Proof of the Creator..

luvtolean · 02-22-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Custom900

Exactly - no Evolution - you would only adapt - and so would the baby

There are plenty of real cases of evolution.

Here's a classic case, and one I was taught in school.

http://animals.about.com/cs/evolutio...ration+msn.com

phobiaphobe · 02-22-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Custom900

Yes I have - and that theory has been knocked down time and time again.

What theory has been knocked down? Archaeoptryx is a fossil of an animal that is an intermediate between reptiles and birds. What's to be knocked down?

BTW what's a coccyx for?

CBRVFR · 02-22-2006, 12:30 PM

I should know better than to post in this thread...

Custom and others who profess faith in God, here's a hypothetical question for you -

If real, irrefutable, positive proof were discovered proving evolution, ( just go along with me here) would that shake your faith in God? In your view, is it not possible for someone to believe in a creator and to simultaneously believe that evolution is the mechanism by which that creator (note the skillful absence of a pronoun..) ensured the progress and health of all species, including humans?

If parables abound in the Bible, why couldn't one consider that the Genesis account could be understood as a parable?

I hope this question doesn't offend, I don't mean to.

Custom900 · 02-22-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Should we bring back the Noah's Ark debate? No, let's not.

Not today

.....................................but if it goes that far I quess I would be game

phobiaphobe · 02-22-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

I should know better than to post in this thread...

Custom and others who profess faith in God, here's a hypothetical question for you -

If real, irrefutable, positive proof were discovered proving evolution, ( just go along with me here) would that shake your faith in God? In your view, is it not possible for someone to believe in a creator and to simultaneously believe that evolution is the mechanism by which that creator (note the skillful absence of a pronoun..) ensured the progress and health of all species, including humans?

If parables abound in the Bible, why couldn't one consider that the Genesis account could be understood as a parable?

I hope this question doesn't offend, I don't mean to.

You could accept evolution as God's creation, but doesn't that then contradict big chunks of the bible? If you accept both creation and evolution do you still believe that God created man, or do you believe that god created single-celled organism that evolved into man? Where do you place the singularity?

Proto · 02-22-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Custom900

Exactly - no Evolution - you would only adapt - and so would the baby

Don't think I'd adapt to the desert.

With my very fair skin I'd just develop skin cancer like my Dad did following a blisteringly (literally) hot holiday on Ibiza. The sun killed him pretty quickly and it would kill me too.

So some people are more adaptable than others, and surely this is what leads to evolution?

luvtolean · 02-22-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proto

Don't think I'd adapt to the desert.

With my very fair skin I'd just develop skin cancer like my Dad did following a blisteringly (literally) hot holiday on Ibiza. The sun killed him pretty quickly and it would kill me too.

So some people are more adaptable than others, and surely this is what leads to evolution?

Yep, you'd die out. Those with darker skin would thrive, breed and eventually, the desert would be mostly populated by those with dark skin.

Just like the moth example above.

Evolution is a real thing, but the question is, did man evolve or were we created.

And if we did evolve, does that necessarily mean that God didn't have a hand in that too?

Religions are myticism, they'll adapt to any scientific findings we ever have.

Proto · 02-22-2006, 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Religions are myticism, they'll adapt to any scientific findings we ever have.

Yes indeed. Religions, like all living things, adapt and eveolve to suit their habitats. I was reading yesterday about Galileo who was on the point of being put to death because he postulated that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Heresy said the Vatican.

Can't think the Pope would want to pick that one up again.

luvtolean · 02-22-2006, 1:02 PM

...and later, the Vatican submitted to the Big Bang theory as the explanation for the creation of the universe.

Again, there will never, ever be proof either way. Until you're dead.

QuikMike · 02-22-2006, 1:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

...Again, there will never, ever be proof either way. Until you're dead.

and that my friend, is the beauty of it all.....

Custom900 · 02-22-2006, 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

You could accept evolution as God's creation, but doesn't that then contradict big chunks of the bible? If you accept both creation and evolution do you still believe that God created man, or do you believe that god created single-celled organism that evolved into man? Where do you place the singularity?

I'm terrified to say this, but I actually back Phobe up on this point. You cannot have a Scientific idea of Evolution and God at the same time. Evolution in itself tries to explain away God for the most part. Sadly it cannot. It only points to a beginning of "Something from Nothing" which screams the need for a Creator

phobiaphobe · 02-22-2006, 1:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Custom900

I'm terrified to say this, but I actually back Phobe up on this point. ...

Straight to hell for you.

Proto · 02-22-2006, 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Custom900

It only points to a beginning of "Something from Nothing" which screams the need for a Creator

Is it just me, but is there a flaw in this argument?

Apart from that, may I summarise your thinking as " I can't explain it, so we'll just conjour up a superior being who made it all happen. Easy peasy, no more riddles or unexplained phenomema to worry about. Until that is, they get expleined, and then we'll have a re-think"

luvtolean · 02-22-2006, 1:49 PM

You can create single celled life from atomic gases and energy in the form of lightning. This has been proven in labs.

Once you have single celled life, according to evolutionists, you can arrive where we are today.

I can see where some at least, feel that the beginning of life can possibly be explained without a God.

It does get more tricky when you come to explaining the beginning of the universe.

But by the "everything needs a creator" logic, I'll ask the oft repeated question, "who created God?"

chkaotic · 02-22-2006, 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john954rr

Please do not confuse the church with religion. The church is nothing but an instrument of man, developed to control people, create power and wealth, and is as much an agent of collective barganing as anything. And, there is no limit as to how it will use its power to sustain itself. Consider the inquisition for instance. That people kill and torture in the name of religion has to be one of the greatest contradictions of all time, but one that is oh too common.

And I'm not.. but now we're just talking semantics.. you say "church" and "religion" as separate things, I say them as one.. where it would be "religion" and "faith" as separate things. faith is an individual idea, religion, as i see it, is a ruleset, a group, i.e. a church..

john954rr · 02-22-2006, 2:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chkaotic

And I'm not.. but now we're just talking semantics.. you say "church" and "religion" as separate things, I say them as one.. where it would be "religion" and "faith" as separate things. faith is an individual idea, religion, as i see it, is a ruleset, a group, i.e. a church..

Yes, there are some semantics involved. I likely should have said "Church, the institution is an instrument of man", so as to not upset Custom900 about the beginnings of the Church. My comment had nothing to do about the origin of the Church, only what the institution has evolved to today.

Custom900 · 02-22-2006, 3:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

You can create single celled life from atomic gases and energy in the form of lightning. This has been proven in labs.

Once you have single celled life, according to evolutionists, you can arrive where we are today.

I can see where some at least, feel that the beginning of life can possibly be explained without a God.

It does get more tricky when you come to explaining the beginning of the universe.

But by the "everything needs a creator" logic, I'll ask the oft repeated question, "who created God?"

You are refering to the Miller Experiment. It is intriguing to say the least. Miller chose a hydrogen rich mixture of methane, amonia, and water vapor.
What is the evidence for this type of atmosphere upon the earth? There is none - rather there is much evidence against it.
Hydrogen would have escaped into space according to Modern Day Scientists such as Jonathan Wells, Marcel Florkin, Klaus Dose, and Sidney Fox to name a few.
The Atmosphere "most likely" consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. With that mixture you do not get amino acids with life administering properties, you get Formaldahyde, Cyanide, both very toxic chemicals detrimental to life. The fumes alone from these chemicals have the ability to kill, not promote life.
Let's see if I get this correct - You are trying to tell me that I came from "Embalming Fluid".

By the way - even if this Theory would be wrong or right - where would lightening have come from? Where would the ingredients of life have come from?
CREATOR

ConqSoft · 02-22-2006, 3:32 PM

You skipped this part of his post:
"But by the "everything needs a creator" logic, I'll ask the oft repeated question, "who created God?"

luvtolean · 02-22-2006, 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConqSoft

You skipped this part of his post:
"But by the "everything needs a creator" logic, I'll ask the oft repeated question, "who created God?"

Indeed.

RE "Embalming fluid": Water and oxygen are exceptionally corrosive materials. We are able to withstand them being carbon based and due to very specific properties in our constituent parts. There's no reason we couldn't be based on another material. And these substances are highly corrosive to other forms of life.

One other thing. Isn't it just as hard to believe in the birth-death-re-birth of Jesus?

I find that story as wild as the flying spaghetti monster, but really, no less crazy.

Custom900 · 02-22-2006, 3:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConqSoft

You skipped this part of his post:
"But by the "everything needs a creator" logic, I'll ask the oft repeated question, "who created God?"

That is my favorite question. I used to ask this every single time a Christian presented his or her faith to me.

Conq, I hate to toss faith in. It never proves to have a good outcome in a debate of any kind, but you have to have faith in order to believe in God. I have also stated that you have to have faith in order to believe in the Scientific Theories that are out there.

With that being said - God is eternal. Eternal means to have to beginning or end. He is the be all and end all. The Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end.
God - being Eternal Transcends time. If you were to take my point of view: You have to remember that God Created time when the Universe was made. There was no time before creation.

Who Created God ? God needed no Creator. He is the source of life.

Kuss929 · 02-22-2006, 3:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Custom900

By the way - even if this Theory would be wrong or right - where would lightening have come from? Where would the ingredients of life have come from?
CREATOR

Zeus and comets

Custom900 · 02-22-2006, 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Indeed.

RE "Embalming fluid": Water and oxygen are exceptionally corrosive materials. We are able to withstand them being carbon based and due to very specific properties in our constituent parts. There's no reason we couldn't be based on another material. And these substances are highly corrosive to other forms of life.

One other thing. Isn't it just as hard to believe in the birth-death-re-birth of Jesus?

I find that story as wild as the flying spaghetti monster, but really, no less crazy.

Now you're getting into a whole seperate debate. I'll save that for another time. Right now I'm having too much fun with this one.