Prove the story of the Garden of Eden is a hoax, please. You'll have about as much luck as proving that I evolved from pond scum.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
"Downfall" - that's funny. Evidence, please?
Printable View
Prove the story of the Garden of Eden is a hoax, please. You'll have about as much luck as proving that I evolved from pond scum.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
"Downfall" - that's funny. Evidence, please?
Well hmmmm...god is imaginary...there is no proof of his existence...you follow a bible that was edited and filtered by the government. You have ZERO evidence proving that adam and eve is a real story.
Read this: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zi...damandeve.html
...and then we'll continue the conversation. Debunk the archaeological evidence presented in that article.
You're right: I never claimed I had evidence. I asked you for yours. Claiming that something you have no perception of as "imaginary" is not an argument - it is a refusal to recognize something. Any ancient manuscript is in the same position as the Bible - how many of those are you willing to dismiss? Evolution is as imaginary to me - despite your mounds of evidence. Fill in all the gaps and I might be interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
As well, I've already covered the fact that the Bible won't speak to those who's only desire is to slice it up. It's truths will remain hidden. Sorry.
So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.
Uh, things died, their bones got buried, turned to stone and got dug up by someone who examined them and interpreted these fossils to say something that they may/may not actually say? What would you like me to say about them?Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I think we want some elaboration. You didn't answer the question. I'd love to hear the Creationist view on this; I did mention this before and I didn't get a response from anyone.
Can we quit making this so personal? Both sides. It's bugging me. I'd just like to hear the Creationist side and the Evolutionist side. That's it. No insults, no spitting in each other's faces, just the argument itself.
See, lily, they can't answer the question because it goes against their "beliefs". They dismiss and avoid posts presenting evidence. All in all, it's beating around the bush.
In all seriousness, what if these particular individuals are simply unattractive people? I have an uncle that when he dies, I want to have sole access to his skull so I can boil it and I bet he'd probably look a little bit like a neanderthal. I also have an old high school teacher that we used to jokingly call "The Missing Link" because she has a very ape like face, reminiscent of a gorilla. What if these fossils they are finding are just unfortuante looking humans? I'm not saying this merely to be glib, but it is a possibility. As a person who believes in Creation, I believe in fossils. These creatures did exist, but for whatever reason, be it changes in the atmosphere, hunting or something else I cannot devine, they are now extinct. I don't really know how else to answer such a broad question. Is there something specific about fossils? Just to say "what about fossils" is a really broad question that I'm not sure I can answer simply for the reason that I'm not sure what you are looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I'm not talking about faith simply from a religious standpoint. Faith can mean faith in God, or faith in an idea. Do you really think that early scientists didn't need faith to get their ideas off the ground? A person has to have faith in an idea to spend as much time and effort to prove it as these men did. You say that if "they were wrong, big deal". What if the evolutionists were one day proven wrong? Would that not shake the very foundation you base your ideas on? Wouldn't that shake every idea to its very core? If someone would with out a doubt prove that Creation was false, that would change everything for me. If science doesn't claim to know everything, why then is it so impossible for scientists to entertain the idea of Creation? It does take faith, either way. But don't think of faith simply as a Christian attribute. All people have faith, just in different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
Thanks, I appreciate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
I do consider them to be counter arguments. Creation is based on Devine Inspiration and Intellignet Design while evolution is based on an amazing set of coincidences that jumpstarted the origins of the earth. One has God, one doesn't. So yes, I do consider them to be mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Thanx Red!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Worship: nounQuote:
Originally Posted by manolia
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
The problem is too many people misunderstand the words faith and worship. All people have faith and do worship. I know many people who regard science with the same reverance and faith as I do God. So yes, one could potentially worship steel and concrete. :) Just perhaps not yourself. I should have been more clear on my word usage, I see.
I see them as seperate because one is a change(evolution) from one species to another, and one is an adaptation within the same species. I hope that clarifies my answer a little. I have seen micro evolution. It is tangible and concrete. Macro evolution, on the other hand is something that no person has ever seen evidence of in the living world.(outside of the fossil record that is)Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
I am certainly not offended and I appreciate your respect and tact in your post. I believe that one thing that makes human beings so strong is our ability to disagree. It forces us to take a good look at our beliefs and defend them. If you can't defend it, you can't truly believe in it. So I thank you for your candor and I hope I was able to answer some of your questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
You're right. I didn't answer the question. I don't have an answer. I teach English for a living and I'm not a biblical scholar. Yes, I could go search the web for a Christian response as to the existence of fossils (and I do recall an explanation) and then post it here, but then what? The evolutionists would scoff at the explanation, dismiss it and then we're right back where we started. This argument cannot and will not be "won" and certainly not by "evidence." Both belief systems involve uncertainties and faith - but because the evolutionist believes he has more "evidence" (as if what you can see is the measure of reality) that his position is the stronger one and ours is plain silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Adams
and nothing presented in a newspaper, journal or book is edited...Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
and just because you say there is zero, does not make it so... I can say you have zero evidence, but it wont change the facts.
