Originally posted by KellyJayhere we go again... it's been done in the lab, creating living organisms with non-living material.
I called it the evolutionary argument because that was what came to
me while I read it! You do not see it? I believe life goes through
changes, just not the degree others do. Think about this, and apply
it to dead dirt or some other non-living substance, it just happened
and not only did the form appear, it became alive! You have some
record of that occuring, you have witnessed that, or is it just believed?
Kelly
Now how do you stand in your beliefs? Your position is ridiculous because you are not informed of the really important stuff. The few you know you try to discredit with some failing arguments, that only sound good to your self and your faith friends.
people will believe what they want, but why can't a combination of these be possible? why couldn't a divine creator create through evolution? biblical and spiritual texts are not to be taken completely as fact. they are to be interpreted. taking the spiritual text literally is very ignorant.
Originally posted by vistesdgood point. it seems that for every "fact" or "finding" thats published there is 2 other scientists to eithetr prove it wrong or offer a different analysis on the subject. I ask this.. Instead of trying to figure out what crackhead is right,what would it hurt to believe one Book and call it a day? or seven🙂
[b]On top of which, if somebody publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, she’d better be covered because her work is going to be checked. And challenged. And it will be other scientists who do that, and attempt to prove her wrong if there’s basis. That may take time, and I'm not saying that there is no politics in the scientific community; but eventually it's going to happen.
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess so.
Do you have the ability to touch something and by that touch know
how old it is, how about looking at it, can you do that and know what
the age of something? If you tell me you have tests that can tell
the age, I have already said that tests alone do not give us the
certainity to call something true of factual!
As I pointed out before I can test a de ...[text shortened]... will take you where your going too like it or not since we are
all creatures of faith.
Kelly
How do you feel about, for example, a suicide bomber? They must have tremendous faith, in order to accept that what they do is right, and 'good' for them. Surely you could not say otherwise.
Yet from another point of view their faith is the problem, it stops them from having a broader (dare I say more enlightened) perspective.
Originally posted by Sargent CarpfaceI'm glad you're obedient. Here's another command. STFU.
Ha ha very funny you must be a comadien. (THAT WAS SPELT WRONG ON PURPOSE.) Well you obviously dont apply to the no making 2 accounts rule. How many more do you have? You hipocrit. You told me not to make more than 1 and I didn;t. and wrong. im 13. not a kid. Jerk.
Originally posted by serigadoYou keep saying that. What paper specifically are you referring to? Whose lab?
here we go again... it's been done in the lab, creating living organisms with non-living material.
Now how do you stand in your beliefs? Your position is ridiculous because you are not informed of the really important stuff. The few you know you try to discredit with some failing arguments, that only sound good to your self and your faith friends.
Originally posted by serigadoUm, careful there, I'm certainly not aware that it has and I should think it would have been pretty big news.
here we go again... it's been done in the lab, creating living organisms with non-living material.
Now how do you stand in your beliefs? Your position is ridiculous because you are not informed of the really important stuff. The few you know you try to discredit with some failing arguments, that only sound good to your self and your faith friends.
As far as I am aware a simple cell has been created in the lab, with a very short string of DNA and a couple of other cell structures that enabled it to create the singe protein that the DNA coded for. This is not 'life'.
If you are going to 'debate' creationists, make sure you have all the facts to hand and don't overstate your case.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungehhehe
In principle, Christian could be defined as one who supports Christ, which means your sentence doesn't mean anything.
I wanted to say "Strangely enough creationism is only supported by christians"
😛
If creationism is to be really truth, there should be some independent scientist with evidence for it. There are not. Therefor, creationism is biased.
Originally posted by PenguinThey created a cell. It reproduced and feeded and did all other things stupid bacteria like to do.
Um, careful there, I'm certainly not aware that it has and I should think it would have been pretty big news.
As far as I am aware a simple cell has been created in the lab, with a very short string of DNA and a couple of other cell structures that enabled it to create the singe protein that the DNA coded for. This is not 'life'.
If you are going to 'd s, make sure you have all the facts to hand and don't overstate your case.
--- Penguin.
It was made from non-living stuff. It's not completely artificial, but was made from dead bacteria. Kind of a Frankenstein bacteria. I don't have the patience to give the articles, they are easy to search. I'm not a biologist but I trust the 6-7 biologists i know.
I'm starting to get a bit tired of this fanatic creationists. They only live in america and i start to think they are not worth the trouble. Just let americans sink in their own proud.
I guess i'm loosing faith in people 😀
to recap: carpface has a rating of 982. let the big boys do the thinking sarg, and please, I beg you, send your kids to boarding school. I'm amazed you can read. well done you! anyway.....a few questions for you all to ponder:
please somebody tell me, who created a creator vastly more complex than the universe/s he/she created?
which creator created our creator's creator? it goes on and is absurd.
god is a story. all cultures have a god story. all gods are different. it helps certain individuals or groups pass their genes on. maybe it helped humans fight other species. sense of togetherness. generally the physiclly weaker are forced into mentally cunning stratagems to gain cudos and a mate (just thought of that, probably an interesting one!). its a form of mind control. who knows exactly why or how god stories came about. its just the way we humans are,
all of you stop stressing about it! on your deathbeds you will wonder why so much energy is spent discussing god.
Originally posted by lefou13In many respects you are correct. The story of Genesis was a story told by the Isrealites as a way of explaining their origins. It does not mean that God did not create the universe and world, just because the story is riddled with holes.
to recap: carpface has a rating of 982. let the big boys do the thinking sarg, and please, I beg you, send your kids to boarding school. I'm amazed you can read. well done you! anyway.....a few questions for you all to ponder:
please somebody tell me, who created a creator vastly more complex than the universe/s he/she created?
which creator created o ...[text shortened]... essing about it! on your deathbeds you will wonder why so much energy is spent discussing god.
The idea that the earth is only 6000 years old seems silly to me, and those that teach the Bible to be the unerring word of God, and take the words literally, do more to damage religion and spirituality than help it
Just a question; Who did Cain and Abel marry? After Cain killed Abel, he fled to Nod and built a city. For whom? If we are to believe the Bible literally, then they would have married their sisters, and propagated like rabbits until the cities were full
I have a question that I'd like a creationist to answer: If you are willing to believe that God somehow appeared spontaneously out of nothing, why do you need an explanation for how the earth was created?
If something as complicated as God can be accepted as fact and doesn't need his/her origins explained, then why can't you just say the Earth spontaneously formed itself? It is infinitely less complicated than a God who created the entire universe right?
It only makes sense that the world began as something tiny and built up--as in something evolved. If sense is important to you then the argument is over...not about how the universe was formed, but that there is no God.
Society went from believing in many Gods, gradually to 1, and it will continue to shrink to 0! Then people won't waste lives/money/time believing in something as made up as Santa Claus. By the way, Santa Claus isn't real either... even though you can't disprove him.
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you are quite happy to call the existence of dinosaurs a fact. So your use of the word faith is entirely relative ie if you don't have what you consider solid evidence then you call it faith. You should have no problem however with me calling it fact. So stop joining any thread that talks about evolution or the age of the earth and saying 'thats just faith' and rather simply say 'I personally don't believe that' because that is all you are actually saying. You have no counterpoints to my evidence or counter argument or any useful input whatsoever except to express your own personal lack of belief.
"Therefore, for me, it is not faith."
I cannot prove God is real, I believe it, it is faith, I do not say it is not
faith because I believe I have enough evidence. The difference again
is what you are willing to call a fact, I cannot call what you have a
fact, I call it belief on your part.
Kelly
It seems to me that your use of the phrase 'thats just faith' to mean 'I don't believe you' is nothing more than an intentional attempt to shed doubt on something.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy do you keep on repeating these same old tired meaningless phrases. I thought we had already agreed that man doesn't know anything, he is only guessing. Why do you keep on focusing on the age of the earth as your chief guess? Why do you try so hard to claim that there are 'facts' and there are 'guesses' and that whatever you believe is 'fact' and what anyone else believes is a 'guess'?
For the record I believed long before the ID movement came about
that man didn't know how old the earth was, only guessed.