What do you suppose is true? Creation theory? When God created everything in 7 days(the 7th is actually rest according to genesis).A proof for evolution is the wide variety of certain animals, for example cats.We can see several varieties of cats now-a-days that have adapted to their environments.The diversity and relativity of the cats show that they only have one ancestor a one cat that existed a long time ago, fossils are an evidence of evolution as well.I deny evolution, it's
. There's more holes in the theory than pores on your body.It's all if's, but's and one in a trillion possibilities that are based on assumptions.The chance of intelligent life when following the 'logic' of evolution? State it, and prove it. Why aren't there hordes of animals that are mid way between one thing and the next? It takes millions of years, sure, that doesn't mean every million years or so another species just appears, it's a gradual change from generation to generation, no?Show me some of this supposed solid scientific proof, rather than just conjecture and blind insults.
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#926
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 19 July 2008 - 06:35 AM
#927
Shai
-
- Guest
-
- 0 posts
dumbass
Reputation: 8
Neutral
Posted 19 July 2008 - 07:42 AM
Nazer how do you know its not 100%? Pick up a da*n a bible and read it and compare it to what you see today!Your obviously blinded by what a man that just had a certain idea to study life and was able to find 1% of how life was created and formed it into a theory!If he didnt pull the theory evolution out his 
what would you belive then!I dare you to read the whole bible.
what would you belive then!I dare you to read the whole bible.
Edited by Strait Cougar, 19 July 2008 - 07:46 AM.
#928
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 19 July 2008 - 11:53 AM
PM me when you're objective and not a complete zealot. I know it's not 100% because humans wrote it and translated it around 100 times. The Old Testament was passed down on word to mouth. I fail to see how everything possibly could be 100%.Either way, any book that tells me to burn people alive is not a book I consider "divine".Nazer how do you know its not 100%? Pick up a da*n a bible and read it and compare it to what you see today!Your obviously blinded by what a man that just had a certain idea to study life and was able to find 1% of how life was created and formed it into a theory!If he didnt pull the theory evolution out his dan.gif what would you belive then!
What kind of comment is that? What would you like me to reply? "I dare you to read every scientific document ever written."? I've likely read more than you have in any case!I dare you to read the whole bible.
#929
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 19 July 2008 - 02:03 PM
Ok, here read Genesis 1. God created everything in 7 days, he didn't make some goop and pour it all over the world and wait for it to evolve.[/quote]No, actually Genesis says he created everything in 6 days, and rested for the 7th, but do you think a God of that power needed time to rest?And moreover, if everything existed and created at the same time, when did dinosaurs exist? Do you actually think that man with no technology could co-exist with the mighty dinosaurs?(assuming that man didn't have technology yet because he just existed).
#930
Shai
-
- Guest
-
- 0 posts
dumbass
Reputation: 8
Neutral
Posted 19 July 2008 - 10:42 PM
Lets see 2 Timothy 3:1-5"Critical times hard to deal with will be here,For men will be lovers of themselves,lovers of money, selfassuming,haughty,blasphemers,disobedient to parents,unthankful,disloyal.Having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of god!"Seems pretty accurate to me!I stopped at the end of the 4th verse. ( translation of the king James version)
#931
Guest_szylit
Guest_szylit
-
- Guest
Posted 20 July 2008 - 01:48 AM
before leaving this thread, I would like to point something out...More than a thousand years ago, the bible also said that the world was flat, and those who said it was round were burned.Lets see 2 Timothy 3:1-5"Critical times hard to deal with will be here,For men will be lovers of themselves,lovers of money, selfassuming,haughty,blasphemers,disobedient to parents,unthankful,disloyal.Having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of god!"Seems pretty accurate to me!I stopped at the end of the 4th verse. ( translation of the king James version)
#932
Guest_♠ Sucramnella
Guest_♠ Sucramnella
-
- Guest
Posted 20 July 2008 - 02:02 AM
Umm... the flood? Yes, dinosaurs did go on the ark but the atmosphere of the earth changed so they were not able to survive, because they didn't "evolve". Why wouldn't they be able to co exist?And moreover, if everything existed and created at the same time, when did dinosaurs exist? Do you actually think that man with no technology could co-exist with the mighty dinosaurs?(assuming that man didn't have technology yet because he just existed).
