Has Creationism been disproven?

[Harthan]

Once again, rather convienent. Take a lot of faith to belive in that. Very reliable research and information, given the what, 12 or 15 meteor strikes humankind has been able to do research on.

So now your argument is all the scientists, who've had decades of education, training, and experience, are wrong, and you are in fact on par with their level of expertise, and are capable of offering equally valid scientific expertise.

It doesn't take faith to trust in science. It takes reason and intelligence to understand how science works, and to trust in the people with the education and expertise.

Frankly your argument is delving in the absurd, and you've barely made an attempt to refute even half of what I've said. Really, if your response to science fact is going to be "Oh, those scientists, what do they know, I'm smarter than they are" than we really haven't anything else to discuss here.

Honestly I'm just going to check out of this one. It's obvious that you lack even the most basic understanding of the major sciences, or even how science works in the first place. There's simply no point in continuing this conversation.

 

[JGlass]

Whales? Fish? Squid? Turtles? Alligators?

Whales probably died. Fish may or may not have survived, same with primitive squids, turtles, or alligators.

May or may not? Mostly? Ah, im fairly confident all of the dinosaurs are dead.

Obviously all the dinosaurs are gone, but things like sharks, alligators, and lizards may be direct decedents.

Well thats rather convienent, isnt it? Whole lot of faith to swallow that one, I would say.

I disagree, everything I've said thus far has a reasonable, scientific explanation.

reasons, that in theory, should have saved various other species, and didnt? See how I am having a tough time wrapping my head around that one?

What are you talking about "should have saved" various other species? For one thing, what species are you talking about? For another thing, there's no should have in nature, you either live or die.

It is a plausible event, as you have so much as said yourself. You said there is a large amount of scientific evidence that supports a great flood...Is Science only reliable when you want it to be?

Hold on a tic. I said there's some scientific evidence for a regional great flood, not a worldwide one. Furthermore, it would have only wiped out a small region, not the entire world. If a great flood covered the entire world, as Harthan has explained, we'd all be fucked.

and I doubt that second sentance quite seriously.

I don't see why I've given you any reason to doubt that I respect your right to believe in God.

Even though we have established an event likely did happen, your science supports that, and pretty much every major group of anceint peoples who have never made contact with one another had a version of the story?

Except the likely did make contact with one another, and as Harthan explained, a fear of a flood was universal. And once again, there's NO evidence for a worldwide flood, just for a regional one.

Doesnt sound "next to impossible" to me. Genetic code randomly establishing itself into structures that are so complex thar the mere concept of them would make your fucking head explode....Uh, THAT sounds next to impossible to me.

Once again, you use the word random way too freely. It didn't randomly organize itself, it organized itself to improve it's way of life. First simple single cell organisms appeared and then over millions of years they grew to adapt to their environment and became multi-cellular organisms, and over the billions of years they evolved into more and more complex creatures. What I don't understand is how you can doubt it's possible when we can actually see evolution in action.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705211022.htm

Or better yet, look at how disease causing bacteria are quickly becoming immune to anti-biotics. That's evolution that has taken place over less than a century!

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/bacteria_evolution.html

Ahhhh science and religion vauguely linking up and agreeing with one another, noooooo my brain cant handle iiiittt

Stop acting like you know everything about my personal beliefs. I'm not attempting to act like I know what's going on in your head, and I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor. I'll be the first to admit that there is some scientific and historical reference to stories told by various religions, but the flood story is totally impossible.

Uh, I dont know, maybe when you guys used literal lines and number directly out of the bible to say "well this could never happen so neer neer neer"

Fuck, one os those parargraphs IS RIGHT ABOVE THIS IN YOUR RESPONSE/ How have I been the one NOT using science and logic?

Did I say you haven't been using science or logic? No.

Babies? Various boats? Preservation?

Sounds like scientific and logical theories to me. Of course, it is in support of something in the bible being plausible, so they dont count, right?

They are all theories, but I think myself and too a great extent Harthan have done a more than thorough job of debunking those theories.

But just to clarify, are you talking about a regional flood that covered maybe a portion of the Middle East, or are you talking about a worldwide flood?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

So now your argument is all the scientists, who've had decades of education, training, and experience, are wrong, and you are in fact on par with their level of expertise, and are capable of offering equally valid scientific expertise.

