I have a theory that evolution and the divine creation(world made in 7 days) can both be true. I am a christian and think that theories like evolution cannot really be proved wrong though i know alot of people who think neither of these theories can work together.
I think that the bible is a simplified version of what really happened. It has also been proven that the word days has been mis-translated and so the bible should really say 7 periods of time. how do we know that god did not cause a big band that created the universe and that god created dinosaurs that evolved into other animals? It has been proved that the world was not made in seven days but i think it is very posssible for it to happen in 7 periods of time.

So, wait. Supposing this is about periods of time. since when does light (photon-carried waveform) happen without photons or any place to propagate it?

Furthermore, I'd be curious to know how you can "create" a world.

Well. Let's say you're a smart little being. You can think about many things, causes and consequences, and from a religious point of view you are just a reflection of God. So He would be an even much more intelligent being. And as been told and thought him omnipotent...

I'd be more eager on knowing how can such a being exist. Someone would have to create him, no? I doubt he could crate himself, before even being himself.

yo know what,
if the divine creation was true, than i would think that there would be more than one god; each planet has is created by a god.
But those gods sometimes fight, so they throw meteors at eacht others planets (like the one that killed the dinosaurs), somebody must've really been pissed off.

hmmz, i believe i let my mind wonder sometimes:P

no seriously. in my point of view, there is no divine creation. however, the big bang is also vey misterious. I mean, just think about it, BANG! after a couple billion years you've got the earth, a billion years after that, you kinda start to get the whole evolutionary thing going on. I think that if i have to think about this to much, I will go crazzyy. so i'm gonna stop now

evolution all the way...you can't call scientific proof bullshit.
My parents are pretty religious and first they tried to tell me that dinosuars never existed.....hmmm.
Then, they told me that humans and dinosaurs lived together in unison. please.
there are actually people out there who go completely by the bible, and believe the earth is like 6,000 years old. hmmmm. I'm sorry but I don't think so. To them I say, what about fossil fuels? How do you get to work everyday?

and why does the bible just concentrate on god creating earth? what about everything else in the universe?

Because, my dear man, the people who originally wrote the Bible were unaware of other planets. And if they were aware of them, they thought them unimportant. It's why there isn't much mention of animals from foreign countries as well, just those in the middle east.

The big bang never was an explosion. Some moron came up with the term, and it stuck, and every single cosmology professor around the world hates the term. Yes, it was hot, and yes, it was packed, but there was no explosion involved.

I'm not stupid. it was a figure of speach. couldn't find a better word for it that wasn't a complete story. from now i will refere to is as: ' The universe expanded from a primordial hot en dese initail condition some time very very long ago.'
Sorry to hurt your feelings

Big Bang theary is completely not real, its way down the hole and evryone who believes in it is either confused/uneducated/stupid/insane

7 days thing is wierd, i stick more to the creation of the universe to be more like in islam or hinduism

You do know that the big bang theory is completely backed up by all that we know about cosmology and basic gravitation, right?
(Well, not basic gravitation. You need general relativity to be able to derive all the big bang theory. But it is fully contained within the standard physical framework, minus the "mysterious" energy and matter)

So, if I were you, I'd shut up before saying stuff without backing it up. And if you still disagree, I'll be tempted to bring in the Friedman equation and derive all the theory "steps" of the Big Bang.

I Have A Theory that you should shut up.

You and your stupid theory.

The gap theory is a way for christians to incorporate the theory of evolution in with the theory of creationism. It is not correct, unless you go against scripture. First of all the translations have always been in one day. The hebrew word yam means nothing but "day" not period of time.

Second in genesis, for the day to be anything other than a day would be impossible. The plants were created before the sun and moon, if the day was a "period" than the plants would have to wait a rather long period until they received some light thats for sure.

The bible gives dates of adam to noah to Jesus through their childrens birth dates and there ages when their children were conceived. This gives us a rough estimate on how old the earth really is according to the bible and it's like this...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...s/geneology.jpg

I have read countless books on this topic because I once myself believed in evolution and as a christian I was very confused. Evolution is pure theory developed 200 years ago when Darwin read a book called The Principals of Geology which was filled with bias and attempted proof against the bible. The only part of evolution that is true is the variations between the kinds of animals you see. This is scientific although they throw it in with all the other kinds of evolution (macro changes, steller changes, chemical changes... ect) and teach it as if it's some kind of package deal. I believe that variations are true, and the bible teaches this..

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Variations are true, the rest of evolution is theory and cannot be proven correct.

What kind of substance did you smoke when writing that? It'd be nice to share the recipe, as it'd be nice for my philosophy essays...

Seriously, stellar changes have nothing to do with DNA-mutations, now, does it? And if you're ready to go against chemical changes, I advise you to stop using all of modern technology, as everything is based on chemical properties and resistance to electric/magnetic fields.

Furthermore, evolution is more than a "pure theory". How do you explain the similarities in DNA over specie groups? Does the Bible explain that some genetic factors are recessive or dominant, and thus lead to a rapid - or slow - broadcast of a mutation in a specie?
I doubt it does. Yet, there's physical evidence of it happening - flu virus, for example.

I'd also like to add that we have absolutely unbiased evidence of the fact that the universe is at least 1bn years old, thanks to the background radiation alone, coupled with classical thermodynamic equations. No obscure science involved.
The estimate of 14bn years is due to the curvature of the universe, and that IS obscure science. But there is a very fixed "at least" factor.
Plus, even light densities from stars tell you that the universe has to be at least 500m years old, because of fusion cycles.

My guess is that you've just flunked science and thought that creationism was easier. Sure, it's easy to amalgamate everything.

Now, for those who still have trouble:
evolution deals with DNA.

Not at all, I have always taken advanced science, chemistry, and biology classes. And I passed with an A on this topic, I completely understand evolution and I have a good reason not to believe in it. And I do not nor have I ever smoked.

And your terminology is not confusing me.

I was referring to cosmic evolution during the big bang with my comment about steller changes. Mutations occur and are simply changes within the different kinds of animals. This can be tested and demonstrated today. Darwins finches are an example of variations and mutations WITHIN the species or "kind" of animal. The bible states animals shall bring fourth after there "kind". Anything larger than this scale has not been proven (ex. the evolution between birds reptiles humans and apes). Changes outside of the species are pure theory.

Now in the beginning according to evolution there would have had to be spontaneous generation (the formation of a bacteria by mere chance). Even Considering the complexity of a bacteria, and the mathematical impossibilities of something that complex forming spontaneously, is a really far stretch.Now if I said to look at this new phone I had and assume it formed by throwing all the parts together and wishing they would form a working phone, and having other people do the same, you would think I was crazy right? There has to be some initial designer to any product you see on the market, and you can assume this by the existence of the product.
But you tell me that the most complex thing on earth somehow formed this way, by mere chance? And that it’s the only “science” we have so why not believe it? Look around you I mean it’s obvious complex things must be designed. Why should anyone have to prove existence of a god, there’s proof through the creation. To say that the eye evolved and things began seeing slowly over time is to me simply not comprehendible, I would ask how would something so complex form over time? If there is one thing wrong with it, it’s not going to work. Therefore it would have to jump into existence fully working for there is no way it can gradually be formed. It’s either you see or you don’t see (unless something is damaged of coarse).

As far as the dating of the earth. Radiometric dating is based on numerous assumptions 1. Carbon 14 in plants, animals, and people is the same as Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. 2. The C14 in the atmosphere today is the same as it's always been. 3. The Earth's atmosphere has reached equilibrium. Radiometric dating can only be accurately used to date younger things... if that. Many things have been in-acuratly dating using this system
Most of the time fossils are dated by the layer they come from "fossil dating", the layers of the rock have different periods. What they don't tell you about these layers is that it they are not found anywhere on earth besides in the textbook, Sir Charles Lyell created this scale along with James Hutton. This was long before radiometric dating and all that. When the time scale was developed by these guys Lyell also made a book which Charles Darwin took with him on the Beagle. Now Lyell was all against the bible, so his book was very biased against it, and Darwin lost his faith after reading this book.

As far as the dating using this scale, scientists date the layers using index fossils. The ages of the fossils are than dated by which layer they come from. This is circular reasoning, impossible to do, think about it.

As far as the stars go, the speed of light is not a determined constant nor do we know enough about light and the distance of the stars to determine any of this.

Please i'm not trying to insult you or anything, I'm sick of people throwing the stone at me and saying i'm stupid from my initial statement. I'm not stupid and I have taken classes on this subject and did great. I believed it. I decided to research it on my own time when I became Christian because I was interested and found it was mostly based off of lies. Thanks for judging me though. Jesus tells us to be the light and the salt of the earth and salt irritates. I'm not trying to offend anyone, just want to discuss because creationists are often misrepresented and we are not funded by government taxes to spread our "theory".

[quote]Not at all, I have always taken advanced science, chemistry, and biology classes. And I passed with an A on this topic, I completely understand evolution and I have a good reason not to believe in it. And I do not nor have I ever smoked.
And your terminology is not confusing me.[/quote]
My terminology wasn't meant to confuse.

P.S: physics starts at uni. So does biology. Having taken "advanced" sciences at school does not mean anything more than "having learnt to repeat stuff that people told you". There's no research project, no side reading, and no advanced topics.

[quote]I was referring to cosmic evolution during the big bang with my comment about steller changes.[/quote]
It's stellar. And once again, go against the current universal model and you're forsaking basic mechanics and thermodynamics, or relativity (both special and general).
[quote]Mutations occur and are simply changes within the different kinds of animals. This can be tested and demonstrated today. Darwins finches are an example of variations and mutations WITHIN the species or "kind" of animal. The bible states animals shall bring fourth after there "kind". Anything larger than this scale has not been proven (ex. the evolution between birds reptiles humans and apes). Changes outside of the species are pure theory.[/quote]
[spoiler]
Indohyus[/spoiler]
Rings a bell? A mammal with a few specific attributes from cetacean creatures.

[quote]Now in the beginning according to evolution there would have had to be spontaneous generation (the formation of a bacteria by mere chance). Even Considering the complexity of a bacteria, and the mathematical impossibilities of something that complex forming spontaneously, is a really far stretch.[/quote]
You've taken "advanced" classes, so you know about binomial probability distributions. Suppose that the probability of a bacteria being created is of the order of P(X) = 10^-5 (that's 0.001%). Thus, the probability of having 0 bacterias being created out of n tries is P(X,n) = 1 - P(not X,n) = 1 - (1 - 10^-5)^n.
So, suppose we want P(X,n) = 0.90. 0.90 = 1 - (1-10^-5)^n
0.10 = (1-10^-5)^n
Log of both sides (base e)
ln(0.10) = n ln(1-10^-5)
n = ln(0.10)/ln(1-10^-5)
This number is very large, as suspected. But now, think about it. Before the first bacteria, and after the quark time, there was a lot of time. suppose that over the surface of the Earth, 1000 "attempts" at creating the bacteria were made per second (which is a perfectly reasonable assumption). Do a bit of mental maths and you'll see that in 1000 years, this bacteria had to be created at least once.

[quote]Suppose Now if I said to look at this new phone I had and assume it formed by throwing all the parts together and wishing they would form a working phone, and having other people do the same, you would think I was crazy right? There has to be some initial designer to any product you see on the market, and you can assume this by the existence of the product.
But you tell me that the most complex thing on earth somehow formed this way, by mere chance? And that it’s the only “science” we have so why not believe it? Look around you I mean it’s obvious complex things must be designed. Why should anyone have to prove existence of a god, there’s proof through the creation. To say that the eye evolved and things began seeing slowly over time is to me simply not comprehendible, I would ask how would something so complex form over time? If there is one thing wrong with it, it’s not going to work. Therefore it would have to jump into existence fully working for there is no way it can gradually be formed. It’s either you see or you don’t see (unless something is damaged of coarse).[/quote]
See what I just said above. The difference between you creating a phone and the spontaneous creation of a different genetic structure is that nature won't give up if it fails the first time.
Back to the flu virus. It mutates every year, didn't you know? That's why old people need to get a new vaccine every 2 or 3 years, as their antibodies cannot "recognize" the virus anymore.
Now, what are the chances of that happening?

[quote]As far as the dating of the earth. Radiometric dating is based on numerous assumptions 1. Carbon 14 in plants, animals, and people is the same as Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. 2. The C14 in the atmosphere today is the same as it's always been.[/quote]
For fuck's sake. ISOTOPIC. PROPORTIONS. ARE. CONSTANT. and only depend on the half life. It's not because you've got more or less carbon in the air that suddenly, you'll have more C14.

[quote]3. The Earth's atmosphere has reached equilibrium.[/quote]
C14 isn't only about the atmosphere.
[quote]Radiometric dating can only be accurately used to date younger things... if that.[/quote]
Untrue. Lithium-based dating. Tritium-based dating. Rubidium-based dating.

Well-known quote:
[quote]This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Blocking temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.[/quote]

[quote]Many things have been in-acuratly dating using this system[/quote]
So?
[quote]Most of the time fossils are dated by the layer they come from "fossil dating", the layers of the rock have different periods. What they don't tell you about these layers is that it they are not found anywhere on earth besides in the textbook, Sir Charles Lyell created this scale along with James Hutton. This was long before radiometric dating and all that. When the time scale was developed by these guys Lyell also made a book which Charles Darwin took with him on the Beagle. Now Lyell was all against the bible, so his book was very biased against it, and Darwin lost his faith after reading this book.[/quote]
So?

[quote]As far as the dating using this scale, scientists date the layers using index fossils. The ages of the fossils are than dated by which layer they come from. This is circular reasoning, impossible to do, think about it.[/quote]
So? I know 4 other ways to measure the relative age of the Earth by using astrophysical data. Why should I care about fossils?

Think about it. No sun = no gravitational source = no Lagrange point = no solar system. So, if you know the age of the sun (and you do, through fusion cycles), you can determine the average age of the Earth if you assume that the materials were already there.
If you don't make that assumption, you run into more trouble, but the result remains the same.

[quote]As far as the stars go, the speed of light is not a determined constant nor do we know enough about light and the distance of the stars to determine any of this.[/quote]
You must be fucking kidding me, right? If you don't believe that the speed of light is a constant, get a pack of jelly beans, a microwave, and measure it yourself.
Also, genius, the speed of light is not determined by going about measuring distances in space. People use what is called a laser interferometry apparatus, such as the one I've used last year (I still have my formal report on that experiment, and will gladly send it over for you to read). The phase difference between two identical laser pulses is measured, and that yields the difference in phase and interference of two concurrent pulses, one having travelled more distance than the other (done by "walking" a laser through a room).
The maths is very easy, and you get a value that's constant. To give you an idea, 200 students at my uni did it last year, over a course of 2 months. Never, ever, did we deviate from the value of the speed of light accepted in textbooks by more than 1%.

There's a second method to calculate the speed of light, and it comes through the well-known "E=mc^2 (+ p^2c^4)" formula. Disintegrations yield energy.

[quote]Please i'm not trying to insult you or anything, I'm sick of people throwing the stone at me and saying i'm stupid from my initial statement. I'm not stupid and I have taken classes on this subject that were were very biased towards it. I believed it. Ok, Jesus tells us to be the light and the salt of the earth and salt irritates. I'm not trying to offend anyone, just want to discuss because creationists are often misrepresented and we are not funded by government taxes to spread our "theory".
[/quote]
Please, I'm also sick of people having no fucking clue what they're talking about. And in case you didn't know, you're arguing with a physics student, so if I were you, I'd make sure about getting the facts right.

@ anima

I don't care if you're a physics student, the president, or a regular human. I don't think the beginning is something only a physics student can understand. So I will use plain speech for the sake of others following the discussion. As far as my personal education I have researched this topic outside of the classroom hence my knowledge of creationism (you’d never learn that in school). I have learned both sides of the argument.

The picture you provided of Indohyus is the proposed missing link between the sea creatures and the land mammals (for anyone who doesn't know). An animal about the size of a fox the missing link between a whale or dolphin and a mammal? What ever happened to the lobe finned fish? They found it was not a missing link but an actual living fish called coelacanths. Yet there still teaching this to my 9th grade sister in biology class.
Another missing link hoax, The bird like dinosaur fossil provided from china. Motive? Money, for the proof of intermediate stages.

Also artist interpretation pictures are often based off of imagination. The actual bones and the artists interpretation of what the animal may have looked like is often false. Artists can create anything they wish with a pencil, photos are better proof of missing links. Heres an article on Indohyus
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=closest-whale-cousin

As far as the speed of light being constant I'm not sure nor are others. No one knows what light is or if it always travels the same speed throughout all time, space and matter. Here's an article discussing the subject
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/...91005114024.htm
I think the real problem is how can we say that stars are billions of light years away when we can only really measure 100 light years from earth accurately (if that).

The laws of definite proportions is not universally true and the isotopic composition of an element can vary depending on its source.
The idea that Decay rate remains constant throughout history is an assumption. And how can the Initial amount of C14 in the object before it started decaying?

And as far as spontaneous generation How the matter get so perfectly organized is beyond anyones comprehension. They have tried testing this in laboratories and have failed. Time doesn’t do a thing for combining amino acids in a complex structure such as the bacterium.

[quote]I don't care if you're a physics student, the president, or a regular human. I don't think the beginning is something only a physics student can understand. So I will use plain speech for the sake of others following the discussion. As far as my personal education I have researched this topic outside of the classroom hence my knowledge of creationism (you’d never learn that in school). I have learned both sides of the argument.[/quote]
Creationism does not have any proponent facts; only criticisms of other theories. I don't know if you've noticed that.

P.S: I may not understand it all, but I am certain I have a good enough background knowledge in cosmology and astrophysics to derive the big bang model by myself from basic cosmological principles. You don't.

[quote]The picture you provided of Indohyus is the proposed missing link between the sea creatures and the land mammals (for anyone who doesn't know). An animal about the size of a fox the missing link between a whale or dolphin and a mammal? What ever happened to the lobe finned fish? They found it was not a missing link but an actual living fish called coelacanths. Yet there still teaching this to my 9th grade sister in biology class.[/quote]
A "missing link" does not have to disappear off the face of earth. Else, there'd be no bacteriae left.
Plus, as for size, you'd know, had you done basic biology, that the size of an individual is not linked entirely to their genetic make-up, but also to their environment.

[quote]Another missing link hoax, The bird like dinosaur fossil provided from china. Motive? Money, for the proof of intermediate stages.[/quote]
I could quote countless examples of other hoaxes not involving evolution but biblical truths. would that make you change your mind on that?
Stop being so biased. It's not because there exists one fake, that everything is fake.

[quote]Also artist interpretation pictures are often based off of imagination. The actual bones and the artists interpretation of what the animal may have looked like is often false. Artists can create anything they wish with a pencil, photos are better proof of missing links. Heres an article on Indohyus
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=closest-whale-cousin[/quote]
Yes, so. Do you think I base whatever info I have only on that picture?
I made no reference to the picture itself, just to the fact that they dug one up.

[quote]As far as the speed of light being constant I'm not sure nor are others.[/quote]
Theoretical demonstration, ahoy.
Take E=mc^2 as granted. For the first law of thermodynamics to hold in the universe, E must be constant.
m is constant in the universe.
Therefore, c must be constant.

