Disproval of the RE model

There are two nuclear forces, weak and strong. The weak nuclear force is the result of an atom splitting, while the strong results from them fusing. The subatomic particles in the nuclei of atoms cause atoms to repel one another via the weak nuclear force. However, once they get within a certain distance of each other, the strong nuclear force overpowers the weak, and the atoms fuse. What could compress the atoms, and get them bunched up together so closely that the stronger nuclear force takes over? Gravity.

The laws of thermodynamics only appear to be violated because the stars seemingly use up more fuel than they have, but this illusion is dispelled when astrophysical reaction chains are taken into account. The hydrogen-hydrogen reaction is just one of many fusion reactions taking place in stars. In the heavier stars, the Carbon-Nickel-Oxygen cycle is more common. Our own star will switch from a proton-proton chain to a triple-alpha process, which converts helium into carbon. This change in reactions gives the illusion of the violation of thermodynamics, but the potential energy is miscalculated when people fail to take into account the change of atoms from one type to another. Eventually, the chain of reactions will end.

Your apparent detailed knowledge of astrophysics really makes me curious as to how these ideas about waves and 220 km/s stars got into your head.

So, the discussion about thermodynamics was not intended to describe a contradiction with how stars get their energy, but rather to illustrate that large clouds of gas should collapse.

But uh, thanks for the elucidation.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "Malrix"

My bad. It is Po-218 with 3.8 day half life.

I am ignorant on the subject of polonium halos. However, a possible quick answer to the question, "Why do we find polonium at all, wouldn't it decay before it reaches the Earth from the nearest supernova?" is that while its travelling through space, it isn't polonium yet, but decays some time after its arrival here. Polonium is one of the stages of uranium decay, and uranium has a very long half life. As long as uranium arrives here from someplace, it will eventually turn into polonium, which may then be found in halo form -- whatever that is -- in granite.

You were right U does decay into Po.

Although the production of heavy elements during a supernova is highly speculative and, probably improvable claim, fine, I give that, suppose such Uranium atom reached the Earth and was deposited in granite, and decayed into Po, which then decayed (btw those halos are the evidence of decay). That would mean that along with the polonium halos (evidence of Po decay) we would find Uranium halos (since Po came to existence by decaying Uranium), but the Uranium ones are missing, there are only Po ones. (Work of Robert Gentry)

So, that means 2 things:
1. Supernova produced the whole granite that then got dumped onto the Earth and Earth was never a hot molten mass.
2. Earth was created in a short time and was never a hot molten mass.

Both choices are not evolution friendly.

Although the production of heavy elements during a supernova is highly speculative and, probably improvable claim, fine, I give that, suppose such Uranium atom reached the Earth and was deposited in granite, and decayed into Po, which then decayed (btw those halos are the evidence of decay). That would mean that along with the polonium halos (evidence of Po decay) we would find Uranium halos (since Po came to existence by decaying Uranium), but the Uranium ones are missing, there are only Po ones. (Work of Robert Gentry)

Maybe it's the short half-life of polonium that results in the halo -- so much material is converted to energy all at once...?

I have this faint inkling of a belief that some radioactive materials do glow.

So, that means 2 things:
1. Supernova produced the whole granite that then got dumped onto the Earth and Earth was never a hot molten mass.
2. Earth was created in a short time and was never a hot molten mass.

Why does it mean this?

1.  Supernova could just have spewed out a cloud of material, some of it uranium.  This cloud eventually formed our solar system.  So whatever planets are formed would contain some uranium.  This is just speculation on my part -- I don't know anything about the geology of the other worlds.

Another speculation is that a large uranium-rich asteroid impacted our planet in its molten youth, and what we observe nowadays is what's left over.

2.  This one I also don't see any justifaction for ... could you elaborate?

-Erasmus

You should really go and check out halos.com. They have 30-min video you can download that explains everything very well.

2. This one I also don't see any justifaction for ... could you elaborate?

Has nothing to do with supernovas, has to do with instantanious creation of granite with Po halos in it.


BTW did you listen to any of the Hovind audio files I posted link to earlier?