Darwins theory was simply that, a theory. One that was roundly rejected as him being a fool when he first presented it. Just one mans theory.

It doesn't take faith to trust in science. It takes reason and intelligence to understand how science works, and to trust in the people with the education and expertise.

Faith, trust, are we gonna split hairs here?

You understand I am USING scientific theories to simply say a majority of stories from the bible are perfectly plausible?

I know though, I just trust what people tell me, makes me a lunatic...Oh, wait a sec....

Frankly your argument is delving in the absurd, and you've barely made an attempt to refute even half of what I've said. Really, if your response to science fact is going to be "Oh, those scientists, what do they know, I'm smarter than they are" than we really haven't anything else to discuss here.

Hm, what did I say about you science guys throwing fits and being arrogant?

How can theories based upon conjecture on things we have never been able to actually see or research be considered fact? Like seriously, on a practical level, that doesnt sound stupid to you?

Honestly I'm just going to check out of this one. It's obvious that you lack even the most basic understanding of the major sciences, or even how science works in the first place. There's simply no point in continuing this conversation.

I can only aspire to ascend to the level of intellect were I can blindly trust theories of people who were no more there than I was, and go all about telling everyone that what they belive in is just all wrong, becuase I know everything.


Science is constantly evolving. Prehaps it is you who lacks the most basic understanding of the major sciences.

Thats ok though, throw a fit and act like im just stupid, and could never understand. Its pretty clear that is you, who do not understand.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Hold on a tic. I said there's some scientific evidence for a regional great flood, not a worldwide one. Furthermore, it would have only wiped out a small region, not the entire world. If a great flood covered the entire world, as Harthan has explained, we'd all be fucked.



Except the likely did make contact with one another, and as Harthan explained, a fear of a flood was universal. And once again, there's NO evidence for a worldwide flood, just for a regional one.



Once again, you use the word random way too freely. It didn't randomly organize itself, it organized itself to improve it's way of life. First simple single cell organisms appeared and then over millions of years they grew to adapt to their environment and became multi-cellular organisms, and over the billions of years they evolved into more and more complex creatures. What I don't understand is how you can doubt it's possible when we can actually see evolution in action.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705211022.htm

Or better yet, look at how disease causing bacteria are quickly becoming immune to anti-biotics. That's evolution that has taken place over less than a century!

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/bacteria_evolution.html



Stop acting like you know everything about my personal beliefs. I'm not attempting to act like I know what's going on in your head, and I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor. I'll be the first to admit that there is some scientific and historical reference to stories told by various religions, but THE flood story is totally impossible.








They are all theories, but I think myself and too a great extent Harthan have done a more than thorough job of debunking those theories.

But just to clarify, are you talking about a regional flood that covered maybe a portion of the Middle East, or are you talking about a worldwide flood?

The bible, which was written in one region, saw it. So at least, that region was entirely buried in water. Other groups of anceint people, from thousands of miles way, have nearly the same story. Greater than a regional flood, I do belive so, killed everything in the whole world for 40 days, probably not. After all, how could the people who wrote the bible known what was occuring on the other side of the planet?

Thats why siad, you look foolish saying none of this happened using literal interpretations of the bible.

40 days and only 5 people lived and all the animals? Uh, no.

A great flood which whiped out a majority of known life for a week, weeks, possibly, with some life perserved by various peoples all over the world (whose religous texts, of course, describe THEM, as being the ones who knew, and saved everyone, when in fact, other groups were doing the same thing in other places)

The story in the bible speaks of a great flood, killing everything around, and them gathering all the animals, in pairs of 2. Christian religion has you belive, every animal in the entire world. Likely, its the animals of the direct region, which, to the people who wrote the story, would be, all the animals in existance.

You seeing were I am going here? Using logic, and science, and without literal interpretation owning to the hyperbole and arrogance of human beings (which invariabley, and ironically, always manifests itself in these kinds of conversations) its prefectly plausible that the story of Noahs Ark took place, and simply was larger in scale of grandeur, due to the interpretation of the people who wrote it, or just plain ol grandtsanding by the people who wrote it.

Possibly a bit of both. I never once said it DID happen, or that you were wrong, or there is a wrong or right. I simply said its perfectly plausible it DID occur, and to say "Well no that is just impossible blah blah science" is incredibly narrow minded, and simply a desire to crush peoples faith, and tell them how stupid and wrong what they belive are.

Unecessary, and quite assy. Clearly.

I dont really fell like anything can be proven or disproven definitively, because the people who create these theories were not there, and have no made time machines (far as I know)....What I DO know, that with science, most of the stories in the bible are plausible, as is creationism.

 

[Hazardous]

the ash covering the earth after the meteor that crashed into the Mexico gulf coast is a proven fact. You dig anywhere in the world, from Vancouver to Mongolia, and you can see that layer in the earth. Animals survived by taking to the water, or going under ground.
This is stuff that has been proven. As far as the flood, I would like to know the name of the documentaries that say it happened, just for curiosity sake.
I mean, it's obviously after the evolution of man, and since the Egyptians are the (possibly wrong here) earliest recorded civilization, and they don't mention anything about it.
I'm not saying it wasn't plausible, as the great Meteor was not the first time life was wiped out. there was a Volcano that blew up millions of years before it that took out most of the life on earth as well. It's located in modern day Russia. I just haven't seen anything before that speaks of a great flood.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Who said a meteor didnt hit the earth?

 

[HBK-aholic]

You all just made my head hurt.

Regarding Noah's Ark, I think it's pretty unlikely it happened. I mean, I would have no idea at all how to collect all the plants and animals from my region, never mind the world. I don't even know what half of them look like. Maybe Noah was magic and did, and that's great. It does seem unlikely, though.
Second, yeah I think many of the animals would have died or killed each other in the 40 days, or however long it actually was.
Third, a question. Did all these animals get saved but all the people were just killed? If so, does that sit well in your minds, when discussing a higher power?

I'm not saying it didn't happen - hey, who knows? But if someone told us something like this, or had written a book about it without it having the title of a religious book, we likely wouldn't believe a word they said.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

If they said a huge flood happened, and they built a huge boat and saved as many people and animals as they possibly could, and then were on the verge of death before crashing into higher ground?

That doesnt sound plausible? I would belive it.

 

[JGlass]

The bible, which was written in one region, saw it.

Except that the Bible was written thousands of years after it happened. Even if you wanted to go with the Old Testament, it was still written long after any such flood occurred.

So at least, that region was entirely buried in water. Other groups of anceint people, from thousands of miles way, have nearly the same story. Greater than a regional flood, I do belive so, killed everything in the whole world for 40 days, probably not. After all, how could the people who wrote the bible known what was occuring on the other side of the planet?

There's no evidence for a global flood other than that there were a variety of cultures that had a myth about one. Also, if it drowned the whole world, things wouldn't be dead for 40 days, they'd be dead forever.

Thats why siad, you look foolish saying none of this happened using literal interpretations of the bible.

Once again, who has been going by literal interpretations? I've been talking regional flood (not what the Bible describes) the entire time.

40 days and only 5 people lived and all the animals? Uh, no.

A great flood which whiped out a majority of known life for a week, weeks, possibly, with some life perserved by various peoples all over the world (whose religous texts, of course, describe THEM, as being the ones who knew, and saved everyone, when in fact, other groups were doing the same thing in other places)

The story in the bible speaks of a great flood, killing everything around, and them gathering all the animals, in pairs of 2. Christian religion has you belive, every animal in the entire world. Likely, its the animals of the direct region, which, to the people who wrote the story, would be, all the animals in existance.

You seeing were I am going here? Using logic, and science, and without literal interpretation owning to the hyperbole and arrogance of human beings (which invariabley, and ironically, always manifests itself in these kinds of conversations) its prefectly plausible that the story of Noahs Ark took place, and simply was larger in scale of grandeur, due to the interpretation of the people who wrote it, or just plain ol grandtsanding by the people who wrote it.

I see what you're getting at, but it's still next to impossible. Even if they did pack 45,000 (as the Biblical scholars suggested) animals onto one ship, two ships, ten ships, with enough crew to man every single ship, the fact of the matter is that the voyage would only be a small portion of their problem. When they got off the boat their world would be completely and utterly destroyed, with no vegetation for the animals to eat, thus resulting in a massive starvation.

Possibly a bit of both. I never once said it DID happen, or that you were wrong, or there is a wrong or right. I simply said its perfectly plausible it DID occur, and to say "Well no that is just impossible blah blah science" is incredibly narrow minded, and simply a desire to crush peoples faith, and tell them how stupid and wrong what they belive are.

No, it's not narrow minded, and it's clear you're taking this debate personally when it never was. I have no desire to change your belief in God or a god or any religion you follow, I just want you to understand that evolution and natural selection is about a million times more likely than a Noah scenario. You say doing so is narrow minded, but I have asked questions that you haven't been able to answer (in addition to some you have) about the entire situation.

Also, you're the one that keeps saying there is scientific evidence for things that happened in the Bible, so once again, I'm playing you're game. You keep on accusing me of only acknowledging what science has to say when it fits my arguments, but you're doing the exact same thing by denying a few key factors that would make a flood scenario impossible.

Unecessary, and quite assy. Clearly.

Because I said the flood story instead of a flood story? Even when I have been talking about a flood story for every post prior to this?

I dont really fell like anything can be proven or disproven definitively, because the people who create these theories were not there, and have no made time machines (far as I know)....What I DO know, that with science, most of the stories in the bible are plausible, as is creationism.

Most of the stories in the Bible aren't that fantastical to begin with. There are a few that are, like Jesus's miracles and just about anything from Genesis, but there is historical and scientific evidence that some of the events the Bible described did happen. However, things in the Old Testament, especially in Genesis, are complete conjecture that the writers of the Bible wrote about thousands of years after they happened.

And sure, creationism is plausible if you believe in an omnipotent god with the power to do such things as create an entire universe from scratch. However, evolutionary theory explains how the world as we know it came into being by using an overwhelming amount of facts and data and research. Science has proven that the events in the Bible could have happened in a similar manner to the way in which the Bible described, but science has also proven that the earth is billions of years old and life has evolved over the course of it. As I said, we've been able to see evolution happen before our eyes, so I don't see anyway you can discount it unless you believe it's God or a god that's making the changes to bacteria and viruses and those skinks in Australia. If you do, then that's fine, but I don't understand why we're debating if you refuse to acknowledge that there is hard scientific evidence for evolution.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Except that the Bible was written thousands of years after it happened. Even if you wanted to go with the Old Testament, it was still written long after any such flood occurred.

do you not see how this furthermore supports the points I just made about granduerising the event in religious texts? Why are you arguing with me but saying things that agree with me

When did I ever say

1. there was no evolution

2. I was talking about the entire earth being under water for 40 days

3. I was arguing anything

I simply stated that there is plenty sceintific and logical theory to back up the majority of the bible, to include the account of noahs ark and flood and to simply discard it as childrens stories, as many an atheist likes to do, is bullshit.

I am not trying to make it personal, you are taking it personally. My second sentance about people trying to fuck with another persons faith was a general statement. You took it personally, by way of guilty cosncience, one would have to assume

 

[Hazardous]

I believe that the "great flood" they speak of was actually just a tsunami caused by an earthquake. If that was the case, then yes, plausible, since there was one about 2000 years before Plato. A giant boat with 2 of every animal? That part I have a hard time getting behind. But that's like the whole "Living in a whale" one as well. Good story, but don't see how that could ever happen.
When I said Creationism in my OP, I was referring to the theory that God created man. There was no mention of Evolution, or Dinosaurs, or anything like that. Now I seen a few people say that the bible was written so the people at that time could understand it.. That may be so, but then why was the theory of dinosaurs walking the earth millions of years before us so rejected by the christian community? Evolution is still widely rejected by most groups. I'm not trying to judge anyone's belief in a higher power, and the one thing science, or anyone else can not prove, is if there is one in the afterlife. Simply that looking at it scientifically, there didn't NEED to be a higher power for the universe to form, or life to evolve on earth. We could go back and forth till the end of time fighting about if there is, or isn't a god, or gods, but I was wondering if Science has disproved the Theory of Creation, as it is written in the "good book".

 

[Chess]

I need to be a little careful here as I have already got red repped responding to this thread. Also I am not the best at articulating my opinions and beliefs but I shall try.

I have been raised as a Christian and do believe that God created everything and everyone even though I do not neccessarily live my life 100% by the Bible. I myself have never met a Christian who has denied the existence of Dinosaurs or the fact they were around millions of years before man. However I am sure they exist much like this Norwegian nut who thinks he is Christian yet massacred a hundred people.

My limited understanding of the Bible is that it should not be taken 100% literally but needs to be interpreted. The 7 days is not literal and could infact be millions of years and probably are. Man was not made until the 6th day while sea creatures/monsters and sky creatures/birds were created on the fifth. How do we know how long a day was? People may assume 24 hours as that is what we use now but at this point man did not exist and God was defining the rules and therefore a day could of been a million years.

Simply that looking at it scientifically, there didn't NEED to be a higher power for the universe to form, or life to evolve on earth.

I do not think science has come to the outcome of how the earth was created. They have managed to discover all the way back to the first few milisceonds but they cannot and have not sussed out the very beginning. Why is this? For me it is because God cannot be proven or disproven as otherwise it defeats the object of faith. God could come down and say "Hi, I'm God, look what I can do". This would therefore make everyone believers and get rids of the main belief of Christianity. You can only get to heaven through me (Believing in Jesus). This takes a leap of faith and has to be done by free will not by force.

In life we use faith all day, everyday. I sit in a chair, I have faith that the chair will not break, it could but I have faith it wont. I go on a plane, I have faith it will fly me to my destination safely but it may not, but again I use faith. My faith is that God exists, other peoples faith is that they believe in scientific theories or that a random act of events created everything in perfect harmony. We all use faith whether we are religiious or athiest, I just chose religion.

Finally I will say this. Then God commanded, "Let there be light"---and light appeared. This was the first act yet the Sun and the moon (our light) were not created until day 4. Could this have been the Big Bang?

Also the main difference between Christianity and all other religions is that you only have to believe in God to go to heaven. In most if not all other religiions (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Scientology etc.) you can get to heaven by completing a tick list. Be good, fast, go on a pilgrimage, give money to charity etc. Therefore if you want an easier way to heaven you should avoid Christianity as having real faith is much more difficult than a tick list.

OK, that is my opinion, take it for what you will. Please do not red rep me just because I may have a different opinion to you.

If you really want more educated answers to the original question maybe you can read - Professor John Lennox - Gods Undertaker.

 

[Hazardous]

I got this from a christian website, regarding Creation vs Science.

Spoiler

The big bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice: the planetesimal theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory. They all have one thing in common—they assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun. However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun came later—on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1, 14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise. Of course some have attempted to solve this difficulty with yet another slippery compromise. They allege that the “creative acts” of Genesis 1 are not necessarily “in chronological order” (Willis 1979, 92).

The big bang theory supposes that the universe started with a chaotic explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact opposite. God created the universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia (Psalm 102:25ff; Hebrews 1:10-12).

Big bang cosmology postulates a universe that is nearly twenty billion years old, with the human race evolving only three or four million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the universe from that of mankind.

But the Scriptures affirm:

(1) The human family came into existence the same week as the universe (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isaiah 40:21; Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50; Romans 1:20).

(2) Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord’s ancestry all the way back to Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). There are some two millennia spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another two thousand years push history back to the time of Abraham. There are only twenty generations between Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in the Old Testament narrative (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), surely no responsible Bible student will contend that twenty billion years can be squeezed into those twenty generations. The universe thus cannot be billions of years old.

Big bang chronology and biblical chronology are woefully at variance.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I got this from a christian website, regarding Creation vs Science.

Spoiler

The big bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice: the planetesimal theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory. They all have one thing in common—they assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun. However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun came later—on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1, 14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise. Of course some have attempted to solve this difficulty with yet another slippery compromise. They allege that the “creative acts” of Genesis 1 are not necessarily “in chronological order” (Willis 1979, 92).

The big bang theory supposes that the universe started with a chaotic explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact opposite. God created the universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia (Psalm 102:25ff; Hebrews 1:10-12).

Big bang cosmology postulates a universe that is nearly twenty billion years old, with the human race evolving only three or four million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the universe from that of mankind.

But the Scriptures affirm:

(1) The human family came into existence the same week as the universe (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isaiah 40:21; Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50; Romans 1:20).

(2) Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord’s ancestry all the way back to Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). There are some two millennia spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another two thousand years push history back to the time of Abraham. There are only twenty generations between Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in the Old Testament narrative (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), surely no responsible Bible student will contend that twenty billion years can be squeezed into those twenty generations. The universe thus cannot be billions of years old.

Big bang chronology and biblical chronology are woefully at variance.

At least they're not trying to explain anything, ending it off with an "A-HA! Checkmate, scientists!" at the end. They have their beliefs, and they're just recognizing the fact that the two theories can't relate.

 

[H33LTurn]

Oh dear, this is a joke, right?

Oh its quite serious.

Because one of the most basic principles of any form of science is that you can't create something out of nothing.

Whos talking about creating something out of nothing? Just because someone belives that God created this planet does not change the fact that its made of rock.

Dinosaurs and humans never walked side by side. Ever. Despite this (awesome) picture.

If anyone could take care of our unicorn problem it's Jesus and his trusty steed.

I never said dinosaurs and humans lived together, I dont know where you pulled that from.

My personal experiences have proven to me that there is no god... or that if there is he's a shitty god that should be fired.

Awful pessimistic thinking, dont you think? What a dastardly "shitty" God that created trees and flowers and babies, wow he sure sounds like an a-hole. This is why most Christians dont take atheists seriously. They way you guys say, "and if there was a God... *insert hate speech against God here*" makes it seem that you guys are more discontent with your lives than with God. Because by your ideology if there was a God then he would automatically have to accept responsibility for starving kids in Africa and tsunamis and homework or whatever else makes you feel bad. According to Christian teaching, God gave man free will, that means that however shitty this world is, its our fault. Thats why so many people reject religion, it forces people to be conscious about their actions.

Gee... you don't say.

No, I kinda just did say it right there.

What the hell do you mean open to unexplainable occurrences? The whole point of science is to explain these occurrences. Think about it, once upon a time people didn't even know why apples fell to the ground from trees, but then science managed to explain it. Any "unexplainable phenomena" are just things that science is waiting to solve.

And hows the whole evolution thing going for you guys? inb4youneverfindthemissinglinkbecauseitdoesntexist.

This is easily the funniest fucking part of your post. GTA is your example of a functional city that's man made? Never mind the disturbing fact that you seem to have a difficult time separating video games from reality, GTA is hardly a functional city. Traffic laws go totally unenforced, you can run over pedestrians without getting in any trouble, the cops give up searching for you after you have lost them despite the fact that you have committed hundreds, if not thousands of murders, car jackings, and other crimes, and the only jobs that exist seem to be in food service, retail, public service, and crime. Hardly a functional city.

I believe my words were almost completely functional. Of course its going to have limitations, its a fucking video game. What I'm saying is that it almost exactly simulates real life. Sure, in a couple of years man will be able to create an almost perfect simulation of life in the form of a video game but whos to say we arent all just a larger scale of a video game created by an even more powerful being.

 

[Hazardous]

At least they're not trying to explain anything, ending it off with an "A-HA! Checkmate, scientists!" at the end. They have their beliefs, and they're just recognizing the fact that the two theories can't relate.

But to say the earth was formed before the sun? Really? I mean, having faith and stuff is fine, but to say that the earth came first, then everything else? That's kinda far out there

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

But to say the earth was formed before the sun? Really? I mean, having faith and stuff is fine, but to say that the earth came first, then everything else? That's kinda far out there

You can't waste your time trying to argue with someone whose argument is solely faith-based. It won't get either of you anywhere.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Awful pessimistic thinking, dont you think? What a dastardly "shitty" God that created trees and flowers and babies, wow he sure sounds like an a-hole. This is why most Christians dont take atheists seriously. They way you guys say, "and if there was a God... *insert hate speech against God here*" makes it seem that you guys are more discontent with your lives than with God. Because by your ideology if there was a God then he would automatically have to accept responsibility for starving kids in Africa and tsunamis and homework or whatever else makes you feel bad. According to Christian teaching, God gave man free will, that means that however shitty this world is, its our fault. Thats why so many people reject religion, it forces people to be conscious about their actions.

Hurricanes
Disease
Natural unsuitable living environments

How is any of this our fault?

And hows the whole evolution thing going for you guys? inb4youneverfindthemissinglinkbecauseitdoesntexist.

You're saying evolution is inherently flawed because we're having a hard time finding multi-million year old preserved fossils of animals that sit between humans and previous species on the evolutionary scale?

Let's go back to basics. What exactly do you know about evolution? Because it seems to me that your entire system of beliefs is founded by what you think is knowledge, but is actually a shit load of inaccuracies coupled with a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

You're saying evolution is inherently flawed because we're having a hard time finding multi-million year old preserved fossils of animals that sit between humans and previous species on the evolutionary scale?

Let's go back to basics. What exactly do you know about evolution? Because it seems to me that your entire system of beliefs is founded by what you think is knowledge, but is actually a shit load of inaccuracies coupled with a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Valid argument id say. A vast amount of species have zero link to their supposed predecessors. THis much is true. The mini horse tree that is now a pretty common punchline of jokes in this conversation being a great example.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Finally I will say this. Then God commanded, "Let there be light"---and light appeared. This was the first act yet the Sun and the moon (our light) were not created until day 4. Could this have been the Big Bang?

.

No!!! Noooooooooooooo!!!


Science and religion can never be congruent!! Never!!! Someone has to be right and someone has to be wroooooong!!!

 

[H33LTurn]

Hurricanes
Disease
Natural unsuitable living environments

How is any of this our fault?

How are these anything like what I mentioned? Those are just natural occurences. They're necessary in order for people to die. Its not a matter of cause, its a matter of dealing with it. We can make certain diseases more manageable. The fact that kids in Africa die of AIDS is a testament to how greedy we are. People in the US with AIDS can have close to a normal life, we shouldnt have let it get to the point where theres such a large amount of people with AIDS in Africa and not enough medicine to go around. I'm pretty sure someone made the connection that everytime those sick people with lesions on their skins fucked, their partner and the children that were born contracted his condition. In the US we have buildings that can withstand earthquakes of a certain magnitude and manage to live in places where natural disasters are slim. Its as easy as moving people to a much more safe place to live and providing the essentials necessary to build a safe living environment.

You're saying evolution is inherently flawed because we're having a hard time finding multi-million year old preserved fossils of animals that sit between humans and previous species on the evolutionary scale?

Let's go back to basics. What exactly do you know about evolution? Because it seems to me that your entire system of beliefs is founded by what you think is knowledge, but is actually a shit load of inaccuracies coupled with a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.

How exactly am I supposed to answer this? Your attempt to call my bluff on a system of beliefs that makes no sense to you is pointless. I love when big science heads start calling everything about religion an inaccuracy. Every day when you read the news and theres a story about science there one group claiming to find evidence that completely contradicts another groups result. They just keep going back and fourth and it stays like that. Pluto was a planet for a long time, nobody knows how the dinosaurs died, and the missing link is still, what do you know, missing. Its theory upon theory of compiled nonsense that evidently adds up to nothing because I'm pretty sure if I asked you for definitive evidence that God doesnt exist you would have nothing to show me. So you can sit there and come up with theory after theory that will be accepted for a long time, then disputed by many and ultimately left up to individuals to decide whether it makes sense or not. Sounds a lot like an atheist portrayal of religion, doesnt it?

 

[JGlass]

Oh its quite serious.

Then you're a fucking joke.

Whos talking about creating something out of nothing? Just because someone belives that God created this planet does not change the fact that its made of rock.

So then where did God get his materials from? Were they in his belly beofre he shit them out? (Actually, that's a creation story I could get into).

I never said dinosaurs and humans lived together, I dont know where you pulled that from.

Traditional Creationist theory says suggests that they did. That or that God put dino fossils on earth to test our faith.

Awful pessimistic thinking, dont you think? What a dastardly "shitty" God that created trees and flowers and babies, wow he sure sounds like an a-hole. This is why most Christians dont take atheists seriously. They way you guys say, "and if there was a God... *insert hate speech against God here*" makes it seem that you guys are more discontent with your lives than with God. Because by your ideology if there was a God then he would automatically have to accept responsibility for starving kids in Africa and tsunamis and homework or whatever else makes you feel bad. According to Christian teaching, God gave man free will, that means that however shitty this world is, its our fault. Thats why so many people reject religion, it forces people to be conscious about their actions.

So God has the power to solve all the world's problems but he doesn't use it? Or maybe he does use it to help professional athletes score touchdowns but not help the billions of people living in poverty. That doesn't sound like a kind or benevolent diety to me, and I for one refuse to worship him until he gets his shit together.

And hows the whole evolution thing going for you guys? inb4youneverfindthemissinglinkbecauseitdoesntexist.

Scientists have found dozens of missing links, which always leads to new missing links. That's the awesome thing about science, every question answered leads to new questions.

I believe my words were almost completely functional. Of course its going to have limitations, its a fucking video game. What I'm saying is that it almost exactly simulates real life. Sure, in a couple of years man will be able to create an almost perfect simulation of life in the form of a video game but whos to say we arent all just a larger scale of a video game created by an even more powerful being.

It doesn't simulate real life... at all. I get what you're saying that maybe we're a super functional videogame world created by a divine being for his enjoyment, but I find that to be a rather bleak view of life. I'm going to keep on believing that I was born with freewill and that I wasn't programmed by some sort of "benevolent" deity to do its bidding.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

So then where did God get his materials from? Were they in his belly beofre he shit them out? (Actually, that's a creation story I could get into).

Im sure you could tell me. Please do?

So God has the power to solve all the world's problems but he doesn't use it? Or maybe he does use it to help professional athletes score touchdowns but not help the billions of people living in poverty. That doesn't sound like a kind or benevolent diety to me, and I for one refuse to worship him until he gets his shit together.

Astounding arrogance. Like ive been saying

Scientists have found dozens of missing links, which always leads to new missing links. That's the awesome thing about science, every question answered leads to new questions.

It all sounds very precise and definitive. Facts, dammit.

 

[H33LTurn]

Then you're a fucking joke.

Thanks, thats as close to being funny as I'll ever be in this thread.

So then where did God get his materials from? Were they in his belly beofre he shit them out? (Actually, that's a creation story I could get into).

I dont know, go ask him.

Traditional Creationist theory says suggests that they did. That or that God put dino fossils on earth to test our faith.

Theres no actual mention of a dinosaur in the Bible, at least not one that I know of. They could've easily drowned after the whole Noah's ark thing but thats something I really dont want to get into because it leads to a whole nother discussion. I dont see how dinosaurs or fossils test anyones faith though.

So God has the power to solve all the world's problems but he doesn't use it? Or maybe he does use it to help professional athletes score touchdowns but not help the billions of people living in poverty. That doesn't sound like a kind or benevolent diety to me, and I for one refuse to worship him until he gets his shit together.

One again, I never said that. God gave us free will, to live the way we wish to live. Hes not going to see a guy trying to fuck another guy and build a forcefield around one of them. You're responsible for your own actions, I think that speaks volumes for a authority figure in a world where everybody is trying to control eachother's actions. Athletic ability can come from training or genetics, I dont think God looked at Bret Farve when he was a baby and said "I'm going to make you good at football so that poor people can watch you and feel jealous".

Scientists have found dozens of missing links, which always leads to new missing links. That's the awesome thing about science, every question answered leads to new questions.

...some which remain unanswered, right?

It doesn't simulate real life... at all. I get what you're saying that maybe we're a super functional videogame world created by a divine being for his enjoyment, but I find that to be a rather bleak view of life. I'm going to keep on believing that I was born with freewill and that I wasn't programmed by some sort of "benevolent" deity to do its bidding.

Isnt it an even bleaker view of life to imagine that you dont serve purpose in this world other than to eat, sleep, make horrible mistakes, and eventually die?

 

[JGlass]

Im sure you could tell me. Please do?

Tell you what? Whether the Judeo-Christian God created the world by farting out the materials of his belly or not? I don't understand why you're asking this.

Astounding arrogance. Like ive been saying

How the FUCK is that arrogant? I was sharing my beliefs about why I don't think there is a god, and you fucking call me arrogant?

It all sounds very precise and definitive. Facts, dammit.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0327_060327_skull.html

Good enough for you?