The bible

[warri0r45]

There are arguments for god, yet why do people like concluding the christian god; a very specific and documented deity?

 

 

 

I'm not sure why. But since this topic was on The Bible, i wanted to stick within the context.

 

 

 

Yes, i know that evolution is not caused by chance. Hence the argument from design states that it is caused by an intelligent designer.

 

"In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer. "

 

Thanks for the response,

 

 

 

So can you not accept that natural selection can create complexity or do you just personally prefer an intelligent agent?

[jonavolaii]

Wow, this might actually turn into an intellectual conversation :)

 

 

 

I do not believe natural selection to be able to cause increase in complexity as it goes against your favorite :lol: the second law of thermodynamics and also because, the very thing that lets natural selection stop downward drift (weakness) is also a problem with upward drift, all half finnished organs give an animal a weakness.

 

 

 

Also, to report on peoples critics on my counting:

 

 

 

Abraham(1) Isaac(2) Jacob(3) Judah(4) Perez(5) Hezron (6) Ram(7) amminadab(8) Nahshnon (9) Salmon(10) Boaz (11) Obed(12) Jesse (13) David(14)

 

 

 

And yes it does say from Abraham to David that includes David. Nice counting #-o

 

 

 

So have thousands of others for different religions.

Only their religeons made them to, To die for Christianity was free will

 

 

 

eg islam, they are commanded to kill ANYONE who will not convert to muslim. Lucky us they are now quite weak in their faith huh (no pun intended)

 

 

 

I do love Thomas Aquinas, and this argument shows only that it is illogical to have an infinite regress, nothing more. That uncaused first cause can be the Big Bang maybe? God could be an event rather than a supernatural being.

If God makes descissions he cannot be an event. However, if the Big Bang happened what came before it? Some will say the big crunch. But where did that come from? in the end we edn up with either infinite regress or ... nothingness... But where did that come from?

 

 

 

Rollboy, some of your arguments for god seem great. I was wondering if could enlighten me on something that I often wonder. There are arguments for god, yet why do people like concluding the christian god; a very specific and documented deity?

There is a difference between Christianity and other religeons. In many religeons we find multiple man-like charachters, the gods. In almost every relieon we find they promote common human thoughts. In Islam and christianity we find a strict set of rules but here comes the big seperator from all other religeons. All religeons except christianity, man is trying to get to God. In christianity God is trying to get to man. Also, this topic is on the bible so what did you expect?

 

:|

 

 

 

And your response #13 is wrong. If you knew anything about history, or weren't completely biased towards the bible being an absolute truth, you'd know (or admit) that they were patriarchal societies. Good job trying to dodge the bullet, it hit you straight through the skull.

#1 as I said before, Luke writes more about women than any other writer of the time.

 

 

 

#2 I admit, there may have been a mistake in the translation or writing of the book, this would say that one word so far is a mistake and it happens to be closely related with the right word, what more could you want?

 

 

 

#3 If I said "Everything an evolutionist atheist or agnostic says on this topic is going to be a lie" would you believe me?

 

 

 

I never said I believed God does not exist, and that has nothing to do with the argument anyways. I'm agnostic, and that changes what exactly?

If you were agnostic you would either

 

• Not be sure about evolution
   
  Not try so desperatly to win this argument because you would win either way

 

 

 

Is it just me, or is this the kind of end to a creationists arguments that I've seen before? I'm feeling a bit of deja vu...

What getting bored and going away because people like you keep comming with the same arguments all the time? Yeah I think so too...

 

 

 

But if us working from the assumption god does not exist is bad, surely the assumption he does exist is equally bad?

Of course, however there are even evolutionists with the base that God does not exist that sided with creationism.

[Mercifull]

You make a lot of claims yet the only source you ever quote is the bible. This makes it very hard for us to argue your points because theres no basis for them in the first place. Please provide links to science journals (anecdotal notes on a creationist site doesnt count) where "evolutionists" have backed creationism please.

[Satenza]

So have thousands of others for different religions.

Only their religeons made them to, To die for Christianity was free will

 

 

 

eg islam, they are commanded to kill ANYONE who will not convert to muslim. Lucky us they are now quite weak in their faith huh (no pun intended)

 

 

 

No they don't what about the buddhist monks who set themselves on fire protesting against the Vietnamese government?

 

 

 

I do love Thomas Aquinas, and this argument shows only that it is illogical to have an infinite regress, nothing more. That uncaused first cause can the Big Bang maybe? God could be an event rather than a supernatural being.

If God makes descissions he cannot be an event. However, if the Big Bang happened what came before it? Some will say the big crunch. But where did that come from? in the end we edn up with either infinite regress or ... nothingness... But where did that come from?

 

 

 

The exact same can be said for God as well, which is why i also said this argument is also sort of logically inept as well. How do you know the universe's creation was a "decision", and even if it was how would you conclude that decision came from the Christian God.

 

 

 

Rollboy, some of your arguments for god seem great. I was wondering if could enlighten me on something that I often wonder. There are arguments for god, yet why do people like concluding the christian god; a very specific and documented deity?

 

 

 

There is a difference between Christianity and other religeons. In many religeons we find multiple man-like charachters, the gods.

 

 

 

Nothing points to monotheism as to being more logically sound than polytheism.

 

 

In almost every relieon we find they promote common human thoughts. In Islam and christianity we find a strict set of rules but here comes the big seperator from all other religeons.

 

 

 

And why is that? Maybe because all religions are product of human thought.

 

 

 

All religeons except christianity, man is trying to get to God. In christianity God is trying to get to man.

 

 

 

Well for an all perfect God he did awful job of it. Lets take it he is real, what has he left here to show us this? Not much really.

[jonavolaii]

Please provide links to science journals (anecdotal notes on a creationist site doesnt count) where "evolutionists" have backed creationism please.

 

 

 

• Former evolutionists
   
  [*:377m9g26]Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. (Chemist, Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941), Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich, D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964), F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry), Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc., Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company, Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford, Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages, NATO three-star general, Lecturer, Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film/video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be (shown widely throughout North America, Australia, and televised nationally in South Africa, Russia, and throughout the former Soviet Union).)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist, Ed.D. from Ball State University in biology with a cognate in geology and paleontology, American Society of Zoologists, Former Chairman of the Biology Department of the Institute for Creation Research, Former Chairman of the Natural Science Department at Christian Heritage College, Former head of the Science Department at Clearwater Christian College, Clearwater, Florida, Lecturer for Answers in Genesis)
   
  [*:377m9g26]
   
   
   
  Creditable Creationists of which the former status is unknown (List uncomplete)
   
  [*:377m9g26]600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
   
  150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research.
   
  [*:377m9g26]Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc., Former vice-president of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences Institute for Ecology Research.)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert, M.S. in geology from San Jose State University, B.S. in geology from the University of Washington, Consulting geologist for government and industry, Member: Geological Society of America, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society for Sedimentary Geology, the International Association of Sedimentologists, Author of numerous papers including publication in the peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review (1999), Chairman of the Geology Department, Institute for Creation Research Graduate School)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Thomas G. Barnes (physicist, D.Sc. from Hardin-Simmons University (1950), Professor emeritus of Physics and Director Schellenger Research Laboratories of Texas Western College of the University of Texas at El Paso, Former consultant to Globe Universal Sciences, Inc. in El Paso, Former research physicist at Duke University (1942-45), M.S. degree from Brown University (1936) while studying under the famous physicist R.B. Lindsay, Director of many important research projects on terrestrial magnetism and atmospheric physics, Published various scientific papers and textbooks, Member of the Editorial Board of the Creation Research Society Quarterly)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
   
  [*:377m9g26]David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Arthur V. Chadwick (Biologist and Geologist, Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from University of Miami (1969), Professor of Biology and Geology at Southwestern Adventist College, Keene, Texas, Appeared in the motion picture: The Fossil Record)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Melvin Alonzo Cook (Physical Chemist, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Yale University (1937), M.A. University of Utah (1934), Nobel Prize nominee {Nitro Nobel Gold Medalist, Swedish Academy, Stockholm (1969)} Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah (1947-70), Explosives expert and Director of the Explosives Research Institute at the University of Utah, Founder (1958) and President (1962-72) and Chairman (1962-1974) of IRECO Chemicals in Salt Lake City, Chairman of Cook Slurry Company, Resident chemist at E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (1937-47), Chairman of Cook Associates, Inc. (1973-?), Chemistry Pioneer Award, American Institute of Chemists (1973), E.V. Murphree Gold Medalist Award, American Chemical Society (1968), Loomis Award from Yale University (1937))
   
  [*:377m9g26]Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy, Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University, M.S. in physics from Michigan Technical University, B.S. in physics from Michigan Technological University, Member: Indiana Academy of Science, Published articles in The Journal of Chemistry and Physics of Solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics, and Creation Research Society Quarterly, Editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (March 1989 - March 1994), Author of various books, including: The Moon: Its Creation, Form and Significance, Weather and the Bible, and Voyage to the Planets., Chairman, Physical Science, Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer, Ph.D. and M.A. in Astronomy, Indiana University, M.S. in Physics from Clemson University, B.S. in Math from Bob Jones University, Professor at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster (physics and astronomy), Associate Professor of Astronomy at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, Published more than two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist, D.Sc. (honorary) from Columbia Union College, M.S. in Physics from University of Florida, Graduate work at Georgia Institute of Technology, Often considered the world's foremost authority on radiohalos, Former Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission, Published scientific papers in Nature, Science, Applied Physics Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, etc.)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Duane T. Gish (biochemist, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley (1953), B.S. in chemistry from U.C.L.A. (1949), Research Associate, Research Division, The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan (1960-1971), Assistant Research Associate in Biochemistry, University of California (Berkeley), Virus Laboratory (1956-1960), Assistant Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University Medical College (NYC) (1955-1956), Lilly Postdoctoral Fellow, Cornell University Medical College (1953-1955), Phi Beta Kappa, University of California, Los Angeles, Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research, Lecturer and most well-known debater on Creation-Evolution)
   
  [*:377m9g26]John Grebe (chemist, D.Sc. from Case Institute of Technology (1935) (Case is now part of Western Reserve University), Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Hillsdale College (1967), M.S. from Case Institute of Technology, Former researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reactor School and Engineering Team (1946-1947), Former Director of the Dow Chemical Company Physical Chemistry Research Laboratories in Midland, Michigan, Served as Chief Scientist to the Army Chemical Corps at Edgewood Arsenal New Baltimore (1948-1949), In 1943 became the youngest recipient ever to receive the Chemical Industry Medal, Certificate of Merit from The Franklin Institute (1942), A founder of the Creation Research Society)
   
  [*:377m9g26]Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
   
  [*:377m9g26]William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
   
  [*:377m9g26]George F. Howe (Botanist and biologist, Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Botany from Ohio State University (1959, 1956), Charles F. Kettering fellow while at Ohio State, B.S. in Botany from Wheaton College, Post-doctoral studies in radiation biology, Cornell University (1965-66), Post-doctoral studies in botany, Washington State University (1961), Post-doctoral studies in desert biology, Arizona State University (1963), Post-doctoral studies in radiation biology, Cornell University, Former Assistant Professor of biology and botany at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California, Professor and Chairman of the Division of Natural Sciences, The Master's College, Newhall, California, Published papers in scientific journals including: Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, Ohio Journal of Science, and Creation Research Society Quarterly, Twice voted Teacher of the Year by students at The Master's College, Charter member and former President of the Creation Research Society (1977-1983), Editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (1969-1973), Director of CRS Grand Canyon Experimental Station)
   
  [*:377m9g26]D. Russell Humphreys (Award-winning physicist, involved in physics research and development in geophysics, optics, nuclear physics, high energy physics, electricity, magnetism, and theoretical physics, B.S. in Physics from Duke University, Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University (dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions), Worked six years for General Electric's High Voltage Laboratory where he received a US patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine's IR-100 awards. He received another US patent and two awards from Sandia, including an Award for excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory., Former researcher at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico starting in 1979 -- in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project, Helped design particle accelerators used in fusion energy and Strategic Defense research, Co-inventor of laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches, Staff scientist Institute for Creation Research, Associate Professor of Physics at Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, Author of numerous technical papers on origins on such subjects as...
  • [*:377m9g26]Paleomagnetism: Developed theory for rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood; it shared prizes for best technical paper at the First and Second International Conferences on Creationism, 1986 and 1990, and it successfully predicted later measurements.
     
    [*:377m9g26]Geomagnetism: Developed theory for origin of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted later spaceprobe measurements, 1983 - present.
     
    [*:377m9g26]Geochemistry: Co-authored paper on sodium accumulation in the ocean; it shared a prize at the Second International Conference on Creationism in 1990.
     
    [*:377m9g26]Cosmology: Began development of a relativistic creationist cosmology. The first article won an award at the Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994. Wrote a best-selling book about it, as well as several technical articles defending it and developing it further.

 

... Publications include:

 

• [*:377m9g26]"Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II Selected thermal source experiments," Review of Scientific Instruments 63 (October 1992) No. 10.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams," 13th Internat. Conf. on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington, D.C. 1-6, October, 1990.
   
  [*:377m9g26]Reducing aspect ratios in inertial confinement fusion targets," JOWOG 37 Conference, Albuquerque, NM, January 1990. (Contents classified).
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Progress Toward a Superconducting Opening Switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 1987, pp. 279-282.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Scaling relations for the Rimfire multi-stage gas switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, VA, June 29 - August 1, 1987.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Rimfire: A Six Megavolt Laser-Triggered Gas-Filled Switch for PBFA-II," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985, pp. 262-269.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"PBFA II, a 100 TW pulsed power driver for the inertial confinement fusion program," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Uranium Logging with Prompt Fission Neutrons," International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34 (1983) 261-268.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, NS-28 (1981) 1691-1695.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Pulsed neutron gamma ray logging for minerals associated with uranium," 6th Conf. on Small Accelerators in Research and Industry, Denton, TX, November 3-5, 1980. Sandia National Laboratories document no. SAND80-1531.
   
  [*:377m9g26]Wide-range multi-channel analog switch," Nuclear Instruments and Methods 121 (1974) 505-508.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"The 1/g Velocity Dependence of Nucleon-Nucleus Optical Potentials," Nuclear Physics A182 (1972) 580.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Studies of hadron interactions at energies around 10 TeV using an ionization spectrometer-emulsion chamber combination," Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Cosmic Rays, Budapest 1969, in Acta Physica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 29 (1970) 497-503.
   
  [*:377m9g26]"Wide-Range multi-input pulse height recording system," Review of Scientific Instruments 38 (1967) 1123-1127.

...)

 

[*:377m9g26]James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

 

[*:377m9g26]Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

 

[*:377m9g26]John W. Klotz (Biologist and Geneticist, Ph.D in Biology from the University of Pittsburgh, Former Professor of Biology and Chairman of the Division of Natural Science, Concordia, Senior College, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Chief Academic Officer, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Member of the Editorial Board of the Creation Research Society Quarterly)

 

[*:377m9g26]Leonid Korochkin (Professor of Genetics at Yale University, Head of the molecular biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.)

 

[*:377m9g26]Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist, Ph.D. in Genetics from Purdue University, 1971, Professor of Biology, Emmanuel College, Franklin Springs, Georgia, Director, Museum of Earth and Life History, Liberty University, Member, Board of Directors, Creation Research Society, Managing Editor, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 15 publications, including: Designs in the Living World and The History of Life)

 

[*:377m9g26]Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

 

[*:377m9g26]Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

 

[*:377m9g26]Frank L. Marsh (biologist, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Biology of Andrews University, Author of Variation and Fixity in Nature: The Meaning of Diversity and Discontinuity in the World of Living Things, and Their Bearing on Creation and Evolution (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1976))

 

[*:377m9g26]Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

 

[*:377m9g26]James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

 

[*:377m9g26]Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

 

[*:377m9g26]Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

 

[*:377m9g26]Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

 

[*:377m9g26]Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

 

[*:377m9g26]Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

 

[*:377m9g26]William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

 

[*:377m9g26]John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

 

[*:377m9g26]Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

 

[*:377m9g26]Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

 

[*:377m9g26]James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

 

[*:377m9g26]Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

 

[*:377m9g26]George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

 

[*:377m9g26]Charles B. Thaxton (chemist, Ph.D. in Chemistry from Iowa State University, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University (2 years), history and philosophy of science, Postdoctoral appointment in molecular biology laboratory at Brandeis University (3 years), Director of Curriculum Research of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Dallas, Staff member of the Julian Center in Julian, California.)

 

[*:377m9g26]William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

 

[*:377m9g26]Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist, M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University (1972, 1974), B.S. in meteorology from St. Louis University (1967), B.S. in physics from the University of Missouri (1965), Former Academic Dean and Chairman of Physical Sciences and Mathematics at Christian Heritage College, Santee, CA, Member: American Meteorological Society, Author of various papers related to cloud physics and meteorology, Chairman of Astro/Geophysics Department of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (beginning Summer 1989))

 

[*:377m9g26]Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

 

[*:377m9g26]Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

 

[*:377m9g26]A.J. (Monty) White (chemist, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, specialty: gas kinetics, from University College of Wales, B.S. (with honors) from University College of Wales, Post-doctoral studies at University College of Wales, Research fellow at the Edward Davies Chemical Laboratories, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, Previous university administrator at various schools, Frequent writer on such topics as Creation-Evolution & science and the Bible, Guest appearances on British TV and radio programs, Student advisor, dean of students office, University of Cardiff, United Kingdom)

 

[*:377m9g26]John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

 

 

 

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

 

 

 

Current evolutionists

 

[*:377m9g26]The above took too much time :

 

 

 

The exact same can be said for God as well, which is why i also said this argument is also sort of logically inept as well. How do you know the universe's creation was a "decision", and even if it was how would you conclude that decision came from the Christian God.

If God made time he did not come from eternity. Its as complicated for us as trying to think up a new color of light.

 

 

 

Well for an all perfect God he did awful job of it. Lets take it he is real, what has he left here to show us this? Not much really.

He has left more than enough to convince every person on the above list. If you don't believe it, you either aren't as smart as these people or you don't know what they know (which is what I've been trying to tell you all this time)

 

 

 

As for evidence for evolution I have still not gotten any proof for evolution with examples, would you care to stop attacking and start defending before I conclude you must be dyslexic ?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... lution.png

[Satenza]

No, they concluded it's more reasonable to assume intelligent design possibly because of gaps in the evolution argument at the moment. So they may just be escaping to God in order to fill the gaps that science may later fill.

 

 

 

Also they only conclude intelligent design, i was specifically talking about the Christian God. What other than the Bible ( a book full of error ) has he left to show us his presence in creating everything that ever existed. I mean, intelligent design usually rests on the watchmaker argument and even a watchmaker leaves a name or a symbol that he was the designer.

 

 

 

Oh, and if the big bang was the start of time then that does not come from eternity either. I don't know why you need to personaify "God" in order to escape the infinite regress.

[underu2000]

Yes, because if one thing is in doubt then the whole thing becomes doubtful as to whether one passage is correct or just another blip in wording or something. If thats wrong other things can be wrong and essentially literalists are therefore following and believing something that is wrong.

 

These statistics have absolutely no impact on the core beliefs of Christianity, and as a result they can have plenty of minor errors. The author was human, and was documenting things he believed was divine. There is plenty of room for such human error, it isn't the same as if God himself wrote it and made spelling mistakes.

 

 

 

How is this not deception, Jesus didn't (apparently) say this so Paul therefore contructed it himself and is passing it off as Jesus' words (therefore GODS word) rather than his mortal, falliable own.

 

Deception is the manipulation of peoples' thoughts and feelings. What Paul did is put Jesus' teaching into his own words and speak it as he believed was accurate. What else can he do, memorize every word in Jesus' life? In any case, Paul did not benefit from his actions, and would have no need for so-called "deception". In addition, Paul's words never deviated from Jesus' message, so where was the harm done?

 

 

 

"Anyones guess", how reliable for a book in which people base their life around.

 

And since when did Christians base our lives around the exact time in which Jesus entered Peter's house? And remember that these are different authors, and would have recalled the order of things with slight variances. And when I said "anyone's guess", I was referring to whether Mathew or Mark was more accurate in the timing. In any case, it would not effect the reliability of the book, since it does not address anything about our Christian beliefs.

 

 

 

That doesn't matter 600 errors proves the Bible is nothing but work of man, not divine or perfect and so all of it comes into question as to whether its Gods commandment or not. Error has no place if this was the product of perfection the one book in which he can communicate with man. Tell me, this is Gods chance to really convey himself to us and show us we must believe. If this is correct then why has the Christian God become such a paradoxical mess that the majority of people do not beleive in him, and why the hell did he choose to become such a logical absurdity (assuming he is perfect). I mean its quite funny really, since he created the world and humans he also created empiricism and logic the two things that show him to be nothing more than a fairytale.

 

How can it be anything but a work of man? It was written by men, read by men, and otherwise used by men. It cannot, by our own definition, be perfect. On the other hand, we believe it is divine, because we believe the words in it, although physically recorded by Man, reflects the will of God, and is thus divinely inspired. And you don't seem to know the very core tenets of Christianity, since we do NOT rely solely rely on empiricism. A common Christian saying is "we walk by Faith and not by sight", showing that God does not prove himself nonexistent. And it is your logic, that apparently doesn't make room for religion, not mine. Of course, believing in God is entirely up to you, and I won't press it on you.

[Satenza]

Yes, because if one thing is in doubt then the whole thing becomes doubtful as to whether one passage is correct or just another blip in wording or something. If thats wrong other things can be wrong and essentially literalists are therefore following and believing something that is wrong.

 

These statistics have absolutely no impact on the core beliefs of Christianity, and as a result they can have plenty of minor errors. The author was human, and was documenting things he believed was divine. There is plenty of room for such human error, it isn't the same as if God himself wrote it and made spelling mistakes.

 

 

 

How is this not deception, Jesus didn't (apparently) say this so Paul therefore contructed it himself and is passing it off as Jesus' words (therefore GODS word) rather than his mortal, falliable own.

 

Deception is the manipulation of peoples' thoughts and feelings. What Paul did is put Jesus' teaching into his own words and speak it as he believed was accurate. What else can he do, memorize every word in Jesus' life? In any case, Paul did not benefit from his actions, and would have no need for so-called "deception". In addition, Paul's words never deviated from Jesus' message, so where was the harm done?

 

 

 

"Anyones guess", how reliable for a book in which people base their life around.

 

And since when did Christians base our lives around the exact time in which Jesus entered Peter's house? And remember that these are different authors, and would have recalled the order of things with slight variances. And when I said "anyone's guess", I was referring to whether Mathew or Mark was more accurate in the timing. In any case, it would not effect the reliability of the book, since it does not address anything about our Christian beliefs.

 

 

 

If a numbers wrong, then wording and meanings from those wordings can be wrong. Numbers are shown to be wrong since they're objective it's easy to compare them. Wording and messages are different since we can't know whats right and wrong in the book without comparing it to another source of the same event. All i am saying is that we can see they got numbers wrong which also means they probably got events wrong as well. Since it's written by humans it's falliable. And why would Paul put an event into his own words? To get his own opinions across to make people beleive them.

 

 

 

That doesn't matter 600 errors proves the Bible is nothing but work of man, not divine or perfect and so all of it comes into question as to whether its Gods commandment or not. Error has no place if this was the product of perfection the one book in which he can communicate with man. Tell me, this is Gods chance to really convey himself to us and show us we must believe. If this is correct then why has the Christian God become such a paradoxical mess that the majority of people do not beleive in him, and why the hell did he choose to become such a logical absurdity (assuming he is perfect). I mean its quite funny really, since he created the world and humans he also created empiricism and logic the two things that show him to be nothing more than a fairytale.

 

 

 

How can it be anything but a work of man? It was written by men, read by men, and otherwise used by men. It cannot, by our own definition, be perfect. On the other hand, we believe it is divine, because we believe the words in it, although physically recorded by Man, reflects the will of God, and is thus divinely inspired. And you don't seem to know the very core tenets of Christianity, since we do NOT rely solely rely on empiricism. A common Christian saying is "we walk by Faith and not by sight", showing that God does not prove himself nonexistent. And it is your logic, that apparently doesn't make room for religion, not mine. Of course, believing in God is entirely up to you, and I won't press it on you.

 

 

 

I already addressed some of that in above postings. But the word faith really just annoys me. Perhaps you can describe exactly what faith is for me since i hardly ever get a straight answer.

[Defender2516]

 

As for evidence for evolution I have still not gotten any proof for evolution with examples, would you care to stop attacking and start defending before I conclude you must be dyslexic ?

 

 

 

Just a intresting thought here.. its amazing that when its religion vs non-religious, its always the agnostic or athiests who would defend themselfs with evolution theories.

 

 

 

Amazing they would point and try to use their own logic vs Christanity when their own self defense is not even pure fact yet.

 

 

 

I suggest attacking evolution, but then they would just probably scamper and run behind a new theory.

