bryce, the Bible doesn't prove anything except that it's the Word of God.

Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth" or in Italian translation, globo (The Hebrew is <i>khug</i> meaning sphericity or roundness). There are other examples I won't get into, but you get the point. The Bible simply states that the earth was round. That's all I'm saying.

"Not even 1 million years is enough for macroevolution"

Heh, not a trillion years either.

Let me say this one more time, since this still seems unclear: Natural selection is not evolution!!!

"DDT lost it's effectiveness on killing mosquitoes because those that were suseptable to it died out and eliminated those from the gene pool while mosquitoes that were immune to it's effects lived and populated over the ones lost, hence making them no longer affected by it."

This is not microevolution, just natural selection... and read the above statement. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

Man created God, God did not create man.
Religion is an archaic form of goverment, that still exisits today.
God is simply a one word explanation for that which we do not understand.

Dan, don't talk unless you're willing to back up what you say. Making a statement like that means nothing at all to anyone on here other than the fact that you don't believe in God and disrespect others beliefs. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

Dan, explain to me how to get something from nothing. Big bang? OK, I'll buy that... Where did the matter come from?

Your comment on religion is somewhat true, but you shouldn't confuse God with religion.

Someday, something will happen that will covince your of God's presence. I hope it comes before you are on your death bed.

Take any law in physics, and explain why it is that way. Observing how matter behaves does not explain why, and does not remove God from the picture. Matter behaves the way(s) it does because that is how God made it. No amount of scientific explaination can remove God.

Of course it comes down to, where did it all come from? How could random chance provide everything we see?

How I see it is like this. We use what, not even a whole 10% of our brain. Think about things that we can not even fathom because our minds cannot comprehend it. Im sure that if we used 100% of our brains we could do things we only dream about, such as flying or telekenesis, telepathy. Thats what faith is for since we cannot see God. I believe that we are just unable to comprehend how God was created.

Either way of what you and I believe, we will all figure it out when we die. I would rather believe that there is life after death, what would even be the point to this life now if there wasnt? Live and die and thats it? that sucks you whoever believes that. Enjoy your remaining years I suppose then. <br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/z24speed/SIG3.jpg">

um lancer, micro evolution by definition is the effects of natural selection, to say it's not is do not understand the term at all. also dont snap at Dan C for what he said because what you are saying is little more supported.

i happen to actually have quite a large amount of faith in God myself and i think it is rather presumtuos of you to assume that you know how he did things, and i say that to all christians, not just you. you immeadiately believe everything that you mommy and religous leaders say just because they say it. i remember reading about a time when the church beleived that the earth was flat, and to question that was sacreligious.

i would also like to add that you dont know how God made all that he did, no where in the bible did he give you the exact directions for making anything. dont be a blind sheep as well, think for yourself. i dont believe evolution to be 100 percent correct, dont get me wrong, but alot of it's principals hold nicely and i think it is a part of the story of what really happened.

Here is a funny concept that im sure you will hate, is it possible that maybe God used parts of evolution in making all that he made, DNA is actually a very fragile thing and mutates all the time. As for saying it have been dispoven, in an earlier post i gave to examples of such. but just because of a couple flaws you cant disteguard all of the ideas.

flame if you like i dont care but i just thought i should point some things out.

we dont know how God did anything is was rather vague for a reason, because we could never understand it now, and especailly not when the bible was written. besides that if he told us how he did everything it would never fit in the old ladies purses or on the back dash of you car, hahahha. plus i think he thought it was none of our business. <br>
-----I slit the sheet the sheet I slit and on the slitted sheet i sit. there I said it.----

Well, actually the Bible does give exact directions for a couple items, but not new animal creations... More like annoiting oils and insence.. That kind of thing.

I think you are all overestimating our species.

The God is invented to be the answer for the questions human kind can not answer. As somebody above pointed out we learnt how things work, but we never learnt WHY they work...

