Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Either God has always existed, or the universe has always existed.

This is a ludicrous statement. But you do not believe this, since if you pick the option that the universe always existed you removed your god, that you so firmly believe in, as necessary for creating it.

Or if you claim god always existed, I can claim with equal validity that the universe always existed and there is no need for god.

Either way there is no need for any god for anything.

Talking religion and logical reasoning are mutually exclusive however.
 
Many, too many to type, here's a thought why don't you google 'contradictions in the bible' and you can see all of them there! Here's a start A List Of Biblical Contradictions

Some are nitpicking for sure, but there are many valid ones in there...

Yes and the answers are equally as nitpicky. Many revolve around different context of the passage being read. Some require knowledge of Hebrew, or at least the acknowledgement of how some statements aren't 1:1 translations. Why don't you pick a good one out and let's debate 1 of them.

Sure, I am a sinner, don't really care if I am in your opinion. Sinning is frequently fun. :)
and ultimately sin is the reason for most of the problems in the world today. So your fun usually leads to destruction for either yourself, or someone else.

What paragraph? I am guessing you mean 1 Peter?
Ephesians 5:25 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


Sure, if that is what you think go for it. Gravity can be shown empirically, some God who loves everybody cannot.
You're right, God can't be put in a test tube and measured which is why we're having this debate.

Source please? You are sourcing the Bible, which is not known for its historical accuracy. I would like some other sources for all that you have stated in your examples of so called prophecies.
Can you quote just 1? ...and please I'm not sure what it is with this debate that people want to hit you with an atheist driven website, but for the sake of brevity..find one.
 
Works for me.
I like the scientific laws. There are actually 3 laws of thermodyamics, and I'm pretty sure none of them has ever been violated.

Scientific laws are no longer made, for very good reasons:

1) Laws are the weakest form of scientific knowledge, as they are nothing more than a description of a phenomena. Science cares a lot about the "why" of things; "why" is never a part of a law.

2) Laws tend to be inaccurate, as they represent oversimplifications of complex phenomena and often are limited to specific boundary conditions. You need to look no farther than the creationists arguments about how thermodynamics precludes abiogenesis to see just how misleading these laws are.

3) Many are based on impossible conditions - for example, the laws of thermodynamics only hold true in closed systems; something which may not exist in our universe.

4) Too many laws have been found to be incorrect.

Gravitation would be another law.
The law of constant mass would be another.
[/quote]

Strange, that you'd have picked two laws that are known to be wrong, as examples of why laws are a good thing.

Both the laws of gravitation and constant mass fall apart in the face of relativity. Neither mass, and therefore gravity, are constant, and instead the vary depending on a range of conditions. Likewise, the "law" of gravity states that only objects with mass are affected by gravity; making it hard to explain how gravity can lens light.

I'm actually surprised that they still teach laws as being a part of common scientific practice - they fell out of favor in the later half of the 1800's, and were all but rejected by 1930. I know text books tend to be behind the curve, but 80+ years behind the curve...

Mostly physics, yes. The only law I know of in the biological sciences is the Law of Biogenesis. I figured I'd throw that one out there since we were talking about evolution and of course others started talking about the possibility of abiogenesis...

There are very few laws in biological science, as biology didn't develop as a modern science until the period in history where we began to do away with laws. Biogenesis is an old (but accurate) "law", although modern biology has dramatically changed the way we view that "law". There are law-like statements; like the formulas describing mendelian inheritance and hardy-weinberg principals, but explicit laws do not exist.

Like the physical laws I "trashed" above, the biological ones are equally useless - they describe something we always see in nature, and don't do a damned thing to explain why we see them.

Bryan
 
You can just say you don't have kids. It matters because if you had them, you'd understand the concept.
I have kids, I understand the concept and I think the concept is crap.
 
Or if you claim god always existed, I can claim with equal validity that the universe always existed and there is no need for god.

The only problem you have is the known universe is measurable and is dying. So either it is perpetual in some way that defies the Laws of Thermodynamics, or it is not eternal.
 
That's a new take and certainly not a belief that widely held, even amongst evolutionists. Evolution spawned from origin of the species. Science has taken that "theory" and redefined it so many times its hard to pin down exactly what they're saying anymore.
A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, that's not the case ... there's no linkage, except in the minds of the creationists.
 
