Questions for creationists

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Here's a question that has always bothered me.

Let's say, thousands of years from now, we've colonized other worlds, many light-years away.

And then, surprise, Yeshua decides to make his return appearance to our insignificant little rock. The "Rapture".

What the hell happens to all the people who are on the other planets?

That would make God look dumb right?

The earth is not as ignificant as you'd like to think. According to the bible it isn't. And it does not talk about ppl from other worlds.

Thousands of year from now . And why won't Yeshua come back before that time? Cos he's dumb? The bible states the Yeshua comes back when the gospel has been preached all over the world. If it's going at today's rate it will take some time.

So in thousands of years from now we'll find planets which are actually livable? And we'll travel to those place at a speed higher than light?

Originally posted by Guynemer(As a side note, I have an almost overwhelming urge to rear-end those cars that have "WARNING: This car may be rendered driverless in case of Rapture" bumper stickers.)

Don't let it give you a heart attack

BTW, -troll Urban.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Big Dave
Yes, I can refute it. If evolution is the myth I believe it to be then Deistic Evolution is also false.

Believing something to be a myth does not constitute proof that it is a myth. Otherwise, we'd have disproved the existence of God ages ago.

[Goingonit]

Yeshua? Who is this guy?

[Lars-E]

God.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lars-E
God.

God the father or Jesus?

[mactbone]

Many of you talk about the big bang. And everything just "happened." If that is so, how was it possible? You place all the nessicary computer components in a bag, toss it around a bit, and wala!!! You have a computer!! hahaha, sorry, doesn't work.

Actually, according to the laws of probability, there is at least a one in whatever chance of that happening, and if there is one single chance, it will happn sometime. The odds of the big bang happening were probably incredibly small, yet, because the only way for us to have this discussion is if it happens, it is guaranteed to happen.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Lars-E

The earth is not as ignificant as you'd like to think. According to the bible it isn't. And it does not talk about ppl from other worlds.

Thousands of year from now . And why won't Yeshua come back before that time? Cos he's dumb? The bible states the Yeshua comes back when the gospel has been preached all over the world. If it's going at today's rate it will take some time.

So in thousands of years from now we'll find planets which are actually livable? And we'll travel to those place at a speed higher than light?

It's called a hypothetical question, Lars. And way to go not answering it; thinking of running for office?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MacTBone
because the only way for us to have this discussion is if it happens, it is guaranteed to happen.

The Anthropic Principle beats the probability argument any day of the week. Wutang!

[Seneca]

I've got one - if sin came into the world because humans have free will, and can choose to do right or wrong, do we still have free will in heaven?

And if we do, how do we know that sin won't come into heaven, and we'll be back in the same mess we are now?

OK, not really to do with creationism...

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Goingonit
God the father or Jesus?

Jesus.

[Goingonit]

Now it all makes sense.

[Lars-E]

Jesus is God according to christian theology. And it's Jesus who's coming back - the 2nd coming.

Jesus calls himself Jahve at least once in the NT.

Maybe we can discuss the trinity later. I have to go now.

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Ah, but it can be ascertained through various other reproducible phenomena.

Here is where we disagree. Yes, micro-evolution (changes within a species) is a proven fact. Moths "adapting" to polution in England, breeding dogs for various purposes, etc. are all fact.

However, I have yet to see one instance of (for example) any species of fish being bred into any species of mammal. This would be evidence under the scientific method. Scientists mixing chemicals in artificial envroments to get the effect they want, then postulating that those conditions must have been what the earth was like 4.5 billion years ago (an arbitrary figure) to "prove" their hypothesis is not science. It is circular reasoning.

I have not seen or heard of any intermediate forms between one species and another showing up in the fossile record. This would be evidence under the legal/historical method.

And you have not logically disproved it. You have just proved it irrelevant. Which it is.

I'm not sure what you now think is irrelevant. And if you think it is irrelevant then why did you bring it up in the first place?

No flames, trolls, or disrespect intended.

David

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Big Dave

However, I have yet to see one instance of (for example) any species of fish being bred into any species of mammal.

Evolution doesn't work that way

I have not seen or heard of any intermediate forms between one species and another showing up in the fossile record. This would be evidence under the legal/historical method.

There is a lot of evidence of this - one species involving into one or more new species. I am sure someone can provide a link.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Big Dave
Here is where we disagree. Yes, micro-evolution (changes within a species) is a proven fact. Moths "adapting" to polution in England, breeding dogs for various purposes, etc. are all fact.

However, I have yet to see one instance of (for example) any species of fish being bred into any species of mammal. This would be evidence under the scientific method. Scientists mixing chemicals in artificial envroments to get the effect they want, then postulating that those conditions must have been what the earth was like 4.5 billion years ago (an arbitrary figure) to "prove" their hypothesis is not science. It is circular reasoning.

I have not seen or heard of any intermediate forms between one species and another showing up in the fossile record. This would be evidence under the legal/historical method.

Well there's a couple of species of fish alive now that might be relics that are similar to the species of fish that first conquered land. There are certain fish that have lungs as well as gills (http://www.gearupchicago.org/Academy...h/lungfish.htm) . There are also fish that can "walk" around across small pieces of land from one pond to another. Examples of these are the mudskipper (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/32309.html) or the Climbing Perch (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/38187.html).

I think you are another of these creationists that has no real concept of the timescales involved. I realise that evolution cannot have happened in the timescales desribed by the Bible, which only goes to show that it is a work of fiction (like Dante's Inferno). Let's use a biblical date as a reference point. JC was supposedly born about 2000 years ago. Amphibians appear in the fossile record about 350 MILLION years ago, which is a 175000 longer ago than Roman times. If you look at the average generation time of amphibians which is about a year or so, depending on the species, then that's is 350 million generations of amphibians since then. Then about 300 M years ago the reptiles appear. Reptiles are basically amphibians that do not rely on water to survive as they are fully able to breathe trough their lungs. Mammals appear a 100 M years later (which is still a 100000 times longer ago than JC).

Now I realise that these timescales are almost beyond the realms of the comprehensible, but that's what they are.

As an example of evolution at work, you only have to look at HIV. Random mutations (due to the inefficiency of it polymerase) result in large numbers of viurses that carry mutations. Most of these mutations are going to be deleterious, some are going to have no effect at all. Now put a heavy selectable pressure on them, for example by giving a retroviral drug that interferes with the HIV protease. At first the viral load drops dramatically, however some virus will have mutated in such a way the protease changes shape, and the drug has no effect anymore. This virus will then replicate, and soon the viral loads are back up again. Which is why nowadays combinations of three or four drugs are used, as the change of a strain developing that can beat all 3-4 actions is infitessmally small. However, at some point such a virus will arise, and the patient will still die. In the mean time billions upon billions of virus particles will have been produced, many of which will not have had the chance to infect another cell, and replicate.

Evolution is all a numbers game. No need for a guiding hand, and definitely no instant creation a we are now.