A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Retro Rob]

Accepting that a god exists is different than accepting that the bible is the word of god. The fact that you think they are one in the same is proof that your supposed wisdom is only in relation to the complete lack thereof in the people you surround yourself with.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because I've studied it -- I don't know how you could possibly have ascertained that it had anything to do with the company I keep. In fact, how could you even know such a thing?

 

[Tweak155]

You haven't grasped even the most basic tenant of science so you're not fooling anyone.

You have no real grounds to say this, although you think you do.

Seems your entire life is driven by what other people tell you your religious beliefs should be. Stop, think for yourself don't be pulled in. Though I don't know if it will be possible for your brain to understand after how you were raised. You would have to go into things you weren't taught and start learning things on your own without others telling you how things work.

Same here, although you have the failed assumption that *if* he did, he would agree with you. We call that arrogance. Ignorance may or may not be proven later.

You clearly haven't done a good job then. There is plenty of strong evidence to support the theory of evolution. Just because you either a) don't believe it, or b) don't understand it, doesn't mean that evolution is suddenly not true.

Another case of arrogance.

Or option c), it could explicitly be wrong or not make sense. However you've yet to challenge him on the topic, rather just assume you're right. That doesn't all of a sudden mean that evolution is suddenly true

Just so we're clear, I find that many of these arguments stem from people not specifying what type of evolution is being discussed. Evolution certainly has been proven true as far as minor changes over a <usually long> period of time. Generally when arguing with a christian, the problem they are focused on is how life came to be.

And in the long run - 90+% of the time, an evolutionist will remain an evolutionist and a creationist a creationist (or whatever "ist" they started as). It's a waste of time. But of all these back and forth's I've noticed, the evolutionists are the ones who try to attack the intelligence of the other poster (or the intelligence of creationists in general) rather than discuss the topic, as though it helps prove them right. The evolutionists make a case against themselves each and every time.

 

[IronWing]

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because I've studied it ...

That shouldn't have taken long, it says so right on the cover.

 

[sdifox]

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because I've studied it -- I don't know how you could possibly have ascertained that it had anything to do with the company I keep. In fact, how could you even know such a thing?

Which version?

http://rense.com/general66/hide.htm

 

[crashtestdummy]

Accepting that a god exists is different than accepting that the bible is the word of god. The fact that you think they are one in the same is proof that your supposed wisdom is only in relation to the complete lack thereof in the people you surround yourself with.

I actually disagree with you in tone if not in exact wording. While belief in God and bible literalism aren't exactly identical, they require the exact same leap into the metaphysical. Neither topic has conclusive observable evidence behind them, nor do they provide verifiable predictions not also produced by better supported physical theory. Thus, once you make that departure from rationality that RobM describes, it is not difficult to make the same jump to Bible literalism.

Sure the Bible contradicts itself in many places and makes statements that are in direct conflict with verifiable experiments, but if you're willing to depart from the observable to proclaim that God must exist, then further claiming than an absolute "Truth" supersedes observation is easy.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm not ignoring or retreating guys...just got a project up and running at work.

I'll spew more religious babble at you guys after work

 

[Tweak155]

I actually disagree with you in tone if not in exact wording. While belief in God and bible literalism aren't exactly identical, they require the exact same leap into the metaphysical. Neither topic has conclusive observable evidence behind them, nor do they provide verifiable predictions not also produced by better supported physical theory. Thus, once you make that departure from rationality that RobM describes, it is not difficult to make the same jump to Bible literalism.

Sure the Bible contradicts itself in many places and makes statements that are in direct conflict with verifiable experiments, but if you're willing to depart from the observable to proclaim that God must exist, then further claiming than an absolute "Truth" supersedes observation is easy.

Well worded, but does disproving the bible mean there is no god?