I think we are asking too many questions that might not be possible to answer at all. The strongest pointer that leads our minds is the causal relationship we are taught to see in everything. Every action and creation has its reason and cause of happening. Why does it have to be like that ?

Supporters of religion prove that god must exist since so many things in nature seem so practical and perfect, there had to be somebody like us who created it. On the other side atheists prove that god does not exist with scientific proofs for many things that religion used to explain by god`s will ... or god`s actions...

I think both groups are wrong. You are trying to prove the point while contradicting yourselves - both point of views are easily proved invalid - if the god created all matter, who created god ? or even worse WHY the god was created ? On the other hand, atheist approach backed with scientific proofs seems silly when we know that gravity is still a complete mistery, together with all other ways of matter interaction, for which we at least know how that particles smaller than atoms are interacting.

It makes me very happy to see threads like this around, but it also makes me sad when I realize how tiny and helpless humanity is before the nature and laws of matter. Not only we haven`t answered any of the great questions yet, we haven`t unlocked the secrets of our own body... How pathetic is that ?

I forgot to add something else: Besides the fact that our intelligence is crippled by our perception of the universe: everything must have a start and the end, we are further diminishing our chances to find something useful by putting all the potentials through the school routines, which, lets be frank, kills most of the originality and creativeness in us. There is a reason why most of the great minds did bad in school - they had other interests, and found the school restrictive.

Tell me another thing - why do you think that the Dinosaurs for example were not more intelligent than us ? Just an assumption. Maybe some fat @!#$ dyno knew some secrets we haven`t. There were several ice age cycles - why do we think that there was not much more advanced civilisation here some 500 million years ago. Also just an assumption.

Let`s open our minds a bit, I`m sure we can do better than this. If we don`t destroy ourselves before that...



CAC2004 FSS#1, 2003,2004 Atlantic FSP #1, 2004 Overall Atlantic #1

Vlad, I didn't write this but it adresses your question well...

"A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time — God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy — the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause — no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused — nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

IN SUMMARY
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.


There's more if you're interested... I gave the general idea, but it continues to explain some of the physics behind the arguement.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp

Ok... How can an obviously intelligent person like you post something that contains "god, by definition is..." Who defined it ? On what grounds ?

You are arguing that something that bunch of monks 2 milleniums ago DEFINED created the space and time. Maybe it was me or you who created it. I don`t like when people are using terms like defined, trivial, certain, limited, obvious and so on in argymentation. Nothing is defined and certain until we now everything.

You see, Einstein believed that the relativity and quantum theory will be able to unlock the secrets of matter interaction such as gravity or magnetism. Now, it is almost certain that it is insufficient. Physicists have been bouncing around with the theory of superstrings for a while now trying to apply quantum theory and relativity and solve the problem.
Penrose and Hawking admitted long time ago that science needs a new huge breakthrough, like relativity back in the days was, in order to move from the standstill.

New theory, if invented, will be as radical as relativity was, and quite original. If it does happen, ways we are looking at space and time will change drastically. Why do we think that the law of thermodynamics will hold in that case ? As you may know, the anti-matter was successfully created last year, although for 10(-42) seconds. In terms of Big Bang timing thats not very small. What is anti-mater with respect to time ?

I hope you are right, I hope that everything is that simple like you say - guy exists and makes and creates... it seems too earth-like to me, honestly. I know that you see it more of a creative universal power than a dude sitting in chair having fun, creating worlds, but the idea is same.

When I say open your mind, I mean throw the books away, close that Bible and use your head. The Bible and application of it is the main reason why science and human knowledge did not move for 1500 years. God bless church and the followers, but for advancing as a race and the world, we will need much more than that

Thanks for a great thread again



CAC2004 FSS#1, 2003,2004 Atlantic FSP #1, 2004 Overall Atlantic #1

Vlad, in this case the "by definition" part is an inescapable conclusion. If the Creator of the universe had a creator, then it would not be God. There can be only one. So, for the purposes of this discussion, I let it stick. I don't find the definition they use to be anything more than a statement that must be true if you hold that God is the Creator, or prime mover.