no I guess your right...let me domonstrate:Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
www.hatetheatheist.com - guess the athiests are wrong!
how do you counteract hard earned internet proof!!!
you have zero evidence
teh monkeys own you
how can a debate go on, if one side refuses to acknowledge the othersides proofs, and instead plays ostritch and calls ZERO?
youve finally figured it out stanislaw. you can never have a real debate about this. i cant aknowledge the chrisitans "proof" becuase i dont consider it proof.
debates are logical entities. like in a courtroom. religion is not a logical function. you cannot prove that god does not exist because thats not how the religion works. you can show loads of logical examples, but religious people have faith.
we cant really effectively debate this anyway, becuase we are not phyicists or bible scholars. an amateur debate about religion will never have a satisfactory conclusion, even if there is one to be had.
well, we could drink beer and call it a conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
and science is rooted in logic aswell, governed by different method theoretical and physical. but the debate lies in the philisophical, philosophy offers an effective bridge between the two, between humanities and sciences.
you cant debate religion, its fun, but you will never have a satisfactory answer.
you cant argue away faith. someone has to have doubts on their own. they have to have a chink in their religious armor. the whole point is that we cant understand God. you cant use science or even fact to debate that. in the end people want it to be real and they can simply say that God is above science.
faith is not rational.
Faith is not rational to you, you mean. To a person who has faith, it is rational/logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
ra·tion·al
adj.
1.Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2.Of sound mind; sane.
3.Consistent with or based on reason; logical:
There's a difference between (reasoned) faith, and blind faith.
no, i mean faith is not rational. i know the definition of the word perfectly well.
to an insane person their actions are raitonal and logical. this means nothing, proves nothing. maybe the "insane" person has it right. but wait there is only one, they must be crazy. many christians call cults crazy for some of the things they do. the only difference betweena cult and a religion is that one has more people.
"Rationality" is a term that deals with what you're using as a basis for "normal" or "reality." To the Christian, God is ultimate reality and this world a deceptive "illusion" of sorts. So, from where we're standing, a rejection of God is a rejection of ultimate reality - and is, therefore, irrational behavior. You won't agree, because you base your idea of "normal" or "reality" on what you can see - the observable world; as such, our focus on the unseen world appears "irrational" to you. Don't you get it? There is no total escape from the limits of subjectivity. As far as Christians are concerned, you are the one who is being fooled - but you're being fooled by what you can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
i know what you think. i bring forth the example of an insane person. the points of veiw are so out of phase you cant really argue whether god is real.
i just like to pick apart arguements or have others pick apart mine.
No matter what you say, Christians will find a way to loop things around and pick apart at your argument. When people believe in something so strongly, they will do anything to defend it; it's as if they are crusades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
I agree that there are angry atheists out there that do the same, but it doesn't compare to how Christians straw man the theory of evolution, as if it was made up by some crazy scientist. And, I don't want to hear the "well you guys keep trying to ridicule our faith, so we are going to defend ourselves and try to say that evolution is based on faith too".
Why not be a Christian who believes in evolution? If God created the beginning then why couldn't have created the big bang? If we have archaeological evidence proving that we evolved from a prehistorical primate species then why continue to believe in the parable we call "adam and eve"? Yes, the parable man made up before science could explain things.
Ok, so let's just call the guys with PhDs studying this everyday, "madmen". Let's call the history and discovery channel crazy for putting them on television. Can you people put the bible down for one second and open your eyes? God gave you "freewill" didn't he? Well, use it and discover the truths about the universe for yourself, instead of worshiping a book written by hundreds of powerful, corrupt men.
If there were awards for grace and persistence under pressure I'd nominate you Red.
I second that. You and I seem cut from the same cloth, though you are infinitly more eloquent. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adudaewen
ennison and Adudaewen - you are too kind. Thank you for the encouragement. (I need it!)
A criticism equally valid for the evolutionist. Both sides of the debate function on predisposed ideas about reality. The evolutionist just fancies that he's more "objective" but that is not so. Facts, "evidence" and the like do not always speak for themselves, and scientists of both sides (evolution and ID) proceed from their separate foundations to argue different conclusions from the same evidence. Evolutionists are equally dogmatic in their opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing - which is what evolution (sans God) must finally assert. Matter cannot come from nothing. Pursued to its logical conclusion, evolution must explain the existence of matter. To say that it has "always existed" is to give an answer that really answers nothing because it asserts a reality that cannot be explained, nor can it be proven (kind of like God -:) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
A Christian can believe in the two if he wishes (Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project does) - but to do so requires a rejection of what the Bible says - and that position does risk undermining the authority of the scriptures because I believe that the Bible is a unified whole; once you dismiss part of is, the integrity of the rest is now in question. As I said above - some "evidence" is subject to interpretation - which is a subjective tool applied within the context of a particular bias. Example: as a literary critic and a Christian, I am not predisposed to accept Queer Theory interpretations of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets; I've read the arguments, and they're well-articulated - but I do not buy them because the Queer Threory critics applied a critical tool of analysis which involves a foundation which I find to be invalid - a foundation based on the critic's bais towards homosexuality. Ditto for interpreting fossils and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I wouldn't call them "madmen" but I would call them human - in that they have their prejudices as do I. Please don't cite TV as an authority on anything. Finally, please stop the worn-out and exceedingly tired cliche that Christians are "blind" and that those of you who reject Christianity are somehow more blessed with enlightenment, or "open eyes" or a more "rational, critical" view of the world. Why is it that our position is due to blindness of some sort and yours isn't? We have freewill; that's why we freely have chosen to believe as we do. Do not commit the immature stereotype that the Christian is a blind drone who only believes what s/he's been taught. Our minds work fine - they just disagree with your conclusions - but what a clever argumentative fallacy to identify us as being inferior thinkers because we don't accept your position. Very clever, but not good debate technique.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
We don't "worship" the Bible - we worship its Writer. You have no proof of your assertions about that book, and scholarship has asserted that its reliability is higher than many other texts from the same time period of which the authority of which is unquestioned. Better do some research instead of tossing out generalizations that really don't hold water. The accuracy of the Biblical texts has been analyzed and verified by scholars.
I hope you are referring to men. It's editor...well the government. There's nothing to refute here. God gave man freewill, so what makes you think man can't use his freewill to distort the bible as he pleases?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yes, scholars who have a biased opinion on the subject. Asking a "god believing" scholar to verify the bible is like asking a government to verify its war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I've read so much about scholars who are finding out that the books in the bible were actually written by many men and not the original writers. Yet, every time I mention this you guys comeback with the same comment..."god inspired the men to do it". If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.
I believe in both evolution and creation, as it it dumb to believe God couldn't know what things would and could have evolved into when he is Omnipotent.
God is the "author" - everything in there was inspired by Him. Because God is all-powerful, there's a slight chance that He has the ability to inspire good men to guard the integrity of His revelation of His identity. Easy for a Guy who created the world in six days, don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
1) This argument also works against any conclusions you draw from scientists who assert the truth of evolution - they're biased too.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
2) Biblical scholars use tools that are acknowledged in the secular community as well. Here:
Homer's Illiad is considered to have the greatest manuscript authority next to the New Testament; Homer wrote the Illiad around 900 BC and the oldest copy is from 400 BC - a 500 year span. The total number of manuscripts is 643 and the readings agree 95% of the time.
In contrast, there are approximately 5300 original language manuscripts of New Testament writings spanning 50 years - AD 70 to AD 120. These documents agree with each other 99.5% of the time in terms of language and content. It requires no bias to come to this kind of linguistic conclusion - you simply compare what all the manuscripts say.
God didn't "make" people write the Bible - He inspired willing believers to put down what He wanted put down. "Influence" is not "coerce." These writers wanted to be servants - "tools" if you will - of God; allowing Him to pass His thoughts through us is an honor - not a violation of our freedom. Your understanding of freewill in this situation is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Does a secretary lose her/his free will when (s)he dictates a letter for her/his boss? Inspiration and slavery aren't the same thing.
actually physics does not assert this. science does not know where it matter came from. but there are some theories you can check out. some of the stuff is really bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
<It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing>
And yet, it doesn't seem crazy to assert that something, a causeless something, was always there?
From what I remember of reading books on the big bang, I always thought that the claim was that time began with the big bang, and that the question of what happened before is therefore a meaningless question. To say that it is claimed that nothing preceded the big bang is incorrect, afaik, as it is said that a field of potential preceded the big bang.