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Satenza]

Well, im not a scientist nor am i an evolutionist so i'll leave the evolution defence to those who know more about science and the subject than me.

[jwrm22]

whats the point of this whole discusion? its called faith... if we could proof it was real / fake then it wasnt called faith.

 

 

 

earth:

 

christian: GOD made the earth around 8000 years ago.

 

evolution: We found rocks samples and fosils from more then 50mil years ago.

 

christian: if GOD can make the earth... why cant he make "50mil years old rocks and fosils"?

[dutchdreams]

As for evidence for evolution I have still not gotten any proof for evolution with examples, would you care to stop attacking and start defending before I conclude you must be dyslexic ?

 

 

 

You have been provided plenty already, refer to my last and one before last posts on page 37 of this thread and various links by Warrior. Some issues in my post you failed to adress afterwards by the way. Just because you choose not to adress the link provided to you, doesn't mean it wasn't provided.

 

 

 

For your convenience, I'll repost the link, because well, it's too plenty to stick it into one post:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

 

 

 

As for attacking/defending: maybe one day you can come to the conclusion that evolution theory isn't set out to disprove the existance of a god, but rather gives an alternative explanation to earth and life on it. It's something creationists don't seem to get.

[Korskin]

whats the point of this whole discusion? its called faith... if we could proof it was real / fake then it wasnt called faith.

 

 

 

earth:

 

christian: GOD made the earth around 8000 years ago.

 

evolution: We found rocks samples and fosils from more then 50mil years ago.

 

christian: if GOD can make the earth... why cant he make "50mil years old rocks and fosils"?

 

You have a good point. Christianity is all about faith. However, the Bible does contain historical facts that must be true for it to keep its credibility. If some parts of the Bible are proven false then it's not likely the words of God. The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is but it seems unlikely that he made rocks 50 million years old.

[jonavolaii]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Horseevolution.png

 

 

 

This shows nothing but Micro evolution, the amount of toes shows degeneration in the genetics, the size is just another Genetic variable and furthermore, the smallest in this 'series' has been identified as a Procyon lotor, A racoon.

 

 

 

 

 

You have been provided plenty already, refer to my last and one before last posts on page 37 of this thread and various links by Warrior. Some issues in my post you failed to adress afterwards by the way. Just because you choose not to adress the link provided to you, doesn't mean it wasn't provided.

 

 

 

For your convenience, I'll repost the link, because well, it's too plenty to stick it into one post:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

Ah yes, sorry about that I wanted to ask you if you could put them down in a list because I don't know where they are in that site.

 

 

 

I already addressed some of that in above postings. But the word faith really just annoys me. Perhaps you can describe exactly what faith is for me since i hardly ever get a straight answer.

Faith is believing something without a rock hard foundation. Because there is no proof for either of the theories, both creationists and evolutionists have great faith in what they believe.

[Satenza]

So whats the foundation for beleiving in the Christian God before taking that leap of faith?

[Rebdragon]

jona, I believe I got confused on the extra lines for mothers in the generations, so you're right on those :P . My point still stands nonetheless that the Bible does contain errors, which was the point I was making in regards to your opinion that my first source didn't have any errors/contradictions. The Bible is not perfect, no matter how wise it's words are.

 

 

 

 

As for evidence for evolution I have still not gotten any proof for evolution with examples, would you care to stop attacking and start defending before I conclude you must be dyslexic ?

 

 

 

Just a intresting thought here.. its amazing that when its religion vs non-religious, its always the agnostic or athiests who would defend themselfs with evolution theories.

 

 

 

Amazing they would point and try to use their own logic vs Christanity when their own self defense is not even pure fact yet.

 

 

 

I suggest attacking evolution, but then they would just probably scamper and run behind a new theory.

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

What is with you guys and pairing atheists with evolution? I've referenced this point way too many times, but I guess I have to use it again for you guys to get it- my AP Biology teacher this year was a fundamentalist Christian. He taught us everything about the body, and systems, and most importantly, about evolution. He is one of the most devout Christians I know (we prayed for the first five minutes of every class) and he believes that evolution and the structure of the universe work through the power of God. He believes that God created us all, but that doesn't mean he's going to deny the mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. What's wrong with being like a guy like him, someone who believes in God as a creator, but still looks at the empirical evidence for phenomena in our world? Why can't you guys look at the world while looking at God at the same time, instead of keeping your heads in the clouds?

 

 

 

This isn't logic vs. Christianity Defender. This is just logic. We are not attacking Christianity, we are merely defending the theory of evolution.

 

 

 

And Defender, go check warri0r's links in one of his posts for your "it's just a theory" comment, m'kay?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Horseevolution.png

 

 

 

This shows nothing but Micro evolution, the amount of toes shows degeneration in the genetics, the size is just another Genetic variable and furthermore, the smallest in this 'series' has been identified as a Procyon lotor, A racoon.

 

 

 

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Centuries of small changes will eventually cause species to look very different from their ancestors, and that is what evolution is about.

 

 

 

This:

 

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=81270&rendTypeId=4

 

 

 

looks very different from this:

 

http://www.idsos.state.id.us/elect/horse.jpg

[warri0r45]

Wow, this might actually turn into an intellectual conversation :)

 

 

 

(1) I do not believe natural selection to be able to cause increase in complexity as it goes against your favorite :lol: the second law of thermodynamics and also because, the very thing that lets natural selection stop downward drift (weakness) is also a problem with upward drift, (2) all half finnished organs give an animal a weakness.

 

 

 

Also, to report on peoples critics on my counting:

 

 

 

Abraham(1) Isaac(2) Jacob(3) Judah(4) Perez(5) Hezron (6) Ram(7) amminadab(8) Nahshnon (9) Salmon(10) Boaz (11) Obed(12) Jesse (13) David(14)

 

 

 

And yes it does say from Abraham to David that includes David. Nice counting #-o

 

 

 

So have thousands of others for different religions.

Only their religeons made them to, To die for Christianity was free will

 

 

 

eg islam, they are commanded to kill ANYONE who will not convert to muslim. Lucky us they are now quite weak in their faith huh (no pun intended)

 

 

 

I do love Thomas Aquinas, and this argument shows only that it is illogical to have an infinite regress, nothing more. That uncaused first cause can be the Big Bang maybe? God could be an event rather than a supernatural being.

If God makes descissions he cannot be an event. However, if the Big Bang happened what came before it? Some will say the big crunch. But where did that come from? in the end we edn up with either infinite regress or ... nothingness... But where did that come from?

 

 

 

Rollboy, some of your arguments for god seem great. I was wondering if could enlighten me on something that I often wonder. There are arguments for god, yet why do people like concluding the christian god; a very specific and documented deity?

There is a difference between Christianity and other religeons. In many religeons we find multiple man-like charachters, the gods. In almost every relieon we find they promote common human thoughts. In Islam and christianity we find a strict set of rules but here comes the big seperator from all other religeons. All religeons except christianity, man is trying to get to God. In christianity God is trying to get to man. Also, this topic is on the bible so what did you expect?

 

:|

 

 

 

And your response #13 is wrong. If you knew anything about history, or weren't completely biased towards the bible being an absolute truth, you'd know (or admit) that they were patriarchal societies. Good job trying to dodge the bullet, it hit you straight through the skull.

#1 as I said before, Luke writes more about women than any other writer of the time.

 

 

 

#2 I admit, there may have been a mistake in the translation or writing of the book, this would say that one word so far is a mistake and it happens to be closely related with the right word, what more could you want?

 

 

 

#3 If I said "Everything an evolutionist atheist or agnostic says on this topic is going to be a lie" would you believe me?

 

 

 

I never said I believed God does not exist, and that has nothing to do with the argument anyways. I'm agnostic, and that changes what exactly?

(3) If you were agnostic you would either

 

• Not be sure about evolution
   
  Not try so desperatly to win this argument because you would win either way

 

 

 

Is it just me, or is this the kind of end to a creationists arguments that I've seen before? I'm feeling a bit of deja vu...

What getting bored and going away because people like you keep comming with the same arguments all the time? Yeah I think so too...

 

 

 

But if us working from the assumption god does not exist is bad, surely the assumption he does exist is equally bad?

Of course, however there are even evolutionists with the base that God does not exist that sided with creationism.

 

 

 

(1) The thermodynamics argument is one of the oldest misconceptions out there. I can't believe that you still like using it. Source. Earth is not a closed system.

 

 

 

(2) You're assuming there is some sort of plan into which organisms will evolve. Another misconception. There is no plan; only a selective pressure that works on previously inherited genes by choosing small, gradual changes in a gene pool. So, an organ is not a development of evolution; it's an outcome.

 

 

 

(3) I think it's by time you realised that atheism, agnosticism and theism have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. People from all of these groups can see the evidence for evolution and accept it; it's not belief system or world view dependant.

 

 

 

As for evidence for evolution I have still not gotten any proof for evolution with examples

 

 

 

I'll say it again: On page 35, at the very beginning of this little fruitless discussion, I outlined evidence. If you actually read what I posted or opened the links, you'd see I posted two lines of evidence with examples in the form of youtube videos of biologist Ken Miller.

 

 

 

Faith is believing something without a rock hard foundation. Because there is no proof for either of the theories, both creationists and evolutionists have great faith in what they believe.

 

 

 

You're lying again. There is evidence for evolution; it's not a matter of faith. If anyone accepts evolution on faith I suggest they do some research and simply stop being a moron.

[warri0r45]

 

As for evidence for evolution I have still not gotten any proof for evolution with examples, would you care to stop attacking and start defending before I conclude you must be dyslexic ?

 

 

 

Just a intresting thought here.. its amazing that when its religion vs non-religious, its always the agnostic or athiests who would defend themselfs with evolution theories.

 

 

 

Amazing they would point and try to use their own logic vs Christanity when their own self defense is not even pure fact yet.

 

 

 

I suggest attacking evolution, but then they would just probably scamper and run behind a new theory.

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

Defender, evolutionary theory will never become evolutionary fact; the theory is an explanation of the facts at out disposal. A theory is necessary as an explanatory tool otherwise science would be a useless book of facts with no way to interpret them. Theories in the context of science are not guesses or conjecture.

