Would seeing the sea part make you believe in God?

[Lemmy]

look into the mirror, you ARE a picture of God.

heh, did you read "Stranger in a Strangeland" by Robert Heinlein?

ok, let's see how this works...
LET THERE BE LIGHT....no wait, the room is already lit..uhm, something else than...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by CyberShy
MOBIUS, go read the readme file of the new patch. Those kinds of arguments are really pathatic. Now go and make personal insults to your relatives.

Sorry if it wasn't clear but the 'nutcase' comment was directed at Rasslin...

Still, I haven't heard from you about the origins of God - where did he come from...?

Or for that matter about your accident of birth, you know you really beat the odds being a Christian in the first place - if you had been born in India for example, it's a virtual certainty you would have been a Hindu, or a Muslim...

Chances are, you've been brainwashed by your environment - your parents, are they Christians?

See? You had no real choice being a Christian - it was the obvious option. They got to you first...

[Jack the Bodiless]

Show me some pictures of these fossils. I'm curious.

This article describes therapsids and lists the many characteristics responsible for their classification as "transitional forms".

This one has skull diagrams, and shows how the evolutionary "tree of life" fits toghether, based on the pattern of shared characteristics.

That was from searching TalkOrigins. I haven't found photos yet, but a Google search on the whole Internet has thrown up 2,260 references. I haven't checked them all (!) but none of the sites on the first page look like creationist sites. Rather than trying to explain them, the creationists prefer to keep quiet about them...

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Lemmy
You show me a picture of God and i'll convert to Christianity immediately

Here He is!
Lord Hanuman, the monkey-faced god, reincarnated into a muslim boy!

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html

[Jack the Bodiless]

As for those scientists quoted:

The fossil record alone does not prove evolution, because it merely shows how creatures have developed without showing what mechanism made them develop in that fashion. Nor does the fossil record alone disprove some forms of "special creation" in which God, for mysterious reasons, creates new creatures over millions of years in the same order as evolution.

It does, however, completely disprove the GENESIS creation story.

Incidentally, the whole debate about "punctuated equilibrium" is an example of creationist propaganda in action. People like Gould and Eldridge have no doubt that evolution has occurred: the controversy is over how gradual it is. There are well-known examples of both slow, gradual change and rapid change. It is a misconception (one sadly shared by many modern scientists who have not read Darwin) that Darwin himself specifically advocated gradualism.

[Jaakko]

This thread makes me want to post the old "kiss Hank's ass" joke.

But I do have to admire CyberShy's towering intellect, seeing as how he just single-handedly discredited a large part world's scientific advances in one fell swoop.
However, there is something even more amazing - if Cyber is to be believed, many of our advanced technologies work on lies! Indeed, the power of a lie must be great if it allows for the construction of these wonderful computers of ours and gives us the ability to post messages on discussion forums.

Great job Cyber, you've shown me how the world really works!

[ranskaldan]

No theory is devoid of holes. Even gravity is due to reevaluation, with Einstein's bent-space ideas. The truly bad theory is the one that's nothing but one big gaping hole.

anyway, here's a suggestion.

Since evolution is so full of holes as cybershy likes to think, why don't you, cybershy, tell us how creation works, and see how many holes we can find?

Let's brainstorm all the holes in creation and see how many there are compared to evolution.

heck: i'll start giving holes:

where is the proof of creation? where did it happen?
(if there's no proof, then why do you believe it?)
What about the Flood? proof for that? we would be expecting an enormous sediment layer across the globe, where did that go?
how does plate tectonics work?
why are rocks near the American & European coasts consistently older than those near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge?
Why can we see galaxies several million light years away?
When was creation anyway? How could there be, during 1000 or so years between the Creation and Flood, a variety of fossils found in the same place? E.g. marshes and glaciation on the same continent (but different strata)? (this happens on North America)
Where did those fossils come from anyway?
How did marine animals become extinct?
How would the pre-flood ecosystem work, with giraffes, triceratops, trilobites, giant tree ferns and rose bushes growing in the same place?
How was petroleum and natural gas formed?
how did humanity, created a few thousand years ago as a single couple, manage to propagate across the globe in less than 10000 years AND diverge into blacks, whites and asians?
what are those step-by-step evolution charts of horses about anyway? did those species actually all live together on the same savannah before the flood?

you accused me, a few posts back, of "coming up with things from my head". The truth is, that's how easy it is to refute creation.

[Robert]

I look nothing like Odin! For one thing, I've got two eyes, and Odin only has one.

Another proof that Odin is nog God.

On the contrary, you can't seem to understand that living a good life has nothing to do with believing or failing to believe in God. God provides a carrot-and-stick moral code

I would never claim that only christians can live a good life. Christianity is not a moral code (eventhough much christians make it one)

And God does not hold a carrot on a stick.
I AM already living a very happy live, and I AM already living in His Kingdom. He does already live in me, thus it's not like I have to wait for that until I'll be dead.

I agree, there are much christians who make a religion from christianity, with moral codes, ceremonies and all that, but read the New Testament, and you'll find that that's not the truth about christianity.

heh, did you read "Stranger in a Strangeland" by Robert Heinlein?

no........ is it any good?

Mobius: Still, I haven't heard from you about the origins of God - where did he come from...?

I have no clue.
But that doesn't make God less nescecary to be our source.

Pherhaps outside our universe there are other laws, and something can actually pop out of nothing there. Or pherhaps time is not an issua in the extra-universe.

But within our universe, our system of laws, time is an issue, and every object does have a source.

Chances are, you've been brainwashed by your environment - your parents, are they Christians?

Of course the believe system of your parents, and your environment, form your own believe system.
That counts for me, but it counts for you guys as well.

In the western world the biggest part of the environment is the evolutionistic one. Thus it's not strange that most people believe that the evolution theory is right.

About the believe system of my parents,
They did indeed teach me about the bible, but when I became older I have studied it myself as well, and in fact I practice my faith very different than my parents ever did, and I even had much influence on them as well.

They did indeed got me first,
but it's not like I'm brainwashed and took over everything they teached me. I just found out they told me the truth.

I can tell you that I was always very impressed by science and all the stuff they knew and all that.
It's since I discovered that everything must come from something, and that something must come out of nothing, and that nobody can give a good answer to that, and that no answer would ever really satisfy anyone eventhough it's the only possible answer, that I understood that science is just a part of history.

I know to place it in the right position.
I am still impressed with science, and for most the things they discover that really matters. A cure against aids, computers etc. etc.

But I learned as well that the entire evolution theory is a believe system, that holds scientists by social control. (everybody that says something else is a stupid creationist, and being a stupid creationist ruins your career) (that's why I'm that pissed of all the time that you guys voice those arrogant opinions about 'I am better and wiser and more inteligent than you' and things.)

Anyway, when I read more about DNA and genetics, about mutation and the odds it needs. After reading a book by two atheist astronomes who claimed that our existence is pure luck (Brown and Warldee, rare earth)

and after I discovered that all those moral rules, ceremonies and all that were not a part of christianity, but a part of people adding their need for religion to christianity,

i discovered that the bible is a very wise book.
And that the existance of a God, how silly it might sound at first sight in the environment of the modern world, is not that silly, but a very satisfying answer to the "Where do we come from, what made us" question.

Of course people can continue naming me a brainwashed fundy and all those simplistic terms people use to insult their oppositors. But again, terms like that can be used for both sides.

I prefer to not use simplistic terms like that.
It doesn't improve any debate anyway, and why should I insult people if I care about them?

I'll take a look at those URL's Jack.

[ranskaldan]

Oh yeah, here's the one single biggest misconception:

Evolution is luck.

actually, it isn't.

[Robert]

It does, however, completely disprove the GENESIS creation story.

why did your holy scientist than say that the fossil record more seems to be on the creationists side?

not much pictures in that big talkorigins page.
Can't you link to an objective website, btw, since talkorigins is as objective as trueorigins.

[ranskaldan]

Alright, I get what you mean CyberShy.

Now,
I think that the Bible is right in some areas, but i like to see proof for everything. If creation indeed happened? where's the proof? If the Bible is indeed true, where's the proof? Now evolution isn't a perfect theory either, but no theory is. Evolution, like any other accepted theory, has plenty of evidence, enough to make it the most accepted theory. Other theories could very well be true too, but unless more evidence is given, science won't accept them. I'm not saying there's no creationist evidence, it's because there's less, and a lot less at that.

That's why science doesn't accept creation. Not because scientists somehow hate religion, but because the theory, while worthy of consideration, is not the best one around.

[Q Classic]

you guys should know one thing about rasslin': he's not exactly here for good solid debate. he's a troll who passes of a very limited knowledge base as conclusive fact.

now:
i don't understand why people often have so much trouble reconciling science and religion. one cannot explain everything with science, and one cannot explain everything with religion.

both religion and science have specific and often, non-contradictory uses for a person.

religion often helps (not always) solidify a moral code, but not only that, it helps develop a systematic method by which people can communicate, by which they can observe new things, and by which they can accept things done to them.
science often helps (not always) to explain why some things work the way they do, why some things are better than others, or worse, and how certain processes can lead to further development.

one of the two greatest dangers, then, is in people who make science their religion, and try to destroy every single trace of mystery and mysticism from their lives, believing that everything can be explained in an easily comprehendable equation; it can't.
and the other great danger? people who make religion their science, and try to disprove everything around them in the modern world because it's not in the sacred texts.

it's as simple as this: without science the systematic growth of knowledge would be impossible; and without religion, societal cohesion would not be.

both are required for progress.

they are not enemies.

just for the record, yes, i'm christian. catholic actually. a religion not native to my mother's part of the world. and yet, i find comfort in those beliefs, while finding very few of them coming into direct conflict with the scientific and technological progress that i also cherish.

they are not enemies. god gave us reason so that we may use it; or, we developed beliefs so that we may begin to reason.

[Robert]

where is the proof of creation? where did it happen?

the creation.

(if there's no proof, then why do you believe it?)

objective: 1948
subjective: much stuff in my heart and all that.

What about the Flood? proof for that? we would be expecting an enormous sediment layer across the globe, where did that go?

the flood discussion is very wide with pro's and contra's.
I can't answer that in one single line. (and neither can I in 1000 lines)

how does plate tectonics work?

I have no clue

why are rocks near the American & European coasts consistently older than those near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge?

pherhaps because the dating system doesn't work?

Why can we see galaxies several million light years away?

pherhaps because light traveled faster 6000 years ago?
Pherhaps because God created the stars, with their lights immediately.
Pherhaps Adam and Eve have lived for a very long period in paradise.
Pherhaps time is not an issue for God, and thoser 6 days mean 6 phrases, and we have no clou how much time was between the phrases, or pherhaps again, time is not an issue for God?

When was creation anyway? How could there be, during 1000 or so years between the Creation and Flood, a variety of fossils found in the same place? E.g. marshes and glaciation on the same continent (but different strata)? (this happens on North America)

I don't know when creation happened, but the fall was about 6000 years ago.
Why not, and I have no clue.
There are answers on that out there though (and you know that, but you have counter-arguments, and those guys have counter-counter arguments and that goes on forever)

Where did those fossils come from anyway?

from animals who died by burying very quickly in most cases (big flood anyone?)

How did marine animals become extinct?

they all died?

How would the pre-flood ecosystem work, with giraffes, triceratops, trilobites, giant tree ferns and rose bushes growing in the same place?

i have no clue.

How was petroleum and natural gas formed?

Same answer as to the 'starlight' question.
There are btw people who claim that gass, coal and all that can be formed in faster ways. With a good google search you can find those theories

how did humanity, created a few thousand years ago as a single couple, manage to propagate across the globe in less than 10000 years AND diverge into blacks, whites and asians?

blacks whites asians: mutation

about 2 people growing into 6000000000,
that's not that hard.
If every generation will get 4 children who'll live long enough to 'produce' 4 children as well, every generation will contain twice as much people as the former.

Then you need only 12 generations to grow to 4096.
If there will be a 35 year gap between the generations, that means 420 years are needed for that.

350 years later there are 4.194.304 people
700 years later: 4.398.046.511.104

hey, where are all those people ?

what are those step-by-step evolution charts of horses about anyway? did those species actually all live together on the same savannah before the flood?

I have no clue, I was not there.

[ranskaldan]

okay, about the dating systems:
creation bases a lot of arguments on dating systems it seems.
however, my question is, why wouldn't they work?
why would they give results of millions of years that are consistent enough to be accepted by science, if, by right, they should be therefore giving absolutely random figures from yesterday, to 14 trillion years ago (if they didn't work)?
and another question: what would work then?

I think it's close to impossible to convince you to believe in evolution, cybershy, but at least consider this: evolution has holes, all theories have them - but creation has far more holes than what science would accept.

I hope you would think about that at least.

[Jack the Bodiless]

why did your holy scientist than say that the fossil record more seems to be on the creationists side?

What,the botanist? No genuine botanist would say that the fossil record supports GENESIS. There was no grass until after the dinosaurs died, and grass comes before animals in Genesis.

not much pictures in that big talkorigins page.
Can't you link to an objective website, btw, since talkorigins is as objective as trueorigins.

Try going straight to www.google.com and entering "therapsids". I found some artist impressions of therapsids on the first site that came up.

And the reason TalkOrigins is biased is because the facts only support one side...

objective: 1948

Re-formation of the state of Israel. But if you use that, you should also count the prophecies that failed.

why are rocks near the American & European coasts consistently older than those near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge?

pherhaps because the dating system doesn't work?

The dating system would have to "not work" in a very specific fashion to indicate that the Atlantic Ocean has been slowly widening over 150 million years.

Where did those fossils come from anyway?

from animals who died by burying very quickly in most cases (big flood anyone?)

Explain the sequence. The order in which they appear. The order of EVOLUTION.

That's the problem. Made-up answers don't explain what we actually find.