Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 199

Thread: Evolution vs. Creation

  1. #101
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 10:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Everyone begins to die as soon as they are born. Perhaps you overlooked that fact, but ask yourself why that is...
    God could have avoided sin creeping into the world by creating humans without the capacity to sin. What was the actual point of creating and populating the world? The religious say it's so we can joy in its wonders, yet painful death seems to belie that interpretation.


    God told Adam to not take from the tree. Adam didn't listen and therefore that is the origin of sin (error/disobedience).
    God knew it was going to happen, given that he's omniscient, and it's his fault, given that he designed humans. He doesn't seem that smart. If someone screwed up because I'd mistrained them, I would curse them and their descendants with cancer, leprosy, French people etc. for all eternity. And as for 'obedience', how is obedience a big deal? Did he need slaves? Did he have issues as a child? Yeah, it's nonsense. If he actually thought that everyone was going to obey him to the point that he didn't expect even one person to transgress his dictates and eat an apple or a cornflake or something, then he probably wouldn't even pass GCSE psychology, even though, considering he supposedly designed human psychology, he should be quite an authority.

    Also there is lots of scientific evidence the universe was designed with much perfection. In fact this is where Atheists fail, as they have had to come up with theories like the ''Rare Earth hypothesis'' to explain why the conditions for life on earth are so perfect.
    Perfect? The universe is a dark, cold and lifeless place, punctured by black holes, worm holes and other irregularities. Meteors crash into planets, stars die. Regarding life, mutations and illness are a fact of it. In nature there no straight line etc. Where is the perfection?

    As for life on Earth, you do realise how many trillions of planets there are in the universe. How is it amazing that at least one falls within the environmental parameters suitable for the development of life?

    Good and evil/badness don't exist?

    So you support homosexuality, rape, murder of innocent people?

    Once again this proves Atheists have no morals.
    How does saying something doesn't exist translate to supporting something? I don't believe good and evil exist. Does that mean I'd have no problem with someone gouging my eyes out with a pitchfork? No. There's no connection. The fact that religious people require external compulsion (i.e. God's will) to act morally suggests they have little to no internal compulsion to do it. Murder and rape aren't absolutely wrong, but it's impractical for a society to tolerate them. On a personal level, I object to it because I don't like needless suffering. I don't need god to tell me to oppose it. I just do because that's what I feel. As for homosexuality, I couldn't care less.

  2. #102
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    6 Hours Ago @ 08:08 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,899
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,304
    Thanked in
    557 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Jupiter
    Actually, yes, it is.

    Our will. It comes from us all the time.
    So, in other words, we are god/gods.

    This is the basic belief of (philosophical) Satanism, that there is no outside god, but that we are gods, each and every single one of us.

    Philosophically viewed, this also means that there is no objective "reality", since the world that we perceive is created by us, and someone who never met me and my reality has a complete different one, because his reality emerges from himself.

    This assumption essentially forbids the belief in an outside god.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Jupiter
    It does nothing to actually reveal the essence of our genesis, the spark that ignited our very reality, so it is useless information. Undeniably factual information, but still lacking any practical function.
    This is true for the very most things. Starting from a shovel (you could dig with your hands as well) right up to the computer, that basically solves problems we wouldnt have without it. The actual practical functions of most things are rather limited.

    But your assumption above does something else. Despite that we know that we havent been the first animals on earth, a fact that you obviously dont refute, after all you agree that some of that science seems to be objectively, testably true, you still claim that "we" somehow produce the world, literally, turning absolute everything upside down.

    We dreamed up a ball in the depths of the multiverse that we now inhabit. We dreamed up all the species, even those we do not know at all (every day around thousand species die out, according to estimations, since a vast portion of them we will only discover after they'd died out). And then, our consciousness that dreams up all that, also must have dreamed ourselves up.

    This means that we have been there before the earth. With earth being that planet that enables life (as we know it) to exist in the first place. Our form of organism simply cannot exist outside this planet, that is so disgustingly ideally placed between the sun and the forces that drags it away from the sun, that is so disgustingly ideally balanced to allow changing climate (a necessity for higher life, paradoxically), tides, differing vegetation, differing habitats etc and most of all, offers ideal gravitation that doesnt squash us but also doesnt release us, and more important, the atmosphere.

