It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Evidence for Creation Video
page: 3share:
reply to post by nataylor
Yes, there is a genetic eve, and a genetic adam... however they are separated by thousands of years...
this is just a testament to exactly how close we came to becoming extinct!
something to ponder, whilst feeling insignificant I guess
Yes, there is a genetic eve, and a genetic adam... however they are separated by thousands of years...
this is just a testament to exactly how close we came to becoming extinct!
something to ponder, whilst feeling insignificant I guess
science doesnt understand kind and sort of
thats silly talk, please if your going to talk science try and get even close to the terminoligy
evolution has said they are the same ahhh that must be it, care to prove that point?
Prove what point? I’m really having a hard time keeping up with your statements and questions.
how about whales/porpouises and dolphins sevral of each can interbreed and they are all different kinds of animal
Please cite a source.
told ya lol
Told me what? We are discussing biblical creation. The same bible I am using for a source states that God has always been. If you don’t want to accept that God doesn’t originate from anything/anywhere it doesn’t disprove anything nor does it help your case. It adds clarity to what’s being discussed for the readers.
we can also show the bible is wrong next please ...wait lets go back a second .. you havnt proven anything the bible proves what the bible says it does not prove it true
I really don’t know what you are trying to say. You are saying the bible teaches that God hasn’t always existed? Then please show the verses. If you do I withdraw my claims.
an example to show just becasue we dont fully understand it now doesnt mean god did it like rainbows 200 years ago
other wise when we understood what produced it then god would have to stop doing it and let the natural process take over
Ultimately we learn from science but we understand that God created us and we are merely observing some of the processes he used to create/make things function. That is why we don’t rely solely on science because it is mans observation and mans knowledge tends to change over time. The fact that everything isn’t known is a good reason as to why God shouldn’t be ruled out. I resent you and every other person like you who wants to take hold of science as it is yours simply because we believe in the bible. As the video showed the bible has contributed to our scientific knowledge. Man cannot create anything and no one has ever observed anything creating itself so yea, we do believe God created all things. Science will never be able to disprove that and it certainly hasn’t already.
and totally missing the point
the earth the planet the lump of rock we call home could not have been created unless the sun already existed unless you manage to prove gravity is wrong which will be good as i can jump out a window and float to the store instead of walking. so can you disprove gravity to prove god did it instead?
the moon is made from a chunk of the earth
the bible says earth > sun/moon
gravity chemical analysis astrophysics geology and others all say
sun>earth>moon
the bible is wrong unless it manages to disprove all sceince as a whole wrong
You don’t need the moon or the sun to create the Earth/earth. That is your assumption. Also the moon and the sun would effect the earth position and rotation but the earth and sun don’t constitute gravity itself. I understand what you are saying but you are off base. This is the first I’m hearing of the moon being made from a chunk of the earth. The rest of that post won’t be answered until you explain what you are talking about with the greater than signs. I don’t want to speculate as to what it means.
it says whales were around swimming in the sea before land mammals were created, whales are land mammals that went into the oceans/seas what ever you want to call the large bodies of saltywater
we have practically the entire fossil record to prove it .. bibles wrong again next
I’m not sure how fossils could disprove that but please post what you are talking about so we won’t have to guess.
light is a product chemical reaction and the release of energy
if theres nothign to release the energy there is no light, so there wouldnt be any light ther wouldnt be day or night there would be totaly darkness until he decided to make the sun and stars to be all shiney
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Verse one shows that there was something that could give off light.
unfortunatley the bible thinks day and night are things not time events dependant on the local star - its in the wrong order so wrong - bible fails
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
seems to be a common thing lack of understanding willingness to deny it
No, you are making one liners with no links or anything so I’m don’t know what you are saying and I’m sure no one reading does either. If you would spend less time on jokes and more on making structured sentences we may be able to reach a conclusion on this topic.
there were early life forms single cell little fellows(classed as animals) and the grew and some became what we now designate plants and other became what we designate as other species of animal
Please post a link to a demonstration.
you cant have plants before animal life, but god doesnt start making animal life until after plants
Of course, the animals eat the plants. The plants can’t eat the animals therefore plants must come first in order for the animals to survive.
im bored becasue i was still on the same page with a pile of found wrong things already
god made man, all the evidence says no to god - bible fails
Disagree
thats silly talk, please if your going to talk science try and get even close to the terminoligy
evolution has said they are the same ahhh that must be it, care to prove that point?
Prove what point? I’m really having a hard time keeping up with your statements and questions.
how about whales/porpouises and dolphins sevral of each can interbreed and they are all different kinds of animal
Please cite a source.
told ya lol
Told me what? We are discussing biblical creation. The same bible I am using for a source states that God has always been. If you don’t want to accept that God doesn’t originate from anything/anywhere it doesn’t disprove anything nor does it help your case. It adds clarity to what’s being discussed for the readers.
we can also show the bible is wrong next please ...wait lets go back a second .. you havnt proven anything the bible proves what the bible says it does not prove it true
I really don’t know what you are trying to say. You are saying the bible teaches that God hasn’t always existed? Then please show the verses. If you do I withdraw my claims.
an example to show just becasue we dont fully understand it now doesnt mean god did it like rainbows 200 years ago
other wise when we understood what produced it then god would have to stop doing it and let the natural process take over
Ultimately we learn from science but we understand that God created us and we are merely observing some of the processes he used to create/make things function. That is why we don’t rely solely on science because it is mans observation and mans knowledge tends to change over time. The fact that everything isn’t known is a good reason as to why God shouldn’t be ruled out. I resent you and every other person like you who wants to take hold of science as it is yours simply because we believe in the bible. As the video showed the bible has contributed to our scientific knowledge. Man cannot create anything and no one has ever observed anything creating itself so yea, we do believe God created all things. Science will never be able to disprove that and it certainly hasn’t already.
and totally missing the point
the earth the planet the lump of rock we call home could not have been created unless the sun already existed unless you manage to prove gravity is wrong which will be good as i can jump out a window and float to the store instead of walking. so can you disprove gravity to prove god did it instead?
the moon is made from a chunk of the earth
the bible says earth > sun/moon
gravity chemical analysis astrophysics geology and others all say
sun>earth>moon
the bible is wrong unless it manages to disprove all sceince as a whole wrong
You don’t need the moon or the sun to create the Earth/earth. That is your assumption. Also the moon and the sun would effect the earth position and rotation but the earth and sun don’t constitute gravity itself. I understand what you are saying but you are off base. This is the first I’m hearing of the moon being made from a chunk of the earth. The rest of that post won’t be answered until you explain what you are talking about with the greater than signs. I don’t want to speculate as to what it means.
it says whales were around swimming in the sea before land mammals were created, whales are land mammals that went into the oceans/seas what ever you want to call the large bodies of saltywater
we have practically the entire fossil record to prove it .. bibles wrong again next
I’m not sure how fossils could disprove that but please post what you are talking about so we won’t have to guess.
light is a product chemical reaction and the release of energy
if theres nothign to release the energy there is no light, so there wouldnt be any light ther wouldnt be day or night there would be totaly darkness until he decided to make the sun and stars to be all shiney
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Verse one shows that there was something that could give off light.
unfortunatley the bible thinks day and night are things not time events dependant on the local star - its in the wrong order so wrong - bible fails
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
seems to be a common thing lack of understanding willingness to deny it
No, you are making one liners with no links or anything so I’m don’t know what you are saying and I’m sure no one reading does either. If you would spend less time on jokes and more on making structured sentences we may be able to reach a conclusion on this topic.
there were early life forms single cell little fellows(classed as animals) and the grew and some became what we now designate plants and other became what we designate as other species of animal
Please post a link to a demonstration.
you cant have plants before animal life, but god doesnt start making animal life until after plants
Of course, the animals eat the plants. The plants can’t eat the animals therefore plants must come first in order for the animals to survive.
im bored becasue i was still on the same page with a pile of found wrong things already
god made man, all the evidence says no to god - bible fails
Disagree
Originally posted by masterweb
Prove what point? I’m really having a hard time keeping up with your statements and questions.
science which we are talking about uses species or subspecies
it can be a species of bird or one of the subspecies of hawk
it isnt however a kind of bird or a type of hawk
if you talk to a mechanic would you use the correct words or make your own?
a cars tyre becomes 'a type of rubber thing', a spark plug becomes 'a sort of metal thing' - the mechanic would look at you like you were a little odd
kind and sort do not exist in biology as a kind and sort doesnt exist in car mechanics
the use of the wrong word confuses the reality of the issue
the prove it relates to your comment
Evolutionist have taken other such animals and said they were a cross between 2 other kinds of animals
can you prove this claim? is this actually what you meant? or were you refereing to transitional species
how about whales/porpouises and dolphins sevral of each can interbreed and they are all different kinds of animal
Please cite a source.
www.skeysource.com...
Hybrid dolphins
In 1933, three abnormal dolphins were beached off the Irish coast; these appeared to be hybrids between Risso's Dolphin and the Bottlenose Dolphin. This mating has since been repeated in captivity and a hybrid calf was born. In captivity, a Bottlenose Dolphin and a Rough-toothed Dolphin produced hybrid offspring. Normally, Spinner Dolphins have sometimes hybridised with Spotted Dolphins and Bottlenose Dolphins. Bands of males of one dolphin species often mate with lone female Spinners. Blue Whales, Fin Whales and Humpback Whales all hybridize normally. Dall's Porpoises and Harbour Porpoises also commonly hybridized. There has also been a reported hybrid between a beluga and a narwhal. See also wolphin.
www.livescience.com...
Animals
Whale-Dolphin Hybrid Has Baby 'Wholphin'
a whale/dolphin hybrid giving birth to a further hybridised offspring ^_^
it was a reply for NJ i already guesse your response
Told me what? We are discussing biblical creation. The same bible I am using for a source states that God has always been. If you don’t want to accept that God doesn’t originate from anything/anywhere it doesn’t disprove anything nor does it help your case. It adds clarity to what’s being discussed for the readers.
the next question would be if god made everything ..where was he before he made somewhere to be?
it doesnt help my case? no it doesnt harm it in anyway either,
no im saying you have yet to prove the bible is correct in its claims
I really don’t know what you are trying to say. You are saying the bible teaches that God hasn’t always existed? Then please show the verses. If you do I withdraw my claims.
if your going to hold it against science you need to establish it is true with externbal verifiable evidence, the bible saying its true doesnt prove this anymore then a liar saying they are bieng honest makes them honest
unfortunatley the bible doesnt help anyone understand anything
Ultimately we learn from science but we understand that God created us and we are merely observing some of the processes he used to create/make things function.
theres a very specific reason i brought up rainbows
for almost 2000 years people beleived 'god dun it with his very own hand' how did they know? simple the bible tells them
Gen 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
and when it was shown that it wasnt god hanging his bow out to dry but light refracting through water droplets there was a very vocal ignorant group that denied this and claimed it was all a lie becasue the bible said it was gods bow
evidence won out and people understand it is light refracting through water dropplets
this is an identical scenario to what we see now
how was the universe formed? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
how did life start? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
how did man get here? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
ALL evidence shows it wasnt god dun it with his very wn hand, it was the laws of physics chemistry biology theromdynamics and a whole pile more science NOT gods very own hand
the rainbow discreditors like the big bang/abiogenesis/evolution/gravity discreditors are fighting a weight of evidence that wil show that the bible creation story is just that a story
if you fit god in anywhere things stop working and break
you can say god started th big bang then sat around and watched what happened and didnt interfer and as yet there is no way for us to prove what caused the singularity of the big bang so you can take this position and hope science doesnt come up with evidence of why it was there or how it was created but its impossible to say god in anyway interfered after the big bang and not be wrong
yes it gets better
That is why we don’t rely solely on science because it is mans observation and mans knowledge tends to change over time.
no the fact we dont understan simply means we dont understan well enough yet
The fact that everything isn’t known is a good reason as to why God shouldn’t be ruled out.
when we do like the rainbow god will have to stop sticking his bow in the sky and let nature take over from then on
its a continuose retreat everything shown to not be the active hand of god pushes religeous explenation closer towards the edge of an abyss
science is as much mine as it is yours, science doesnt discriminate on race religeon or sex unlike religeon
I resent you and every other person like you who wants to take hold of science as it is yours
you can beleive the bible you can beleive in fairies aliens unicrons the cosmic duck that ate mercurys gravity field or any one of a million other things sceicne doesnt care and neither do i
simply because we believe in the bible.
I do how ever take considerable notice when the many hours of work of the greatest minds humanity has been able to produce and thier great works in thier varied fields of science is insulted and misrepresented and called a pack of lies spread by a pack of liars becasue it does not agree with what ever of the above beleifs your choise to believe in. its an insult to great men and thier hard work they may not be around to defend them selves so ill step up and do it for them
or worse still it becomes bastardised and so badly distorted it becomes worse then worthless to try and prop up a beleif system rather such as the actions of Ken ham and 'dont bend over to pick up the soap Hovind' and like minded idiotic delusional croonies such as the guy who made that video
im sure galileo appreciated that fact when religeon killed him for bineg scientific and thats just one example many more liter the pages of history
As the video showed the bible has contributed to our scientific knowledge.
religeon has done nothing to advance science it has done the opposite and blocked it at every turn for not agreeing to adhere to religeons views
some of the great scientists were also christians, but they were great scientists becasue of the work they did, bieng a christian had no bearing on this anymore then thier eye colour did
they were scientists who were christians, not scinetists becasue they were christians
even Darwin was a priest
nylon, cars, computers, chairs, knives, forks, dogs, banana's the list of just what man has created is endless
Man cannot create anything
im mid part 2 so hold your replies kids ^_^
part 2
they didnt make the amino acids and adonine they put the atmospheric gases in a closed enviroment added an electric charge and they made them selves
the building blocks of life made them selves and they were watching when it happened, the experiment has been redone many times by many scientists both the same and slight variations and all found the same thing
they made them selves ..... and guess what it didnt even need magic or invisible sky daddies with big beards and booming voices
just good old chemistry + physics and a sprinkling of mathmatics
and advances in cosmology/evolution/abiogenesis/quantum physics rather then prove god didnt do it prove what did do it and the answer is never god
and everytime it proves god didnt do it with his very own hand as its done with rainbows evolution abiogenesis big bang
it pushes 'god dun it with his very own hand' as a false conclusion an pushes it back to another position, first it was rianbows then evolution then the universe how much further can religeon retreat before its forced to admit either god started the ball rlling then sat back and refused to interfere or there was no god to start with
without the suns help drawing matter towards it the lump of rock floating thorugh space would never have been able to to amass enough meteors and asteroids to gain sufficient mass to become a planet
without the earth building enough mass and the sun to capture that mass in orbit it would have drifted off in to the cold dark reaches of space
the sun doesnt constitue gravity its self? no but its the single greatest creator of gravity in our solar system its storng enough to distort the earths surface and make it bulge at the equator its pull is so strong, its also storng enough to stop us wizzing off into space and all freezing to death
its also responsable for drawing a rather large planetoid into our path, the massive collision casued the earth to errupt a stream of matter into space the action of the earth and suns gravity casued it coallesse and form the moon
and how do we know its mae up of earth's projectile matter, we used chemical analysis of moon rocks and found it to be 100% genuine home grown earth matter
without the suns gravity not only would we not be here the moon couldnt be here either
whales could not have come before land mammals like the bible states, they are land mammals that went into the ocean
if the bible was correct we would not have been able to find any of the fossils
god flipped the wall switch but forgot to put a bulb in the socket
without the sun our primary source of light and heat there would ahve been no light or heat and everything would have died from the intense cold
the only other source of natural light is stars and they hadnt been created either
single and possably multicelluar life(well call them animals) existed some then branched off and altered to become the foundation of all plant life on earth, hence why plants inhereted their genome from animal life as stated above
this just confirms the branch off of chloroplasts then went on to be the foundation of plants on earth
animal life existed on earth before plants which is the reverse of the bibles genesis
while providing no evidence its self to back up its claims
i think Winston Churchill summed it up best with 2 of his more famour quotes so i shall leave it with him to finish the post
[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]
Originally posted by masterweband no one has ever observed anything creating itself so yea,
www.chem.duke.edu...
Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells.
they didnt make the amino acids and adonine they put the atmospheric gases in a closed enviroment added an electric charge and they made them selves
the building blocks of life made them selves and they were watching when it happened, the experiment has been redone many times by many scientists both the same and slight variations and all found the same thing
they made them selves ..... and guess what it didnt even need magic or invisible sky daddies with big beards and booming voices
just good old chemistry + physics and a sprinkling of mathmatics
you can think what you like just dont say science is wrong becasue it conflicts with your view unless you can prove it beyond a shadow of a dought
we do believe God created all things.
science cant prove god wrong, to do that he would need it to exist, until god pops down and says hi proving he exists we cant test or obseve him so science ignores this and gets on with what it can observer and can test
Science will never be able to disprove that and it certainly hasn’t already.
and advances in cosmology/evolution/abiogenesis/quantum physics rather then prove god didnt do it prove what did do it and the answer is never god
and everytime it proves god didnt do it with his very own hand as its done with rainbows evolution abiogenesis big bang
it pushes 'god dun it with his very own hand' as a false conclusion an pushes it back to another position, first it was rianbows then evolution then the universe how much further can religeon retreat before its forced to admit either god started the ball rlling then sat back and refused to interfere or there was no god to start with
no thats a huge pile of testable repeatable verifiable facts leading to one conclusion and it isnt 'god dun it with his very own hand'
You don’t need the moon or the sun to create the Earth/earth. That is your assumption.
O_0 this is just mind boggling
Also the moon and the sun would effect the earth position and rotation but the earth and sun don’t constitute gravity itself.
without the suns help drawing matter towards it the lump of rock floating thorugh space would never have been able to to amass enough meteors and asteroids to gain sufficient mass to become a planet
without the earth building enough mass and the sun to capture that mass in orbit it would have drifted off in to the cold dark reaches of space
the sun doesnt constitue gravity its self? no but its the single greatest creator of gravity in our solar system its storng enough to distort the earths surface and make it bulge at the equator its pull is so strong, its also storng enough to stop us wizzing off into space and all freezing to death
remeber the suns gravity that thing thats is so singularily important to the creation of the earth and then stopping it going for a wonder through space?
I understand what you are saying but you are off base. This is the first I’m hearing of the moon being made from a chunk of the earth. The rest of that post won’t be answered until you explain what you are talking about with the greater than signs. I don’t want to speculate as to what it means.
its also responsable for drawing a rather large planetoid into our path, the massive collision casued the earth to errupt a stream of matter into space the action of the earth and suns gravity casued it coallesse and form the moon
and how do we know its mae up of earth's projectile matter, we used chemical analysis of moon rocks and found it to be 100% genuine home grown earth matter
without the suns gravity not only would we not be here the moon couldnt be here either
we have almost the entire fossil record for whales showing a 4 legged mostly land dwelling mammal becoming what we accept as a modern whale over a long time period
I’m not sure how fossils could disprove that but please post what you are talking about so we won’t have to guess.
whales could not have come before land mammals like the bible states, they are land mammals that went into the ocean
if the bible was correct we would not have been able to find any of the fossils
only there wasnt as there was nothing to produce light
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
god flipped the wall switch but forgot to put a bulb in the socket
dark means there is no light, as he had yet to make anything to give off light and darkness is a total lack of light it was still just darkness
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
day and night are time intervals day is when the part of the planet your on faces the closet star, in our case the sun, night is when the bit of planet your on faces away from teh sun and recieves no direct light, as he hadnt built the sun yet there could be no day and night
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
no you have to create somthing so there was, god didnt say let there be light *and quickly made a light bulb* and there was light
Verse one shows that there was something that could give off light.
without the sun our primary source of light and heat there would ahve been no light or heat and everything would have died from the intense cold
the only other source of natural light is stars and they hadnt been created either
see above .. he was a bit late on thier creation
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
the point i was trying to make is you dont seem to be very aware of evolution/abiogenesis/big bang and 1/2 a dozen other thoeries but you are saying they are wrong simply based on they do not coroberate the bible
No, you are making one liners with no links or anything so I’m don’t know what you are saying and I’m sure no one reading does either. If you would spend less time on jokes and more on making structured sentences we may be able to reach a conclusion on this topic.
Please post a link to a demonstration.
www.biomedcentral.com...
Abstract
Background: Chlamydiae are obligate intracellular bacteria of protists, invertebrates and
vertebrates, but have not been found to date in photosynthetic eukaryotes (algae and
embryophytes). Genes of putative chlamydial origin, however, are present in significant numbers in
sequenced genomes of photosynthetic eukaryotes.
single and possably multicelluar life(well call them animals) existed some then branched off and altered to become the foundation of all plant life on earth, hence why plants inhereted their genome from animal life as stated above
www.answers.com...
It is generally accepted that early chlorophytes gave rise to the plants. Cells of the Chlorophyta contain organelles called chloroplasts in which photosynthesis occurs; the photosynthetic pigments chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b, and various carotenoids, are the same as those found in plants and are found in similar proportions
this just confirms the branch off of chloroplasts then went on to be the foundation of plants on earth
animal life existed on earth before plants which is the reverse of the bibles genesis
wrong single and multicelluar life ate each other and things found in thier enviroment(the amino acid soup) before chloroplasts broke off and evolved to become the building blocks of plants which later became a stable diet for more comlex life forms
Of course, the animals eat the plants. The plants can’t eat the animals therefore plants must come first in order for the animals to survive.
as is your right, but this belief and it is only a belief requires you to ignore vast swatches of evidence from dna athropology archaeology palentology chemistry physics and a few other sources
god made man, all the evidence says no to god - bible fails
Disagree
while providing no evidence its self to back up its claims
i think Winston Churchill summed it up best with 2 of his more famour quotes so i shall leave it with him to finish the post
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is.
[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]
LOL smack down by Noob lol
I'm still wondering why he's ignored all my replies so far noob... have you gotten under his skin that much?
You're allowing him to use the bible as a source? LOL I'm impressed... I usually do not allow that to happen until they can verify the validity of the book itself.
Keep it up mate, he's ignoring my stuff, so I imagine he's shutting me out lol
I'm still wondering why he's ignored all my replies so far noob... have you gotten under his skin that much?
You're allowing him to use the bible as a source? LOL I'm impressed... I usually do not allow that to happen until they can verify the validity of the book itself.
Keep it up mate, he's ignoring my stuff, so I imagine he's shutting me out lol
reply to post by nj2day
^_^ lol
a bit to far? or jsut far enough?
he replied to both our posts in one a bit ago
dont think he even attempted your no proof for god so he couldnt have made everything though
no im not allowing the use of the bible until he proves its more then just a book
but its covering where i said science proves the bible wrong and as i brought them in i have to debate them on thier merit ......... imagine god bieng to cheap to buy a light bulb shocking
^_^ lol
a bit to far? or jsut far enough?
he replied to both our posts in one a bit ago
dont think he even attempted your no proof for god so he couldnt have made everything though
no im not allowing the use of the bible until he proves its more then just a book
but its covering where i said science proves the bible wrong and as i brought them in i have to debate them on thier merit ......... imagine god bieng to cheap to buy a light bulb shocking
nah, just enough
I saw his first answer about matter being created... but he didn't answer my follow up
I think he may need to research the Oscillating universe theory... and read some quantum books on the Big bang...
I saw his first answer about matter being created... but he didn't answer my follow up
I think he may need to research the Oscillating universe theory... and read some quantum books on the Big bang...
reply to post by nj2day
and me lol
im a biology palentology anthropolgy kinda guy
but i always like to learn a bit of chem/physics etc
except string theory that is, when youve got 15 mutli dimensions its goes way beyond my ability or desire to even try and understand that crazyness
[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]
and me lol
im a biology palentology anthropolgy kinda guy
but i always like to learn a bit of chem/physics etc
except string theory that is, when youve got 15 mutli dimensions its goes way beyond my ability or desire to even try and understand that crazyness
[edit on 19/11/08 by noobfun]
Well, noobfun seems to have taken over very well from where I left off. I no longer really see the need to respond directly to his earlier
comments.
Nevertheless, investigation into quantum mechanics would probably make quite a few Christians realize how juvenile their concept of god is. This is an existence in which a single electron, fired at a wall with two slits in it, will become a wave, travel through slits at the same time, and interfere with itself- unless it is observed, at which point it will only go through one slit.
This is a Universe in which space is an illusion of our limited perception (indicated by entanglement), and in which there are billions upon billions of stars in each of billions upon billions of galaxies, each with many hundreds of millions of planetary systems.
How can they still claim that god specially created the Earth, and man in his own image and likeness?
Nevertheless, investigation into quantum mechanics would probably make quite a few Christians realize how juvenile their concept of god is. This is an existence in which a single electron, fired at a wall with two slits in it, will become a wave, travel through slits at the same time, and interfere with itself- unless it is observed, at which point it will only go through one slit.
This is a Universe in which space is an illusion of our limited perception (indicated by entanglement), and in which there are billions upon billions of stars in each of billions upon billions of galaxies, each with many hundreds of millions of planetary systems.
How can they still claim that god specially created the Earth, and man in his own image and likeness?
What always makes me wonder, if/when we make first contact with another species in our lifetimes, how are fundamentalists going to react?
science which we are talking about uses species or subspecies
it can be a species of bird or one of the subspecies of hawk
it isnt however a kind of bird or a type of hawk
if you talk to a mechanic would you use the correct words or make your own?
a cars tyre becomes 'a type of rubber thing', a spark plug becomes 'a sort of metal thing' - the mechanic would look at you like you were a little odd
kind and sort do not exist in biology as a kind and sort doesnt exist in car mechanics
the use of the wrong word confuses the reality of the issue
We are talking about bibliacl creation. You seem to forget that this is what this topic is about.
Kind would be a specie and a sort would be a subspecie. Not hard to understand.
idiom:
in specie
2. In a similar manner; in kind: repaid the offense in specie.
can you prove this claim? is this actually what you meant? or were you refereing to transitional species
Yes evolutionist take extint animals and say it is a transitional between t kinds of animals even though twodiferent kinds of animals can't mate. If you would like to use specie you. 2 different kinds of species can't mate either..
Yet animals have only been observed to produce after their own kind or specie as you would say.
Hybrid dolphins
In 1933, three abnormal dolphins were beached off the Irish coast; these appeared to be hybrids between Risso's Dolphin and the Bottlenose Dolphin. This mating has since been repeated in captivity and a hybrid calf was born. In captivity, a Bottlenose Dolphin and a Rough-toothed Dolphin produced hybrid offspring. Normally, Spinner Dolphins have sometimes hybridised with Spotted Dolphins and Bottlenose Dolphins. Bands of males of one dolphin species often mate with lone female Spinners. Blue Whales, Fin Whales and Humpback Whales all hybridize normally. Dall's Porpoises and Harbour Porpoises also commonly hybridized. There has also been a reported hybrid between a beluga and a narwhal. See also wolphin.
If they can mate then they are the same kind. The definition of specie agrees. Here is a link with more information.
"The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept."
creationontheweb.com...
Kind (no pun intended) of ironic huh?
it was a reply for NJ i already guesse your response
the next question would be if god made everything ..where was he before he made somewhere to be?
it doesnt help my case? no it doesnt harm it in anyway either,
How long on you going to harp on this question? I have already answered it.
no im saying you have yet to prove the bible is correct in its claims
if your going to hold it against science you need to establish it is true with externbal verifiable evidence, the bible saying its true doesnt prove this anymore then a liar saying they are bieng honest makes them honest
How long on you going to harp on this question? I have already answered it.
and when it was shown that it wasnt god hanging his bow out to dry but light refracting through water droplets there was a very vocal ignorant group that denied this and claimed it was all a lie becasue the bible said it was gods bow
evidence won out and people understand it is light refracting through water dropplets
this is an identical scenario to what we see now
how was the universe formed? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
how did life start? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
how did man get here? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
ALL evidence shows it wasnt god dun it with his very wn hand, it was the laws of physics chemistry biology theromdynamics and a whole pile more science NOT gods very own hand
the rainbow discreditors like the big bang/abiogenesis/evolution/gravity discreditors are fighting a weight of evidence that wil show that the bible creation story is just that a story
if you fit god in anywhere things stop working and break
you can say god started th big bang then sat around and watched what happened and didnt interfer and as yet there is no way for us to prove what caused the singularity of the big bang so you can take this position and hope science doesnt come up with evidence of why it was there or how it was created but its impossible to say god in anyway interfered after the big bang and not be wrong
What you seem to be missing is that the very things we study to come to our conclusions God created. So abc might cause xyz but created the xyz to bring about the xyz.
no the fact we dont understan simply means we dont understan well enough yet
when we do like the rainbow god will have to stop sticking his bow in the sky and let nature take over from then on
its a continuose retreat everything shown to not be the active hand of god pushes religeous explenation closer towards the edge of an abyss
Where did the elements come from again? Man certainly didn't create them since man can't create.
science is as much mine as it is yours, science doesnt discriminate on race religeon or sex unlike religeon
I'm not trying to lay cliam to it, you are.
you can beleive the bible you can beleive in fairies aliens unicrons the cosmic duck that ate mercurys gravity field or any one of a million other things sceicne doesnt care and neither do i
I do how ever take considerable notice when the many hours of work of the greatest minds humanity has been able to produce and thier great works in thier varied fields of science is insulted and misrepresented and called a pack of lies spread by a pack of liars becasue it does not agree with what ever of the above beleifs your choise to believe in. its an insult to great men and thier hard work they may not be around to defend them selves so ill step up and do it for them
or worse still it becomes bastardised and so badly distorted it becomes worse then worthless to try and prop up a beleif system rather such as the actions of Ken ham and 'dont bend over to pick up the soap Hovind' and like minded idiotic delusional croonies such as the guy who made that video
You must care, you have responded several times to in the creation section to a video about creation. There you go again trying to lay claim to science. view the link I posted once more. Sad you have to resort to name calling.
im sure galileo appreciated that fact when religeon killed him for bineg scientific and thats just one example many more liter the pages of history
religeon has done nothing to advance science it has done the opposite and blocked it at every turn for not agreeing to adhere to religeons views
some of the great scientists were also christians, but they were great scientists becasue of the work they did, bieng a christian had no bearing on this anymore then thier eye colour did
they were scientists who were christians, not scinetists becasue they were christians
even Darwin was a priest
The bible doesn't teach the earth is flat, the roman catholic church did though. You can't blame the bible. I stand by my point that the bible has contributed to our scientific knowledge. Please post a source for darwin being a priest. He wasn't a scientist btw.
nylon, cars, computers, chairs, knives, forks, dogs, banana's the list of just what man has created is endless
That's not creation it making, building, forming etc. The materials were already there. Baisc science:
"Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy
1. In the Universe there is a finite amount of matter and energy. We cannot create any new matter or energy nor can we destroy any of the matter or energy we have for the Universe as a whole.
2. We can change matter to energy and energy to matter without gaining or losing any of either to the Universe. Examples:
3. Energy can be changed in form, from one to another, without any loss to the Universe. Examples:
4. Matter can be changed in form, or state, without any loss of matter to the Universe. Examples:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy increases in all natural processes
Third Law of Thermodynamics: We cannot reach absolute zero temperatures
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: If Ta = Tb and Tb = Tc, then Ta = Tc, (shows thermal equilibrium in balance)"
www.sciencebyjones.com...
www.chem.duke.edu...
they didnt make the amino acids and adonine they put the atmospheric gases in a closed enviroment added an electric charge and they made them selves
the building blocks of life made them selves and they were watching when it happened, the experiment has been redone many times by many scientists both the same and slight variations and all found the same thing
they made them selves ..... and guess what it didnt even need magic or invisible sky daddies with big beards and booming voices
just good old chemistry + physics and a sprinkling of mathmatics
See the above link I posted.
science cant prove god wrong, to do that he would need it to exist, until god pops down and says hi proving he exists we cant test or obseve him so science ignores this and gets on with what it can observer and can test
and advances in cosmology/evolution/abiogenesis/quantum physics rather then prove god didnt do it prove what did do it and the answer is never god
and everytime it proves god didnt do it with his very own hand as its done with rainbows evolution abiogenesis big bang
it pushes 'god dun it with his very own hand' as a false conclusion an pushes it back to another position, first it was rianbows then evolution then the universe how much further can religeon retreat before its forced to admit either god started the ball rlling then sat back and refused to interfere or there was no god to start with
Where did matter come from again?
no thats a huge pile of testable repeatable verifiable facts leading to one conclusion and it isnt 'god dun it with his very own hand'
Earth was created without the sun and moon by scientist? Of course not, man can't create anything. Only observe the creation to understand how things work.
O_0 this is just mind boggling
without the suns help drawing matter towards it the lump of rock floating thorugh space would never have been able to to amass enough meteors and asteroids to gain sufficient mass to become a planet
without the earth building enough mass and the sun to capture that mass in orbit it would have drifted off in to the cold dark reaches of space
the sun doesnt constitue gravity its self? no but its the single greatest creator of gravity in our solar system its storng enough to distort the earths surface and make it bulge at the equator its pull is so strong, its also storng enough to stop us wizzing off into space and all freezing to death
The meteors and asteroids were created before the Earth came into being. Earth with a capital E. Also, it is an assumption that the sun and moon were needed. The bible says that God streches out the heavens so what you view today isn't what it was like doing creation since God is streching the heavens out. You are going by what we see after the expanision that has been taking place for thousands of years.
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Psalm 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Psalm 104:2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
remeber the suns gravity that thing thats is so singularily important to the creation of the earth and then stopping it going for a wonder through space?
its also responsable for drawing a rather large planetoid into our path, the massive collision casued the earth to errupt a stream of matter into space the action of the earth and suns gravity casued it coallesse and form the moon
and how do we know its mae up of earth's projectile matter, we used chemical analysis of moon rocks and found it to be 100% genuine home grown earth matter
without the suns gravity not only would we not be here the moon couldnt be here either
That's an interesting theory.
we have almost the entire fossil record for whales showing a 4 legged mostly land dwelling mammal becoming what we accept as a modern whale over a long time period
whales could not have come before land mammals like the bible states, they are land mammals that went into the ocean
if the bible was correct we would not have been able to find any of the fossils
Please site a source for four legged whales.
day and night are time intervals day is when the part of the planet your on faces the closet star, in our case the sun, night is when the bit of planet your on faces away from teh sun and recieves no direct light, as he hadnt built the sun yet there could be no day and night
This is where the concept of night and day came from, you do realize that right? What do you call it when the sun and moon are visible at the same time? Dight?
no you have to create somthing so there was, god didnt say let there be light *and quickly made a light bulb* and there was light
without the sun our primary source of light and heat there would ahve been no light or heat and everything would have died from the intense cold
the only other source of natural light is stars and they hadnt been created either
You seem to think that light would no longer exsit if there was no sun or stars. You are wrong.
the point i was trying to make is you dont seem to be very aware of evolution/abiogenesis/big bang and 1/2 a dozen other thoeries but you are saying they are wrong simply based on they do not coroberate the bible
I'm telling you that you don't seem to be aware of the bible, creationan and science and you say it's wrong simply because they do not coroberate evolution.
single and possably multicelluar life(well call them animals) existed some then branched off and altered to become the foundation of all plant life on earth, hence why plants inhereted their genome from animal life as stated above
It is generally accepted that early chlorophytes gave rise to the plants. Cells of the Chlorophyta contain organelles called chloroplasts in which photosynthesis occurs; the photosynthetic pigments chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b, and various carotenoids, are the same as those found in plants and are found in similar proportions
www.answers.com...
this just confirms the branch off of chloroplasts then went on to be the foundation of plants on earth
animal life existed on earth before plants which is the reverse of the bibles genesis
It's all theory based on similarties in plants and animals. They still bring forth after their own kind which is why it's not possible. Your theory doesn't disprove the bible. What did animals eat again before plants came? Light?
wrong single and multicelluar life ate each other and things found in thier enviroment(the amino acid soup) before chloroplasts broke off and evolved to become the building blocks of plants which later became a stable diet for more comlex life forms
[I] Who created the multicelluar life again?
as is your right, but this belief and it is only a belief requires you to ignore vast swatches of evidence from dna athropology archaeology palentology chemistry physics and a few other sources
while providing no evidence its self to back up its claims
i think Winston Churchill summed it up best with 2 of his more famour quotes so i shall leave it with him to finish the post
How did dna evolve?
it can be a species of bird or one of the subspecies of hawk
it isnt however a kind of bird or a type of hawk
if you talk to a mechanic would you use the correct words or make your own?
a cars tyre becomes 'a type of rubber thing', a spark plug becomes 'a sort of metal thing' - the mechanic would look at you like you were a little odd
kind and sort do not exist in biology as a kind and sort doesnt exist in car mechanics
the use of the wrong word confuses the reality of the issue
We are talking about bibliacl creation. You seem to forget that this is what this topic is about.
Kind would be a specie and a sort would be a subspecie. Not hard to understand.
idiom:
in specie
2. In a similar manner; in kind: repaid the offense in specie.
can you prove this claim? is this actually what you meant? or were you refereing to transitional species
Yes evolutionist take extint animals and say it is a transitional between t kinds of animals even though twodiferent kinds of animals can't mate. If you would like to use specie you. 2 different kinds of species can't mate either..
Yet animals have only been observed to produce after their own kind or specie as you would say.
Hybrid dolphins
In 1933, three abnormal dolphins were beached off the Irish coast; these appeared to be hybrids between Risso's Dolphin and the Bottlenose Dolphin. This mating has since been repeated in captivity and a hybrid calf was born. In captivity, a Bottlenose Dolphin and a Rough-toothed Dolphin produced hybrid offspring. Normally, Spinner Dolphins have sometimes hybridised with Spotted Dolphins and Bottlenose Dolphins. Bands of males of one dolphin species often mate with lone female Spinners. Blue Whales, Fin Whales and Humpback Whales all hybridize normally. Dall's Porpoises and Harbour Porpoises also commonly hybridized. There has also been a reported hybrid between a beluga and a narwhal. See also wolphin.
If they can mate then they are the same kind. The definition of specie agrees. Here is a link with more information.
"The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept."
creationontheweb.com...
Kind (no pun intended) of ironic huh?
it was a reply for NJ i already guesse your response
the next question would be if god made everything ..where was he before he made somewhere to be?
it doesnt help my case? no it doesnt harm it in anyway either,
How long on you going to harp on this question? I have already answered it.
no im saying you have yet to prove the bible is correct in its claims
if your going to hold it against science you need to establish it is true with externbal verifiable evidence, the bible saying its true doesnt prove this anymore then a liar saying they are bieng honest makes them honest
How long on you going to harp on this question? I have already answered it.
and when it was shown that it wasnt god hanging his bow out to dry but light refracting through water droplets there was a very vocal ignorant group that denied this and claimed it was all a lie becasue the bible said it was gods bow
evidence won out and people understand it is light refracting through water dropplets
this is an identical scenario to what we see now
how was the universe formed? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
how did life start? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
how did man get here? 'god dun it with his very own hand'
ALL evidence shows it wasnt god dun it with his very wn hand, it was the laws of physics chemistry biology theromdynamics and a whole pile more science NOT gods very own hand
the rainbow discreditors like the big bang/abiogenesis/evolution/gravity discreditors are fighting a weight of evidence that wil show that the bible creation story is just that a story
if you fit god in anywhere things stop working and break
you can say god started th big bang then sat around and watched what happened and didnt interfer and as yet there is no way for us to prove what caused the singularity of the big bang so you can take this position and hope science doesnt come up with evidence of why it was there or how it was created but its impossible to say god in anyway interfered after the big bang and not be wrong
What you seem to be missing is that the very things we study to come to our conclusions God created. So abc might cause xyz but created the xyz to bring about the xyz.
no the fact we dont understan simply means we dont understan well enough yet
when we do like the rainbow god will have to stop sticking his bow in the sky and let nature take over from then on
its a continuose retreat everything shown to not be the active hand of god pushes religeous explenation closer towards the edge of an abyss
Where did the elements come from again? Man certainly didn't create them since man can't create.
science is as much mine as it is yours, science doesnt discriminate on race religeon or sex unlike religeon
I'm not trying to lay cliam to it, you are.
you can beleive the bible you can beleive in fairies aliens unicrons the cosmic duck that ate mercurys gravity field or any one of a million other things sceicne doesnt care and neither do i
I do how ever take considerable notice when the many hours of work of the greatest minds humanity has been able to produce and thier great works in thier varied fields of science is insulted and misrepresented and called a pack of lies spread by a pack of liars becasue it does not agree with what ever of the above beleifs your choise to believe in. its an insult to great men and thier hard work they may not be around to defend them selves so ill step up and do it for them
or worse still it becomes bastardised and so badly distorted it becomes worse then worthless to try and prop up a beleif system rather such as the actions of Ken ham and 'dont bend over to pick up the soap Hovind' and like minded idiotic delusional croonies such as the guy who made that video
You must care, you have responded several times to in the creation section to a video about creation. There you go again trying to lay claim to science. view the link I posted once more. Sad you have to resort to name calling.
im sure galileo appreciated that fact when religeon killed him for bineg scientific and thats just one example many more liter the pages of history
religeon has done nothing to advance science it has done the opposite and blocked it at every turn for not agreeing to adhere to religeons views
some of the great scientists were also christians, but they were great scientists becasue of the work they did, bieng a christian had no bearing on this anymore then thier eye colour did
they were scientists who were christians, not scinetists becasue they were christians
even Darwin was a priest
The bible doesn't teach the earth is flat, the roman catholic church did though. You can't blame the bible. I stand by my point that the bible has contributed to our scientific knowledge. Please post a source for darwin being a priest. He wasn't a scientist btw.
nylon, cars, computers, chairs, knives, forks, dogs, banana's the list of just what man has created is endless
That's not creation it making, building, forming etc. The materials were already there. Baisc science:
"Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy
1. In the Universe there is a finite amount of matter and energy. We cannot create any new matter or energy nor can we destroy any of the matter or energy we have for the Universe as a whole.
2. We can change matter to energy and energy to matter without gaining or losing any of either to the Universe. Examples:
3. Energy can be changed in form, from one to another, without any loss to the Universe. Examples:
4. Matter can be changed in form, or state, without any loss of matter to the Universe. Examples:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy increases in all natural processes
Third Law of Thermodynamics: We cannot reach absolute zero temperatures
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: If Ta = Tb and Tb = Tc, then Ta = Tc, (shows thermal equilibrium in balance)"
www.sciencebyjones.com...
www.chem.duke.edu...
they didnt make the amino acids and adonine they put the atmospheric gases in a closed enviroment added an electric charge and they made them selves
the building blocks of life made them selves and they were watching when it happened, the experiment has been redone many times by many scientists both the same and slight variations and all found the same thing
they made them selves ..... and guess what it didnt even need magic or invisible sky daddies with big beards and booming voices
just good old chemistry + physics and a sprinkling of mathmatics
See the above link I posted.
science cant prove god wrong, to do that he would need it to exist, until god pops down and says hi proving he exists we cant test or obseve him so science ignores this and gets on with what it can observer and can test
and advances in cosmology/evolution/abiogenesis/quantum physics rather then prove god didnt do it prove what did do it and the answer is never god
and everytime it proves god didnt do it with his very own hand as its done with rainbows evolution abiogenesis big bang
it pushes 'god dun it with his very own hand' as a false conclusion an pushes it back to another position, first it was rianbows then evolution then the universe how much further can religeon retreat before its forced to admit either god started the ball rlling then sat back and refused to interfere or there was no god to start with
Where did matter come from again?
no thats a huge pile of testable repeatable verifiable facts leading to one conclusion and it isnt 'god dun it with his very own hand'
Earth was created without the sun and moon by scientist? Of course not, man can't create anything. Only observe the creation to understand how things work.
