| Author |
Message |
asusreviews.com
Master Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 172
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
He sure does exist? How do you think the world got here? Could it just be by chance? The chance of the big boom taking place and intelligent life being formed it like 9999 to the 9999th power. Basically, its impossible. It's like trying to guess the number of stars in the sky. It's impossible.
Got created the universe because I believe he wanted companions. Life is just a test for us. We either pass the test, or screw up. It's heaven or Hell.
All of us are sinners are we not? We have all done something wrong, many of us thousands of things wrong. That is exactly why God sent his son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross to forgive us of our sins.
Because of this we can have eternal life after death in heaven.
_________________
[img:a4f912901a]http://www.asusreviews.com/forum/images/logo.gif[/img:a4f912901a]
We need your support! Join our forums today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
exsanguination
Forum Regular
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If thats the case then who created the creator? I'm sorry intelligent design or some ceationist god theory is not an explanation.
You've offered no sustantiative proof, no sound answers or anything. You have oversimplified the birth of the universe to an almost unfathomable simplicity.
Instead of discussing the merits of your beliefs and providing hard evidence to support your view you try to make it out that anyone that doesn't believe must be a lunatic. Life did not spring up out of some cathartic explosion billions of years ago, it was a slow process occurring over the span of the lifetime of the universe.
Its entirely possible to guess the number of stars in the sky - if the number is finite I can pick a number at random and I may be correct, I'd just need to count them all to prove it. Its entirely provable.
If the number of stars is infinite then I simply have to say its "infinite" and I'd be correct. To prove that the number of stars is infinite, however, is a much more difficult proposition, akin to the proof/disproof of a god and or multiple gods.
There is hard evidence to support that life has continally evolved, and apart from a bunch of heresay and "visions in dreams" there is nothing to support the concept of a divine entity responsible for the creation of life. That said finding no evidence is not proof, it just swings the mathematical probabilities in favour of the opposing argument...
Intelligent design is just another myth being spread by christian fanatics in light of the evidence that points contrary to a creationist theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
asusreviews.com
Master Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
As the Bible says he (God) was there from the beginning of time.
Going back to evolution. Scientists say that the big bang happened. The explosion and all. But where did the elements that created the explosion evolve from?
Did they somehow just magically appear? The only way for something to magically appear is if there is if someone created it? A creator, God.
Matter can not evolve on its own. It doesn't make sense. If you believe in evolution and the big bang and all, then how did the elements that created the explosion get there? You see there HAS to be a creator. A creator that made the matter.
I believe in micro evolution. Things do evolve on their own to a certain extent. But humans did NOT come from monkeys. And we know this because there has never been a half monkey half human found EVER. Nothing even like it. There is no proof for evolution. It is all theory. And it is just a humans guess at how to explain the creation of the universe with out a God.
Do you know how far the earth is from the sun? I don't know they number, but its millions of miles away. Did you know that if the earth was even just a mile closer or farther from the sun, life could not exist?
How about oxygen? Why did we happen to "evolve" on planet earth, and not Mars? See there are millions of key factors that all have to come together. And if these millions of tiny details were not exactly right, we would not be here. No one would exist ever. Only an intelligent creator could have put us here.
_________________
[img:a4f912901a]http://www.asusreviews.com/forum/images/logo.gif[/img:a4f912901a]
We need your support! Join our forums today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
wahedmenelnas
Experienced Poster
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
now we r turning in the same circle
exsanguination
please read all the posts before u answer
and asusreviews.com
u say things but u dont say proofs
please all people
u have to read every one's posy before u start posting
many things were repeated here
so that its like we r running along a circle
it will not end
so please every body
read all
_________________
love is like addiction,,when w can stop it , we dont want , and when we want, we cant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1247
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asusreviews.com wrote: | As the Bible says he (God) was there from the beginning of time.
Going back to evolution. Scientists say that the big bang happened. The explosion and all. But where did the elements that created the explosion evolve from?Did they somehow just magically appear? The only way for something to magically appear is if there is if someone created it? A creator, God. |
There were no elements at the beginning of the Big Bang at all, just energy. Where did the energy come from? We don't as yet know. Scientists haven't yet figured out the Big Bang so speculating on where the Big Bang came from is premature. However, recent cosmological theories suggest that matter and energy can spontaneously create itself out of the very fabric of space-time itself in some sort of dimensional collapse.
| Quote: |
Matter can not evolve on its own. It doesn't make sense. |
E = m c^2.
| Quote: | | If you believe in evolution and the big bang and all, then how did the elements that created the explosion get there? You see there HAS to be a creator. A creator that made the matter. |
Once again, there were no elements at the moment of the Big Bang. It was just too hot for element formation to take place. There weren't any protons or neutrons or anything else like that either.
| Quote: | | I believe in micro evolution. Things do evolve on their own to a certain extent. But humans did NOT come from monkeys. And we know this because there has never been a half monkey half human found EVER. Nothing even like it. There is no proof for evolution. It is all theory. And it is just a humans guess at how to explain the creation of the universe with out a God. |
You stated that you 'believe' in micro-evolutions, so there is evolution after all. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence for evolution but the current theories do not reliably fit the facts. Those who object to evolution on non-scientific grounds simply do not understand science. Similarly, those who object to religion on scientific grounds do not understand religion, but that is a different argument. The theory of evolution is not wrong, it is just not yet refined enough to derive reliable conclusions from it yet. There simply is not enough data to support a definitive theory.
Take a look at astronomy. It took more than a thousand years to develop a system that reliably predicts the orbits of the planets, but we still haven't got it perfectly accurate. Science takes time.
| Quote: | | Do you know how far the earth is from the sun? I don't know they number, but its millions of miles away. Did you know that if the earth was even just a mile closer or farther from the sun, life could not exist? |
Oh yeah? The earth's aphelion distance, that is its furthest distance from the Sun, is 152,097,701km. Its perihelion (closest) distance is 147,098,074 km. Why aren't we all dead? I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that 5 million kilometers is a bit bigger than a mile.
| Quote: | | How about oxygen? Why did we happen to "evolve" on planet earth, and not Mars? |
Maybe life did evolve on Mars but something happened afterward that wiped it out, if it did actually wipe it out. Perhaps the Sun was signifcantly cooler than it is now or perhaps Mars' orbit was somewhat closer and less eccentric. Even so, there may yet be life on Mars still.
| Quote: | | See there are millions of key factors that all have to come together. And if these millions of tiny details were not exactly right, we would not be here. No one would exist ever. Only an intelligent creator could have put us here. |
Yes there are millions of questions remaining, questions that science is also asking. There is as yet no answer from science. That does not mean that science cannot answer them and certainly just because science cannot not answer these questions now does not make the creationist position any more credible.
When you point out the flaws in evolution you are doing what every scientist is already doing. These flaws only provide more questions that need to be answered in order to develop a more complete theory. That does not necessarily make the theory wrong, although it very well may be, it just means that it needs refinement. However, when you argue in favour of creationism just because of the flaws in evolution you are making a serious error in logic.
You cannot make a rational argument in favour of something by comparing it to something that is completely unrelated. It's like saying that the apple is sweet because the lemon is sour, and that is precisely what the creationists are doing. Certainly the theory, or more properly theories, of evolution are fairly primitive at present and many facts cannot be readily explained by the theories. But it is clear that some sort of evolution is going on, as you yourself admitted. However, the primitive state of evolutionary theory does not give one iota of credence to creationism which makes a mockery of scientific progress by calling itself a science. It is in fact pseudo-science and a disgrace.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme
Lifeless Person
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1325
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the issue with "creationists" is the desire to hold on the fact that God orchestrated creation.
What I've been trying to get across is that true science does not contradict this! Just because God is in control doesn't mean that the Bible had to give us a play-by-play of the creation story. And if it did, I'm sure the ancient Jews would have been left scratching their heads - talk about the conversion of energy to matter and the formation of subatomic particles might not have quite got the message across, I think.
| Quote: | | However, recent cosmological theories suggest that matter and energy can spontaneously create itself out of the very fabric of space-time itself in some sort of dimensional collapse. |
The problem with this sort of apparent nonsense is its circular lack of definition; in a universe with no matter and energy, how are we to speak of "space-time" in the first place? What is space-time if it contains nothing, and how can it even be said to exist at all without matter and energy? And how are we to reference any dimensions if all matter and energy is collapsed into a single point?
The most recent interesting idea I've heard is the proposition that in a system with no "rules" of physics as possibly existed before a "big bang," there would be no rule to limit the possibility of ANYTHING randomly happening. On "anything" might be the spontaneous creation of energy.
Of course this is just speculative babble with no scientific grounding - as it's more of a desperate grasp than a hypothesis - but it shows how astoundingly impossible it is for us to attempt to scientifically describe existence before the big bang (if it indeed happened). |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1247
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme wrote: | | The problem with this sort of apparent nonsense is its circular lack of definition; in a universe with no matter and energy, how are we to speak of "space-time" in the first place? What is space-time if it contains nothing, and how can it even be said to exist at all without matter and energy? |
The universe doesn't have to have anything in it for it to exist. Why must it have anything in it all all?
Ok, let's look at it negatively. Space-time is what would be left if you took all the matter and energy out of the universe. It is the underlying geometry in which matter and energy can exist. It is the (at least) eleven dimensions of space and one of time in which matter and energy does its thing.
| Quote: | | And how are we to reference any dimensions if all matter and energy is collapsed into a single point? |
As I said, space-time doesn't have to have anything in it to exist. All dimensions can be wrapped up into one single point of infinitesimal size. There is nothing magical here, just a lot of very difficult mathematics.
One of things that you don't seem to realize is that the entire universe, both matter and energy is merely a manifestation of geometry. There really isn't any such thing as matter or energy in reality, just manifestations of geometric objects interacting in the fabric of space-time. When we talk about matter or energy we are really talking about how the universe behaves at a particular locality in space and time. These things are real only in the manner in which we perceive them but in fact have no reality outside of the geometry that defines them.
Planets do not really orbit stars, they just travel in paths created by the bending of space-time by matter, and matter is merely a particular manifestation of dimensional collapse in our (at least) twelve dimensional universe.
That is one of the beautiful consequences of Einstein's Relativity Theory. Everything is really geometry. We talk about matter and energy and gravity and electromagnetism because these are convenient ways of talking about how we perceive these things, but fundamentally, at the deepest core of the structure of the universe, these things are just different aspects of geometry.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
asusreviews.com
Master Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | There were no elements at the beginning of the Big Bang at all, just energy. Where did the energy come from? We don't as yet know. Scientists haven't yet figured out the Big Bang so speculating on where the Big Bang came from is premature. However, recent cosmological theories suggest that matter and energy can spontaneously create itself out of the very fabric of space-time itself in some sort of dimensional collapse.. |
Regardless of what you believe if there were elements or energy, either way it can not evolve on its own. Energy can not be created by itself nor can matter. You say recent cosmological theories... These are THEORIES not proven facts. Science will never explain how the earth was created. The only thing that explains it that there was a creator.
| Quote: | | Once again, there were no elements at the moment of the Big Bang. It was just too hot for element formation to take place. There weren't any protons or neutrons or anything else like that either. |
Again, some people think there were elements that were just there, others belive energy, regardless it is a theory and not a fact.
