This is an archive of a previous version of Sodarace.

Please visit http://sodarace.net for the latest version.

forum  |  »» sodaplay
 
»» forums  »» artificial intelligence forum

subject: Evo, vs crea,

497 replies on 34 pages. most recent reply: Mon, Aug 27 8:06 PM by cactus2

»» back to topic list  

This topic has 497 replies on 34 pages [ « | 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 | » ]
»» previous topic   »» next topic  


DDPP

»» models

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 07-Feb-06 15:44   »» 
Although evolution can be real i find that the main source of all things is God himself

scooterboo2

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 13-Mar-06 01:51   »» 
what if someone created to bible to find out what would happen if it contidicted science.
and then get a good laugh about what happened?

lxmorj

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 16-Mar-06 13:37   »» 
I used to talk in this thread back when I first got here. I have found that you are both wrong. There is no proof, there is no way to truely look into the past. God is inherently unprovable. Evolution is a theory. Move on :)

guest
Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 18-Apr-06 14:55   »» 
I'll call ur mom a monkey

Steeler

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 11-May-06 21:22   »» 
I think that evolution is possible if that was the method God used. If you think that the Bible disagrees with that, look. It says first there were fish and creatures in the sea, then there were birds, then mammals, and then humans. If dinosaurs were birds (and people are discovering that they're more like birds than reptiles), then there you have it.

Of course, He might just have created them in that order without evolution. Like lxmorj said, there's no way to know.

Steeler

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 11-May-06 21:37   »» 
Also, and I forgot this in my first post so STDP, a day could have been any amount of time. If it says in the Bible that the Earth was made first and then the sun, the Earth had no sun to rotate around so a day could have been millions of years. Also, even after the sun was created, a day might have been longer than it is now. Other planets may not have been created so the gravity and all sorts of things may have been different, so a day still could have been a long time. So there's no time issue there.

The Bible wasn't necessarily meant for science, but that doesn't mean it's just plum crazy like other posts in this thread said. Using only one thread to sew (although I'm not sure exactly where that is) was probably a figure of speech. In france they still have all these crazy saying that would make no sense to us. "Money doesn't grow on trees" wouldn't make much sense to them either. If that was in the New Testament, Jesus also used many parables to explain things.
If you read, say, Exodus or Maccabees, you'll see it isn't all crazy, it's almost a history text. A divine history text.

Back on the topic of Evolution, I don't see how evolution rules out God. If that's the way He wanted to do it, who are we to think His methods mean He couldn't have done it? That's like saying a certain Painter couldn't have painted a house because you see he used a brush.
As I've already said, God creating the world doesn't rule out Evolution either.

HeelyJoe

»» models

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 01-Jun-06 02:48   »» 
Alright, this is (hopefully) the only post I will ever make. I hate getting sucked into things this futile, but oh well.

First, I would just like to address the horrendous spelling and grammar in many of your postings. It is very hard to give you credence when you cannot even spell simple words correctly. If you want a quick way to proof your posts, get the Google toolbar, and use the spellcheck option.

I will now move on to a more relevant topic, which is the futility of this entire thread. I am not trying to insult anyone in my saying this, as many of you have raised very good points; I simply thought that I should put that out in the open.

I look at it this way: Evolutionists can present case after case of documented evolution, the fossil record, and other things to Creationists, but all Creationists have to say is "God works in mysterious ways, do not question Him", and they are set. My point is, there is no way Evolutionists can convince Creationists of the reality of Evolution. I hope that makes some sense; I haven't slept in over 20 hours, so you will have to forgive me.

Steeler, among many others: You say that Evolution does not rule out God; that He could have done it that way. No offense, but you screwed yourself on so many levels with that one. First off, the Bible does not say that He did it that way. Since the Bible is the basis of the Creationist viewpoint, that doesn't make much sense. And there's more. God is portrayed as an all-good being. Deception is obviously not good, and that is exactly what using evolution to create Earth as we know it would be.

Alright, that is probably enough now. Just to sum all that up, use correct grammar, just keep in mind that neither side is provable (You cannot prove a negative), and there should be something else here but I can't think of anything and I am tired as hell. So, I will just leave you with a fun little logic puzzle that I am sure has been posted already, but I will post it again.

Can God create a rock that He cannot lift? If you answer yes, then omnipotence is disproven by the fact that He cannot lift the rock. If you answer no, omnipotence is disproven by the fact that He cannot create the rock. Either way, you are screwed. Of course, you will say that God defies our puny human logic, but that is cheating. Oh and in case you couldn't figure it out. I am an Atheist.

Steeler

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 03-Jun-06 22:37   »» 
The Bible doesn't say that He didn't do it that way, as I was saying... Actually read my post next time.

There are logic puzzles "proving" the existence of God also. Think of it this way: How did anything get created? Was it *always* there? Something had to start it. Turn that over in your head for a while.

Also: There have been people believing in God for thousands of years. Other religions have came and went. People believed in God in the beginning, and most people still believe in Him now.

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 05-Jun-06 01:27   »» 
i havent been back here in a while but everybody has no evidence for what they are saying and its frustrating to read.

someone read this please....
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/

i havent posted here in a long time but i feel i have to post.

arguments for creation/god/gods - please make a reasonable argument without using the word "bible" i have heard many before (many in this thread). use REAL evidence... not logic puzzles...

and steeler - how could there ever have been nothing at one point? basic laws of physics refute even the most basic claims of creationism.... matter cannot be created or destroyed (EVER) (sound familiar?)

god was created be people to explain their own existance before any concept of space, time, and matter was ever thought about. "other religions came and went" what does that prove? people's opinions dont prove anything. what about hindus? native americans? who is to say that they are wrong?

this whole argument is so frustrating to me i could EXPLODE.

-L-

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 05-Jun-06 02:58   »» 
i realized that i was a bit hypocritical in that post so let me rephrase.

real evidence other than the bible for creationism is scarce. evidence for evolution and the non-existance of a creator is immense.

logic can prove either side, but the logic that supports the creation side is usually BIASED... here is a random example.

"1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
6. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind
(the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural."

this would be true assuming all the premises were without fault.... about half of those premises are without any base and i cannot agree with them...

5 and 6 contradict eachother...

also, nothing can be agreed upon scientifically as occuring supernaturally.

i dont even agree with # 9...

the reasoning here is axiomatic reasoning instead of inductive reasoning. if you don't know what that means then google it.

anyone ever hear of "preaching to the choir"?....
i found this on a website that supports everything in the bible as being true and the word of god.

"The worst example of intellectual dishonesty is equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word part-way through an argument. This deceitful practice is used by many evolutionary propagandists when defining the word ‘evolution’.

The theory of evolution really means the development of all living things from a single cell, which itself came from non-living chemicals. This directly contradicts the Bible and has no scientific support. But many propagandists define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification’ and use Darwin’s finches and industrial melanism in the peppered moths as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ and disproof of creationism! An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pretentiously named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to evolution-pushing.9 She approvingly cited a teacher whose pupils said after her ‘definition’: ‘Of course species change with time! You mean that’s evolution?!’10

Of course no creationist disputes that changes occur through time, but creationists disagree that the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution occurs, i.e. changes that increase information content."

this website is basically calling scientists "propagandists"... evolution is simply "change over time" and its definition doesn't change in reference to life. their argument is without any evidence, because there is none. after this bit of unsound, invalid resoning.... this site goes on to break down logic for us.... which i did take a class on so lets see....

"To illustrate: starting with the implication: If Jesus rose from the dead (p), then His bones cannot be found (q); and combining this with four possible premises as follows:

1) Jesus rose from the dead (p is true)
∴ His bones cannot be found (q is true)

*

valid.

2) Jesus’ bones cannot be found (q is true)
∴ He rose from the dead (p is true)

*

invalid.

A reminder: validity is independent of the truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion. We accept that Jesus rose, but not that every dead person whose bones are missing also rose.

3) Jesus did not rise from the dead (p is false)
∴ His bones can be found (q is false)

*

invalid.

The conclusion does not follow; many people who did not rise were cremated.

4) Jesus’ bones can be found (q is false)
∴ He did not rise from the dead (p is false)

*

valid (despite the fact that both premises are false).

The founders of many counterfeit religions still have skeletons mouldering away, which is proof that they are not risen."

the one valid argument would be fine if the premises were only acceptable.... just because you cannot find someones bones doesn't prove anything. who is to say that theoretically you can't find jesus's bones? there is nothing sceintifically that supports someone rising from the dead. we can't find jimmy hoffa's body... did he rise from the dead? probably not.


ok i am done.... i could find some nice examples supporting the non-existance of a god that are valid WITH acceptable premises if you like.

-L-

Steeler

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 05-Jun-06 18:29   »» 
...Not everything can be proved with science.
That's the one thing you forget there, in numerous places.

Will post a stronger argument after research.

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 08-Jun-06 01:37   »» 
obviously not everything can be proved with science AND logic.... but nothing can be proved by a book or faith.

if you actually do research.... please make it good so i have to actually think of something in a way i had not before.

-L-

Steeler

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 08-Jun-06 15:19   »» 
I actually did research.
------------------
HeelyJoe: God cannot contradict Himself, but that doesn't mean He isn't All-Powerful. Ever heard of a Mystery?
------------------
Face: This might not be in order of how you said it. To start it off, I believe that Jesus rose not because nobody can find His bones, but because
a. The Bible says so
b. There is historical evidence for the Bible (if you argue this, more on that later)
c. The Church says so
d. Jesus said the Church has ultimate authority
------------------
I didn't read the Descartes link, but from what I know about Descartes, he was Christian but tried to teach that logic had nothing to do with your faith which led many away because they wanted logic, so their faith had to go. The Church holds (and thus I hold) that with proper logic you'll find the truth in the faith.
-----------------
"Many religions have came and went" means to me, at least, that God has been guiding His Church from Creation to Now.
-----------------
Biochemistry holds that dead matter turning to live matter without guidance is almost impossible. Read "Darwin's Black Box". And even now, we can't make a living being, so the guidance must have been either Divine or some other creature, and the second doesn't make any sense.
You do the math.
----------------
Another good proof of God which has nothing to do with the Bible (since that's what you want) is Miracles. Even if you don't believe documented ones, there are ones still around, like dead saints whose bodies have not corrupted. Go see one for yourself.
--------------
Quoted from "Beginning Apologetics 4", answering the "laws of physics" thing,

<h1>The Need for a First Cause</h1>
Everyone with the use of reason can quickly understand that everything in the material universe is explained by a previous cause. Nothing begins to exist without a cause. Nothing can cause its own existence. Every material object is the end product of a long chain of causes. If we go back far enough, we end up asking the ultimate questions: why does matter exist at all? Where does it come from?

Just like every other material object in the universe, matter itself needs a previous cause to explain its existence. Since nothing can cause itself*, why does matter exist? The only answer is that some power outside the material universe created matter to begin with. That power must be <i>spirit</i>, because it is outside the material universe. That power must be <i>infinite</i> to create something out of absolutely nothing. The gap between nothing and something, between non-being and actual existence, is infinite. It takes an infinite power to bridge that infinite gap. Only God has infinite power!
-----------
(footnote)
Nothing in the universe has ever been observed to cause its own existence, to make itself exist when it didn't exist before. Nothing just "pops" itself into existence.

Would the argument change if matter <i>always</i> existed? No. Matter would still need a cause to explain its existence. Remember, nothing can make itself, nothing can give itself existence. Even if matter were eternal, there would have to be a co-eternal, infinite power that caused matter to exist. This co-eternal power wouldn't be prior in time, but would be prior in <i>casuality</i>, since it gave matter its eternal existence. At this point the skeptic usually asks: "If nothing can make itself, then who made God?" The answer is, of course, no one made God. God always existed. He alone is the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause on which all other causes depend. You can't have an infinite series of causes without eventually arriving at the First Cause, the cause with no prior cause. You can't have an infinitely tall building without a bottom floor, or an infinitely long train of uphill-moving boxcars without an engine. Eventually you must come to the independent thing on which all the other things depend, the hook on which the whole chain of causes hangs. Everything else depends on the First Cause, but the First Cause doesn't depend on anything. It simply <i>is</i> and always was.
------------------------
There's more on "The Need for and Intelligent Designer", but this post is long enough already. I await your replies.

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 08-Jun-06 17:37   »» 
wow i guess you didnt read the link, or what i said at all. my argument had nothing to do with finidng his bones... it had to do with the immensely bad reasoning that creation/bible supporters use.

WITHOUT USING THE BIBLE.
"a. The Bible says so
b. There is historical evidence for the Bible (if you argue this, more on that later)
c. The Church says so
d. Jesus said the Church has ultimate authority"

religion is based on FAITH. i am sure you know that... so without real evidence there is really no way to prove me wrong... if you feel that you are right then that is that.... you are not going to change my opinion.... i just want you to understand my point of veiw. i went to catholic school for 8 years and by the end of the 8 years i realized how unrealistic "faith" is.

"Another good proof of God which has nothing to do with the Bible (since that's what you want) is Miracles. Even if you don't believe documented ones, there are ones still around, like dead saints whose bodies have not corrupted. Go see one for yourself."

personally on a field trip to baltimore in 5th grade i saw (i forget who it was now....) one of the saints in a glass box, undecayed. if the church would allow it, which i am sure they wouldn't, a scientific test on a couple cells from the skin or wherever would definitely be able to explain it. the church would not allow anything that could aid in their undoing. miracles are the same as magic tricks to me... they have absolutely nothing to do with creation, or a higher power. miracles have no PROOF.... to you "proof" means the same thing as "faith"... while what you say may sound infallible to you, as a non-believer what you are saying PROVES nothing.

your quote from the "beginning apoligetics" book is exactly the biased writings i described.

my words inserted in parentheses

"Would the argument change if matter <i>always</i> existed? No. Matter would still need a cause to explain its existence.(WHAT?) Remember, nothing can make itself, nothing can give itself existence. Even if matter were eternal, there would have to be a co-eternal, infinite power that caused matter to exist.(why would it "have to" be co-erternal? that makes no sense, has no grounding in anything that can be proved and still is 100% based on faith) This co-eternal power wouldn't be prior in time, but would be prior in <i>casuality</i>, since it gave matter its eternal existence. At this point the skeptic usually asks: "If nothing can make itself, then who made God?" The answer is, of course, no one made God. God always existed.(hypocritical???? maybe!) He alone is the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause on which all other causes depend. You can't have an infinite series of causes without eventually arriving at the First Cause, the cause with no prior cause. ("Remember, nothing can make itself, nothing can give itself existence" sound familiar?) You can't have an infinitely tall building without a bottom floor, or an infinitely long train of uphill-moving boxcars without an engine. Eventually you must come to the independent thing on which all the other things depend, the hook on which the whole chain of causes hangs. Everything else depends on the First Cause, but the First Cause doesn't depend on anything. It simply <i>is</i> and always was.(and it is impossible to prove and ontradicts itself)"

please find some valid reasoning.... even though this is an argument, no premises in the argument are acceptable... they all depend on whether you have faith that they are true. no valid argument can be made for the existance of a god/creation/ect.

please understand what i am saying... just say that you beleive in it and leave it at that.

and you never did address other religions that have more than one god.... hindus all, native american practices...

i'll be fine to agree to disagree, but just admit that you cannot PROVE your point.

-L-

Steeler

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 08-Jun-06 20:34   »» 
You don't have proof either, so if you want me to just say that and give up, there isn't much point to this thread.

"it had to do with the immensely bad reasoning that creation/bible supporters use." Atheist reasoning is as bad or worse. Both sides sometimes use bad reasoning, in my opinion Atheists use more. We believe (or some of us believe, obviously not Descartes) that reason was given to us by God.

The "Without using the Bible" thing? Okay, then just C and D. There was a Jesus. Jewish and Roman writers said as much. Who do you think Jesus was?

Faith and Reason go together! That's what I said about Descartes, so that's already been stated!

I would enjoy seeing the "scientific test".

"Nothing can make itself" as they describe in the passage applies only to material things. That's what they're saying, I know they use a few long words but try and muddle it out ;).

What about religions with more than one god? I'll explain those now. They're false.

More later.



This topic has 497 replies on 34 pages [ « | 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 | » ]


»» previous topic   »» next topic  

»» back to topic list  »» top of the page  

PLEASE READ THE FORUM GUIDELINES AND ALWAYS PREVIEW TO CHECK MESSAGES BEFORE POSTING...
...Help keep our forums creative and constructive. Thank you.


»» forum home