Print

[Mage]

QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 13 2003, 12:18 AM)

Well, science does get disproven quite often, most of his theorys have held, though. The underlying concepts behind Creationism (as found in the Bible) have never been disproven. That is the main advantage Evolutionism has over it, everything about evolution can change as it is disproven (happens a lot), but nothing about Creationism (unless it is an extra man-made theory) can change (or God's a liar and the Bible is null and viod). But these fun little changeable/updatable theorys are nice and interesting as well. BTW, Starlight and Time is just a chapter in an unfinished book, I'm sure he'll (Dr. Humphreys) address any inaccuracies found in the BIG book!

The bible hasn't been proven also...you cannot prove something that is purely based on faith...hence it being faith

[gainpresence]

QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 13 2003, 01:53 AM)

QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 13 2003, 12:18 AM) Well, science does get disproven quite often, most of his theorys have held, though. The underlying concepts behind Creationism (as found in the Bible) have never been disproven. That is the main advantage Evolutionism has over it, everything about evolution can change as it is disproven (happens a lot), but nothing about Creationism (unless it is an extra man-made theory) can change (or God's a liar and the Bible is null and viod). But these fun little changeable/updatable theorys are nice and interesting as well. BTW, Starlight and Time is just a chapter in an unfinished book, I'm sure he'll (Dr. Humphreys) address any inaccuracies found in the BIG book! The bible hasn't been proven also...you cannot prove something that is purely based on faith...hence it being faith

Of course, nothing in this field (Evolution or Creation) can be proven. The point is to disprove/discredit the other.  

Science: observation, repetition, and measurement.

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE

Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.

That's not grammatically crass. That's overt deception.  Without noting what part of the shell was tested, nor what the hell is exactly meant by a shell "dying", or attempting to correlate that in any way to the complex method in which a shell is created, this experiment (which of course lacks documentation) is meaningless in the way it is detailed here. It is all too obvious that the purpose was not to test carbon dating in a rational manner; the "scientist" entered with a thesis denying any useful patterns in carbon decay and constrained the data until it upheld it.

Yours is not a scientific argument.  It is an ideological one.  That is not bad or wrong in a question of creation; but theology and science are different disciplines for a reason.  When Bacon created scientific method, he sought to avoid such a conflict. As a devout Christian but a committed scientist, he divided science into the "how" and theology into the "why".  I consider it sound methodology.

jujupinto85

I would urge you to do a search for the "religion" thread that there was right around the time I signed up.  A lot of interesting things were said, in my opinion.

Personally, while I am fond of the big bang as a thought experiment, I think it is merely one possibility out of many. Some theories may gain greater weight as computer models become more advanced, but given the limitations man has encountered with simply attempting to account for the mass that ought to be present in our universe, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them.

In any case, since you are in a theology discussion rather than a physics or philosophy classroom, I have a feeling you are in for a lot of frustration, as people will inevitably shift gears from putting forth what can only be considered subjective opinions and attempting to prove or disprove the others as gainpresence has done.  

If I were to select a single religious approach as the one I find most interesting, perhaps because I have only relatively recently been exposed to it, it is the Buddhist view of world creation.  I am far too tired to go into it right now, and I doubt I would do it justice, but it makes a lot more sense than the more anthropomorphic and almost witch doctor-like approaches that other religions seem to take with their creation myths.

[edit] grammar

[gainpresence]

.

[btz]

hate this question, soo hard to know..

[gainpresence]

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 13 2003, 02:23 AM)

QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 13 2003, 09:19 AM) Well, I edited my posts and added links (in an attempt to cut down on the size of this page). I'd argue with you LK, but I'm not really sure where I should start . Yeah, I think we've been down this dark path before...

You know I'd smoke you in a debate   .

Lizard King: He's always right, even when he's wrong.

Gainpresence: er..... uhh.... I'm Awesome!

[capt_n_yayo]

QUOTE

Lizard King: He's always right, even when he's wrong.

   As far as how the universe was created..shit, I did it!!

[ph7]

QUOTE

The way we see ANYTHING is completely subjective. Think about the computer and desk in front of you. How do we know that is what it really looks like? Well i can say my desk is woodgrain, i can see it. However, can i really make that assumption? It does physically exist, i can feel and see it, lets assume this much is true- however, what if from a completely objective viewpoint the desk is polka-dotted but i see wood? If i took a picture suppose the picture shows a polka dotted desk but my eyes still see wood? Is what i see as wood really wood to you? What if i see purple and you see pink- we would have been trained from preschool to equate the same flashcard with the color name, so its possible.

I have had the same theory for years, but whenever I've tried to explain it to anyone it gets a bit confusing.....how could you test it??? Does it explain for some peoples bad colour co-ordination?


One other thing....how do we know that the universe is it (the end, everything?).....

people thought earth was it until they realised what the sun was,
....they thought the sun was it until they spotted the solar system...
....they thought the solar system was it until the spotted the galaxy...
....they thought the galaxy was it until the universe was figured......
...so how do we know that there aren't lots of universes held together in something even bigger??!!??!!??



PS  and that even bigger thing is kept safe inside Gods inside pocket

[007jamesbond]

Created by God, and you know why cause even the evolution DuuDz came to the conclusion recently that the Big Bang could have only made a earth like this, if the 2 giant rocks where both same size and also if they crashed with the same speed against eachother, and even then it would still be the question if it wouldnt fall apart shortly after.

But a Big Bang is fake, cause where did the rocks came from? who was first the chicken or the egg?

It was the chicken, God made humans, animals, fauna everything.

If you dont believe it, its ok to me

[Raver758]

Geeeze Im jewish and im telling u its evolution that created us....but if ur asking for universe shit umm it was god? unno shit!

[whiffin]

[ph7]

QUOTE

But still, with Creationism AND Evolutionism, there is always the question of "Where did X come from?".

MS Xbox

[gsxr]

"Was the Big Bang louder than drum 'n' bass?" -Ali G

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (007jamesbond @ Mar 13 2003, 01:43 PM)

But a Big Bang is fake, cause where did the rocks came from? who was first the chicken or the egg? It was the chicken, God made humans, animals, fauna everything. If you dont believe it, its ok to me

Well, I understand what you're saying, but for many people who were not raised in a Christian/Muslim/Jewish manner (although even then I sure do know a lot of Jewish atheists...), there is no logical distinction between saying your biblical God, unknowable except through faith, was the creator of the universe and saying a bunch of invisible, unknowable little green men are running around the universe creating and manipulating things.  There is just as much evidence for either.  

Hobbes (Thomas, not Calvin &) referred to this as the GRBLFX conundrum: Any deity whose existence is predicated on faith is automatically as rationally valid (of course, not necessarily morally) a choice of Creator as any other, even a one-eyed monster named GRBLFX.

QUOTE

Sorry for the warm and fuzzy, I'm just in awe after the Iraq thread(s)

It's only a matter of time, jason.  If you build it, the trolls will come and crap on you.

[sith]

QUOTE

The accuracy of radiocoarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information.

and here where they dated a roughly 1000 year old piece of wood and where pissed because at one point the data didn't matchup, and they were 20 years off.. so even if something is missdated slightly, it is never less acurate that 30 years.. it just doesn't nappen..

you can post links to garbage on the net all day.. everyone believes something.. and so just because someone believes something and makes a web site with false facts, that does not make it fact..

i am a christian myself, but science is reproducable and reliable, the bible is not.. here is another "great" site that thinks it disproves man's facts by no fact whatsoever.. check it out here

i can see what u are doing, and its fine, i just hope not everyone beleives everything they see/hear, make your own conclusions.. i like to beleive the theorys that have some evidence, well before i beleive ones that are based on words..

.sith.