There is only one approximation in this basic reasoning: there's one more term.
E = mc^2 + p^2c^4. Factor by c^2
E = c^2(m + p^2c^2)
The sum of all momenta in the universe is 0 (cosmological principle: the universe is isomorphic and homogeneous). Therefore, same result.

That wasn't hard, was it? And all I used is A-level physics.
[quote]No one knows what light is[/quote]
Wrong. We very well know it is a waveform carried by a boson. Which was predicted by the standard model and verified by einstein.
[quote]or if it always travels the same speed throughout all time, space and matter. Here's an article discussing the subject
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/...91005114024.htm[/quote]
Basic science: tyndall effect. Loss in energy = loss in momentum for the photons, assuming that the waveform remains unchanged (in truth, it does).

That's why the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
[quote]I think the real problem is how can we say that stars are billions of light years away when we can only really measure 100 light years from earth accurately (if that).[/quote]
What exactly are you on about? Do you think we still take big telescopes and point them at something to measure distances?
If yes, if I were you, I'd read about how distances are measured in the sky. You'll be surprised; it's done by intensity of light.

[quote]The laws of definite proportions is not universally true and the isotopic composition of an element can vary depending on its source.
The idea that Decay rate remains constant is an assumption. And how can the Initial amount of C14 can be known[/quote]
The laws of definite proportions is true within a self-contained system, sorry for that lack of precision. The atmosphere in the Earth is a self-contained system.
Over a small amount of time, a decay rate is not constant. However, it's just like quantum mechanics when applied to big systems: it reduces down to being constant after a suitable time period.
(If you test me on that, I will forward you to one of my lecturers)
[quote]And as far as spontaneous generation How the matter get so perfectly organized is beyond anyones comprehension.[/quote]
Perfectly organized? Cells break down. You just don't notice it because they're so small.
[quote]They have tried testing this in laboratories and have failed. Time doesn’t do a thing for combining amino acids in a complex structure such as the bacterium. [/quote]
Link
Bad move.

There's no need to get into any actual discussion of physics...

The notion that existence implies creation is inherently flawed and, as far as I know, scientists make no attempts to explain the origin of all matter/energy. Instead, they simply estimate the original state of being for all matter and energy (aka the big bang theory). Evolution and creation are completely different subjects - you might as well have made the thread title "Pancakes and the Big Bang Theory vs. The Divine Creation."

Creation is a gimmick/invention of religion. Just look at the FIRST law of thermodynamics for fuck's sake and you'll realize how little you understand about science.

Cite one example from your life where you have seen (or heard of) something being either created or destroyed. I'll go against my usual beliefs and accept anecdotal evidence this time just for the sake of argument.

how can you call yourself a christian and believe in fucking evalution?
theres more evidence for creation than evalution.
how can anyone believe that life somehow came out of boiling soup that turned into a whale?
theres no point in life at all if thats true.
sience peoples have tried to re-do the evalution theiry and nothing lives.
but for some reason people eat up that shit

Show us - you'd be the first person on the planet with actual proof.

There's no point in life at all if a god exists either. After all, what is god's purpose? Watching over the universe? If your purpose is god and god's purpose is you it's all still meaningless.

Just a small thing - the first law alone doesn't dictate that creation of any entity/energy form doesn't exist. To specify that, you need to add that the universe is an adiabatic system.
But heh, if it wasn't adiabatic, we'd be seeing funny things.

The basic meaning to life for a christian is that life on earth was originally created to be heaven but since the temptation from the garden of eden we now live in a world where we are subjected to sin and can die. Since there has been sin there has been death and since sin cannot enter heaven there are two paths. Therefore life is a test and personally I would like to see everyone pass The objective of a christian is to be the light and the salt of the earth (Matthew: 5). The reasoning behind my discussing is not because of personal pride but conviction. I have conviction, I know what Jesus has done for me in my life. I would like to share that with a world that seems like the only message out there is "you're just an animal, deal with it" or "you're a pollutant, kill the people save the trees".

Anyways.
Creation has loads of evidence, evidence for a young earth is abundant. However personal research is required for any information on this topic since it is no longer taught as truth because it ties to religion. Just because it's mentioned in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. And please if you have any falsities that are evident in the bible mention them, there are none. In fact many scientific positions today agree with the bible written 2-4,000 years ago. Ex. "the life of the flesh is in the blood" was written 4,000 years ago, and only recently has the medical field acknowledged that leaching the blood out leads to death and not life.

There have been a lot of mentions about the dinosaurs so heres just some information on that.
From the perspective of a young earth, about 6,000 years roughly dated back from adams decedents was the initial creation. World Wide flood roughly 2,500 BC destroying the first generation saving 8 people (causing the oceans, grand canyon, layers, fossil deposits, coal and oil). The position is that since the flood the dinosaurs have died off. That sounds crazy. We know your theory, let me explain mine.

after the flood was the time of the tower of babel when the human race was spread all over the world. If you think of the world, man could have either walked or (since at that time we already know knowledge of boats existed, after noah) made a boat to float to islands. Not to mention the world had just flooded and the water had probably not settled completely in the oceans, alaska and russia could have been connected since the land beneath the sea is not very deep.

BTW: As far as the age of the earth according to evolution...
1770 some textbooks said the age of the earth was 70,000 years old
1905 the earth was 2 billion years old
Today its 4.6 billion

First off, dinosaurs have been mentioned in the bible as well as featured with people in many historical archeological finds, not to mention in ancient chinese recipes and all kinds of stories.

Dinosaur was a word invented in 1841 to replace the word dragon as was formerly used. How many stories have you heard about dragons? Not just fire breathing, although as far as we know they could have been, there are biblical as well as many folk stories that claim some dragons to have been fire breathing.
Dragons are mentioned in the bible 35 times.

exs:
-thou brakest the head of the dragons in the water Psalms 74:15
-their wine is the poison of dragons deut.32:33
-firery flying serpent mentioned in isaiah 14:29
-book of job the fire breathing dragon leviathan ...and the sparks of fire leap out job 41:19

after the flood the population decreased, it was game. People were heros if they could kill the dragon, nobody wanted to live by them.
-Story of Yu the chinese that slew dragons/ chinas famous for dragon legends
-in the city of Babylon, when they dug it out the sand preserved the bricks and on them were pictures of dinosaurs/dragons
-326 B.C alexander the great and his soldiers scared by the dragons that lived in the caves when conquering india.
-some roman mosaics picture dinosaurs 2nd century after christ
-900 AD irish writer told story of killing a dragon with iron nails on its tail.
-viking ships with dragon heads on their boats 1000AD
-norse legend about dragon fafnir

those are just a few

there are indian carvings of dinosaurs in the grand canyon.
there are tons of ica stones featuring dinosaurs, some with circles on the side of the dinosaurs.
they found fossilized dinosaur skin with circle patterns
this is cool: over 56 thousand dinosaur sculptures have been found in Acámbaro mexico

as for dinosaurs still exsisting there have been thousands of sightings of sea monsters in particular. especially before motorboats...
The Monongahela caught a 150 ft sea monster (sailers caught and measured)

living trilobites have been found, now thats a little hard on evolution seeing as they were the lowest on the scale
Trilobites-
http://www.omniology.com/Apus-LivingTrilobite.html

as for dinosaurs still living, there are a lot of natives in africa in particular regions that will warn you to stay away from the chipekwe which has the head and the tail of a lizard with a long neck, giant that lives in the swamp
mokele-mbembe is another similar story underwater, around 20ft according to the natives
le'kela-bembe another pygmy sighting
government officials of the congo have even claimed to have seen these
1907 percy fawcett claimed to have seen a Diplodocus in the amazon area, he was known as a recorder of facts
loch ness monster described as a plesiosaur, over 11,000 sightings (may be a few frauds but that cant discredit everyone? it's probable) when publishing a picture of nessie
rotting carcass of which many have described as a plesiosaur off the coast of NZ
There have been reported stories off the coast of northern island of japan and the south island people call it issie
many stories in canada, famous Ogopogo lake monster in british columbia (the indians warned the white settlers that ogopogo would tip their canoe over and kill)
Theres actually a book on the sightings and capture of a Cadborosaurus which includes 178 reputed sightings and 11 strandings/captures.
1992 memphre's sighted by 26 people, creature similar to nessie
1996 block ness monster found in net off the coast of rhode island
1994 lake eries besse
theres a survivor that went out with his friends to go scuba diving one day, had a plesiosaur type animal eat his 3 friends. St paul MN

people from kenya report animals like pterodactyl like animals (very mean) in their area.
there are also reportings in congo (bird like lizard with bat wings) congomotto
thunderbird of the indians (the cars named after this story)

theres a lot of other stories those are just some, it's taken me a few hours just to type those out, but as you can see there are plenty of sightings and evidence that dinosaurs have been seen and may still exist.

To really summarize my belief, i think it's a mix of both.

its hard to believe that something or someone created the universe.
but then who created Him? type in 'who created God' on youtube and watch vemonfangx's video. it explains that God was always here and he is not made of matter, time or space. you'll understand the logic once you watch it

You won't get me to diss everything, a few points will be enough to note your sheer stupidity.


First off, a "great flood" as you call it would have to be a displacement of water. Scientists have concluded with very drastic evidence that even if frozen, the total amount of water on Earth (water vapour included) would not cause an absolute flood of the world. That's done using simple geographical arguments.
Furthermore, fossils do not build up in 2000 years, I'm sorry to break your dreams. As does oil (and we've actually re-created oil experimentally, by twisting the experimental conditions to hasten the process to come up with that fact).

Plus, if you know anything about species, you'd know that if we were all descendents of 8 people, we'd have some serious genetic pathologies right now. Simple fact, and it's also the reason why incest is so frowned upon.


And now, time for the great brainbashing. ASTROPHYSICS tells you that the Earth has to be at least 4.6bn years old, from the fact that the solar system is too far away from any other gravitational source to be an open system. As such, rock formation in the system would have happened at the same time for every rock formation, including asteroids. The Diablo comet was dated using a RD method I mentioned before (uranium dating), and that's mostly where the figure comes from.
The estimates of 70k years and 2bn years were done out of purely thermodynamic proofs. The first was erroneous because the Earth was considered a thermally inert system (it's not. The earth has a molten core), and done by measuring the rate of cooling of a similar inert system, and comparing the two.
The estimate of 2bn years was done by dating rocks on the Earth. also highly imprecise, as the rocks themselves moved about quite a bit. Furthermore, the dating method used was near it's imprecision peak for 2bn years.


You know what? I'll only tell you that once. Get lost, you and your ignorance.
1. There is NO evolution "scale". It's not because a mutation occurs that the mutation "parent" dies off. Else, there'd be one specie on Earth.
2. Trilobite-like.
3. Do you believe all the (biased) bullshit you read on the internet? I don't. There isn't a single mention of a "living" trilobite or, for that matters, this article, on ATHENS. And ATHENS is a reliable source of information, unlike a site made by someone who couldn't even be arsed to learn about XHTML 1.0.

For all your "facts", do you want me to mention the number of dragons and mythical creatures presents in fairytales and legends, or would you rather just take all your examples and shove them wherever appropriate?
Next time, you'd better come up with a lot better.

I don't even want to touch the dinosaur nonsense, but I will gladly point out a few falsities in the bible:

In Matthew 13:31 it claims the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, which is false (epiphytic orchids have the smallest seeds). It also goes on to say that the Mustard seed will grow into a tree for birds to nest in, but there are no trees in the Mustard family. Two errors in a single chapter!

In Isaiah 40:22 he uses the Hebrew word for circle (chuwg) to describe the earth. Why not use the word for ball (duwr) since he clearly knows it (he used the word duwr in 22:18)? Job also must have thought the earth was flat, because he said "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal" (Job 38:14). That's not at all how a sphere would take shape

In Leviticus 11:23 it says "But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." Flying things with four feet? WHERE!?!?!?

edit: How about a historical one too!

In Joshua 8:1-29 the Israelites destroy Ai and make it a desolate heap. But Ai was an abandoned city by the time of the Israelites.

There was a great walled city there beginning about 3,000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan, but this city was destroyed around 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer

The world is too perfect to not be thinked

@ anima
Please quit calling me biased, I don't need a class in astrophysics or anything else to understand a topic about evolution. The theory is just that, a theory, and if you claim it to be science you're just as biased as I am. I'm not claiming you are an ignorant fool, and there is no reason to call me such. Honestly, there's no need to flame. I'm not leaving, christians need to have a backbone. I believe what I believe. I'm not a monkey, and if physics students want to go around and inadvertently claim they are more evolved than the rest of us for taking some intensely biased class on how to learn science and a language others don't understand to flaunt their seniority, go ahead and do it. But don't for a second think you're better than the rest of us because you took some silly class. I have nothing against you or science, just according to christianity, you're not going somewhere nice for ruining others faith. So cut me some slack in my perspective I'm trying to save you not hurt your feelings.


I love this. Actually we are all decedents of two. Adam and eve. And before bashing my theory of us all coming from two people, lets look at the gene pool of the infamous primordial soup. Evolution teaches we come from a rock, what exactly is the extent of that gene pool? Call that inbreeding. In the beginning there was no disease and the genetic makeup was not as corrupt as it is today, simply because we were made perfect in the eyes of god and inbreeding wasn't a problem in the early days.


Scientists had not accounted for the pre-flood elevation differences, and the mountains we see today forming as an eventual result of the flood. This can be backed up as well. Most mountain ridges are formed around the sides of the continents. (andes, rocky, ect) as well as there being thousands of closed (indicating they were living) petrified sea shells on top of mount Everest as well as other mountain regions. For something to fossilize it has to be buried. Not to many things are fossilized today, most of what we find that is fossilized is the result of the universal flood, explaining the layers of rock in the earths crust as well as the abundant amount of fossils found in them. It's no coincidence that the birds are at the top of the geologic time scale (not that this is credible) or that the fish are at the bottom. The birds would be the last to drown as would the fish and trilobites be the first to be buried.

Oil and coal are also a result of the flood, as most of the earths vegetation was compacted and squished along with all the other living organisms in the time of the flood. This is how oil and coal forms. Not to mention if coal is formed over the billions of years as evolution states, this would not explain the objects sometimes found inside lumps of coal. Interestingly enough they have found items in the coal, now if coal has taken millions of years to form why would there be human artifacts in it?? Heres just a few... In 1994 west virginia, a bell was found in a lump of coal, soles of shoes have been found dated around 212-248 million years, cast iron pots have been found heres a list of somethings that have been discovered in coal
http://commonworldinheritage.blogspot.com/...by-richard.html

As far as the trilobites, and accurate information, isn't a picture proof enough? Since evolution is tax funded, it's also tax protected. There are institutions deliberately filtering any evidence for creation in the media. I know how corrupt the media is, I once wanted and planned to major in it. Since staying as a college for over a month I have realized how corrupt the media is at manipulation and ran from it. Anyways, on archaeological cover up... Smithsonian Institute does a real good job.

"Archaeological Coverups"by
David Hatcher Childress
NEXUS magazine. “To those who investigate allegations of
archaeological cover-ups, there are disturbing indications that the
most important archaeological institute in the United States, the
Smithsonian Institute, an independent federal agency, has been
actively suppressing some of the most interesting and important
archaeological discoveries made in the Americas.”...
full article - http://www.onelight.com/hollow/giant/canyon.html

XHTML is not that hard to learn by the way, I self taught.

Uhhh... am I reading this correctly?

Sorry, I didn't elaborate. Not flat as in pancake flat, but without mountains or sea beds, "flat land" better word would be elevation.

Anyway in response to your post...

Jesus was not referring the mustard seed to all the other seeds in the world, but that a local could identify with. Since the farmers did not know of the orchid seed, it wouldn’t be logical for Jesus to use it in his Parable (which Jesus used as a way of metaphorically speaking to the common people)

Isaiah 40:22 was written before the knowledge of the earth was round. This is an example of the scientific proof within the bible, since the idea of a round earth was rejected in early history.

Job may have thought that the earth was flat as that was the common belief that the earth did not move and was flat.
However, the rest of the book of job is God rebuking Job with a series of questions that imply Job did not know what he was talking about.

Leviticus 11:23
This is a problem with the translation between Hebrew and English. Some words are often hard to find equivalents to. Some versions say four legs, some say insects, some say foul, nonetheless. God promised to preserve his word not our English language.

The Hebrew word for insects is sherets which literally means teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmers or of insects, animals, small reptiles, quadrupeds.

As far as the Story of Joshua and Ai I don’t know enough to argue you’re statement. All I know is last time I checked this matter is under archeological debate. I would like to know more about other historical records of Ai other than the bible if you have any though.

They correctly did not account for the earth being flat, because it was not. Even Genesis agrees - not to mention quite clearly because it mentions both hills AND mountains:

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Subjective at best.

If the bible relies on external science rather than communication with god, then what good is it? I guess by that logic we should be worshiping Pythagoras...


Same point as above... even though it's the OT shouldn't it offer some insight outside the typical knowledge of the day?


So this is why the Duck-billed Platypus exists...



Can't recall anything, that was just an example I dug up from one of my old posts here and I didn't save any sources. Validity of historical information implies nothing regarding the validity of spiritual assertions so I don't put much effort into the former these days. You can prove jesus existed, play back recordings of his voice, discover his grave, etc. - it still won't help prove he was a miracle worker and that's the only point that matters. Bow down before Joe Schmoe the carpenter born to a lying mother and naive father all you want, I couldn't care less, but claim he's the original Harry Potter and I have a bone to pick with you...

Oh, and one other major example that comes to mind would be the fact that an Israeli archaeologist named Eliezer Oren spent 10 years searching for evidence of the exodus and couldn't find a single artifact to prove it ever happened. He did find notes regarding the sightings of two runaway slaves but not a shred of evidence that a group of 1 million+ people wandered there for 40 years and died. Little odd that two people were spotted but not a group of 1 million or more? I think so

At least I have the decency of having verified the results of the theory empirically.

I knew that would come. Shove your evangelical beliefs where I think they should go, I'm not interested in being "saved" in the eyes of a jealous God.


You know what? Read up on evolution. At no point in time was it ever asserted that we come from a rock. You, of all people, having taken advanced sciences, should know that we have no traces of mineral elements anywhere in our bodies.


You must be fucking kidding me. And you consider the Ural mountains to be on the side of a continent, maybe?
Now, let's have some fun destroying your petty little theory. If a worldwide flood happened, there would be seashells on every mountain top. Guess what? There are seashells only on Everest, in the Alps, and that's it. Nowhere else.
Is it a coincidence that Everest is at the border of two oceanic tectonic plates, and the Alphs of two partly-oceanic plates (I don't know the names for Everest anymore, but for the Alps, it's the European and Medina plates)
P.S: Even this backs me up.


Hint: 212 million years ago.
Coal is formed out of decaying organic material. Since when is clay organic?


Evolution is not tax-funded. Science itself isn't even tax-funded.

How about creation filtering any evidence they don't like? I didn't hear you mention any clear facts so far, other than generalities. Plus, what's the Smithsonian? One silly institution on the face of Earth? If you want to learn about geological discoveries, anyway, you browse ATHENS or an equivalent source of information.
And no, pictures are not enough. Would you like me to draw E.T. on photoshop, just for you?


/Golfclap. You totally missed the point, as usual.

wow... SO CALLED CHRISTAIN...

wow... SO CALLED CHRISTAIN...

DO ME A FAVOR AND OPEN YOUR BIBLE TO 2 PETER 3:8 ...

wHAT DOES IT SAY?! YEAH...

he didnt create the earth in 7 literal days.. he created it in 7 THOUSAND years....


I hate it when tards get that confused... Not tryin to preach or anything...

but i dont want you to rant like you know what you're talking about...

Ok, since Christians find all established history so disagreeable here is an entirely different point; it's a quote from Atlas Shrugged (I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand but it demonstrates the point more eloquently than I would):

"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it 'another dimension,' which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it 'the future,' which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say -- and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge -- God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out"


My summary, reminiscent of Carl Sagan's words:
There is no difference between your god and a god that does not exist.

God make everything,
how else would it be so perfect?
they say like if it was a trillionth
closer or what ever, we would
explode and stuff, i say god just
put like dinosaurse and stuff
on the earth to make scientists
think and eventually come to a dead
end and relize he did it

Here's a 5 minute video detailing just how poorly the "designer" did when creating our universe. Watch it - you might learn something.

There is no solid proof for either theory. No physical evidence of evolution, and no physical evidence of God. Except us, of course.

But when people ask "Where did the world come from?" I'd say, "from God. We don't know where God comes from, cause he's God, so it's none of our business and we should just live with it." It's like with parents. As a four year old kid you don't know anything about your parents and you couldn't care less either because it doesn't matter.

Whereas a believer in evolution would have to say, "From a lot of...stuff (which came from nowhere)...in space... (which was somehow just THERE) which was pulled together (with energy that came from nowhere) and then exploded (for no reason at all).

So I choose the one that sounds less silly.

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

The bible says the earth was created in 6 days in genesis, this verse refers to time being irrelevant to god. Hence the like.

Plus evolution says millions so that doesn't even make sense to mention that.

@Gixxer
That video is told from the perspective of an evolutionist universe anyways (hence the 3.5 billion years to form us and stars forming). We have never actually been able to prove that a star has formed, we have seen stuff and speculate that it may be a star forming, and we see stars getting brighter, however never a complete formation has been observed. To say that the earth has always been the same (many parts inhabitable, too cold or too hot) would deny the flood. Christians believe that initially the world was great and as a result of sin it is now not.

(edit)


That's just one archeologist, for all I know he was probably biased. There's two large pillars on either side of the red sea erected by king solomon to commemorate the crossing. You can see them on google earth. They have also found both soddam and gomorrah and a boat nearly as large as the titanic on ararat they claim to be the remains of noahs arc. They have also found skeletons and chariots of the egyptians under the red sea on a sand bar that is raised connecting the two land masses.
noah pictures- http://english.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/noah.htm
Soddam and Gomorrah- http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/4...und.html?cat=37

Actually there's this really interesting 2 part short scientific experiment that was put on youtube by an atheist, nevertheless is very interesting and proves the 10 plagues of Moses could have happened (blood red water, frogs, gnats, flies, death of livestock, boils, huge hailstorm, locusts, darkness, and death of firstborn) and how they all fit together perfectly with science after a volcanic explosion around that time

part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGACkMBxZNs...feature=related
part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_oreLXrEXg...feature=related

The bible gives us facts that was said to be untrue until science provided evidence it. I know of 9 examples, but there are more.
Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

Genesis 1:11-19

God created the plants on the third day, right?
And on the fourth day, he created the sun.
Now I am sure that plants can survive for one day (a rotation of the earth, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 56 seconds, or something like that) without sunlight.
But for a thousand years? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the "thousand years to a day" theory makes less sense than evolution.

And anyways, it was Moses writing this stuff down. He wrote "day" as in ONE DAY not "one thousand years which I will call a day because to the Lord it might be called a day."

I won't debate anything scientific with someone who does not understand logic, knowledge or even the basics of the scientific method. However, the point from this quote still remains:

I can't debate with people who never give a direct answer to a direct question.

Where did the 'particles' in the Big Bang theory come from? How did they get there? What exactly were they made of? Where did the space between the particles come from?

I've never had an answer on this, but if anyone can give me a clear, direct, and maybe even honest answer, I swear I will switch sides.

I understand logic and the scientific theory. Nonetheless a hypothesis remains a hypothesis until adequate proof establishes the theory as fact. Spontaneous generation is no more a science than religion is.

Now I may not be a physics major, or a chemist, or the great book of knowledge. None of us are, we all understand very little about the universe in it's entirety. I am ordinary and I admit to that, I admit to being human. I am nothing more or less than you are. And I will continue to treat everyone here in a way I would like to be treated myself. Arguing, debating, and discussing are three different things. Here we are merely arguing, and what I intended on was a discussion. Honestly when someone has to stand up for themselves in a situation such as this I give them credit. You don't have to be a major in the science field to understand the basics of evolutionary teaching, why else would they attempt to teach it in the elementary. I am christian and I know how Christ has changed my views about people and the world. Just under a year ago I would have been fed up with myself for even mentioning my belief as a Christian, because of the results that I get from expressing creationism or similar debated topics. I don't ridicule or knock everything expressed by the opposing view because I know that even though I don't know that person, that person has the right to their own opinion and I may not know everything he or she has to say. Judging me from the initial statement I had made just shows me how many other mediocre christians have probably had little knowledge of the word and attempted to debate it, throwing in two sense and maybe not entirely knowing what they are talking about. And to them I strongly urge you to get off the computer read the word. There are many different kinds of christians and I'm not one that allows myself to be stepped on, trying to hurt me is only hurting your own image in the eyes of others.

I picked a few at random:
Entropy:

I don't see where you see that the quality of energy decays.

Conservation of energy:

I really love your "facts".


Do you know anything about light travel time? If yes, you'd know that we've seen stars form.
Plus, we have also never seen stars get brighter, as they constantly dim down. Simple cause of thermodynamic laws.
Furthermore, how would that deny the flood? You're just looking for excuses. Plus, answer to the seashell counter-argument, which does not rely on the fact that the world has always been the same, but on a simple geometric argument: if water reached the topmost mountain, it'd have reached all the ones below. Seashells and other crustaceans tend to stick to a certain area of the sea, so you'd find different fossils on different "mountains".
Facts:
1- We've only found seashells or fossils on mt Everest and the Alps
2- No fossils whatsoever in the Ural, Andes, on the Kilimandjaro and others.


