evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous

reply to post by Xcalibur254


o i see well tahnks for the info

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
A picture says a thousand words!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c4fffe02516.jpg[/atsimg]

i love office space but i don't recall them beating a dead horse
also what does that have to do with anything?
is it a metaphor of some sort?

Its a direct analogy to those who continue to rehash the creation v's evolution argument by recycling the same stuff over and over.
Its beating a dead horse! I thought it self explanitory.

The pic says, 'its dead already, leave it be unless you really have something new to say, not something recycled, said in a new way.
Its circular. I wonder how many threads there are that argue the same points with the same stuff?
I was hoping there might've actually been something original in this thread.
I think I'll simply avoid any further c v's e threads.

Office space? I didnt manipulate the image, so I dont know what it might've been originally.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Its a direct analogy to those who continue to rehash the creation v's evolution argument by recycling the same stuff over and over.
Its beating a dead horse! I thought it self explanitory.

The pic says, 'its dead already, leave it be unless you really have something new to say, not something recycled, said in a new way.
Its circular. I wonder how many threads there are that argue the same points with the same stuff?
I was hoping there might've actually been something original in this thread.
I think I'll simply avoid any further c v's e threads.

Office space? I didnt manipulate the image, so I dont know what it might've been originally.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

well alot of this stuff thats been said is new to me and im sure alot of people on this blog

but i suppose you make a good point thanks for posting

also if you wanted to something new from this thread what would you say?

Im afraid I have to go out right now, and I have commented on the argument befor now, but rather than my rewriting it, there may be a function to 'find all post by' that you can search for the same topic I have replied in and read my thoughts there. Barring that, search evolution/creationism threads since my join date. Shouldnt be too hard to find.
Enjoy reading. Cheers

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by edmc^2
quote]Originally posted by ashanu90
so if that's the case then explain this;

Adam was made on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31) which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Genesis 5:5).

Where are u getting your numbers ashnu? Who said Adam lived a thousand years. By your acount in Gen 5:5 he lived 930 years which is correct. But are you aware that we are now more than 6000 years since the creation od Adam? Do you know what year he was created? And are you also aware that we are in that 7th 'day'?

ats i think i know why there are so many rehashed posts on the same subject. no one wants to read them anymore once they get to the 4th 8th 35th etc post and thats why alot of threads die so ats, please keep reading he threads or they will just come back at you in another form

reply to post by wayaboveitall


imho, it's not a dead horse because the advancement of technology and knowledge helps us to verify, refine, update, even change minds the things we know, knew and believe. It can prove or disprove somethings that we've accepted in the past. And there's always something new to learn provided the discussion is conducted in civility - as I find the case here at ATS.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by edmc^2
quote]Originally posted by ashanu90
so if that's the case then explain this;

Adam was made on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31) which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Genesis 5:5).

Where are u getting your numbers ashnu? Who said Adam lived a thousand years. By your acount in Gen 5:5 he lived 930 years which is correct. But are you aware that we are now more than 6000 years since the creation od Adam? Do you know what year he was created? And are you also aware that we are in that 7th 'day'?

my sorce is evilbible.com
we most certaninly are not in the '7th day' that is long over if it ever was
also if adam lived for 930 years and created on the sixth day then the sicth day would only be 930 years humans have been around much longer than 6930 years here read this

"So God created man in his own image,...male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27), and “the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately 6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher’s calculations), then nobody lived before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than 9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus’ ancestors had lived to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according to creationists.

reply to post by edmc^2


also earlier i made a point about the stars and their age are you avoiding questions you can't answer of you can't anwer then say ashanu i just can't answer that i don't know. i'm not going to call you a moron or anything the most i would do is say that there is a flaw in your logic if you can't answer. no harm no foul it's all cool "G" you know?


i only negatively react to negative action or at least i try to keep it that way

Originally posted by ashanu90
reply to post by edmc^2

 

also earlier i made a point about the stars and their age are you avoiding questions you can't answer of you can't anwer then say ashanu i just can't answer that i don't know. i'm not going to call you a moron or anything the most i would do is say that there is a flaw in your logic if you can't answer. no harm no foul it's all cool "G" you know?


i only negatively react to negative action or at least i try to keep it that way

Not at all ashanu90 - I'm cool but I thought I've already answered it, I guess not (to your satisfaction). Anyway here's just one of things I I said:

"The perfect planet amongst the other planets in the universe. Situated just right amongst the billions of galaxy's – not too close nor too far from the sun with it's moon."

Let's take for example Alpha Centauri - do you know how far the light will travel to reach our solar system? According to calculations it will take around 4.37 light years, thus just this binary star probably way wayyyyy older than the earth. That's just one, to quote Carl Sagan - there are 'billions and billions' of galaxy out there with their 'billions and billions of stars." So yes I never said that stars are younger than the earth but I can also 'assume' that were probably stars being created while the earth was being prepared for habitation. Besides according to science and astronomy stars are born and then die. New ones will form while others - super nova - die.

I'll get back to your other Q but you have not answer my very first Q yet:

--> Could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?
--> Are scientists themselves convinced that this could happen?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by ashanu90
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I'll get back to your other Q but you have not answer my very first Q yet:

--> Could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?
--> Are scientists themselves convinced that this could happen?

you said that? well ok then heres my answer
could undirected chemichal reactions relying on more chance create life? well i don't see why not if a colony of mold germs can appear on rotten boloni all by themselves why not? it's a great question though thank you

as for your second ? i don't pretend to know the minds of scientists im sure there are those who think so and those who do not

also another question for you in the bible does it not say the earth was made FIRST and THEN THE stars? it didn't say god made some stars it said he made THE stars correct?

Originally posted by ashanu90
hello ats i would like to start off by saying evolution is a FACT not a theory this man said it best

science has backed up evolution time and time again it's true!! watch cosmos!
and creotionism has no backing other than the bible and many christians will say that the fact the bible exists proves everything about god, angels and, creation.
IT SIMPLY DOES NOT. with that logic evolution is true because the book origins of the species exists, or that that a place beyond time and space where cowboys fight demons exist because stephen king wrote the dark tower.

also beleivers say the bible is historically accurate
well yes it is on many things but news flash
the pyramids were built by egyptian contractors who were paid very well not jewish slaves and genesis doesn't add up to what we know is true

1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

5) “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created - great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.

6) “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.

7) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made…every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind…" (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age.
my source is evilbible.com
any thoughts anyone?

It doesn't really matter if more or less people believe in Evolution or Creation. Those beliefs are really only symptoms of the real issue.

I doubt it if questions on the origins of the universe will be among the questions you will be asked on Judgment Day. One example of what to expect on Judgment Day.

No matter how you slice or dice it, you cannot get anything from slime but slime.


What part of "slime" are the Ev-oh-lushionist not getting about this.........?



If evolution were true, there would be NO monkeys or no anything else since everything would be in a constant state of change. Unless the slime got stuck in the "mankind" mode for a few gabillion years?

reply to post by CharlesMartel


You are quoting from a source that is a rewritten "version" of the King James Bible. What's that I hear ? Just the credibility going whooooooooooooosh.



The New International "Perversion" is modern day man's rewritten "version" - he didn't like the rules so he changed things around a tad.

Unlike most people I do not like to go into message boards and just start running my mouth. But If I want to share any info with you on other topics I have to post 20 replies.

So I would ask?
What kind of evolution are you talking about?
This is where scientific theory differs.

What would be the purpose for evolution?
Because according to (mainstream)science: If sexual reproduction is a consequence of evolution? According to it's own method; it's an inferior way to reproduce.

The ancient mysteries started out supposing that something; some force, anything, started all of this. Well that something must of left some rules...If we can guess what these rules are and find a pattern....Then we can become prophets of the future, even manipulate matter to the point we change the whole destiny of this world.

So it became very beneficial to get rid of the original rule maker and kept the rules? The Earth isn't a entity that grows life out of it. Now the earth is a hunk of rock that is infested with life. Like your bones are infested with cells. It's funny to me to keep the functions of life but then remove the purpose for living. Which I might add; doesn't have to be serving the two G's, God or Government.

The whole purpose of Darwin "Evolution" was to make machines out of man. If your just a machine then you should let the controllers perfect you. The builders that created a science of manipulating nature. To make you into their image. The new man.

But institutional science conceals the New World Order and Rhetoric is used to square the minds of men. So they blindly obey the words, and instead of rejecting both they feel they must follow one or the other.

Darwin says:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Science argues:

Theory is better than fact because it's science?!? Yet through the scientific method it makes sense that humming birds don't read because they have small stomach's. Men read because they have more time between meals. () We come to this conclusion because we are missing information. There still is a lot of missing information in Evolution Theory. Despite your claims to the opposite.

Favored Races doesn't mean Elite Races anymore. In science they believe favored races to be the ones that are better breeders. The Elites use this idea and insist they are a better breed. They set up massive institutions through religion and science to quell inferior kinds.

What about random chance selection? Is it the strongest of the strong, weakest of the weak? Where are these lines drawn accept in the perceptions of men. What was strong can become weak. What is week can become strong. The mountain was once strong to man but now we move them with greater ease. Something wind and water have done since the beginning. On some days we as man stand against the wind and water. Other days they can take our lives.

Oh how they tweak words and then your mind.

I reject Evolution and a Creator. I am part of creation.
I move through it, it moves through me. An experience of a lifetime.

Just some of my ideas, Don't be amused, bemused.
Check out my site at [mod edit: gratuitous link removed]







[edit on 20-3-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

science has backed up evolution time and time again it's true!! watch cosmos!

Every where you see the word science in this thread, replace it with man.

i find that quite immature and backwards randys perhaps you should watch some cosmos or go on youtube and watch the internet where religions come to die

Immature?

Take a look at this whole thread. It looks like a congragation of jealous
brats that can't even come close to matching the intelligence it would take to create the genome so in the same manner some little kid holds his breath when he's upset with Mommy and Daddy. You people just find
you're way to saying there is no supreme being ? Evolution is a fact?
Well I find that completely laughable.

All you are saying at the end of your pride and boastfully bombastic
statements in your magnificent efforts to eliminate your creator God.
Is that this great gigantic magic show,( the universe) as you describe it, as I describe it, or as God ( the only possible magician that could have performed such magic) describes it. Is an even greater magic show than
we all thought. Hell, we all live in the most magical, of all magic shows,
that even the imagination of God himself could conceive, because this
show performs without a magician. All you are really doing is creating your own illusions.

I tell ya I can see exactly why you people all think you're so damn smart.
That's for sure.

OP this is just a simple lil question. IT IS NOT A LOADED QUESTION.

Do you believe you have a soul? It is a yes or no answer only. Without explaination after you answer. Again this is not by any means a loaded question. Simply yes or no for the record. Do you believe you have a soul?

Of course there is the fifth.

[

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out" -Carl Sagan

The poor man didn't realise the mind and the brain aren't even a part of each other. Very sad.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by randyvs]

Ashanu, looks like you are hang up with the star/earth-earth/star conundrum. But before I clarify it further, let me make this statement. As a JW we don't have anything against science, scientist and cosmologist for their many discoveries has helped us to appreciate more the power and love of the creator. It also helped us to confirm this statement:

“His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.” (Romans 1:20).

Also consider this very important point - the Bible is not a scientific book but if verified against TRUE science it is 100% accurate. The more knowledge we gain from studying the universe the more clearer the scriptures become. It is only when the scriptures are put against false science then the conflict arises and in the same vain when false religion with it's fanatical belief and unscriptural teachings are put against true science will conflict arise. But if we let the scriptures stand on its own, speak for itself if you will, then the true meaning will come out in full agreement with science – that is true science. Blind faith also plays a major role on both camps – insisting on something that is contrary to nature or for that matter true science of nature causes great conflict (point in case – flat earth, hell, immortal soul, piltdown man, primordial soup, etc). It is this blind faith that alienate/alienated many to the true teachings of the scriptures or science and both are guilty of it. However there are things on both camps that are beyond our grasp (for now) and yet we readily accept them as normal for they are part of our lives. Others will require faith to believe in them, great faith sometimes. But again this not blind faith but faith as described in the following scriptures

“Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear.” Hebrew 9:1-3. Yes faith backed up by realities though not beheld.

Now back to your Q:
I don't know how extensive your knowledge of the bible is so don't take my word unless you've verified it yourself.

Here's what you said:

“the bible does it not say the earth was made FIRST and THEN THE stars? it didn't say god made some stars it said he made THE stars correct?

I believe this is the text you are referring to:

Gen 1:16 “And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars”.

Did you notice something in the wording? The word used was “make”, or as you put it 'made' instead of “create” like in Gen 1:1. What's the difference between the two words?
Well in Hebrew the original word used for 'make' is “'a-sah' while 'create' is 'ba-ra' which is used exclusively with reference to divine creation.
As I've already explained since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.—Ge 1:14.
So no – the earth was not created before the stars.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by edmc^2]

cont..
But like what I already said, it's also possible that some stars were created (ba-ra) at this stage.

As for my question that you vaguely answered, can you provide evidence or studies conducted to prove that it is even possible? I'm sure through the ages there must be evidence even minute evidence of what you said.

By the way this question will undermine the very foundation of the theory of evolution if not answered satisfactorily. So here it is again: could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?

Your answer (so far):

well i don't see why not if a colony of mold germs can appear on rotten boloni all by themselves why not?

Isn't this like one of those blind faith answer?

Btw – mold germ is a living organism. Are you implying that it came from nothing (Louis Pasteur)?

We need facts to support your claim that “evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous” - Just this one question will determine the validity of your claim.

If you ask me – I've provided facts backed up by scriptures/logic and science to support my claim of a Creator and creation. And I will provide more but you need to answer my question intelligently/logically.

To give you a clue of the the logic behind my question here's how I define Evolution → refers to organic evolution — the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention.

Creation → on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.

happy trails..




[edit on 16-3-2010 by edmc^2]

Originally posted by randyvs






OP this is just a simple lil question. IT IS NOT A LOADED QUESTION.

Do you believe you have a soul? It is a yes or no answer only. Without explaination after you answer. Again this is not by any means a loaded question. Simply yes or no for the record. Do you believe you have a soul?

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out" -Carl Sagan

The poor man didn't realise the mind and the brain aren't even a part of each other. Very sad.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by randyvs]

do i beleive i have a soul? no i don't

brain and mind? the mind is located in the brain i'll prove it
let's say someone has a beer
the alcohol is digested and sent throughout the bloodstream
eventually it reaches the brain
and that is when the altered state of mind occurs
lack of judgmen
slow reaction time
agreesive/deppressive behaviour
etc etc

so how is the bran and the mind so separate? you need a brain to have a mind

oh and randys....remember on your thread BORN OF EARTH AND SKY?
I'm still waiting on you to correct me