But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adudaewen
Yes they did: to willingly chose to follow another's request is a voluntary placing of one's own will under the authority of another - as such, it is FREELY chosen; for every man/woman who chose to serve God, I suggest that many others declined the invitation. God generally doesn't ask for unwilling servants. (The story of Johah is a bit troubling, but I think there's a reason for that too.)Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
But science must assert this in order for its God-less view of evolution to work. Matter exists, and it cannot be conveniently explained away (at least by rational people).Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
it doesnt have to. science does not claim to have all the answers. it might decide on a theory or it might not. evolution isnt bothered with matter anyway. it describes how life evolves and grows.
No, I'm talking about the people that filtered, edited, and changed the bible according to their liking; the politicians in ancient times (like Constantine) who changed the bible into what it is today. You claimed earlier that God inspired those men. I don't remember guys like Constantine having actual conversations with God about writing the bible. You did say they were "inspired to write and edit", and all this talk of alterations is "silly" because mr. ruler of the universe has everything planned out. Well if most of the guys that wrote the bible never had conversations with God (like moses did) then it's not freewill to abide by God's wishes (because God never actually said anything to them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The impression you gave off was that even if the writers weren't told to write the bible by God, they were spiritually inspired to do so without knowing they were spiritually inspired. That wouldn't be freewill, now would it?
God has always had loyal servants - and He has entrusted them to guard His Word. Any being capable of creating the universe could assure that His Holy Word made it through various translators and editors intact. In general, people who translated/copied the scriptures did so out of a sense of service to the Lord: people hostile to the scriptures were not interested in working with them. You ignored my posting with the percentages of reliabilty attributed to the New Testament (I can provide similar figures for the Old Testament). Based on the tools used to assess the reliabilty of ancient writings, the New Testament has the highest reliability in terms of the texts agreeing with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
It has to bother with matter because the elimination of God from the explanation of the universe necessitates an explanation as to where matter came from. And science will probably have to resort to an explanation as silly and inconceivable to the Christian as the idea of a Supreme Being must be to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
You laugh when evolutionists bring up statistics, yet you post statistics on the validity of the bible. I've read and seen too much to believe that the bible is as valid as you claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
At this point of the argument it's pretty pointless to continue. No matter what direction you go in, a Christian will use his faith to tackle a debate. It goes like this:
evolutionist: scientific fact
creationist: science can't be trusted
evolutionist: yes it can
creationist: straw man
evolutionist: attack on christianity
creationist: faith, God is almighty, I win.
:p
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Nobody has quoted scientific statistics for me that I can recall. Why don't you hunt down all the times someone (you maybe?) has tried to offer statistics and I've "laughed" at them, OK?
Second - you ignored my information. You and the other evolutionists manage to scoff away at "faith" saying that we have no empirical evidence, and then when I offer you something you won't deal with it. Nice. Deal with my postings. Those numbers aren't my claims - they are from studies done on textual reliability.
Third: how many times are you going to claim that the argument is pointless to continue in and then keep right on posting away? If you're done, fine: be done and let someone else take your place who will do more than argue in a circle without dealing with the argument at hand.
Interesting poll.
I'm guessing by the almost 50% seeing creation that most posters are from USA? Amazing how many people have trouble separating fact (evolution) from fantasy (creation).
As an atheist, I have no problem with religion - live and let live is my motto - but creationism flies in the face of too many facts to be treated seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I'll remember never to ask you to write anything down for me since you consider that such a violation of your free will.
To me, it is just silly to say that inspiration is the same as a loss of free will. Now, if God held a gun to their heads, then I might agree with you. But as far as I know God doesn't have a gun license. ;) (doesn't really need one)
Howdy Adu,Quote:
Originally Posted by Adudaewen
Your last sentence, particularly the part in parentheses, proves hyper's point in my opinion. Why use a gun when you're omnipotent, omnicient, and eternal? Didn't the Christian god know it was going to eventually have to send its human form to earth to get nailed to the cross--even before it created the world?
Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an opinion and nothing else but - an opinion you cannot substantiate. Feel free to give examples of what "facts" creation "flies in the face of" so I can seriously consider them; then I'll throw out at you some of the sheer absurdities that science requires me to accept to explain reality without the causal agent of God. The only "fantasy" being entertained here IMO is the idea that we're the products of random, faceless chance - the odds of which occurring are so astronomical as to approach zero probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Creation is not physical, and we live in a physical realm. Creation is fantasy...it's imagined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Why do you force me to repeat to you what I just told another poster? Re-read my post above and pretend its addressed to you, because you basically said the same thing The Atheist said. How about adding something new?Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean