The debate "Creationists are right and evolutionist are wrong" was started by
September 9, 2015, 12:39 am.
62 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 140 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
goldfox1987 posted 6 arguments, Alex posted 230 arguments, Zeno posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 10 arguments, Moo1 posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument, PowerPikachu posted 1 argument, stevenchen posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 101 arguments, historybuff posted 56 arguments, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 8 arguments, Lane posted 12 arguments, AstroSpace posted 1 argument, VannyMatt posted 1 argument, bigB posted 12 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 86 arguments, MrAltitude posted 1 argument, athinus posted 1 argument, Alex posted 4 arguments, tryhard2s posted 4 arguments, Superr1fifty posted 1 argument, Safooma1977 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Bestforevr, danielfello, ReedSchneider, Cross, Alex, Zeno, toughgamerjerry, Moo1, Thecorrector1004, gabriel, athinus, PowerPikachu, steady_current, faith, abdulhadi, Hitmenjr, Concerned_Liberal, Dysfunctional, Ryan, stevenchen, juliette_os, KicknRush, windu2420 and 39 visitors agree.
ResIpsaLoquitor, historybuff, AstroSpace, Sosocratese, Fallaciae, sloanstar1000, wmd, goldfox1987, countrybumpkin, desght, misfitcarrot, Neaa, sidhant, Yuki_Amayane, Lane, wayneSPEC, Katana_MC, gouthamabi, VannyMatt, lolly1706, Mikey2k, Skeetc15, drumman22, bigB, fabby, RobbDebate, SirJakeR, Zahwa, jbrothe4, WaspToxin, MrAltitude, Bodaciouslady16, Superr1fifty, Trout, carltonlasy, ariel22, sageuraeus, SpiritofDeath, shyanne, tryhard2s, sighnomore99, invincible_01, Sumerian, Robert16, ailasorecarg, fuckthehatersss, shawnster, Gman119, DeadMore, Safooma1977, ggalley, PsychDave, Zinluu, ADrunkenRobot, AndRea, liamjosephcash, ototoxic, pajrc1234, wmgreen00, Gandalf and 80 visitors disagree.
Alex, I have read the other debate and your inability to research does not remove the argument.
Needs and desires are feelings that require a lack of something or some accomplishment, internal or external.
P2 A perfect being by definition does not have a lack of something.
C1 (following the previous two)
A perfect being will not desire or need anything.
The act of "creation" requires a need or desire.
As concluded in C1,a perfect being will not create anything.
God is a perfect being.
God didn't create the universe.
Look in the other debate
Google nontheistic religions.
I did and I could not find one. Christianity believes jesus is God, so if they don't believe that, then they are not christian. the buddhism religion is unsure. Shiva, Vishnu, Radha and Shakt are the supreme deity of Hinduism.
Alex, you seem to have again misunderstood. You said that some scientists planting evidence proved that there was no proof of evolution. I was pointing out that this was not the case. Scientists who lie about their results is what I was comparing to false prophets.
There are some branches of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Jainism that are non theistic. Again, some basic research would have shown this to you without you needing to ask. If you don't know how to research a subject I suggest you learn. It will make these debates a lot easier and make your life a lot easier.
"What's the one thing gods never do? Gods never actually show up!"
just wondering, what religions don't have a God? false prophets don't represent the religion that calls them false, not all religions, scientists that don't support evolution only go against the science that supports evolution. I could flip it and say all scientists that support evolution are false.
If false prophets do not represent religion, dishonest scientists do not represent science. We are back to your opinion against all evidence.
Not all religions have a God, so no, not all religions agree about that.
to you jesus is false and a liar, to me and many others he is not.
there are many flaws in that quote by Stephen Roberts.
first 0 and 1 are is a HUGE difference.
I dismiss other religions because I think my religion is right, and only one can be right. you can not say that because you have no religion. all religions agree in one thing: some kind of God.
Also how do you know that YOURS isn't the false prophet?
I say we are both atheists in a sense, I just believe 1 god less than you.
Once you understand why you dismiss ALL other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
So Jesus is a liar? His prophecy included supernatural beings, raising from the dead, etc. There's no "how it works" thing, and it can't just happen without cause!
false prophets are people who lie, they show they are dishonest.
Sorry, I had hit to reply to Alex's comment about scientists planting fossils showing that there was no proof of evolution. That was the basis for my pervious response.
wait who's logic?
So by that logic, false prophets prove that all religions are lies, right? Or maybe it just shows that there are dishonest people in the world.
That demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the human brain does or what computers are capable of. Google "computer dreams" if you are actually interested.
Okay, do we really need to go over this again? If you don't understand this for the last time, you are direct proof that some people have evolved [their brains] (you haven't) more than others.
I program the computer to do something. I know what it's going to do.
God, as the supposed creator of everything, is said to have created us, and since he knows everything, he definitely knows what is going to happen.
If the computer had a flaw (and I saw it), then I would still know that the computer is going to go off what it was originally made to do.
It still doesn't get to choose what it does, it's just a different thing that is happening.
Similarly in theology, if God knows everything, he knows that we will sin or go off task.
If we went offline, that would be free will, but since he knows everything, that makes that offline thing bound to happen.
I'm really wondering if you are just making up arguments to get your way, because really, your entire argument against the analogy is just crap.
Alright, since these are big numbers let's compare it to something you can wrap your head around.
For the sake of this argument I will assume that you are 20 years old and today is your birthday (just so you understand the math). That means you are 175,200 hours old. If we compare that to the last 100,000,000 years of evolution, each of those hours covers about 5,700 years. Now how many gaps in your life will there be that there is no photographs or videos of you? Keep in mind that that is with people trying to preserve records, and there will still be massive gaps. Now go back and fill in those gaps.
Man can think abstractly, do things for themselves, LIVE, think.
computers compute, that is all they do.
In what way?
the anology you are saying is computers are to humans as the maker of the computer is to the maker of us(God)
computers are not to humans they are way to different to be compared this way.
yes that would be unreasonable, but one fossil out of 20 million of that species is very suspicious. there have been times that evolutionists planted fossils to prove evllution. all that proves is you have no proof.
If you can't follow that simple analogy, there isn't much point debating with you.
You ask about transitional fossils, but don't seem to really understand what you are asking for. We have repeatedly filled in gaps in our knowledge with new fossils. Each one falls somewhere on the chain between simple organisms and you sitting in your chair reading (or to cats, or whatever type of fossil was discovered). Each one provides a bit better understanding and fills in a gap in the series. You are pointing to gaps and saying "You don't have that one" and each time it gets filled in, you point to a new gap. We can never have a complete chain unless we had a fossil from every organism that has ever lived, from simple organisms to your great-grandparents. I think you can agree that asking for that is unreasonable.
IT'S AN ANALOGY DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND
AND FISH ARE NOT THE ONLY SEA CREATURE
like Dave said, at least PRETEND to do research! You try to debate it but you don't even understand what evolution really is!
you are saying humans and computers are the same?
I can't find any good fossils besides those 3. you have no proof it happened, stop telling me all land/water animal fossils are from the one fish. why couldn't animals 2 million years ago have gone extinct?
Could you at least pretend to do research before you post? We do have the fossils you are referring to and it is somewhat frustrating to have to point that out when a simple Google search of "transitional fossils from aquatic to land" or something similar would provide that information.
God is outside time and created the world. What you are describing could be compared to a computer program. God designed the system, created all of the variables and set the starting conditions. By doing so, everything that followed was determined by those initial conditions. Saying "No it isn't!" repeatedly doesn't make your argument stronger. Did God know what Hitler would do when he created the world? If no, then he isn't omniscient. If yes then he created the world in such a way as to make it happen.
ok, and there is a cheetah, fast like horse, but also cat like like a tiger. do you have proof that fish grew lungs and the land creature are related? let's say this evolution took 2 million years.
we have a 0 years fish the original.
we have a 1 million years fish-a different looking type of fish with lungs.
we have a 2 million years land creature.
nothing in between those million years, I would think that at least one fossil would Accor in a million years. it's like watching a 2 hr movie. I would get the first 10 minuets perfectly get the middle perfectly, and the ending perfectly in high def, but the other parts are black.
no. there are fossils of the stages in between. just repeatedly saying no there isn't doesn't count as a defense. even today there are examples of animals in between. there are fish with lungs that can live for periods of time out of water.
we have lion fossils, jaguar fossils, any other cat will do.
and that is exactly what you did with the coalacnath fish. got fish fossils and land animal fossils and nothing in between . you said bam evolution, then you found the real live fish in the ocean...
we have fossils for the steps in between. it isn't like we only have tiger fossils and horse fossils. we can see how they evolved slowly over time because we have fossils for the stages in the middle.
about God knowing: he knows, he does not will us or do anything to us to make us do things. I wonder how many times I'm going to say this before you remember it GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME. this means him knowing is like him watching it live. there is no time for him.
I told you I belive earth is old, and creation took a long time. the fossils of extinct animals prove evolution? they prove there were other species of animals. like in the future let's say in 500 years the tiger goes extinct. and in 1 million years people claim the tiger changed into a horse. just because you find fossils of animals we don't have does not mean they evolved. are you saying there is no way animals could have gone extinct.
Since he knew before creation the decisions of every person and created the conditions that brought about those decisions, he did create a rock. He created Hitler in conditions that suited his rise to power and to twist him into the person he was.
I will take your same approach, but I will explain to you (as dave did) why we don't have free will (according to you) first.
God is omniscient and omnipotent.
God KNOWS (hence omniscient) what we do.
He KNEW that Adam & Eve would eat the apple.
If he didn't know the outcome, then 1) we have free will and 2) he's not omniscient.
But in the theology he is.
Therefore, he knew the outcome and we don't have free will.
Now, "on evolution if proof comes along and evolution becomes a law, I will agree to it, I see however very little, very week, easily explainable proof that evolution happpened. that is why I chose not to believe it." came directly from you.
There is proof.
Fossils. These fossils go in a chronological order, from when the first of these animals were alive to the last few million or so years. These fossils have been examined and shown that the time of death was over millions of years ago. It first proves that the earth was created millions and billions of years ago rather than 6,000. It also proves that there were animals before us that slowly changed into the animals we see today by a process called natural selection. Order increased, and we became more inventive and progressive. This is what fossils have proven.
On the other hand, there is very little, very weak or easily explainable proof that GOD created the Earth. That is why I choose not to believe it. No one really knows. And by that I mean no one knows at all, it's just an unknown answer that we still haven't figured out yet.
Now if you bring up the second law of thermodynamics because of two words above, I will state another sentence, then you will probably ask a question that only really needs one word to be interpreted, then I will explain further.
there are massive amounts of fossil records proving evolution. it is a fact. you can ignore all the evidence if you want, but don't claim it doesn't exist.
God did not create a rock, he created a living thing, that he dropped over a soft pillow, we can move to go over another person if we choose.
pajrc I don't see how you can get further away then you are now.
on evolution if proof comes along and evolution becomes a law, I will agree to it, I see however very little, very week, easily explainable proof that evolution happpened. that is why I chose not to believe it. But who really knows. No one exept God.
Also, stop preaching about how God created us all and how he gave us free will. That means nothing so far. If you keep trying to repeat your claim with no evidence or reasoning, then you've 1) lost the argument and 2) thrown me a bit more away from Christianity.
Finally! My point gets across!!
Alex, you are still claiming to know more than every scientist in the world as well as the head of your own religion and have yet to explain why. Where do you get the certainty that you are smarter than the rest of the world?
If you drop a rock off a building, is the rock at fault if it hits someone? In your belief God created us with omniscient knowledge if everything that would ever happen. He created the garden, Adam, Eve and the serpent knowing that the serpent would tempt them, they would give in and he would punish them. He knew that before he ever created them. With that perfect knowledge, he dropped the rock knowing it would hit someone, then blamed the rock for falling.
No, we all are created with grace. because off the sin of Adam and Eve, we, as a race became eligible for death, sin and suffering. because of FREE WILL, God did not create us to sin, or ro not sin.
I know what you are doing. Look in the notion debate for another argument.
Also, all of that stuff can happen on its own. The creation of the planet happened in sextillions of galaxies. We happened to be one that fit. If it was in another galaxy, we would be there. And it wasn't just by chance. After a biogenesis, animals were giving birth to survive, which caused small changes and mutations and therefore evolution. Also, the Big Bang could have happened at any time, with only physical reactions as the restriction. YOU are saying that by CHANCE a God came out of somewhere and was not going to happen on its own. You are saying that it created the entire universe just to have a personal relationship with you. And he created humans that didn't have the traits to follow his own rules then blamed them for his own mistakes.
actually the church says whether you want to believe evolution or not is a matter of opinion.
we both say things came from nothing.
you say nothing came from nothing and became something and nothing or some in like that. And by chance life happened and evolved. I say God who is eternal created everything with a master plan. You that doubt the universe had a plan is silly. Doest things that succeed Usally have a plan, but the biggest thing ever, the universe did not have a plan. God is I AM who am. the one incomprehensible being. I'm going to ask you a question. Do you understand calculus?
And sure I am saying that. However, I am explaining how it came from nothing. By saying God created it all is the same as saying something came from nothing.
The Matter part is the universe.
The space part is just to make the ratio the same.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of evidence. You aren't just saying whether you like soccer, you are denying that soccer really exists. What leads you to think you are more knowledgeable than every scientist researching the subject as well as the Pope?
so you are saying nothing=the universe.
you are still saying something came from nothing.
the pope likes soccer, I do not. I disagree with the pope on this. oh no. only on faith and morals. I've told you the faith to creation at least 10 times.
The Pope believes that God made everything, and then evolution worked from there. This means that, in this view, both creation and evolution are true. That means that, if you agree with the Pope, you should vote against this since topic since it is that one is right and the other wrong, not both can work together.
If I have to explain this a million times and you still don't understand it, I will be mad that I have to understand Christianity to debate it but you don't have to understand the big bang to debate it.
The singularity is that 0.
The big bang is that singularity becoming the space and matter that are equal to that zero, so mathematically, nothing changed.
For one thing the support of the Pope. How about you?
sure, what you got?
Alex, this is very much off topic. The big bang is not part of the theory or evolution. You could use your lack of understanding to claim that astrophysics is wrong, but to use it as evidence against evolution does not work. Could we bring the topic back to evolution and creation?
irrelevant, we are saying you think nothing(the particle) created something.
or something came from nothing.
Nothing is not the opposite of the something. The opposite of matter would be space.
so your saying something and nothing came from nothing.
I am saying that the matter space ratio is kept equal, but just different values of the matter and space. I am saying that both something and the opposite of that something came from nothing.
so if it is nothing, you are saying matter came from nothing exploding?
It's not matter nor space, so I guess nothing, but it's still equal in the matter space ratio.
si is the particle nothing or something?
actually, the particle makes perfect sense. It is simply not matter nor a place to put matter. The big bang is it becoming matter and space. This means the matter: space ratio is 1:1, like before the universe came into existence. The reason we can't make matter today is that we also cannot create/destroy space, and not doing that would directly throw off the ratio.
They say it came from a particle. this particle has less proof then God of existing.
Where does the big bang come from? How did it come to be?
he would have to exist first. and there is no evidence of that.
the big bang MAY have happened. God may have guided it.
I realize that second part may have been a bit rude.
And the Big bang has support. If you want to find out, look it up. Ask a physicist. Think about things. Don't just be a drone going around repeating everything you are told to be true. Open your eyes. It's liberating.
1. As was said earlier, the Bible is not verifiable. And why would you trust there Bible?
2. I'm laughing so hard right now! You say something coming from nothing is silly, yet you believe that an entire deity appeared out if nowhere, created the entire universe out of nothing and did it just to have a personal relationship for you. Why didn't God make other inhabitable planets? Because he doesn't exist!
You are still saying we came from nothing, you just added an invisible man in the sky saying magic words.
right because saying we came from nothing is logical.
the Bible is not acceptable proof. it is proven to be heavily altered. the only way to see it as reliable is if the church is infallible. and no one but staunch Catholics thinks that. and your views are at best no more logical than other theories.
things that support creation
1. the bible
2. logic (do you really believe we came from nothing, something coming from nothing is not logical)
Also, facts have evidence and logic to support them. Evolution? Fossils. The Big bang? Logic: The equality of matter/energy and space. Global warming? Higher temperatures. Creation myths? Nothing!!
I will attempt to blow your argument away: Why do you believe in a God?
That isn't what is being argued here. If the topic was just that creationists were right you could make that case, but it also states that evolutionists are wrong. BigB is consistent since he voted against the topic even though he does believe in an intelligent creator. You on the other hand have to justify both parts of the statement if you vote agree, which you have failed to do.
what facts disprove God, why can't one believe in the facts and creation. science and religion go together.
and no amount of fact can change his mind. I'm aware.
BigB is saying he believes in the facts of evolution and the faith of Creation.
There's no point to this one. it comes down to faith vs. facts.
Alright agree to disagree; I believe God created everything and was so intelligent that He created something that could evolve on its own. I think evolution does exist through millions of year's of adaptation (evidence has shown); however, I think it had to come from an intelligent being. We don't know exactly where the big bang came from, which I personally think it came from the big man upstairs
Ever notice that those people who believe in creationism haven't truly evolved. It's obvious they were created in 5 minutes.
and anyways, we do not have absolutely strong immune systems because first of all, not all humans are immuned to diseases and we are not Nazis who would want to eliminate people with poor genes. upon procreation, the genes would be acquired by babies. and second, we are not the only ones who evolve, bacteria, virus and fungi also evolve into new strains that's why we have multiple drug resistant tuberculosis and etc.
Even if both were partially true, the topic is that one is right and the other wrong, so the anyone of that opinion should have voted disagree.
at least there would somehow be differing thoughts of the same spectrum, because creationism i believe includes adam and eve and if the big bang theory is true, why then only one male and female? both can coexist, but atleast both tackles the beginning of creation - not one, the beginning and the other, the evolution of creations.
God could have created the big bang. So BOTH could be right.
nah i don't think so. saying something is best or awful is subjective. we are not arguing about which between creationists and evolutionists is better. and besides, to say that mc donald's is awful, you've got to have at least a little experience to gain credibility. meanwhile, nobody has ever seen creationism happen. though I know that it's a question of belief or religion, I think the two thoughts aren't in the same spectrum. i believe in creationism but could never deny the fact that we have evolved. haha, might as well enlighten me. does "evolutionist" here include the big bang theory? I think comparing the big bang theory and creationism is more..proper?
No. because one of them has supporting evidence. the other side does not.
This debate is basicly like saying "Mc Donalds is awful and Burger King is best", expect it's religious.
creationists are at a disadvantage because we are not superhumans who can go back to the past to pinpoint our origin. but evolution is observable and has proof, but still couldn't pinpoint our very first origin and could not define how the same eukaryotes evolved to become humans, fish, birds, trees etc. the two can coexist though because you do not actually expect Adam and Eve to be looking exactly like what we look today. somehow they have to be created in a way that they would be able to survive in a non industrialized world.
just because we can evolve lots of different traits doesn't mean we will evolve EVERY trait. you think because we can't shoot lasers from our eyes that evolution doesn't exist? lasers would be useful. so if we don't have them evolution must be a lie.
I mean why don't we evolve an immune system that carries over generations.
We do have an immune system which develops immunity to many diseases. Asking why we aren't immune to everything is again showing your ignorance since the infections evolve too.
In what way do you think animals are incapable of making choices? Mice cam navigate mazes. They don't come to the first intersection and curl up into a ball unable to decide between left and right.
Do you have an argument here beyond that you don't understand psychology, basic anatomy, or childhood development?
it would be an advantage to have a stronger immune system, why have we humans after the thousands of years alive not shown it?
Malaria is a real thing so I can get it.
A choice to animals millions of years ago did not exist. You are saying they said "Let's get a bigger brain so we can have a choice"
why can't we humans show any signs of evolution happenong, or any other animals, did it just stop when humans evolved?
That's like saying I don't know what malaria is so how could I contract it. knowing what choice is, is not a prerequisite for gaining it. babies don't know what that is either but they get that too. increased brain capacity in children is a natural process. just like evolution is a natural process. over a long time our ancestors got smarter because it was an advantage to do so.
Same with choice. Animals did not have or know what choice is so how could they have evolved it?
No I said they are have small brains, but act like humans. Are humans animal?
The brain got bigger, but why did the known stuff just get bigger? instead it added new totally unherd of stuff like abstract thoughts. Evolution could not have said "Let's get abstract thoughts" because abract thoughts were unheard of.
So now you are attempting to argue that infants are animals?
We do have instincts. They do help us survive. Flinching when something Fiesta at us, fight or flight, infant nursing behavior, etc.
Mental attributes are based on the brain. The brain, being a physical organ, is a physical thing. Over the course of evolution, we can see our ancestors brain size increase. This allows for logic and reason.
We do have natural instincts. lots of them. I don't know what your point is.
Also babies have small brains, but can think, learn lauguages and choose actions.
then why do we not have natural instinct? Would this help us survive? I don't see how Physical is mental.
Our social and mental abilities are also physical. we can do these things because we developed a bigger, more powerful brain. apes can learn to talk in sign language to an extent. animals would be capable of these things with bigger brains.
As I said, they are based on having a ore developed brain. The brain is a physical thing. There is no need for spiritual explanations.
The speed and camouflage are PHYSICAL traits. This may have happened. Learning lauguages and being able to chose what to do are MENTAL or SPIRITUAL traits.
I don't understand the evolution of these traits.
humans developed exceptional social abilities, like speech and thinking abstractly, that is our specialty. cheetahs evolved exceptional running abilities, and cuttle fish have exceptional camouflaging abilities.
All animals are different, we are just one of those animals, I don't understand your point Alex
Your last post is uninformed and incorrect. Animals can think, they can speak to one another and can learn. Our advantage is that we have larger, more developed brains, which we can see evolving. Thus your argument again demonstrates that you don't really understand what you are arguing.
The common ancestor was an animal. look at my last post the difference between animal and humans
no the timeline says we are apes, we and the other great apes share a common ancestor. if you go far back enough in Time you would find a common ancestor between cats and humans and so on. the theory of evolution is about the best understood theory in science, there is plenty written about it, please do some research on it.
My point is
Man has the gift of speech, and can learn lauguages/read
Man can form abstract ideas.
Man chooses what to do, animals have only instint
Animals, are so different from humans.
as it is possible that animals evolved, I do not see how speech, thinking abstactly, and losing instint are caused by evolution.
Could you come to the point eventually? You've asked that question repeatedly and, in my last post, I answered it. Do you have anywhere you are going with this or are you just going to keep repeating yourself?
The timeline says we evolved from apes.
Do you think we evolved from animals?
Alex, if you are having trouble doing basic research on your own, here is a link to the Wikipedia page for the timeline of human evolution.
Humans did not evolve from modern day apes, but we do share common ancestors. Is there a point to you repeating your question?
Did we come from apes? If you don't know, ok, you don't know.
debates. not devices
we've been through this like 10 times in 5 different device. You cannot disprove evolution. I'm not going to try and reexplain it to you.
What animal do you say humans evolved from? Apes?
we haven't proven where life began. religion hasn't proven anything. also for the purpose of this debate I all I have to prove is that evolution is not wrong. which science has done.
according to evolution where do you say humans come from
like what? there are areas where they don't have any evidence yet. but I can't think of any evidence again it. not credible evidence.
Alex, give just one example of some information that falsifies the theory of evolution please.
There is equal if not more evidence to disprove evolution as there is to prove it.
our evidence isn't 100% percent complete. no one has ever claimed it is. but it is infinitely more complete than yours which is non existent.
Evidence like missing fossil layers?
Exactly. there is no proof of God. therefore in a debate based on reason and logic you have nothing to support you. we have mountains of evidence.
Creation explains everything. You do not believe it because you have not seen Hod, or proof of God.
Alex, a scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describe an aspect of the universe.
what we observe is that allele frequencies change over time, that is a fact and you could consider it a law of evolution. We observe it.
with the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution, they are both elaborate constructs of ideas that explain observations that we make about the universe.
the theory of evolution explains why we only see certain fossils in certain strata, it explains ring species, it explains the vestigial organs and the imperfections in our design as animals. it explains every aspect of biology and paleontology on this planet.
creationism can explain nothing, it is not even a hypothesis, it's basically just people saying "god did it", which is useless to everyone as far as scientific understanding goes.
You cannot prove evolutionist are right, so you lose.
sorry the debate topic. I realize you didn't write the debate topic.
I'm not going back over this with you. Your debate topic was that creationists are right and evolutionist is wrong. You cannot prove that. You lose.
Is gravity a theory? Newtons law of universal gravitation is what cane up when I google it. I have never seen anywhere evolution is a law, but i have seen many places that gravity is a law.
You are just a broken record aren't you? all of science is theories that can be disproven later if evidence comes up. gravity is also a theory. But if you tell me gravity doesn't exist I'll be convinced your 6 year old. So yes evolution is a theory. A theory with virtually indisputable evidence. you cannot dis prove that evidence therefore you lose this debate. Since this debate is whether or not evolutionist are wrong.
If all evidence PROVED evolution happened it would not be a THEORY.
the statement in the title of this debate is that evolution is wrong. All scientific evidence proves that evolution is correct. Therefore this debate is over.
There is also no evidence that we came from chemical reactions that came from nothing.
The pope is not infallible on evolution. Only on faith and morals. The faith and evolution would be. If there was evolution God guided it. The pope believes God guided evolution.
The pope's statement is a great example of creation and evolution both happening.
Because there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case. the only reason anyone thinks that is because they're trying to fit fact into their religion.
I am saying if there is evolution, then the God is behind it, and guided evolution.
Creation and evolution can both be right. I believe in a small amount of evolution within species. How do you not think God is behind evolution and has guided it?
dear god its like arguing with a small child. evolution has been proven. even the Pope accepts that. you cannot say creationism is right and evolution is wrong because 1) you have no evidence at all and 2) there is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution which even the freaking Pope (who according to you is infallible) accepts. you don't have to accept that we're right, but if you have any intelligence at all you have to concede you cannot prove we are wrong and therefore this debate (creationism is right, evolution is wrong) is over.
Dave use logic to say who created us. Something higher and powerful, must have created us, science cannot tell us how life came to be, or even prove evolution.
With God guiding evolution may have happened. Whether you believe in evolution or not, any thinking person has to be able to tell the existence of a creater. Most atheist have a reason for wishing God does not exist. What is yours?
Science can explain through evolution the progress from simple organisms into modern forms. They do not have all of the details worked out, but it took a long time to work our nuclear power, powered flight or any other development in knowledge. Right now it is impossible to disprove that a deity made the first life happen, but there is work on that step too. To say that the burden of proof lies with those who are working on providing proof rather than on the one claiming magic/a miracle is responsible is to avoid any responsibility. The burden of proof lies on both claims. Scientists must demonstrate that it is possible and likely that life had natural origins and religion has to provide proof that a miracle occurred. One group admits this and is working to provide this proof, the other is hiding behind the impossibility of proving a negative (you cannot prove something doesn't exist, only that there is no evidence that it does).
I like to think some deity made life. Whether it was Christian God or something... grander than Catholic God. (How did everything come into existence, though? Theory: a deity created everybody (life, mainly), and created laws of science to keep things in order.) Con (the ones for evolutionism) has Burden of Proof. If this argument gets refuted, I'll concede my position. Until then, I'll keep my position.
The bible is not literally true. There is no proof to disprove God as it says in #40. God does not answer every prayer like it says we believe. I have disproved 5 bible contridictions from that site.
What the site does is make up what they want us to believe so they can win. If they said what actual catholics believe then I may look at it. We do not expect God to answer every prayer. Nor do Catholics take the bible literally. Use sites that argue against things I believe, and I will look at it.
Now I'm officially done.
See #1, please.
Then look at 22 on Godisimaginary.com
The Holy spirit tells you GOOD at the time,
The Human may think good or bad,
If they choose good they are going with God and themselves if they thought good. If they are choosing bad they are going with their human thought, and against God.
Go back to Godisimaginary. com and look at proof 40. You want to see how you react to the fact that God never answers prayers, there is no evidence that he exists, etc? Then look at others. Keep finding those Bible verses, look then up, see the magic. I'm not debating anymore, not because I think you're right, I think the opposite is because
1. You still have no evidence.
2. You keep arguing that because something can do something that it is the only thing that can be doing it.
3. You try to tell me that something can break the laws of science, even though nothing is an exception to the scientific rules.
4. You don't consider any of the logic that I am giving you. You just tell me that God is behind all of this.
5. You leave this topic open as you pose a new one: Can anyone be this deluded?
Your logic is hilarious. if good happens, God did it. if bad happens it must be human weakness. its I nice setup you've got.
Bill gates when donating money, if he is doing it out of kindness is following the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit says "Donate"
His human mind says "Donate" so he donates and agrees with the Holy Spirit in doing so.
The Holy Spirit is on your conscience telling you what to do. Along with human thoughts.
And I reject this. Am I necessarily evil? Nope. Ever heard of Bill Gates? He's donating a lot of money to charity. And he rejects the holy spirit.
They would do what anyone will do when they find a factual book. Look at who wrote it. Many different people wrote it. So then they would see who reads it or recommends it. A couple billion people have read it and every good Christian recommends it. They would then after reading parts of it, if finding it good, talk to a knowledgeable catholic, or priest.
Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
Deuteronomy 21 : 18-21 paraphrasing: if your child says no, stone him to death.
Yeah, that's called our conscience, not God telling us to do things.
Let's say you are a traveler that has never heard of the Bible. You see it in a store, so you check it out. Why would someone trust it?
Us not wanting others to be hurt is the Holy Spirit telling us to feel empathy. Some people reject this and do evil. When you do something good that us the Holy Spirit telling you what to do. You choose to follow its advice. Everything good you do is you following God.
And just because the holy spirit can do that doesn't mean it's the only thing that can happen.
No, it's because our mind does not want to have others feel pain because they have felt it themselves. That is part of the way we have evolved as a species. Those who want to hurt someone has either never felt pain or lack empathy.
Human empathy, helping others are all good things done because of the Holy Spirit working in us.
Good is not from God. It is human empathy helping others. It means making sure others feel happy, or are safe. It means making up evil actions, and repairing the bad they've caused.
Creators create in spite of their handicaps.
The greatest creation is the universe.
The greatest creator is God.
The biggest handicap is non-existence.
Thus God is...
I did not say starving people are good.
Earthquake and stuff are because of the earth's plates moving. God can stop this but he chooses not to. Also earthquakes could be the work of Saten trying to turn people away from God because of hardships, God lets this go on because he wants us to still believe despite hardships like earthquakes.
My vote seems to have switched at some point, fixed now.
So if I led children starve it is evil, but God letting children starve is good? How about acts of God like earthquakes? Is killing men, women and children indiscriminately good?
God helps the starving by telling us to help the starving. Everything good is though God, and without God there is no good.
God permits evil, everything gives glory to God. he can turn evil into good. Joseph in the bible got sold as a slave(evil) He then became pharaoh (good).
Evil can bring glory to God by if not turning good, God can deliver Justice to those evil people by putting them in hell. Justice gives glory to God because God is just.
God wants us all to turn to him, the sinner turns to God the most, and is the most thankful and religious after repenting. This is why God waits till a person dies to deliver justice instead of killing them on earth. That is why God lets people sin and permits evil.
Then God is immoral by refusing to help those children out there but can clearly do it.
nope, not the bible we are talking about God letting people stave.
Yes, but they were pretty evil even before the Bible. If it hurts somebody, that's immoral. We don't need a Bible to tell us that, if that's what you're trying to get at.
being mean or uncaring is evil right.
By evil I mean a sin
No, the ability to do some things but not others that leads to harming one causes bad. Also, it is the human mind that can cause bad, due to people being mean, uncaring, etc.
evil leads to starving children right?
all bad is the result of evil right?
Can you please explain your question? I'm not sure I understand.
starving children is the result of evil correct? So is everything bad, the result of evil.
And how did he do that? If you can't answer with logical thinking, then it could be something else. Maybe it's just a trick.
Also, I can't use links.
Could he have made us thankful for what we have and still feed the starving children? If yes, why didn't he?
If no, he is not omnipotent.
6 more for you.
God does not feed starving children all over, because he wants us to feed them and be thankful for what we have. Everything glorifies God even starving children, but people helping these children glorify him more.
Same reasons go back until Jesus and the apostles. Apostles trusted jesus, people trusted the apostles.
I also forgot to say we trust friends.
I did Google it. It was just one miracle, buy why won't he feed the starving children all over the world???
and don't say their parents
Ok, why did those people trust the Bible?
God can break science, before he created us there was no science. There have been many examples of miracles God has done. Google it.
I trust the bible because I trust my parents my teachers, my priest, and most of all, God.
If you're going to keep saying God created the world with no evidence, logic OR reasoning, I don't really care where this debate goes. I don't want religion consuming my life.
Also, HOW is God omnipotent? Please explain with more than "the Bible says so" or "God is all powerful"
And how did God create the world? He can't just poof it out of nowhere. Nothing can break laws of science.
No, what I mean about trustworthiness is that book you had never known at some point. Why did you start trusting it in the first place?
we do not have to agree to that we only have to agree God created the earth and everything in it. I believe God created the world in millions of years, this does not disagree with the bible.
Until creationists cam agree to that, no.
God is according to the church the auther of the bible. The bible is the written word of God.
Do you agree now that the bible suggests the earth is as old as you think, and creation could have taken millions of years.
God did not write the Bible, men did. You can claim it was inspired by God since that is impossible to disprove, but to claim God wrote it is false. I have heard no stories about God picking up a pen since Moses.
When. I read a book first I look at the auther and title. God as the author sounds trustworthy to me.
And answer me this: Why trust the Bible? You find a book, but how do you know that it's trustworthy? It can't do small things that build up to more trust. You'd have to take it without evidence. Why did you?
no one needs to disprove the stuff in the bible, it's a storybook from the bronze age. it's up to the believers to provide evidence. No one has substantiated any of the bible's claims in 2000 years, I don't think it's going to happen now.
I see. One day is a thousand years for God and a thousand years one day. From Peter and Psmals.
the six days of creation on my opinion and other church fathers took possibly millions of years. so God could have made plants, a million years later make animals, and a million years later make humans.
How long it took is NOT a matter of faith. What is a matter of faith is God created everything.
-because they thought the same thing. Just because they created the Bible doesn't mean God exists.
And it does prove that the Bible is wrong. The Bible says that the Earth is 6k years old. It also says God created us. The fossils tell us that the world is millions of years old, because if they were earlier they would be in a bit better condition. And, it shows that there was life before humans, so there must have been a way of then evolving to our present animals. Evolution is fact. Evolution by natural selection is logical, but not proved. This proves that God was not the one that created us, but we evolved into different forms.
According to creationists, the earth is 6 000 to 10 000 years old. Do you agree with that, or do you recognize that creationists are wrong?
How many days were there before man was created?
Does the bible disagree, on what way?
Dinosaurs predate humanity by millions of years, not a few days. That poses a problem for creation. The earth is much older than the Bible's timeline would indicate.
Again, I am not saying that the Bible created the church. Read my last post again.
How goes the age of the earth and dinasoars disprove the bible?????
First there was Christ who laid the foundation, then there was Pentacost with the holy Spirit. this was the birthday of the Church. Remember the church created the bible.
I'm going to repeat another statement again.
A billion people being fooled does not make that true,
it just makes a billion fools.
No the Bible is wrong because there is a great deal of evidence that contradicts it. The age of the earth, dinosaurs, evolution, heliocentricity and many more things have been argued by the church, which has never once succeeded in proving religion is right and science is wrong.
I didn't say the Bible formed the church, I said it was the foundation. When you talk about the church, what do you reference? Where do you look for God's word? If you said the Bible that would demonstrate that this is the foundational text of your religion. If you said something else, you are lying.
No, the Bible is wrong because there is only itself for evidence, which is itself fit evidence.
And no, even when people disagree, I don't necessarily call then crazy. I'm saying that you have no evidence, and if you just keep saying things that don't have direct observations, then you're lying.
And the bible is wrong because you say it is.
The Church is NOT based on the bible.
it is based on the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. The church was alive before the bible, so how could the bible have formed the church.
Saying the Pope, the Bible, Jesus and the prophets all support me is a false statement. The only reference you have for the opinions of Jesus and the prophets is your holy text, meaning saying they agree with the Bible is not true. Beyond even that, the Pope is the head of a religious order based on the bible. He is hardly going to disagree with the religious text that forms the foundation of his church, so again you are justifying your religious text by referencing it.
Evidence of God over the big bang.
How many people love someone is not a measure of how right they are. Do you have evidence beyond your holy text and those who reference it?
What about what hundreds of famous people said.
every time someone disagrees with you, you say there are crazy and a lier.
And just because people love him doesn't make him right.
And people love me
exept people love the pope.
And know you can't deny the fact that I'm right. I can see because you are just relying on authority to say it's right. You need actual facts to prove it. Not what a famous person said.
And I have just as much authority as the pope, but not as many people know of it.
Ok, those people are under the same effect as you.
Jesus says so, the saints say so, the church says so, the infallible pope says so.
Ok, I believe Jesus existed. I do not think he was resurrected. I do not think that he performed miracles. And seriously? Everything that you listed only uses faith. That is not evidence. The Church is under the same trick that you are. The Bible was written by those people. I don't know any you, but I need more than "The Bible says so" to justify things around me.
Oh wait you don't believe in jesus, so he must be wrong.
Maybe I don't believe in your theorys.
I know because Jesus told us. And the Church and the bible. Also I acept the gift of faith God has given me.
And if you're saying the human mind cannot understand him fully, then we are not created in God's image. (since this is the creationist v evolutionist debate you cannot answer he didn't create us, or else you wouldn't be creationist)
And that just proves that it's a delusion. You say that people even saw God, but now you are arguing you don't need to understand. If God was really out there and he really wanted to save us, he would have proven his existence. What you didn't understand is that you are claiming these things that don't use anything that we have observed OR put together to explain them. What you really need to do is see that there is no evidence, no reasoning and no confirming that God exists, then you will see that he is man-made. We can do better than make something up just because we don't understand something in the world. We just need to use logic to make a theory.
The human mind cannot understand god fully? Doesn't that sound a little convenient?
You claim to know. Science does not confirm (except for observations and putting things together with observations and reasoning) anything, but it makes theories that things happen for so and so. Religion says that they know for sure. How do you know for sure?
Also anyone who claims to know and understand God is a lie. The human mind cannot understand him fully.
What did I not understand? I answered your questions exept for the one about where God came from, because you did not answer mine. I don't know is not an answer
Also the no means you did not understand rather than no to your question
And scientists have theorized that the chemical reactions have formed DNA. Just look up "where did life begin" and the very first source with edu at the end shows this.
No. We DO NOT KNOW how it came to be. If you want more, you can ask those who are actually qualified to teach it. Science doesn't have to know how it works, but it tries to find that how. Religion claims it always knows, but never explains how. Explain how if you claim to know.
is carbon life?
Do you agree with the law of biology that says "life cannot come from non living things"
You don't know, but you need me to know?
Where did the first particle come from?
How do you know this first particle existed?
yet you want me to prove how God exists?
just so you know, the can not thing means able to not know. just for clarification
I agree with your last statement. That's because there is no evidence it reasoning of God.
Life and matter? That is the wonderful thing about science. Technically, we can leave it as an "unknown," but can have logical, evidence-supported theories. Carbon (C), element 6 of the periodic table, has the ability to form complex chains that form cells. Carbon is also the breaking down of other atoms that came from the stars. This was first bacteria, but then found food that allowed it to grow, then it spilt. This is mitosis. It then evolved into bigger species, some are fish, some birds, and some became the great apes. The great apes actually evolved into two different things. One is the species of humans, the other would be the other types of primates. This split into monkeys, chimps, apes, etc.
Matter in general? Well, that's the big bang. It includes a small particle, called a"singularity " that is not matter nor space. Then, it created matter/energy, and the NEGATIVE matter, the SPACE. This is possible due to it being equal to the singularity.
That's something about science. We can not know. We can create evidence based theories that show what may have happened. Religion has only a book to show. It doesn't show how it works, it just says. We need to know that we must have evidence before making a claim. But we also must know that we can not know if there is no evidence. We'll just have to leave it like that until we can get some.
In the bible it says animals came before humans.
I will answer your question about where God came from when you answer the question where life and matter came from.
God created the earth according to the bible. God can truly create something out of will.
Sientists will never confirm anything God does.
Also, there is nothing scientific about "people saw Jesus perform the miracles"
people actually thought that the sun revolved around us. They even thought the sun was flat. That was the Christian church believing we live on what we know is a sphere, then burning the people and books that thought otherwise. The same people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Could it be they were wrong?????
And besides all your "proof" I still have a bit more.
-where did dinosaurs come from? We know they were here long before humans. Or is that another "test"?
-Where did your God come from? Did he just poof out of nowhere, just like he did everything else?
- Where did the Earth come from? The Bible says there was nothing at first, then the Earth was there. So people argue that something can't come from nothing, but the Earth and the universe can if there was someone there?
I need you to explain these things. I also want you to know that God was something made up. Make sure that you know how things work.
How does your God control floods? Is he omnipresent? If so, how so? Use the observations that scientists can confirm and do not use circular arguments.
The pope believes in evolution.
No the calender is not, the day Jesus rose, Sunday, is.
The earth revolving was not a matter of faith, never was.
Is the calendar a matter of faith? You seem to fall back to that argument fairly often but each time you redefine what is a matter of faith and what is not.
Whether the sun revolves around the earth used to be a matter of faith. The Pope condemned Galileo for saying his observations made more sense if we orbit the sun. He was arrested and placed under house arrest until he died. Hundreds of years later the church apologized.
Whether we were placed fully formed is not a matter of faith, but with unanimous scientific support for evolution eventually the church will have to surrender to it the same way it did for heliocentricity, it just may take a few more hundred years. Will it then be decided that it was never a matter of faith because they were wrong?
They disagreed with the infallible pope, who is always right on matters of faith.
What makes you think they were false? History is written by the winners.
My point stands. son of God was just an example of the false teaches bishops had.
Everyone agreed that Jesus was the son of God. The debate was whether he was an aspect of God (the Holy trinity) or if he was a creation of God.
He said before, as did other popes Jesus is the son of God. The other Bishops looked at the ones against this and said they went against the pope, so they ruled them false.
If you get sent to court for breaking into a bank, do we need the pres and Congress to attend and say whether breaking into the bank was lawful? No the jury and Judge do this. The Bishops determined whether they agreed with the Catholic doctrines or not. They did not so they got thrown out.
That's interesting since he didn't attend.
Pope St. Sylvester I
Could you tell me the name of the Pope they went against?
sorry I ment the bishop or bishops. But still a few. And they went against the pope.
Go review your history. More than one person was excommunicated at the Council of Nicaea.
Nope, the one bishop purposely went against the church, so he was kicked out. The pope, who is infallible in matters of faith made this decision. Jesus being the Son of God is faith so if the pope says he is the son of God he is the son of God.
So what you are saying is that when they compared what they were preaching, there were differences that resulted in some people being excommunicated, and others having to abandon what they believed to be true in favor of the majority. How does that lend credibility to what they decided to write down (the Bible)?
We all agree Jesus rose on the third day, Sunday.
People who said Jesus was not God, or Mary Is not the mother of God were quickly put down. Same with other religious there are different types of Muslims and Jews, and even atheists. Does that mean we are all wrong?
I believe they moved Christmas, other catholics for example one of the smartest scholars at my school believe Jesus was born on December 25. This is an ongoing debate with little proof both ways.
How can you claim they all were preaching the exact same thing when they weren't even celebrating the same day? The fact that there was already differences of opinion about something as basic as the day he died shows that they were not all telling the exact same story. The fact that there was debate about whether Jesus as son of God had always existed or been created to come to earth was also debated. These are fundamental parts of the religion that were already unsure hundreds of years ago.
You are right about Christmas. They moved it to be closer to the winter solstice so that pecans would be more willing to convert. That is why we have Christmas trees and wreaths as symbols of a holiday that took place in the middle east.
The exact date is not important as the fact he rose on Sunday. The recording of dates was not as good as now. Easter was on a Sunday in the spring that is a fact. How they determine the date is confusing and I am not sure how.
Same with Christmas it was not on December 25, but sometime in the spring.
This is not a known fact and is widely debated.
If that was accurate and true, why did they need to get together and cave a conference on when Easter was? When the messiah died and was brought back to life seems like a pretty important detail that everyone should agree on.
The bible was not made official until the late 300's. Before that the apostles and their followers preached. When people did come to put the books together they realized what they were preaching was also in these written books already written years before.
God can't be proven or disproven. Being as there are little to no facts surrounding him, supporters can only base their arguments on faith and personal opinion. However, evolution and science is based on facts, and the only arguments that can arise over something based in fact is the interpretation. If you ask me (and no one did), God only exists in people's minds.
You say that people observed Jesus miracles, which proves they were true, but long before that people observed Hercules fighting the hydra. The story is older, which must mean that it is even more true, right?
Stories grow with each telling, meaning between the event and the recording (sometimes many years later and by people who were not present) the story could be completely unrecognizable. You cannot use the Bible as proof the at the Bible is accurate.
Every argument that you give I am thinking of ways to argue against. The reason I'm not sharing them is because you will think of other points to make and we will keep going in circles.
People have observed God as Jesus doing miracles, and rising people from the dead, which have been dead for three days, including himself. People also observed him walk on water.
St. Anthony 's tongue after 800 years is still non desinagrated and looks like a real one today. This is because of he being such a great preacher God preserved his tongue. Explain this.
As for logic look at my post on the gay is a sin debate.
Prove to me with observations, theories, inferences and logic that God is real then you have a known.
God is not unknown.
You cannot explain the unknown with the unknown.
out of those bible contradictions which one did I not prove wrong?
Explain everything. Tell us the evidence. Then reason how it connects to God. If I believe the IPU without seeing, is it still correct? No, because proof must be present to confirm a theory. Technically, your deity is not even a theory, because it was made out of thin air and does not use anything that we know is true. You don't seem to get logic, do you?
Which one or was I right?
which one did I not prove wrong?
You haven't a actually explained anything yet
Next marry though 9 mouths by the help of God traveled to Bethlehem. She was married to joseph, so therefore was his family, and in the lineage of David.
Should I do more?
The one about Mary not being a version. A woman of marryable age does not mean not a virgin. It says she was a virgin, she it never said she was not.
this site is funny.
The website u gave me says the angel could not have appeared to two people. It appeared to Mary and Joseph.
another bible contradiction proven wrong I will do another one.
God does not want evidence. Jesus after performing miracles says many times "tell this to no one." God wants us to believe without seeing, saten, the devil wants us to only believe when we have good proof, and things are good. You are thinking like Saten.
Ok, let me tell you this. If God exists, he is making sure that there is NO evidence whatsoever. The people who wrote the Bible made him up. Unless we can make a logical statement about his existence, he is fake. What you are saying about science not understanding God is a delusional statement. You are in a delusion, where your mind makes up things when they are questioned. Your mind is not letting the delusion go away, so it makes up things in order to keep it that way. There is still no evidence. If I were to be caught up in the Santa delusion, I would make up things to convince someone to believe the same thing. "How does he get around the world in one night? " I would fill in those questions with something else, like being timeless.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions. there are dozens and dozens of contradictions. pick any of them
I proved wrong one of your bible contradictions, give me another.
It's not about God. it's the entire story in the Bible. it is contradictory and rediculous.
God is above science, science cannot disprove God, he can break science laws.
Because you don't understand God level logic.
lol no. it isn't that we don't understand God. it is that the whole story makes no logical sense. From beginning to end its just rediculous.
Yes that is what I said He is too powerful for human logic to understand. Human logic is not everything. God is. It takes faith. without faith God would not be believed.
no we don't believe because we require logic to believe things. there is no logical reason to believe in God. only mysticism and tradition.
You and others don't believe because the concept of God is too good, powerful, and indescribable be true. I pray for you along with others.
And if he weren't forgiving, or knowing, or caring or able to cure ask diseases or feed the starving, then he can't be considered a God. I want people to stop preaching what they believe onto others in place of an argument.
Technically, you can't prove God exists.
It is a man made concept. You can not shift the burden of proof onto me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sure, to can't command God to give you things. Then you say you can help others with prayer.. Well, if he really exists, ask him to help me out of my disbelief. Make him to something supernatural to get me to believe.
If you don't want me requiring evidence that he exists, why don't you pray for me to stop? xD!
You have no evidence to disprove God, except the pride of your intellect. He's not going to make food fall from the sky or heal all sick people on earth. If He were to do that then He wouldn't be God. Your own arguments that you say are evidence is disproving your own argument. It's getting ridiculous, and now has become something to laugh at
Wow you guys have argued a lot! (off topic) Good job?
I am not God's boss I do not ask him for stuff and expect to get it. I can, however pray and ask him to help the homeless get food.
Read the beginning of job. Saten said job only believes because he has it good. God could do these, but he does not to prove to saten we can still believe despite the hardness of this world.
"All other Gods are fakes, they have never done anything."
that's exactly what other religions will say about your God. What did any of them do? Nothing. If he really affected the world, tell him to cure ask diseases and feed each and everyone of the poor by just poofing away the diseases and poofing up food for starving children.
You will when you are dead. when it is too late. I am not saying you or anyone is.going to hell even Hitler, I do try not to judge.
That's the point. You have no evidence. Or was made up. Because if they didn't make it up, then they witnessed God. If Jesus appeared to hundreds of people back then, why can't he do it now? Stop saying you need faith to see, because that is not evidence. Because you have no evidence, you cannot say creationists are correct. You cannot say that I'm going to hell. You cannot tell gays that they're an abomination. You cannot be sure that God exists.
God likes his creation to believe by themselves "blessed are those who believe without seeing" God does not want us to see him as a magician, but as a powerful creater.
So why does the Pope not perform a miracle to demonstrate God's power? He believes (I would hope) and by that one action he could convert and thus save millions if not billions of people. Does he not care to try to save these people, or is he not able?
God wanted to do it, so it was not a test. Elijah believed as you do not. It was not a test, God loved proving them wrong. The Holy Spirit works in different ways.
So he tested God, the way you say we shouldn't, and God did it. What changed?
Other gods are false, they have never done anything. In the bible Elijah and these priest of false gods made a deal. Whichever God can light the fire the fastest wins and there God is the real God. Elijah asked God and God though Elijah put water on the wood made it burn.
And how do they test other Gods? They say they're false. Oh the hypocrisy.
Saten said something similar to Jesus he responded "It is written you shall not put the Lord your God to the test" Saten will go around the world seeking the ruin of souls. You are thinking like him, do not do that.
Ok, that is still not proof. WE created science. If he's really real, I want him to prove it. I'm in my car, out is a sunny day outside. There are no clouds anywhere. I want you to ask him to either have lightning strike out of nowhere right next to me where I can see it. Maybe have it rain. Or do something that is impossible in these conditions. Maybe make it poof into an eclipse. If it doesn't happen by the time I get to the mountains here, he has failed. Knowing he is all powerful and all knowing, he should be able to do it. If he doesn't, that adds to my claim that he does not exist.
As I have said. God created science he made the rules. He can break the rules as much as he wants because he is all powerful. He can kill you right now if he wants. The water into wine was an example of his power. He is too powerful then science. more powerful than you will ever understand till death.
Just because they are ignored, the facts do not cease to exist. Explain the science, the KNOWN science (observations, not what we don't know if it's true or can't explain) behind turning water into wine or healing the wound (you have a doctor, don't you) to prove that it actually happened and not some sort of magic trick.
Ok, if you don't think evolution is true, why do you get a flu shot? It surely can't evolve to get past your first. Or can it?
A cult that is going strong with billions of followers after 2000 yrs. What about the miracles?
get my flu shot once a year.
Ok, let me tell you this. How often do you get a flu shot? Once you answer this, I will explain. Do not be dishonest, because any answer to help you win will NOT help you realized the truth.
So Jesus was the most successful cult leader. No one said he was stupid. he would have to be clever to fool all those people.
The dozen other people tried, but they died and there followers died off afterwords because they did not have God the Holy Spirit.
Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee said about Peter and Jesus's followers after the death of Jesus.
Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. ?For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. ?After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. ?So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.?
The miracles he did were incredible. Feeding five thousand people. He full filed the prophets perfectly. If he was a fake, then there would have been at least one error. He was smarter then the head of the Jews, yet was born of a average carpenter.
Jesus is a real historical figure. but there were a dozen other people in the middle East at the same time as him who could do the same party tricks.
Do u think Jesus made up being God? Or did people make him up?
God made himself known though Jesus Christ, his son. You do not believe this because it is in the bible.
Ok I am a Catholic. Many prodestants believe all you need is faith in God to get into heaven. this is false. God gives us mercy but we need to acept it or we do not have it. A atheist or Muslim can go to heaven if they live a good life. Unless they were taught well about the Catholic faith and purposely, knowingly rejected it. Or knew it is the one true faith, but did not convert. There is a difference in the false teachings of prodestants and the teachings of the Catholic church.
An omnipotent, Omnicompetent, all-powerful being that is known in religion. Not part of it, there is no evidence that confirms a god's existence. There may be evidence that could be explained by God, but similarly by many other things, most of which are unknown.
pajrc, what is your definition of god?
Also, now reading your forgiveness post, if you need to repent the sins, he is still not forgiving. He would allow each and every person, regardless of what they do and if they repent, to go to heaven. Also, sin actually doesn't matter, except for being non Christian. If not being Christian always always always gets you to Hell (like what many Christians say), and representing sins (requiring to be Christian) gets you to Heaven, who even cares what we do on earth? All that matters is whether we believe in his existence. I do not. Am I a bad person? Nope. Think about it. The only harm that it is causing is to a book written by normal humans that make mistakes (get Atheist Ally to see contradictions, absurdities, errors, etc.) who wanted control.
He is outside of time, so for Him there is no future to know. He just knows our idea of future. He created us knowing what we will do, but we still can make our own. choices. So you say God is controlling me now, and makes people do evil. God is all good, so it is against his nature to do bad, or make people do bad. Please try to understand and let God give you the faith you need to believe.
Well, if you argue he can control nature, and we have free will, then he can control us. The thing is, what we do is NATURAL. We naturally think the way we do. God would be able to control the nature of our brains if he can control floods, hurricanes, earthquakes or any other thing that is part of nature.
When God created the universe, he set the parameters for everything that would follow. By setting the start conditions, knowing every outcome from how he did, he has determined everything that will ever happen. The illusion of choice does not change the fact that he has predetermined everything that will ever happen.
God gives us many gifts faith, grace, forgiveness. Without these we cannot know love and serve him in order to obtain perfect happiness with Him in heaven. You must receive these gifts he gives.
He is forgiving and merciful. If he was not no one would go to heaven who has sinned. God gives you forgiveness, but you need to repent to receive it. St. Paul talks a lot about repenting to receive grace.
Everything does not go according to plan. Prove their are inhabitantable planets outside earth.
By planned I mean God has a plan he wishes us to follow. he knows we will not follow it. Free will is so we can love God. God would rather have evil and love then nothing. By controlled God can control nature like the flood. He could control anything he wants. He chooses not too control us so we can love him willfully
Finally, you address that God created us to follow his plan. Why would that matter? It doesn't affect him whatsoever, and he knows what will happen anyway.
Also, you say we have free will then you say that everything is already planned. Explain please!
Also, another part of your argument is that he can not control what happens, he just knows it. He DID control the flood, and he DOES let people into heaven. If he can't control what happens, he's not omnipotent. If he could and I would still go to hell, he's not forgiving. This is a contradiction. If God made the Bible and it was infallible, we already know that he doesn't exist. When it was written, there was 5% literacy rate. The primitive men wanted control over others, and they didn't realize that there was a contradiction.
Another part of God is that he created evil. If you say that was Satan then you are wrong. God created Lucifer, KNOWING he would turn back and become evil. Another contradiction.
Why would you trust the Bible now?
Alex, seeing your post last night about this happening by chance, I know you don't understand. Billions of planets are being made, some of them are inhabitable. We were one of those that worked.
Also, God gets mad at us for things he predetermined that we will do. We have free will, except everything goes according to his plan. To you, this seems more legit than thousands of years to become better and better.
Guide to God: There is evil.
can he prevent evil?
No: Not omnipotent.
Yes : Does he know about evil?
No: Not Omnicompetent
Yes: Is he willing to prevent it?
No: Not caring.
Yes: Then why is there evil?
Testing: He would have not needed to due to knowing everything.
Satan: An all knowing, all good God would destroy Satan
Necessary for universe to exist: Could he have created the universe without evil?
No: not omnipotent
Yes: Why didn't he?
Test: Listed above
Free will: Could he have created the universe with free will but no evil?
No: not omnipotent
Yes: Why didn't he? (looped around first time saying this)
Remember, Jesus would rather Shane gays than let orphans have a family.
He did not plan what to do, he knew what choice you would make. God is out of Time so this is possible, knowing the future.
if God knew how the world was going to play out when he made me, then he made me to go to hell. I don't see how you can ignore that.
No we have free will. if you go to hell then is that what God plannned. You cannot do good because God doesn't let you.?
if I follow your point then humans do not have free will. It would be the same as if you made the bullets sentient and convinced it had free will. the bullet would believe that it's following its own path. Despite the fact that whoever holds the gun picked for it. if your version of the world is true then God is holding the gun for all of us. Our path was pre planned and we have no say in it.
In this case humans have free will. The bullet would move around before deciding to hit or could disobey and not hit.
I think knowing in determining are the same thing. But if God knew before he created the universe is the difference. God created the beginning knowing everything that would follow. He could just as easily have created things slightly different so that different things would follow. The fact that he made things the way they are knowing how everything would play out means he made all the choices. if I aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger I know what is going to happen before I do it. the bullet has no free will. In the same way God created the system. He knew how everything would play out. Then he pulled the trigger.
God punishes people for not following his plan. He did not make anyone not follow his plan because God is all good. making someone do evil is against his nature.
You think knowing and determining are the same. they are not.
except that every one of those choices were determined as he made the universe. Which means that they're not choices at all. He designed the universe knowing the choices that would happen. Which means he made them happen. if your version were true then God made every single choice that it ever happened. he then punishes people for making the choices he made happen.
God created us knowing whether we would break or not he knew what choices we are going to make. If we made a different choice he would have known that. God knew at the beginning that you will make stupid arguments against him on this app. If you stop making arguments He knows that too. Let be put it as simple as possible- God knowing does not make you do anything. What God knows is based on the choices you make. understand.
Your explanation for God creating everything and, before anything exists, he knows everything that will ever happen, but somehow this is not deterministic is that God is impossible to understand. God determined the fates of everyone who has ever or will ever exist before creation, but somehow we have free will to do what God created us knowing we would do.
what do I not know?
So your answer is that you don't actually know.
He created them so they could follow his plan. they did not so they burn. he knew this but did not make it happen as I stated a while ago this is a confusing subject, God, and is impossible to fully understand, but you need to open yourself up to let him show you the way the truth and the light to heaven.
I explained my argument. God knew what we would do a million years before we were born. He knew that someone who burn in hell would burn in hell before he made them. If he loves them why would he creates someone he knew would fail and burn for eternity?
So you are telling me why God made us to watch us burn. this is not the same God who so loved the world he gave his one and only son to die for us. God made us out of love to love.
but if he knew the choices you would make before he made us that isn't free will. He made us to make those choices. and if those choices are bad and he made us to burn in hell. Therefore God makes people just to watch them burn.
By outcome you mean knowing what we are going to do. God gave us free will, and because he is God he knows what choice we are going to make with our free will.
You don't understand. God creating the world knowing the outcome before he created it makes free will impossible. either he didn't know the outcome or free will is a lie. or its all a lie. take your pick.
No human can understand God fully.
that is not true he does not control us because of free will.
Apparently you are not capable of understanding this. if he knew the outcome when he made the world. then he controls everything because he knew the outcome before he did it. if that is true then there is no free will.
He is all knowing and outside of time. why did God create something he determined to be bad. he could then not love it. that is against his nature of being all good.
again you completely missed the point. He created the beginning knowing how would play out. That isn't free will. He knew how everything would happen. if he knows that then it isn't a free choice. He made it that way.
Yes because of the fall people do not obey God's plan, but they could have. God needs love that is why he created us to love him and he could love us back. Free will was a result. it brought evil, but also love.
He is outside of time so he is here now and at the beginning of your life at conception.
you are missing David point entirely. God created the universe in the beginning. He knew everything would happen when he made it the way he did. Therefore he shows how things would happen. If you didn't want it that way he would have made things differently in the beginning. which means God chose Hitler to massacre people. He chose every suicide bomber, school shooter.
God could have taken away our free will, but he loved us too much, and wanted us to love him willingly. without free will we could not have loved him willingly and would be robots, we know robots do not love.
I did, but it is illogical, thus not much good in a debate. If I create something knowing what it will do, I am responsible for what it does. If God knew pit every action before conception, we do not have free will because he has already laid out exactly what will happen to us and what we will do in our lifetime. Free will in this case would be an illusion because God has already decided everything that will ever happen by the way he created the world.
Dave last time God did not determine anything he is all knowing not all determining
God is out of time therefore he cannot advance he is here as he was then. did u not see my example about hitler?
God may be, but that doesn't mean you are.
Is it a choice if it was already determined before we existed? If God created us, knowing everything we would ever decide or do in advance, by the nature of him creating us he has decided what we will do.
God is the only one who chooses if you are part of his kingdom.
even if one does not know God or accept Him. Good people deserve to be apart of His kingdom
I feel as if I'm repeating myself God did not determine anything we did. The fact God is outside time is needed to get this. He knew what was going to happen cause he knew what choice Hitler was going to make. If Hitler made another choice God would have known that. Because God is outside of time, and we are inside time makes this extraordinary difficult to understand. You cannot argue against God or you will lose because God is always right.
pajrc1234 did u read the article?
God gives us the choice to decide our actions, He knows the outcome of every action we take. He gives us the opportunity to choose between right and wrong and therefor He determines if we are worthy of entering His kingdom based on the choices we make
If God determined the outcome of everything from creation, how do we have free will? If God knew before he created the universe that Hitler would kill people, and made it in such a way that it would happen, he determined the outcome before creation.
A machine does have free will. God gives us free will. We ate not machines. You cannot compare youself to God. No one actually understands God in all his mysteries.
You keep saying that but I don't think you actually understand what that means. If God already knew everything that would happen, he made it happen when he created everything. If I set up a Ruben Goldberg machine, no matter how many moving parts it has and how chaotic it looks, if I designed it and placed all of the pieces I controlled what it does. If God knew everything that would happen when he made everything, by definition he made it happen.
God's plan is the what God would love us to do. God is also unchangable. God did not plan what to happen he knew it. Remember that God is outside of time.
But in your belief God created everything. He set the conditions for every atom in the universe. He has already determined, in advance, what would happen when he started the universe. Saying we have free will but that God already knows everything we will ever do is an oxymoron. Either we are able to change things from God's plan, or God planned for everything that has ever or will ever happen.
No Hitler decided to kill the jews. God know Hitler was going to kill the Jews. If Hitler did not choose to kill the Jews God would have known that. Remember God is outside of time.
So at the moment God made creation, he had already decided to create Hitler and have him kill the Jews?
By that logic, from the instant God made the universe, he knew everything that was going to happen for all time, correct?
The mystery of God is very confusing and impossible to fully understand. I will try to explain something to you.
God is all knowing. GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME. He knows what I will say on this app tomorrow or if I will be on it. He does not make you do anything. God knows what choices we will make. For example God when he made the universe knew Hitler was going to kill the Jews. Let's say Hitler realized killing jews is stupid and did not kill them. God when he made the universe would have known Hitler is going to be a good person. God is outside of time. This is key. We are inside time so it is impossible to fully understand. God made a plan, he knew whether we would follow it or not with our free will.
I may type things a little incorrectly I'm using Swype.
please read and tell me this happened by chance. To find God you must open your heart to Him. God wants you to know and love him. To do this you must open your mind and Believe.
They actually do follow the plan. Many, many people will say God planned everything for us. This means everything. God would also have each and every person praising murderers because God wanted it to happen. There is no way to avoid this. If God were real, we would all be in favor of whatever we think of, regardless of it hiring someone.
The fall of man caused us to sin. Ever heard of free will? Murderers do not follow God's plan for us.
As BigB pointed out Pope Francis believes in evolution more then me. The church says believing evolution is a choice as long as you believe God created humans with a soul made in the image and likeness of God.
How did humans come to be. God. You got another idea? I would love to hear it.
Let's get one thing straight. There is actual EVIDENCE of evolution. Been to a museum? Many museums have fossils. These fossils are signs of dinosaurs that roamed the Earth. We have (along with many other animals) evolved from creatures during this time.
I'm also going to say that your God, real or unreal, has no effect on humans whatsoever. If you statistically analyze prayer with a non ambiguous request (like removing violence tomorrow or curing all diseases), no result happens. If we really were apart of God's plan, we would be praising murderers and all the evildoers for doing their part. That would be what God had planned for us.
No kidding, he MAY be out there! Why I think he isn't is because humans are making him up. It is literally impossible to see ANY signs, so that requires someone to make it up. Now, this doesn't mean evolution is true, but it means it is possible with our observations and theories.
sorry about all the ? don't know why I put those there.
the pope on marriage.
"When a man and a woman celebrate the sacrament of marriage, God is reflected in them,? the pope told around 45,000 people who were in St. Peter?s Square.
?As ?one flesh?, they become living icons of God?s love in our world, building up the Church in unity and fidelity,? he said. ?The image of God is the married couple ? not just the man, not just the woman, but both.?
He did say "who am I to judge" after he was elected. This means he cannot judge only Jesus can. He does not in any way support gay marriage. Pope Francis even sent a letter to a book writer who writes about gay marriage asked them to stop.
This argument will never get anywhere because you're all wrong, the universe was created by an far superior race of cat people 400 trillion years ago, end of story.
Your twisted logic of how popes are always right only when it suits you amusing. The current Pope is in favor of gay marriage and allowing divorced people remarry without an annulment. both of these are large departures from previous popes. How do you manage to explain that one to yourself?
just read bud and understand it. God is good all the time
BigB, thank you for you encouragement. I am currently reading a book called Chief Truths of the Faith by father John Laux.
Alex, I like your enthusiasm of the Catholic faith I really do. We live in a world where the idea of Christianity is a bad thing (the crusades and so forth). Stay true to your faith, but you have to challenge your faith to better understand it, the more you question your faith the more you'll come to appreciate and understand it. All I can say is read, there is nothing better than reading and appreciating your faith. I have always had questions on my faith but I read constantly and have come to understand it better and grow more in what I believe. I love God and what the Roman Catholic Church preaches and the tradition that follows, but you can't take the bible in a literal since, it teaches us try to be perfect in an in imperfect world and the imperfection of human beings, because we strive to be better and pray and follow God the way Jesus taught us
Historybuff I'm going to say it nice and slow for you cause you have trouble understanding.
Faith - Adam and Eve being the fist humans created by God in his image and likeness
Faith- God created all things visible and invisible
Optional opinion you can have- animals have evolved
Optional option you can have- evolution did not happen
you could also be in between those two opinions
Optional opinion you can have- Argentina has the best soccer team.
Optional opinion you can have- the US has the best soccer team
Things you cannot belive and be catholic- there is no God
Things you cannot believe and be catholic- God did not create us in the image and likeness of him
Things you cannot believe and be catholic- Humans are a mistake of extreme mutation/are evolved from animals because it helps the animals survive better, not because of God.
It is ironic that you would protest about being misquoted in this debate.
I'm trying to understand your reasoning, it's difficult because your argument is largely illogical. so what's written in the Bible is a core belief there for the Pope's make sure 100% correct. but how and when God created mankind is not a core belief and therefore the Pope is not necessarily right? I cannot understand how you are justifying these things. the Pope did not disagree with evolution. Therefore if you disagree with evolution you are disagreeing with the Pope on a matter of faith.
I never said creation was not faith did I. Stop lying so we can have a real debate here.
Creation is a huge part of faith do you have trouble understanding what t I'm saying or are you making up stuff that I have not said.
so if where life came from is not a matter of faith, then the exact wording of the Bible would also not be a matter of faith. If only the very most core beliefs are a matter of faith then a lot of the Bible doesn't have to do with that. So clearly anyone could have to made changes to the Bible and god would not have intervened.
Yes I am a sinner. So are you and bigB. this evolution is not a matter of faith the faith is God created everything, and humans in the image and likeness of God. I agree to this, you disagree greatly, so does Dave.
But he is infallible on matters of faith isn't he? if he accepts evolution and he is infallible then you are disagreeing with God. that makes you a sinner.
the pope, and the Church also says you can be a catholic and not believe in evolution.
I do not root for the pope's favorite sports teams or think his favorite food is the best and the only way.
but since the Pope accepts evolution, you cannot say that evolution is wrong without disagreeing with the Pope.
You do not believe in the pope. you say that you doubt priests. if you doubt priests then how can you agree with the pope. The pope says you can choose whether or not to believe evolution as long as you believe God is the creator. I choose to believe a little, others like Big and the pope may choose to believe more. The pope does not agree with Darwin like you and Dave do. the Pope does not say humans evolved from monkeys that evolved from birds that evolved from a one celled creature that you do not know how it is created. So even if we took the greatest amount of evolution the church let's us we will still disagree with you.
not busfare. but as far back
sorry I tried to directly quote them but the app won't let me copy and paste. Busfare back to the fifties the Popes have said that evolution does not contradict Catholicism. Pope Francis is even more accepting of evolution. You went so far as to save the big bags exactly how God created the universe. That he is not a magician waving a magic wand. That God created us using natural laws not a big magic act. If the Pope accepts it and he is installable on articles of faith then by definition he has to be right.
found what the pope said. HistoryBuff the pope's have said it is not required to belive in evolution or not, as long as you believe in the creation of man by God, not by chance.
I belive God created all the species and they evolved themselves a little, but not creating new species. the church does not agree or disagree, as long as you believe in the bible and God created man in his own image. Your theory states evolution evolved humans to survive better, not in the image and likeness of God. and does not give a diffinate beginning.
the original point in either long age evolution or 6day creation is still God. that much neither of us is gonna change from believing.
what He used is the debate
you don't think where life originated from is a matter of faith? That is ridiculous. It is the very basis of faith. if the Pope could be wrong about that then I would think to be wrong about anything.
he is not infallible on science, only faith and morals and only when he follows the preset, I'll call them rules, for speaking infallibily.
now, Micro evolution, or more simply how nature works through survival of the fittest in a species to create other species from the parent, I believe in and we can see this in real life (Galapagos finches).
Macro evolution, whales to cows or vice-a-versa, no. there is too many differences in the genetics and the need for genes that never appear anywhere else in the "parent" species.
Sry that's if the Pope, not poor
Creationists are amazing, complete mental compartmentalization.
If the poor says that it is possible and does not conflict with Catholicism who are you to challenge it. Alex you said that popes were infallible on matters of faith so the Pope cannot be wrong can he?
yes goldfox in Genisus God created birds, fish, and other animals separately. not one cell to be evolved.
You are correct, but the pope speaks for God on earth, which Catholics believe and is a matter of faith. Believe in evolution is not wrong as long as you put God as starting it. And what pope Francis said I don't remember the exact words he said. But I will find it for you
BigB and Goldfox correct me if I'm wrong
evolution may have occurred a little in animals, but God created Adam and Eve, people were not evolved from animals with no souls.
because we personally feel that the all powerful God of the universe would do things as He said He did in Genesis.
Popes back to the 1950s have said evolution is not incompatible with Catholic beliefs. If it does not challenge your church and there is tons of evidence for it, why would you try to argue against it?
bigB sorry I mistyped your name. ment to say big. typo
yes I agree goldfox. I have read that it is optional to some extent. I believe in it very little. Because the pope believes it that does not mean we have to too. He is a soccer fan I believe, but I do not have to root for his team, or be care about soccer.
as a matter of Catholic doctrine only, as I just finished reading this part of the catechism, we as Catholics are able (not forced no forbidden) from believing in the theory of evolution. BUT it is a matter that God and God alone makes the immortal soul.
I never said the King James was wrong, I have not studied it yet or read it. It is in old the old English translarion, I have the New American Bible, translated into American English if that makes sense.
I tried to say evolution was a little true but Dave and HistoryBuff said all or nothing. Bing I agree I never said they were changed just translated until the prodestants I agree to a little of evolution. For example a horse can get better and stronger bones, but not saying humans evolved from one celled creatures. I am a big supporter in Pope Francis and wish I could go see him when he comes to America soon. Could you. specify to what extent he believed in evolution.
and don't forget that pope Francis has even agreed with the theory of evolution. So are you saying the pontiff is not a believer in God?
Ok I tried to be nice, you know nothing of Catholic doctrine( just a question have yoh read that catachism of the Catholic Church, or the difference between spirit of the law and the letter of the law? again just a question). It is well known among many theologians that many books ok the bible have been taken out. If you would read what I wrote I said that the words that were written down have not changed since they were written ( i.e. the dead sea scrolls, if you look at the dead sea scrolls and read the translation you would see the exact words you see in the new king James version) Not trying to be insulting but I went to Catholic elementary school and high school and attended a year in college. We can get into a theological debate if you want just make sure you have Wikipedia handy
Have you read Genesis 1? is says God created heaven and earth. Believing in God means you belive God exists. You have no proof the bible was altered before the prodestants made there own version. The fist. books after being written down by Moses were copied carefully. It took many years to do even the fist five books, they were than read carefully. The books were only kept in the temple and places of worship. There were Scribes who had most of the books memorized, if they came across an altered book they would have thrown it out. After Christ the people wrote the Word of God down. These books were kept under guard by the church till they established the bible. Once the bible was established the pope had St. Jerome translate it. He spent years doing this and many people have reviewed it, and agreed ed. Only the modern protestants have disagreed. If the bible was altered you would think we would have found an orignal version somewhere. We only until the prodestants had one version of the bible. If you have a bible look in the fist few pages to find a list of the people who published it and reviewed it this is a long list. Now for someone to have the highest chance to alter the bible they would have had to obtain a copy of the books make many copies, break into all the churches, exchange the bibles and burn the old ones. this is stupid even you can see that.
and to what you said about proving the earth is younger "That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Psalm 90:4.
360x1000=360,000 years in our eye is 1 God year. God could have created the world in 6,000 years not six days.
I have answered your question though you have not answered mine. I am tired of arguing as you will not understand I will agree to stop if you only answer my question about the Giaffe neck.
I'm Catholic and I believe evolution exists. God is outside of time and it's something hard to accept or understand. In Genesis it says He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. We now know the universe is at least 11.7 billion years old that number wa not understood when Genesis ( old testament ) was written. What a lifetime for us could be a blink of an eye for Him. I believe God created the universe and let it run or evolve on its on, God is an intelligent being.
One more thing because it did kinda bother me. The words of the bible have not changed since they were written ( dead sea scrolls) the books though have and some have been taken out because of doctoral belief and some other things. Such as the book of Mary Magdalene is not in the king James bible, which most bibles are.
All in all I enjoyed reading some of y'all s arguments and this is a debate that can go on forever so y'all have fun with it
I apologize for not responding to your offer to call it a draw earlier, but I was working.
I am not willing to call it a draw due to the implications that this means I feel our arguments were equally valid. You have used misinformation, misquoting and used references supporting extraterrestrial life seeding life on earth to support your argument, when even the editor on the site posting it disagreed with your conclusion strongly enough to post disclaimers. You have failed to back up either the claim that evolution is false or that creationism is accurate.
That said, I do agree that we are ever likely to reach a conclusion, so I am willing to agree to disagree if you are tired of the debate. I understand that you are neither surrendering nor giving up your position.
Your ignorance of a system does make it stop working. You cannot explain nuclear physics, but I would hope you agree that nuclear power is a real thing. You cannot expect people to dumb down science enough that you can learn it without any study, knowledge, and while actively trying to maintain your ignorance.
You look ad the various models for evolution and claim that they are proof that it is not accurate. This again demonstrates that you have no concept of how scientific research is done. Each model is studied to see if it is flawed and, if it is, it is discarded or adapted. This is a strength since it means we learn from our mistakes instead of denying we have ever made any (like the church does even after apologizing for being wrong and mistreating scientists in the past).
Do not put words in my mouth. I did not disagree with the punctured equilibrium model, I explained what it was since you seem incapable of doing any independent research.
I have repeatedly explained the evidence to counter your claims. If you couldn't follow that is another matter. Evolution is visible when looking at the skeletal remains of any species over many generations. It is visible in the adaptation of viruses and bacteria to resist drugs.
You claim that all creationists need to believe in is God and Genesis 1,but that is blatantly untrue. Creationists first have to believe that God exists. That's not necessarily a stretch, but we also have no proof. They then need to believe that God created everything from nothing. With an omnipotent being, that is still not impossible. They then must believe that all scientific evidence, from geology to evolution to physics and astrology are wrong when they provide a time line for creation. This is where it gets absolutely unreasonable. Creationists don't just have to prove that we didn't evolve. They have to prove that the universe is far younger than science shows, that the earth is far younger, and that many other forms of physical evidence are either being misinterpreted or God made them to look older than they are. You have to maintain your faith in the face of all available evidence. You have the reliability of one book that has been shown to have been altered throughout history against all scientific evidence on the age of the universe. That is far more than to "just believe in God and Genesis."
ok. Cool. the Harvard professer who says that evolution occurs in short Bursts of 50,000 years. this may be able to explain the missing transfer creatures. Many evolutionists, like Dave disagree and say it takes millions and millions of years to evolve. They cannot explain these missing layers in the transfer years. Some have even planted evidence, that has been proved a lie.
Also Dave please give me an example of evolution you have not given me any, good hard evidence. You claim you need good hard evidence if how the world began, but when I ask for evidence of let's say the coalacnath, and you. tell me they split up into two groups, and say when I ask for actual evidence "It doesn't work that way." you say you want evidence but do not give any.
also you said in response to me saying God created everything "you cannot expect a person to make life out of thin air" I agree 100% with this. God is not a only a person he is fully man though Jesus, but He is also the one almighty everlasting God who can create anything he wants out of thin air.
To belive creationism all you have to do is believe in God and Genius 1. Evolution however requires you to belive life came from... Wait! they don't know. You have to be okay with millions of years of fossils missing, unexplained change from a fish to a creature with no hard proof. You have to say that complicated orignismsed happen by chance. Wow how could someone believe all that?
I will give you an example of evolution that evolutionists say. the Giraffe is claimed by evolutionists to have evolved a long neck for eating trees. Problem long necks are more complicated then a longer regular neck, especially that of a giraffe. A giraffe has to have a huge amount of blood pressure to get blood up into the head. A Giaffe would faint and die before developing is increased rate in blood preasure. this. disproves the theory of evolution helping animals survive. also the giraffe has to bend down and drink right? it's head would literally explode of all the blood forced into it. The answer is the neck has vales that close when the giraffe bends down. This is way to complicated for DNA to say long necks need high blood pressure, but not when is drinks, oh wait let's get some vales that open and close. the Giaffe neck was created by an intelligent being, God.
No. Dave has refuted virtually all of your points. Most of the people who picked a side have sided against you. you have lost. live with it.
Clearly you and I have opposite views, on most things and will go on forever we will never agree the other is right and both feel we have evidence.
this argument has gone on too long without a definite winner. would you consider a draw? if not this could go on forever.
OK. Am going to bed shortly, so I will address some of your absurd arguments now and pick up the rest when I get a chance tomorrow.
What you are describing is punctured equilibrium model. The "brief bursts" of evolution typically lasted about 50,000 to 100,000 years, not one generation jumps that creationists like to pretend. At least look up the main part of your argument on Wikipedia before posting it. This misquoting and misrepresenting is getting ridiculous.
Of God did not prevent it from being changed, how do you believe it remained unchanged for thousands of years? If one man could decide to change it, then do so, why couldn't 100 such men alter it throughout history?
You do realize that the site posted a disclaimer on the post stating that there is more evidence disproving creationism than evolution, and that it is more plausible that aliens had seeded life on earth and are gradually improving their creation, as well as other disclaimers in the body of the text show that even the site advocating alien origins doubt the research and conclusions of the author.
What part of the animal fir example is still giving you trouble? Animals have fur. Though it looks similar, there are differences on the fur depending on climate. Basic research will help clear that up for you if you don't want to take my word for it.
God did not prevent it The King did not care about faith and works and the bible all he wanted was devorce. Martin Luther was the man to change the bible. I did not say God prevented it from being changed, He only guided those who wrote it.
Using my site again. disproving evolution by a evolutionist professer. Wow evolution has problems.
Harvard Professor Gould claims that evolution occurs in spurts, not gradually. This theory attempts to explain the lack of continuity in the fossil record. However, this theory is more troublesome than the gradual change theory. Large jumps or spurts in the fossil record don't prove evolution at all. In fact, they disprove evolution.
He would not have said this if not for there being such a large gap not just a few missing frames. I doubt anyone agrees with him but still this is the work of a desperate evolutionist trying to solve the million year gap problem.
So the Bible is perfect because God prevented it from being altered until the King overruled him and did it anyways?
The second law if thermodynamics does not apply to life on earth. The law says that in a CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy will always increase, meaning there will gradually be energy lost to the system. In case you hadn't noticed, we do not live in a closed system. We have a fairly substantial source of energy that adds energy to the system every day from dawn till dusk. The sun is constantly adding energy to the earth, meaning again you are rehashing someone else trying to twist scientific theory out of shape to support their beliefs.
Good job! I agree with these arguments exempt for the Darwin one you pointed out was wrong. read numbers 5 and 6 please. these are mostly facts on there. exempt for the Dawin statement they are all true, and maby the one about the animal fur still unsure about that.
The King James bible is altered by a man under the authority of himself because he did not like the idea of faith without works.
I read the site you posted I was misled by not reading the full quote, but the site did not agree with evolution, it is a site to tell people not to argue that line cause people like you would correct it. I was misled as I never saw the full quote till you pointed it out. thank you for doing so.
Dawin states in the full quote that the eye evolved from simple forms to complex ones the 2nd law of Thermodynamics disproves his full quote. Since evolution is only a theory and thermodynamics is a law Darwin's quote is proved wrong. You cannot blame him cause the law was not invented till after he died. You can though blame someone for believing this after new laws have been proven. it is like a builder thinking stone age tools are the best or a doctor bleeding someone as was commonly done till proven wrong 200 years ago. You cannot argue a theory over proven laws.
So the King James Bible is just as accurate since the men were writing the Bible, which imbues them with perfection for the task.
Found it. You are copying your arguments from HumansAreFree.com. Could you now move to a better researched site? These arguments are tired and mostly ridiculous.
the true bible was written by men inspired by God this means while writing the bible the men were perfect.
Darwin was human and capable of mistakes, much like those who wrote and over thousands of years transcribed the Bible. Try to keep that in mind as you belabor the point. I am aware that people make mistakes, and when scientists do they are discovered through research and corrected. What happens when a religious texts is imperfectly copied but disagreeing with it gets you burned or exiled as a heretic? How would the mistake get discovered?
Quoting from the book, Evolution and Human Destiny, by Kohler,
"One of the most fundamental maxims of the physical sciences is the trend toward greater randomness - the fact that, things will get into disorder rather than into order if left to themselves. This is essentially the statement that is embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
lower beings can not create higher more complex beings. this is yet another law disproving evolution, which I remind you is only a theory. Species today becoming extinct not evolving, cancer and other diseases are fairly new.
I'm not sure which site you are using, but even Answers in Genesis admits that you are misrepresenting Darwin. Could you please either start researching your posts or stop being intentionally dishonest.
The short answer to your question is that I don't know how life ultimately began. I have yet to see solid evidence one way or another, so I withhold my judgement. As I said, we don't know everything, that is why we do research. To find the answers.
Yes, over the millions of years there are periods when we are missing fossils. By pointing to this over again you maintain your trend of not understanding your arguments.
If you were watching a movie that showed life on earth from start to now, each frame would cover about 27 006 years (24 frames per second, 90 min movie, left beginning 3 500 million years ago). You are essentially asking that, after the film is cut into individual frames and buried we find every one so that you can see the sequence.
Things have the unfortunate tendency to not stay perfectly preserved for us over the course of millions of years. In spite of this we have many intermediary fossils and more are being found all the time. Again, not knowing something right now does not make magic the best answer. It means we should keep looking.
You say Darwin is not perfect a agree. But what does not make since is that you agree with Darwin an imperfect human over a perfect God. That too makes no since.
That is a true quote by Darwin said much later do you agree with the lighting or disagree and have no idea how life started.
There is not just a missing link there are many million year gaps. when watching a movie and the scene skips 30 seconds I want to know what happened.
With evolution there are no fossils of a transfer creature for the fish coalacnath where is a 1 transfer fossil from the 2nd branch. not one fossil over millions of years strange...
So in your opinion any story that involves magical powers is better that honestly trying to understand the universe? Scientists don't know everything and probably never will, but by looking into it they learn more and more answers. Not too long ago most scientists didn't believe nuclear power was possible. Them it was accomplished with all of the wonderful and terrible consequences that came with it. Scientists research precisely because we do not have the answers. You cite their inability to create life, but have you ever seen someone make life by talking to thin air? You believe something much less plausible. You may hide behind the Bible, but I would prefer to learn about the world as it is.
When you watch a movie, do you ask about the pictures in between each frame? The myth that we are missing transition fossils is a cheap cop out the creationist enjoy using because unless we had a fossil from each generation from bacteria to your grandparents, there will always be a "missing link". We have transition fossils. Every time scientists demonstrate an intermediate step between two fossils, creationist point to the gap between the new fossil and a previous one and say "OK what about that step?" look at an illustration of the fossil chain we have showing the evolution of any species and you will be able to see the gradual changes from one to the next. There will always be missing pieces because not everything that has ever read died left a fossil. To point to that as proof that the steps we do have are not connected is grasping at straws and, again, either shows you are intentionally being dishonest or more likely you are copying your arguments from a creationist website site without citing it.
I do not claim to have all of the answers as I am not a scientist researching the subject, but u am capable of doing research and using logic. If you are going to try to disprove the scientific community at large perhaps you should look into your arguments before posting them to determine how thoroughly they have already been debunked.
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.
This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. there is a law of biology that says so. evolution is only a thery i trust the law. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.
If you disagree with the lighting stiking water and creating life that is therefore an yet another example of evolutionists disagreeing with themselfs. If you agree to the lighting then you go against a law created by evolutionists and other scientists.
modern day scientists have no idea of how life came to be. Creationists at least have some story of how life came to be believed to day by a lot of people.
You seem to think disagreements between scientists mean that science doesn't work. Darwin was human, and therefore capable of mistakes just like everyone else. The advantage science has over religion is that, when presented with new evidence, science accepts the evidence and grows. When religions are presented with new evidence, the plug their ears and hide from it, as they did with heliocentricity and are now doing with evolution.
By misquoting Darwin, you again demonstrate that either you are incapable of doing actual research and are copying your arguments without understanding them, or you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest. Darwin did not disagree that eyes evolved, and a 30 second Google search could have revealed that to you. Please, if you are going to quote people, make sure they agreed with you rather than take a part of a quote and butcher the sentiment.
As with your other arguments, you again scratch the surface with the coalacanth, but neglect to look any deeper. They do not in any way disprove evolution any more than the existence of crocodiles do. Millions of years ago these fish branches off into two separate families. One continued changing in a process you find hard to comprehend, the other remained in the niche they already had. Those that remained in their previous environment remained in essentially the same form of very the ensuing millions of years, much like the crocodiles. Evolution doesn't pick up a species, change it with a magical word and put it back in a new body. It is a gradual change.
Also you say evolution takes millions of years. ok, then why do we only find a few so called transfer species of animals. For example we have many fossils of a species of fish thought to evolve into a lizard. we have many fossils of the lizard the fish evolved into, why are there so few, some proven to be fakes planted by desperate evolutionists, from the millions of years in between. Did fossils just stop being made?
The Coelacanth fish was thought to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was proven wrong December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net near South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years.
that is an example of evolution being wrong this fish did not develop legs or it would be some other animal on land.
I have been told by evolutionists that primitive human forms had no eyes and evolved them. Charels Darwin the inventer of evolution seems to disagree.
to suppose that the eye with all its inimitable controversies for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory.
example of evolutionists disagreeing.
I know it is hard to understand and quoting the bible will mean nothing to you. Faith is a Gift from God given to all of us including you. You can choose accept it or not. without faith, yes it looks blind and confusing. Faith is needed to better understand and believe in all God wants us to know.
As I do not have that particular faith, blind belief in the magical creation of everything is not terribly convincing in the face of all available evidence.
I'm you don't believe your faith is true you should not have that faith.
Massive evolution has happened, and we have fossil records of it. What you want is evidence of instant massive evolution, which is not how it works. Your ignorance about evolution does not prove it wrong, it merely proves that you do not understand the concept.
And no, there is not only one creation myth. There are as many as there are religions and most of them are mutually exclusive. You rely on faith that yours is the only one that is true, which is why it is not taught it reputable schools and why it will continue to lose to evolution.
You keep spouting things as though saying them makes them true. What "different stories" do you feel evolution has that conflict? There are many systems at work in nature. Look at the human body. We have a cardiovascular system which carries blood, a digestive system which processes food, a nervous system which carries information and a respiratory system which intakes oxygen and discards carbon dioxide. These systems are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is similar in that there are many influences on whether something survives or not and whether it reproduces or not.
And in point of fact you cannot tell me how God created everything, only that you believe he did. Those are two very different things. Science seeks to understand and explain the world based on observable facts. We have overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, meaning we don't need to rely on the assumption that magic happened.
I admitted I was wrong about some things look back. Eskimos had to kill amimals and skin them. this a lot of work. All I want is an example of massive evolution. Charels Darwin has many. the Creation story is only one. Evolution has many different stories that go against each other. this is unreliable . the only thing you can agree on is creationism is wrong.
What would you like an example of? I am answering your questions, how does that prove I don't have any answers? I don't claim to know everything because I am not delusional. I have knowledge and reason, but no one knows every answer. The difference between wisdom and foolishness is being willing to admit that and learn rather than ignoring reality.
By that logic, what makes your creation myth more reliable than any other?
As to why did Eskimos not develop fur there are 2 reasons that come to mind. First is that not nearly enough time has passed to cause the adaptation. Second is, why would they need to? They have clothing to keep them warm. What added benefit would fur provide?
this proves you have no evidence and can not give me 1 example. I can explain to you how God created us, or you can read Genius 1. Evolutions do not know what happened exactly, but we creationists know what happened. God.
As to your bird question, there are advantages to being larger (there are fewer predators able to get you) but there are disadvantages too. Beyond a certain point they cannot fly. Look at emu, penguins or ostriches. They all have wings, but are flightless. Over generations, those with smaller wings do better since they are committing fewer resources into wing development. This means the wings gradually get smaller in the population.
In answer to your question about fur (which a quick Google search could have shown you) the short answer is that they don't have the same amount of fur. Snow Leopard fur is thicker to provide better insulation. Both have fur, but in different amounts and providing vastly different insulating properties.
The problem is that you are expecting us to dumb down doctoral level research sufficiently to explain it in a few paragraphs. Could you explain the mechanics of your computer down to how each component works and why under similar constraints? Most likely no. Does the fact that you cannot render your computer useless? Again, no. A failure to understand the mechanics behind a system does not mean that others do not understand it or that the system doesn't work.
So you are saying you do not have an example. I thought mutation was quick and natural selection was slow and took millions of years.
That takes many, many generations, which can be seen in fossil records for every species. Recorded history doesn't go back far enough for us to have pictures of what animals looked like millions of years ago.
Let's say for the sake of time it is a mutation. it was not useful, is was hurtful at first. the reason the dark was not common was it was more easily seen by birds. How does this example of mutation if it is mutation prove evaluation. it is a small change it did not create a new species. give me an example of a big change
How do you think traits change? it is a mutation. any time you develop a trait which wasnt a trait you inherited, that is a mutation.
That is a trait change not a mutation.
there were no dark moths at first. The original dark one was a mutation. they were rare because it wasn't a useful mutation.
The moths is not mutatation. let's say in a area there are 100 white moths and ten dark ones. then the pollution occurs. white moths are white pollution is dark so they are an easy tar
You don't seem to understand. Natural selection and mutation is the same thing. Those with superior traits and mutations breed and spread while those without it fare poorer. They are completely logical and I don't see how you can think they are false considering we have observed it. That example about the moths you just read was proof. Brown moths are a mutation that when there was lots of pollution out competed the others. when the pollution cleared a little it no longer faired as well.
Do more people believe in natural selection or mutation. To me they are both equally illogical and false.
read the first 2 paragraphs. Mutations happen and small and mostly worthless. there are no really big Mutations like fish gaining legs. with the moths it is traits that change not mutation. Mutations are not big and natural selection is not true. Both have very little proof.
Well that is lucky out of the hundreds of thousands of fish species that could have been mutated. Mutation happened to the fish that could stay out of water.
Mutations are the way evolution happens. When a good mutation happens it out competes others without that mutation until they all have it. at some point a fish developed the ability the ability to go on land while still being able to breathe in water. because I know you doubt it, there are still fish that do this. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/australia-fish-able-walk-out-water-survive-six-days-land-threatens-wildlife-1504527. (that is an article about a fish that lives up to 6 days on land.) a while after that it mutated again to stay on land all the time. this is how land animals came to exist.
Still no one has answered my question about sow leopards having the same amount of fur as amimals like lions, tigers, and bears that live near the equater. No one has answered my question about the birds developing wing stubs then arms. As for the fish some say it is quick mutation, others like Darwin say it was slow natural selection which is it. Creation has one story believed by all who believe on it. Evolution has two a quick mutation and a slow natural selection. these two are opposites.
read some of it. Mutations cam happen they do have little effect. in humans mostly harmful. The article does not explain how mutation supports evelution because it does not. I was wrong about the Mutations always being harmeful. that does not chance the fact that mutation dies not change, bones or limb numbers. Mutation would not, for example change a fish into a land dwelling creature. it does almost nothing for evelution if anything.
Quite simply, no you are wrong. Mutations happen all the time. most are neither helpful or harmful. they don't accomplish anything. sometimes they are good, like a new useful ability. and sometimes they're bad like cancer and genetic problems. Genetic variations happen all the time and are usually unnoticed because they aren't very dramatic. take a quick look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html the top but explains the answer to your incorrect assertion
Let's talk about the fish. Yes it would have had a great advantage to live on land. Since we know fish do not live on land then it must have changed. Darwin says it changed to a lizard. As I gave previously stated DNA disagrees with this.
My bad DNA can change by mutation. Your idea of mutation is false. Mutation is the changing of DNA by one of the signals in the cell's nucleus being off. this throws of the some of the DNA. Mutations are always harmful. An example of mutation is cancer or leukemia. Not changes in traits, or bone, and limb numbers. Someone who says mutation is the cause of evolution is false because the change to the DNA is not as great as we are led to believe or have ever seen.
The other reason for shorter arms is efficiency. It is more energy efficient to walk and run long distances upright than to knuckle walk like apes do.
I did a quick search and couldn't find a paper on the arm length and hand size so I will answer based on documentaries I've already seen. Humans evolved no to live in trees. we evolved to hunt chase prey on the ground. the reason we survived and Neanderthals died out is because we were better adapted to chasing our prey on open ground. They needed forests to survive and an ice age killed off much of their forests.
I'm not a geneticist but I'll take a crack at some of your questions. the reason that darker people live near the equator is skin pigmentation. Darker people have more protection from sun damage. whiter people developed that way because they no longer lived where this pigmentation was needed. The way that a species changes its DNA and gains new traits is by mutation. All species have mutations all the time. Usually these mutations die off. the mutation they develop wasn't useful. but when an adaptation IS useful they gain an advantage over the rest causing them to survive and breed more. The first fish to develop the ability to live on land would have had a completely new world to live in with virtually no competition. that would be a very strong adaptation.
I keep hearing of evidence for evelution. all I have heard is there being some primitive humans like animals. these human like creatures were apes. their arms hang down to their knees and their jaw sructure is that closer to that of an ape. this very well was a type of ape that has gone extinct. If this creature did evolve into humans than why did their arms shrink. Natural selection says that animals evolve to help them survive. getting shorter arms does not help someone survive more. it would be harder to swing though trees, and smaller hands to grab on to trees.
God can create anything he wants whenever he wants to look like what he wants.
How does natural selection support evelution? Do you not see how a fish evolving into a lizard is not only illogical because fish cannot breath out of water, but impossible because of DNA. fish DNA cannot evolve to a new lizard DNA even over millions of years. DNA is a newer science that Darwin did not have if he had it he may not have created the theory of evolution. when a new offspring is created it has its parents DNA, too a 99% match. the 1% is not new lizard DNA, but different traits from the parents, or granparents. DNA when creating a new offspring copies itself, therefore making it impossible to make new DNA. the fish never had any lizard background so it could not have or ever will be closer to a lizard then a fish is now.
Evolution was proven multiple times. Natural selection supports evolution. A lot of things support evolution. A living creature cannot just be formed within a blink of an eye. It must be carefully and had time making it happen. A weakness of an organism cannot disappear over night. It takes hundred or thousands of years to do. I'd love to hear your response. I got plenty of evidence.
Those are just a few. I will have more tomorrow. Darwin as far as I know invented the theory of evolution. what about the animals and the fir.
HAHAHA those are good points... great questions that I don't have an answer to. If I could say anything to refute, it'd be that evolution takes a very very very long time, especially physical changes. To address skin color, probably just genetics there. I'm going to try to base this off of the idea that the first people were in Africa. Were these black people? White people? We don't know(or I don't). No matter what color they were, they migrated through the land. I guess somewhere along the way, one gene became more prominent.
Perhaps there is a reason black people are black even though they're near to the equator, while white people are farther from the equator. In no way do I mean offense, but maybe the sun had to do with people being dark? Or maybe some other stuff... sickle cell anemia is most prominent in people of African descent. So obviously there are some gene differences going on, I am just not knowledgeable enough to argue this. The bit about what Darwin says has me stumped.
See if PsychDave or someone has an answer, because that's interesting... good job.
Why then if natural selection is right did animals that live in the tropical jungle near the equator like a tiger, lion or have the same amount of fur as a snow leopard who lives in the aritic. why did Eskimos not develop fur. Why did black people live near the equator and white people live up north. We all know darker things like black skin absorbs more heat then white skin.
Evolutionist like Charles Darwin who created evolution say there were wingless birds at one point. He says they could not fly so the evolved wing stubs. these are worthless. the birds then developed longer and heavier wing stubs. these would make it harder to move and actually hurts the bird. He then says the bird devolved arms to climb trees. this is impossible. Cells are made from a cell copying itself and the DNA. in humans the sperm and egg both have half the DNA needed to make a regular cell, so they combine. Birds could have devolved arms because of DNA not changing. Darwin also states lizards were evolved from a fish who got out of water and evolved to a lizard. A fish has gills it can not breath out of water. unless a fish suffocated for millions of years while reproducing then that theory is wrong.
Yes, that is natural selection. The mind can change as well, not just in a I-believe-this-now way. It can change in a my-mind-now-works-this-way kind of way, if that makes sense haha
is my example of evolution right?
And maybe you are right, that the "telephone effect" could be a relatively newly developed thing in our minds. But isn't that a type of evolution? While something such as social norms, which always change through time periods and are the result of society seeing something as normal, does not demonstrate neurological change, something such as the development of a "telephone effect" does signal a neurological shift, which is evolutionary right?
PS: "Lane who recorded it if Noah did not." You said Noah recorded it haha unless I misinterpreted that.
Just want to make sure I know what evolution is. an example would be a human like creature very old and simple having no eyes, and then to evolve them. or a animal who only lives in dark caves that has eyes loose them though evolution because they do not need them
OK Alex I can understand that support for your stance. But that is still belief, while evolution is backed by science. What I disagree with in this debate is the fact that Evolutionists are wrong, but I do believe in Creationism, to an extent. If you can prove that evolution is wrong, then i'll have to switch sides to the debate. If possible, and sincerely, I am interested in knowing what you believe about Creationism that completely kills the science behind evolution, and also if there's anything aside from religion that might prove evolution wrong, in your eyes at least.
Lane I never said Noah wrote it down. He, his family, and people after him passed down the info with God helping them do so. God had normal conversations with people on the bible I would think if Noah messed up God would have corrected him.
@Alex Noah could not have written down an account of the events that happened. There was not the idea of written language yet. biblica.com, an obviously bible-supporting website, says that the memories of events like the Great Flood were kept alive through story telling. And, again, that is certainly believable, because that's how it did used to be passed down back then, and it still is today in some places. The fact is that story telling is not the best way to keep it perfectly correct. Notice that what we know about that time period before written language is not taken from stories that were passed down. It is discovered through science, such as archaeology.
Who knows? You won't know until you're dead anyway...
Also know that things were different back then they lived 900 years or more. they married their family. their mind may not have been like a telephone game, God was also helping them remember what is right. He did not want people accidentally saying wrong things. I do agree it is like a telephone game today today.
@Alex "They are both right. Something had to be created to evolve. It was Adam and Eve. Also animals and stuff evolved from when God created them." That's what you said before, now saying "if we admit evolution" i'm confused...
The controversy of human/animal origins can be settled individually by either belief in religion and a creation story, or by evolution, or both.
Religion is a belief, created to provide a high moral standard for each individual, even offering an ultimate reward at the end for such moral behavior. Religion also attempts to explain life to us. Every single religion has an idea about how humans were made, because religion tries to help us understand where we came from and why we are the way we are. This is portrayed in it's creation story, which every religion has. There is no proof of this, but neither is there proof that it does not exist, given the mystery of the incorruptible bodies of certain saints, such as Padre Pio. There are plenty of mysteries in religion that science has yet to explain.
Evolution is different. It is backed by science. Science is real because it does exist(such as growing up or Galileo, mentioned by PsychDave before), and Christians believe that God created existence. So if science is definitely real, and there are plenty of studies that prove the theory of evolution, not to mention new discoveries being made like the new ancestor of ours recently discovered in Africa, then evolution is definitely a fact. It definitely exists.
I can agree to your first statement, that they are both right and work together hand in hand. But, to get back to the original debate topic, the idea that Evolutionists are wrong is ridiculous given the evidence behind it, and that's why I am on the disagreeing side now.
Lane who recorded it if Noah did not. Noah was the one good man left he was the one to keep the stories alive and true, with the help of God
Saying genesis is flawed would not mean that God can't exist. it would just mean that the old testament got it wrong. that was before Jesus' time anyway.
Without Creation we would have no humans to do anything. So going against creation and saying we evolved from nothing would be against everything. Saying we agree with there being no God means no Jesus being God, which would go against the Son of God rising from the dead. That is the most important thing in our faith
So creation is what you consider to be the defining tenant of the Catholic faith? Not Christ, or Easter, or any of the many other stories? I would think faith in Jesus would be the most important part.
You didn't refute the argument. You just said accepting the truth is unacceptable.
I did consider the importance of the stories to those people back then versus the people of modern society... I am not understanding when you say "First the people on the ark knew what happened before" because the people on the Ark(Noah's family) were not the ones that recorded it. Also, I didn't mean for my reference to the game of Telephone to be taken as a literal game of telephone where players mess it up on purpose. It is an actual psychological phenomenon that we do not recall things perfectly all the time, especially after many renditions of it. This can also be seen with your average rumor. Eventually it just gets more and more changed that in the end it isn't even close to the original statement. That is what happens in the Telephone game, with the exception of some games that people try to be funny in.
Also searched google for 20 seconds and found this study from Northwestern University, check it out and let me know what you think then. More proof, to me, that the story changing was inevitable.
if we admit evolution then we are going against everything. and would cease to be catholic. that will never happen because then the church would deny God.
Alex, while Noah would have been able to record his own story accurately, without written text how could he recreate Genesis? Can you recite, from memory, the old testament? I doubt anyone could without making at least a few mistakes. Over thousands of years, even with the best of intentions, things would get changed. If the Bible is inspired and therefore immune to this, why did it stop being immune to change as soon as we started having a record of changes?
If the Bible was inviolable, there could not be different versions nor would there ever need to be debate since the information could not be changed. If it is not, then how can anyone say with any certainty that their version is the I lyrics correct version.
As to the argument that evolution is a matter of faith but heliocentricity was not, I will break them them to the basic elements. The church condemned scientists because the theory they created to explain observable evidence went against religious dogma. They remained opposed as more and more evidence built up. In the case of the Earth's orbit, they eventually admitted that they were wrong. I suspect in a few more hundred years we will find something similar happen with evolution, but only time will tell.
First the people on the ark knew what happened before. In a game of telephone most misunderstandings come from people purposely changing what they hear to be funny. back then people were more serious about what they were saying. keep in mind this is not modern day. Also the bible is inspired and the Holy Spirit guided Moses to right what was true.
Sorry that's so long, took up the entire space hahaha hopefully it's still relevant at this point in the debate. The accuracy with which the oldest stories were handed down is very questionable, that is even taking into consideration the importance of the stories to the people back then.