| Quote: | | You stated that you 'believe' in micro-evolutions, so there is evolution after all. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence for evolution but the current theories do not reliably fit the facts. Those who object to evolution on non-scientific grounds simply do not understand science. Similarly, those who object to religion on scientific grounds do not understand religion, but that is a different argument. The theory of evolution is not wrong, it is just not yet refined enough to derive reliable conclusions from it yet. There simply is not enough data to support a definitive theory. |
How can you say that evolution is not wrong, if there is no actual proof either way; supporting it or completely going against it? Even if you do not take religion into account it still "could" be wrong.
| Quote: | | Do you know how far the earth is from the sun? I don't know they number, but its millions of miles away. Did you know that if the earth was even just a mile closer or farther from the sun, life could not exist? |
[quote]Oh yeah? The earth's aphelion distance, that is its furthest distance from the Sun, is 152,097,701km. Its perihelion (closest) distance is 147,098,074 km. Why aren't we all dead? I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that 5 million kilometers is a bit bigger than a mile.[/quote[
I think you missed my point.  If the sun was any closer or father at its closest point we would be dead...
| Quote: | | When you point out the flaws in evolution you are doing what every scientist is already doing. These flaws only provide more questions that need to be answered in order to develop a more complete theory. That does not necessarily make the theory wrong, although it very well may be, it just means that it needs refinement. However, when you argue in favour of creationism just because of the flaws in evolution you are making a serious error in logic. |
There is far more evidence for creation that evolution. Check out another thread on this forum with 10 things listed why evolution did not happen.
_________________
[img:a4f912901a]http://www.asusreviews.com/forum/images/logo.gif[/img:a4f912901a]
We need your support! Join our forums today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1247
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asusreviews.com wrote: |
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Oh yeah? The earth's aphelion distance, that is its furthest distance from the Sun, is 152,097,701km. Its perihelion (closest) distance is 147,098,074 km. Why aren't we all dead? I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that 5 million kilometers is a bit bigger than a mile. |
I think you missed my point. If the sun was any closer or father at its closest point we would be dead... |
Actually, I was being facetious, but I don't think anybody is getting my point. There can be no conflict between true faith and true science. Since both represent the truth, albeit in different manners, one cannot contradict the other. The empirical sciences are, by their very nature, imprecise because of the limits of technology and the limits of reason, as a result empirical knowledge is incomplete at best. On the other hand, the science of true faith, based as it is on revelation and reason, also has its limits both as a result man's imperfect reasoning and his incomplete understanding of revelation. Therefore, any perceived conflict between faith and science is the result of that imperfection. The empirical sciences and the science of faith, that is, religion, are completely different disciplines with different fields of interest and different methodologies. The interest of science is the material world while the interest of religion is the spiritual world. When one or the other attempt to make pronouncements on matters in each other's field of expertise conflict is sure to ensue.
The problem with creationism is that the creationists attempt to do just that. They are not doing science and, in fact, have no interest in doing science at all. They do not attempt to understand the true nature of God's handiwork, which is what science is really trying to do, but to tell God how he did it with their fanciful interpretations of both Scripture and the archeological evidence. Creationists are mostly Protestant Fundamentalist heretics who are attempting to do to science what they already do to the Bible. To borrow from St. Peter as he referred to certain people who did not understand the writings of St. Paul, in science there are certain things that are hard to understand which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (cf. 2 Peter 3:16)
A further point on this. The Church has been attempting to reconcile evolutionary theory and science. There have been many meetings between scientists, philosophers and theologians on the subject both within the Vatican and without. Last summer, Pope Benedict held a private study retreat in Castel Gandolfo with some of his former colleagues and students that goes back to his days as a university professor. The purpose of these private retreats is to better understand the various issues in the world that affect the faith and the faithful. This year the topic under consideration was evolution. So, the Church at least, knowing that there can be no real conflict between science and religion is trying to find a way to resolve the two. Hopefully, with the guidance of the Holy Ghost and diligence of men of good will on all sides of the issue there will eventually be a resolution.