 

 

 

Analogy -

 

Gravity is a fact, the theories regarding this fact interpret and explain it. Likewise, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is an essential tool to encorporate masses of evidence, tests, observations, facts and hypotheses, etc, so we can actually form a workable model of reality and explain the natural phenomenon of evolution.

 

 

 

I suggest you study up on why we have theories in science, what a scientific theory is and why they never become facts.

[topide]

The Bible never states the world is 6,000 years old. I'm a Christian and I believe in an old Earth (billions) as well as evolution.

[Rollyboy]

 

Historical Reliability

 

 

 

1. Role of memory in recording the teaching of Jesus several decades later - Joachim Jeremias the ipsissima verba "exact words" and ipsissima vox "the authentic voice"

 

 

 

2. Neither the "story" nor the "character" of Jesus could be made up: who could be capable

 

 

 

3. The gospels were written when eyewitnesses were alive - hostile as well as favourable

 

 

 

4. Archaelogical and historical confirmation. E.g. Luke's use of titles for Roman officials in various towns of Asia Minor; the pool of Bethsaida

 

 

 

5. Sayings of Jesus do not reflect developed Pauline theology; some appear to conflict with later Christian teaching

 

 

 

6. Objectivity of tone; fineness of irrelevant detail (e.g. 153 fish)

 

 

 

7. Four gospels are compatible but at least semi-independent testimonies

 

 

 

 

 

 

..the Bible Has been tested on numerous occasions by non-Christian scholars (many who were vehemently opposed to Christianity), yet, inspite of their best efforts, the Bible has remained credible because it has proved itself...

 

 

 

...the Bible..is far and away the best documented literary work of antiquity with over 6,000 mauscripts in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and over 40,000 in other very early versions (Coptic, Latin, Armenian, Aramaic etc.). The works of Homer, Plato and Aristotle (for which the manuscripts are extant) never exceed 1,000. [Radio Replies; Navarre Biblical Commentary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The information can be found by searching "catholic apologetics" and the errors of "The Da Vinci Code." (Has lots of of reasons why the Bible is credible). Try to search this information from peer reviewed articles (academics), rather than random websites (which can be made by a 12 year old in his basement, or wikipedia #-o).

 

 

 

Like most thought provoking issues, it just goes around in ciricles.

[sixpackjack]

Hi, as anyone would know...Don't believe everything you read. No matter what the religion, they are only books, probable wrote and added to by some clever people, humans being like sheep and will follow anything, that being why different religions have their supporters.

 

 

 

cya

[Mercifull]

The Bible never states the world is 6,000 years old. I'm a Christian and I believe in an old Earth (billions) as well as evolution.

The problem is the Bible doesn't really clearly state much at all and its vastly down to interpretation what people believe. That's why there are so many different sects all believing in a different version of the same thing. How can a book written by a divine god be so flawed as to not have a clear meaning? How do people know which bits to read into, which bits to take literally and which bits of the bible are good or evil? Which bits of the bible do we take our morals from?

 

 

 

If we are able to scan through the bible accepting morals such as "thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) and yet rejecting passages such as "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (Genesis 19:8) where Lot actively offers his own daughters to be raped instead of his guest who was a male.

 

 

 

Surely if we as humans are able to see certain parts of the bible as good and bad then morality is ingrained into human conscious and we've had it all along without the need for religion to tell us. If the only reason you don't go out murdering and raping is because the church says its bad and you don't want to go to hell then you are a very very sick person.

[Korskin]

The Bible never states the world is 6,000 years old. I'm a Christian and I believe in an old Earth (billions) as well as evolution.

The problem is the Bible doesn't really clearly state much at all and its vastly down to interpretation what people believe. That's why there are so many different sects all believing in a different version of the same thing. How can a book written by a divine god be so flawed as to not have a clear meaning? How do people know which bits to read into, which bits to take literally and which bits of the bible are good or evil? Which bits of the bible do we take our morals from?

 

 

 

If we are able to scan through the bible accepting morals such as "thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) and yet rejecting passages such as "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (Genesis 19:8) where Lot actively offers his own daughters to be raped instead of his guest who was a male.

 

 

 

Surely if we as humans are able to see certain parts of the bible as good and bad then morality is ingrained into human conscious and we've had it all along without the need for religion to tell us. If the only reason you don't go out murdering and raping is because the church says its bad and you don't want to go to hell then you are a very very sick person.

 

I'd say the Bible clearly states what's important. Answers to questions such as: where do we come from? what's the meaning of life? what happens when we die? I also think it's pretty clear on what's right and wrong. You're saying that we can tell what's right and wrong, that is often true. However, there are things like abortion, premarital-sex, homosexuality that for some years ago were considered wrong and immoral. Nowadays, these things are up for debate and many people think that they're neither immoral nor wrong. If we only have ourselves to decide what's wrong or right, there can never be any absolute wrongs or rights as we can change our opinions.

 

 

 

Why are people keep bringing up the story of Lot? I'll go to Lot for advice the next time two angels come to my house and a bunch of homosexuals want to rape them.