 

[Retro Rob]

I actually disagree with you in tone if not in exact wording. While belief in God and bible literalism aren't exactly identical, they require the exact same leap into the metaphysical. Neither topic has conclusive observable evidence behind them, nor do they provide verifiable predictions not also produced by better supported physical theory. Thus, once you make that departure from rationality that RobM describes, it is not difficult to make the same jump to Bible literalism.

Sure the Bible contradicts itself in many places and makes statements that are in direct conflict with verifiable experiments, but if you're willing to depart from the observable to proclaim that God must exist, then further claiming than an absolute "Truth" supersedes observation is easy.

I'm sure you understand the defintion of "rationalism" I was referring to -- the defintion that absolute truth can be discovered by strictly defining things in human terms only.

 

[BudAshes]

I actually disagree with you in tone if not in exact wording. While belief in God and bible literalism aren't exactly identical, they require the exact same leap into the metaphysical. Neither topic has conclusive observable evidence behind them, nor do they provide verifiable predictions not also produced by better supported physical theory. Thus, once you make that departure from rationality that RobM describes, it is not difficult to make the same jump to Bible literalism.

Sure the Bible contradicts itself in many places and makes statements that are in direct conflict with verifiable experiments, but if you're willing to depart from the observable to proclaim that God must exist, then further claiming than an absolute "Truth" supersedes observation is easy.

Believing in a god is a leap of faith. Who's to say that the universe wasn't sparked into existence by some unfathomable being that was interested in creating a sand box for life. Cosmic rocks carry the building blocks throughout the universe and the fundamental laws of our universe create the option for our consciousness to have evolved. Someone that takes that leap of faith I can respect. The bible is just words written by people used to control other people. Considering it the word of an omnipotent being is a leap of stupidity, not a leap of faith.

 

[Retro Rob]

Believing in a god is a leap of faith. Who's to say that the universe wasn't sparked into existence by some unfathomable being that was interested in creating a sand box for life. Cosmic rocks carry the building blocks throughout the universe and the fundamental laws of our universe create the option for our consciousness to have evolved. Someone that takes that leap of faith I can respect. The bible is just words written by people used to control other people. Considering it the word of an omnipotent being is a leap of stupidity, not a leap of faith.

I've asked people repeatedly to provide even a crumb of evidence for this.

Secondly, seeing how the Bible was routinely kept OUT of the hands of common people during the Dark Ages flies in the face of your "fact".

Obviously, it would have been used as a means of coersion then if what you say is true.

 

[BudAshes]

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because I've studied it -- I don't know how you could possibly have ascertained that it had anything to do with the company I keep. In fact, how could you even know such a thing?

I can ascertain this because your feeling of wisdom is relative to those around you.

 

[sdifox]

I've asked people repeatedly to provide even a crumb of evidence for this.

Secondly, seeing how the Bible was routinely kept OUT of the hands of common people during the Dark Ages flies in the face of your "fact".

It was left in Latin specifically because the church does not think the peasants should be reading it themselves, rather, just believe what the church is telling them. Plus at the time books were super expensive.


Read up on Martin Luther...

 

[crashtestdummy]

Well worded, but does disproving the bible mean there is no god?

No. The problem is not the possibility of God's existence but gnosticism. As much as the religious person cannot proclaim that God exists while adhering to observable evidence and prediction, I cannot tell you that God cannot exist. I will say, however, that for any other topic, a complete lack of verifiable evidence would leave most people in a natural state of unbelief.

If, for example, I told you that there were a species of unicorn cheetas orbiting the star Sirus, yet provided no evidence of this, you would likely not believe me. At the same time, though, it would be exceptionally difficult for you to ever prove to me that I'm wrong. The better question is whether it was ever a particularly useful proclamation to make. If my statement created no verifiable outcomes, than even discussing its possibility is little more than mental masturbation.

 

[BudAshes]

I've asked people repeatedly to provide even a crumb of evidence for this.

Secondly, seeing how the Bible was routinely kept OUT of the hands of common people during the Dark Ages flies in the face of your "fact".

You just proved my point.

Think about it for a minute, use some of the wisdom you claim to have. If you still can't figure it out, and no one else has filled you in, I will come back and explain it to you.

 

[Retro Rob]

It was left in Latin specifically because the church does not think the peasants should be reading it themselves, rather, just believe what the church is telling them. Plus at the time books were super expensive.

True. However, just because it was used as a tool doesn't mean that it was written for that purpose. This is easy to refute. Knives are often used as tools employed to inflict harm and death to other humans. Does that mean steak knives' primary purpose is to stab individuals to death?

no.

 

[Retro Rob]

You just proved my point.

Think about it for a minute, use some of the wisdom you claim to have. If you still can't figure it out, and no one else has filled you in, I will come back and explain it to you.

I don't mind being corrected, even publicly.

See my post above.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'm sure you understand the defintion of "rationalism" I was referring to -- the defintion that absolute truth can be discovered by strictly defining things in human terms only.

I do. I was merely pointing out that it is impossible to prove either the existence of God or that the Bible is infallible through entirely rational means, and that the leap to reach the first conclusion is not much farther than the leap to the second.

For what it's worth, I'm much more a positivist than a rationalist. I do not assume that we can understand all Truth in the universe, or even that there is an absolute Truth to be had. Rather, I suggest that the only things worth pursuing are those that are fundamentally observable and create predictions.

For example, I think few would argue that my walking out a 10th story window would be a bad thing for my health. If I doubt that statement, though, I can verify such an outcome by repeated experiment. I thus consider that statement to be both true and useful information. I can further make estimations of my rate of descent and force of impact, which are likewise verifiable and repeatable (at least with dummies that look like me). I thus say that the theories of gravity, force, and momentum behind those estimations are true (until I find an experiment where they don't work--cf relativity). Statements that do not meet this kind of criteria are not necessarily wrong but instead irrelevant to my existence.

Believing in a god is a leap of faith. Who's to say that the universe wasn't sparked into existence by some unfathomable being that was interested in creating a sand box for life. Cosmic rocks carry the building blocks throughout the universe and the fundamental laws of our universe create the option for our consciousness to have evolved. Someone that takes that leap of faith I can respect. The bible is just words written by people used to control other people. Considering it the word of an omnipotent being is a leap of stupidity, not a leap of faith.

Likewise, who's to say that all this "evidence" that we collect and use to proclaim that the universe is 13 billion years old isn't some elaborate ruse created by an omnipotent being to test our faith? Once you've accepted one unverifiable conclusion, it is not hard to add more.

 

[Juddog]

Likewise, who's to say that all this "evidence" that we collect and use for to proclaim that the universe is 13 billion years old isn't some elaborate ruse created by an omnipotent being to test our faith? Once you've accepted one unverifiable conclusion, it is not hard to add more.

It's the equivalent of people saying that the devil planted the bones of dinosaur (ie fossils) to test the faith of humans into doubting that the world is really 6500 years old.

 

[Retro Rob]

I do. I was merely pointing out that it is impossible to prove either the existence of God or that the Bible is infallible through entirely rational means, and that the leap to reach the first conclusion is not much farther than the leap to the second.

For what it's worth, I'm much more a positivist than a rationalist. I do not assume that we can understand all Truth in the universe, or even that there is an absolute Truth to be had. Rather, I suggest that the only things worth pursuing are those that are fundamentally observable and create predictions.

For example, I think few would argue that my walking out a 10th story window would be a bad thing for my health. If I doubt that statement, though, I can verify such an outcome by repeated experiment. I thus consider that statement to be both true and useful information. I can further make estimations of my rate of descent and force of impact, which are likewise verifiable and repeatable (at least with dummies that look like me). I thus say that the theories of gravity, force, and momentum behind those estimations are true (until I find an experiment where they don't work--cf relativity). Statements that do not meet this kind of criteria are not necessarily wrong but instead irrelevant to my existence.

I do think there is an absolute truth to be had...primarily becasue there are absolute truths -- we do have evidence for this. For instance, the Sun is hot, water is wet, exposure to space radation will kill you, you can't survive in the vaccum of space outside of a space suit and helmet, and so on.

We need to create a different science. Our current science doesn't deal with absolute truths, IMO....that doesn't mean there aren't any to be had.

 

[Exophase]

So creationists beliefs never change or waiver but evolutionists have to change their beliefs many times to fit whatever the current theory is.

That's not true, I was a creationist whose beliefs were gradually completely dropped after a lot of research into it. I used to think a lot like you did way back when I was in highschool. And it's hard getting over things you have a strong emotional attachment to/investment in, not to mention what you think at the time is the more intellectually reasonable position.

But it happens, and I'm probably not the only one.

 

[Juddog]

I do think there is an absolute truth to be had...primarily becasue there are absolute truths -- we do have evidence for this. For instance, the Sun is hot, water is wet, exposure to space radation will kill you, you can't survive in the vaccum of space outside of a space suit and helmet, and so on.

We need to create a different science. Our current science doesn't deal with absolute truths, IMO....that doesn't mean there aren't any to be had.

None of those examples are absolute truths; they are relative truths.

The sun is hot - to you. To an alien life form that lived in million degree heat, the sun might be cold.
Water is wet - to you. Given that there are several forms of water, and water itself isn't a superfluid, then it's possible that water isn't wet to certain alien life forms.
Exposure to space radiation will kill you. It's possible that there is alien life that can survive a vacuum; for example there are certain fungus spores which can survive the vacuum of space.

 

[JTsyo]

I've asked people repeatedly to provide even a crumb of evidence for this.

Secondly, seeing how the Bible was routinely kept OUT of the hands of common people during the Dark Ages flies in the face of your "fact".

Obviously, it would have been used as a means of coersion then if what you say is true.

Wiki: Making of the Bible

The Bible is a collection of books. At different points, people picked what was to be included and what wasn't. Books of the NT were finalized 300-400 years after Christ. Now the point of the Bible wasn't to control people but the spread the word of God. But one of the reasons it spread so well is that the rulers saw how Christianity encouraged the people to be meek. Of course once it left cult status and entered religion status, all the trappings evolved around it. Reading the NT the first churches seemed to be like a commune.

 

[Retro Rob]

None of those examples are absolute truths; they are relative truths.

The sun is hot - to you. To an alien life form that lived in million degree heat, the sun might be cold.
Water is wet - to you. Given that there are several forms of water, and water itself isn't a superfluid, then it's possible that water isn't wet to certain alien life forms.
Exposure to space radiation will kill you. It's possible that there is alien life that can survive a vacuum; for example there are certain fungus spores which can survive the vacuum of space.

Until you can prove that there are aliens that meet the criteria you presented, then those are not relative truths.

 

[Paul98]

They aren't absolute truth's even if there aren't aliens. The sun is hot for us, it's not hot compared to many other stars....

 

[Tweak155]

No. The problem is not the possibility of God's existence but gnosticism. As much as the religious person cannot proclaim that God exists while adhering to observable evidence and prediction, I cannot tell you that God cannot exist. I will say, however, that for any other topic, a complete lack of verifiable evidence would leave most people in a natural state of unbelief.

If, for example, I told you that there were a species of unicorn cheetas orbiting the star Sirus, yet provided no evidence of this, you would likely not believe me. At the same time, though, it would be exceptionally difficult for you to ever prove to me that I'm wrong. The better question is whether it was ever a particularly useful proclamation to make. If my statement created no verifiable outcomes, than even discussing its possibility is little more than mental masturbation.

This is ultimately where the debate has its issues. The level of evidence it takes for one person to believe may be well above or below the other persons own requirement of evidence. Are you suggesting there is a complete lack of verifiable evidence for an intelligent designer, or simply that you do not feel there is adequate evidence? Subtle difference, but I suspect you see what specifically I am asking.