Why I believe God Created Life.

[rusra02]

Whatever influence a fictional character may have on whatever, still does not mean that he was also a real person. So your thing about his influence is a meaningless non sequitur. But that is just par for the course with you bible bangers, so let’s put that thing to sleep.
on that Christians are so named because of Christ thing, let me say that again too. Christos and Chrestos--two different things--are titles. one means anointed the other means good /helpful. Those are not personal names but TITLES!!! so start actually reading some of the scholarship surrounding all that stuff before you quote sources that are proven to be tainted and look at the context in which it is written.

Now Lonning’s so called retirement. Yeah, sure. Here is the most succinct article about how the guy embarrassed the institute and that after a three hour crisis meeting, they closed down all his web pages within the institutes purvey schöpfung: Entwürfe in Gottes Namen | ZEIT ONLINE . It also led to new regulations concerning all publications on the institute’s website to avoid further embarrassment to MPI. His methodology was shown to be unscientific and flawed and so on and so forth. Yes he “retired” and that is a matter mostly of law and tenure system, but he had been sidelined and been basically silenced in the actual scientific community since 2003 if not earlier. The damage his idiocy did the institute’s reputation is another factor in the disposition of his case, ranking members thought it wiser to simply shut him down and hope that his writings go away and no-one would associate him with MPI rather than drag him through proceedings that would call more attention to his crap. And it worked. The only people who actually know the dude exists are fellow ID proponents. Yeah, he retired alright, since that is what you do when you hit 65 and they do not have to keep you around any longer. So I consider being shut down 5 years before that happens being fired. Mea culpa.
The reality though is, that if you look him up on the web, the only places you can find his crap is on ID sites and that really is no recommendation for any real scientist.

If what you claim is true, it serves as one more example of how anyone daring to dissent from the ToE party line, and publiclize inconvenient truth (that evolution theory is fiction) faces swift persecution, including loss of employment, and ostracism. How like the Pharisees of Jesus day! (John 12:42)

 

[Bunyip]

If what you claim is true, it serves as one more example of how anyone daring to dissent from the ToE party line, and publiclize inconvenient truth (that evolution theory is fiction) faces swift persecution, including loss of employment, and ostracism. How like the Pharisees of Jesus day! (John 12:42)

Well sure, same goes if some maniac were trying to defraud people into believing that gravity was a lie. Or that geometry was a fiction.

Creationists like yourself are politically motivated propogandists, you know evolution is a fact - but you have a political agenda that obliges you to try to decieve others about it.

The real truth is that evolution is just change over time, and you know damn well that it is a fact.

 

[Apostlelypse]

Well hey there new posterino, I'm new here as well but maybe I could help you understand. While God is almighty we do live in a world filled with his many gifts! science being one of them, unfortunately for us science and the good book of god aren't always exactly peas and carrots! That's ok though because it's one of the great mysteries of life. When God created the Earth he wasn't concerned about us figuring out his grand scheme, If we did then we'd just be a big bunch of milk spoilers! the important thing is to love thy neighbor and spread his holy words!

 

[Apostlelypse]

Well sure, same goes if some maniac were trying to defraud people into believing that gravity was a lie. Or that geometry was a fiction.

Creationists like yourself are politically motivated peopogandinsts, you know evolution is a fact - but you have a political agenda that obliges you to try to decieve others about it.

The real truth is that evolution is just change over time, and you know damn well that it is a fact.

The issue is that for something to become a "fact" it needs to be proven in a lab, it can be proven in small segments, but to run an experiment that lasts thousands of years is inconceivable, evolution in the technical sense cannot be proven which leaves the door open to many other possibilities!

 

[Bunyip]

The issue is that for something to become a "fact" it needs to be proven in a lab, it can be proven in small segments, but to run an experiment that lasts thousands of years is inconceivable, evolution in the technical sense cannot be proven which leaves the door open to many other possibilities!

You are mistaken. Evolution is technically defined as changes in allele frequancy over time. These changes can be and have been observed. Evolution has been an observed fact for more than a century.

 

[Apostlelypse]

That's true tadpoles grow into frogs and that's fine and dandy, i suppose that's just a part of growing up! It's like a seed growing into a plant, the DNA does not change however the plant does. We know that we can alter DNA in a lab, God gives us all the tools to change our world, However proving it on a grand scale is like catching all the apples in an apple tree in a bucket the size of well..an apple! I think a big misconception is turning God into a scientific debate, With tools we understand to use we cant directly prove or disprove god, I guess it's not much up to science then! As long as you buzz to bee a believer you can still find salvation!

 

[Bunyip]

That's true tadpoles grow into frogs and that's fine and dandy, i suppose that's just a part of growing up! It's like a seed growing into a plant, the DNA does not change however the plant does. We know that we can alter DNA in a lab, God gives us all the tools to change our world, However proving it on a grand scale is like catching all the apples in an apple tree in a bucket the size of well..an apple! I think a big misconception is turning God into a scientific debate, With tools we understand to use we cant directly prove or disprove god, I guess it's not much up to science then! As long as you buzz to bee a believer you can still find salvation!

Not at all. Proving evolution on a grand scale is easy, and was also achieved long ago. We have the fossil record and genetic analysis. For example, you can look at the evo,ution of modern whales in the fossil record and see an incredibly detailed string of transitional forms.

 

[Apostlelypse]

One of the few road blocks in the highway of proving evolution is actually the question of why, even after viewing a mutation, that mutation is very rarely passed on genetically.

 

[Bunyip]

One of the few road blocks in the highway of proving evolution is actually the question of why, even after viewing a mutation, that mutation is very rarely passed on genetically.

Evolution was proven more than a century ago. The average human has 150000 minor genetic mutations, the chances of many of those being passed on is in fact very, very high indeed. Are you just making this stuff up?