Edited by ♠ Sucramnella, 20 July 2008 - 02:08 AM.
#933
Shai
-
- Guest
-
- 0 posts
dumbass
Reputation: 8
Neutral
Posted 20 July 2008 - 03:03 AM
Can you quote that please?before leaving this thread, I would like to point something out...More than a thousand years ago, the bible also said that the world was flat, and those who said it was round were burned.
#934
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 20 July 2008 - 03:25 AM
Incorrect. The bible NEVER said that the earth was flat. Scientists of the time "figured it out" and it was accepted by everyone but a few renegade scientists. Most unfortunately, zealots in the Church (too resistant to change) decided to stop this. Fortunately they failed in the end...Please stick to the facts. There's a difference between the sacred Scripture and Tradition, and commonly accepted science of the time.before leaving this thread, I would like to point something out...More than a thousand years ago, the bible also said that the world was flat, and those who said it was round were burned.
#935
Shai
-
- Guest
-
- 0 posts
dumbass
Reputation: 8
Neutral
Posted 20 July 2008 - 03:31 AM
I figured as much from now on quote the scripture you are using When posting.Incorrect. The bible NEVER said that the earth was flat. Scientists of the time "figured it out" and it was accepted by everyone but a few renegade scientists. Most unfortunately, zealots in the Church (too resistant to change) decided to stop this. Fortunately they failed in the end...Please stick to the facts. There's a difference between the sacred Scripture and Tradition, and commonly accepted science of the time.
#936
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 20 July 2008 - 04:49 AM
Fist of all, it wasn't the flood that wiped out the dinosaurs, there are many theories but Noa's arc is the most unbelievable(in my opinion), the most popular by far is:Alvarez Asteroid Impact TheoryLuis Alvarez and his son Walter Alvarez, (a geologist), is that an asteroid 4-9 miles (6-15 km) in diameter hit the Earth about 65 million years ago. The impact would have penetrated the Earth's crust, scattering dust and debris into the atmosphere, and causing huge fires (generated by hot debris thrown from the crater), tsunamis, severe storms with high windsand highly acidic rain , seismic activity, and perhaps even volcanic activity . The impact could have caused chemical changes in the Earth's atmosphere, increasing concentrations of sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and fluoride compounds. The heat from the impact's blast wave would have incinerated all the life forms in its path.The dust and debris thrust into the atmosphere would have blocked most of the sunlight for months, and lowered the temperature globally.Those organisms that could not adapt to the temperature and light changes would die out. Since plants' energy is derived from the sun, they would likely be the first to be affected by changes in climate. Many families of phytoplankton and plants would die out, and the Earth's oxygen levels may well have dramatically decreased, both on land and in the oceans, suffocating those organisms which were unable to cope with the lower oxygen levels.Major changes in the food chain would result from all of these these environmental upheavals. The herbivores (plant eaters) who ate those plants would starve soon after the plants died. Then, at the top of the food chain, the carnivores (meat eaters), having lost their prey, would have to eat each other, and eventually die out. Their large carcasses must have provided smaller animals with food for quite a while.Coexistence of dinosaurs with man can't happen, with man's wits not yet developed, dinosaurs will surely drive them/us to extinction, would you really think lions and any other predators could compete with the T-rex, or the raptors, I don't think so.Umm... the flood? Yes, dinosaurs did go on the ark but the atmosphere of the earth changed so they were not able to survive, because they didn't "evolve". Why wouldn't they be able to co exist?
#937
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 20 July 2008 - 04:56 AM
Don't bother arguing with staunch creationists. Even as a fellow Christian, I can't understand how they could think to limit God to one way of creation. Oral tradition, although preserving the original intention of the stories, can mess up the details (moving farther back from the flood to the original creation).Fist of all, it wasn't the flood that wiped out the dinosaurs, there are many theories but Noa's arc is the most unbelievable(in my opinion), the most popular by far is:Alvarez Asteroid Impact TheoryLuis Alvarez and his son Walter Alvarez, (a geologist), is that an asteroid 4-9 miles (6-15 km) in diameter hit the Earth about 65 million years ago. The impact would have penetrated the Earth's crust, scattering dust and debris into the atmosphere, and causing huge fires (generated by hot debris thrown from the crater), tsunamis, severe storms with high windsand highly acidic rain , seismic activity, and perhaps even volcanic activity . The impact could have caused chemical changes in the Earth's atmosphere, increasing concentrations of sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and fluoride compounds. The heat from the impact's blast wave would have incinerated all the life forms in its path.The dust and debris thrust into the atmosphere would have blocked most of the sunlight for months, and lowered the temperature globally.Those organisms that could not adapt to the temperature and light changes would die out. Since plants' energy is derived from the sun, they would likely be the first to be affected by changes in climate. Many families of phytoplankton and plants would die out, and the Earth's oxygen levels may well have dramatically decreased, both on land and in the oceans, suffocating those organisms which were unable to cope with the lower oxygen levels.Major changes in the food chain would result from all of these these environmental upheavals. The herbivores (plant eaters) who ate those plants would starve soon after the plants died. Then, at the top of the food chain, the carnivores (meat eaters), having lost their prey, would have to eat each other, and eventually die out. Their large carcasses must have provided smaller animals with food for quite a while.Coexistence of dinosaurs with man can't happen, with man's wits not yet developed, dinosaurs will surely drive them/us to extinction, would you really think lions and any other predators could compete with the T-rex, or the raptors, I don't think so.
#938
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 20 July 2008 - 05:28 AM
We'll never know when they will start to listen, so let's just keep arguing until we break through their thick skulls. And there were no signs of the major flood, and two Paralititans (meaning "tidal Titan") could weigh 140 tons, a pair could easily break the wooden arc, there were atleast 6 more dinosaurs close to the weight of the Paralitns.Don't bother arguing with staunch creationists. Even as a fellow Christian, I can't understand how they could think to limit God to one way of creation. Oral tradition, although preserving the original intention of the stories, can mess up the details (moving farther back from the flood to the original creation).
#939
Guest_bennijai
Guest_bennijai
-
- Guest
Posted 29 July 2008 - 06:44 AM
The debate of evolution is a very contradictory debate. If I may add, most people believe evolution is basically a monkey evolving into a human...and that really gets to me on how something as complex as evolution has been dumbed down for the sake of others.Evolution is a gradual change of an organism, and with time traits are taken away or added by mutation or genetics effecting the organisms survival and reproduction success. It doesn't just go from monkey to human but rather a slow change of things until there is speciation among the two. For the people who cannot wrap their simple mind around evolution but yet stand firm on the form of religion, creating earth in seven days is just ridiculous. It seems now these days that some people who are religious are also incorporating science as well. It's like the unity of science and religion. They believe God put the foundation here, and science happened to be a part of it.
#940
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:53 PM
Religious people, then were firm on the creation theory, but now that the Big Bang and Evolution theory seems more credible... Some religious people are now saying that God initiated the Big Bang, what's up with those people...The evolution theory is now the best theory to explain our existence.
#941
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:58 PM
Religion will always try to make science work to their benefit, because they know science doesn't fabricate things. They just manipulate and bend the knowledge science has given us to fit their own schemes. Not that atheists don't do the same, but there are a lot more religious people than there are atheists.It seems now these days that some people who are religious are also incorporating science as well. It's like the unity of science and religion. They believe God put the foundation here, and science happened to be a part of it.
Our existence as creatures, yes - the universe's existence, no. Evolution does not try to pawn itself off as a religion-killer. As I've mentioned before, Darwin was a religious man.The evolution theory is now the best theory to explain our existence.
#942
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 30 July 2008 - 05:08 PM
I don't manipulate and bend stuff, although I'm not sure if I'm really an atheist, site some examples of atheists bending scientific knowledge, so I can better understand. Well, I did say our existence, not the Universe's, but it does disapprove the creation theory(creation of us and the universe) and so does the Big Bang.Religion will always try to make science work to their benefit, because they know science doesn't fabricate things. They just manipulate and bend the knowledge science has given us to fit their own schemes. Not that atheists don't do the same, but there are a lot more religious people than there are atheists.Our existence as creatures, yes - the universe's existence, no. Evolution does not try to pawn itself off as a religion-killer. As I've mentioned before, Darwin was a religious man.
#943
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 30 July 2008 - 05:15 PM
A lot of atheists use science as a means against religious belief (saying science contradicts the Bible, and therefore God's existence).I don't manipulate and bend stuff, although I'm not sure if I'm really an atheist, site some examples of atheists bending scientific knowledge, so I can better understand.
Then again, God didn't write the Bible (although people claim She did, there is no evidence of this), so there's no saying whether God really said what it is claimed She did.Well, I did say our existence, not the Universe's, but it does disapprove the creation theory(creation of us and the universe) and so does the Big Bang.
#944
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 30 July 2008 - 05:40 PM
Well, science does contradict some biblical stuff. Can't blame them/us, most don't even know they're contradicting the bible. But the church did kill a lot of people for heresy including Galileo's friend Giordano Bruno because Bruno wrote something like, Earth revolves around the sun, and that the sun was a star and sorts of things like that.The bible is the only proof of God's existence, if he was omnipotent, he should have made it more plausible, and therefore making more believers out of the people and eliminating more evil. He is omnibenevolent(all good) BTW, so eliminating more evil means less people going to hell.A lot of atheists use science as a means against religious belief (saying science contradicts the Bible, and therefore God's existence).Then again, God didn't write the Bible (although people claim She did, there is no evidence of this), so there's no saying whether God really said what it is claimed She did.
Edited by gamerlockheart, 30 July 2008 - 05:41 PM.
#945
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 30 July 2008 - 05:49 PM
My point was that they think because something contradicts the Bible, it contradicts God's existence, which is a load of bull.Well, science does contradict some biblical stuff. Can't blame them/us, most don't even know they're contradicting the bible. But the church did kill a lot of people for heresy including Galileo's friend Giordano Bruno because Bruno wrote something like, Earth revolves around the sun, and that the sun was a star and sorts of things like that.
Ohh, but then it wouldn't be a test! God has hobby-issues, so he regularly gives people ridiculous choices, and make them "prove their faith" in the dumbest ways possible.The bible is the only proof of God's existence, if he was omnipotent, he should have made it more plausible, and therefore making more believers out of the people and eliminating more evil. He is omnibenevolent(all good) BTW, so eliminating more evil means less people going to hell.
#946
Guest_oni12
Guest_oni12
-
- Guest
Posted 31 July 2008 - 07:49 AM
actually... the bible does not implicitly answer the hows but the why... it does not answer how theeverything is made... but on the question "why it was created?"
#947
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 31 July 2008 - 01:51 PM
Hmm, load of bull, haven't heard that one before, many scientists or freethinkers were simply suggesting ideas(during the Church's reign) but almost all of them we're brutally killed, one is Giordano Bruno, friend of Galileo, was writing about heliocentrism(the sun is the center of the galaxy) and that the sun is a star, he was branded as a heretic and atheist then got killed. It was religion that made science an enemy, not the other way around.Tests? Evil is a test then? Why does other people get harder tests than others? Shouldn't a good God give others a chance to beat the test? But what about natural disasters, and famine in Africa, the people didn't even got a chance to learn a lesson, they all die, isn't learning the point of tests?My point was that they think because something contradicts the Bible, it contradicts God's existence, which is a load of bull. Ohh, but then it wouldn't be a test! God has hobby-issues, so he regularly gives people ridiculous choices, and make them "prove their faith" in the dumbest ways possible.
#948
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 31 July 2008 - 02:54 PM
...What are you talking about? Saying God doesn't exist based on current science is like saying ice cream doesn't exist based on the mating habits of a freshwater crocodile!Yes, Christianity is responsible for more evil than Stalin and Hitler put together; but that has nothing to do with anything. A lot of atheists still use silly arguments like the one I stated earlier to "disprove God".Hmm, load of bull, haven't heard that one before, many scientists or freethinkers were simply suggesting ideas(during the Church's reign) but almost all of them we're brutally killed, one is Giordano Bruno, friend of Galileo, was writing about heliocentrism(the sun is the center of the galaxy) and that the sun is a star, he was branded as a heretic and atheist then got killed. It was religion that made science an enemy, not the other way around.
If God exists, she's a fickle pregnant dog with severe psychological problems, but that's just my opinion. If something bad happens, religious people either blame Satan or say it's part of a "divine plan" (which contradicts their concept of free will, but who cares? ignorance is something people have no problem living with). There is no logical reason for all the horrible events that occur around the world, unless God doesn't exist, or is a horrible horrible megalomaniac creature (but that's a-given).Tests? Evil is a test then? Why does other people get harder tests than others? Shouldn't a good God give others a chance to beat the test? But what about natural disasters, and famine in Africa, the people didn't even got a chance to learn a lesson, they all die, isn't learning the point of tests?
Edited by 6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G, 31 July 2008 - 02:55 PM.
#949
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 31 July 2008 - 03:30 PM
Ohh, sorry about the 1st paragraph, I just made an atheism speech about that... so it's stuck in my head, but I didn't say that God didn't exist in my 1st paragraph. heheIn the 2nd paragraph, I completely agree, people always blame other things/entities just to wipe their God clean, even if they say that it's all in God's divine plan....What are you talking about? Saying God doesn't exist based on current science is like saying ice cream doesn't exist based on the mating habits of a freshwater crocodile!Yes, Christianity is responsible for more evil than Stalin and Hitler put together; but that has nothing to do with anything. A lot of atheists still use silly arguments like the one I stated earlier to "disprove God".If God exists, she's a fickle pregnant dog with severe psychological problems, but that's just my opinion. If something bad happens, religious people either blame Satan or say it's part of a "divine plan" (which contradicts their concept of free will, but who cares? ignorance is something people have no problem living with). There is no logical reason for all the horrible events that occur around the world, unless God doesn't exist, or is a horrible horrible megalomaniac creature (but that's a-given).
#950
Guest_bennijai
Guest_bennijai
-
- Guest
Posted 31 July 2008 - 05:23 PM
religion was what? carried down by word of mouth until one day someone finally decided to document it? there are bound to be errors and if anything we can keep the door open and say the bible ONCE did fit with science until human error came into play.putting that thought aside, there really isnt anyway to disprove god. we just can't find evidence on it even if a million years pass. what we can do is either strengthen or correct science theories. science is basically the one thing that we can continue to research on and find solid proof on. i am pretty sure what science is now will change within the coming years and it's not a surprise because in reality we will never discover everything that happens around us. i am an atheist and it is my personal belief that science explains what goes around us better than religion. this is obviously open for debate, but that is your opinion and just stick to it. no one in these forums have the right to try to tell others that god is real and science is fake and vice versa. it's a persons belief and it is what makes them understand their life better. i agree with nazer there on the comment that if god exists he/she has one sadistic mind.
