I would like to know why...

Originally posted by Halitose
Erm, that is micro-evolution - a process that most (sensible) creationists fully endorse. Sensible, because it fully observable in nature. "Natural selection" has been used so much that it seems to be purely an evolutionary term. This is not the case. Wouldn't you expect a creator to instil variation within an animal kind? Natural selection is like natu ...[text shortened]... tiny of the scientific method, and yields rather to the forensic, soft-science of palaeontology.

Well I would expect that a cell would folow the same principles of evolution that a bird would for example a cell with more mitochondira does better then one with fewer. I am not 100% sure about thsi as i know little on the subject but i can imagine a cell might find it does better when it is next to another cell for example if a waste product of one is useful to the other then with time these interactions could become more complex incorparating other cells and it may get to a stage where they cannot function on there own. This may be wrong but its the way i think of it (please explain to me what you all think). I think its hard for people to imagine the vast times this process would take and if you imagine it to quickly the it would seem unlikely.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Not quite. If God created this world or this universe for that matter, he quite definitely created science as well. The laws of science are his laws.

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Science (by means of the scientific method) is the observation, testing and hypothesising of nature's laws. If you believe in a creator, then obviously the creator would have programmed these laws into his creation. I'm not too sure one can therefore deduce that the creator created science.

When i talk about science I mean the laws more then the meathod of learning them so in that aspect i think a creator would of had to of made these laws and why would a creator write a book disagreeing with the laws he himself made? For example he would of had to of made radioactive half life and by useing half life we can tell the earth was made billions of years before 4004 B.C.

Originally posted by Will Everitt
When i talk about science I mean the laws more then the meathod of learning them so in that aspect i think a creator would of had to of made these laws and why would a creator write a book disagreeing with the laws he himself made? For example he would of had to of made radioactive half life and by useing half life we can tell the earth was made billions of years before 4004 B.C.

Oh, you mean indirectly - scientific observations disagree with scientific data deduced from the Bible. Check out the thread "A layer of Paint" for my criticism of radioactive dating - before it degenerated to a diatribe of "Lucy-namecalling". I think that thread is currently at the bottom of page 1.

Even if the radiometric dating was correct, the Bible is subject to translation and interpretation. If it had clearly stated that the speed of light in a vacuum without gravitational interference was 3 m/s then you might be on to something.

Originally posted by Will Everitt
When i talk about science I mean the laws more then the meathod of learning them so in that aspect i think a creator would of had to of made these laws and why would a creator write a book disagreeing with the laws he himself made? For example he would of had to of made radioactive half life and by useing half life we can tell the earth was made billions of years before 4004 B.C.

Radioactive decay can be vastly influenced from a sub-atomic level, a subject where modern science is still groping in the dark.

I have a problem with a book that most say its subject to interpritation but then others say its flawless. It must be flawed considering some of the interpritaions are flawed. I know radioactive dating might be out by a margin but there are many other ways of adding to its reliabityfor example pre-cambrian rocks are far older then the bible would suggest the world is.I would never belive something due to just one experiment or 1 claim and thats all the bible is, many of the sciences back each other up and support each other whereas a book that disagees with them still gets people to belive it. And to add to this on a non scientifical basis i still disagree with the bible as i find it hard to belive in muitple religions that are correct there is nothing that gives any of them any proof its any better then any others. I find it easyer to belive something in a book is flawed if i know there are other things wrong with it(in my eyes).

Originally posted by Will Everitt
I have a problem with a book that most say its subject to interpritation but then others say its flawless. It must be flawed considering some of the interpritaions are flawed. I know radioactive dating might be out by a margin but there are many other ways of adding to its reliabityfor example pre-cambrian rocks are far older then the bible would sugges ...[text shortened]... belive something in a book is flawed if i know there are other things wrong with it(in my eyes).

It must be flawed considering some of the interpritaions are flawed.

This is non sequitur.

...pre-cambrian rocks are far older then the bible would suggest the world is.

The reason the rocks are called Pre-Cambrian is because they contain Pre-Cambrian fossils.

And to add to this on a non scientifical basis i still disagree with the bible as i find it hard to belive in muitple religions that are correct

This also makes no sense. If I understand you correctly you claim:

1) Multiple religions cannot be correct.
2) Therefore the Bible and Christianity are wrong.

2) dies not follow from 1) so this is also non sequitur.

there is nothing that gives any of them any proof its any better then any others.

By what criteria would you objectively compare religions to each other to determine the best one?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]It must be flawed considering some of the interpritaions are flawed.

This is non sequitur.

...pre-cambrian rocks are far older then the bible would suggest the world is.

The reason the rocks are called Pre-Cambrian is because they contain Pre-Cambrian fossils.