You don't. One example is not enough to justify a theory (the great flood => seashells on one mountain); one counter-example, however, is enough to bring down a theory.
You've never come across anything linked to falsificationism, and instead shroud yourself in ignorance using verificationist ideas ("I can think of this and I can find facts that seem to go with it, so it must be true". Sorry to break your little dream, but you can only go from a set of facts P to a theory Q iff Q and only Q causes P. Which, in the world, is not the case - the simplest proof is that the senses are an interface. A more, better, nicer proof is that your brain interprets the facts and adds a bias). That's the opposite of what a knowledgeable person does, and Gixxer will back me up on that as we are both studying philosophy (and I take it he has done a bit of epistemology before).
Finally, if you know logic...Have you heard of the Sorites paradox? Little by little, your theory erodes, erodes, erodes away. When can we throw it in the bin? It depends when it becomes vague.


Been there, done that.

As for the rest, may I remind you that YOU're the one who said that science was wrong. YOU're the one who trampled on others' beliefs, and you deserve nothing more than to get the same kind of stone thrown at you...with reasoned arguments.
What did you expect? A pat on the back as people would stand and listen to someone say they're wrong because they can prove stuff that appear in the real world? (In case you haven't noticed, I proved a few physical things in the thread. Including how the speed of light in a vacuum had to be constant)

As a summary to this drivel, I'll add a quote from one of the websites I quite like to read once in a while, TalkOrigins.

Claim: Anticreationist complaints are a form of snobbery. There are many more important traits on which to judge people than whether they believe in evolution.

Responses:
1. Most anticreationists would be content to let creationists believe as they wish and not make an issue of it. However, creationists make creationism an important trait. They make a huge deal of it and want to impose it on others. If creationists did not believe that it is one of the most important traits on which to judge people, the creationism-evolution dispute would not exist.

2. The complaint of snobbery is based on the attitude that all opinions are equal. Although that attitude sounds democratic and fair, it is indefensible. Opinions have value to the extent that they are informed. If you are suffering serious stomach problems, would you give equal weight to opinions from a professional gastroenterologist and a supermarket bag-boy? When someone speaking on the subject of evolution is woefully uninformed on issues concerning evolution, it is entirely appropriate to point that out. And the claims made by creationists show that almost all of them are woefully ignorant of evolution. There are exceptions (Kurt Wise, for example), but they are very few.

3. The resolution of creationism as a scientific proposition rests on what the facts indicate, and facts are not determined by the personalities of the people who talk about them. Creationists are free to avoid this issue entirely by approaching creationism as an entirely unscientific religious viewpoint, but they have chosen not to do so.

4. Many creationists have a literally holier-than-thou attitude. For example, they (falsely) claim that believers of evolution are atheistic and evil. You cannot get any more snobbish or elitist than that.

Link here

I'm not sure if this was a response to me, but my post was directed at fadedecember. Either way, you have one major issue to resolve: All arguments regarding first cause are subject to infinite regression unless you just arbitrarily declare them not to be -- meaning without reason. To put it in the form of a syllogism:

p1.) Anything that exists must have a cause
p2.) The universe exists
Conclusion: Therefore, it has a cause.

(at this point you assume it was God)

Now to apply it to your belief that God was the cause:
p1.) Anything that exists must have a cause
p2.) God exists
Conclusion: Therefore he has a cause

ANOTHER god...??? Well then, continue this process ad infinitum.

Alternative: God does not have a cause, therefore, according to premise #1 he does not exist. You cannot have true premises and a false conclusion, so you must acknowledge that god has a cause or admit your argument is invalid.

Since the argument is actually invalid it does nothing for either side.



Putting biblical discrepancies, misinterpretations, scientific and historical inaccuracies aside I still have one question (the one I was asking by quoting Ayn Rand a few posts ago: If your god exists, what about this universe shows that he has anything useful to offer us?

Read the quote -- and maybe even Carl Sagan's bit about a dragon in his garage -- and tell us why your god is different than a god that does not exist.

I don't believe everything has to have a cause.
Everything physical has to have a cause. God is not physical, you cannot see, hear, touch, or taste God. He is a spirit, and therefore does not need to be created because he is not matter.

And I notice that you're trying to disprove my theory but you're not proving yours in any way. In fact, your points can work against evolution in the same way.

Law of conservation of mass:
Matter is neither created nor destroyed, only rearranged, right?
There is matter all around us, but since it can't be created nor destroyed...what now?

If you say that everything material is contingient and that God is necessary (independant) then cant the same thing be said about the Universe?
How can you say that God doesn't rely on anything to of caused him, which is not proven by the way, be used to prove him to be creator but (once again, baring in mind this point isn't proven) cannot be used in the same way to equally prove the big bang theory?

If it can be said about God, and NOT proven, then why can't it be applied to the Universe?

Side note: I expect a mention of Gödel's theorem in the next few pages, applied to logic. This is veering dangerously torwards it.

anyone who is curently curropted by the big bang shit has to read some holly writtings.

Holy writtings like the bible (also holly koran, dao, bhagavat gita etc..) are unquestionable, nowadays assholes change the holy writtings like the bible to get the result they want.

All your stupid questions can be answered without any physics science bullshit, i have a whole collection of these books and i underatsnd evrything about the creation of universe.

Go shouve your pointless "thereas" up your unclean asses!

Its very simple and easy if you try not to believe all the faggy bullshit coming from the radio which has been "scientificly proven" and has "evidence". God sent prophets down here for a reason and you shitheads disrespect him by trying bullshit his laws and writtings.

The point of living which some of you ask for is different for all religions (below listed the ones i know ablout)

Islam - to follow the holly koran and go to heaven

Chirstianity - follow the bible go to heaven

Athism - believe in science pay taxes pay for electricity and water, die and get burried.

Budhism - try and follow the teachings of buda and join the everlasting nothingness


A human brain cannot imagine the picture of a creator of evrything which has always been there, but those who believe are in it are wise and fortunate.

Yes, but at least I can spell corrupted and holy without thinking.


Hence non-falsifiable, therefore non-scientific theories. Thank you for proving my point.
See Karl Popper's writings if you don't believe me. And he had nothing to do directly with science.


Okay. Einstein's lens?


If you're so radical, why did you even bother posting?

P.S: I like my theories to be constructively criticized by literate people.


God sent humans, who are capable of lying, of being wrong (perfect example here), etc.
Plus, if we did not have science, we would not have a "radio", as we would not know Faraday's law of induction. Congratulations on the circular implication.


Atheism is not a religion. and once again, you fail at spelling basic words (7 letters, come on).


What cannot be imagined is not a criterion of truth. What can be imagined is not a criterion of truth either.
And personally, I like to see/witness the things I believe in.