Staredit Network

This shows the common misunderstanding of both the theory of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics.

I can address this issue easily since it is brought up so much in creation verse evolution debates.


Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Mass cannot be created nor destroyed. Both of which can be manipulated as show in Einstien's theory:

E = mc^2

Also, energy can be changed from one form to another(potential and kinetic).

So, it's true that the amount of energy is the same. Let's go to the 2nd law before we get into the conclusion.



This is the most misunderstood law for creationists. The law assumes that we live in a closed system. However, it's quite obvious we are not since we receive tons of energy from the sun. This energy is used in plants which, coincidentally, are the lowest in the food chain.

Also, order can be achieved from disorder in nature. Examples can be seen in stomachs and rain. Our stomachs break down food into simpler parts in order to consume it in a much more effective way. Rain (or snow) comes from a much more complex item called a cloud.

So, the point being, both of the laws do not, in anyway, contridict the theory of evolution. The first simply says the amount of energy and mass must be the same from start to end in a closed system. Assuming the this universe is a closed system(which, it should be), then the mass and energy in it (after conversion) should be the same at any given time. The second law, you simply did not understand.



Actually, if you apply Ockham's Razor, creation should be eliminated as a choice.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA240.html

Also, no, you did not answer my statements. Espcially since the constants cannot be found, thereby, defeating your entire arguement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA240.html
This would be an excellent example of a play on words. Creationism is not a theory, its what is... the term 'crationism' was just made to distinguish it from 'evolutionism' or other religions/theories of where we came from.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did it come from?

Your cloud and stomache explanations for understanding entropy are twisted.

Food, as complex as it is, is one piece, it gets broken down and seperated. To me, thats going from order to disorder.
Clouds, complex as they are, are in the sky floating about until dust particles attach to the water molecules causing them to fall and spread over a widespread area. To me, that is going from order to disorder.

Also, you talk about getting resources from other sites, however you fail to do yourself.. .talkorgins is becoming quite handy for you.

Another thing, I don't understand why I am discussing why evolution is not true, when it has never been proven!

Why don't you provide some facts that evolution is true!
It occurs to me that, while I prove evolution to be false, there will always be some explanation to refute anything.

I'll use the sun theory as an example. It has been proven that the sun is decreasing in size; however, you begin to say that you don't know that it is a constant. Do you have proof?

If we go by the society today and how evolution is taught in schools then theories are facts until proven wrong, instead of vise versa.

The question cannot be answered since it's unknown. However, I could ask you where did god come from? The difference is, creation requires god while evolution doesn't require the knowledge of how life came to be.


Yes, I forgot to add something. The reason you think it contridicts is because you think from complex to simple is always a bad thing. From my examples, it's clear it's not. Energy from the sun gives the required fuel to make more complex organisms, as I already said.


Interesting you say that since talkorgins provides resources on the site whenever the topic arises. If you want me to give the links they provide and saying that's where I got it from would simply be a lie from me. We all know lieing is wrong, right?


A lot of things can't be proven. The theory of germs, the atomic theory, etc. But we recongize those to be true. What are you going to do? Not take antibiotics because the germ theory is just a "theory" and therefore, cannot be true?


Haven't you see the evidence presented in the "God" thread? If you want further ones, you may ask for them in other forums or go to the site I often go to.
I suggest christianforums.com and going to the debate section.


Your evidncerequires the speed to be a constant and evidence that it is shrinking. You have presented neither. Why should I accept your evidence?


Theories from science are simply used to best explain phenomenons. In this case, the diversity of organisms. Once more reliable information comes in, the theory will be changed as needed. Science would never make the evidence change to fit the theory, but rather, change the theory to fit the facts. Which is exactly what creationists usually do (as shown in your arguement of the laws).

I provided proof, and as you might have not figured out or not as scientists have, it doesnt matter if the shrinking is a constant, the sun would be too big anyways. Therefore scientists must go on the position that the sun is NOT shrinking thus there will be evidence on pro-evolution sites because it obviously proves it wrong.



GOOD, YOU JUST BOILED IT ALL DOWN! Thank you for proving my point. You have to believe (have faith) that evolution is true based on twisted facts, you have to believe (have faith) that God is true based on twisted facts.

So in essence evolution is just another religion. And you are one of the members.
You said it yourself.



Complex to simple is entropy, doesn't matter if it is bad or not. Energy from the sun doesnt not 'make' more complex organisms directly, the sun simply provides the fuel necessary for plants to reproduce.



Just to continue this discussion on a different topic from laws cuz theres nothing else to be said there.

This is an addition to the amino acids being created in the lab discussion.
Yes, he did make 2 amino acids in the lab, but they were in 70% of tar not to mention that 2 amino acids to a human body is equilavent of trying to write a book with 2 letters.

On top of the fact that the '2 amino acid lifeform' has to find a mate to reproduce.

I specifically asked for this evidence from a non-creation site. If it's scientifically correct, then you should be able to find it on any type of site.


So you deny the evidence we have presented?


You went on to talk about the laws of thermodynamics. I simply told you the flaws in your understanding of the laws.

For your other stuff, I don't get it. I don't see how that disproves evolution in anyway. As I already said, evolution doesn't require life to begin with since it assumes life to exist. From life to non-life is an entirely different theory.

What?



Just because a creation site reports the data from an experiment from two scientists doesn't mean its not fact.

Oh, so now you are saying that only pro-evolution websites that provide data from experiments are scientific.


No, You have to have faith in God. Although there are so many evidences of his existence people will not believe in him. It is a human nature thing.


Explain to me the flaws of my understanding of the laws when it blantantly says energy cannont be created or destroyed and entropy, what is to understand?

What does this mean? cop-out ?

Of course not. If your sure if the facts you have, then I'm sure you can find it in more than 1 site, espcailly since it's a creation site. It would be very intersting if that were to be found on an pro-evolution site. Of all the sites and books I've read, the sun is growing, not shrinking.


It's quite obvious you don't know what I'm talking about. Give me evidence of his existance. If you would like, I will go quote Drunken, his evidence, sources, my sources, sites I visit, and anywhere else I get my information, as evidence to evolution.


Silly boy! I told you very specifically, evolution explains the diversity of life, not how the first life came to be.

How about this, how old do you believe earth to be?

Cheeze, present proof that evolution exists because up this point, there has been none.


Even if I do, you will refute it. It's human nature. I will anyways, because I like to see you make up excuses of the impossible.

Here are some links that prove that the sun is shrinking.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/skeptics.asp

http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/Ackerm...WorldChap06.htm


This NASA site says that the sun cannot be shrinking because the slightest change of its size would either put us in an ice age or a heat wave.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11805.html

Here is a good example of a pro-evolutionist rambling on how the two scientists 'did it wrong'

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showqu...aq=4&fldAuto=21

Your own site is a play on words
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

might? MIGHT? to me that sounds like a guess.


An experiment that took over 80 years performed by two scientists.



Ya, significant, they do not deny it not shrinking, any significant shrinkage, even the slightest shrink is too much when you are talking in billions of years.

You're contradicting yourself. If the sun is shrinking as you say, then you also say we should be having an ice age.

Let's make a few assumptions, just to add at least some credibility and possibility to your argument. First, let's assume that the sun is shrinking and we're not having an ice age. Second, let's assume that evolution is based off of "twisted facts" (so far I have seen none). Third, let's assume that the claim that evolution is not an explanation for how life began is a cop-out (a typical strawman argument, but hey, it's yours, not mine). Lastly, let's assume that you've somehow disproven evolution (even though we really know that nothing can logically be disproven). With these assumptions in mind, would I (or any logical thinker) believe in Creationism? No, because caving in to Creationist theory would be a logical failure on my part. The burden of proof lies on the Creationist to prove Creationism to me, and so far nothing you've said in any way leads me to believe that Creationism is correct. You're attempting to create a situation called a false dilemma, but that line of reasoning is fallacious, and has no place in an argument. Until you can provide evidence that Creationism is true from a scientific and logical source (not one based on faith), your arguments will have no merit. The burden of proof is on you to prove Creationism, not us to prove evolution. We already believe evolution is correct, we see no further need to prove it to ourselves. If you want to change our minds, you need to prove that Creationism is correct, an argument which has nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory in the first place. Young Earth theory does have to do with evolution, but that's not the topic of discussion for this thread.

Starting, I believe in God.

How was the world created? And bacteria. if nothing was out there, wot made the "Big Bang"

Wot do evolutionists belive created energy and matter in the beginning.
In evolution things change because of mutations. I have never seen evolution in the zoos and I dont think i will ever see evoultion in the zoos.
It would be kinda scary if the monkeys started to talk in english saying:"Hey Idsa, i know what u did last summer!!" then throw poop at you.

I have a lot of information on this topic i think i will unload it all on you.

First the inaccuracies of Carbon dating is very bad. (perhaps the scientists forgot to divide or something)

If a volcano just exploded and lava fell down, after it has been cooled down, it should be only several hours old right?
A carbon dating thing said there were 4 answers, these 4 answers can be used and tested each one until one of them work. They were all at least over 100 years.

"Another one was a fossilized hat. A 20 year old guy was in the caves mining then the dynomite destroyed the mining camp. While trying to get out this guy forgot his hat.

Now he is dead because of his age and and imunety level. But when he was around 70 years old, several palentologists went in to the mining camp and found a rock solid hat. The hat was fossilized so well that many of the decoration stood out. The man was near the mining camp and while the palentolgists were going home, they just crossed tracks and the guy shrieks, "That hat is mine""

-that was from an old newspaper. I typed it up again so if there are spelling errors it would be mine. I also put it in "normal" english


Another one would be the stars.
The star sirius changed from a red to a white dwarf in a short time.
About one star explodes in every 30 years and forms a nova or supernova.
Fewer than 300 supernovae in the scientific observable universe.

Prediction of Evolution: 7000
Prediction of creation: a little above 400

I have information FROM THE BIBLE that supports many "amazing" discoveries like "stars produce sound" Job 38:7
-"Stars are all different"- 1st corintheans 15:41
-"EARTH ROTATES ON ITS AXIS"- Job 38:14 <---- this one is amazing,
_"stars cannot be numbered"- Genesis 15:5
/\
[]
THese are only several of the BIBLES secrets.

These will be scary

Prediction of Creation and Evolution having a conflict

A. Foundation of the gospel being destroyed- Psalms 11:3
B. Liberal theologians teach spiritual--not physical-- death in the garden
C. Rejecting Jesus' bodily resurection

All of these can be found in tthe bible.


One of the funniest bugs is the Bombardeir beetle.

THis beetle can blow up its butt and leak out a liquid hot enough to kill itself. (212*C)


This is the chance of Evolution mathematically tested.

1. cahnce of producing jsut the proteins for an amoeba--1/10 to the 40,000 power, (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe)
2. Probablity of a bacteria evolving by chance-- 1/10 to the 100 billionth power (Sky and Telescope)


U kno the test that was done to try to create the "Same Enviroment" as 13billion years ago, when bacteria was made.
The test was CREATED to be done. If the "Enviroment" then had a light bulb and hot water at 99*C then it might be true. But probably the light bulb wasnt created. The lightning then was different then now (because that evolution CHANGES)

I will post more later.


ADDITION:
GOd was from the beginning. Simple and easy, i dont know why you dont belive that. It is a lot easier then believing something that the "corrupted" science have backed up. The missing link between birds and reptiles is the bird with a glued on tail.
If i am insulting some of you, please tell me.
Several Chinese scholars put a tail onto a bird fossil then sold it to American Scientists for $80,000!! that is CRAZY. If you ask some of the scientists alive then, they would tell you they hate China because they sold the freaking fake fossil. The scientists spent over $1,000,000 advertising this fossil. They put it in books, they put it in movies, they did A LOT with this. however it is a fake. Because some friggin weird chinese freaks somehow figured that they would go for it. For $80,000. Im not sure any of you know this but it is one of the Scientific secrets that they keep so that they would not be ridiculed.

I will post more LATER.

Evolutionists believe whatever they want about the beginning of the universe. Evolution in no way explains how things began, only how species on our planet came to exist in their present forms. No informed evolutionist will ever claim that evolution is how matter and energy came into being. The argument that they will is a classic strawman argument and a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. Before explaining the position of evolutionists to us, you should read up on it yourself.


I love this one - you claim that carbon dating is inaccurate because of two instances of its failure and just ignore the fact that it has an incredibly high accuracy in almost every other instance of its use. Scientists use carbon dating because it has been proven time and again to be accurate. Just about scientific technique ever used in the history of mankind fails once in a while, but based on extenuating factors like human error (bad samples, incompetent application of the techniques, etc.). You have given us absolutely no information about either instance of failure except what was written in an "old newspaper". Okay, let's dissect these claims for fun.

When a volcano erupts, not every atom involved in the eruption is chemically changed into a new element. Liquid rock is just rock that has been exposed to incredibly high heat and pressure, but often it is still the same element even when cool. So the scientists were perfectly correct in stating the age of their samples as hundreds of years old, because the atoms involved probably were hundreds of years old, and were now in solid form rather than liquid. Here's an example: When water becomes ice, it is still made of the same molecules - they just aren't moving. While the changes involved in a volcanic reaction are much more complex, the same principle applies.

Now the mining hat one, that's hilarious. If we ignore the fact that it is irrelevant to the technique of carbon dating because it has no pertinent information, we can still have fun with the idea of rapid fossilization. But since I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with that, I'll just disembowel your argument by stating that an "old newspaper" is not a valid scientific resource.


So both Creation and evolution are wrong. I guess you showed us. But if you've disproved evolution with those "facts", then you've also disproven Creation. I doubt you'll abandon your beliefs, and you'll have to forgive me for not abandoning mine in light of these new "facts".


Arab mathematicians knew about all of that thousands of years before the Bible was written. That stuff is old hat. Those aren't "secrets". Nor are they "amazing" in the first place, because anyone with a high school education knows the same facts.


Wow, a religion predicting that people might not believe in it? Who could have guessed?


Did you read the first post in this thread? A low chance of something happening in no way proves that it is impossible. Therefore, your argument is invalid.


No informed evolutionist will ever claim that the experiment was perfectly accurate concerning the original conditions of primordial Earth. Also, the sun introduces lots of energy into our environment. The near-boiling water came from the sun's energy. The lightning came from the sun's energy. Your assumption that the Earth was a closed system back then in is inaccurate and defeats your point, because we know that the Earth is not a closed system.

This is fun, let's keep going.

Ya but wot if this was written before then? and also there was no such thing as high school or public school then. U cannot compare wot happened now and wot happend then.

Wots 1+1

If you had the same education as Job, you wouldn't kno.

Where did "Mathmatics" come from. In elementary school, they teach addition. So if some wierd guy found that the Earth ROTATES (its a circle) on its AXIS.



Ya if a God is out there, and he could tell you directly that your city would explode, wont you tell everyone in your city that the city would explode?

Same thing here. In a vision, you see people disregarding the Bible (your religeon then) and you see people worshipping idols (just like what you are doing) and you also see people crucifying and killing innocent Christians just because they believe that God created the Universe, Christ died for your sin and confess that you have sinned.



ya but which one is more closer? 7000 to 300 or 400 to 300?
Sure now lets see some other stuff:

One of your things: Lucy. this one was a half ape half human, could walk upright. but did you know that when they found lucy, her body was more then 1 mile away from each other. they also found only 25% of 3% of the body. Thats pretty small amount.

Another: how do you know what color are the dinosuars? wot if they were purple? or black and white? what if they were rainbow color? is it because they dont "look" right? you dont know because all you have are the fossilized bones to PAINT your picture.

you havent addressed the part where a several Chinese Scholars sold the "fossil"



there are infact 107 ways to do carbon dating. One of these must be correct. if all of them are used they all should get approximate answers. But nope. some of these are over. Some of them (for a dinosuar fossil) say 10 trillion years when they were only alive in the Jurasic and some other Era (according to evolution)
You can easily choose the "best" answer that fits into your hypothosis.

Where did evolution come from? Of course i wouldnt really mind if you didnt know?
In fact Dwarwin didnt come up with the idea of evolution, the pagan religeon started this. Ancient Chinese believed in a "lesser" way (that is what you would think) of evolution. They thought that they evolved from horses. They didn't know what was scientific. wouldnt that make evolution not science but science chasing the answer to evolution a religeon?

If you would read the Bible, Evolution leads to apostasy and evil. Evolution is a bad thing. probably you would not believe this, but others did. Evolution started abortion. Since killing an animal is fine. Some crazy maniac thought of the idea that babies evolve through a cycle before they are human. That makes it legal to kill an unborn baby before it is a human.
Evolution also placed the path for Racism which led to slavery. Another WHITE maniac thought that Black people were Black because they are not fully human. They started being racist against them. Very soon, a band of crazy Racist people would enslave a bunch of Black men and women. After that, they started to make comments on other races and so on. they just became very bad and worse they got the idea from Evolution.

Like some of you said, you cannot create or destroy matter because of the Law of Conservation of Matter. Evolution is based on mutations which changes something more and more and more. But however, Mutation causes a decrease OR duplication of genetic information but no NEW information. This is because of that law. You will not be able to change information unless you GENETICALLY change it. Like Mendal, he MADE several of the plants breed together. If bacteria can only duplicate itself where does the other genetic material come from? So all the single celled organism can do is duplicate, then somehow form into a multicelled organism? Bacteria can only do what the DNA tells it to do. If the bacteria's genetic material makes it EVOLVE then you are talking but i dont think that single celled organisms are made to evolve. All evolution can give me is time. However, time kills things.
How does mutations work, In your schoolishly mind how does mutation work? Because mutations are usually bad, and if not, it would be the same. Mutations are harmful or at best neutral. Mutations cause devolution not evolution.
If mutations are because a human breeds with an ape, then sometihng happens, then that would be kind of wrong. If you are saying that I am a bunch of animals so are you. I dont like that idea though.
Thus if this is true, Mutation, evolution's core, goes against evolution.

Okay, none of those are valid arguments for Creationism, and only a few are valid against evolution. The fact remains that even if you somehow managed to disprove evolution (even though disproving an idea is impossible), you have in no way, shape, or form presented anything remotely resembling an argument towards the validity of Creationism. So there's really no point in attacking evolution so vehemently.

Seeing as i don't feel like going through all of your points and offering rebuttals, I respectfully ask Cheeze to handle it for me. Pleeze?

its ok. i think i would not attack so hard now. I'm not mad or crazy but I still am a newb. im good.

Even if this isnt really proper, o well.

No, it's fine. If you feel that you are able to strengthen Creationism's chances by smacking evolution around, go ahead. I just don't think you'll make much headway that way. You'd be better off throwing around scientific information that leads to the conclusion that Creationism the correct theory.

thx but im dun you were great but im dun with this topic. I just dont understand where is the friction. Perhaps im just too nice. I would rather you live yours and i live mine but we still have 1 goal, to make US prosper, unless.... UR A TERRORIST!

Matter can be destroyed.

=)

Alright, I was at this thread the whole day but wasn't on the computer, so sorry.



-Very similar genetics from Man and Apes.

-Small changes in each species

-A human Tail



Proving my point, you have no evidence. You rely entirely on faith.


Of course it's a guess, how do you know that the sun is shrinking? You're about .000001% the size of the sun, how could you tell the sun shrank 5 feet?

The theory of stars, however, clearly states that stars expand until it can no longer support it self with it's hydrogen. It then collapses and becomes the white dwarf. All of the phases have been observed if even if the changes have not.


Not true, once again, you assume the shrink to be a constant. Some times, it may have grown, other times, shrunk, it's impossible to tell.


Starting, I believe you should use better spelling.


Good thing what you're saying has nothing to do with evolution.



Evolution does not mean you know the beginning. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life, not how life came to be. I have said this many times, but you creationists continue to throw this crap at me.


Correct. Evolution is changes from mutation. However, you cannot see evolution since it happens during each generation. Actually, it's longer than just one, usually, it could be hundreds. Natural Selection is usually a smaller generation.

Perhaps if you had lived millions of years, you would be able to see it.


That is not true at all. Carbon dating is one of the most efficient dating of dead organisms. It may be wrong some times, but it's accuracy is still very impressive.

For example, if you missed 2 out of 1000 math problems, would I say your math skills are terrible because you missed those 2 problems? Well, I would say it, but you would know that it's not true and you did very well. Same thing applies here.


The bible is not proof of anything. The bible is a book written by human hundreds of years ago because they were afraid of death.

You cannot use evidence from the bible because it's simply a book saying things with absolutely no scientific evidence. I wrote a book that said the earth was flat. Is that correct? I don't think so.

Also, why did you post only the things from the bible that is a "fact". What about the stories in the bible that is contridictory?
Here are a list of them: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...radictions.html


"Humans are all different" - CheeZe
Yay, I got something right, now you must believe everything I say!


Wow, you know how easy it was to figure this out? You take a ship, let it sail, and watch it disappear on the horizon.

Or, how about this, taken from Drunken's arguements:

I propose earth is actually flat. Nasa's pictures show exactly how earth is, a flat planet. If we go to far, we wind up in a wormhole, teleporting us to the other side.


Pi cannot be calculated, but here we are, calculating it.


Light Bulb was the artificial sun.

Electricty added was the artifical lightning.

Water was the artifical water. Oh wait, nevermind, they had water.


I don't know, probably because evolution has evidence while creation is faith. I usually go with the side that has evidence. Would you send someone to death because of your faith in him killing someone in trial, even though the evidence was clear that he was innocent? Of course you would! Faith > Evidence.


"Everyone's entitled to be stupid, but you're abusing your privelege."
Sorry, you're insulting man's intelligence.


You realize people back then were still very well educated. They knew if you had one money and another one money, you would get two money.


Er, I believe it's the other way around. Hitler killed Jews, not Christians.


Every colored picture you see on a dinosaur is from that artist's point of view.


There are also another 500+ ways to do dating throw the half life of one element. But it's intersting that you only use Carbon.
Anyway, I don't really care since it doesn't really have anything to do with creation nor evolution.


Someone coming up with the idea is not the same as creating the phenomenon.
If Darwin took back his work and said he shouldn't have told everyone his findings, would that make his work fake? Of course not, the evidence was already there, the only problem is that no one has observed it yet.


Huh. The theory if evolution is suppose to be bringing in superior races. Or, at least better ones for that particular environment.

Anyway, your example was crap since it had nothing to do with your proposal, so whatever.


It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about. Changes in the genes dont' require the removal nor the addition of new "mass".


And, more proof of your lack of knowledge in this area. Mutations, are, at 98% of the time, neatrul. You wouldn't even know. In fact, you have undergone many, many, many mutations in your body, but you haven't noticed. While it's true there are both bad mutations, but the species that recieve those, die off quickly. Beneficial ones do exist and the ones that get these are the ones who usually live, thus becoming a more commone gene.


Matter can be changed.


READ
DrunkenWrestling: 1) other stars have been seen to cycle, expand a little, contract a little.

2) It is based on gathering the data over 90 years from different instruments and scientists. Inprovements in instruments can easily create the appearance of a shrinking sun. Not to mention not everyone measured the same exact part of the sun to begin with since everyone had their own opinions of the edge of a giant gass ball.

3) Data has been gathered since the 1980's and it shows the sun isn't shrinking. Yes this argument is actually from the 70's and creationist groups still use it.

4) If the sun was constantly shrinking, we would expect it to throw off the delicate balance of gravity that holds us at our perfect position, destroying one of the values that appears intelligently designed.

First off, I'm glad that Nozomu has returned to this discussion seeing how appears to be more intellectualy advanced then CheeZe.

OK, I read all the 'claimed' contradictions of the Bible, I can refute them all but will only do so that I can off-hand due to my time, any specific one, be my guest and ask me.

First off-- I would like to get this over with



It DOES have to be understood in context. Alot of these verses are like this, sure some pastors push their limits by taking scripture out of context for their benefit but no one is perfect and God will punish them/ it will be on their conscience. No one is perfect. You just can't rule this out.

OK -> Some of the ones I know off-hand


This is actually interesting, proves the writer of these contradictions does not even know what he's talking about. The "serpent is actually Satan after he tempted Adam and Eve at the garden. Everything in the world gives off dust, animals, plants things break down and those particles float away. In essence, God was cursing satan for what he did and now the snakes wil have to work for their food out of the Garden of Eden.




This one does not even make sense to me, explaining where birds (fowls) came from, notice after every comma is an 'and' thus seperating the two ideas, although it is one sentence, (compound sentence) it is two ideas. If you go back and re-read the quotes they make more sense, you are no longer brainwashed.

