A Question for Creationists

[VictorB212]

Wow, I haven't been here in ages. I even had to re-register my nick; they must've wiped their database. Well, a few of you might recognize me if you are using a different name than you did a few years ago. I participated in a few evolution debates a few years ago, and learned a lot. Here's my input on the topic of this thread: (As you will soon find out, I am an ardent creationist, but the key is that I believe evolution to be a dead theory, already discarded by a number of prominent scientists.)

IMHO, if the world had come about via Evolution (note the capital E -- I mean something more than moths' wing colors changing; I mean NEW information spontaneously appearing), spontaneous appearance of new information would be something reasonably easy to observe. As of yet, I have not been made aware of a situation where information was "created" by random chance.

Let me start with a short example. Before I start, I will ask any Evolutionists to point out what is wrong in my fundamental reasoning. Chance can perform some feats, such as churning out a sentence that makes sense. However, it will never (at least over a billion years) write a short story. Unless I am missing something, even the most basic of lifeforms contains a substantial amount of information (if homo sapiens contains information that would compare to the size of an encyclopedia, would not a simple organism be like a short story?).

You can claim that over a billion years, a short story CAN be created from chance. However, you have no way to substantiate this claim that I know of (as I hope you can see, I am open minded, so enlighten me instead of disrespecting me). You have got to have FAITH that the above "spontaneous creation of information" is possible. I have got to have FAITH that God exists. I believe my leap of faith is smaller than yours. I've been to a few evolution debates where this came out as the bottom line, so think a while before you dismiss this idea.

As for explaining the earth in a 6000 year timeframe, I have just come up with an interesting idea. Take the first 5 days of Creation: God was creating all these animals, but they didn't DO anything -- they didn't think, and besides micro-evolving (i.e. no NEW genetic information ever introduced via mutations), they did not evolve. It was all boring, and after trying out different genetic makeups. He created the stars during these 5 days as well. Since nothing much interesting was happening, God made everything happen extremely fast -- the light from stars billions of light years away traveled billions of times the speed light travels today. Radioactive half-lives were drastically reduced. Fossilization occurred very quickly as well. When God created Man, he had created something that would be a little more interesting than the day-to-day animal, and slowed the natural processes down to observe His newest and first really interesting creation. Thus, we see a stratified fossil record today (relatively nonexistant transitional fossils). Of course, I have to take the existance of God on faith, but I'm not the only one who requires faith -- Evolutionists need it too.

An important point: the name of the game should really be Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. This totally removes religion out of the game. Instead of relying on cosmology to provide a big bang from which the earth was created, Intelligent Design relies on some sentient being to create the genetic material we see today. Science vs. Science.

I hope this made some sort of sense... Any flames will be blatantly ignored.

[Rogan Josh]

This is a bit silly isn't it. I mean, do you not think an omnipotent God could create the world any way he wanted to, complete with fossils in the ground and light on route from distant stars?

If he couldn't it would be a pretty strange definition of omnipotent.

Indeed, one cannot even prove that spontaneous creation didn't happen a couple of minutes ago and you were created with all your memories intact. Hell, there is even a non-zero probability of this happening in science - just by popping out of the vacuum.

[VictorB212]

I've heard this argument many times before. If you re-read my post, you will find the answer to your question/statement: Faith. All such points of view require faith. The argument really comes down to which "leap of faith" is larger.

[Robert]

EthelRed: They only say the odds are low. Which is a highly speculative claim since they only have one planet to base their thinking on. Bad science is what that is.

Wouldn't that be applicable to all kinds of science,
that there's only one planet to base 'the thinking on' ?

Its not exactly unheard of for a creationist to distort things like you just did.

I'm not a creationist.
Well....... if creationist means that I want to prove scientific that God created this world in 6 days.

Of course I believe that God did create this world (universe) but I'm not sure if I can prove it, and I have no clue about how he did it and how long it took for him to do.

Not true. A created world would not have.........

God created this world as he created Adam,
he created adam as a grown-up.

Likewise did God create this entire universe at a grown-up age.

Like evidence for an alleged Flood that left no evidence in our world.

c'mon, read some books instead of yelling unsupported theories.
There are even many reports of people finding the arc.

False. That is not evolution

That's true,
but evolution needs a begin,
if there's no beginning, there can't be evolution.
(only 'something' can evolve, 'nothing' can't )

There is fairly good physics and mathematics showing how a universe could indeed have popped out of a non-universe or even a pre-existing metaverse that had spawned universes for all eternity.

good joke !

All we have are Quantum Mechanics,
but that theory doesn't really do anything more but rephrasing the question and giving the missing parts a name.

You really have much faith in science ! (so do I, but not about the science that studies matters from lightyears away or billions of years ago)

CyberShy

[Lung]

Re: Re: A Question for Creationists

Originally posted by DaShi

Now, the evolutionist world simply wouldn't exist. One, even if random molecules came together to form some semblance of life, it would still the ability to reproduce.

No! Not the "Jumbo randomly made by hurricane" argument!?!!

Typical creationist ploy. Create an extremely bad analogy and propagate it into a broad dismissal of evolution. Evolutionary theory does not propose this, so the analogy is invalid.

For a full debate, summon Ethelred. By the time he's finished with you, you will be begging for mercy

[Lung]

Oh! Ethelred has already found you, it seems. It's like a moth to a flame

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
This is a bit silly isn't it. I mean, do you not think an omnipotent God could create the world any way he wanted to, complete with fossils in the ground and light on route from distant stars?

That would make the god a deceptive one. Hiding how it made the world. Such a god could just as easily have seen to it the Bible is deceptive.

If he couldn't it would be a pretty strange definition of omnipotent.

Its a pretty strange definition in christianity since it says men are evil and corrupt. Yet allegedly we were created by a perfect god that is omnipotent and omniscent. The two concepts there are very much mutually exclusive. Either that or god deliberatly created man to be evil and corrupt and therefor its god that is responsible for that.

Indeed, one cannot even prove that spontaneous creation didn't happen a couple of minutes ago and you were created with all your memories intact. Hell, there is even a non-zero probability of this happening in science - just by popping out of the vacuum.

True. Still it leaves us with a devious and deceptive god that can't be trusted at all. You want to live with that belief go right ahead. I will stick with Agnosticism.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Wouldn't that be applicable to all kinds of science,
that there's only one planet to base 'the thinking on' ?

We can see the Universe and so far the laws of physics seem to be the same everywhere. However the odds of inetelligent arising are statistical in nature and you can't peg the odds with only one example. Many would be needed.

I'm not a creationist.
Well....... if creationist means that I want to prove scientific that God created this world in 6 days.

Of course I believe that God did create this world (universe) but I'm not sure if I can prove it, and I have no clue about how he did it and how long it took for him to do.

In which case you dont' believe in the Bible which is quite clear on it.

God created this world as he created Adam,
he created adam as a grown-up.

Likewise did God create this entire universe at a grown-up age.

Thus supposing a deceptive god. And generating an imature adult without the experience to be fit to wander around Eden or mature enough to punish for eating some fruit and in fact Jehovah punishes ALL of mankind for the actions of two profoundly ignorant and immature creations. Not exactly justice.

Out of clay on top of that. Clay won't work without transumtation. Seems and odd choice. Of course you have JUST admited to being a fundamentalist creationist. No other kind could believe in Adam since that story is clearly false. It doesn't fit the archeology or human genetics.

c'mon, read some books instead of yelling unsupported theories.
There are even many reports of people finding the arc.

I have read books. There is NO evidence for the Flood. There is ONLY fraud involved in claims of finding the Arc. Noah's Big Assed Boat has never been found.

Link to thread on Noah's Big Assed Boat on the Maximum PC forum.

http://forums.prospero.com/n/main.asp?webtag=maxcommport&nav=messages&msg=30143.1&prettyurl=%2Fmaxcommport%2Fmessages%3Fmsg%3D30143%2E1

Its not like I haven't looked into this. I clearly know more than you do about it.

Here is site by people that believe in Noah's Flood. Even they know that no pne has found the Ark.

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/

That's true,
but evolution needs a begin,
if there's no beginning, there can't be evolution.
(only 'something' can evolve, 'nothing' can't )

Evolution only needs a self relpicating molecule to begin with. Such a molecule may very well have formed spontaneously. They don't have to be very large. Fairly small ones have been made in the lab but they have all been quite different so far from what could be expected on the early earth.

good joke !

Just reality.

All we have are Quantum Mechanics,
but that theory doesn't really do anything more but rephrasing the question and giving the missing parts a name.

You know better than that. Or do you since you believe in the Flood nonsense?

You really have much faith in science ! (so do I, but not about the science that studies matters from lightyears away or billions of years ago)

CyberShy

I am not depending on faith. I leave that to people that think there is evidence for a flood that clearly did not happen. I never claimed there was an answer. I said there is possibility of one. There is NO possibility that the Biblical Flood occured. The Egyptians would have noticed that they were all drowned while building the Pyramids.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lung
Oh! Ethelred has already found you, it seems. It's like a moth to a flame

I am the flamer not the moth. I like these kind of discussions. Especially when the other side tries to think a bit. It makes their brains hurt.