    But your assumption says that our consciousness was there before, then we dreamed up all this, including our body, to now be locked in this body and on this world. Which would have been not that clever, really...

    But it really is just physics that makes all this. This wonderfully orchestrated dance of cosmic beauty is created by a cosmic force: gravity. Not god. Gravity creates order, gravity created this planet earth, and gravity even orchestrates the coming to be of life, and my personal bet goes on that gravity also is responsible for all this biodiversity. But gravity has no conscious will, it is an impersonal cosmic force, yet gravity is the creator of life.


    If you would claim that evolution is also driven by inner forces (inner to the life form that is affected by evolutionary processes, though seperated from other life forms), then I wouldnt even disagree. Evolution is a perpetuous, mutual process once initiated, that even does include "conscious" decisions (conscious in the sense how every life form reflects its environment, which is very far away from the consciousness we possess, which though is just a layer above this other consciousness) to adapt to certain environments (there is indeed a lot though that we still have to understand about all that). But like the cosmic force of gravity, the force that works 'evolution' is an impersonal force, a force without will, just with laws on which it operates. And like cosmic evolution slows down, also the micro-evolution on earth, of life slows down, since the laws have not much to do anymore. The force ordered the initial chaos, and now we find us in a very ordered world that, in our human naivety, seems to us as if it had been always that way. And the even more naive step was to invent a "god" that made all this. But this god was born from the human, very immature, desperation to understand his own existence and to explain the unexplainable (not yet researched).

    Now, this god was invented just around 2000 years ago, a bit more, and in that time we have found out quite some more things, so the realm of god shrinked dramatically. In our day and age to the point that the still immature human must remove this god from the physical, because meanwhile very well researched and understood, world completely and must place it outside. Because the immature soul of the human still cannot accept that there was noone who gives him purpose.

    It's time for humans to become mature though.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  3. #103
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 @ 06:19 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    74
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    The thread is about Creation vs. Evolution (Origins/how we were made), not about proving/disproving God.

    Here are again the OP points:

    Evolution cannot be proved

    1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

    2. Evolution is not observable.

    Creation cannot be proved

    1. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe or replicate the creation process.

    2. Creation is not taking place now; therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus cannot be observed or tested.
    Neither evolution or creation are scientific as neither can be observed or tested. All views regarding origins are faith based - as no one was there to observe how we were created.

    The historical, philosophical, archeological evidence however all favors the Bible or creation. There is no historical or archeological evidence which supports evolution, quite the opposite. I can get into this, however my question to the evolutionists would be why do you believe in evolution by faith/religion when you have the opportunity to believe in creation?

  4. #104
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    6 Hours Ago @ 08:08 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,899
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,304
    Thanked in
    557 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    The thread is about Creation vs. Evolution (Origins/how we were made), not about proving/disproving God.
    Again, how were we made then? Wouldnt it be meaningful when you put forth your position/faith then to discuss this model?

    Oh, right, actually, you dont really want to discuss your faith, your interest is to "prove" that evolution is a faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Here are again the OP points
    That you made up and want everyone to agree with.

    Note: this is technically not discussion (of different view points), but indoctrination with some phony techniques.


    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Neither evolution or creation are scientific as neither can be observed or tested. All views regarding origins are faith based - as no one was there to observe how we were created.

    Did you ever notice that "empirical science" is not the only science?


    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    however my question to the evolutionists would be why do you believe in evolution by faith/religion when you have the opportunity to believe in creation?

    Look, the correct answer to the question of our origin is: we do not know yet everything.

    This is unsatisfying, agreed, but also the motivator to find out.

    What you are doing is: I want an answer now by all means, and when noone can produce such an answer, I propose a god that made us and you cannot prove that wrong.

    Which most likely resembles the process that led to the "birth" of the creator god quite accurate...
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  5. #105
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 10:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    The thread is about Creation vs. Evolution (Origins/how we were made), not about proving/disproving God.
    How is proving/disproving god not imperative to ascertaining the accuracy of Creationist explanations? You need to establish the existence of god before you even begin to pontificate on divine creation.

    Neither evolution or creation are scientific as neither can be observed or tested. All views regarding origins are faith based - as no one was there to observe how we were created.
    How can evolution not be tested? What makes the plethora of evidence submitted in favour of evolution fail to meet the criteria of a 'test'?

    The historical, philosophical, archeological evidence however all favors the Bible or creation.
    ....

    That is...I don't even...oh, you were joking?

    I don't get it.

    There is no historical or archeological evidence which supports evolution, quite the opposite. I can get into this, however my question to the evolutionists would be why do you believe in evolution by faith/religion when you have the opportunity to believe in creation?
    People tend to reply with the same answers when you keep asking them the same questions. It's interesting how you've avoided any kind of focus on the flaws of creationism, and have returned again to discussing the perceived (and fictional) problems of ET, using the exact same rhetoric that failed to get you anywhere on the first eight pages. If nobody actually steps in and defends the intellectual integrity of Creationism, I can only conclude that even Creationists consider it indefensible (in any other way than thinly veiled trolling).

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 12:02 AM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    585
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    Cancer cells? If god is all knowing, all powerful, and everywhere present, then god is responsible for designing and putting into execution every disease that's ever befallen a child.
    Perhaps God's purpose for man is not to merely exist but to evolve, or in Hegelian terms, to become. To find the synthesis by testing both the thesis and the anti-thesis. Man can know and appreciate life only because he can experience death, health only through sickness, light only through darkness; so on and on. By pursuing a constant synthesis of the positive and negative polarities, man in turn comes to understand truth and free himself from ignorance.

    What necessarily implies the existence of a God?
    Evolution. Through the demonstration of a will which does not follow the path of least resistance.

    God is simply theoretical fat, an intellectual void meaning 'I don't know'. As science and knowledge in general advances, the domain of 'I don't know' and therefore of God recedes.
    This is only because of the delusion that materialism and spiritualism are incompatible. A synthesis must exist where a material existence points to the need of a spiritual one and vice versa.

    Now we have a God who exists beyond our capacity to comprehend him, who is invested in all things but doesn't influence them because his essence lies beyond space-time, that is, a God who's absolutely irrelevant.
    Or a God far wiser than our ignorance can comprehend.

  7. #107
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 @ 06:19 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    74
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Again, how were we made then? Wouldnt it be meaningful when you put forth your position/faith then to discuss this model?
    Not until the OP points are accepted.

    Oh, right, actually, you dont really want to discuss your faith, your interest is to "prove" that evolution is a faith.
    That evolution is a faith has already been proved/accepted/demonstrated.

    Most importantly the honest evolutionists admit it themselves.

    ''The theory of evolution forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."
    — L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii

    So modern editions of Darwin's book (in the introduction) contain the above acceptance that evolution is a faith. A fact admitted by the world's leading evolutionary biologists. Why? Because they admit evolution is not a scientific fact because its not observable or testable. If its not observable or testable its not science.

    Look, the correct answer to the question of our origin is: we do not know yet everything.
    In other words you have finally agreed evolution is not a scientific fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    How is proving/disproving god not imperative to ascertaining the accuracy of Creationist explanations? You need to establish the existence of god before you even begin to pontificate on divine creation.
    It depends on subject area. For example the nature or identity of the creator is not important if we are talking about science, meaning the known physical world. However if we were talking about theology, the identity of the creator would be vital.

    The argument for Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the identity of the creator, all you have to accept is that there is evidence for design in nature.

    This aspect of ID/Creationism is therefore fully scientific as a hypothesis or theory/speculation as it is only concerned with the known physical world and what we can observe and test.

    How can evolution not be tested? What makes the plethora of evidence submitted in favour of evolution fail to meet the criteria of a 'test'?
    The scientific method starts at observation, then you test.

    How can evolution therefore be tested?

    We don't observe fish evolve into land walking creatures, or apes into man. Macroevolution is a pure fairytale & its not apart of science.

    ....

    That is...I don't even...oh, you were joking?

    I don't get it.
    Recorded History only began in 3000BC. Since then (eye-witness testimony) no one has ever observed anything evolve. Humans have always been Humans, dogs always dogs, cats always cats.

    People tend to reply with the same answers when you keep asking them the same questions. It's interesting how you've avoided any kind of focus on the flaws of creationism, and have returned again to discussing the perceived (and fictional) problems of ET, using the exact same rhetoric that failed to get you anywhere on the first eight pages. If nobody actually steps in and defends the intellectual integrity of Creationism, I can only conclude that even Creationists consider it indefensible (in any other way than thinly veiled trolling).
    There are no flaws in creationism, as it doesn't claim to be ongoing. It was a unique one off event.

  8. #108
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 10:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    Perhaps God's purpose for man is not to merely exist but to evolve, or in Hegelian terms, to become. To find the synthesis by testing both the thesis and the anti-thesis. Man can know and appreciate life only because he can experience death, health only through sickness, light only through darkness; so on and on. By pursuing a constant synthesis of the positive and negative polarities, man in turn comes to understand truth and free himself from ignorance.

    But in Hegelian terms, at one point in cultural evolution, we'll have reached a spiritual apex. Hypothetically, from that point onwards, future generations wouldn't know strife. Hegelianism is about cultural, historical strife and overcoming towards an ultimate end. It isn't a process each newborn experiences individually, and at the end dies happy and satiated on all life has to offer.

    The point being, if God intended a Hegelian end to be attained, why not just realise the ideal from the very beginning? The newborns born after the spiritual climax has been reached won't personal benefit or feel the effects of the strife of the generations gone before. Torturing people so that they can maybe enjoy life, or more accurately, so their distant descendants can bear the existential fruits of their suffering is absurd.

    Strife and suffering are realities of life. They don't become attenuated with age, if anything they worsen. And subjecting people to pain so that they can learn to overcome said pain for the greater good is circular. Don't subject them to pain and the pain is no longer an issue.

    Regarding the other points:

    It's absolutely true that appreciation of life is known only through death, but why does it have to be a brutal death?

    It's absolutely true that appreciation of health is known only through experiencing sickness, but why terminal sickness?

    Neither of these are necessary, and in the latter case is antithetical to your idea of self-realisation, betterment, or an increase in spiritual well-being.

    Evolution. Through the demonstration of a will which does not follow the path of least resistance.
    Well, again, that begs the question. All forces are manifestations of will, even those that conflict. God is the will of two creatures tearing each other to shreds, the gravity that's crushing the rock on a man whose will to push the rock away is also god. God is everything, but also nothing. A tautology. A relic of semantics. Is god everything we know and more, or just everything we know? If we know part of god, why not all? Where is his essence, in the part of him we know, or the part we don't? If only one of these represents his essence, then is the other deceitful? etc.

    This is only because of the delusion that materialism and spiritualism are incompatible. A synthesis must exist where a material existence points to the need of a spiritual one and vice versa.
    Material existence doesn't require a spiritual existence to sustain it; it only requires a spiritual existence to sustain it in the manifestation understood by the spiritual existence. Material existence requires a 'spiritual' (i.e. conscious) entity in order to be contemplated, but in no way is the material entity dependent on the mind (only its particular representation in the mind is dependent on the mind). The universe without our conscious contemplation of it wouldn't exist as we know it. But it doesn't depend on our understanding to persist.

    Or a God far wiser than our ignorance can comprehend.
    Exactly. So we know nothing about this god. Is it sentient? No idea. Does it have a will? No idea. Did it create the universe? No idea. Is it a unity? No idea. Is it remotely similar to absolutely anything we can possible comprehend? No idea. So in what way is any light shed on anything? For all the religious talk of God being incomprehensible, religious people speak of god as though he were an old, bearded, slightly less intelligent than average human being. If they believe nothing can be known about god, then they should stop worshiping it.

  9. #109
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 04:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,593
    Thanked in
    1,393 Posts
    TruthSeeker, I believe velvet posted a photo of the Universe in its early stages of formation and you dismissed it because it doesn't show Adam being sculpted from a block of clay and Eve eating an apple to unleash sin upon the world.

    Now, I realise that science is fallible but are you seriously telling me that those making honest, scientific attempts to solve the mysteries of the cosmos (regardless of whether these turn out to be 100% correct) and those cussedly clinging to some ancient biblical fable both have the same “faith”-based approach?

    I beg to differ!

  10. #110
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bittereinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 6th, 2019 @ 07:52 PM
    Ethnicity
    Boer
    Ancestry
    Netherlands, Germany & Norway
    Subrace
    Faordiby
    State
    Orange Free State Orange Free State
    Location
    Grootrivier
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Cognitive Dissident
    Politics
    Verwoerdian
    Religion
    Heretic
    Posts
    1,593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    200
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    281
    Thanked in
    159 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Disease and death entered the world when sin did, Romans 6: 23 - ''For the wages of sin is death...''
    The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, often shortened to Romans, is the sixth book in the New Testament. Biblical scholars agree that it was composed by the Apostle Paul, [1] to explain that Salvation is offered through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is by far the longest of the Pauline epistles, and is considered his "most important theological legacy".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans
    Paul the Apostle, also called the Apostle Paul, Paul of Tarsus, and Saint Paul, (Ancient Greek: Σαούλ (Saul), Σαῦλος (Saulos), and Παῦλος (Paulos); Latin: Paulus or Paullus; Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎ Šaʾul HaTarsi (Saul of Tarsus)[3] (c. 5 - c. 67 ),[2] was of the tribe of Benjamin.[4][5] He was a zealous Jew, who persecuted the early followers of Jesus Christ. However after his "Resurrection experience", he became a Christian and referred to himself as the "Apostle to the Gentiles".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul
    Paul, whose Hebrew name was Saul,[19] was "of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul
    Based on his letters Paul was clearly well schooled in Greek philosophy and being brought up in Tarsus he would have been familiar with Hellenist culture. The Pharisees of which Paul was an adherent were not an insulated Jewish cultural movement recoiling from contact with the outside world. They were immensely loyal to the God of Israel, to their Jewish kinship and heritage but also well studied on all matters within the greater Hellenistic world, its commercial, social and political institutions. As a Jew he would have visited Jerusalem often and for reasons that are not completely certain he would rise to a position as a trusted deputy of the Jerusalem Temple Chief Priest. One attribute that seems to have played a role was his extraordinary and excessive personal ambition.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul
    Quoting from the bible so as to try and prove Creation or the existence of god is like taking a knife to a gun fight... Especially if you chose to quote the most unsavory character of them all IMHO... Paul is a charlatan who used Christianity to battle Amalek of the day AKA The Roman Empire...

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Interestingly virtually every ancient world culture has this state of a 'fall' described in their mythology.
    And why is this so interesting... Please elaborate rather then dropping half baked idees. If there is such an interesting correlation place the facts on the table.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Another interesting fact is the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us everything in the universe is decaying, everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Nothing evolves and gets better.
    WTF, If this were true as you are implying, there would be no crop, there would be no trees. Trees get bigger right? Bigger is Better right, More oxygen, more firewood, more cell's in the bigger tree versus a smaller tree. Frankly I don’t think thermodynamics has any thing to do with this topic but lets see:

    Second law of thermodynamics
    When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself, but not in equilibrium with each other at first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium. The sum of the entropies of the initial, isolated systems is less than or equal to the entropy of the final exchanging systems. In the process of reaching a new thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy has increased, or at least has not decreased.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
    Please explain how the above equals:

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time
    ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Indeed, thermodynamics fully refutes the theory of evolution.
    Really and how’s that? Here the first law seems to allow for evolution and the second law does neither refute or even holds any relevance to evolution.

    Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
    Really I cannot see how laws of thermodynamics have any significance to evolution vs. creation…
    Although the word "Commando" was wrongly used to describe all Boer soldiers, a commando was a unit formed from a particular district. None of the units was organized in regular companies, battalions or squadrons. The Boer commandos were individualists who were difficult to control, resented formal discipline or orders, and earned a British jibe that"every Boer was his own general".

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Creation of Zion (1799)
    By Caledonian in forum Early Modern Age
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 05:12 AM
  2. The Germanic Myth of Creation
    By SwordOfTheVistula in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 01:39 AM
  3. Replies: 30
    Last Post: Tuesday, December 6th, 2005, 02:34 AM
  4. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 08:39 PM
  5. Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
    By friedrich braun in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 02:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •