists and didn't debate in the evolutionist thread a few days ago)

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by Gothmog


Sedimentary rock by definition forms in layers perpendicular to the force of gravity. We have a number of independent dating methods that confirm that idea, there are places where the layers have been turned sideways due to large scale motions of the earth. If all you had to go on was dating 'up and down' that would be pretty shakey, but fortunately there are many independent dating methods that can be applied to any specific area or question.

Maybe I should just go and get some books on the dating methods.

Originally posted by Gothmog
That is simply wrong. The earliest theories of the solar system could predict most lunar and solar eclipses, but still put the earth in the center. We know now with great certainty that the sun is in the center of the solar system. The old theory has been disproven, but it had utility at the time. The reason why people went looking for an alternate theory had to do with things that the old theory got wrong, that is how science advances. You find something that the current theory is wrong about and create a new theory that explains all the evidence the old theory explained, and that can explains whatever the current theory got wrong, and that predicts something new.

Yes, those theories could work because the moon gose around the earth, so that part of the theory was right.

Originally posted by Gothmog
, that would mean that the halo was not formed from Polonium. There would necessarily be Uranium, as well as numerous other elements from the Uranium decay chain in very specific and well known ratios. Whether or not the granite formed fast has no bearing on that question.

Of course it could be that God created Polonium atoms in the granite for reasons I can not fathom, but that is not a useful theory and would tell us nothing even if we believed that to be true.

I'm going to get the book on this to see all of what he found. It could be that there is other ways for Polonium to form I don't think we know that yet.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Another day, another three pages of total crap!

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow

Appeal to ignorance! [Since you cannot disprove me, I must be correct.] A real scientist should know better!

well if there is anything i learn for this is the palaentologists will cuss anyone out who doen't agree with him.

we, on the other hand, should have learned long ago that you don't actually read anyone's posts.

the poll show a few days ago that most believe evolution so why all the angre over the minority

Christians aren't a minority, neither are stupid people. On this site or anywhere else Appeal to pity by the way. I stopped counting your fallacies long ago. But it's fun anyway

of course history points out the majority not always right.

For example, the Christian Church which said the Earth was flat and the Sun orbits the Earth.

I feel both sides has trouble proving by science they're right so the battle continues on.

Translation: I refuse to admit I've been successfully refuted because I have no more BS links to throw at my adversaries.

I seen holes in both theories so in the end most everybody will choose according to their beliefs no matter what anyone says.


Tacit admission that proof is superior to faith. Since creationism MUST rely on faith, you say [again and again] that science must too. If you admitted to yourself that science has more than mere faith behind it, you'd be admitting that science is superior.

P.S. scienctist are just like court lawyers . they try their best to make the facts fit their case to prove their side is right


Rich coming from you.

Why do you look to science to bolster your faith?

Because they subconsciously admit that logic and reason are superior to faith. That's why they try to use them in pathetic attempts to "prove" their religion by coopting existing "evidence".

If the earth is billions of years old it would have to start the size of a baseball because with all of the fossils it couldn't be possible.

The earth is exactly like a baseball. A baseball about 4000 miles thick IIRC. It has a thin "skin" of hard rock or crust [26 miles] and the rest is molten rock with only a small core of iron or nickel. Like a baseball: a [rubber?] core, yarn wrapped around it and then a [leather?] covering. Fossils have only been found in maybe the top 5 or 10 miles or so. Ask Carlos.

And if evolution is true howcome there are still apes, fish, lizards, who come everything hasn't evolved into actually civilizations and built magnificent cities?

Because evolution is not a ladder with only one possible destination. It is a tree in which there are many viable branches to climb. Evolution doesn't force organisms to become "smarter", it forces them to adapt better to their environments. Apes, fish, and lizards have all done that well, without needing clothes, cities, preachers, and other foolish accessories.

Also Christianity is the only religion ever to claim to have risen from the dead,

I rose from the dead too. So there.

My claim has EVEN MORE substantiation than yours - after all, I'm still around to testify directly!

I know that I am right and that you are wrong.

No comment necessary here.

show me where i tried to force my views on someone else .

Telling me I'll go to eternal torment if I don't believe what you do is pretty damn convincing, don't you think?

to say that we creationists has no evidence is a understatement .

I agree 100%

Not only has Jesus Christ totally change my life but also so many in my church.


Irrelevant. Appeal to consequence.

