PDA

View Full Version : Evolution - Fact or Fiction?


MeTHoD-X
September 12th, 2006, 05:46 AM
Debate to your hearts content. :D

disciple
September 12th, 2006, 08:12 AM
Debate to your hearts content. :D

Evolution has 'no case to answer, your worship' the defence rests.

Nameless
September 12th, 2006, 08:43 AM
Evolution is true. It makes logical sense, on multiple levels. It has plenty of evidence (dating back *gasp* even further than the bible!) to back it up. It has been proved.

Creationism is untrue. It makes no sense, on any levels. It has no evidence. It has not been proved.

So there you go.

SAVAGE
September 12th, 2006, 08:58 AM
Evolution is true. It makes logical sense, on multiple levels. It has plenty of evidence (dating back *gasp* even further than the bible!) to back it up. It has been proved.

Creationism is untrue. It makes no sense, on any levels. It has no evidence. It has not been proved.

So there you go.

What he said.

Fallen Hero
September 12th, 2006, 06:01 PM
Wow, like anyone could not see the results. if Fried rice comes here, then we will get a no.

The reason creationism exists and is taught in schools is because fundamentalists like to scream and they know where to and how to scream really loud.
http://www.venganza.org/ <--- spagetti monster.

MeTHoD-X
September 12th, 2006, 06:30 PM
Damn. I was hoping some Christians would come and post some of the usual crazy gibberish.

Fallen Hero
September 12th, 2006, 06:31 PM
Damn. I was hoping some Christians would come and post some of the usual crazy gibberish.
They only come to the Debate section to fight.

Aviel
October 6th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Evolution is certain.

Jillamanda
October 6th, 2006, 02:25 AM
That's it then - evolution wins hands down. No contest. :D

Carnifex
October 6th, 2006, 04:45 PM
Yeh evolution is at the very least, the HANDS DOWN BEST theory we have so far.

I love when creationists etc say that it is just a theory and that all theories should be taught. I love saying that i concede and that this is true, if we are technically correct with scientific terminology, evolution is a theory. But ID and Creationism dont actually meet the criteria for being a theory, so ultimately we are still left with one thing we can teach.

Fallen Hero
October 6th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Hence the FSM. We could keep making more too, and demand equality of theories.

Nameless
October 7th, 2006, 12:45 AM
I have a theory. Funadmentalist Christians should shut the hell up and keep the hell out of the school system because they annoy and brainwash people. Let's teach THAT instead.

Nanashi
October 7th, 2006, 02:14 PM
Last I heard Creationism wasn't even refered to as a theory? (Well, this is 6-7 years ago now, but I was taught it was the Creation Story in 7th grade science, while bigbang/evolution was taught as theory^^; )

Fallen Hero
October 7th, 2006, 02:16 PM
I have a theory. Funadmentalist Christians should shut the hell up and keep the hell out of the school system because they annoy and brainwash people. Let's teach THAT instead.

Ok, but lets make that a little better. "All religions should shut the hell up and keep out of the school systems everywhere because they annoy and brainwash people."

AaronD
October 7th, 2006, 11:03 PM
I have a theory. Funadmentalist Christians should shut the hell up and keep the hell out of the school system because they annoy and brainwash people. Let's teach THAT instead.

Ok, but lets make that a little better. "All religions should shut the hell up and keep out of the school systems everywhere because they annoy and brainwash people."

Sounds about right.

Fallen Hero
October 8th, 2006, 09:29 AM
On a side note, some people are starting to vote against Evolution in the poll. Does anyone else smell a debate?

GeoffBoulton
October 8th, 2006, 11:31 AM
Oh no! Not the paint and metal falling from the skies to make tin cans and bananas fit the human hand perfectly debate again ;)

Jillamanda
October 8th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Oh no! Not the paint and metal falling from the skies to make tin cans and bananas fit the human hand perfectly debate again ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Predictable, aren't they?

Fallen Hero
October 8th, 2006, 06:09 PM
Very predictable.

Can Not
October 27th, 2006, 01:42 AM
What if you believe God created Evolution?

Jillamanda
October 27th, 2006, 01:50 AM
What if you believe God created Evolution?

OK, fire away..... :D

Can Not
October 27th, 2006, 02:15 AM
Well, there isn't much to argue, I mean, Scientists say evolution is real, and the Bible says that God created everything, so if God created everything then he created Evolution.

Jillamanda
October 27th, 2006, 02:19 AM
I see your point, but I think it would quickly turn into an Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate.

GeoffBoulton
October 27th, 2006, 02:27 AM
if God created everything then he created Evolution

Evolution isn't a thing that can be created, it is an ongoing process. God would have to oversee every single reproduction on the planet including every life form etc.

Man has already cloned animals, observed eggs being fertilised, cell division, etc. We know the process and how it works so this would pretty much rule out God affecting reproduction.

If you are saying that he created the mechanism by which evolution could occur by 'inventing' DNA then you're back to the God made man, life, etc. argument.

Can Not
October 27th, 2006, 02:36 AM
I see your point, but I think it would quickly turn into an Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate.

But I'm hypothesizing that God "Intelligently Designed" Evolution.

It's like the "Game of Life (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getalife/)" simulation. The only reason it exists is because someone made it. That document is pro-evolution, but no matter how much evidence and support they can give for evolution, the process of it's evolution still had an Intelligent Designer. In the Game of Life, someone had to create the rules. Any twist of the rules will in some way damage all of the life in that game. For the program that copies itself, the very first copier had to be designed.

Jillamanda
October 27th, 2006, 03:27 AM
I see your point, but I think it would quickly turn into an Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate.

But I'm hypothesizing that God "Intelligently Designed" Evolution.

See? :wink:

Any twist of the rules will in some way damage all of the life in that game. For the program that copies itself, the very first copier had to be designed.

Who said there had to be 'rules'? I could argue that evolution is a series of 'rule violations', starting with the Big Bang. Things like the Ice Age caused species to mutate, or change to survive in their new environment. Even the recent tsunami in SE Asia (or the earthquake that caused it) will have an effect on evolution. Among other things, it changed the coastline of several countries and caused the Earth's axis to tilt. That alone will have a profound effect on evolution, but we won't be around to experience it.

Are you saying that earthquakes and other natural disasters are acts of God?

Jillamanda
October 27th, 2006, 03:29 AM
.....not to mention the hundreds of species that are wiped out during catastrophic events of this nature.

Can Not
October 27th, 2006, 04:07 AM
I wouldn't say an act the same way dropping a bomb is an act. I'd say disaters are more like mouse traps. Mice can't see the complexity or nature of the mouse trap, or even suspect it of being any more abnormal than any other object, but through time or through condition of weight the mouse trap eventually goes off. I assume you guys have played the game of life simulator? Without any form of "Intelligent Design", the game will always settle down to basic patterns and remain inactive. Always. However, the world we live in is not like that. It has patterns. Overlapping patterns. The hypothetical God may have designed a world that does not settle down. It remains active, balancing itself. I'm sure humans could try to end life, or disable the planet from supporting life, but life would merely evolve and the planet would merely rebalance itself according to it's design.

Now, whether or not God makes direct changes to the world in real time is unknown and questionable. According to Christianity, he lives outside of time the way an author lives outside his book. If the Author thinks "George" is a stupid name after typing the book, he could easily change the character's name all throughout the book, and the characters would have no knowledge of who George is because they never experienced George. The characters do not know they are in a book. Under this assumption, God could create natural disaters through complex changes of atom locations or adjust energy of particles at the beginning of time simply to have a hurricane hit Louisianna.

However, real time changes by God have been reported happening, but there is no evidence. Things such as healings. I'm sure that God does beginning of the world and real-time editing to the world if he is real.

I'm not into the whole Christianity thing. I'm just pretty sure that evolution had to be created by something. Maybe the world was created around the idea of evolution, too.

Jillamanda
October 27th, 2006, 05:01 AM
I'm not into the whole Christianity thing. I'm just pretty sure that evolution had to be created by something. Maybe the world was created around the idea of evolution, too.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

But if it was, how long does it go for, and when did it start.......and of course, where did the 'something' come from and how long was it there?

GeoffBoulton
October 27th, 2006, 11:57 AM
But I'm hypothesizing that God "Intelligently Designed" Evolution.

Why would god need evolution anyway? Isn't he supposed to be perfect? Why wouldn't he just make everything 'perfect' at the start and leave it at that?

As I said before, if god created the mechanism for evolution to take place, then this is exactly the same argument as god made man, and everything else, and adds nothing to the agrument anyway.

I assume you guys have played the game of life simulator?

This 'game' has been developed well beyond the form that you appear to be talking about. Evolutionary algorithms are now a very real aspect of Artificial Intelligence and such programmes exhibit all of the 'overlapping patterns' that you talk of.

In fact, the very essence of such algorithms is that they produce totally unexpected results, extremely complex solutions to problems and 'left over' bits of code that have no purpose. In short, they display the same properties that are seen in evolution in the natural world.

Fallen Hero
October 27th, 2006, 03:31 PM
I recall a signature saying "It was all going well until it went and evolved on me" I am sure some people will believe that, however, that is taking good science and tainting it a little with bad science IMO. That still means you take evolution as fact.

GeoffBoulton
October 27th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Ah, that was mine, can't remember it exactly or who made the original quote but

The ocean, a body of water covering two thirds of a planet designed for man .... who has no gills.

It was perfect until the little buggers went and evolved on me - God

;)

Can Not
October 27th, 2006, 09:26 PM
But I'm hypothesizing that God "Intelligently Designed" Evolution.

Why would god need evolution anyway? Isn't he supposed to be perfect? Why wouldn't he just make everything 'perfect' at the start and leave it at that?

As I said before, if god created the mechanism for evolution to take place, then this is exactly the same argument as god made man, and everything else, and adds nothing to the agrument anyway.

I assume you guys have played the game of life simulator?

This 'game' has been developed well beyond the form that you appear to be talking about. Evolutionary algorithms are now a very real aspect of Artificial Intelligence and such programmes exhibit all of the 'overlapping patterns' that you talk of.

In fact, the very essence of such algorithms is that they produce totally unexpected results, extremely complex solutions to problems and 'left over' bits of code that have no purpose. In short, they display the same properties that are seen in evolution in the natural world.

Those algorithms, although similar to evolution, were created by somebody. Even if the algorithm is built to change itself, the algorithm was still created by something Intelligent.

GeoffBoulton
October 27th, 2006, 10:51 PM
Why would god need evolution anyway? Isn't he supposed to be perfect? Why wouldn't he just make everything 'perfect' at the start and leave it at that?

As I said before, if god created the mechanism for evolution to take place, then this is exactly the same argument as god made man, and everything else, and adds nothing to the argument anyway.

Nothing to say on this bit then?

Can Not
October 28th, 2006, 03:49 AM
Whether or not he's perfect is sort of a weird question...And understanding his reasons are difficult...supposedly he is a billion times more intelligent than us. But how do we talk to him, or even know that he is smart? We can make hypothesis about him based on imagination, visions, physical proof, or books like the Bible, but for us to understand what he created the world for is much like wondering why a programmer designed a game...the answer is not always apparent, and in some cases, not important, or never told. God may have created the world and the first lifeform, then simply left it alone...forever. Whether or not this is true is also difficult, being that we have no understanding of the "spiritual" or "outside" world, assuming there is one. Until science can proove life began without an original creator, I will believe that something Intelligent like "God" created atleast the first lifeform.

Jillamanda
October 28th, 2006, 04:59 AM
That's fine, you believe whatever you want to believe, but it doesn't mean it's right.

GeoffBoulton
October 28th, 2006, 08:43 AM
Whether or not he's perfect is sort of a weird question

Yeah, like it is only the central tenet of Christian beliefs, what a silly question to ask. ;)

Edit:
And understanding his reasons are difficult...supposedly he is a billion times more intelligent than us.

Actually he's supposed to be all-knowing. That being the case he would know exactly how evolution would progress so he could have just cut out the 'middle man' and gone straight to the end point.
Edit ends:

As Jill says, you want to believe that's fine by us but if you want to claim it is the truth then prove it. If you can't then it remains as you said:

We can make hypothesis about him based on imagination

Notice I didn't quote physical evidence (because there isn't any) and I didn't quote the bible (because we can prove that it is just plain wrong about a whole range of topics).

So that just leaves you with imagination which is just what we said god is.

AaronD
October 28th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Until science can proove life began without an original creator, I will believe that something Intelligent like "God" created atleast the first lifeform.

Hasn't science proven that already? I am pretty sure that science can't YET prove the universe began without an original creator, not life.

Can Not
October 28th, 2006, 05:30 PM
Until science can proove life began without an original creator, I will believe that something Intelligent like "God" created atleast the first lifeform.

Hasn't science proven that already? I am pretty sure that science can't YET prove the universe began without an original creator, not life.
No.

As Jill says, you want to believe that's fine by us but if you want to claim it is the truth then prove it. If you can't then it remains as you said:

I'm not saying its true just saying it's possible and more favorable than funky probabilities.

Yeah, like it is only the central tenet of Christian beliefs, what a silly question to ask.
Now lets not specify, I don't know if "God" was involved with the Bible or not.

I didn't quote the bible (because we can prove that it is just plain wrong about a whole range of topics).

Actually I'd really like to know more about these "wrongs", I looked into it once and it was all taken out of context or very vague. One example was saying that the Bible supported slavery, but that's not true, they just used a normal (at that time) system of government to help explain parables and righteousness and other goody-religion stuff. Then they had an example quoting a verse like Bob went to the bay with 10,000 soldiers then Bob attacked the baynites with 4,000 soldiers then make a comment like Oh shit! How many soldiers did he have? I was like WTF? I was very disappointed with it. So if you know any websites that show real contradictions in the Bible, then PLZ show me.

I want to be just as much as an Athiest as you are.

Fallen Hero
October 28th, 2006, 07:01 PM
evilbible.com Is pretty good. There are a lot of things, the age of Abraham is disputed because it says he lived over 100 years but also that he died at 75. Many things like that.

Jillamanda
October 28th, 2006, 10:35 PM
I'm not saying its true just saying it's possible and more favorable than funky probabilities.

See, this is where we differ. The whole reason I became an atheist was because I found the scientific explanation far more possible than the Biblical one. Really, If I was going to believe that some 'guy in the sky' made it all in six days, I may as well believe in fairies too. How big were the trees when he 'made' them, or did he plant seedlings? Whatever the case, where did he get them? In a very short time, he was supposed to have created a lush garden - a Garden of Eden in fact. By the time he made Adam and Eve, the trees in the garden had fruit on them. How can I believe that when:

a) there's no proof of any of it and
b) we all know that trees take years to reach the fruiting stage.

This is just one example, but there's plenty more. I think it boils down the good ol' faith again. You have faith that it happened the way the Bible says, I have faith that it didn't.

Jillamanda
October 29th, 2006, 12:54 AM
I was consulting Google for something I'd read once before about laboratory simulations of evolution, and there's stacks of stuff about it. Tutorials, animated simulations and millions of references from extremely reputable organisations.

I thought I'd see if anyone has actually tried to simulate Creation, or Intelligent Design .......zilch. This was about the best I could find, and it's an article on why it'd be pretty hard to do, and that even if it was done, the results would most probably favor evolution anyway.

http://www.greythumb.org/blog/index.php?/archives/52-Testing-intelligent-design-with-artificial-life.html

GeoffBoulton
October 29th, 2006, 10:41 AM
Actually I'd really like to know more about these "wrongs"

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

If you seriously want to find out about inconsistencies, incorrect facts, etc. in the bible you really don't have to search very hard to find plenty of examples.

Can Not
October 31st, 2006, 01:18 AM
I'm not saying its true just saying it's possible and more favorable than funky probabilities.

See, this is where we differ. The whole reason I became an atheist was because I found the scientific explanation far more possible than the Biblical one. Really, If I was going to believe that some 'guy in the sky' made it all in six days, I may as well believe in fairies too. How big were the trees when he 'made' them, or did he plant seedlings? Whatever the case, where did he get them? In a very short time, he was supposed to have created a lush garden - a Garden of Eden in fact. By the time he made Adam and Eve, the trees in the garden had fruit on them. How can I believe that when:

a) there's no proof of any of it and
b) we all know that trees take years to reach the fruiting stage.

This is just one example, but there's plenty more. I think it boils down the good ol' faith again. You have faith that it happened the way the Bible says, I have faith that it didn't.

No, I don't have faith it happened the way the Bible says. I have faith that "God" created the first lifeform, which over time became the rest.

I was consulting Google for something I'd read once before about laboratory simulations of evolution, and there's stacks of stuff about it. Tutorials, animated simulations and millions of references from extremely reputable organisations.

I thought I'd see if anyone has actually tried to simulate Creation, or Intelligent Design .......zilch. This was about the best I could find, and it's an article on why it'd be pretty hard to do, and that even if it was done, the results would most probably favor evolution anyway.

http://www.greythumb.org/blog/index.php?/archives/52-Testing-intelligent-design-with-artificial-life.html

Wow...very good read. However, what I predict, however, is that no matter how much evolution happens, no matter how ineffective or effective the interventions are, they still would have had to design the first organsim.

Actually I'd really like to know more about these "wrongs"

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

If you seriously want to find out about inconsistencies, incorrect facts, etc. in the bible you really don't have to search very hard to find plenty of examples.

That's the exact website where I got the vague and not-actually-inconsistancies from.

Jillamanda
October 31st, 2006, 05:09 AM
]Wow...very good read. However, what I predict, however, is that no matter how much evolution happens, no matter how ineffective or effective the interventions are, they still would have had to design the first organsim.

So why hasn't anyone tried to simulate this 'creation' in a laboratory?

GeoffBoulton
October 31st, 2006, 07:25 AM
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

The Lord isn't capable of driving people out of the valleys because they have chariots of iron? Doesn't seem very vague to me.

The same guy who is capable of creating the universe and everything in it in seven days has a problem when it comes to chariots of iron? I would say that is a just a tad inconsistent.

Can Not
October 31st, 2006, 10:12 PM
]Wow...very good read. However, what I predict, however, is that no matter how much evolution happens, no matter how ineffective or effective the interventions are, they still would have had to design the first organsim.

So why hasn't anyone tried to simulate this 'creation' in a laboratory?

I'll start off by saying that I don't have a server-grade processor, and I don't know anyone who has a computer that powerful.

That is why I haven't done it.

Now could you please explain to me how I am suppose to know why (or even if) other people, who might have the machinary, are not doing something?

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

The Lord isn't capable of driving people out of the valleys because they have chariots of iron? Doesn't seem very vague to me.

The same guy who is capable of creating the universe and everything in it in seven days has a problem when it comes to chariots of iron? I would say that is a just a tad inconsistent.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/561

In addition to using vague-ness, it also uses a non-sense King James Version, which destroys most of it's credability.

Carnifex
October 31st, 2006, 10:38 PM
You cannot simulate creation in a laboratory nor on a computer. The creation of the universe by God would presumably not follow any laws that we could possibly program. Its similar to the way we cannot test intelligent design and so it can never effectively become scientific theory.

And to contradictions in the bible, how about God and the flood in Genesis. God says he decides to kill everything on earth because humans are evil (6:5) and then after hes done so he looks upon the ark and decides that he will never wipe out the earth again because humans are evil (8:21). It doesnt even make sense.

Can Not
October 31st, 2006, 11:03 PM
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

So you are saying that God killing 99% of all people for being wicked, then deciding not to flood the earth again, makes no sense at all?

Alice Shade
October 31st, 2006, 11:19 PM
Well, you know, that kind of behavior does NOT seems to be perfect.

I mean, look on it. God has a fit of anger, and freaking demolishes all the life except for single ship inhabitants, then look on what`s done, and says - "I think I kinda messed that up. I`d better keep myself in check from now on, it`s kinda sucky to remake everything from the very beginning just cause I screwed humans up. Guess I`ll just leave them alone, it`s PITA to remake them anyway."

That does NOT looks perfect to me. That looks like infantile fit of rage, cause "it won`t budge!".

GeoffBoulton
October 31st, 2006, 11:33 PM
These two passages have several plausible ways of reconciliation. And, please remember that the exact way to reconcile any contradiction need not be pinpointed, as long as a possible way can be provided.

Even they can't use the bible, whichever version of God's word they choose to use, to show a reconciliation. All they can do is imagine possible ways if you make a whole bunch of other unfounded assumptions.

They might as well have said God didn't do it because he fancied a day off, forgot to set his alarm and overslept, whatever, they would all be POSSIBLE using your thinking.

So you are saying that God killing 99% of all people for being wicked

I would say that that alone, never mind the deciding not to do again, was senseless enough. Not to mention that he killed every living thing not just man.

So what had all the animals, plants, etc. done to deserve that? Had those naughty lettuces been taking his name in vain again?

I really can't take you seriously any more.

AaronD
November 1st, 2006, 03:31 AM
There is one major thing wrong with Noah's Arc, which is concerning the carnivores... There are some animals which can only survive on other animals. Quite a few actually? Did Noah account for this? If he did, then the "two of each animal" thing is wrong, meaning that a major plot point of the bible is wrong. The second scenario, that he just fed the snakes rats, for example, means that he would have killed off many of the world's species during his journey of over two fortnights, far too long for any animal to go without food. Oh, and did he bring along the aquatic animals? What would be the point of putting two Blue Whales on a ship, when they just swim? Any way you think about it, this is a major discrepancy which is impossible to be explained without some bullshit about how it should not be taken literally, like you use to justify most other instabilities in the bible.

GeoffBoulton
November 1st, 2006, 09:35 AM
I'll start off by saying that I don't have a server-grade processor, and I don't know anyone who has a computer that powerful.


You don't need one, any computer would do, here's my simulation program:

#include <stdio.h>

main()
{
printf("God did it\n");
}

;)

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 07:08 PM
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

So you are saying that God killing 99% of all people for being wicked, then deciding not to flood the earth again, makes no sense at all?

Yeh but the reason he decides not to flood the earth ever again is because people are evil, the SAME reason he killed them in the first place. I really hope you see the flaw in this, its not hard.

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 07:12 PM
I'll start off by saying that I don't have a server-grade processor, and I don't know anyone who has a computer that powerful.


You don't need one, any computer would do, here's my simulation program:

#include <stdio.h>

main()
{
printf("God did it\n");
}

;)

Hehe this is the christian program

#include<iostream.h>
main()
{
Bool Evidence = false;
cout<<"Does evidence for god exist?";
cin>>Evidence;
if (Evidence){
cout<<"God is real";
} else {
cout<<"GOD IS REAL!!";
}
}

I hope the joke makes sense there

Fallen Hero
November 1st, 2006, 07:23 PM
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

So you are saying that God killing 99% of all people for being wicked, then deciding not to flood the earth again, makes no sense at all?

Yeh but the reason he decides not to flood the earth ever again is because people are evil, the SAME reason he killed them in the first place. I really hope you see the flaw in this, its not hard.

Sorry Carnifex, but he says despite that humanity is evil, he will not kill everything again.

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 09:18 PM
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

So you are saying that God killing 99% of all people for being wicked, then deciding not to flood the earth again, makes no sense at all?

Yeh but the reason he decides not to flood the earth ever again is because people are evil, the SAME reason he killed them in the first place. I really hope you see the flaw in this, its not hard.

Sorry Carnifex, but he says despite that humanity is evil, he will not kill everything again.

thats because my version of the bible says "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ". Sorry i didnt actually read the quotes given.

edit: posted about if we ignore king James version below

Can Not
November 1st, 2006, 09:20 PM
So you are saying that God killing 99% of all people for being wicked

I would say that that alone, never mind the deciding not to do again, was senseless enough. Not to mention that he killed every living thing not just man.

So what had all the animals, plants, etc. done to deserve that? Had those naughty lettuces been taking his name in vain again?

I really can't take you seriously any more.
LMAO, flood killed fish and birds, too? I really can't take you seriously any more.

There is one major thing wrong with Noah's Arc, which is concerning the carnivores... There are some animals which can only survive on other animals. Quite a few actually? Did Noah account for this? If he did, then the "two of each animal" thing is wrong, meaning that a major plot point of the bible is wrong. The second scenario, that he just fed the snakes rats, for example, means that he would have killed off many of the world's species during his journey of over two fortnights, far too long for any animal to go without food. Oh, and did he bring along the aquatic animals? What would be the point of putting two Blue Whales on a ship, when they just swim? Any way you think about it, this is a major discrepancy which is impossible to be explained without some bullshit about how it should not be taken literally, like you use to justify most other instabilities in the bible.

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Apparently there are no carnivores. Atleast, not at the first few moments of creation.

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 09:26 PM
Just adding a point to the criticism I made (because I expect a retaliation saying the king James version of the bible is poor, which may be true)

Take Can Nots version.
1. God kills all humans for being wicked.
2. God decides not to do it again even though humans are all wicked.

So he did it why? To get rid of all the wicked? No he knows that all humans are wicked from birth. Did, God not know that killing most of the people would achieve nothing?

So a question to Can Not. Why flood the earth and what did it achieve?

Can Not
November 1st, 2006, 09:33 PM
I would say that he flooded the Earth because the ratio of wicked people to non-wicked people were unfavorable for the future population of people who know God. However, God's intended reason is either said in the Bible or something I don't know, and his choice of methods are the same way.

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 09:36 PM
I would say that he flooded the Earth because the ratio of wicked people to non-wicked people were unfavorable for the future population of people who know God. However, God's intended reason is either said in the Bible or something I don't know, and his choice of methods are the same way.

Well according to god the ratio is every human. He says humans are wicked, not some are.

AaronD
November 1st, 2006, 09:41 PM
There is one major thing wrong with Noah's Arc, which is concerning the carnivores... There are some animals which can only survive on other animals. Quite a few actually? Did Noah account for this? If he did, then the "two of each animal" thing is wrong, meaning that a major plot point of the bible is wrong. The second scenario, that he just fed the snakes rats, for example, means that he would have killed off many of the world's species during his journey of over two fortnights, far too long for any animal to go without food. Oh, and did he bring along the aquatic animals? What would be the point of putting two Blue Whales on a ship, when they just swim? Any way you think about it, this is a major discrepancy which is impossible to be explained without some bullshit about how it should not be taken literally, like you use to justify most other instabilities in the bible.

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Apparently there are no carnivores. Atleast, not at the first few moments of creation.

But, didn't he create all the creatures of the earth? We know many of those creatures to be omnivores and carnivores, so he must not have created them then. But wait! That's right! He created ALL of the creatures in one day! I smell a discrepancy... a pretty major one at that. Here are the possible scenarios:


Noah brought all of the creatures along. Some of these ate some of the other creatures, meaning a large portion of the species (plural) did not survive the trip, making God's instructions to Noah, and therefore the bible, wrong.
Noah brought extra animals, making the bible wrong.
God hadn't made the carnivores yet, making the bible wrong.
This is a complete myth, and the bible is still wrong.
The bible is a made up load of bullshit, and is wrong.

Alice Shade
November 1st, 2006, 09:43 PM
Newsflash, "Can Not."

Not ALL birds can swim. And those who can`t, have NO chance to survive in 40-day long downpour and flood. And even among the swimming birds, most of them would be dead by famine - seeing as most insects would die/hybernate underwater waiting storm out.

Now, let`s consider, that storm will screw up feeding for a WHOLE lot of fishes as well (insect-eaters and surface predators), so God SERIOUSLY screws up life for everyone and everything on Earth with flood.

And EVEN if we`ll take it, that yes, god for some reason spared fishes... Just how the hell do you justify him killing all the land animals, who surely couldn`t survive flood?

Surely, if God thought that HUMANS are evil, he could`ve just send down a plague on humans, and spare everything else.

So, what conclusion we CAN take from this occurance? That God is sadistic freak, who drowned whole world, because he didn`t liked ONE particular type of inhabitants in the world.


As for no carnivores, that`s bullshit. Without natural control of carnivores, herbiwores would`ve consumed all the plants and multiplied too quickly for plants to keep up with them EVEN if there was greenhouse effect in presence. Then, they`d stagnated and degenerated - as there would be no predators to eliminate weak and sick. Thus, herbivores would become extinct while still in heaven.

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 09:46 PM
But, didn't he create all the creatures of the earth? We know many of those creatures to be omnivores and carnivores, so he must not have created them then. But wait! That's right! He created ALL of the creatures in one day! I smell a discrepancy... a pretty major one at that. Here are the possible scenarios:


Noah brought all of the creatures along. Some of these ate some of the other creatures, meaning a large portion of the species (plural) did not survive the trip, making God's instructions to Noah, and therefore the bible, wrong.
Noah brought extra animals, making the bible wrong.
God hadn't made the carnivores yet, making the bible wrong.
This is a complete myth, and the bible is still wrong.
The bible is a made up load of bullshit, and is wrong.


Remember aaron these are all logical problems and god can just jst zap them away MAGIC'Dlolz!!1one.

Creationists will jump at the chance of even the slightest hole in the evolution argument but will completely ignore any logical problems in genesis. It almost seems pointless to debate whether Noahs story really happend since its so logically ridiculous that people who believe it must have thrown reason out the window a long time ago.

*Edit* To be honest to believe that all that water could have come from the sky and then disappeared means to accept the flood story that we have to believe the whole situation was divinly controlled so if people believe this I jst let them stick with their silly beliefs and ignore them. Its when they claim that science in ANY way supports the noah story that I feel a need to destroy their claims.

Can Not
November 1st, 2006, 09:49 PM
God hadn't made the carnivores yet, making the bible wrong.
Does the Bible say that no animals were created after creation, and does it say that no animals have changed since creation?

Not ALL birds can swim. Isn't that what the ark is for?

Now, let`s consider, that storm will screw up feeding for a WHOLE lot of fishes as well (insect-eaters and surface predators), so God SERIOUSLY screws up life for everyone and everything on Earth with flood.
Isn't that what adaptation and evolution is for?

Just how the hell do you justify him killing all the land animals, who surely couldn`t survive flood?
Man is wicked, and God gave the beasts of the land to man.

So, what conclusion we CAN take from this occurance? That God is sadistic freak, who drowned whole world, because he didn`t liked ONE particular type of inhabitants in the world.
Hopefully you understand that Humans were his favorite, and the others didn't matter that much to him, right? Not did he not care about them as much as he cared about the humans, but he also gave the non-humans to the humans, thus which is why Noah carried animals on the ark with him--Noah needed to take some of his people's possessions with him to the new post-flood world.

As for no carnivores, that`s bullshit. Without natural control of carnivores, herbiwores would`ve consumed all the plants and multiplied too quickly for plants to keep up with them EVEN if there was greenhouse effect in presence. Then, they`d stagnated and degenerated - as there would be no predators to eliminate weak and sick. Thus, herbivores would become extinct while still in heaven.

Errr...no, Herbivores would over eat grass, starve, then grass would overgrow, then Herbivores would over eat the grass again, and the cycle would never end. Also, they are on earth, not in heaven.

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 09:52 PM
God hadn't made the carnivores yet, making the bible wrong.
Does the Bible say that no animals were created after creation, and does it say that no animals have changed since creation?

The snake is a carnivore. Existant from Adam + Eves time

*edit* no plant-eating snakes spring to mind but please correct me if im wrong because Im no expert there*

Can Not
November 1st, 2006, 10:01 PM
God hadn't made the carnivores yet, making the bible wrong.
Does the Bible say that no animals were created after creation, and does it say that no animals have changed since creation?

The snake is a carnivore. Existant from Adam + Eves time

*edit* no plant-eating snakes spring to mind but please correct me if im wrong because Im no expert there*

The snake also had legs.

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 10:13 PM
Not ALL birds can swim. Isn't that what the ark is for?
So that means 99% of birds were still killed, which was alice shades point.

Now, let`s consider, that storm will screw up feeding for a WHOLE lot of fishes as well (insect-eaters and surface predators), so God SERIOUSLY screws up life for everyone and everything on Earth with flood.
Isn't that what adaptation and evolution is for?
Evolution and adaptation doesnt mean that you can overcome any ridiculous adversity, it means that changes in environment can be accomodated over time if these changes are slow. Removing entire food chains and destroying ecosystems WOULD lead to extinction of almsot every single species.

Just to higlight your misunderstanding of evolution further. Evolution requires natural selection to work. Natural selection doesnt really exists when you only have 1 of each gender of each creature, there is nothing to selectively single out certain phenotypes. Also a population of 2 would NEVER produce the variation required for selection to work in a single generation. Not too mention that the changes would probably kill them before they got the chance to reproduce so evolution wuold yet again not apply.

Just how the hell do you justify him killing all the land animals, who surely couldn`t survive flood?
Man is wicked, and God gave the beasts of the land to man.

Can you prove that man is wicked without resorting to godsaidit?

So, what conclusion we CAN take from this occurance? That God is sadistic freak, who drowned whole world, because he didn`t liked ONE particular type of inhabitants in the world.
Hopefully you understand that Humans were his favorite, and the others didn't matter that much to him, right? Not did he not care about them as much as he cared about the humans, but he also gave the non-humans to the humans, thus which is why Noah carried animals on the ark with him--Noah needed to take some of his people's possessions with him to the new post-flood world.

1. Its not morally ok to kill things that are not your favourites
2. He killed the same percentage of his favourites as every other animal
3. Its not okay to let things suffer for sins commited by someone else when you are an omnipotent being.

Got any evidence except the bible?

Carnifex
November 1st, 2006, 10:13 PM
God hadn't made the carnivores yet, making the bible wrong.
Does the Bible say that no animals were created after creation, and does it say that no animals have changed since creation?

The snake is a carnivore. Existant from Adam + Eves time

*edit* no plant-eating snakes spring to mind but please correct me if im wrong because Im no expert there*

The snake also had legs.

And your point is?

AaronD
November 1st, 2006, 10:22 PM
God hadn't made the carnivores yet, making the bible wrong.
Does the Bible say that no animals were created after creation, and does it say that no animals have changed since creation?
It does say that no animals were created after creation, by saying that every animal was created during creation.

Not ALL birds can swim. Isn't that what the ark is for?
No, because all of the trees and worms the birds fed off of were many feet underwater, and two worms would not have fed all of the non-swimming species of birds in existence.

Now, let`s consider, that storm will screw up feeding for a WHOLE lot of fishes as well (insect-eaters and surface predators), so God SERIOUSLY screws up life for everyone and everything on Earth with flood.
Isn't that what adaptation and evolution is for?
So you do believe in evolution when it supports your argument, but not when it supports ours. That's interesting.

Just how the hell do you justify him killing all the land animals, who surely couldn`t survive flood?
Man is wicked, and God gave the beasts of the land to man.
Wait, you're saying that if I have a pet dog, and I murder somebody and get the death penalty for my wickedness, the dog must die too, because he is mine? That's evil by association...

So, what conclusion we CAN take from this occurance? That God is sadistic freak, who drowned whole world, because he didn`t liked ONE particular type of inhabitants in the world.
Hopefully you understand that Humans were his favorite, and the others didn't matter that much to him, right? Not did he not care about them as much as he cared about the humans, but he also gave the non-humans to the humans, thus which is why Noah carried animals on the ark with him--Noah needed to take some of his people's possessions with him to the new post-flood world.
Ah, so he picks favorites, does not respect or love his own creatures, considers all of the creatures that keep the earth running to be our property even though we are inherently evil, and likes drowning people for no apparent reason, personal, or inpersonal gain. This "God" of yours sounds like one hell of a guy.

As for no carnivores, that`s bullshit. Without natural control of carnivores, herbiwores would`ve consumed all the plants and multiplied too quickly for plants to keep up with them EVEN if there was greenhouse effect in presence. Then, they`d stagnated and degenerated - as there would be no predators to eliminate weak and sick. Thus, herbivores would become extinct while still in heaven.

Errr...no, Herbivores would over eat grass, starve, then grass would overgrow, then Herbivores would over eat the grass again, and the cycle would never end. Also, they are on earth, not in heaven.

Who says that the grass would grow back, with so many creatures consuming it and nothing to keep them in line? An ecosystem is a delicate thing, and carnivores are needed to keep the balance.


One last thing: You failed to address four of my five possible scenarios listed, or the main post that spawned those scenarios.

Can Not
November 1st, 2006, 10:55 PM
Not ALL birds can swim. Isn't that what the ark is for?
So that means 99% of birds were still killed, which was alice shades point.

Now, let`s consider, that storm will screw up feeding for a WHOLE lot of fishes as well (insect-eaters and surface predators), so God SERIOUSLY screws up life for everyone and everything on Earth with flood.
Isn't that what adaptation and evolution is for?
Evolution and adaptation doesnt mean that you can overcome any ridiculous adversity, it means that changes in environment can be accomodated over time if these changes are slow. Removing entire food chains and destroying ecosystems WOULD lead to extinction of almsot every single species.

Just to higlight your misunderstanding of evolution further. Evolution requires natural selection to work. Natural selection doesnt really exists when you only have 1 of each gender of each creature, there is nothing to selectively single out certain phenotypes. Also a population of 2 would NEVER produce the variation required for selection to work in a single generation. Not too mention that the changes would probably kill them before they got the chance to reproduce so evolution wuold yet again not apply.
Yes it does exist. If the male and female fail to reproduce, they die, so only the ones that can reproduce will survive. Their offspring will have some genes, and over a time period lasting more than one generation, the offspring with the genes that allow more efficient reproduction or survival will reproduce more than the others.

Just how the hell do you justify him killing all the land animals, who surely couldn`t survive flood?
Man is wicked, and God gave the beasts of the land to man.

Can you prove that man is wicked without resorting to godsaidit?
wicked-ness is not a physical property that causes large ammounts of water to approach, wickedness is an opinion. In this case, it is God's opinion. Can you explain to me why I need to scientificly proove why someone had an opinion?

So, what conclusion we CAN take from this occurance? That God is sadistic freak, who drowned whole world, because he didn`t liked ONE particular type of inhabitants in the world.
Hopefully you understand that Humans were his favorite, and the others didn't matter that much to him, right? Not did he not care about them as much as he cared about the humans, but he also gave the non-humans to the humans, thus which is why Noah carried animals on the ark with him--Noah needed to take some of his people's possessions with him to the new post-flood world.

1. Its not morally ok to kill things that are not your favourites
2. He killed the same percentage of his favourites as every other animal
3. Its not okay to let things suffer for sins commited by someone else when you are an omnipotent being.

Got any evidence except the bible?

Your moral opinions do not make contradictions in the Bible.

God's actions do not contradict what his "rules" for us are, because he is not one of us.

No, because all of the trees and worms the birds fed off of were many feet underwater, and two worms would not have fed all of the non-swimming species of birds in existence.
Well I guess they died.

So you do believe in evolution when it supports your argument, but not when it supports ours. That's interesting.
LMAO, I've always supported evolution. No point of view has changed, only your lack of reading comprehension.

Wait, you're saying that if I have a pet dog, and I murder somebody and get the death penalty for my wickedness, the dog must die too, because he is mine? That's evil by association...

Wait, are you saying that if I give one of my poor friends an old harddrive, I automaticly must give everyone who is poor a free HD?

Ah, so he picks favorites, does not respect or love his own creatures, considers all of the creatures that keep the earth running to be our property even though we are inherently evil, and likes drowning people for no apparent reason, personal, or inpersonal gain. This "God" of yours sounds like one hell of a guy.

He favorites humans because he created them "in his image".

Who says that the grass would grow back, with so many creatures consuming it and nothing to keep them in line? An ecosystem is a delicate thing, and carnivores are needed to keep the balance.

Animals will not dig up the roots of all grass, thus, the grass regrows.

One last thing: You failed to address four of my five possible scenarios listed, or the main post that spawned those scenarios.

Does the Bible say that no animals were created after creation, and does it say that no animals have changed since creation?

You have failed to cite your source regarding the questions.

GeoffBoulton
November 1st, 2006, 11:19 PM
LMAO, flood killed fish and birds, too?

The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them."

It says birds too here! Why would he regret doing anything, he's perfect, he can't make mistakes!

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

EVERYTHING on earth!

Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

God didn't make FISH then or aren't fish living creatures?

Every living thing, on the face of the earth was wiped out; human beings and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Yep, EVERY living thing!

So what had all the animals plants, etc. done to deserve that? Had those naughty lettuces been taking his name in vain again?

AaronD
November 1st, 2006, 11:30 PM
Not ALL birds can swim. Isn't that what the ark is for?
So that means 99% of birds were still killed, which was alice shades point.

Now, let`s consider, that storm will screw up feeding for a WHOLE lot of fishes as well (insect-eaters and surface predators), so God SERIOUSLY screws up life for everyone and everything on Earth with flood.
Isn't that what adaptation and evolution is for?
Evolution and adaptation doesnt mean that you can overcome any ridiculous adversity, it means that changes in environment can be accomodated over time if these changes are slow. Removing entire food chains and destroying ecosystems WOULD lead to extinction of almsot every single species.

Just to higlight your misunderstanding of evolution further. Evolution requires natural selection to work. Natural selection doesnt really exists when you only have 1 of each gender of each creature, there is nothing to selectively single out certain phenotypes. Also a population of 2 would NEVER produce the variation required for selection to work in a single generation. Not too mention that the changes would probably kill them before they got the chance to reproduce so evolution wuold yet again not apply.
Yes it does exist. If the male and female fail to reproduce, they die, so only the ones that can reproduce will survive. Their offspring will have some genes, and over a time period lasting more than one generation, the offspring with the genes that allow more efficient reproduction or survival will reproduce more than the others.
You misunderstood him: He said that it does not exist in only one male and one female of a given species. So, that is not evolution you described, but extinction. You really do not understand a thing about evolution.

Just how the hell do you justify him killing all the land animals, who surely couldn`t survive flood?
Man is wicked, and God gave the beasts of the land to man.

Can you prove that man is wicked without resorting to godsaidit?
wicked-ness is not a physical property that causes large ammounts of water to approach, wickedness is an opinion. In this case, it is God's opinion. Can you explain to me why I need to scientificly proove why someone had an opinion?
you don't, it is just that you stated it as a fact. If you had presented it as an opinion, we would be asking why an imaginary being even has opinions in the first place.

So, what conclusion we CAN take from this occurance? That God is sadistic freak, who drowned whole world, because he didn`t liked ONE particular type of inhabitants in the world.
Hopefully you understand that Humans were his favorite, and the others didn't matter that much to him, right? Not did he not care about them as much as he cared about the humans, but he also gave the non-humans to the humans, thus which is why Noah carried animals on the ark with him--Noah needed to take some of his people's possessions with him to the new post-flood world.

1. Its not morally ok to kill things that are not your favourites
2. He killed the same percentage of his favourites as every other animal
3. Its not okay to let things suffer for sins commited by someone else when you are an omnipotent being.

Got any evidence except the bible?

Your moral opinions do not make contradictions in the Bible.

God's actions do not contradict what his "rules" for us are, because he is not one of us.
I actually agree about the moral opinions, but I find it just plain ridiculous to think that God would have made rules, and then completely disregarded them. With that "Do as I say, not as I do" style of parenting, no wonder the world is such a screwed up place. Has anybody stopped to think that God (if we pretend for a minute that he does exist) is evil by each and every one of his own definitions, or damn near close?

No, because all of the trees and worms the birds fed off of were many feet underwater, and two worms would not have fed all of the non-swimming species of birds in existence.
Well I guess they died.

So you do believe in evolution when it supports your argument, but not when it supports ours. That's interesting.
LMAO, I've always supported evolution. No point of view has changed, only your lack of reading comprehension.

Creationism and evolution are not mix-and-match subjects, nor are they cross-compatible. You are either a creationist, or you aren't. There is no fence to be on, no gray area, no temperate zone when it comes to that sort of thing.

Wait, you're saying that if I have a pet dog, and I murder somebody and get the death penalty for my wickedness, the dog must die too, because he is mine? That's evil by association...

Wait, are you saying that if I give one of my poor friends an old harddrive, I automatically must give everyone who is poor a free HD?
I don't see how that question has anything to do with my example. In my example, it is asking if just because I am evil and must die for it, all my living possessions are evil by association and must die too. In your example, you are asking if you must give every poor person a hard drive if you give one a hard drive. How do the two examples have anything to do with another? They don't. One is not taking life away, the other is giving a hard drive. Plus, in asking that question, you implied that you think all poor people are your property.

Ah, so he picks favorites, does not respect or love his own creatures, considers all of the creatures that keep the earth running to be our property even though we are inherently evil, and likes drowning people for no apparent reason, personal, or inpersonal gain. This "God" of yours sounds like one hell of a guy.

He favorites humans because he created them "in his image".
You mean as evil as he is? Because according to many theologists, God has no physical form, so image must mean ideals in this case.

Who says that the grass would grow back, with so many creatures consuming it and nothing to keep them in line? An ecosystem is a delicate thing, and carnivores are needed to keep the balance.

Animals will not dig up the roots of all grass, thus, the grass regrows.
No, they won't, but with that large an animal population, the grass will not get many much-needed things, such as water (the vastly growing population of animals handles this), adequate sunlight, and the chance to grow without being pounded dead.

One last thing: You failed to address four of my five possible scenarios listed, or the main post that spawned those scenarios.

Does the Bible say that no animals were created after creation, and does it say that no animals have changed since creation?

You have failed to cite your source regarding the questions.
You explain yours, I'll explain mine. In that order (aka the order they were presented in).

Alice Shade
November 1st, 2006, 11:30 PM
Try cutting off all the above-earth vegetation, and see, if grass will regrow.

Some does - some does not. Also, when there`s not enough of grass around, a whole lot of herbivores dig out roots and eat them too.

Point still stands - as soon as all available grass will be eaten, herbivores will be rapidly diminishing in amounts, until it stabilises at the point, where herbivores are just enough to consume whatever regrown grass there is - which means, that they will either cyclically eat up more then they should, and stagnate more, as grass will be regrowing slower, either they should have some way to regulate their own numbers.

Second case is just the base for predators, first means eventual extinction of herbovires, when the amount of regrowing grass will fall under the bare minimum for two animals on every square mile, or so.


As for your theory of god-induced evolution. Let me put it this way.

In the face of:
A) Overwhelming evidence of natural evolution being possible (Miller`s experiments).
B) God being an a**hole type of person.

We can conclude, that taking the side of natural evolution is clearly the most logical thing to do.
1) Because it has most of direct evidence vs. idle speculation in it`s favor.
2) Because it doesn`t sticks us with megalomaniacal paranoid dude, who`d drown us at moment`s notice.
3) Because it does not makes us hurt our brains to squirm around logic to justify our views.

As for other points, I`m too lazy to dig into them. Read on genetics, psychology, and biology to see inherent inconsistencies.

Can Not
November 2nd, 2006, 12:17 AM
LMAO, flood killed fish and birds, too?

The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them."

It says birds too here! Why would he regret doing anything, he's perfect, he can't make mistakes!
Regret is feeling...Just because he has a feeling does not mean what he did was a mistake.

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

Every living thing, on the face of the earth was wiped out; human beings and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

moved some bolds for ya.

You explain yours, I'll explain mine. In that order (aka the order they were presented in).

You are inferring there is no evolution.

No, they won't, but with that large an animal population, the grass will not get many much-needed things, such as water(1) (the vastly growing population of animals handles this), adequate sunlight(2), and the chance to grow without being pounded dead.(3)
1. See Great Plains
2. Impossbily/Unrealisticly large ammount of animals
3. See Plains in Africa

You mean as evil as he is? Because according to many theologists, God has no physical form, so image must mean ideals in this case.
No. Wickedness is a result of choice, or a series of wicked-like decisions.

I don't see how that question has anything to do with my example. In my example, it is asking if just because I am evil and must die for it, all my living possessions are evil by association and must die too. In your example, you are asking if you must give every poor person a hard drive if you give one a hard drive. How do the two examples have anything to do with another? They don't. One is not taking life away, the other is giving a hard drive. Plus, in asking that question, you implied that you think all poor people are your property.
No, they have everything to do with each other. You are pulling out the old "But they killed Boby's dog, why not kill Johnnys?" from third grade culture.

Creationism and evolution are not mix-and-match subjects, nor are they cross-compatible. You are either a creationist, or you aren't. There is no fence to be on, no gray area, no temperate zone when it comes to that sort of thing.
Creationism's opposite is the Steady-State theory, not evolution. I believe evolution is a key component of creation.

I actually agree about the moral opinions, but I find it just plain ridiculous to think that God would have made rules, and then completely disregarded them. With that "Do as I say, not as I do" style of parenting, no wonder the world is such a screwed up place. Has anybody stopped to think that God (if we pretend for a minute that he does exist) is evil by each and every one of his own definitions, or damn near close?

God is the "Righteous Judge". Everything "horrible" he has done had a "Judgement" related reason. In addition to that, he has his own personal agenda. But that's his business, not mine. You can think he's evil all you want, but if he's real then he is not evil, or he actually is evil and lies about it.

you don't, it is just that you stated it as a fact. If you had presented it as an opinion, we would be asking why an imaginary being even has opinions in the first place.

So...it is fact that if the Noah's Ark story is true, then God flooded because the humans were wicked?

You misunderstood him
No, you misunderstood me. If there are only 2, then they will reproduce, and then natural selection will happen.

Try cutting off all the above-earth vegetation, and see, if grass will regrow.
Lawnmover

a whole lot of herbivores dig out roots and eat them too.

Animals will not dig up the roots of all grass

either they should have some way to regulate their own numbers.
The solution to overpopulation is starvation.

direct evidence
Rocks in the ground are not "direct evidence".

On the same page as "Direct evidence", there is evidence of a massive flood occuring occuring quite a long time ago, and there is a rock, which matches the size of the Ark, is called "the Ark" by locals, and sits at the top of a mountain. This could easily be a fossil (something that proves that ancient things once existed) of Noah's Ark.

B) God being an a**hole type of person.
If your trying to say that no one deserves punishment no matter what, then I understand what you mean.

3) Because it does not makes us hurt our brains to squirm around logic to justify our views.
Same could be said for...everything.

Alice Shade
November 2nd, 2006, 12:31 AM
Two parents repopulating species?

One word - imbreeding. They will degenerate into slush pile in several generations of imbreeding.


Lawnmover does NOT cuts all vegetation. It leaves one to three inches, depending on setting. Hungry cattle will munch it up to ground, and most likely, dig in for roots, as well.

Starvation does not solves it. As long as there is repopulation of herbivores, plants are getting diminished (root digging, natural plant death (not all plants can do vegetative multiplication, and herbivores won`t let it grow out enough to even sprout flower, much less spill seeds)).
So eventually, plants will go extinct, like herbivores (and if all herbivores go extinct, new ones will have to evolve again, thus throwing out "God made them" claim).

As for rock on Ararath, which is called Ark, I rather tend to think, that people were seeking refuge under that stone during the said flood, and this sprouted legend, that this rock was a ship, that saved them (inspired by the shape of rock). FYI, fossil can`t be made, UNLESS original ship was submerged in ground for a VERY long time. Something I don`t see happening, seeing as it`s on the top of mountain.

As for God being disagreeable fellow, I`m saying, that it`s NOT in psychology of omnipotent being to wipe out works like that. He could`ve just stop people from being wicked by changing them - which would require MUCH less effort, then flood.

GeoffBoulton
November 2nd, 2006, 09:32 AM
moved some bolds for ya.

Ask 1000 people what 'everything on earth' or 'everything on the face of the earth' means and the general consensus would be 'everything on the planet'. But if you choose to interpret it as only those things actually in contact with the ground then fair enough.

It still says BIRDS though however you move the bolds around!

LMAO, flood killed fish and birds, too?

Since you found it so funny and absurd that I should suggest that the flood would wipe out birds then you must also be saying that it is absurd of God to suggest this too.

As we said, the bible is full of absurdities!

Fallen Hero
November 2nd, 2006, 01:58 PM
Apparently there are no carnivores. Atleast, not at the first few moments of creation. So do you believe in evolution or did your god make carnivores later? Genesis says he create the whole Earth in 6 days, animals included, so this is a contradiction there, there had to have been carnivores, humans for example, were there before the flood. I know we can live on only plants but it is harder and less efficient. We are omnivore beings. For God to have made the earth and everything on it in 6 days, he would have to have made carnivores too. Thus, Noah's Ark directly contradicts Genesis. However, Noah's Ark is an very modified version of 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' (The latter is better IMHO). Explain how evolution is not real if there are no carnivores at genesis. (If you take ID I challenge you to explain it anyways)

Carnifex
November 2nd, 2006, 08:23 PM
Heres a question then can not. Do you believe that humans evolved over millions of years from an ancestor common to chimpanzees? (PS. we have much more evidence for this than the bible account of creation)

Also (AaronD has already said it) evolution and adaptation wouldnt allow a single generation of populations 2 animals small to overcome almost certain extinction. Heres the situation, there are 2 animals of the same species faced with conditions which mean they will probably not survive to reproduce. Explain how evolution would help them overcome the conditions here?

Carnifex
November 2nd, 2006, 08:28 PM
Lawnmover does NOT cuts all vegetation. It leaves one to three inches, depending on setting. Hungry cattle will munch it up to ground, and most likely, dig in for roots, as well.


The plants wouldnt be there to start with, a 40 day flood would have destroyed pretty much all photosynthetic plants. Very small remenants of plant life do tend to regrow at a great rate and spring back up again but still much longer than it would take for the animals to die of starvation many times over.

Carnifex
November 2nd, 2006, 08:42 PM
direct evidence
Rocks in the ground are not "direct evidence".

On the same page as "Direct evidence", there is evidence of a massive flood occuring occuring quite a long time ago, and there is a rock, which matches the size of the Ark, is called "the Ark" by locals, and sits at the top of a mountain. This could easily be a fossil (something that proves that ancient things once existed) of Noah's Ark.


forgive the pun but if it isnt direct evidence, the rocks are "solid" evidence :P . Im gonna put on my scientist hat here and say no. No damn way could a rock on top of a mountain be a fossil of a 6000 year old ship. There are no 6000 year old fossils at high elevation (are there ANY 6000 year old fossils? i dont think so). Fossilisation happens when organic material becomes submerged in some sort of anaerobic environment e.g falls into a tar pit or swamp, or is quickly covered in sediment, neither of these would happen at the top of a mountain (Even if it was some way down the maountain and there had abeen repeated avalanches it probably wouldnt produce fossils, and lets not forget the shiprock wuld then have to burrow its way back up to the surface for people to find). Its a pretty rare occurence (hence why there are some missing transitional fossils, since fossilisation will probably never occur to the remains of some extinct species). Certain fossils have been found on mountains because they were originally at an elevation where some sort of fossilisation may have occured and due to plate tectonics the land around them would have been forced upwards to create a mountain. This process does not occur in the time frame you are suggesting. Neither would the process even if it did manage to happen turn a ship into a rock.

Plus which mountain was this because I assume we then judge this place as the final stop of the ark. If the ark finally came to rest on top of the mountains i feel it makes the survival of the creatures who had to disembark EVEN MORE unlikely. The top of a mountain would be quite a hostile environment to many creatures and food was probably even more limited there (although not really since I assume the whole world had the same amount of NO remaining plants).

Also what evidence is there of a great flood occuring a long time ago. If you find evidence of a flood of slightly less scale than a world destroying flood leading to the killing of most of the earths creatures then i will use it as evidence against the bible. It will mean the genesis story may be a personal account of a local disaster twisted over time to be the wrath of god.

Carnifex out

Fallen Hero
November 3rd, 2006, 03:25 PM
I have seen the footage of investigating the 'Ark fossil location' Newsflash: It was a hoax, they already have proved that wrong, I forgot about that film but mentioning ark fossils jolted my memory.

Carnifex, the Lucy fossil, I think is older than 6000 years old, and certainly anything from before her, fossil wise, will be more than 6000 years old. Not to mention the dinosaur bones, which are millions of years old. As I said, the Noah's Ark story was pulled out of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

http://www.mythome.org/gilgamesh1.html

There it is. Note: 12 tablets, all are long. They are worth reading, but may take some decent time.

Carnifex
November 3rd, 2006, 04:09 PM
Carnifex, the Lucy fossil, I think is older than 6000 years old


Just a bit at 3.2 million years old :wink:

jon_hill987
November 3rd, 2006, 04:24 PM
I have seen the footage of investigating the 'Ark fossil location' Newsflash: It was a hoax, they already have proved that wrong, I forgot about that film but mentioning ark fossils jolted my memory.

I believe that the Ark story may have been based on a true story, Before the earthquake which made a huge gap at Gibraltar and let the sea in, it is thought that people did live in the Mediterranean basin. Maybe someone had the time (and sense) to get in his boat (with some of his livestock) when he saw that the lake (which was all that was there then) was rising rather fast.

Fallen Hero
November 3rd, 2006, 04:31 PM
I have seen the footage of investigating the 'Ark fossil location' Newsflash: It was a hoax, they already have proved that wrong, I forgot about that film but mentioning ark fossils jolted my memory.

I believe that the Ark story may have been based on a true story, Before the earthquake which made a huge gap at Gibraltar and let the sea in, it is thought that people did live in the Mediterranean basin. Maybe someone had the time (and sense) to get in his boat (with some of his livestock) when he saw that the lake (which was all that was there then) was rising rather fast.

As I said before the current theory is that the flood story was based on the Epic of Gilgamesh flood, which was based on a localized flood by the dead (?) sea (As a note, they have found remnants of ships and buildings down there. The water in the deeps is not unlike formaldehyde (seeing as there is formaldehyde in there :wink: ))

Can Not
November 3rd, 2006, 11:11 PM
Apparently there are no carnivores. Atleast, not at the first few moments of creation. So do you believe in evolution or did your god make carnivores later? Genesis says he create the whole Earth in 6 days, animals included, so this is a contradiction there, there had to have been carnivores, humans for example, were there before the flood.
lol

Apparently there are no carnivores. Atleast, not at the first few moments of creation. So do you believe in evolution or did your god make carnivores later? Genesis says he create the whole Earth in 6 days, animals included, so this is a contradiction there, there had to have been carnivores, humans for example, were there before the flood.
I've said many times before, or atleast once, Evolution is the key.

If you guys want to be all scientific and grown-uppy, that's cool, but the Bible says that Jesus said that you must come to him like a child, which none of you are, so you think an omnipotent being can not enforce "illogical" physics into a word he created himself. That pretty much covers the next 9,000 things you could have had to say.

Anyways, I'm tired of arguing over something I don't believe in, I hope a real monothiest comes in one day.

AaronD
November 3rd, 2006, 11:34 PM
Apparently there are no carnivores. Atleast, not at the first few moments of creation. So do you believe in evolution or did your god make carnivores later? Genesis says he create the whole Earth in 6 days, animals included, so this is a contradiction there, there had to have been carnivores, humans for example, were there before the flood.
lol

Apparently there are no carnivores. Atleast, not at the first few moments of creation. So do you believe in evolution or did your god make carnivores later? Genesis says he create the whole Earth in 6 days, animals included, so this is a contradiction there, there had to have been carnivores, humans for example, were there before the flood.
I've said many times before, or atleast once, Evolution is the key.

If you guys want to be all scientific and grown-uppy, that's cool, but the Bible says that Jesus said that you must come to him like a child, which none of you are, so you think an omnipotent being can not enforce "illogical" physics into a word he created himself. That pretty much covers the next 9,000 things you could have had to say.

Anyways, I'm tired of arguing over something I don't believe in, I hope a real monothiest comes in one day.

The fact is, why would he do one thing and say another? If he was as perfect as everyone says he is, then he would want us to be just like him. The only solution is this: There is no God, there never was, and Jesus was nothing more than a middle-eastern philosopher who got the death penalty.

Can Not
November 4th, 2006, 01:11 AM
When you say that, your putting God at the same level as humans, which goes against reffering to him as God, so basicly now you are reducing his title to non-God and then saying he isn't real. You ask questions like "How can he do this, it's so wrong! It's not nice!" That sucks and all, hatt this theoriatical being is mean, but he knows no morals. He gave laws to the humans because the humans needed them. He does not need rules. Please, when you try to falsify God, falsify him as a God, not as a normal human person.

AaronD
November 4th, 2006, 01:49 AM
When you say that, your putting God at the same level as humans

No, I am putting God at a level of perfection, and wondering why he didn't put humans on the same level if he was so powerful. The only solution is his nonexistence.

Can Not
November 4th, 2006, 02:24 AM
When you say that, your putting God at the same level as humans

No, I am putting God at a level of perfection, and wondering why he didn't put humans on the same level if he was so powerful. The only solution is his nonexistence.

Your opinion on how he "should be" does not affect whether or not he is.

Alice Shade
November 4th, 2006, 02:39 AM
"Can Not", the evidence contradicts. You can`t be omnibenevolent and genocidal in the same time.

Arbitrary
November 4th, 2006, 02:48 AM
No, I am putting God at a level of perfection, and wondering why he didn't put humans on the same level if he was so powerful. The only solution is his nonexistence.
Actually that doesn't make any sense. Just because God is perfect does not mean he has to put humans on the same level. He could be selfish and like it that he's the only one occupying the throne.

On a second note, this sums up my beliefs perfectly:
Evolution is true. It makes logical sense, on multiple levels. It has plenty of evidence (dating back *gasp* even further than the bible!) to back it up. It has been proved.

Creationism is untrue. It makes no sense, on any levels. It has no evidence. It has not been proved.

So there you go.

AaronD
November 4th, 2006, 03:36 AM
No, I am putting God at a level of perfection, and wondering why he didn't put humans on the same level if he was so powerful. The only solution is his nonexistence.
Actually that doesn't make any sense. Just because God is perfect does not mean he has to put humans on the same level. He could be selfish and like it that he's the only one occupying the throne.


But, selfishness is an imperfection, is it not? Your explanation makes no sense on two levels:

a) Even if everyone was perfect, a supposed deity could still maintain nature and make sure everything stayed that way.
b) Selfishness is an imperfection. Why should anyone believe in a god willing to let thousands upon thousands of his creations die in his name? They shouldn't, or they shouldn't try to give others those beliefs.

Jillamanda
November 4th, 2006, 03:54 AM
Welcome Arbitrary - you're our 500th member!! :D

Arbitrary
November 4th, 2006, 05:47 PM
But, selfishness is an imperfection, is it not? Your explanation makes no sense on two levels:

a) Even if everyone was perfect, a supposed deity could still maintain nature and make sure everything stayed that way.
b) Selfishness is an imperfection. Why should anyone believe in a god willing to let thousands upon thousands of his creations die in his name? They shouldn't, or they shouldn't try to give others those beliefs.
Yeah but selfishness is only an imperfection based on what we think. It's with our morals that we judge this, and this supposed "God" may have different opinions of what selfishness is. But I do agree with the last two sentences of b). It's pretty much a paradox I've never understood. So God teaches forgiveness, but punishes people himself by sending them to hell? Isn't he kind of contradicting himself there?
Welcome Arbitrary - you're our 500th member!! Very Happy
Cool! ;) This is quite an amusing place. =/

Fallen Hero
November 4th, 2006, 08:19 PM
I've said many times before, or at least once, Evolution is the key.

So please explain how carnivores evolved from plant eaters. You have to realize that humans ate meat, thus it is logical to assume that other animals also ate meat.

If you guys want to be all scientific and grown-uppy, that's cool, but the Bible says that Jesus said that you must come to him like a child, which none of you are, so you think an omnipotent being can not enforce "illogical" physics into a word he created himself. That pretty much covers the next 9,000 things you could have had to say. Please explain this, it is not making much sense, and as far as I can tell has no point.[/quote]

weiswu
November 29th, 2006, 07:39 AM
This thread is kind of long, so I've only read the first page and the last - please forgive me if I mention something that someone has already touched on, and also if it has very little to do with the central argument at hand.

I would like to present a disproof of "Creationism" in the fundamental seven-day sense, which is based on the principles that:
1) God created the universe as we know it and everything in it over a period of six days, with humans last, and rested on the seventh.
2) All life that God created has remained constant, ie no change induced by gene drift, random mutation, selective mating, or natural selection has occurred.
3) The first humans that God created were Adam and Eve, and, at the time of their creation and until their first child, they were the only humans in existence.

Let us assume these three statements to be true for the sake of argument.

Let us now add another statement which we know to be true from observation:
4) Diseases exist in the world, some of which are carried by organisms (for the sake of semantic issues we will define organisms to include viruses) that can survive only when in direct contact with humans, ie they are obligatory parasites of humans.

By deduction, we have
5) These organisms must have survived until now from the time they first entered the world (a bit obvious, but for logic's sake).

By 2), we can derive that
6) The organisms mentioned in 4) must have existed as they are now since they were created, and therefore must have been obligate human parasites since their creation.

From 1), we have the immediate problem that humans were created after these organisms were, hence they could not have survived, hence 5) cannot be true. Of course, it is possible to argue that the creation of microbes is not mentioned in Genesis and hence could have occurred after the creation of man. So, for the purpose of a better argument:
7) Some of the diseases mentioned in 4) cause sterility.

Because of 6) and 3),
8) Adam and Eve must have possessed every single disease limited to humans that exists on this planet today.

and by 7) and 8)
9) Adam and Eve must have been sterile.

And, therefore, we cannot possibly exist.

This, of course, invalidates the premises, and we can only conclude that because I would not exist to make this argument if the premises were true, and you would not exist to read it, and that I have very obviously written the argument and you have very obviously read it, then 1), 2), and 3) cannot be true.

QED.

PS Sorry if that was a bit long-winded - I get into these things.

GeoffBoulton
November 29th, 2006, 08:11 AM
I like the thinking but there is one assumption that needs checking.

Can viruses and bacteria survive without a human host? I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain there are a few that can go into suspended animation for tremendously long periods of time, sometimes in very hostile environments, while they wait for a host. I know human viruses can't replicate without a host but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't survive.

Apart from that I think the fact that Adam and Even must have played host to a considerable number of harmful viruses, bacteria and parasitic organisms is a great argument against biblical creationism.

Never mind the ones that make you sterile, there are a large number of DEADLY viruses, bacteria and parasites out there too and without access to modern medicine they most certainly would have been pretty well f*&:ed.

Nice one! ;)

jon_hill987
November 29th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Can viruses and bacteria survive without a human host? I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain there are a few that can go into suspended animation for tremendously long periods of time, sometimes in very hostile environments, while they wait for a host. I know human viruses can't replicate without a host but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't survive.

Bacteria can survive for long periods of time on nothing but most viruses die very quickly without a host or some blood to live in.

Fallen Hero
November 29th, 2006, 11:48 AM
The story goes (I think.. I need to refesh this) that God created the world perfect and then problems were introduced later after the eating of the apple can we not say that those problems could also include the bacteria. (Although that also disproves it as he has made living beings outside the 6 days.

Alice Shade
November 29th, 2006, 12:22 PM
There is also an issue of virii being hosted.

It`s not necessary for virus to manifest itself anyhow in host organism - as long as virus does not procreates, host can carry virus inside without any ill symptomes. (Some STDs, for examplle, activate based on gender, some forms of flu - based on allergies, and so on and so on.)

weiswu
December 1st, 2006, 03:24 AM
Can viruses and bacteria survive without a human host? I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain there are a few that can go into suspended animation for tremendously long periods of time, sometimes in very hostile environments, while they wait for a host. I know human viruses can't replicate without a host but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't survive.

Bacteria can survive for long periods of time on nothing but most viruses die very quickly without a host or some blood to live in.

While that is technically true, it does not in any way cripple the argument - we need only add the (true by observation) statement that "some viruses and/or bacteria which cause sterility/death/general screwing require a human host to survive for periods of time longer than nine months (the minimum amount of time to birth a child)".

Also, note that some pathogens, most notably HIV, are transmitted from the mother to the fetus, meaning that, technically speaking, we should all have AIDS.

GeoffBoulton
December 1st, 2006, 06:36 AM
it does not in any way cripple the argument

Pretty much what I said

Never mind the ones that make you sterile, there are a large number of DEADLY viruses, bacteria and parasites out there too and without access to modern medicine they most certainly would have been pretty well f*&:ed.

jon_hill987
December 3rd, 2006, 11:56 AM
While that is technically true, it does not in any way cripple the argument

I know, I just thought it important to get all the facts right in case anyone wanted to post the argument somewhere where a fundie is likely to try and debunk it.

Emperor_Google
December 19th, 2006, 05:18 PM
evelution is fact, artificial evelution also exsits, (selective breeding) like look at a beef cow 20 years ago and look at them now, they're about 10 times bigger

Alice Shade
December 19th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Um-hum. I made point about selection and breeding to creationist one.

I quote reply...
God made selection possible to help humans.

Emperor_Google
December 19th, 2006, 05:45 PM
What next?
"God made Skyscrapers to bring us closer to him."
"God made Buger King to try and rival McDonalds."

Alice Shade
December 19th, 2006, 05:48 PM
Yes.

A-chally, I head myself - "God made Starbucks, so we`d have fresh coffee in mornng."