You should really go and check out halos.com. They have 30-min video you can download that explains everything very well.

Quote

2. This one I also don't see any justifaction for ... could you elaborate?

Has nothing to do with supernovas, has to do with instantanious creation of granite with Po halos in it.


BTW did you listen to any of the Hovind audio files I posted link to earlier?

No... I admit with shame that my internet connection is not what it's dialled up--- er, cracked up to be.  I need to find an opportunity to check them out with a high-speed connection :(

-Erasmus

No... I admit with shame that my internet connection is not what it's dialled up--- er, cracked up to be.  I need to find an opportunity to check them out with a high-speed connection

-Erasmus

Oohhh! Dude! You got to EVOLVE from dial-up as fast as possible!

Oohhh! Dude! You got to EVOLVE from dial-up as fast as possible!

Yeah I will and then I'll be all like, "I was never a dirty, hairy, dialup user!  My high-bandwidth connection was installed in its present form over a six-day period some time in the past ten thousand years.  How else do you explain its apparent complexity?"

-Erasmus

I mean, what are the odds of your broadband connection being exactly 2 megabytes! That's like, 16777216 bits! There's no way you could have got that number by chance! It must have been God who created it!

 

Quote from: "Malrix"

Oohhh! Dude! You got to EVOLVE from dial-up as fast as possible!

Yeah I will and then I'll be all like, "I was never a dirty, hairy, dialup user!  My high-bandwidth connection was installed in its present form over a six-day period some time in the past ten thousand years.  How else do you explain its apparent complexity?"

-Erasmus

You see, the genes for faster connections were already installed in your house (coax outlets) all you did is turned them on - perfectly acceptable, I wouldn't doubt such evolutionary process for a minute.

But then, imagine, some joker will come around and start claiming that the whole internet along with all of the computers and servers appeared by chance from a huge steaming pile of manure over millions of years. See, THAT is a fairy tail mixed with enormous amounts of bullshit.
It even sounds stupid when you say it outloud.

But then, imagine, some joker will come around and start claiming that the whole internet along with all of the computers and servers appeared by chance from a huge steaming pile of manure over millions of years. See, THAT is a fairy tail mixed with enormous amounts of bullshit.

It's pretty clear to me that the internet (and technology in general) *does* evolve, just not by natural selection.  However, as opposed to biological systems, with technology I can point to the intelligent designer and make fun of his horn-rimmed glasses and pocket protector, maybe even stuff him in a locker.  I can also look at his design plans, become an ID'er myself, and have *complete* understanding of the mechanics of the system.  There's no suspension of disbelief there.

Man, I love argument by dumb analogy.

-Erasmus

I'm sure you realize how much more complex even a single cell in a human body is compared to the whole network communication system with all its seven layers.
So, based on that understanding you still go ahead and say that the simpler thing couldn't have appeared on its own and a lot more complex thing could? Where is the logic in that?

Your and many other atheists' inability to accept God as your creator comes from the fact that you desire to know in very detail how the creation happened and who is this God and where He is. And the reason you cannot understand that you cannot apply your empirical science to the process. It is the same as the fact that computers cannot understand the existence of man. All laws that any computer works by (PC, registers, bits for address, bits for offset, bits for instruction) do not work in the real world, so when you try to explain creation with science laws that work in our world, you assume that they also work outside of it, but they don't.

For computer to change it's own microchip is incomprehensible, because it cannot be explained and achieved by changing bits from 0 to 1, but for a human to do it would be an easy task, because we have abilities beyond computer's, so, as far as computer is concerned - a miracle just happened - the microchip was replaced, but for a human it wasn't anything special.

Science will never be able to empirically explain the origins of life, simply because it is incapable to do so.

So given the choice of all the scientific attempts to explain origins with a bunch of theories that always contradict one another, and the Bible's supernatural explanation of creation that contains no contradictions, I choose the one that has no contradictions.

I'm sure you realize how much more complex even a single cell in a human body is compared to the whole network communication system with all its seven layers.

So, based on that understanding you still go ahead and say that the simpler thing couldn't have appeared on its own and a lot more complex thing could? Where is the logic in that?