Some in my church was ex-prisoners, ex-drunks , even ex-homosexuals

Man those criminals - you were REALLY kind to let THEM in. And I think you REALLY showed your compassion when you let alcoholics in the door. But HOMOSEXUALS! Shouldn't you be drawing the line somewhere? A little tarring by association there doncha think?

the fact that the flood is recorded by some many different people and language is evidence that

Floods happen. Again, in the words of a famous sage: "No sh*t Sherlock!"

In a court of law these are called witnesses

If only we could reform our justice system so that witnesses would write down evidence, give it to 7 different people to mangle and translate through as many languages, and then submit their testimonies to the court 2000 years after the fact! I foresee a drastic change for the better in our legal system's effectiveness if we carried this out.

now you can claim that these witness was false witness if you like but they are witness none the least.

That's right, false witnesses.

so my evidence are other christians and the bible

Very reliable. Circular argument.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
to say that we creationists has no evidence is a understatement .

I agree 100%

That is so funny, I am extremely tempted to put it in my signature. In fact, I probably will.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


The Bible also says God made man.

Yes, but it didnt say his methods.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Another day, another three pages of total crap!

i agree completely! What the hell happened here?
This thread of misery has caused too many people to be banned. IT'S NOT WORTH IT!

 

[Smidlee]

AGAIN PONTIUTH PILUTE YOU HAVE CRITICIZE MY TYPING ERRORS . . if you are so smart you would know What i meant to say . I not that fast typing so I do make typing mistakes . so I think faster than i type .I'm still learning to typing so please forgive me

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

That's another difference between us: you actually take this whole debate seriously Lighten up man Then again, for the creationists, not only their entire worldview, but their supposed life-after-death experiences are all riding on whether they can convince us that birds came before reptiles

 

[Smidlee]

please stop criticising my typing I know my typing is bad and slow

 

[Gothmog]

so my evidence are other christians and the bible while yours is evolutionists

Actually the evidence for evolution is more than just witness, anyone can learn about the evidence - though it does take years of study, which I have completed. This is in direct contrast to taking other peoples word for it. That is how science progresses, by not taking anyones word. By actively trying to disprove other people's theories.

Maybe I should just go and get some books on the dating methods.

A fine idea, might I suggest books by people who actually employ the methods in question? You might not be ready for a graduate level textbook, but there are other useful accounts.

Yes, those theories could work because the moon gose around the earth, so that part of the theory was right.

Nope, those theories could work because one can do a mathematical coordinate transfomation that essentially puts the earth at the center. However, the math becomes much simpler if you put the sun at the center. One of the things that was especially hard to calculate with the old model was the way that planets 'turn around' in their path across the sky. If you put the sun in the center the explanation becomes obvious. A theory doesn't have to be 'true' to have predictive power, in fact I don't believe in absolute truth - but that is another topic.

It could be that there is other ways for Polonium to form I don't think we know that yet.

Actually the major decay pathways of all know elements are well understood. This research was done as part of the nuclear weapons research here in the US and elsewhere. Unless you are saying that God put the Plonium there, that I will not try to argue about. But again that is not a useful hypothesis.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Actually the evidence for evolution is more than just witness, anyone can learn about the evidence - though it does take years of study, which I have completed. This is in direct contrast to taking other peoples word for it. That is how science progresses, by not taking anyones word. By actively trying to disprove other people's theories.

Can you give a few examples of former theories or hypotheses relating to Evolution that have been disproved/discarded? Aside from the usual Lamarckian BS and all that

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
That's another difference between us: you actually take this whole debate seriously Lighten up man Then again, for the creationists, not only their entire worldview, but their supposed life-after-death experiences are all riding on whether they can convince us that birds came before reptiles

So does that mean that I have lost sleep for the past 3 days for nothing You were just pulling my leg!! ....

This thread has actually been quite a good one, I for one have learn't a few things from it even though it has strayed from the original topic.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Packer-Backer
I have only read the first and last page of this thread, but...

Why aren't you mocking the bloodthirty beasts otherwise known as Muslims. There are a couple things that you can't deny. Somebody on the first page said that the seven day creation was a metaphor for the billions of years of evolution. If the earth is billions of years old it would have to start the size of a baseball because with all of the fossils it couldn't be possible. And if evolution is true howcome there are still apes, fish, lizards, who come everything hasn't evolved into actually civilizations and built magnificent cities? There was lots of stuff that Darwin couldn't explain, like finding a animal reaching for a leaf off a tropical tree, frozen underneath layers of ice! Also Christianity is the only religion ever to claim to have risen from the dead, and Mohammad was openly a warmongerer while Jesus said that the hardest thing to do will be to love thy enemy. I know that I am right and that you are wrong.

Well, you have no understanding of how life and evolution works whatsoever. I'll be glad to explain - though it actually is a matter of thinking only for you.

you say, if there was evolution how come there still are apes, fish, lizards - may I add cows to that?

If every species would develop on inot human form - what would we eat?


Obviously, there still are aps because e.g. in the Congo Rain Forest, there were factors favoring gorillas! Imagine living there as a human - not easy. Gorillas OTOH live a pretty good life there - because they can live off leaves and can stand the rain.

And why would earth have to have started the site of a baseball? Care to explain please, because i simply do not see any logic in that statement.....

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by nihilistic


We are equal opportunity mockers of all imbecillic fundamentalists. It's usually the fundamentalists who like to single themselves out to try to pretend that they are specifically targeted.

Well said! Fundamentaists of any kind are usually bad for mankind, whether they blow up children with car bombs, beat their women for being women or further genocide and racial hate by literal adherence to a book. Whatever religious believe someone may have - if he turns intolerant he is a danger to human society.

Now, there is a huge difference between taking the bible literally and terrorism, but the underlying principles of fundamentaistic interpretation of religious belief are the same. So do no be surprised when I try to fight the beginnings!

to clarify: I do not want to suggest in any way that a creationist becomes a terrorist (just in case you realöly want to misunderstand me), but the stubborn denial of fact for religious reasons scares me! I always thought I lived in a society enlightened with openmindedness - the more i see of it the more I realize it is not true!

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Smidlee
the fact that the flood is recorded by some many different people and language is evidence that supports the creationists claimn .

A flood, not the flood - unless you think that repetition fo the same story counts.
And the fact that many peoples tell about a great flood can easily explained - above average floods happened every few hundred years. Now, following your logic, Germans talking about the Oderbruch flood threee years ago would also be evidence of the biblical flood -

then there is the apostles who claims to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and give their lives preach that .

heresay.

personally I believe God is going to creat a new heaven and a new Earth in revelation so i have no problems believe he created just as Genesis describes it .( notice I respect the evolutionists and didn't debate in the evolutionist thread a few days ago)

you are a noticable exception to the rule then! My personal experience is rather different: for example I spent 4 hours sitting dead tired at Salt Lake City airport this summer - and had to fend off 6(!) attacks by Mormons in that time. 6 times the same three chaps tried to chat me up about religion, 6 times did I have to tell them that I wanted to be left alone and sleep!


Also, you are right to critizise the harsh tone in this thread - I myself am guilty of it. But you also should see the reason: the poster I was harsh with insulted me by deliberately not reading my posts, but quoting them (or, maybe, by deliberately deciding to ignore the points I and otehrs made). If someone asks me a question I exopect him to listen if I take the time to answer - everything else is just impolite. And if that person answers my point with 'yeah, whatever', then comes back making the same BS claim two pages later I feel I have a right to be upset and (figuratively) raise my voice (within rules).

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Actually the evidence for evolution is more than just witness, anyone can learn about the evidence - though it does take years of study, which I have completed. This is in direct contrast to taking other peoples word for it. That is how science progresses, by not taking anyones word. By actively trying to disprove other people's theories.

Can you give a few examples of former theories or hypotheses relating to Evolution that have been disproved/discarded? Aside from the usual Lamarckian BS and all that

Actually, Darwin's theory as he wrote it has benn amended in so much detail (e.g. he coun't know about genes, only about their expression), his statements on the steady pace of evolution was wrong (it depends on the level you look at, mutation ratios are fairly constant for genes, but the changes between stabilizing and shifting/splitting pressures makes the speciaction on the macorlevel 'jump' - punctuated equilirium). Interestingly, Crationists do not seem to get the logic of this...

About once a year, we have a bible group here a thte museum, when a talk is given title 'Where Dariwn erred' or so. They never get it that some minor points of his theory were flawed... It is a lot of un, each time Just like that website I quoted above

 

[Gothmog]

Can you give a few examples of former theories or hypotheses relating to Evolution that have been disproved/discarded?

The basic theory that Darwin put forward was 'descent with modification', this is a very general statement but it has yet to be disproved. There have been major additions to the 'modification' part, for example it turns out that lateral gene transfer and viral insertions are both major forces for 'modification'. Darwin had no idea about that and could not have, to him descent was another way of saying 'reproduction'. There are many other areas that Darwin could not have known about - jumping genes, enzyme families, mutation hotspots, etc.

 

[Phydeaux]

never mind hehe.