| asusreviews.com wrote: | | When you point out the flaws in evolution you are doing what every scientist is already doing. These flaws only provide more questions that need to be answered in order to develop a more complete theory. That does not necessarily make the theory wrong, although it very well may be, it just means that it needs refinement. However, when you argue in favour of creationism just because of the flaws in evolution you are making a serious error in logic. |
There is far more evidence for creation that evolution. Check out another thread on this forum with 10 things listed why evolution did not happen.[/quote]
If by 'creation' you mean the nonsense that the creationists are proposing then I disagree most vehemently. What the creationists are attempting to do is reinterpret the actual evidence in the same way that Martin Luther reinterpreted the Bible. They are attempting to make the facts fit their 'theory' not the other way around. Luther did that with his sola fidei heresy even going so far as to add words to the text of scripture and then later remove whole books and sections from the Bible that did not reflect his 'reformed' faith. What the creationists are doing is scientific heresy. Since most of them are religious heretics already it is only natural they would use the same methods against science as they do against faith.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
asusreviews.com
Master Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just wondering linuxdoctor, what is your take on this:
| Quote: | 1. Lack of Transitional Fossils.
Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
Quote:
A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power.
Quote:
3. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversion's can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include;
A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant.
B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random.
C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time.
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a life form to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions?
And remember a law is proven.
Quote:
3. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 to the 9 power. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
Quote:
4. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
Quote:
5. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science?
Quote:
6. BIOGENIC LAW: This law has two provable concepts to it;
A. Life can only come from life.
B. Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. (reptiles produce other reptiles, and do not magically become birds.)
More than a century after it was first proposed, scientists have never seen this law violated.
Quote:
7. ORIGIN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION: No verifiable record of human civilization is older than 5,000 years. Civilization, like everything else, appears suddenly in the historical record.
Quote:
8. dinosaurs
If dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years, the how come there is so much images and stories of dinosaurs and man living together. Look at the links below to to see the images.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/di.....rving.html
http://www.creationevidence.or.....asarus.jpg
Quote:
9. ROTATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES:
The rotation of spiral galaxies eventually makes them stretch out due to differential rotation. They lose their spiral shape given enough time. Since these galaxies obviously retain their spiral shape, they cannot possibly be billions of years old.
Quote:
10.big bang theory
If this big bang theory happened. You would expect that there would be other forms of life all over the universe, yet the earth is perfect for life. If it was 1% further away from the sun, there would be no life. The moon is need to support life here on earth to. And with all of these programs looking for intelligent life out in space, we have found nothing. Like seti( Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have found no radio signals, and we give off millions. |
_________________
[img:a4f912901a]http://www.asusreviews.com/forum/images/logo.gif[/img:a4f912901a]
We need your support! Join our forums today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1247
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is cross posted form another thread which is not allowed by the rules of this forum. I cannot comment more on it than what has already been said by those over there. This list was compiled by people who know nothing about science nor do they want to know. Their arguments against science, and I am being generous in the use of the word, do not argue in favour of creationism. In fact, there is no positive "creation science" at all, just negative mud slinging against real science.
Some of these little 'gems' are completely bogus claims in themselves. For instance, the point about human civilization being no older than 5000 years old. There certainly is evidence of very ancient civilizations older than that. Take the Sphinx at Giza; that little piece of evidence itself is at least 12,000 years old.
Then when they start quoting science, like the laws of thermodynamics and mention spiral galaxies it is clear that they have no clue about what they are talking about. Their ignorance is palpable in every word and they do their own cause a great disservice as a result.
I repeat there is no conflict between true science and true religion. Creationism, as it stands today, is merely one of the many pseudo-scientific nonsense products of a pseudo religion.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
egedge
Experienced Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I ask myself this everyday. At times I even feel bad for even questioning whether or not god is real, but I just cant help but wonder. There are so many things about the bible that contradict itself, but I agree. At the same time you can also find things that prove there just might be a god. I think we will all forever be wondering if there is or isn't. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe we'll know the moment we die. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledge Base 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