Now as far as opening my mind, etc.. I have, that is what has lead me to the point I am at now. I was entirely science oriented in the past, and it was the shortcomings of science that exposed the possibility of a higher power to me. I do not allow someone else to tell me what the Bible says, I will read it myself. That is often a daugnting task, as the language is often difficult, and the names are foreign to me, but I will persist. I believe that the Bible has been used for personal agendas far too often. Churches have abused power, in order to control populations and gain wealth. I am sure that was not the intension of its author.

I do not discount science in any way, and have faith that our scientific community is working in good faith, and will continue to make discoveries about God's creation.

When I use my head, the Bible I have read makes perfect sense, just don't let someone else tell you what it says. It needs no interpretation aside from your own. That gives it an opportunity to speak to you directly.

Vlad: No problem Thats why I posted it, I know this is a good debate subject but I didnt think it would be this contoversial. I thought evolutionists had a far stronger argument..

Vlad and Rocker: You both have good arguments..close to mine on religion in general. I am not very religious but I do believe in God and Jesus but I believe He only affects the life of man directly.

To creationists: Why do you accept the creation story literally? Couldn't it be meant to be interpreted abstractly? I mean say God created the speck of matter that became the Big Bang.... that means he really DID create all the matter in the universe since everything in the universe came from that speck. Maybe the Big Bang wasn't a speck like scientists all say...maybe it was a galaxy size mass of matter. God may have created all the matter of the universe but the laws of science, physics, and nature (that he may have created too??) could have taken over form there and evolution drove the universe for the past 10-20 billion years. Whats wrong with that?

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

<rocker37>

<b>"um lancer, micro evolution by definition is the effects of natural selection, to say it's not is do not understand the term at all."</b>

You're right, thanks for clarifying that. Still, why mix that up with the idea of particle-to-man evolution by using that word? The concept was originally called natural selection, perhaps evolutionists tried to sneak that into their formula by calling it micro evolution. I'm not saying that's where that term came from but it wouldn't suprize me.

The dictionary says this about evolution in a biological sense:

<i>Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.</i>

There seems to be a bit of a mix up between a true observation and something totally unproven.

<b>"also dont snap at Dan C for what he said because what you are saying is little more supported."</b>

Oh really... I suppose the 40+ posts I made in this thread add up to only a "little more" than what Dan said.

<b>"i think it is rather presumtuos of you to assume that you know how he did things"</b>

I haven't even said anything about how God made the universe other than what the Bible says. In this thread I've refuted particle-to-man evolution and the 4.5 billion year old earth idea, both which go against God's Word unless you can prove otherwise. If I've made any assumptions that I haven't made clear are assumptions, let me know.

<b>"you immeadiately believe everything that you mommy and religous leaders say"</b>

Sounds like an assumption. What if "mommy" was dead or was an atheist? Suddenly that statement wouldn't sound so bright anymore. Well actually it doesn't anyway. If I did what you said, there would be no reason for me to read books from professionals who point out all of the flaws in evolution among other things, constantly studying the facts. You must be using that common stereotype in an attempt to cause me a credibility loss. "Mommy" and religious leaders have little to do with it.

<b>"i would also like to add that you dont know how God made all that he did, no where in the bible did he give you the exact directions for making anything."</b>

Hmmm, I don't remember explaining how you can create a universe with exact directions. lol!

<b>"Here is a funny concept that im sure you will hate, is it possible that maybe God used parts of evolution in making all that he made"</b>

Well, the main idea behind evolution is that it took millions of years for man to form from single cell organisms, and that the earth is billions of years old. The Bible clearly states that all creatures were made in the <b>beginning</b> including man. Yes natural selection does happen, but it can be independant of the grand idea that we know exactly how the universe happened without a god.

<b>"we dont know how God did anything is was rather vague for a reason, because we could never understand it now, and especailly not when the bible was written. besides that if he told us how he did everything it would never fit in the old ladies purses or on the back dash of you car, hahahha. plus i think he thought it was none of our business."</b>

Agreed. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

Spitfire, I don't see a reason to accept evolutionist scientists' ideas of creation literally. It's just an idea. Nobody was here to see the creation of the universe. If God intervened in any way with the physics of how the universe was created or how the earth was created, that would throw off scientists' calculations completely. I don't believe that constants created the universe.

Many Biblical stories have archaeological evidence. I don't see any reason not to believe in those stories. I figure that if the Bible says it happened, and the Bible is God's Word, well then I'll take his word that it happened! Do you think we have a lying God? If he lied in his book, wouldn't everything else in the Bible lose all credibility as well? That would make Jesus and 11 of his diciples that died for his cause liers as well. Then everything is a wash, and there's no reason to believe in the Christian God at all.

The Bible says that everything it contains is true. That's what I believe. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

Ah...the kind of thread i revel in

let's go back, and sorry, i was busy racing this weekend..

YHVH...yes, the name of God. Heard it before in many thinks, including my wiccan studies. What a lot of the pro-monotheism side is failing to see is that you say the sum of everything is Zero. True, then explain god if you can. Where did god come from, since if god created everything, and it had to start with nothing, god must have been created from something--again, the answer leads not to zero, but to infinity. While you look at God as something that you could attach a persona to--god being that infinity that created everything, i see the infinity as intangible--like the mechanisms of time itself. See, where is say there must be an antithesis of god, i stem from here:

Taking a page from the RPG universe, it's impossible to be of a "neutral" alignment, because every descsion, every interpretation, and every thought sways you in some direction--the only way you can be nutray is the minute you leave your mother's vagina, and the only thing you have is innocence. Thus, assuming God exists, it has to have some alignment--not neutral. Otherwise, it could not say what's good and what's evil. itn HAS to have a perception on reality, and if it does, it can't be absolute. If god was, an absolute, then although it would explain how bad stuff happens, it would not explain it's perception on things--and would not explain why someone that stands so strongly against him like me hasn't had his butt smoten off the face of the planet yet, but i digress...

Thus, knowing that everything comes in opposites--heaven and hell, light and dark, infinite and infinitessimal, unless god is an absolute, and thus doesn't have perception, it HAS to have an antithesis--an opposite. If not, then it can't judge or have a perception, since both opposites in any system must exist.

And with your thing, you've proven the duality--in that if god is everything, then it's antithesis is nothingness. Thus, god is not an absolute.

To you, it may be folly. but that is only your perspective. for me, as for you, i do what i do and my very existance justifies the fact that even though i stand against a lot of which you believe in--we're both right--and wrong in the same 2-second timeframe.

And as for my self, I found that my Way and my Path is not that of the big-3 monotheism. I don't search for my Way and find my Path among scripture--which can be manipulated through humans--an imperfect creature. It would be like me asking why would some christians, some muslims, and some jews need someone else to interpret that scripture for them? Can't they do it themselves? I look at it this way--scripture is an interpretation of reality--and even if i read the bible religiously, it's a their-tier interpretation. Some religions it's more. It's like a videotape recording, every subsequent tier you loose a bit. I find my path not through book, but through Earth itself--that way it's only a recording of the master, not a recording of the recording.

Thus, i don't read anything into archaic documents, I believe organized religion is a HUGE folly, and if any biblioreligious people have a problem with it, i tell them 2 things: (1) Let your god be the judge of me, not you. (2) Do what your religion tells you to...forgive me.

Now, lancer, i most whole-heartedly disagree with your statement that natural selection is not evolution--it is in its most fundamental state.

Here's how i see it:

Gene mutations happen almost like clockwork. almost everyone has some mutation over their parents--mine is pretty easy to see--everyone in my family had their wisdom teeth pulled--and this goes WAYYY down my bloodlines. Me? Not only did mine never come in, but all of my molars i had since near birth (4 additional ones came in when i was 12). Now, considering that it's typically human to not only get your wisdom teeth, but also to loose all your baby teeth, something must have happened in my genetic code. Hence a mutation.

Now, all other species are the same--their genes mutate--and most often the mutation is hardly noticable. think the difference between standard pneumonia and pennicillin resistant pneumonia. pretty much is the same disease, just one bacterium resists a bane of the other one better. Same with the mosquito argument. the way they got that was was through mutations, and mutations at their core are what evolution is all about. <br> <br><font color="blue" face="times new roman" size="1"><b><i><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jbodynorthwest/"><img src="http://keep-of-the-light.freewebspace.com/images/signature.jpg">
The infamous Keeper of the Light</a><b><br>
<i>I'll get out of <u>YOUR</u> country the minute you get off of <u>MY</u> planet!</i></font>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

ok i have rather e njoyed everyones arguement here i would just like to add one thing simply for enrichment sake the hieght of a fully grown adult male homosapean through time.

it has been proven by sketal remains and also text, such as for example "Candide" by Voltaire which was written in the 1700's where men were alot shorter then today. In Candide the main characterstood at a noteable if not abnormally tall 5' 5" where as today you wouldnt bother saying someone was tall untill say 6' 5", a whole foot. now growth hormones being added to food isnt all to blame for this, hieght before 1700 was stable between 5 foor to 5 and a half for all of history before that, but shortly after in the 1800s man made their first noteable hight change and continued since.

now how tall may we get you might ask, well the human skeleton is optimized for use between about 5'8" and 7' for an adult male. shorter then that you loose the advantages of the lever and taller then that your skeleton is structuarally weak for the tasks you may need it to do, such as even running and jumping.

i just thought id throw that out there for us to ponder. <br>
-----I slit the sheet the sheet I slit and on the slitted sheet i sit. there I said it.----

Lancer: I would think a religious person like you would know that there are many parables in the Bible. These were meant to be interpreted as stories and told a tale to teach mankind a lesson. How do you know that the Apostles and prophets didnt stick their own philosophy in the Bible at one time. How do you know that it is ALL God's word verbatim? There could very well be stories or opinions in the Bible...

Natural Selection drives evolution. If there is no genetic variation, then there are no traits to choose from and select. Genetic varaition is caused by mutation of DNA, which happens alot and is proven. These mutations can cause a new trait that will help a creature to survive or adapt better. If it wasnt for genetic diversity, species would go extinct more rapidly. Again...mutation causes variation which causes selection, which causes speciation... EVOLUTION. If you beleive in creation, things will not change and so there is no selection. If you believe in selection then you have accepted one of the tenets of evolution even though you don't accept the whole thing. Darwin invented the term survival of the fittest....

The Earth is NOT 8000 years old, it is proven. I mean recorded human history goes back that far. We have mummies and tombs that old. No where are there hieroglyphics or texts showing us with dinosaurs. what about older life than dinosaurs? What about fossils? You don't see fossils 8000 years old ever, you need millions of years to fossilize bone.... Egyptian kings arent fossilized and they are 6000 years old! Maybe you can claim the Earth is a million years old, but not 8000! Even a million is too young when you look at geological processes and the universe... Do you believe stars are forming at this minute? stars exploding? Becuase everything is still changing/evolving...

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

KOTL...

Did you read every post? It seems you didn't read my last couple.

At any rate, you assume infinity exists. I say it is a mathematical obsurdity and cannot exist. Aside from that if the universe was infinately old, it would be dead, according to the laws of thermal dynamics. Afterall, it is a mechanical system.

So if the universe cannot be infinately old, it must have a beginning. If it has a beginning, it has a creator, because it cannot create itself. That would mean it existed before it existed, another impossibility.

Don't you see, there can be only one. Any other spiritual powers that exist do so through God.

To those who wonder why this has become a religious debate. It has to be. To discuss creation is to suggest that a higher power did the creating. In order to talk about that higher power, and support the creation argument, you must show a need for God. I don't think I can truely prove God's existence, but I may be able to use logic to convince some that there is a God.

Keep in mind, when you talk of humans manipulating scripture, that cannon is infallable. You cannot change the meaning, even if you change the words. To me, all you can do is weaken the message, but not change it. When people interpret, they take there own meaning. By doing so, they leave other meanings behind. They haven't changed it, just narrowed the scope.

I have no problem in using nature as a teaching aide. I see God everytime I god camping, or out for a walk, or whatever. Just remember that the Earth did not create itself, and respect for the One God is manditory. Like I said, there appears to be a spirit of the Earth, just don't worship it.

Anyway, I'd like to see some comment on the idea of God as prime mover and creator of the Universe. If we can agree on that, little else matters. Evolution? Sure, just like God made it.

Hey, I just thought... Even with your VHS analogy. Say you taped a show from TV. Then you copied the tape, and again... Now you have a 3rd generation copy.. A little fuzzy, the quality isn't great, BUT, it is the same show. If you taped Law and Order, it did not become the Young and The Restless because you made a couple copies...

Hahahaha: you said that "So if the universe cannot be infinately old, it must have a beginning. If it has a beginning, it has a creator, because it cannot create itself. That would mean it existed before it existed, another impossibility. Don't you see, there can be only one. Any other spiritual powers that exist do so through God."

Isn't this the Argument of First Cause? It is maintained that everything in this world has a cause and as you go back farther and farther through the chain of causes, you come to that First Cause which you give the name of God. Well the way I see it is like a child asking his father "Who made me?" Well the father can't give an honest answer. If he gives the religous answer of "God made you" or "God made us" then the question that immediately follows is "Who made God?". That simple sentence showed me the fallacy in the argument of First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. But some say that God does not have a cause, so in turn I say that if anything can be anything without a cause then it might as well be the universe as opposed to God.

Who created God?..........God #2, duh!
Who created God #2?........God #3, come on!
Who created God #3?........nobody, he just appeared one day
Well if God #3 just appeared than why can't a speck of matter that can create a universe just appear?

To continue my last post:

I am not saying that the big bang theory is completely true, its just what I choose to believe in. I do believe that something was created from nothing, I do believe more the theory if Big Bang. I do not dismiss the possibility of a God, just like I believe others shouldn't dismiss the possibility of Big Bang.

Does everyone agree that way down the line of causes that something was created from nothing, whether it be a god or a speck of matter?

If we could all agree on something then that would be an improvement in this thread I think.

i move that we agree that there are many kinds of animals and they all got there somehow and most all of them are naked, but by far the funnest to look at would be the naked adult homosapien female, i think we could all agree on that.

ok but seriously, there should a somewhere we can agree, such as that there was nothing, then something, and either way is there life just here on this planet or is there life elsewhere, what does everyone think of this? <br>


-----I slit the sheet the sheet I slit and on the slitted sheet i sit. there I said it.----

Brockton... I have to go to work... I wish I had more time to explain my point. I am not talking about "the arguement of the first cause" which would suggest that God needs a cause to exist. God is outside the system he created and therefore not bound by those rules. What I am talking about is "simultanious causation". IE: "The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be."

There was no time before God created it, and without time, there can be no "before"... Follow? Tricky concept, but it works for me.

The idea is that the universe must have a cause because it exists in time, but God does not need a cause because God created time itself.

I have to go, but I will re-join this debate as soon as possible.

I'm sure we can all agree that at on point there was nothing, and that now there is stuff, but that is really boring.

Sorry to have been gone, life keeps me busy in the spring. I'll probably spend too much time on this post, but I want to make some things clear so we don't have to keep running in circles.

Due to the nature of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, neither Model can be conclusively proven or disproved. Therefore, one must ask the simple question, "Which Model is most feasible?" Looking at all the facts, evolution has a hard time holding up and better supports creationism. Before getting upset and that bold statement, realize that I'll do my best to back it up. I'll get into the biological aspects of evolution and the problems should become evident. The more one looks into it, the more intelligent design makes sense.

<SPITfire>

Quote:

"These were meant to be interpreted as stories and told a tale to teach mankind a lesson."

Where does it say not to take those stories literally and that they are just stories to teach lessons? When there are parables, they're clearly identified as such.

Quote:

How do you know that the Apostles and prophets didnt stick their own philosophy in the Bible at one time.

The book consistantly speaks again interpretations and deceptive philosophy. For example:

Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

This is a good way of putting it, which is consistant with the rest of the Bible and it's philosophies. Ultimately though it comes down to how much trust you have in the Bible, which is totally up to you. I'm not going to sit here and legitimize the entire book for you.

Quote:

Natural Selection drives evolution.

Nothing drives evolution. Let's review: Evolution is the idea that new information is formed to eventually create new <b>kinds</b>, not just species which is what natural selection is all about. However again and again it's proven that there is no new genetic information. Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner of John Hopkins University has this to say:

"In all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on a molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can't make money by losing it a little at a time"

This is just one person who confirms this. The truth is, there is no evidence that new genetic information has ever formed. The idea of particle-to-man evolution falls flat on it's face on this one. It's one of those fatal blows I mentioned earlier.

Some creatures are so advanced and complex, scientists borrow ideas from them because the technology that is there far exceeds ours. Our technology could have never happened without design and order. Ever notice how nature always gives back to itself without harming the earth in the process? The technology is there to give the ultimate efficiency. Even man's most complex machine seems crude in comparison. I'm not going to run off too far on the question if "random chance?" again (I could go on all day about this), but I just thought I'd throw that out there for consideration.

Quote:

Genetic varaition is caused by mutation of DNA, which happens alot and is proven.

Variation is not based solely on mutations. Don't forget, living things have by far the most compact information/retrieval system known. So much information is there to cause variations. A tiny amount of DNA can store information the equivalent of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content (W. Gitt "Dazzling Design in Miniature," <i>Creation Ex Nihilo</i> Dec 97-Feb 98). Without this technology life would cease to exist. Depending on mutations to give us life is a ridiculous idea.

Simple cells arn't as simple as evolutionists would like you to think. <i>Mycoplama genitalium</i> has the smallest known genome of any free living organism, containing 482 genes containing 580,000 base pairs (C.M. Fraser "The Minimal Gene Complement of <i>Mycoplama genitalium</i>," <i>Science</i> Oct 20, 1995). The organism can only survive by parasitizing other complex organisms. All the information the organism has is required for it to function, otherwise it would die. There's a huge gap between living and non-living compounds. There is no way a single celled organism can come from a dead object. Molecular biologist Michael Denton states in the book <i>Evolution: A Theory in Crisis</i>:

"It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate."

In light of everything I just said, let's look at this quote you made:

Quote:

Again...mutation causes variation which causes selection, which causes speciation... EVOLUTION. If you beleive in creation, things will not change and so there is no selection. If you believe in selection then you have accepted one of the tenets of evolution even though you don't accept the whole thing. Darwin invented the term survival of the fittest....

You couldn't be more wrong bud. I've said it many times in this thread already, natural selection does not add information. How does change go against the idea of creation? Darwin didn't invent natural selection. Natural selection (also known as micro-evolution, thanks rocker) forms new species, NOT new kinds. It's independant of the evolution theory! I'm getting the feeling that I'm repeating myself over and over and over and not getting anywhere.

I found this piece of information that puts everything evolution into perspective since it seems like we're having a little confusion on what evolution is.

"Evolution has six distinctive phases, set by Science in the following order:

Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.

Chemical Evolution. The development of all naturally occurring chemical elements from "originally existing" Hydrogen and Helium.

Stellar and Planetary Evolution. The development of stars and planets from chemical elements.

Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).

Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from another kind of life (an amphibian can come from a fish, a bird can come from a lizard, etc.).

Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within a kind (Chihuahuas and Labradors, both dogs, descended from a common ancestor - a dog).
Only the 6th phase has been observed and documented. The first five phases of evolution are assumed."

Quote:

The Earth is NOT 8000 years old, it is proven.

You like making big statements like that. Let's change this statement a little. I'll say that the Earth is NOT billions of years old or millions of years old, and that it really has been proven. A tree trunk goes through many layers of rock that are supposed to be millions of years old. If it really took so long for those layers to pile up, that trunk would have eroded away in just a few decades or less. Or this trunk could have been buried quickly in a catastrophic event like a global flood. Hmm...

Plus you never responded to the fact that red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some dinosaur bone which can't last more than a thousand years.

Quote:

I mean recorded human history goes back that far.

Well of course it does, that's how long man has been around. That has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

Quote:

No where are there hieroglyphics or texts showing us with dinosaurs.

"Dragon history is nearly universal throughout the world's ancient cultures. Where did this global concept originate? How did societies throughout the world describe, record, draw, etch, sew and carve such creatures in such uniformity, if they did not witness these creatures during their lifetimes? Dragon history is by no means limited to the Bible. Dragon accounts from China, Europe, the Middle East, and ancient Latin America share similar accounts of "dragons" and other beasts. Some cultures revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo in China show that the royal house kept dragons for ceremonies, and records of the Greek historian Herodotus and the Jewish historian Josephus describe flying reptiles in ancient Egypt and Arabia. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill these creatures. There are numerous records of warriors killing great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village. Gilgamesh, Fafnir, Beowulf and other famous legends, including the mythology of Egypt, Greece and Rome, include specific descriptions of dragons and other dinosaur-like creatures." - Dragon-History.com

Quote:

Do you believe stars are forming at this minute? stars exploding? Becuase everything is still changing/evolving...

Let's talk about supernovas for a bit. We're talking about an explosion so bright it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remains should keep expanding for thousands of years according to scientific physical equations. Check out this fact: There are no very old widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs (supernova remnants) and few moderately old (Stage 2) SNRs in our galaxy, it's satellite galaxies or the Magellantic clouds. "This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion" - K. Davies "Distribution of Supernova Reminants in the Galaxy," <i>Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism</i> 1994. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

1) if infinity doesn't exist, how come i can achieve it with just 2 mirrors?
If you can answer this with enough proof to refute the fact that it does exist, then i can give your argument more credence. Moreso, brockton's rebuttal of your argument gives credence to mine--anything that was created had to be created by something else--and that something else had to be created by another

and so on...

and so on...

and so on...

moreso, unless i missed it, you failed to provide a valid proof of the fact you belive that If god is truly everything, how he can say what's right and what's wrong--even though being everything and an absolute would mean that he couldn't say something was wrong because the wrong has to exist for the right to exist. and also, how can god not have an antihesis on it's own level--that would make it an absolue, and an absolute cannot judge, cannot percieve, cannot feel--it just simply is. like my theory that the big band is the result of a big crubnch in the endless infinite cycle. Thus, my conjecture is that "god" is everything, and everything is infinity, since the only opposite for infinity is infinitessimal, and whether it's infinite or infinitessimal is soley based upon your point of view.

Plus, even though there could be nothing and god, then the time of creation was sparked...nothingness and god (read: emptyness and fullness) had to exist in something--in a different set of conditions--and even though this universe may be at the mercy of said "god", this universe is still a set of condition within the reality that is god and nothingness, and further, who's to say there's just "god" and nothingness with that set--and who's to say that that is not a subset of yet another. again, all answers point to infinity.

and lancer...one question...

How would you define "life"?

<br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.