Sorry this is all I have time for I gotta go to work at 5:00

Please, give me requests. As I will not do them all.

Coming up next:: The Bible has the explanation of why there is so much oil in the Middle East.

Stay Tuned

Call me pwnz(U) from now on! You hear that, Cheeze?

Here's the dilemma: Whether or not the Bible is correct or contradictory, it is not a valid scientific resource. An argument for Creationism based on the Bible can do nothing but fail, because the Bible has no scientific credibility. Let's face it - the Bible is wrong about many things, and many of the miraculously correct predictions inside are very general in nature and could come true in a myriad slew of ways. This is not to say that it isn't correct about many things. It's sort of a glass half-full/half-empty kind of deal - it's open to interpretation. That's the very problem - a scientific resource should not be open to interpretation. It should present data, and conclusions (which are open to interpretation) should be drawn from it. The conclusion-drawing comes after the presentation of data, and not before. The Bible skips that step, and jumps straight to conclusions without the requisite data accumulation and presentation. This is actually the problem with many Creationist arguments. These conclusions are being drawn not from an accumulation of facts, but from faith.

Well, that's my Bible rant. Hope you liked it.

If the argument here is that creationism is wrong because the bible is not accurate, let me remind you that the word "scientific" is only a word. It's hard to explain, but science believes in seeing to believing. How can you base your knowledge on something that changes periodically? How do you know that an electron is the smallest particle out there, when it was "so sure" way back when that an atom was the smallest particle? There is something else there.

Science is a tool given to us by God to learn more about the world he created. It was not meant to be used as a substitute.

That's not the argument. The accuracy of the Bible has nothing to do with its credibility.

The very idea of science is contradictory to religion. Religion is based on faith whereas science is based on evidence. If you don't need evidence, then fine, but that won't hold up in an argument in a Serious Discussion forum.

The Bible can be a very credible evidence concerning science. However, alot of it today is mispercieved and loss of meaning during translation. The main arguements are still there.

Nozomu, if you take out the Bible, then creationists have nothing other then -->

Everything alive has the same 'like' biological structure, -> Same Author?
As advanced as everything really is, how could it possibly evolve.

Studying things of nature.
The same thing applies for everything then. No one will ever be able to prove or disprove evolution, same with creationism. Thus, this thread is now deemed pointless.

However, if you want to leave the Bible as a credible document (book). I can explain some of its 'scientific facts of today' and explanations of todays phenomenons that started in the Bible, if you wish.

Since you seem to think that the Bible is total crap, I will not post any in this thread or you will just flame it.

I certainly agree that the Bible is right about a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that everything written in it is right.


You're providing us with a very good example of the fallaciousness of the Creationist argument. Why did you say "same author"? What evidence is there of an author? How is that any more likely than the idea that they developed from the same ancestor? Jumping to conclusions is the wrong way to form opinions. Unless you don't care about the truth.

Just because something has a low chance of happening doesn't make it impossible. After all, people win the lottery. Look at the first post in this thread for another more relevant example.


The thread isn't pointless. As a skeptic, if I am shown correct evidence that Creationism is true, I will honestly change my stance and defend it. It's not about disproving something. I believe evolution is correct because I have seen fossil records of species changing over time. I have bred fruit flies to have specific traits and seen them adapt successfully to the new environment in which I placed them. I have seen domesticated animals that are completely different from how they were 20,000 years ago (cows, dogs, etc.). What about the fact that chimpanzees' DNA is 98% similar to ours? What about the fact that every mammal fetus starts out exactly the same and develops into the appropriate animals when given the proper instructions by its DNA? Whereas Creation has the Bible, a collection of stories written millenia ago and shakily translated into English. If you can offer me better evidence for Creationism than I can offer for evolution, then I'll go right along with it.


I'm down for hearing about how right the Bible is, but just because it's right about some things doesn't mean it's right about everything. I'm not trying to flame the Bible, but when you claim it as a source because it is sometimes scientifically accurate you're committing a logical fallacy called Composition. Just because part of the Bible is true does not mean that the whole book is true. That's why I never claim that it is a bad source because it's scientifically inaccurate. My reasoning would be fallacious, because some of the Bible is scientifically accurate.

hmm. All I am asking is how is science better than faith?