The truth is that many thousands of mutations are passed on in every generation. So it is not at all rare, it is extremely common.

 

[Apostlelypse]

Being that I'm not a scientist I cannot argue with some of those statistics! However the eyes of God are the eyes of me and my belief in him are not contingent on evolution being a replay in the great game of existence! My question for you is if evolution proved to be true, or if it proved to be untrue, would either of those facts change your faith in the holy one?

 

[Parsimony]

Being that I'm not a scientist I cannot argue with some of those statistics! However the eyes of God are the eyes of me and my belief in him are not contingent on evolution being a replay in the great game of existence! My question for you is if evolution proved to be true, or if it proved to be untrue, would either of those facts change your faith in the holy one?

I accept evolution whilst also believing in God, so I'm gonna answer "no" to that. My faith would not change. Dunno if that question was addressed to a specific person or any readers in general, though.

 

[Apostlelypse]

I accept evolution whilst also believing in God, so I'm gonna answer "no" to that. My faith would not change. Dunno if that question was addressed to a specific person or any readers in general, though.

That is a fine answer! To me all the science in the world cannot prove or disprove God, it's a philosophical belief and relationship we have to ourselves. Evolution and Creation are ideas of how WE got here, but do not affect the almighty!

 

[rusra02]

Sup brahs! So I found your forum while in BRAHlorado when a gentleman brought religion up to me. He wasn't very educated and I think he had something wrong with him but here is a question I have and it may have been answered in the first 60 pages but I'd rather just ask again. Thanks in advance for talking with me.

I was on a tour at a museum in Denver and a man started telling our group that we should ask for our money back because we've been lied to the whole time. The tour guide asked how we were lied to and the man replied "Well you're trying to pass off that you have artifacts here that are over a million years old when anyone with half a brain can tell you that God created the earth only 6,000 years ago."

I thought this guy was joking but at the end of the tour he really went up and asked for a refund and when they declined him the man started shouting about how they all have impure souls and how they will spend eternity not in God's kingdom. So my question is this, how do you explain the fact that we have thousands of scientists that can agree that the earth is much older than 6,000 years? Or dinosaurs, I've looked at the bones with my own two eyes!

Hi The Bible does not set any age for the earth. It simply states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." When was the beginning? The Bible does not say. Science has confirmed the universe had a beginning, after long claiming it did not. So the man who claimed the earth is only 6,000 years old is badly mistaken. The Bible does not mention dinosaurs either. It does say God created all life, so that would include dinosaurs. (Psalm 36:9, Revelation 4:11)

 

[Apostlelypse]

haha well lets just say i wouldnt call them a$$es but the hebrew are a bit behind ! A calandar is a tough tool to follow perhaps, since ours only goes back to the birth of christ the Hebrew calander could be linked to a significant date in hebew history, not the exact moment of creation.

 

[rusra02]

so for the sake of not knowing the exact moment the earth was created I've used the Hebrew calendar. It would be year 5774 today. I know what it says about God creating all life (I'm not a bible expert but I've read it and that's why I have the questions) I just don't understand how we can say something is 65 million years old (widely accepted by scientific research) but a calendar based on creation says it's year 5774. That's a pretty big difference.

Well, there is a couple things I think we should keep in mind. The 6,000 years is how long man has been on earth, based on Bible chronology back to Adam. It has nothing to do with the age of the earth, which may be billions of years old. Then there are the dates estimated based on scientific dating methods. This quote from RS p.93 shows the caution necessary regarding such dates and dating methods:
"The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.
A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.”—P. 695.
...Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.”"

 

[metis]

Well, there is a couple things I think we should keep in mind. The 6,000 years is how long man has been on earth, based on Bible chronology back to Adam. It has nothing to do with the age of the earth, which may be billions of years old. Then there are the dates estimated based on scientific dating methods. This quote from RS p.93 shows the caution necessary regarding such dates and dating methods:
"The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.
A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.”—P. 695.
...Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.”"

What's terribly wrong with the above is that these were old hypotheses based on limited information, and we know so much more now than even two decades ago.

 

[Apostlelypse]

So rather than talk about about something in a constructive manner you resort to name calling like a child? Your mother must be proud. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Salvation lies within.

 

[Looncall]

Well, there is a couple things I think we should keep in mind. The 6,000 years is how long man has been on earth, based on Bible chronology back to Adam. It has nothing to do with the age of the earth, which may be billions of years old. Then there are the dates estimated based on scientific dating methods. This quote from RS p.93 shows the caution necessary regarding such dates and dating methods:
"The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.
A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.”—P. 695.
...Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.”"

You would do well to adopt the muslim notion of new information superceding old.

Your citing such old sources is laughable.

 

[Apostlelypse]

So I have also read a few ideas that the 7 "days" in the bible are actually different periods and not days like we're used to using. So maybe that 6th day animals were created was actually 100 million years ago. We decided what to call days we weren't given a manual that says how long they are. They're saying that in November they found fossils that are over 3.5 billion years old based on carbon based isotope testing. I'm not sure that I can believe that but what I don't understand is how they can say the earth is only a few thousand years old. My head sometimes spins thinking about this but I want to know the answers and finally close my own personal gap(s) on science and faith no matter what your religion.

Have you ever tried just sitting down and talking to God? asking him these questions for yourself may lead you to the answers neighborino!

 

[Ouroboros]

Have you ever tried just sitting down and talking to God? asking him these questions for yourself may lead you to the answers neighborino!

Gosh. I did so many times. A big part of my realization that I had the wrong image or understanding of the world, religion, God, etc, was just exactly that. I didn't get any answers to my questions.

I know your post wasn't directed to me, but I just had to add my view there.