O_0 this is just mind boggling
without the suns help drawing matter towards it the lump of rock floating thorugh space would never have been able to to amass enough meteors and asteroids to gain sufficient mass to become a planet
without the earth building enough mass and the sun to capture that mass in orbit it would have drifted off in to the cold dark reaches of space
the sun doesnt constitue gravity its self? no but its the single greatest creator of gravity in our solar system its storng enough to distort the earths surface and make it bulge at the equator its pull is so strong, its also storng enough to stop us wizzing off into space and all freezing to death
The meteors and asteroids were created before the Earth came into being. Earth with a capital E. Also, it is an assumption that the sun and moon were needed. The bible says that God streches out the heavens so what you view today isn't what it was like doing creation since God is streching the heavens out. You are going by what we see after the expanision that has been taking place for thousands of years.
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Psalm 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Psalm 104:2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
remeber the suns gravity that thing thats is so singularily important to the creation of the earth and then stopping it going for a wonder through space?
its also responsable for drawing a rather large planetoid into our path, the massive collision casued the earth to errupt a stream of matter into space the action of the earth and suns gravity casued it coallesse and form the moon
and how do we know its mae up of earth's projectile matter, we used chemical analysis of moon rocks and found it to be 100% genuine home grown earth matter
without the suns gravity not only would we not be here the moon couldnt be here either
That's an interesting theory.
we have almost the entire fossil record for whales showing a 4 legged mostly land dwelling mammal becoming what we accept as a modern whale over a long time period
whales could not have come before land mammals like the bible states, they are land mammals that went into the ocean
if the bible was correct we would not have been able to find any of the fossils
Please site a source for four legged whales.
day and night are time intervals day is when the part of the planet your on faces the closet star, in our case the sun, night is when the bit of planet your on faces away from teh sun and recieves no direct light, as he hadnt built the sun yet there could be no day and night
This is where the concept of night and day came from, you do realize that right? What do you call it when the sun and moon are visible at the same time? Dight?
no you have to create somthing so there was, god didnt say let there be light *and quickly made a light bulb* and there was light
without the sun our primary source of light and heat there would ahve been no light or heat and everything would have died from the intense cold
the only other source of natural light is stars and they hadnt been created either
You seem to think that light would no longer exsit if there was no sun or stars. You are wrong.
the point i was trying to make is you dont seem to be very aware of evolution/abiogenesis/big bang and 1/2 a dozen other thoeries but you are saying they are wrong simply based on they do not coroberate the bible
I'm telling you that you don't seem to be aware of the bible, creationan and science and you say it's wrong simply because they do not coroberate evolution.
single and possably multicelluar life(well call them animals) existed some then branched off and altered to become the foundation of all plant life on earth, hence why plants inhereted their genome from animal life as stated above
It is generally accepted that early chlorophytes gave rise to the plants. Cells of the Chlorophyta contain organelles called chloroplasts in which photosynthesis occurs; the photosynthetic pigments chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b, and various carotenoids, are the same as those found in plants and are found in similar proportions
www.answers.com...
this just confirms the branch off of chloroplasts then went on to be the foundation of plants on earth
animal life existed on earth before plants which is the reverse of the bibles genesis
It's all theory based on similarties in plants and animals. They still bring forth after their own kind which is why it's not possible. Your theory doesn't disprove the bible. What did animals eat again before plants came? Light?
wrong single and multicelluar life ate each other and things found in thier enviroment(the amino acid soup) before chloroplasts broke off and evolved to become the building blocks of plants which later became a stable diet for more comlex life forms
[I] Who created the multicelluar life again?
as is your right, but this belief and it is only a belief requires you to ignore vast swatches of evidence from dna athropology archaeology palentology chemistry physics and a few other sources
while providing no evidence its self to back up its claims
i think Winston Churchill summed it up best with 2 of his more famour quotes so i shall leave it with him to finish the post
How did dna evolve?
Originally posted by masterweb
We are talking about bibliacl creation. You seem to forget that this is what this topic is about.
Kind would be a specie and a sort would be a subspecie. Not hard to understand.
idiom:
in specie
2. In a similar manner; in kind: repaid the offense in specie.
well you may be talking about biblical creations and that supports it, but im talking about science and what it actually supports
but as youve made a deffinate determination so the words cant get switched around at will we will go with them, although ill probabily stick sto species sub species for clarification of wording
but you havnt proven it just told me
Yes evolutionist take extint animals and say it is a transitional between t kinds of animals even though twodiferent kinds of animals can't mate. If you would like to use specie you. 2 different kinds of species can't mate either..
ill be honest with you there really is no such thing as a transitional species its all a lie, there never has been a transitional species found
becasue its a fallacy, every fossil found every living animal is in transition from what it was to what it will become as are you and i
it isnt a monkey giving birth to a man
or ambalocetas giving birth to whales
all the fossils in the genius of a specific branch of the evolutionary tree can be put end to end and show a deffinate process of change over time, most of the changes are very small, but theres a reason we know were not just getting confused and putting somthing in becaseu it looks like it fits, it its less advanced then the one in the gap it wont fit in and must be another branch things dont take a step backwards they keep moving on
also no two fossil species can exist in the same branch at the same time, they are from a divergint branch
we use whales so much for 1 simple reason, it is when studied impossible to not see how it went from a four legged predator to what we classify as whales, the legs receding the inner ear remodling the nostril gradually relocating to the top of the head the only way to deny it is to ignore it,
while everones waving thier crocoduck around just remember 20 years ago they were waving pictures of a whale with 4 legs to show how silly the scientists really are, it was impossible to find the whale with legs science said must have existed, it was found, they shut up for a while then came back with somthing sciences said should never be found and tried to say evolution is wrong becasue no ones ever found somthing that even scientists say is impossible, if a crocoduck was ever found it would infact prove the creationists right
they were pushed from a position of reality to a position of total imaginary to defend thier ideas, scientifc find pushes back 'god dun it with his very own hand' further to a position where it stops becoming a weak rational to a position of absurdity lies and denile
a fossil land based predator with an interesting feature of its inner ear, the same type of inner ear construction is only found in one class of animal life, whales
shall we ask Ken Miller just how good the whale fosil record is? if you dont know Ken Miller is a Chemical biologist and a Catholic as was a expert witness in court when ID(which he was against) was trying to force its self to be accepted as science based
its not just a case of shving somthing between elephants and hippo's and saying traadaaa look what i found
you have to show it exibits charachteristics of change from one to another, it was to come from a time period where we no longer find the original and the one its heading towards cant yet exists
its instense research and comparrison before they decide where it belongs not where they feel like putting it, and if it conflicts in anyway it means either your wrong or the branch we now have is partially wrong and then everything gets re-examined. but guess what if it it gets a slight change now and again it still proves overwhelmingly when studied that its right
i think ive shown its not just saying a monkey gave birth to man or abalocitus gave birth to whale
that may be what the hardcore creationists teach people becasue they dont know better but that is not what anyone on thie side of the fence believes
Yet animals have only been observed to produce after their own kind or specie as you would say.
If they can mate then they are the same kind. The definition of specie agrees. Here is a link with more information.
"The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept."
creationontheweb.com...
Kind (no pun intended) of ironic huh?
can you guess why he was a creationist? look at the date there was no plausable alternative. infact much of the work he carried out is a foundation for the theroy of evolution ^_^ and like everything in science species sub-species no longer became good enough to cover the diversity so was expanded on(same as Darwins origins which is why we no longer teach exactly what he said except in historical context)
see why i say kind and sort dont work, theres no further way to clarify beyond those 2 words
www.cetaceanwatching.com...
The 7 major categories are:
Kingdom -> Phylum -> Class -> Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species.
lets clarify this further we will take orca Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin and common bottlenose dolphin
Scientific Name: Orcinus orca
Suborder: Odontoceti
Family: Delphinidae
Genus: Orcinus
Species:Orcinus orca (there are now 2 accepted and a possible third subspecies that make up the genus orcinius not just orcinus orca)
Scientific Name: Tursiops truncatus (common bottle nose)
Suborder: Odontoceti
Family: Delphinidae
Genus: Tursiops
Species:[subspecies)Tursipos truncatus
Scientific Name: Tursiops aduncus (Indo-pacific Bottlenose Dolphin)
Suborder: Odontoceti
Family: Delphinidae
Genus: Tursiops
Speciessubspecies)Tursiops aduncus
all 3 are able to reproduce viable offspring through hybridisation
both the indo-pacific and bottle nose are subspecies of the genus Tursiops but orca are subspecies of the genus Orcinus
they are different species(and subspecies) of different genus but of the same family and genetically similar enough for cross speciation and the production of viable offspring
trying to use 17th century science in the 21st century is equivalent to going to bagdad with a musket(75yard range) and a sword and hoping you dont get hit by a droganov from a thousand yards away, and that it doesnt rain so your musket wont stop working, this is a common creationist style of attack to try and atatck scinece by using an old outdated methedology it has advanced already becasue it needed too
no you said he was just there becaseu the bible says, you havnt clarrified where there was, as he shouldnt have been able to be anywhere until he created it
How long on you going to harp on this question? I have already answered it.
no you have said its correct not shown it to be
How long on you going to harp on this question? I have already answered it.
if you tell me the sky is blue it doesnt mean the sky is blue, we know for a fact it isnt becasue we have evidence and understand the process that makes a transparnt atmosphere appear blue
no what we show is that there are natural self governing laws that control and balance everything
What you seem to be missing is that the very things we study to come to our conclusions God created. So abc might cause xyz but created the xyz to bring about the xyz.
abc is a natural process that casues xyz to happen
we also have natural explanations backed by evidence not beleief that show how and why xyz and abc were created in the first place
as i say you can beleive god created the big bang then sat back and watched without interfering, the big bang becoming the creator of abc and xyz as god intended and physical law being thier control mechanisms as god intended
you cannot however say god physically made abc and xyz without showing proof of this as it goes against all evidence and rational, and if this happened abc wouldnt work properly to cause xyz's effects
if god interferes in anyway after the initial split second of the big bang things no longer work and every branch of science including maths must be wrong if this were the case
1+1=3 is unacceptable and leave a big hole in the thoery becasue what + what then becomes 2?
we have to stand everything we understand on its head and entirely change the systems of everything to allow 'god dun it' to be a viable explenation, so unless you can prove every part of science is infact completley wrong no ones willing to do this for obvious reasons ..its stupid
[edit on 20/11/08 by noobfun]
>_< round and round the mullbery bush the mullbery bush
Originally posted by masterweb
Where did the elements come from again? Man certainly didn't create them since man can't create.
they were created by stars through fusion, not my field ill leave it to a group of proffesional who's field it is with sam neil doing the voice over and explaning it for us to understand (never a bad thing i like Sam neils hes got a great voice)
i make no claim on science bieng mine anymore then the air in the atmosphere is mine they are both thier for all of us
I'm not trying to lay cliam to it, you are.
and science like air i suck in great lungfulls and love every second of it
as a great man once said
We are made of star stuff.
- boith Carl Sagen
We are a way for the universe to know itself.
'god dun it with his very own hand' can never even hope to come close to the realisation of the inherent beauty and complexity and equisit wonderfulness of the galaxy that we are both part of and made from
we are just stardust longing for home
i care pasionatley and as deeply as any christina can love god or muslim love allah
You must care, you have responded several times to in the creation section to a video about creation. There you go again trying to lay claim to science. view the link I posted once more. Sad you have to resort to name calling.
but i dont worship science or truth or understanding, i dont fall on my knee and beg for forgivness it does not demand these things of me and should i even try they would look at me funny and call me an idiot
they simply present me with an undertsand of the beauty and intricacy and truth of what is, and as a human bieng i feel the need to expose lies and flase hoods for what they are and protect people from thier trapings of deciet. if im able give them just a glimpse of the beauty of truth in the hopes they will be equally as inspired to search in thier own journey
my ramblings may be ignored by millions but if just one person cathes the merest glimpse of truth and seeks out its beauty for them selves its a noble casue
and einstein was a mathmatition not a physacist
The bible doesn't teach the earth is flat, the roman catholic church did though. You can't blame the bible. I stand by my point that the bible has contributed to our scientific knowledge. Please post a source for darwin being a priest. He wasn't a scientist btw.
he may not have had a phd but his work and its sceintific method revolutionised science, his use of the scientific method to formulate a scientifc thoery makes him a scientist in all but phd and he has a whole pile of honouary ones to prove it
no its widely known that the earth was round even the catholic church understood this columbus was looking for an alternate route to the spice islands as the orient not to prove the earth was round, its myth they beleived the earth was flat. they did beleive the earth was the center of the universe and galileo was killed for his insistance this was wrong
religeon has not helped science, it was the first try at understanding the world around us. but unlike scientific theory when it is shown to be inadeqaute and advanced upon never for the old ways to be used again reliegeon refused to lie down and fought back with venom vehemantly to destroy or discredit those parts of science that show its inadequasies and drag it into the light of truth it hides from
in which case man can create nothing except by using that the stars have already created for us and they could not create were it for the big bang that created them, god still did not do it with his very own hand
That's not creation it making, building, forming etc. The materials were already there. Baisc science:
the big bang made it we just changed it i can live with that
"Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy
1. In the Universe there is a finite amount of matter and energy. We cannot create any new matter or energy nor can we destroy any of the matter or energy we have for the Universe as a whole.
2. We can change matter to energy and energy to matter without gaining or losing any of either to the Universe. Examples:
3. Energy can be changed in form, from one to another, without any loss to the Universe. Examples:
4. Matter can be changed in form, or state, without any loss of matter to the Universe. Examples:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy increases in all natural processes
Third Law of Thermodynamics: We cannot reach absolute zero temperatures
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: If Ta = Tb and Tb = Tc, then Ta = Tc, (shows thermal equilibrium in balance)"
www.sciencebyjones.com...
still no hand of god allowed though sorry
see above, they formed themselves into complex structures from simple components
See the above link I posted.
if you want to keep going back then the creator is the big bang, so you can either worship the big bang, or state emphatically god started the big bang then left it to its own devices without interferance you cannot say god meddled anywhere after or everything stops working
p[lease this is just getting silly, science doesnt say the universe never existed or that there never was a point when there was nothing
Where did matter come from again?
so no need for a creator until someone can prove that is the case
so you can harp this argument over and over and it proves nothing until you prove god did make matter, and if your going to use the bible your first going to have to prove that it is correct beyond saying it is
as im doing all the work here lets spin it around
prove emfatically god made matter other wise its weak supposition based on a story book and nothing more and proves it no more then there really was one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them all as gandalf tells us
i show eveidence for the claims i make
you claim god is real and he created it so its up to you to prove it .. ^_^ aint i mean
yay the strawmen of omg im being beaten to death with facts appear
Earth was created without the sun and moon by scientist? Of course not, man can't create anything. Only observe the creation to understand how things work.
did i say scientists created the moon? or the sun? or the earth?
yes we observe the reation to understand and observation doesnt show god doing it, so unless again you can actually come close to even proving this you fail unless you take the position god started the big bang then refused to interfere further which your obviously not doing
so fess up some proof or quite asking silly questions to try and make me disprove somthing that cant be proved to exist
can you prove it wasnt a giant cosmic duck that laid and egg and the univers is inside the egg?
capital E or little e the planet earth is still the earth so your arguing silly semantics to try and make a weak case look stronger
The meteors and asteroids were created before the Earth came into being. Earth with a capital E. Also, it is an assumption that the sun and moon were needed. The bible says that God streches out the heavens so what you view today isn't what it was like doing creation since God is streching the heavens out. You are going by what we see after the expanision that has been taking place for thousands of years.
well you havnt proved the bible right so i guess the super sized cosmic duck must have done it really we only think beary man god did
not its not an assumption its called gravity, if it were wrong then i could float happily and save my legs from walking. until you prove gravity is wrong then yes it is needed for the creation of both the earth and the moon at a later stage
your assuming it wasnt needed becasue your ignoring gravity, prove gravity wrong then we will argue your assumption
guess what and like all thoeries in science its a collection of facts that are testable repeatable and observable and makes prediction that we can then further test
That's an interesting theory.
it predicted that if this were the case then the moon would be traveling away from us becasue of the impact and tidal drag slowing its rotation - guess what ,,, it is
and i beleive god said judge a prophet by the accuracy of its predictions so it must be right becasue god said
the fact evolutionary predictions were made when Darwin wrote origins and they have been proven right must also means by goids standards its correct and he didnt meddle around and make man out of dust
i gave 2 above ^_^
Please site a source for four legged whales.
simply staggering in its stupidity
This is where the concept of night and day came from, you do realize that right? What do you call it when the sun and moon are visible at the same time? Dight?
its an eclipse
not night and day, an eclipse can only happen during the day other wise its juts the moon circling the earth
have straw will grasp i guess
wrong
I'm telling you that you don't seem to be aware of the bible, creationan and science and you say it's wrong simply because they do not coroberate evolution.
im very aware of the bible ive read it several times and was a practicing christian for a number of years
creation science isnt science its bastardisation of science for its own aims
i dont say they are wrong becasue they dont agree with evolution and every other part of science, i say they are wrong becaseu science proves they are a very important differentiation would you say?
to be contined in part 3
Originally posted by masterweb
You seem to think that light would no longer exsit if there was no sun or stars. You are wrong.
light is not a thing, it is a release of energy
and as god deosnt make anything that is capable of realesig energy in the visable spectrum(light) until near the end (sun and stars) it is not that light didnt exist there was simply nothing at all to release light
there fore there was no light, and without light form the closets star(sol or the sun as its better known) there could be no day or night
it would all just be darkness
you can tell me what you like doesnt prove me wrong just that thats what you believe
I'm telling you that you don't seem to be aware of the bible, creationan and science and you say it's wrong simply because they do not coroberate evolution.
to expand on the answer to yet the same question repeated again as an attempt at create an argument
what part of creationsit science do you feel i dont understand? that it doesnt use the scientific method so it isnt science just bastardaised pseudo-science? that it makes no teastable or provable prediction like science demands?
that it has multipul times been shown for the sham it really is and that it continually has to lie and misrepresenet thruth and it coninuosly is forced to retreat to another equally as fallable and rediculous position as the last?
youll never find a whale with legs thats absurd and you say it must be real - we found it
the banana is the ultimate proof of god - we showed that to be nonsense too
youll never find a crocoduck - we will never look for one we say its an impossability, and we arnt in the happen of proving the impossable else we would have found god, if we ever did find the crocoduck this would prove the creationist clowns are right ...maybe they should shut up thier lies and snake oil sales and go find it and be useful for a change
until you can come with more substance the 'the bible says' and 'god dun it with his very own hand' your just going to repeatedly make wrong claims and ask assanine questions in the hope im wrong enough an idiot will think this means your right
id rather hope people are intellegent enough to understand at least a tiny bit and go in search for more then hope they are stupid and agree becasue they dont know any better
say no to snake oil - its cruel to snakes
and can you try and use the [*quote] [*/quote] system if you dont close the [*i] properly it makes it all italic and i have to search for your one liners
at least if you dont close the [*quote] i still get a visual indicator of where my wor end and yours begin
[edit on 20/11/08 by noobfun]
reply to post by yadda333
We think all people came from 8 after the Flood and two before it, you think all the people, animals and plants came from wet rocks...
Talk about silliness...
We think all people came from 8 after the Flood and two before it, you think all the people, animals and plants came from wet rocks...
Talk about silliness...
You're working off the assumption that science believes matter was created...
I'm still waiting to see why you assume this, and if you have evidence...
Seriously, if you can back up this claim that matter was created, than you will have the entire scientific community bowing at your feet, as this is something they have tried to resolve time and time again.
Why are you ignoring my posts? Is it hard to refute when the basic premise of your entire argument hinges on the fact that people believe matter came out of nowhere? Why don't you back up this claim?
I'm still waiting to see why you assume this, and if you have evidence...
Seriously, if you can back up this claim that matter was created, than you will have the entire scientific community bowing at your feet, as this is something they have tried to resolve time and time again.
Why are you ignoring my posts? Is it hard to refute when the basic premise of your entire argument hinges on the fact that people believe matter came out of nowhere? Why don't you back up this claim?
Actually, at this point I'm beginning to realize that you're not all that well read in the subjects you are trying to talk about... Instead you are
automatically discounting solid evidence planted in front of you in order to implant your own shaky circular logic.
I would suggest you do some reading...
Noob will back me up on this, but you might want to read some posts by a man named Oldthinker...
He's had the best arguments I've seen to date regarding your position. When I engage him in debate, I don't feel like I'm wasting my time...
I would suggest you do some reading...
Noob will back me up on this, but you might want to read some posts by a man named Oldthinker...
He's had the best arguments I've seen to date regarding your position. When I engage him in debate, I don't feel like I'm wasting my time...
yaya more strawmen of stupidity
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by yadda333
We think all people came from 8 after the Flood and two before it, you think all the people, animals and plants came from wet rocks...
Talk about silliness...
no rocks have nothing to do with evolution or we would be insisting rocks breed mutate and change over time, ive never said that and neither has a scientist
like the possability of crocoducks its all in creationists minds
can you prove the flood? no. can you prove noah? no. can you prove there was only 8 people(not to mentiuon this is no where near a vaiable breeding population)? no. can you prove the bible? no
even wet rocks are starting to sound like a reasonable alternative to this nonsense
im just glad we have a better one that makes more sense and is proven ... unlike noah and wet rocks
****edit**** i answered for evolutionary theory not abiogenesis in my haste, argument still satnds though as abiogenesis has nothing to do with wet rocks either
[edit on 20/11/08 by noobfun]
[edit on 20/11/08 by noobfun]
dont they just call them satans demons in thier evil flying ships and wave crosses at them?
Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
What always makes me wonder, if/when we make first contact with another species in our lifetimes, how are fundamentalists going to react?
Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by mytquin
True, but we've observed species change into other species in the lab, so yes - it's directly observable....
No, we have not.
Science has never witnessed the change from one species to another. What has been witnessed has been minor adaptiations for survival purposes. Germs mutate, but not into plants or single celled animals, but another form of GERM.
Dogs do not evolve into cats, petunias do not become roses, cockroaches do not become butterflies. Dawkins admits this in The Blind Watchmaker, the editor of the Oxford University Guide to Natural Sciences admits it in that book -- Dennett, Gould, Onfrey, Ruse the list goes on.
new topics
-
This is an interesting picture. Do we actually pick our leaders?
Politicians & People: 10 minutes ago -
U.S. Govt Agencies That Protect Criminals in Government - National Archives Records Admin-NARA.
Political Conspiracies: 1 hours ago -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago -
An Updated China Navy Analysis and the Challenges of their AI/Drone Development
Military Projects: 4 hours ago -
University looking for gender diverse kids to play with transgender dolls for research
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago -
FAA Investigates Christmas Drone Show Gone Wrong in Orlando, FL 12/2024
Other Current Events: 4 hours ago -
Mass Extinctions May Hold the Key to Life in the Universe
Education and Media: 9 hours ago -
Can we be certain that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th?
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
University looking for gender diverse kids to play with transgender dolls for research
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago, 9 flags -
RIP Merrily Harpur British Big Cat Realist
Cryptozoology: 13 hours ago, 7 flags -
Can we be certain that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th?
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 11 hours ago, 4 flags -
Mass Extinctions May Hold the Key to Life in the Universe
Education and Media: 9 hours ago, 4 flags -
FAA Investigates Christmas Drone Show Gone Wrong in Orlando, FL 12/2024
Other Current Events: 4 hours ago, 4 flags -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago, 4 flags -
An Updated China Navy Analysis and the Challenges of their AI/Drone Development
Military Projects: 4 hours ago, 3 flags -
U.S. Govt Agencies That Protect Criminals in Government - National Archives Records Admin-NARA.
Political Conspiracies: 1 hours ago, 3 flags -
This is an interesting picture. Do we actually pick our leaders?
Politicians & People: 10 minutes ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Smartest Man in the World Tells His Theory About What Happens At Death
Philosophy and Metaphysics • 53 • : ToneD -
This is an interesting picture. Do we actually pick our leaders?
Politicians & People • 0 • : berbofthegreen -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 4 • : fringeofthefringe -
U.S. Govt Agencies That Protect Criminals in Government - National Archives Records Admin-NARA.
Political Conspiracies • 1 • : WeMustCare -
NYPD arrests migrant who allegedly set woman on fire on subway train, watched her burn to death
Breaking Alternative News • 31 • : RazorV66 -
An Interesting Conversation with ChatGPT
Science & Technology • 35 • : DdPoolDude -
University looking for gender diverse kids to play with transgender dolls for research
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 18 • : Tolkien -
My personal experiences and understanding of orbs
Aliens and UFOs • 26 • : Compendium -
Australian mercenary caught and crying as he is a prisoner of war.
Other Current Events • 37 • : Cavemannick -
FAA Investigates Christmas Drone Show Gone Wrong in Orlando, FL 12/2024
Other Current Events • 9 • : KrustyKrab