The 29+ evidences for Macroevolution are just that, evidences, not anecdotal data. The creationist sites don't even come up to the level of anecdote ... they are, without exception, misstatements of fact, misunderstanding of science or appeals to biblical authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
The only "observed" evolution is within species evolution, or microevolution. Macro evolution still has giant gaps in the fossil record that requrie huge leaps of faith to believe. Please bring forth any "evidence" I might not be privvy to. Ultimately science can never "prove" the random formation of life and can only theorize how it started. Even the simplest life contains 1000s of protein molecules and, formaldehyde experiments aside, the odds of one protein molecule forming in nature and combining are so small the word impossible comes to mind.

A perfect example of both misstatement of fact and misunderstanding of science, all that's missing is a biblical quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
My dad is atheist, my mom agnostic. I formed my opinions on origin after a lot of thought and study. You can imagine we don't discuss religion much at family gatherings..hehe.

Ah, so you're becoming a religionist finds its roots in your teenage angst and your need to establish yourself in the face of parental authority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
I think evolution leaves huge gaps in understanding origins of life and behavior. Take for instance the Plover and the Crocodile and their symbiotic relationship. You can extend this to the ocean and the many symbiotic relationships that exist there. Scientists are fond of quoting things like the articulated jaw structure of the cynodonts but then stumble when confronted with things observed or known in the world that don't support evolution. Take DNA for example. Genetically programmed to do what it was designed to do. You and I type on a computer program with less complexity than a single strand of DNA yet neither of us would even ponder that the computer program was generated randomly.

Classic ... almost vintage horse pucky, its amazing that there are still people out there so poorly read that they are still willing to bring forward these long discredited line of "reasoning." Just look up "blind watchmaker."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Brontosaurus was a fabrication in 1930s by a scientist who wanted headlines. It stayed in children's books and educational institutions for 50 years before it was removed. Interestingly enough, the science community turned a blind eye to it because it was an instrument to peek children's curiosity into the world of dinosaurs.
Javaman was a complete fabrication by Leakey. He took the skull of a giant gibbon and put it on the skeleton of a man.

Oh, I had fogotten, there's misstatement of fact, misunderstanding of science, and just plain lies. Brontosaurus "arose" from rather a rather unscientific personal rivalry between two early paleontologists, it was a misidentification's of a skeleton with an incorrect skull to boot, back in the mid to late 1800s. The mistake was exposed in the scientific community way back in 1903, bu the name Brontosaurus hung on in the public mind, you can't blame science for that. As far as Java Man is concerened, "Java Man" is the name given to fossils discovered in 1891 at Trinil on the banks of the Bengawan Solo River in East Java, Indonesia, one of the first known specimens of Homo erectus. Its discoverer, Eugène Dubois, gave it the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. Leakey had nothing to do with it's discovery or its initial description. Once again, lies. This approach is typical of the creationists, David Menton, in The Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man, writes about the fossil WT 15000 (the Turkana Boy) says:
"He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today."
Don Patton uses a similar quote, saying that according to Richard Leakey:
"....he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."
What Leakey really said, in the November 1985 issue of National Geographic, was:
"Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."
Yes...no doubt lots of horse puckey being tossed about today. You wouldn't believe it though. I walked into my computer room today and the computer upgraded itself overnight, by itself!!! Wow...and I thought it would take a million years. What's even more remarkable is the Window's XP Code seems to have evolved and its no longer crashing.
 
Yes...no doubt lots of horse puckey being tossed about today. You wouldn't believe it though. I walked into my computer room today and the computer upgraded itself overnight, by itself!!! Wow...and I thought it would take a million years. What's even more remarkable is the Window's XP Code seems to have evolved and its no longer crashing.
I'm glad, if that makes your life easier, but I fail to see what, if anything, those occurrences (or your misapprehension of those occurrences) have to do with the topics at hand. For an interesting exploration of that sort of foolishness, read David Brins' "The Practice Effect."
 
Yes...no doubt lots of horse puckey being tossed about today. You wouldn't believe it though. I walked into my computer room today and the computer upgraded itself overnight, by itself!!! Wow...and I thought it would take a million years. What's even more remarkable is the Window's XP Code seems to have evolved and its no longer crashing.

Good comeback


You sure proved your point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom