Conquer Club

WidowMakers wrote:

Iliad wrote:Another question: if evolution exists what about the bacteria which eat nylon? Nylon was only invented in 1950!

I still don't understand how that matters. Are you saying that nylon is so special that nothing on earth could have ever been able to decompose it. SO since there is now it must have evolved. To prove that you must be able to show that no bacteria had the ability to decompose it before nylon existed. You can't

I think it's probably because the bacteria can only survive by eating nylon, so how did they exist before the 50s with nothing to eat?

WidowMaker, I believe you must take the Bible in context. Some things, the author intended for the reader to take literally - the gospels for example. The context of the Gospels is very simple - men writing about their experiences with Christ.

The Gospels are HISTORICALLY true.

Genesis is FIGURATIVELY true.

Hope that clears things up.

WidowMakers wrote:Show me a fact that proves atoms to man.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure we have pictures of atoms somehow.

Failing that, there are dozens of experiments which prove it. The gold foil experiment for instance.

And WidowMakers, it's absolutely unfair to be asking people to "prove'" evolution, when you can't "prove" strict creationism.

I think what everyone is basically saying is that the empirical evidence is very clearly in favor of evolution. It makes sense.

One of the Gospels weren't even one of his disciples, yet how can you still call it historically true?

You need to read The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail, they make some pretty interesting hypothesis. Especially about the Gospels.

Skittles! wrote:One of the Gospels weren't even one of his disciples, yet how can you still call it historically true?

You need to read The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail, they make some pretty interesting hypothesis. Especially about the Gospels.

To be perfectly honest, I am certainly not an expert on who wrote what. Nonetheless, as Christians we believe that the books in the Bible were divinely inspired, so the truth would come out whether or not the author was there. Either way, the story in each of them remains consistent.

Anywho, point is that the purpose of the Gospels was to describe the life of Christ - sort of like a journalist would. HISTORICAL fact, as opposed to FIGURATIVE fact.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
Genesis is FIGURATIVELY true.

This is an opinion which not all Christians agree.

God created Adam and Eve and created the beasts of the land. Not that He created something, which became these things. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible. IMO

Yes, but even so, the Gospels state that Jesus said something when he was on the cross, yet each say that he said something different.
How can it be historically true when it contradicts each other of what Jesus said on the cross?

WidowMakers wrote:
"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1: Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day [i.e. a 24-hour period]. The words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ (23 times each) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + ‘night’ (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day."

I guess that master's degree theology I paid for my wife to get at a little school called Harvard Divinity School is worthless. I am sure Harvard has it wrong and some fuckwit on a random message board has it right.

Putting quotation marks around your text doesn't make it more true. It just makes you look like a bigger ass. If you are going to use quotation marks, post your sources so that the quotation marks actually mean something.

Here's a fact, God could have created the world as it is now 5 seconds ago. All our memories and everything. It's hard to argue against an absolute power like that.

He could also change all the rules of science within the next minute just to f*ck with us.

Coleman wrote:Here's a fact, God could have created the world as it is now 5 seconds ago. All our memories and everything. It's hard to argue against an absolute power like that.

He could also change all the rules of science within the next minute just to f*ck with us.

What has this got to do with proving or disproving evolution?

Btw, the bolded part, wheres your proof? You cant say stuff like that, because its just not verifiable.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Anywho, point is that the purpose of the Gospels was to describe the life of Christ - sort of like a journalist would. HISTORICAL fact, as opposed to FIGURATIVE fact.

Ambrose: As much as I respect you, I feel like you're avoiding some hard decisions. I'd like to know how you hold to this "figurative" interpretation in light of Romans 5:9-31.

Skittles! wrote:Yes, but even so, the Gospels state that Jesus said something when he was on the cross, yet each say that he said something different.
How can it be historically true when it contradicts each other of what Jesus said on the cross?

Or, perhaps you could allow that none of the records are complete, but that each author included what they felt was important. Incomplete data does not automatically mean contradictory data.

Harijan wrote:Thus sayeth Harvard Divinity School: I am Right!

[/theadjack]


I think WM is trying to point out that there is a wide pool of evidence out there, and the vast majority of people that society trusts to interpret that evidence are committed (for various reasons) to upholding the status quo. In light of that, he is attempting to look at a logical alternative remembering that "ex nihilo nihil fit"

Interesting debate. I grew up strict Roman Catholic, grandparents came over to US on a boat from Sicily. I went to Catholic school for a while, church every Sunday, and CCD class. I always believed in God because that’s what I was taught.

A few years back I really started questioning religion – and now I’m kind of in limbo with my beliefs.

I recently read the book above “god is not Great” and it really pushes me towards the non-belief side. It just makes so much more sense that religion was created out of conscience fear from not knowing what happens after death, and early civilizations not understanding the world around them. With so many different religions in the world – and so many different “Gods”, how can it all be true? I know religion is based on faith – which I’m lacking. I just can’t take that step to atheist because I also have fear – what If it is true, and if I don’t believe when I die, I’m condemned to burn in hell for eternity?

As for this thread, I have seen zero facts to prove Creationism. I know that humans weren’t around since the beginning of the Earth, but science does prove more towards Evo than towards Creation. The one thing that bugs me, and that science can't come close to explain, is “What’s beyond space”? The universe is expanding, yes… and space is basically a void of anything. But what’s beyond it – does space go on for eternity? What created space? These conversations are fun late night after many drinks

Nice thread Widow – I’ve enjoyed the reading this Friday morning.


.... my 2 cents.

Titanic wrote:You cant say stuff like that, because its just not verifiable.

The argument between creationism and evolution is a religious one. While the bible does allow for both explanations to coincide, if you want to believe God is all powerful then you have to assume he could do anything. Such as placing scientific evidence within the rules he's created to make us believe things are billions of years old when they could have just been there for a few minutes.

If God is all powerful then nothing is verifiable, he could change everything from one moment to the next without anyone knowing any different.

Now... If you want to argue from the standpoint that God is not all powerful then creationism suffers an instant loss and you can't have an argument to begin with.

Harijan wrote:The idea of a 24 hour creation day is a throwback to the dark ages when the French ruled the world.

I'm sorry, I believe I had stupid in my ear, what did you say?

Coleman wrote:Now... If you want to argue from the standpoint that God is not all powerful then creationism suffers an instant loss and you can't have an argument to begin with.

I got a question for Mr. "Show me a fact that proves atoms to man":

Is the world flat or round?

Also, does the Sun revolve around the Earth, or does the Earth revolve around the Sun?

Minister Masket wrote:I'm sorry, I believe I had stupid in my ear, what did you say?

Just a little side dig on the French who in the middle ages were much more influential in Europe than they are today. For periods of the dark ages they controlled the catholic church and married into many royal families in the region. There is really no basis for my statement other than my belief that it is always ok to make fun of the French.

Backglass wrote:

Coleman wrote:Now... If you want to argue from the standpoint that God is not all powerful then creationism suffers an instant loss and you can't have an argument to begin with.

Is that bertrand russell's celestial koolaid jug?

Skittles! wrote:One of the Gospels weren't even one of his disciples, yet how can you still call it historically true?

You need to read The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail, they make some pretty interesting hypothesis. Especially about the Gospels.

I think none of the evangelists actually was a disciple of Jesus, they just happened to have the same names as some of them.

RjBeals wrote:But what’s beyond it – does space go on for eternity?

I'm pretty sure I heard that the theory states that if you keep going straight up from the earth, you'll either end up back where you started, or you'll crash into the other side of the earth.

Something about twisting through other dimensions (basic string theory stuff, but this was aaaaagggeeesss ago)

WidowMakers wrote:2) No one today was alive at the formation of the earth, universe, etc.
So any opinion on this point is just an assumption.

...and yet you title this thread an analysis of the facts. i can't be arsed to read the rest of your insanely long post because a) this has all been said before on this forum, many times, each as misguided and wrong as the last, and b) presenting creationists with science seems to force their heads deeper into the sand and their fingers deeper into their ears (under the sand, obviously).

Creationism boils down to - and correct me if i'm wrong - a belief in the literal truth of the bible. That's all. That is the debate. And it is, as we have found here, as pointless to argue against as the rapture or the ascension.

Why? because these are intransigent beliefs.

Answer this: is there anything - anything - that anyone could ever say to make you change your mind about your beliefs? I am guessing the answer is no. (massive assumption i know but there you go).
Ask that question of anyone who understands and accepts evolution through natural selection and I would hope the answer would be yes. Present a new theory, show us the evidence, and let's test against it. If it holds up - bingo. A new theory.

That's the difference between the camps and that's why these debates, of which i have just taken part, are a waste of time.

heavycola wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:2) No one today was alive at the formation of the earth, universe, etc.
So any opinion on this point is just an assumption.

...and yet you title this thread an analysis of the facts. i can't be arsed to read the rest of your insanely long post because a) this has all been said before on this forum, many times, each as misguided and wrong as the last, and b) presenting creationists with science seems to force their heads deeper into the sand and their fingers deeper into their ears (under the sand, obviously).

Creationism boils down to - and correct me if i'm wrong - a belief in the literal truth of the bible. That's all. That is the debate. And it is, as we have found here, as pointless to argue against as the rapture or the ascension.

Why? because these are intransigent beliefs.

Answer this: is there anything - anything - that anyone could ever say to make you change your mind about your beliefs? I am guessing the answer is no. (massive assumption i know but there you go).
Ask that question of anyone who understands and accepts evolution through natural selection and I would hope the answer would be yes. Present a new theory, show us the evidence, and let's test against it. If it holds up - bingo. A new theory.

That's the difference between the camps and that's why these debates, of which i have just taken part, are a waste of time.

well heavy im sorry but from what i have seen from bacglass and others like them they also would never change there mind .. about creation that is... but let me ask you this would YOU ever believe in creation ?

red bull wrote:well heavy im sorry but from what i have seen from bacglass and others like them they also would never change there mind

Not true.

If your god or any of the other hundreds of gods that people have claimed to exist since the dawn of man actually showed themselves to us instead of hiding in the clouds and speaking through plants (very un-godlike in my opinion) , I and everyone else I imagine would become instant believers. I would even out-pray jay_a2j!

But thats never going to happen because, unfortunately, magical beings don't exist and without these omnipresent super-people there can be no creation.

MR. Nate wrote:I think WM is trying to point out that there is a wide pool of evidence out there, and the vast majority of people that society trusts to interpret that evidence are committed (for various reasons) to upholding the status quo. In light of that, he is attempting to look at a logical alternative remembering that "ex nihilo nihil fit"

That is not at all what WM is trying to say. Read all of his posts, he is trying to ignore and discredit some of the evidence and build up/support the evidence he likes.

No where does he admit that there is a wide pool of evidence, He is clearly in the mind set that there is a right way and wrong way, and WM is the right way.

Until WM starts posting sources I will just assume that he really doesn't know what he is talking about. I love his use of quotes to try and add credibility to shoddy arguments. If he were so sure of his position he would post links to the underlying data so we could have an actual discussion instead of an argument.

Unfortunately, a discussion is not what WM wants. He wants to be right and have everyone else be wrong. That is what I mean when I say he is insecure in his faith. A person with strong faith (either in science or religion) doesn't need to prove that they are right to the world, what the world thinks doesn't matter.

widowmaker, I have to hand it to you, you're a lot better at this than Jay