TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- oh my god
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Sorry brother but both your post and the one that you are attempting to support show a serious lack of knowledge regarding physical anthropology. There certainly is a clear chain from Astrolopithicus to Homo Sapien... granted, we don't have skeletal records for every part of this chain but the chain is there. Try to remember that the search for fosil records of these two classes of primate have only really been going on since the early 60s. The fact that we have found as much of the chain as we have is somewhat astounding. Where your argument that evolution is not correct because we have not found a direct link is flawed is because you are suggesting that there is only one link. We already know of at least 4 Homo species prior to Homo Sapien Archaic and 3 Astrololpithicus species after Afarencis.... it is only a matter of time before we find the last Astrolopithicus and the first Homo. BTW, as I said earlier creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If you take an interpretive view of the bible the story of creation is a very good allagory for evolution.... which makes sense to me because God is certainly bright enough to know that no bronze age people would understand the big bang and evolution so he had to tell the story in a manner they could relate to.

Why, then, is it still referred to as the "theory" of evolution. There isn't any definitive proof that these intermediary species existed, just a lot of assumption. Half the time they're pulling parts from different species. I think it takes just as much a leap of faith to believe evolution, as it does to believe in God. In addition, the big bang theory goes against the laws of thermodynamics. A bunch of gases (disorder) created solids (order). I'm not going to say I'm an expert in evolutionary theory, as I don't buy it and would rather not waste time on it, but I did take Physical Anthropology, in college, and there were a lot of assumptions and unsubstantiated data. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm sure we're not gonna change each others minds.

Just checked in to this thread and having gone through a few pages I am left wondering,

Why does Slylee always create the longest discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer Why, then, is it still referred to as the "theory" of evolution. There isn't any definitive proof that these intermediary species existed, just a lot of assumption. Half the time they're pulling parts from different species. I think it takes just as much a leap of faith to believe evolution, as it does to believe in God. In addition, the big bang theory goes against the laws of thermodynamics. A bunch of gases (disorder) created solids (order). I'm not going to say I'm an expert in evolutionary theory, as I don't buy it and would rather not waste time on it, but I did take Physical Anthropology, in college, and there were a lot of assumptions and unsubstantiated data. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm sure we're not gonna change each others minds.

We will not change each other's minds, that is true.

Most scientists do not refer to evolution as a theory anymore.

I agree the fossil record is incomplete, however, as I pointed out earlier that is not evidence that evolution is flawed but rather that we simply have not found them yet.

With regard to the big bang theory it should be noted that the early universe would have been liquid rather then gaseous. Additionally, we are able to observe new stars forming which is where the model for the formation of the early universe comes from. The extrapolations are done based on proven physics and observable events.

Finally, the only difference between our beliefes is that I don't believe in a literal translation of the bible.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Pal, your post is rather misguided in that you seem to think I do not believe in God. That is not true, I am a believer, I'm in church every Sunday, and unlike many who blindly follow a faith I actually took the time to research many faiths and picked my church based on what I believed to be true. So, there is little point in you wasting your breath trying to make me believe in something I already believe in. My post was pointing out the weaknesses in your argument. Your post just served to further evidence those weaknesses. As I said earlier... you cannot prove a negative therefore because one cannot prove that God exists does not mean that God does exist. No one can prove the existance of God, it is a question of faith, which as C.S. Lewis theorises is exactly how God wants it. Don't tell me that you can prove God's existance because you cannot. Simillarly, don't tell me that just because it cannot be proven that my father isn't Prince Charles means that it has been proven that Prince Charles is my father. Your logic is faulty.

One can't prove God exists, but the same way one can feel the wind, one can feel God. I never worry about someone questioning my beliefs, because they are undying and unwavering. I've felt God move in my life and there isn't a thing anyone could say to discredit that. As far as believing in Evolution and God, I can't believe both. I'm sure I'll get flamed for it, but I believe in the bible as God's word, literally. I don't believe it needs to be updated, because you can read it, in context, based on what was happening at that time and the places being written about. The word yom (probably mispelled), in Hebrew, is always used as a 24 hour period of time, in the bible. Why would it be different, in Genesis, when describing creation? How can it be figurative, if that word is universally used as that time period? I haven't researched the Hebrew and Greek, personally, but my brothers have and I've been fortunate to be able to use them as a resource for such data. It just doesn't work out for me that way. But I don't think it has anything to do with our salvation, at all. It's a mental exercise, but, in the end, only our faith in God and his forgiveness will save us.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Renegade, I had read somewhere that the fossils were there because of the flood which killed all the dinosaurs. And that explains why they're buried so deep. Because the flood made all those layers. It's no use looking for "a" layer. When the whole world gets hit by a meteor, cracking the fault lines and flooding with water, it created all those layers. How do you think they got bent like rubber in so many places? Take a mountain drive some time and think about your millions of years. Look at the top of a slanted strata, there is no new layers of flat strata on top. Does that mean it just slanted recently? or are those rocks millions or billions of years old, and they just stopped laying new strata there?? I don't think so! I think young earth science can help you with all the questions you asked. Check it out. It really is a great way of life. Great hobby looking for geologic weirdness too. I dunno where the so called "real" scientists are getting their explinations.

A flood with say the impact of Noah's Ark might create such layers as well. The layer theory is hogwash. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, thousands of layers were created in days. Same could be said of a 40 day 40 night flood.

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer In addition, the big bang theory goes against the laws of thermodynamics. A bunch of gases (disorder) created solids (order).

You've never seen it snow?

Just because the total entropy of the universe is increasing doesn't mean that phenomena of increasing order can't occur within it. That's got to be the silliest argument I've ever heard against th big bang, and believe me, I've heard a few.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottaculous Just checked in to this thread and having gone through a few pages I am left wondering, Why does Slylee always create the longest discussion?

cuz she is a woman.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You've never seen it snow? Just because the total entropy of the universe is increasing doesn't mean that phenomena of increasing order can't occur within it. That's got to be the silliest argument I've ever heard against th big bang, and believe me, I've heard a few.

Where is the equal and opposite reaction?

quote:

Originally posted by dinoXpress cuz she is a woman.

I've said my piece and I'm done arguing. There isn't a point as we have completely different viewpoints which bias our arguments. We won't know until we die, but I'm confident in my perception and that's all I need.

quote:

I have read the bible. You may also want to note that the bible is writen in poetic form and at no times claims to be litteral. Additionally, based on the bible this planet is a little over 4000 years old.... we know that is not the case. Moreover, just because I regard the bible as a metaphore does not mean it is not true. Further, you should note that belief in a literal interpretation of the bible only acts as evidence of blind faith which is something Jesus himself cautions against.

the bible says the bible is the word of god so i think it should be taken litteraly. i mean you cant say you beleive in the bible and also say that some parts arent true???

quote:

I would also like to note that I have read the Vedicts as well. They tell us that the world was ushered into being by the reverberation of a single sound made by Brahman (their highest god)... that sound was the "aum" which is often used as a mantra when meditating. The story is very complex and I cannot be arsed to explain it to you, however, I see this as being no more or less valid a metaphore for the creation of the universe then Genisis, as both fit quite well with the scientific fact.

sorry,i don't like islam.

quote:

Hey Renegade, I found those darwin sayings for you: The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.~ Charles Darwin But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. ~ Charles Darwin He who rejects these views on the nature of the geologic record, will rightly reject my whole theory. ~ Charles Darwin

thank you occrider!!! i'd like to see how the athiests try to explain this one LOL

just more proof the man they worship is a LIAR.

quote:

u know who did belief in him???? The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. ~ Arthur Keith If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile. ~ Adolf Hitler National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. ~ Rudolph Hess

exactly!!! ppl forget that hitler was an athiest and he is a very good example of what happens to ppl that don't beleive in god. whats stopping ppl that don't beleive in god from killing lots of other ppl??? NOTHING!!!

also i think theres a lot of simularitys beween athiests and nazis but i wont talk about them here.

quote:

Why, then, is it still referred to as the "theory" of evolution. There isn't any definitive proof that these intermediary species existed, just a lot of assumption. Half the time they're pulling parts from different species. I think it takes just as much a leap of faith to believe evolution, as it does to believe in God. In addition, the big bang theory goes against the laws of thermodynamics. A bunch of gases (disorder) created solids (order). I'm not going to say I'm an expert in evolutionary theory, as I don't buy it and would rather not waste time on it, but I did take Physical Anthropology, in college, and there were a lot of assumptions and unsubstantiated data. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm sure we're not gonna change each others minds.

exactly!!! TANK YOU NIGHTMARE!!

quote:

Originally posted by Scottaculous Just checked in to this thread and having gone through a few pages I am left wondering, Why does Slylee always create the longest discussion?

yea i really know how to pick em'!



topics, that is

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer One can't prove God exists, but the same way one can feel the wind, one can feel God. I never worry about someone questioning my beliefs, because they are undying and unwavering. I've felt God move in my life and there isn't a thing anyone could say to discredit that. As far as believing in Evolution and God, I can't believe both. I'm sure I'll get flamed for it, but I believe in the bible as God's word, literally. I don't believe it needs to be updated, because you can read it, in context, based on what was happening at that time and the places being written about. The word yom (probably mispelled), in Hebrew, is always used as a 24 hour period of time, in the bible. Why would it be different, in Genesis, when describing creation? How can it be figurative, if that word is universally used as that time period? I haven't researched the Hebrew and Greek, personally, but my brothers have and I've been fortunate to be able to use them as a resource for such data. It just doesn't work out for me that way. But I don't think it has anything to do with our salvation, at all. It's a mental exercise, but, in the end, only our faith in God and his forgiveness will save us.

See, it is the literal interpretation of the bible that I can't get behind. Reason for it is that the science disproves the story. Additionally, if you take everything in the bible as literal there are far too many paradoxes. Most importantly, being as the bible was writen by men and not God it is very likely that there are errors and inconsistancies between what God said to the prophets and what was eventually writen. Plus, let us not forget that there are more books that have been excluded from the bible then are contained in it.... Hell, there are over 30 gospels but somehow only the four that are included are valid (by the way, they often contradict each other as well). I just can't buy that everything God meant to reveal was revealed exactly as it happened and was recorded exactly as it was revealed and those recordings did not get altered through the generations in which they were passed down in verbal form and that there was no change from the verbal stories to the writen stories and that there has been no errors made in the interpretations from language to language to language. It's just too improbable... God may be perfect but we are not.

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer Why, then, is it still referred to as the "theory" of evolution. There isn't any definitive proof that these intermediary species existed, just a lot of assumption. Half the time they're pulling parts from different species. I think it takes just as much a leap of faith to believe evolution, as it does to believe in God. In addition, the big bang theory goes against the laws of thermodynamics. A bunch of gases (disorder) created solids (order). I'm not going to say I'm an expert in evolutionary theory, as I don't buy it and would rather not waste time on it, but I did take Physical Anthropology, in college, and there were a lot of assumptions and unsubstantiated data. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm sure we're not gonna change each others minds.

I have a minor degree in anthropology and I know Moral Hazard has read my books on Anthropology. You are correct that it is the Theory of Evolution....you could just as well say the Theory of God. Neither one is a fact and therefore they are Theories. In my opinion...I will believe what I can physically see and what is documented and make my own decisions on that information. Until someone can show me physical evidence of GOD I will take science over religon when it comes to explaining how the universe was created.

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer Where is the equal and opposite reaction?

A better question would be, in my opinion, where is the action for which the big bang is a reaction? But since I don't agree with the currently popular scientific theories, I can't provide an answer other than to say, I don't believe that the "big bang" was any more of a beginning than it was an end.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade the bible says the bible is the word of god so i think it should be taken litteraly. i mean you cant say you beleive in the bible and also say that some parts arent true??? sorry,i don't like islam. exactly!!! ppl forget that hitler was an athiest and he is a very good example of what happens to ppl that don't beleive in god. whats stopping ppl that don't beleive in god from killing lots of other ppl??? NOTHING!!!

A few things. I can most certainly say that I believe in the bible and that some parts aren't true. No matter what the bible says about being the word of God it was writen by men... men are fallen creatures and therefore we are capable of making mistates. It is not inconceivable that there were not errors made in recording the stories or even that people may have altered things to consolidate power or create a state of being that benefited them.

The Vedics are the founding books of the Hindu religion, not islam... Islam's creation story is the same as Christianity's and Judeisms. Further more Islam includes both the old and new testimate amoungst their sacred texteds. The Qu'ran is the only difference and that chronicals the life of Mohammed. You really should take the time to learn about some faiths other then your own, you will find out that there are many similarities and they do support each other in many ways... likelihood is they will strengthen your own beliefs.

Finally, Hitler was not an athiest. Hitler believed in an anchient spirituallity that guided the Arians prior to their adoption of Hinduism upon their arrival in India. This is very very well documented. Try reading.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter A better question would be, in my opinion, where is the action for which the big bang is a reaction? But since I don't agree with the currently popular scientific theories, I can't provide an answer other than to say, I don't believe that the "big bang" was any more of a beginning than it was an end.

The most probable answer to that question (based on the theory itself) is that the big bang is a reaction to the collapse of a previous universe.... then the question becomes "what started the first universe?".... this is where I turn to faith in God.

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer Where is the equal and opposite reaction?

Can't have it both ways... you cannot use scientific laws to discredit something when those laws are a product of what you are attempting to discredit. Physics tells us that there must be an equal and opposite reaction to every action, however, physics also tells us that the big bang theory is correct up until the moment of plank time. You cannot use physics to disprove the big bang theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The most probable answer to that question (based on the theory itself) is that the big bang is a reaction to the collapse of a previous universe.... then the question becomes "what started the first universe?".... this is where I turn to faith in God.

But why turn to faith in God rather than simply admitting you do not and can not know? And if you're going to arbitrarily pick a cause for the first universe (assuming a finite number of universes and a totally linear conception of time), why God of all things?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But why turn to faith in God rather than simply admitting you do not and can not know? And if you're going to arbitrarily pick a cause for the first universe (assuming a finite number of universes and a totally linear conception of time), why God of all things?

I see the Universe as being part of God. Afterall God is all things. Unlike most I don't see science and religion as being opposed to each other, I view them as being inseperable.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard A few things. I can most certainly say that I believe in the bible and that some parts aren't true. No matter what the bible says about being the word of God it was writen by men... men are fallen creatures and therefore we are capable of making mistates. It is not inconceivable that there were not errors made in recording the stories or even that people may have altered things to consolidate power or create a state of being that benefited them.

Wait ... if you believe in the bible ... and that parts of the bible are written by god through man. Than why would God let men not speaking through him write parts of teh bible??? No, the bible was ALL written by God and is all true. Men can make mistakes, but not the apopstles because God was guiding them, and god doesn't make mistakes.

quote:

The Vedics are the founding books of the Hindu religion, not islam... Islam's creation story is the same as Christianity's and Judeisms. Further more Islam includes both the old and new testimate amoungst their sacred texteds. The Qu'ran is the only difference and that chronicals the life of Mohammed. You really should take the time to learn about some faiths other then your own, you will find out that there are many similarities and they do support each other in many ways... likelihood is they will strengthen your own beliefs.

Those weren't written by God!

quote:

Finally, Hitler was not an athiest. Hitler believed in an anchient spirituallity that guided the Arians prior to their adoption of Hinduism upon their arrival in India. This is very very well documented. Try reading.

Hitler was definetely an atheist. He didn't believe in the Christian God. He just used God to trick the catholic church and the righteous but he didn't really believe in him. Why else would he say:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

See ... mroe evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard See, it is the literal interpretation of the bible that I can't get behind. Reason for it is that the science disproves the story. Additionally, if you take everything in the bible as literal there are far too many paradoxes. Most importantly, being as the bible was writen by men and not God it is very likely that there are errors and inconsistancies between what God said to the prophets and what was eventually writen. Plus, let us not forget that there are more books that have been excluded from the bible then are contained in it.... Hell, there are over 30 gospels but somehow only the four that are included are valid (by the way, they often contradict each other as well). I just can't buy that everything God meant to reveal was revealed exactly as it happened and was recorded exactly as it was revealed and those recordings did not get altered through the generations in which they were passed down in verbal form and that there was no change from the verbal stories to the writen stories and that there has been no errors made in the interpretations from language to language to language. It's just too improbable... God may be perfect but we are not.

ANd I thought I was done. This is a misnomer. The men that wrote the bible were inspired by god, hence he was writing through them. And there aren't paradoxes, when you consider context. On the surface things could appear to contradict each other, but you have to look at the place and time to fully understand the meaning of the writing. As far as the other gospels that haven't been accepted in the bible. These have not past the cannonization process, which is a very in depth process to differentiate writings, inspired by God, and men deciding to describe their thoughts on Christ. This only further validates my point. And with the languages. They still have the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible, which have been translated. Theologians have spent and continue to spend hours upon hours to make sure the translations are correct. That's why I brought up the original Hebrew, earlier. My brother has studied these languages, and their implication to the translation of the Bible. I haven't had him impart too much of that knowledge to me, but he did impart the portion about the word translated to day. I understand your point of view, but it doesn't weaken my beliefs a bit. And it's not as if I just buy it, without knowing background either.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Can't have it both ways... you cannot use scientific laws to discredit something when those laws are a product of what you are attempting to discredit. Physics tells us that there must be an equal and opposite reaction to every action, however, physics also tells us that the big bang theory is correct up until the moment of plank time. You cannot use physics to disprove the big bang theory.

I'm merely using ideas, commonly accepted by scientists and evolutionists. You're saying I can't use your own reasoning against you, which I think is fallible. I don't see any reason not to use commonly accepted scientific principles to discredit another scientific theory.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Wait ... if you believe in the bible ... and that parts of the bible are written by god through man. Than why would God let men not speaking through him write parts of teh bible??? No, the bible was ALL written by God and is all true. Men can make mistakes, but not the apopstles because God was guiding them, and god doesn't make mistakes. Those weren't written by God! Hitler was definetely an atheist. He didn't believe in the Christian God. He just used God to trick the catholic church and the righteous but he didn't really believe in him. Why else would he say: "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." See ... mroe evolution.

God does not interfere with free will. God wants us to choose to love him, therefore he gave us free will. If God interferes with that then he has circomvented our entire reason for being created. I would direct you to C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves for a more indepth exploration of this. Anyway, man could have made errors and or purposly altered the bible and God would not stop them because as it would go against free will, this is the same reason why God did not prevent Eve from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Agreed, the Vedics were writen by men at the direction of God.

While you are correct that Hitler did not support organized religion and he was not a christian that does not mean he denied the existance of god, he simply saw god differently then christians. An athiest believes in no god, Hitler believed in a god just not Yahweh.

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer ANd I thought I was done. This is a misnomer. The men that wrote the bible were inspired by god, hence he was writing through them. And there aren't paradoxes, when you consider context. On the surface things could appear to contradict each other, but you have to look at the place and time to fully understand the meaning of the writing. As far as the other gospels that haven't been accepted in the bible. These have not past the cannonization process, which is a very in depth process to differentiate writings, inspired by God, and men deciding to describe their thoughts on Christ. This only further validates my point. And with the languages. They still have the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible, which have been translated. Theologians have spent and continue to spend hours upon hours to make sure the translations are correct. That's why I brought up the original Hebrew, earlier. My brother has studied these languages, and their implication to the translation of the Bible. I haven't had him impart too much of that knowledge to me, but he did impart the portion about the word translated to day. I understand your point of view, but it doesn't weaken my beliefs a bit. And it's not as if I just buy it, without knowing background either.

I don't want to sway you from your beliefs, however, I want you to understand that there is a possibility that what is writen in English in front of you may not be the same as what was writen by the prophet thousands of years ago. Even the Roman Catholic church recognizes that errors have been made.

FYI, most of the books of the bible were writen in Arimeic not Hebrew.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.