Rogan can make my brain hurt when he tries. Thats what makes them interesting.

[Jack the Bodiless]

IMHO, if the world had come about via Evolution (note the capital E -- I mean something more than moths' wing colors changing; I mean NEW information spontaneously appearing), spontaneous appearance of new information would be something reasonably easy to observe. As of yet, I have not been made aware of a situation where information was "created" by random chance.

Argument from ignorance. Yes, it should be relatively easy to observe. Yes, it does indeed happen. Yes, it is commonplace.
Here is one example

Let me start with a short example. Before I start, I will ask any Evolutionists to point out what is wrong in my fundamental reasoning. Chance can perform some feats, such as churning out a sentence that makes sense. However, it will never (at least over a billion years) write a short story. Unless I am missing something, even the most basic of lifeforms contains a substantial amount of information (if homo sapiens contains information that would compare to the size of an encyclopedia, would not a simple organism be like a short story?).

The "let's ignore natural selection" fallacy. Evolution is NOT chance. It is NOT random. Natural selection ensures that harmful mutations are eliminated and beneficial ones prevail. The result is an inevitable accumulation of beneficial traits.

You can claim that over a billion years, a short story CAN be created from chance. However, you have no way to substantiate this claim that I know of (as I hope you can see, I am open minded, so enlighten me instead of disrespecting me). You have got to have FAITH that the above "spontaneous creation of information" is possible. I have got to have FAITH that God exists. I believe my leap of faith is smaller than yours. I've been to a few evolution debates where this came out as the bottom line, so think a while before you dismiss this idea.

The "let's ignore ALL the evidence" fallacy. Evolution can be clearly seen in the fossil record, in the DNA of living organisms, in the pattern of physical similarities in living organisms etc etc etc. It's like the "faith" that the Earth is round. Creationism is equivalent to the "faith" that the Earth is flat: it requires vast quantities of ridiculous made-up nonsense to explain away all the contradictory evidence.

I see that the quality of your arguments has not improved, Victor.

[Robert]

Ethelred,

We can see the Universe and so far the laws of physics seem to be the same everywhere. However the odds of inetelligent arising are statistical in nature and you can't peg the odds with only one example. Many would be needed.

What's the exact reason that any scientific book by atheists that prove your point of view are good, and books that are against your point of view are worthless ? These guys have done much research on the topic, and still you claim within a few seconds that it's worthless. Why ? Because it's against your opinion, or because you've done some research on it as well ?

AFAICS most scientists are pretty sure about the odds needed for life to appear. When water has been found on mars there are already people yelling that "There's a big change there's been life on Mars"

But as soon as the odds are against 'life' or 'inteligent life' the "you can't peg the odds with only one example" kind of arguments drop in.

The conclusion of Ward and Brownlee is that we've been very lucky to be here, since there's a really small change that inteligent life appears the way it appeared overhere on earth. It's not like "We have a billion stars with multi-billion planets, thus one of them should contain inteligent life"

Even if evolution would work the way you guys claim, there's still a very little change life like ours will appear.
The 6-billion years old universe theory has been made up when people knew little about gens and DNA. While knowledge is expanding more and more scientists start to conclude that 6 billion of years is far from enough to result in what we name the planet 'Earth'.

But it's not really like "If we expand 6 billion into 6000billion years it will work" because more time means a bigger change for a catastrophe as well.

Anyway, these scientists researched it, and you say it's BS and you ignore it. That's the most simplistic kind of scientific debating I've ever seen: "If I don't like it, it's not true"

In which case you dont' believe in the Bible which is quite clear on it.

If you concider the bible to be a scientific book, you're right.
In any other case you're wrong.
You must be pretty insane to think the bible gives a scientific description about the way God created the universe. I'm sure we both agree on that.

All Genesis does is giving a fairly basic description about the creation, it tells us that it was God who did it, and it tells us God did it in 6 phrases.
Anybody, christian or atheist, who thinks that a creator is limited to the borders of it's creation is insane as well.
If time is a dimension of this universe, why should any god have to obey to the laws of time ?

The 6 days are the way the creation is described for the prehistoric people. How could they ever understand how God did create this magnificient system we call the universe ?

But genesis doesn't try to explain to us how God created it, it just tells us that God created it. I think Genesis is even pretty specific to claim God created 'light' before he created light-bearers. How could something ever bear anything that hasn't been invented yet ?

Pherhaps the evolutionists are right, and God used 'evolution' to create this universe. Of course it wouldn't take that long for God, since he doesn't need the odds. He can do more natural selection than any random event could ever dream about.

Of course mamals are very alike, we're all made by the same designer ! Why should God create a complete new design for dogs if he did already make cats ? The basics are the same.

Again, I have no clue about how God created this world. I have no clue about how long it took him to do it, for sure since I'm pretty sure that time does not apply to God.
And yes, I take some parts of the bible not literal.

Thus supposing a deceptive god. And generating an imature adult without the experience to be fit to wander around Eden or mature enough to punish for eating some fruit and in fact Jehovah punishes ALL of mankind for the actions of two profoundly ignorant and immature creations. Not exactly justice.

Don't stick to the fruit.
The fruit is a symbol for the desire for being autonomic.
For being independant of God, being like a God.
It means make autonomic descisions about what is good and what is evil.

From that moment on we, humans, have been autonomic lifeforms, and we do indeed chose ourselves what is good and what is evil. The problem with us is that we don't really make that often the right chose.

When we decised to be independant of God, God accepted that decision. (you might remark at this moment that I made this up myself, I suggest you read the original hebrew words, it does indeed say it is the tree of deciding about good and evil. Millenia long people didn't really understand the meaning behind these words.)

Being independant of God, and being autonomic ourselves, means we took the responsibility from God. From that moment on we are responsible for everything. Not because God gave us that responsibility, but because we took it.

But since God knew from the beginning on that we couldn't handle the responsibility, God immediately started his backup-plan. It is the plan to get people back to God, and offering people the oppurtunity to be dependant to God again. The 'afterlife' will be the moment that things will be like 'paradise' was, for the people who chosed to be dependant on God.

God's plan is more important to anything else indeed.
Since being dependant to God is the best thing that could happen to mankind, everything else is less important. The easy line "Life is good, afterlife is better" says it all.

God's plan does not include "perfect life on earth right now"
Pherhaps in your opinion that's more important than anything else, and of course you think that God is not good, because he doens't handle life like you would handle it.

About 1 man making the wrong chose,
God solved that by sending one man to earth to be punished for it. He went to earth himself.

God is good, and God is justice.

I have read books. There is NO evidence for the Flood. There is ONLY fraud involved in claims of finding the Arc. Noah's Big Assed Boat has never been found.

it's even been found on satelite pictures.
Besides that, people all over the world have their own flood stories. The maya's had, the eskomo's have, the egypts have their own flood story !

Besides there have been found fish fossils on the tops of mountains. I know the evolutionist explanation of that, the mountains have raised since then. But that's just another explanation.

I could very well understand that you don't believe in the flood. (like I can understand you think evolution did indeed result in humanity) but you really make yourself look silly by claiming that there is "NO evidence". There is, there are books filled with evidence, but again, your argumentation is "If I don't like it, it's not true"

Evolution only needs a self relpicating molecule to begin with. Such a molecule may very well have formed spontaneously.

yeah, sure.
There's nothing, complete nothing. Not even space filled with nothing, but utter nothing. And suddenly, without any reason, there's matter.

Fairly small ones have been made in the lab but they have all been quite different so far from what could be expected on the early earth.

I'm talking about the early universe.
And a 'lab' is of course something else as 'nothing'

Just reality.

prove it.

You know better than that. Or do you since you believe in the Flood nonsense?

again: prove it.
Tell me how something can come out of nothing.
So far you're the one who believes nonsense, and well that something can come out of nothing with no circumstands and all that.

I am not depending on faith.

Of course you are depending on faith.
You did not see the earth evolve, you did not witness all those experiments. You believe that the scientists tell you the truth. You believe that the calculating models are right.

Pherhaps you only understand 10% of the entire evolution theory. (if we take all details with it) (which would be pretty much)

You have faith that the evolution theory is right.
You have faith that the scientific answers are right.

And in 20 years, you'll agree with me that much scientific models of these days were wrong, like you agree with me that much scientific models of 20 years ago were wrong.
The evolution theory has never been consistant since darwin made it up. The invention of gens and dna in fact changed the entire technical content of it.

And soon scientists will find even more complicated material, and then 6000 billion years won't be enough, and it'll be expanded into 6billion billion years.

And you will still believe it.
And you will still claim that there is scientific evidence.
And you will still claim that you have no faith but you are sure.

Hey, that's the only advantage I have above you,
I know that I have faith, I know I'm following a religion.
I know I believe people by word.

you have no self-critics. You're like the people in the middle ages, who believed the priest on what he said, without wondering and without understanding that they were just believing it because everybody did.

That's the only advantage I have above you,
but you may concider that a very big one. (eventhough you'll never accept it)

CyberShy

[Robert]

Jack,

neither have yours.

It is NOT random. Natural selection ensures that harmful mutations are eliminated and beneficial ones prevail.

every mutation is harmful, unless several mutations together form a new concept for ie. an organ. (how simplistic it might be)
If a mutation will result in an eye, just only the eye without it's capacities, it'll be a harmful mutation.
The mutation will only be fine if it'll come with the 'nerves to the brain' mutation and the 'brain accepting of this nerve' mutation.
That already makes 3 nescecary mutations for the most simplistic eye to be not harmful.

Let 1 out of 100 muations provide new functionalities like this (which is amusing low),
then you need 100 to the 3rd degree to result into an eye like this. (which will survive natural selection)

That means 1,000,000 mutations need to be made !
And this very rare new life form needs to survive and multiply to make the change definitive. If it'll be eaten, all will be for nothing. (of course it'll have a bigger change to survive than it's 'brothers')

Well, we both know that every organ needs much more gens, and for that reason much more mutations to work.
If we take a look at all those billions of RIGHT mutations that must have happened, we can only conclude it can't have happened in only 6 billion of years.

[Jack the Bodiless]

The conclusion of Ward and Brownlee is that we've been very lucky to be here, since there's a really small change that inteligent life appears the way it appeared overhere on earth. It's not like "We have a billion stars with multi-billion planets, thus one of them should contain inteligent life"

Um, yes, it's exactly like we have billions of stars and planets. We might even have billions of Universes also.

I have read books. There is NO evidence for the Flood. There is ONLY fraud involved in claims of finding the Arc. Noah's Big Assed Boat has never been found.

it's even been found on satelite pictures.
Besides that, people all over the world have their own flood stories. The maya's had, the eskomo's have, the egypts have their own flood story !

No, the Ark has NOT been found on satellite pictures.

And there are several explantions for flood stories. Towns tend to develop on rivers and coasts, there was a massive rise in sea level at the end of the last Ice Age (when the ice melted) that would certainly have caused the lands of entire tribes to disappear forever, and our ancestors were perfectly capable of noticing sea-shells and fossil fish on dry land and drawing the wrong conclusion.

I could very well understand that you don't believe in the flood. (like I can understand you think evolution did indeed result in humanity) but you really make yourself look silly by claiming that there is "NO evidence". There is, there are books filled with evidence, but again, your argumentation is "If I don't like it, it's not true"

There is NO evidence for a recent worldwide flood. There is PLENTY of evidence that there was NO recent worldwide flood. That is a simple statement of fact, and books written by halfwits for gullible fundies don't change that.

Evolution only needs a self relpicating molecule to begin with. Such a molecule may very well have formed spontaneously.

yeah, sure.
There's nothing, complete nothing. Not even space filled with nothing, but utter nothing. And suddenly, without any reason, there's matter.

This has nothing to do with evolution.

Biblical creationism is wrong, wrong, WRONG. This will never change. The contradictory evidence will never magically disappear.

Evolution, however, is FACT. Even if it turns out that other forces have also been at work, evolution would still be happening. The common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors over millions of years is also FACT: there is no other explanation for the evidence. These facts will never change, just as the round Earth will never become flat again.

[Jack the Bodiless]

every mutation is harmful, unless several mutations together form a new concept for ie. an organ. (how simplistic it might be)
If a mutation will result in an eye, just only the eye without it's capacities, it'll be a harmful mutation.
The mutation will only be fine if it'll come with the 'nerves to the brain' mutation and the 'brain accepting of this nerve' mutation.
That already makes 3 nescecary mutations for the most simplistic eye to be not harmful.

Wrong. Darwin himself pointed out that the evolution of the eye was not a problem: there are living creatures with "intermediate" eyes, which show how they evolved. Furthermore, computer simulations have shown that random mutations and natural selection are perfectly capable of producing an eye in a reasonable timeframe.

The actual eyeball comes last. First it's a photosensitive spot (many chemicals react to light, this can happen by accident). Then comes the ability to detect the light and react to it (even plants can do this), then the optic nerve, then a depression to make the sensor directional, then a pinhole-camera effect to make an image, then a transparent skin cover over the hole, then a lens, then muscles to focus and swivel the eye, then the eyeball.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
What's the exact reason that any scientific book by atheists that prove your point of view are good, and books that are against your point of view are worthless ? These guys have done much research on the topic, and still you claim within a few seconds that it's worthless. Why ? Because it's against your opinion, or because you've done some research on it as well ?

A few seconds? Boy is that FALSE. Science books have evidence. The Flood does not. I have seen what is claimed as evidence. There has never been any that can stand up a moments thought and a little knowledge.

AFAICS most scientists are pretty sure about the odds needed for life to appear. When water has been found on mars there are already people yelling that "There's a big change there's been life on Mars"

That false. No one knows the odds. There is no way to know the odds without more examples. That is your statement only.

But as soon as the odds are against 'life' or 'inteligent life' the "you can't peg the odds with only one example" kind of arguments drop in.

Not as soon as. ALWAYS. Don't try a invent a postition for me or anyone else. NO ONE KNOWS THE ODDS. No one can without more worlds.

People can guess the odds for life occurring but even that is merely a guess. The guess is that the odds are good but the only reasoning behind the guess is that life showed up so early on Earth. To actually KNOW the odds we would need to find other worlds that have similar conditions to Earth at least at some time in their existence. And thats similar to the early Earth not the present Earth. Life has changed the Earth.

The conclusion of Ward and Brownlee is that we've been very lucky to be here, since there's a really small change that inteligent life appears the way it appeared overhere on earth. It's not like "We have a billion stars with multi-billion planets, thus one of them should contain inteligent life"

Thats not a conclusion based on fact. Its a guess. Its a reasonable guess in some ways. Keep in mind that there is one requirment for making that guess. An inteligence. It didn't have to be on this planet. It could have been made on another.

I see no reason to think we humans were inevitable. Simply that we couldn't ask questions if we don't exist.

Even if evolution would work the way you guys claim, there's still a very little change life like ours will appear.

I agree. So what? Whatever form of life appeared it would be of low probability. I don't see anything profound in that nor anything hinting at a god.

The 6-billion years old universe theory has been made up when people knew little about gens and DNA. While knowledge is expanding more and more scientists start to conclude that 6 billion of years is far from enough to result in what we name the planet 'Earth'.

The 6 billion years number is odd. I don't know where you got it. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life is at least 3.5 billions old. The universe is between 9 and 15 billion years old. Most scientist thinks it obvious that its enough time since it happened.

But it's not really like "If we expand 6 billion into 6000billion years it will work" because more time means a bigger change for a catastrophe as well.

Of course. So what? I haven't claimed we are of high probability only that knows the odds of SOME kind of inteligent life. A specific life form like Homo Sapiens is of course of low odds. Any other inteligent life form could ask the same exact questions.

Anyway, these scientists researched it, and you say it's BS and you ignore it. That's the most simplistic kind of scientific debating I've ever seen: "If I don't like it, it's not true"

You didn't read what I said. I said YOUR version of what they said was BS. They didn't research it. They COULDN'T research it. Not without other worlds. That is what makes the conclusions mere speculation. I will stand by that and I doubt they would disagree with me on that. If they do disagree then they are dishonest.

If you concider the bible to be a scientific book, you're right.
In any other case you're wrong.
You must be pretty insane to think the bible gives a scientific description about the way God created the universe. I'm sure we both agree on that.

It may not be scientific but it IS specific. If you think its just a bunch of nonsense then we are in aggreement.

I am only going on the concept that it is the word of god and an accurate description of what occured. If it is innacurate then its worthless. Do you have some problem with that statement?

Believe the Bible or don't. I don't. If you have to rearange it and change it and deny what it actually says then you don't believe it either.

All Genesis does is giving a fairly basic description about the creation, it tells us that it was God who did it, and it tells us God did it in 6 phrases.

And it got those phases wrong. It also gave a time frame of days.

Anybody, christian or atheist, who thinks that a creator is limited to the borders of it's creation is insane as well.

Well I agree the authors of the Bible weren't rational. However they were pretty specific.

If time is a dimension of this universe, why should any god have to obey to the laws of time ?

Because he did things in it.

The 6 days are the way the creation is described for the prehistoric people. How could they ever understand how God did create this magnificient system we call the universe ?

So you think the Jehovah just lied about it being days then?

But genesis doesn't try to explain to us how God created it, it just tells us that God created it. I think Genesis is even pretty specific to claim God created 'light' before he created light-bearers. How could something ever bear anything that hasn't been invented yet ?

Explain no. Describe the events yes. And those descriptions don't match the world we live in. I am not responsible for the contradictions in the Bible. If it has light bearers without light thats another of them. Thank you for another but I have enough biblical contradictions allready.

Pherhaps the evolutionists are right, and God used 'evolution' to create this universe. Of course it wouldn't take that long for God, since he doesn't need the odds. He can do more natural selection than any random event could ever dream about.

Nevertheless the Earth is still billions of years old and so is life. Randomness is only part of evolution. The environment is the source of the information. Random or not its what we live in.

Of course mamals are very alike, we're all made by the same designer ! Why should God create a complete new design for dogs if he did already make cats ? The basics are the same.

Why should he make 800,000 different kinds of beetles then? It still looks EXACTLY like evolution by natural selection.

Again, I have no clue about how God created this world. I have no clue about how long it took him to do it, for sure since I'm pretty sure that time does not apply to God.

Well if you don't have clue perhaps you should read Genesis. It pretty clear on much of it. Its wrong but that another issue.

And yes, I take some parts of the bible not literal.

Oh dear pick and choose. Will you go to Gehenna if you pick wrong? (there is no hell in the Bible and Gehenna is gabage dump outside Jerusalem. Its often what is translated as Hell).

Don't stick to the fruit.
The fruit is a symbol for the desire for being autonomic.
For being independant of God, being like a God.
It means make autonomic descisions about what is good and what is evil.

Funny how you picked fruit to respond to and ignored the substance of what I said. Your interpretation by the way is not universal. It ignores the fact the god put Adam in an impossible situation for him. Adam was an infant in a mans body. Unfairness is not unusual for Jehovah though.

From that moment on we, humans, have been autonomic lifeforms, and we do indeed chose ourselves what is good and what is evil. The problem with us is that we don't really make that often the right chose.

Well that is Jehovah choice if he created us. He did a very bad job. Incompetent. Perhaps Jehovah learned human design at Redmond.

When we decised to be independant of God, God accepted that decision. (you might remark at this moment that I made this up myself, I suggest you read the original hebrew words, it does indeed say it is the tree of deciding about good and evil. Millenia long people didn't really understand the meaning behind these words.)

Being independant of God, and being autonomic ourselves, means we took the responsibility from God. From that moment on we are responsible for everything. Not because God gave us that responsibility, but because we took it.

\

Not according to the Bible. I am not Adam and neither are you. We are not responcilbe the decisions of that severely handicapped botched creation. You are again ignoring the substance of what I said to deal with a selected detail or two.

But since God knew from the beginning on that we couldn't handle the responsibility, God immediately started his backup-plan.

In other words Jehovah knew he a REALLY bad designer. A putz not fit to create if he didn't do a redesign BEFORE he built Adam since he is supposed to know everything.

It is the plan to get people back to God, and offering people the oppurtunity to be dependant to God again. The 'afterlife' will be the moment that things will be like 'paradise' was, for the people who chosed to be dependant on God.

Clearly the right answer would have been a competent redesign in the first place. Instead we get a god that killed all but eight. Drowned them and everthing along with them as well. Even Redmond isn't that stupid.

God's plan is more important to anything else indeed.
Since being dependant to God is the best thing that could happen to mankind, everything else is less important. The easy line "Life is good, afterlife is better" says it all.

It says nothing. We have no evidence for an afterlife. Only some wishfull thinking. All you are saying here is that god blew it and will make it up to us after we die in this badly designed world he botched.

God's plan does not include "perfect life on earth right now"

I take you are in touch with god? Is he really 800 foot tall?

The Bible said he created things perfectly. Clearly you don't believe the Bible. We are two of a kind on this.

Pherhaps in your opinion that's more important than anything else, and of course you think that God is not good, because he doens't handle life like you would handle it.

He doens't handle like the Bible says he handled it. He cannot be a perfect creator and have imperfect creations.

About 1 man making the wrong chose,
God solved that by sending one man to earth to be punished for it. He went to earth himself.

That makes no sense at all. Fixing the mess does not require someone to be crucified. It only requires a redesign of the botched creation. I am not responsible for the actions of Adam or Jesus. Neither are you. You cannot be held accountable or honoured for the alledged actions of those two. It is unjust to do so. Even the Bible say the son is not responsible for the actions of the father. Of course it ALSO says the exact opposite. Yet another biblical contradiction. Rather a lot for a perfect author.

God is good, and God is justice.

Tell that the victims of Jehovah in Egypt. Sure is funny how you ignored all that.

Don't like dealing with what the Bible realy says do you?

it's even been found on satelite pictures.
Besides that, people all over the world have their own flood stories. The maya's had, the eskomo's have, the egypts have their own flood story !

Lots of DIFFERENT floods at different times. Those stories are ALL different. The Egyptians of course had floods nearly every year. Every culture has a flood story because the all have LOCAL floods. As can be seen nearly every single year.

However the Egyptians DON'T have a story about being wiped out in the middle of Pyramid building.

Besides there have been found fish fossils on the tops of mountains. I know the evolutionist explanation of that, the mountains have raised since then. But that's just another explanation.

An explanation that fits the facts. The mountains around me have risen about ten feet in my lifetime. The flood however does NOT explain multimillion year old fossils on the top of moutains embedded in ancient shale that had to form on the sea bottom. Plate tectonics does explain it.

I could very well understand that you don't believe in the flood. (like I can understand you think evolution did indeed result in humanity) but you really make yourself look silly by claiming that there is "NO evidence". There is, there are books filled with evidence, but again, your argumentation is "If I don't like it, it's not true"

There simply is no evidence thats why I say it. The fish are evidence of an ancient Earth not a flood. It doesn't matter to me if I don't like the evidence. It only matters if its real. There IS NO EVIDENCE for the flood. Evidence of many little floods yes there is that. Not a world wide flood covering the highest mountain a mere 4400 years ago. It looks silly of you to claim I am ignoring things that don't exist.

yeah, sure.
There's nothing, complete nothing. Not even space filled with nothing, but utter nothing. And suddenly, without any reason, there's matter.

I didn't say that. You are trying to change the subject which is evolution not the beginning of the Universe. Evasions like this will be pointed out.

The universe arising out a physical laws is no less likely than a god out of nothing. However that is still another subject and you were evading. As usual.

I'm talking about the early universe.
And a 'lab' is of course something else as 'nothing'

You are evading the topic. You know exactly what the topic was. Evolution. Explain where god came from and I will discuss the beginning of the Universe with you. On another thread.

prove it.

Go take a class in college and learn something. You prove the Flood. Show some REAL evidence that pertains to the Flood described in the Bible not some local floods that occured over thousands or even millions of years,

again: prove it.
Tell me how something can come out of nothing.
So far you're the one who believes nonsense, and well that something can come out of nothing with no circumstands and all that.

Again quite evading. Prove that evolution does not occur. Prove the Earth is not billions of years old. If you want to discuss that instead of evolution start another thread. Keep in mind that to do so you must ignore the Bible since the Bible has a young earth.

Of course you are depending on faith.
You did not see the earth evolve, you did not witness all those experiments. You believe that the scientists tell you the truth. You believe that the calculating models are right.

Thats not faith. Thats being reasonable. If I want to paranoid I will start thinking the Matrix was a documentary. If you want to pretend that those things involve faith then you only have faith that you are actually breathing.

This is just evasion on your part. You have evaded nearly everything I said. Typical for a creationist to retreat towards ever greater insistance on ignornance. Well I leave arguement from ignorance to you. Me, I learn things. The only faith involved is that what I learn has some meaning. What you are doing is just denying all. Well then you must deny the Bible as well.

Prove the Bible was not written last week and that we didn't have the time prior to that forced into our minds.

This sort of arguement you are using is profoundly ignorant.

Pherhaps you only understand 10% of the entire evolution theory. (if we take all details with it) (which would be pretty much)

Even on percent is enough to show that evolution occurs.

You have faith that the evolution theory is right.
You have faith that the scientific answers are right.

Arguement FOR ignorance. This is sad for anyone to stoop to such mindless tactics.

And in 20 years, you'll agree with me that much scientific models of these days were wrong, like you agree with me that much scientific models of 20 years ago were wrong.

I have no reason to think that. After all I know the models of twenty years ago are still pretty good mostly. Heck I went to college thirty years ago. Refined models is not a sign that we don't and can't know anything.

The evolution theory has never been consistant since darwin made it up. The invention of gens and dna in fact changed the entire technical content of it.

No. They have refined and improved it. The basic concept still applies. Evolution through natural selection. Nothing has shown this wrong.

And soon scientists will find even more complicated material, and then 6000 billion years won't be enough, and it'll be expanded into 6billion billion years.

You sure are full of it. Things can only get so complicated. We are allready down to atomic interactions in bio-chemistry. There is no go farther.

And you will still believe it.
And you will still claim that there is scientific evidence.
And you will still claim that you have no faith but you are sure.

Well you obviously will still argue that we don't know anything because you can't abide by what we really do know.

Hey, that's the only advantage I have above you,
I know that I have faith, I know I'm following a religion.
I know I believe people by word.

That is not an advantage. Its just admiting the obvious. You must depend on faith becuase the facts are against you.

you have no self-critics. You're like the people in the middle ages, who believed the priest on what he said, without wondering and without understanding that they were just believing it because everybody did.

That is a lie. All of science entails criticism. Only a profoundly ignorant person could say there are no critics in science.

That's the only advantage I have above you,
but you may concider that a very big one. (eventhough you'll never accept it)

CyberShy

You don't have an advantage. That is why retreated into ignorance. It is why presented no evidence to support you. It is why you evaded nearly everything I said.

I am still waiting for you to explain why the Egytpians were not wiped out 4400 years ago when the Flood happened according to the Bible. Don't bother pretending the Bible didn't say when. Its easily exracted information from the times and ages given in the Bible. All bibilical scholor come within 100 years of that date.