Yeah but a major part of that complexity is a mechanism that allows self-modification.  Anyway, these vague and unquantified arguments about complexity do not an argument for intelligent design make.

when you try to explain creation with science laws that work in our world, you assume that they also work outside of it, but they don't.

What makes you think that you are in a position to say, "Such-and-such laws work within such-and-such a domain, but not this other domain."  You yourself claim we don't have any knowledge about what laws a "creator" must follow; how do you know that they *aren't* the same laws we follow?

For computer to change it's own microchip is incomprehensible,/quote]

To you, perhaps, but apparently not for von Neumann, whose model for computation entails -- in fact, necessitates! -- programs that can modify themselves.

As for hardware, what makes you think that robots, built by other robots, could not evolve and speciate according to natural selection?

Quote

Science will never be able to empirically explain the origins of life, simply because it is incapable to do so.[/quotes]

An as-yet-unjustified assumption of yours.  Refuse to make it, and the rest of your circular argument crumbles.

Quote

So given the choice of all the scientific attempts to explain origins with a bunch of theories that always contradict one another, and the Bible's supernatural explanation of creation that contains no contradictions, I choose the one that has no contradictions.

So, you need an intelligence to design a complex system like Earth's biosphere... but you're okay with the notion that that intelligence needed no design of its own?

Also, perhaps you can briefly list these alleged contradictions?  Notice that gaps in understanding are not the same thing as contradictions.

Also, perhaps you can point to those verses in the Bible that describe evolution guided by intelligent design.  If you adhere to strict creationism, I apologize -- which parts of the Bible do you see fit to take literally?  Only those parts that are free from contradiction, I suppose?

Anyway, I'm glad you have a theory of creation that makes you comfortable.  I regret that it is motivated primarily by ignorance -- the old, "Our understanding of natural phenomenon X is so incomplete -- how could it possibly be correct at all?  I can't think of any way, so it must be wrong."  I compare it to, say, introduction of your own example into a medieval society.  I imagine that people 1000 years ago, if presented in their own age with computers and automobiles and airplanes, would certainly ascribe such creations to devilry or divine miracles, since "How could man ever devise such wonders?  I can't think of a way, so it must be supernatural in origin."

-Erasmus

I'm confused... the "supernatural" explanation of the Bible has no contradictions?  Wait, are we talking about the same Bible?  Interesting I've been influenced to believe that there were contradictions in the Bible.  As of right now I'm researching for a paper that is meant to persuade "fundamentalists" from believing the silly notion that a global flood ever occurred.  But I guess you probably believe that Malrix.  By the way, and you can quote me on this, a faith that goes unquestioned is little more than pure ignorance.

So... as long as you believe in the flat earth, do you also believe that it is less than 10,000 years old?  And that dinosaurs never existed?  And that evolution doesn't occur at all?  I don't think the argument is whether or not evolution occurs, because it can be seen when the Flu evolves from year to year.  You do believe that right?

And I hope, Malrix, that you do understand that somebody can believe in evolution as well as in God (example:  me).  A belief in God is a faith; a complete and unquestioned belief in a book that was written by humans is perhaps not a wise decision.

Quick question to all:  if the earth is flat, does that mean it's possible to sail off the edge?  And that all the photographs of the earth that show it's actual shape are fakes?  And that we never really travelled to the moon?  And that the earth is supported on the back of a giant turtle?

You seem a decent person.  However, you may want to go back in this thread as well as other threads, since they answer most of your questions in greater detail than I will here.

So... as long as you believe in the flat earth, do you also believe that it is less than 10,000 years old?  And that dinosaurs never existed?  And that evolution doesn't occur at all?  I don't think the argument is whether or not evolution occurs, because it can be seen when the Flu evolves from year to year.  You do believe that right?

It seems to me that Malrix in particular and probably other IDers as well believe in microevolution -- small changes within a species to adapt to the environment, like stronger legs, more fur, whatever -- but do not believe in the creation of new species through natural selection.

But he should feel free to correct my interpretation of his statements.

Quick question to all:  if the earth is flat, does that mean it's possible to sail off the edge?

No: there's a wall of ice, or so they say.

And that all the photographs of the earth that show it's actual shape are fakes?  And that we never really travelled to the moon?

Right-o, on both counts.

And that the earth is supported on the back of a giant turtle?

We uh... have Top People working on that question as we speak.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

-Erasmus

I'm confused... the "supernatural" explanation of the Bible has no contradictions?  Wait, are we talking about the same Bible?  Interesting I've been influenced to believe that there were contradictions in the Bible.  As of right now I'm researching for a paper that is meant to persuade "fundamentalists" from believing the silly notion that a global flood ever occurred.  But I guess you probably believe that Malrix.  By the way, and you can quote me on this, a faith that goes unquestioned is little more than pure ignorance.

I don't think we are talking about the same Bible. I don't even think we are talking about the same God.
My God created everything in 6 days, and then later judged the creation with the flood. Genesis 1:1-and on. And then He also said He will preserve His word.

And it is kind of hard not to believe in the flood when there are several hundred surviving legends all over the world about the flood, oldest desert is around 4300 years old, oldest coral reef is 4000 years old, amounts of erosion on the planet, fossils of closed clams found on top of mt.Everest, enormous amounts of coal and oil, billions of fossils all over the place, Grand canyon formation, fossilized trees going thru strata(that is supposedly millions of years old), fossils of huge whales buried in by diatoms, and many, many other.

I questioned many thing about my faith, including millions of years of evolution, and the actual creation, and so far I cannot find any FACTS (not someone’s interpretation of them) that would contradict it.

So... as long as you believe in the flat earth, do you also believe that it is less than 10,000 years old?  And that dinosaurs never existed?  And that evolution doesn't occur at all?  I don't think the argument is whether or not evolution occurs, because it can be seen when the Flu evolves from year to year.  You do believe that right?

Just for the record, I don't believe the Earth is flat. And yes, the Earth is about 6000-10000 years old. (Now you'all are going to go into the carbon-dating, and a bunch of other dating methods, failing to realize that they are all based on improvable assumptions, I'll let you research that on your own, or go to halos.com for a video clip that explains it).

As far as dinosaurs, they existed, but not 70 mil. years ago, but with humans, and they probably still exist, well some of them at least. That's why we have Nessy stories, and thousands of other eye witnesses and pictures of them. Also pictures of them on walls of caves, ancient pottery and jewelry, drawing of them on ancient eco-stones with people, thousands of legends about dragons, Bible mentions dragons over 20 times, book of Job describes 2 dinosaurs in grate detail (behemoth and leviathan).

Erasmus was right on my beliefs in microevolution. Variations within a kind are possible.

And I hope, Malrix, that you do understand that somebody can believe in evolution as well as in God (example:  me).  A belief in God is a faith; a complete and unquestioned belief in a book that was written by humans is perhaps not a wise decision.

Bible is a book written by people and inspired by God, any Christian knows that.

Such people exist because they don't know Bible very well, I know because I was one of them once. In fact I grew up in Soviet Union and lived there for 18 years of my life, was taught evolution like it was a fact, and knew nothing about God until I was 19.
The problem lies in the attempt to limit God.
If you think about it just a little it will make sense. You say that you believe in God that created life, then ask yourself some questions:
Could this God I believe in, create life in the full form that we see now or does He has to rely on death (evolution) to improve his creation?
If he is powerful enough to create life (in any form) wouldn't He be powerful enough to preserver His word?

I answer YES to both questions.
You have to decide for yourself.

If you still not convinsed read Luke 13:23-30. But then again if you don't trust Bible, it wouldn't change anything.

I read your post Erasmus and I have many things on my mind about it, but I will not pick it apart, simply because of the lack of time (I have term paper due and a midterm this week).

One thing that you said interested me more than other things. You said: "So, you need an intelligence to design a complex system like Earth's biosphere... but you're okay with the notion that that intelligence needed no design of its own? "

If I understand this correctly you are asking who created the designer, because if he could design such complex thing, he is probably more complex that the thing he designed, so he must have a designer too, and how far does this go?
And the answer is simple: I don't know. Maybe it is one of those things that we cannot understand based on the laws we are governed by, maybe we have not yet discovered the law that would explaine this: I don't know.

The bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are equally religious. You just have to pick the one you like better. They cannot be both true because they contradict each other, but they can both be false. Everyone will find out for sure which one is true and which isn't (when you die you'll know for a fact).
If you believe in Creation and you die and it happens not to be true (evolution is true) - you don't loose anything.
But if you believe in Evolution and you die and it happens not to be true (Creation is true) - you miss out on a lot of good stuff.

And it is kind of hard not to believe in the flood when there are several hundred surviving legends all over the world about the flood,

I've been wondering about that: how did Noah's descendents get to, say, North America to build the indigenous cultures there?  Why are their flood legends so different from that of Noah?  Is Noah's name, or the name of their patriarch (Ham, I suppose?) ever mentioned in their legends?  At what point did they lose their monotheistic faith and revert to paganism?  How do you account for similarities between ante- and post-diluvian cultures in North America, considering the former were all wiped out?

oldest desert is around 4300 years old, oldest coral reef is 4000 years old, amounts of erosion on the planet, fossils of closed clams found on top of mt.Everest, enormous amounts of coal and oil, billions of fossils all over the place, Grand canyon formation, fossilized trees going thru strata(that is supposedly millions of years old), fossils of huge whales buried in by diatoms, and many, many other.

From what I've read, these claims are either not true, or are true but are explained by something other than a global flood, or are true but are at least as good as *refutation* for a global flood.

As far as dinosaurs, they existed, but not 70 mil. years ago, but with humans, and they probably still exist, well some of them at least. That's why we have Nessy stories, and thousands of other eye witnesses and pictures of them.

There aren't too many areas of the Earth's surface that aren't well-covered by human surveyors and explorers.  Given that, and given the opportunistic tendencies of people nowadays, why don't we have a Jurassic Park?  No country wouldn't jump on the opportunity to show its dinosaurs to millions of tourists per year.  How do you explain the fact that all of the "eyewitness" accounts are vague and all the "photographs" fuzzy?

Also pictures of them on walls of caves, ancient pottery and jewelry, drawing of them on ancient eco-stones with people, thousands of legends about dragons, Bible mentions dragons over 20 times, book of Job describes 2 dinosaurs in grate detail (behemoth and leviathan).

Plenty of legends mention dragons... how come they aren't regularly seen today devouring ships or razing cities to the ground?

Bible is a book written by people and inspired by God, any Christian knows that.

C'mon, Malrix, you're smarter than that.  Every Christian *assumes* that for no other reason than that the Bible and the churches *tell* them to assume it.

The problem lies in the attempt to limit God.

This is only a problem if you start with certain assumptions about God, and then go on to interpret evolution as a limitation.  Maybe God *intended* evolution by natural selection, because he saw a Universe that ran entirely on its own and didn't require his constant intervention to be more beautiful, elegant, and efficient.  Do you believe that God needs to push the planets?

Could this God I believe in, create life in the full form that we see now or does He has to rely on death (evolution) to improve his creation?

He created the Universe to be dynamic, becuase he thought it would be more interested.  The environment changes, so he designed his creatures to adapt themselves to it.

A huge problematic mindset among creationists is that evolution produces "better" creatures: they reply, "But why wouldn't God create them perfectly?"  Evolutionists don't have a better/worse metric; probably God doesn't either.

If he is powerful enough to create life (in any form) wouldn't He be powerful enough to preserver His word?

I don't really know what this means.

-Erasmus

Malrix, I'm glad you don't believe that the earth is flat.  And yes, you're right, there are still dinosaurs on earth.  For proof I can send you a picture of my pet stegosaurus.  Also dragons exist but only in the mountainous areas of Europe.  

As for evolution (microevolution), you agree that evolution takes place on a small scale?  Survival of the fittest?  Small natural changes to a species to adapt to the environment?  It's kind of funny that you do.  I've had arguments with a friend of mine who is kind of like you.  He believes it all happens, but eventually that adaptation to the environment just stops because of course if it keeps on happening the species would change too much and people would call that evolution.  No, can't have that.  It's a rule, you can only adapt so much before we stop believing.

The earth 6-10 thousand years old... okay.  I concede here, too many people agree that this must be a fact for me to believe anything else.  I mean, seriously, how could it be anything else?  You can tell when you count the generations in that book!  That book that humans wrote uhhhh 2000-3000 years ago!  Yeah, around the same time that the general belief WAS of a flat earth--before all these scientists got wise and said "hey wait a minute the earth is round!"  

Such people exist because they don't know Bible very well

Hmmm... I think you're getting very confused now.  You see, I never said that the Bible was God.  I said that I believe in God as well as evolution.  The Bible was written by humans (not God).  Now when God's version comes out and it has some major differences from man's version, would you be arguing with God about which is right?  "No God, it says right here SIX DAYS... I'm sorry I can't accept what you're saying.  No no it says that the flood was universal!  It covered all the mountains.  What do you mean fairy tale written by men?  I'm sorry God but I can't believe you."  Do you see what I'm getting at?  Not that any of that will necessarily happen (and don't take any offense by it).

The question is not whether or not God has the power to create life in its present form, it's whether or not it happened that way.  Did God have the power to prevent Hurricane Katrina?  Well, perhaps... but did it happen that way?  No.  You can't look at what God could have done and say "well this would have been God's best choice..."  you have to look at what actually happened and say "this WAS God's choice."

But if you believe in Evolution and you die and it happens not to be true (Creation is true) - you miss out on a lot of good stuff.

The problem is that you don't. Christianity is not the only religion. Each religion has equal chances of being right, therefore your chances of picking the right one are very slim indeed.

Each religion has equal chances of being right, therefore your chances of picking the right one are very slim indeed.

Well, not necessarily the case that they all have the same chance of being right.  For example, a religion based on the belief that everything is, despite all evidence to the contrary, bright red, is probably not right.  Clearly some analysis can be done of the claims of a religion to evaluate it for its chances of being The Truth.

It seems, however, that Red Religions tend not to become very popular.  The world's major monotheistic religions agree on several points and while they usually don't award each other access to paradise, they often concede that their theological cousins will not suffer eternal damnation, either.  Setting aside the fact that the major religions are all based entirely on unverifiable claims, it seems that you're in good shape if you pick one of them.  1 in 6 humans is a Muslim; maybe 1 in 6 humans will enjoy eternity with hundreds of virgins to serve them.  Not bad odds really.

If you believe in Creation and you die and it happens not to be true (evolution is true) - you don't loose anything.
But if you believe in Evolution and you die and it happens not to be true (Creation is true) - you miss out on a lot of good stuff.

Pascal's wager (i.e. what you're asserting) is interesting and I have some responses to it.

1)  Its usefulness is debatable.  If your goal is to lead the most fulfilling life possible, instead of relying on unsubstantiated claims about rewards in the afterlife, maybe Pascal's wager isn't the way to go.  If your goal is to get into heaven -- well then I guess you believe in heaven and God already :P  Problem with Pascal's wager is that it focuses on the afterlife, thus obviating its own purpose.

2)  I have my own "wager", based on my having not been convinced that the God Pascal worships is the God for me.  If I "sell out" and force myself to believe in God just on the hope of getting into heaven, I will have to give up my own (God-given?) power of reasoning.  The God that I would have respect for would never want me to do this.

If, on the other hand, I do my best to live a righteous and honourable life, use my (potentially God-given) talents to their fullest in such a way as to better my own life and the lives of those around me, and God *still* doesn't let me into heaven just because I didn't worship him, then probably I didn't want to go to that heaven anyway; I'd be happier with Aristotle and the gang of Virtuous Pagans in Limbo.  Lastly, if it turns out that there is no afterlife, and religion is a sham, I won't have lost anything.

-Erasmus

The bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are equally religious. You just have to pick the one you like better. They cannot be both true because they contradict each other, but they can both be false. Everyone will find out for sure which one is true and which isn't (when you die you'll know for a fact).

I'm fairly sure that the Catholic church has stated quite clearly that evolution and the concept that God created man are not mutually exclusive...  Of course if you're protestant, or just anything other than Catholic, you're by no means bound by this, although I believe the reasoning they used (ie: God creates the first beings on earth.  Said beings then proceede to evolve) can still be used to invalidate your assumption that they're mutually exclusive.

Also Erasmus, I'm pretty sure that the premise of Pascal's wager was that the afterlife gives you an eternity of happiness, agaisnt which you are wagering our one mortal life on earth, therefore, if you look at the odds, you wagering one life against an infinite number of them, and so, by the "laws of wagering" (I think he used that term...) it would be foolish not to accept such amazing odds (fairly sure he didn't say "amazing", but I'm paraphrasing...).  Of course this only adresses your first point, not your counter-wager, which, in many ways, seems to me like the better way of looking at things, although, I'm fairly sure that if there's no Limbo, and only a choice between Heaven and Hell, and God doesn't want you because you didn't worship him, you'd still want to get into heaven.  Just a thought :wink:

To be honest, I think I would suffer damnation just to spite a dogmatic and tyrannical god that only permits his worshippers to achieve joy. I think that that is morally unacceptable, and the world needs people to stand up to evil.

Oh, and the topic? I was really looking for something that the RE model didn't explain, but the FE model did. But that's moot now, I guess.

To be honest, I think I would suffer damnation just to spite a dogmatic and tyrannical god that only permits his worshippers to achieve joy. I think that that is morally unacceptable, and the world needs people to stand up to evil.

Hmmm... yeah I like the sound of that but supposedly damnation *really* sucks.

Oh, and the topic? I was really looking for something that the RE model didn't explain, but the FE model did. But that's moot now, I guess.

Hah!  Consider your thread USURPED!

-Erasmus

oooh an intelligent design and other religous stuff thread. I always enjoy these.

Heres a question I like to ask christians right about now; Which version of creation do you believe in? Genesis or Adam and Eve. Cause if you look closely, you'll see that there are two seperate stories.

However for a really good laugh, find a "Creation Science" Magazine. You can spend hours cracking yourself up over these.

Also, its pointless to argue over religon as nobody can prove anything.

On going to war over religon: You're basically fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.

Actually I can prove the bible wrong. *gets dinosaur skull.* This skull is over a million years old. There bible = wrong shut up and go home.

Knight, like I said before, we believe in a different God. You created your God in your imagination; I get mine from the Bible.

I am not a catholic, and I don't care what they do or say. They did many things that are not biblical including gay priests and accepting evolution, it has become very corrupt because they set their own doctrines instead of taking them from the Bible. I don't even think they use the same version of Bible as me.

Which version of creation do you believe in? Genesis or Adam and Eve. Cause if you look closely, you'll see that there are two separate stories.

Please, enlighten me further.

Maybe God *intended* evolution by natural selection, because he saw a Universe that ran entirely on its own and didn't require his constant intervention to be more beautiful, elegant, and efficient. Do you believe that God needs to push the planets?

He did intend natural selection, he did intend adaptation to the environment - within a kind. That is why creation was over in 6 days, and there was no creation after that, only adaptation.
Gravity pushes planets, not God. But, explain this to me: Why does gravity exists?, for that matter why any of the physics laws exists? who/what set them?

Quote

If he is powerful enough to create life (in any form) wouldn't He be powerful enough to preserver His word?

I don't really know what this means.

It means that if He has power to create life, He certainly has enough power to preserve the Bible (His word means Bible).

Plenty of legends mention dragons... how come they aren't regularly seen today devouring ships or razing cities to the ground?

How many times have you seen or heard that Grizzly bears razing cities? Just a couple weeks ago there was a story on CNN about the "lost world" somewhere in Asia, where scientists discovered new species of birds, how come those birds were not seen regularly? And there are a lot more places like that. Africa has a swamp the size of Texas that is completely unexplored, and where there was a lot of citing. People who saw something like that would think twice before going around and telling the story, because of the fear of being laughed at (after all those creatures died 70 mil years ago). Crypto-zoology is the name of the field, check it out.

And for those of you who think Evolution and creation can be true consider this:

Bible: Earth before sun            
Evolution: Sun before earth
Bible: Oceans before land                  
Evolution: Land before oceans
Bible: Light before sun                          
Evolution: Sun before light
Bible: Land plants first                          
Evolution: Marine life first
Bible: Fruit trees before fish                  
Evolution: Fish before fruit trees
Bible: Fish before insects                        
Evolution: Insects before fish
Bible: Plants before sun                        
Evolution: Sun before plants
Bible: Marine mammals before land mammals                
Evolution: Land mammals before marine mammals
Bible: Birds before reptiles                  
Evolution: Reptiles before birds
Bible: Atmosphere between 2 layers of water        
Evolution: Atmosphere above water

As you can see everything about evolution is backward compared to the Bible. So, no, one cannot logically believe both, It's one or the other.

Knight, like I said before, we believe in a different God. You created your God in your imagination; I get mine from the Bible.

That still makes his just as valid as yours.

As you can see everything about evolution is backward compared to the Bible. So, no, one cannot logically believe both, It's one or the other.

Some people believe that God created evolution, and although this is not supported by the bible, it's not any less likely to be true.

They did many things that are not biblical including gay priests

Could you tell me where in the bible is condones gays?

That still makes his just as valid as yours.

I never said mine was valid, and his wasn't. All it is, is mine is scriptural and his isn't, unless he will write his own Scripture.

Some people believe that God created evolution, and although this is not supported by the bible, it's not any less likely to be true.

Again, they can belive anything they want, but it is not sciptural.

Could you tell me where in the bible is condones gays?

Bible verse Leviticus 18:22

KJV: (King James Version):
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination

LB: (Living Bible):
Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin

NIV: (New International Version)
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

NLT: (New Living Translation):
Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin

RSV: (Revised Standard Version):
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

Knight, like I said before, we believe in a different God. You created your God in your imagination; I get mine from the Bible.

And this makes my God different from yours how?  

He did intend natural selection, he did intend adaptation to the environment - within a kind. That is why creation was over in 6 days, and there was no creation after that, only adaptation.

So it is your belief that adaptation to the environment does occur, but that it somehow must stop occurring at some point so the species doesn't change too much and become...more advanced.  As far as I can tell, adaptation to the environment over time would yield evolution.  But maybe there's a passage in the Old Testament which says something about evolution not existing.  Which takes us to the next point.

As you can see everything about evolution is backward compared to the Bible. So, no, one cannot logically believe both, It's one or the other.

Logic is not your game, don't try to ruin it by making outlandish statements like this.  You're basing your own (or perhaps somebody else's) interpretation of the Bible as the only way to interpret it.  Perhaps Genesis is...a story.  Something that isn't factual but that gets a point across.  Something that attempts to figure out God's motives--when in fact this isn't possible.  
Bible:  Written by man.  

How many times have you seen or heard that Grizzly bears razing cities?

Zero.  I have never seen nor heard Grizzly bears razing cities.  But I have seen Godzilla razing cities.

mine is scriptural and his isn't, unless he will write his own Scripture.

Indeed, I will.

Quote from: "Erasmus

Maybe God *intended* evolution by natural selection, because he saw a Universe that ran entirely on its own and didn't require his constant intervention to be more beautiful, elegant, and efficient. Do you believe that God needs to push the planets?

He did intend natural selection, he did intend adaptation to the environment - within a kind. That is why creation was over in 6 days, and there was no creation after that, only adaptation.

Ah, so it's the "no more creation after the initial creation" business that implies to you that he would not want new species to be created, by any means including natural selection, after the sixth day?

Gravity pushes planets, not God. But, explain this to me: Why does gravity exists?, for that matter why any of the physics laws exists? who/what set them?

Maybe God set them; that's fine with me for the purposes of this argument.  My point was to show that God "set the mechanism in motion", and that you don't have any reason to say that speciation / macroevolution *isn't* part of the mechanism he intended.

It means that if He has power to create life, He certainly has enough power to preserve the Bible (His word means Bible).

Yeah, I don't know what it means "preserve his word".  Does that mean he makes sure it's always true?

-Erasmus