And to add to this on a non scientifical basis i still disag ...[text shortened]... y what criteria would you objectively compare religions to each other to determine the best one?

"The reason the rocks are called Pre-Cambrian is because they contain Pre-Cambrian fossils. " well its any rocks deposoted in the pre- cambrian time but i think that if you accept these are far older then the bible would suggest the world is your one step closer to my veiws(although you can belive what you want im not trying to make you conform)

I do not see how all the religions can be correct to be honest i think none of them are but assuming one is correct why would it be christianity?Well im going to hazzard a guess that most chrisians are christains because of the place they were born/parents i don't see why anyone would base there entire belife system on something that is due to those factors.

Well i guess the best religion would be one that tells no lies and gets people to live a good life where they are happy and not diminishing anyone elses quality of life.

[EDIT] not quite sure why this is bold

Originally posted by Will Everitt
"The reason the rocks are called Pre-Cambrian is because they contain Pre-Cambrian fossils. " well its any rocks deposoted in the pre- cambrian time but i think that if you accept these are far older then the bible would suggest the world is your one step closer to my veiws(although you can belive what you want im not trying to make you conform)

I ...[text shortened]... not diminishing anyone elses quality of life.

[EDIT] not quite sure why this is bold[/b][/b]

Fair enough, although the radiometric dating of Pre-Cambrian rock still has the same inherent assumptions as with any other type of rock. Namely, the initial amounts of daughter isotope and that the rock being dated being a closed system throughout history.

I do not see how all the religions can be correct to be honest i think none of them are but assuming one is correct why would it be christianity?

Obviously they can't all be correct as they have significant contradictions, some even have a doctrine of exclusiveness. As to which one would be the correct one, that is a conclusion each person has to reach by him/herself, as religion caters more to the soul (assuming there is one) than to the mind.

Well im going to hazzard a guess that most chrisians are christains because of the place they were born/parents

Many, but certainly not all. And certainly not when Christianity was in its infancy.

i don't see why anyone would base there entire belief system on something that is due to those factors.

You have covered a few of the cons (they are sketchy at best); there are also many pros, how else would so many hundreds of millions still believe in it?

Originally posted by Halitose
You have covered a few of the cons (they are sketchy at best); there are also many pros, how else would so many hundreds of millions still believe in it?[/b]

I really never accept when people use numbers of people that belive something to back it up. You only have to think of when people thought the world was flat also when people thought the earth was the center of the universe. Also all the people that turned up at Hitlers rallys to name a few example of when the masses can be wrong.

Originally posted by Will Everitt
I really never accept when people use numbers of people that belive something to back it up. You only have to think of when people thought the world was flat also when people thought the earth was the center of the universe. Also all the people that turned up at Hitlers rallys to name a few example of when the masses can be wrong.

Of course - argumentum ad populum

It wasn't meant to convince you, it was just to prove the point that it can't be as obviously wrong in the way you were making it out to be - like believing the earth is flat.

Incidentally you can't prove the earth isn't the center of the universe.

Originally posted by Halitose
Of course - argumentum ad populum

It wasn't meant to convince you, it was just to prove the point that it can't be as obviously wrong in the way you were making it out to be - like believing the earth is flat.

Incidentally you can't prove the earth isn't the center of the universe.

At the time it was unquestionable fact. It didn't seem obviously wrong
It was just think if they were sure of something and it was proven otherwise what makes you think something you know is true. the only disadvantge with this is its doesnt get any further to solving our debate but just to disagreeing with your comment that the earth is flat is obviously wrong, in my eyes its the same kind of belief that goes hand in hand with religion.I think they are both wrong and can be proved wrong. Although this is just my veiw and you have yours

Originally posted by Will Everitt
At the time it was unquestionable fact. It didn't seem obviously wrong
It was just think if they were sure of something and it was proven otherwise what makes you think something you know is true. the only disadvantge with this is its doesnt get any further to solving our debate but just to disagreeing with your comment that the earth is flat is obvio ...[text shortened]... nk they are both wrong and can be proved wrong. Although this is just my veiw and you have yours

I think they are both wrong and can be proved wrong.

Okay, be my guest. Prove Christianity wrong. 😏

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I think they are both wrong and can be proved wrong.

Okay, be my guest. Prove Christianity wrong. 😏[/b]

I will always try but, i know i will never prove it wrong i guess the closest i could get would be to get someone to change there veiws athough thats not what im aiming for i guess i just want them to think.

Originally posted by Will Everitt
I will always try but, i know i will never prove it wrong i guess the closest i could get would be to get someone to change there veiws athough thats not what im aiming for i guess i just want them to think.

i know i will never prove it wrong i guess the closest i could get would be to get someone to change there veiws

You preempted me there. I was just going to ask why from a non-religious perspective you would want to forcibly prove a religion wrong.