Your conclusion on God's existence

[Glockmatic]

Yea right, how in the world could you come to that conclusion.

You can't explain biology or genetics without evolution.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
Theodosius Dobzhansky

Theodosius was a russian orthodox christian

I would put it more like, there is a God so there is no evolution. And I dont think that scientists are wrong in everything, but I think that evolutionists interpret evidence wrong. And If evolution was true, I would have to say there is no God.

I think creationists interpret evidence wrong and twist science to their liking. Thinking evolution means there is no god is idiotic, people don't believe in god for reasons other than evolution too. You can believe in evolution and still believe in god, the Greek Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and Protestants accept theistic evolution.

"Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin."

"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology." Theodosius Dobzhansky

Well of this thread didnt start as an evolutionary debate, but most arguments about the existence of God will inevitebly end up here. But now that we are here, I would say that my point is to point out that the theory of evolution is far less feasible than most are led to believe, and that the evidence we have is used by both sides to support their beliefs.

the evidence is less feasible to you because it goes against what you believe in.

edit: Edited to clarify some points

 

[Duke]

But now that we are here, I would say that my point is to point out that the theory of evolution is far less feasible than most are led to believe, and that the evidence we have is used by both sides to support their beliefs.

You're absolutely right! Some mythical guy from the Heavens, that makes much more sense.

Creationists dont "use" evidence like a scientific theory does. You'd just pick the part of the "evidence" that you look, you'd pick false evidence or you'd not pick any at all.

Creationism has jack all to do with science, so stop using "scientific" arguments to try and prove your point. It's like me claiming evolution is true and happening and it's all written in the Bible.

 

[W210]

You're absolutely right! Some mythical guy from the Heavens, that makes much more sense.

To the majority yes.

Creationists dont "use" evidence like a scientific theory does. You'd just pick the part of the "evidence" that you look, you'd pick false evidence or you'd not pick any at all.

...for example??

Creationism has jack all to do with science, so stop using "scientific" arguments to try and prove your point. It's like me claiming evolution is true and happening and it's all written in the Bible.

You are obviously quite uninformed on the subject. Give some examples to back up what you are saying.

 

[Duke]

To the majority yes.




...for example??





You are obviously quite uninformed on the subject. Give some examples to back up what you are saying.

Pfah, I've heard all kinds of "un-evidence" by fundi's. From misuse of the theory of entropy to a completely unfounded rant on why carbon dating is inaccurate.

When one presents a creationist with a piece of scientific research, they will first determine whether it fits their already fixed beliefs, and then proceed to judge the validity of the research. If it contradicts their beliefs, it's obviously wrong and false. If it can be fit in, they support it and claim creationism has scientific foundations too.

In short, any piece of research or "evidence" has no chance of making a creationist look further than his own beliefs.

And I don't even want to think about the lack of simple logic when discussing with a creationist.

 

[Glockmatic]

To the majority yes.




...for example??





You are obviously quite uninformed on the subject. Give some examples to back up what you are saying.

the whole carbon-dating argument we had a few pages back are clear examples of creationists using scientific theories they find that fits their agenda and ignore everything else.

 

[W210]

the whole carbon-dating argument we had a few pages back are clear examples of creationists using scientific theories they find that fits their agenda and ignore everything else.

Actually thats a terrible example seeing how innacurate it is. And thats not a theory its a method of guessing how old somthing is.

 

[W210]

You can't explain biology or genetics without evolution.

Of course you can, why couldnt you.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
Theodosius Dobzhansky

Theodosius was a russian orthodox christian

I would never call him a christian thats for sure. Another fine example of that word being thrown around. He was just a guy that loved killing fruit flies.

I think creationists interpret evidence wrong and twist science to their liking. Thinking evolution means there is no god is idiotic, people don't believe in god for reasons other than evolution too. You can believe in evolution and still believe in god, the Greek Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and Protestants accept theistic evolution.

I think that evolutioists do the exact same thing. And if evolution is true then the God of the bible is a liar, for claiming that He created the earth. And since God is perfect and incapable of sin, that would mean that God as we know him could not exist.

And people dont believe in evolution for other reasons than believing in God. I didnt believe evolution even before I was a christian. And I dont see how a church can teach the bible and turn around and say they agree with the bible being wrong thats just stupid on their part.

"Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin."

"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology." Theodosius Dobzhansky

Like I said Theodosius failed to prove anything with his little fly experiments and I think he was venting is frustration towards the people he was trying to prove wrong.

the evidence is less feasible to you because it goes against what you believe in.

I think its safe to say that, that goes for both sides.

 

[Duke]

Actually thats a terrible example seeing how innacurate it is. And thats not a theory its a method of guessing how old somthing is.

Just that it's far from guessing, since people have spent a lot of time, effort and money into figuring that out.

See, this is our (Glocks, mine) point. You see carbon dating. You know it doesn't align with your beliefs because carbon dating is responsible for dating objects much older than you think the Earth is. So what do you think about carbon dating? It's "just some guessing". Of course.

 

[Duke]

I think that evolutioists do the exact same thing. And if evolution is true then the God of the bible is a liar, for claiming that He created the earth. And since God is perfect and incapable of sin, that would mean that God as we know him could not exist.

Except that the Bible is by no means a standard of scientific proof, evidence or research. According to the rules of propositionlogic, the Bible holds no more validity than this note on which I've written "God does not exist".

 

[Glockmatic]

Actually thats a terrible example seeing how innacurate it is. And thats not a theory its a method of guessing how old somthing is.

So you take some examples where numbers are off (usually the work is done by young-earth creationists who want to prove a point) and that suddenly makes it ALL wrong. There are also explanations for those inaccuracies, but you chose to say "i'll look into it" and never talk about them again.

Of course you can, why couldnt you.

Actually its impossible, try doing it and you'll look like a fool. You'd be tip-toeing around the word 'evolution.'

I would never call him a christian thats for sure. Another fine example of that word being thrown around. He was just a guy that loved killing fruit flies.

So you're judging people now? I thought it was wrong for christians to judge people. So biologists and geneticists can't be christians then. Also this shows you have no idea what

I think that evolutioists do the exact same thing. And if evolution is true then the God of the bible is a liar, for claiming that He created the earth. And since God is perfect and incapable of sin, that would mean that God as we know him could not exist.

And people dont believe in evolution for other reasons than believing in God. I didnt believe evolution even before I was a christian. And I dont see how a church can teach the bible and turn around and say they agree with the bible being wrong thats just stupid on their part.

the bible was written by man, if it was written by god there would be no contraditions in it. If you want to take the bible literally start killing heathens then (and no, you can't ignore the old testament).

I'm sure other churches could say the same thing about you for taking the bible so literally that you ignore everything that contradicts it.

Like I said Theodosius failed to prove anything with his little fly experiments and I think he was venting is frustration towards the people he was trying to prove wrong.

Actually he proved a lot and advanced our understanding of genes and biology

I think its safe to say that, that goes for both sides.

far from it

 

[Mr.Deuce]

I Believe In God.

 

[W210]

Just that it's far from guessing, since people have spent a lot of time, effort and money into figuring that out.

See, this is our (Glocks, mine) point. You see carbon dating. You know it doesn't align with your beliefs because carbon dating is responsible for dating objects much older than you think the Earth is. So what do you think about carbon dating? It's "just some guessing". Of course.

Can radiocarbon dating be proven to be accurate?? And how accurate can it be, what is the acceptable varience, hundreds, thousands, millions of years??? Not just creationisnts have a problem with it.

 

[W210]

Except that the Bible is by no means a standard of scientific proof, evidence or research. According to the rules of propositionlogic, the Bible holds no more validity than this note on which I've written "God does not exist".

There are of course experts of history and archiology that would wholeheartedly disagree with that ridiculous comment. Talk about ignoring facts.

 

[W210]

So you take some examples where numbers are off (usually the work is done by young-earth creationists who want to prove a point) and that suddenly makes it ALL wrong. There are also explanations for those inaccuracies, but you chose to say "i'll look into it" and never talk about them again.

If it was a viable scientific tool for determining age, there would be far fewer inaccuracies. And It wouldnt matter if you were dating a fossilized bone from a horse or a dinosaur. There are lots of accounts of evoulutionists changing the date by millions of years once they found out what they were dating.

Actually its impossible, try doing it and you'll look like a fool. You'd be tip-toeing around the word 'evolution.'

You are dodging the question

So you're judging people now? I thought it was wrong for christians to judge people. So biologists and geneticists can't be christians then. Also this shows you have no idea what

Just my opinion, if was a christian I doubt he would go to such lengths as to help a lie along to disprove Gods existence. There are plenty of christian biologists and geneticists. I never said they couldnt be, and I never would have.

the bible was written by man, if it was written by god there would be no contraditions in it. If you want to take the bible literally start killing heathens then (and no, you can't ignore the old testament).

Why are you bringing the bible into this. I love how evolution is always compared with the bible. This helps prove that they both require faith to believe them.

I'm sure other churches could say the same thing about you for taking the bible so literally that you ignore everything that contradicts it.

I seriously doubt that. I have probobly been in more churches than you and would know a little better.

Actually he proved a lot and advanced our understanding of genes and biology

Yea he proved that even with a lab, he could make fruit flies with big wings, small wings, 4 wings, no wings, but at no point did he make a better fruit fly. They can mutate but not evolve.

 

[Glockmatic]

Can radiocarbon dating be proven to be accurate?? And how accurate can it be, what is the acceptable varience, hundreds, thousands, millions of years??? Not just creationisnts have a problem with it.

There are millions of examples of radiocarbon dating being accurate, and it is fairly accurate. Only when the object being tested is taken from a source that has a reservoir effect (snail in a lime-rich lake for example) or a nuclear bomb detenation area there will be inaccuracies. Radiocarbon can only date as far as 50,000 years, after that carbon-14 decays. Its only creationists who have a problem with carbon dating, if the Shroud of Turin showed it was 2000 years old creationists would jump in the air saying that Jesus existed, but since it shows as 1300 years ago carbon dating is a sham.

 

[Glockmatic]

If it was a viable scientific tool for determining age, there would be far fewer inaccuracies. And It wouldnt matter if you were dating a fossilized bone from a horse or a dinosaur. There are lots of accounts of evoulutionists changing the date by millions of years once they found out what they were dating.

show the accounts please

You are dodging the question

i'm dodging nothing, you cannot explain biology without the theory of evolution, you cannot explain genetics without the theory of evolution, its plain and simple. Read up on biology and genetics

Just my opinion, if was a christian I doubt he would go to such lengths as to help a lie along to disprove Gods existence. There are plenty of christian biologists and geneticists. I never said they couldnt be, and I never would have.

Evolution does not disprove god, get it through your closed mind

Why are you bringing the bible into this. I love how evolution is always compared with the bible. This helps prove that they both require faith to believe them.

because you don't believe in evolution because of the bible

I seriously doubt that. I have probobly been in more churches than you and would know a little better.

oh so you've been in churches in britain? spain? rome? canada? france? russia? china? korea? vietnam?

Yea he proved that even with a lab, he could make fruit flies with big wings, small wings, 4 wings, no wings, but at no point did he make a better fruit fly. They can mutate but not evolve.

mutation is evolution, get it through your head

 

[Duke]

There are of course experts of history and archiology that would wholeheartedly disagree with that ridiculous comment. Talk about ignoring facts.

If your responses keep consisting of nothing more than the notion that, somewhere out there, someone will probably disagree with me, you're not bringing much to the table, hm?


And I'd like you to show me all the "scientific proof" the Bible can offer us from the toil and research by it's authors.

The Earth is flat, I assume?

You are the same as the other billion sheep. There is no logic in yours words, arguments or statements.

 

[Glockmatic]

last time the bible was used as a science book was called the dark ages, i wonder why

 

[W210]

If your responses keep consisting of nothing more than the notion that, somewhere out there, someone will probably disagree with me, you're not bringing much to the table, hm?


And I'd like you to show me all the "scientific proof" the Bible can offer us from the toil and research by it's authors.

The Earth is flat, I assume?

You are the same as the other billion sheep. There is no logic in yours words, arguments or statements.

Crap weve already been through all this.
It says the earth is round, that the day and night are caused by the earth rotating, it mentions the second law of thermodynamics, it tells of the water cycle centuries before it was dicovered, you know just the normal stuff you would expect to find in a book 2000 years old. Is it just me or is everything you post attempting to be sarcastic?

 

[W210]

show the accounts please

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
Here look for yourself

i'm dodging nothing, you cannot explain biology without the theory of evolution, you cannot explain genetics without the theory of evolution, its plain and simple. Read up on biology and genetics

You are still dodging. WHY dont they make sense? what changes in the way science works with your and my biology and genes, because evolution isnt true?

Evolution does not disprove god, get it through your closed mind

Ive already answered this like three times now. And your right evolution doestnt disprove God because you would have to prove evolution first.

because you don't believe in evolution because of the bible

One page back I said that I didnt believe in evolution even before I was a christian, so what did I post to give you that assuption?

oh so you've been in churches in britain? spain? rome? canada? france? russia? china? korea? vietnam?

Have you?
Do they use a different Bible??

mutation is evolution, get it through your head

Do I need to post the definitions of the words again for you. Weve already been through this. Mutation is mutation. Evolution is Evolution. Most people can understand this.