Creation vs. Evolution

[gregorio]

Lamont you rock!

 

[sandjeep]

my point is that you CAN'T offer *any* proof of God's existence.

except you can't prove that we are God's children. that's just your belief.

you're talking about this imaginary being (God) as though he were real, without any evidence that he exists at all.

you can certainly believe that, but you can't prove it, scientifically.

read "real" archeology studies and not the Christian "let's prove the Bible is right" writers who aren't actually scientists.

i got most of my info from (where else?) Wikipedia

My point is what would H2Andy, the person, need as proof, not what I can offer as proof. The Christian God is personal. Rick Murchison (aka Uncle Ricky) has his proof. He posted awhile back. I have my proof meant just for me and others have theirs. All I'm asking is what would do it for you?

Real archaeology studies? LOL, and you quote wikipedia? Your too intelligent to be using wiki as a source, it is beneath you, but I'll take a guess and say that you only want me to look at studies from scientists who are attempting to prove the Bible wrong.

 

[sandjeep]

I am saying there would seem to be a double standard, would your God approve of us treating our children in the same way?

as far as suggesting that one read someone else's post, please leave a link so they wouldn't have to go digging around in pages of circular (as in pizza) arguments.

Depends on how you look at it. For me, I have an immortal soul. I will spend eternity with God after this body dies. 70-80 years of suffering is but a blink compared to that.

However, if death is it for humans, then it would seem like a double standard. Of course, one needs to believe in God first,,,,right?

 

[Kim]

I don't understand how you get 6000 years out of that...

For Creationists I thought that that was about the period working it out from the Bible starting with Adam. (i hope you didn't think that that's what I thought.....)

 

[redacted]

Depends on how you look at it. For me, I have an immortal soul. I will spend eternity with God after this body dies. 70-80 years of suffering is but a blink compared to that.

However, if death is it for humans, then it would seem like a double standard. Of course, one needs to believe in God first,,,,right?

If you are really really really sure; why prolong the suffering?

 

[coach_izzy]

Question, why are you posting on this thread if thats what you think.

Because the way I see it, the issue is NOT "God" vs. Science, but rather, Religion vs. Science. I'm free to express my point of view and glad to exchange views, as long as there are substantial arguments and not the old tired "you'll burn in Hell... Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah, Naaa"

I have not knocked on your door and told you your brainwashed.

Not the literal door, but the proverbial door. As soon as you started quoting scriptures that had NOTHING to do with a reasonable argument and implied damnation, then your response become an exercise of indoctrination.

Have you read what I wrote in context or are you just venting?

Why don't you go back to your original reply to me and see who is the one taking things out of context, seeing targeting where none existed?

This thread has turned out some terrific posts, the best ones produced by Lamont, and guess what? His views are ENTIRELY different from mine. I believe deeply in a Higher Power, whereas he is the complete opposite. Nevertheless, his writing has been very educational. He has presented his points intelligently, with excellent arguments, and a respectful tone. Does that mean that he has turned me into an Atheist? No at all, but it has given us all a glimpse of somebody who has rejected the notion of a supreme being, not by superfluous reasons (as in "My life sucks, where is God? God does not exist") but by careful analysis and logic. Mike Ferrara has also provided some excellent answers, with well constructed arguments and quotes that strengthen his views, without implicating the certainty of doom for the opposing side. He is definitely thinking intelligently, and not simply repeating the "repent or face the wrath of the lord" manipulative phrase.

Try posting like that! The "Only through me one gets to the Father" is getting too old and adds nothing to the quality of the debate. Then we'll be onto something. Until then, I will do what I do to the screaming wacko at the Times Square Tunnel; Wave you away and tell you, "No thanks, keep your literature".

 

[photohikedive]

Depends on how you look at it. For me, I have an immortal soul. I will spend eternity with God after this body dies. 70-80 years of suffering is but a blink compared to that.

that raises a question I have about the "immortal soul"

if you were to die right now, the person you are now, is what would exist for eternity, right?

what if you were in a car accident, and brain damaged, lived another 40 years, and then passed on, is your immortal soul that of the drooling elderly child that you ended up as?

 

[kidspot]

Much of this comes back to a starting point - There are many very intelligent people commenting on this thread, primarily regarding their professional fields of study. Lamont and Thall have made some very good points - and anyone who has been involved in one of these threads elsewhere knows there are rebutals, and rebutals of rebutals etc.. (I'm sure Andy knows the correct terminology for that) and frequently flames/cursing from both sides.

If I pointed out studies about the diminishing speed of light over time (I have the journal, yes it's a creationist article, at home, and will attempt to locate it if anyone cares) , Lamont or Thall would have their studies about the errors in my report ... and agreement would continue to elude us. If I were to bring up the PO Halo effect found in what is called "original rock" which could only have formed had that granite cooled instantaneously, they would show their studies that conclude otherwise.

On the other side I must say that MikeF's replies have been my favorite part of reading through this thread - yes, mostly because he and I appear to agree

I guess this is just my way of saying this has been the most enjoyable of these discussions online I've seen - and I've mostly been a bystander watching after it happened.

Aloha, Tim

 

[H2Andy]

Rick Murchison (aka Uncle Ricky) has his proof. He posted awhile back. I have my proof meant just for me and others have theirs.

well, you have your beliefs (along with Rick). but that's not proof.

for example, if i ask you, do you have proof of your birthday, and you say, "In my heart, i know it was March 1, 1980" i would say, that's a belief, not proof. if you show me an original birth certificate, that's proof. if i want further proof, i can contact the records custodian of the county in which your birth certificate was filed and get a certified copy.

you beleive God exists. you have no proof of it, as the word "proof" is understood in English

you keep missing my point that there can be no proof as to whehter God exists. it is a contradiction in terms.

which is why Creationism has nothing to do with science and should not be taught as such.

but, as i said, it is certainly a belief, and you are entitled to it.

 

[Soggy]

If I pointed out studies about the diminishing speed of light over time (I have the journal, yes it's a creationist article, at home, and will attempt to locate it if anyone cares)

What!?!?