Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99694 Sep 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it is a bit too much to say that the God of the Bible has been proven false. But the first two books of the Bible and many stories of the Old Testament have been shown to be false.
About a century ago the Bible's stories were ALL fanciful fairy tales and nothing more. Some names were correct, a few places were correct but that was all. The Bible was viewed in it's entirety as nothing but false and fairy tales by its critics.
A hundred years later and we now know many of those fanciful stories, fairy tales and imaginative named people and places actually existed.
So instead of the entire Bible being false, now the saying is, much or most of the Bible is false.
And if a book of the Bible is false, then all the information inside that book is false. Can you show evidence that everything in the first two books of the Bible is false as you claim? I might agree there are things in the Bible that cannot be proved but neither can those things be disproved as not having once existed.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#99695 Sep 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah, babies are real uncomfortable in water huh?...not.
I'm no less than in amazement over it, it makes you wonder, wonder is the spark of ingenuity, we evidently are programed in the womb, or we came from water. I'm thinking there's a little of both making a truth here.
Water is everything we know about life, that makes it possible.
There is an ancient water dwelling creature inside us me thinks.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99696 Sep 16, 2013
I AM SIRIUS wrote:
Yes there is no God. The first particles evolved until it formed its own consciousness. The universe makes more "sense" that way. So why even bother ask about the universe and how we got here. What a waste of time.
You know how ludicrous this sounds? "The first particles evolved until it formed its own consciousness." It sounds as ludicrous as "From nothing God created itself into something."
We have a fact that is quite disturbing. We exist in one of the youngest solar systems within a galaxy that itself that is relatively young in comparison to much older systems. And we're the only life that exists on a planet as we exist that we know of. That's disturbing.
Science want's us to believe that in hundreds of trillions of years matter finally got it right so that life could evolve to become what it is on a single solitary planet. And people claim it takes a load of crap to swallow the theory of theism? lolol.... yeahrightyyyyy....
The fact is that we exist and we can't explain rationally why we exist and why we're the only planet with life that we know of exists.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#99697 Sep 16, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You know how ludicrous this sounds? "The first particles evolved until it formed its own consciousness." It sounds as ludicrous as "From nothing God created itself into something."
We have a fact that is quite disturbing. We exist in one of the youngest solar systems within a galaxy that itself that is relatively young in comparison to much older systems. And we're the only life that exists on a planet as we exist that we know of. That's disturbing.
Science want's us to believe that in hundreds of trillions of years matter finally got it right so that life could evolve to become what it is on a single solitary planet. And people claim it takes a load of crap to swallow the theory of theism? lolol.... yeahrightyyyyy....
The fact is that we exist and we can't explain rationally why we exist and why we're the only planet with life that we know of exists.
Definitively we can say the universe created us, to be it's eyes and ears to see and hear with our senses, and with knowledge to create ways to see and hear beyond our senses. The intelligent designer is US, and if the universe is to be populated by the living biosphere, it entirely rests on the shoulders of humanity to do so. There is no indication there is any other thing that can ever do so. So understanding the burden on our shoulders is but the real cross humanity has to bear, and if there is a god, it is of OUR making. Otherwise extinction and forgotten are all the dreams of creation and a living universe.

No small task for the best creation of the biosphere , but a task none the less and a goal for the living apex predator this universe has ever known.



Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#99698 Sep 16, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Patently false? where do you get your information? You do know that 'some' but not all babies ability to swim and not swallow water is directly connected to living in a bag in a female that's full of fluid correct? You did know that correct? Maybe you should research it. And not all babies swim. And not all babies hold their breath. So though it's 'instinct' for some it's not instinct for all.
And that's the end of your 'instinct' examples. If after birth the baby sat where it came out of a womb and the mother took off, that baby would soon be dead. Not a single survival instinct would help that infant live. If babies weren't taken care of for the first 12 months they would all die if left alone. Most animals (not all) know within a minute of birth to several days later how to survive and live on their own.
you just contradicted your earlier statement that humans are the only animals that do not pass down such instincts...

bwahh bwahh bwaaaahhhhhh....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#99699 Sep 16, 2013
I AM SIRIUS wrote:
Yes there is no God. The first particles evolved until it formed its own consciousness. The universe makes more "sense" that way. So why even bother ask about the universe and how we got here. What a waste of time.
any evidence of this universal consciousness?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#99700 Sep 16, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
About a century ago the Bible's stories were ALL fanciful fairy tales and nothing more. Some names were correct, a few places were correct but that was all. The Bible was viewed in it's entirety as nothing but false and fairy tales by its critics.
A hundred years later and we now know many of those fanciful stories, fairy tales and imaginative named people and places actually existed.
So instead of the entire Bible being false, now the saying is, much or most of the Bible is false.
And if a book of the Bible is false, then all the information inside that book is false. Can you show evidence that everything in the first two books of the Bible is false as you claim? I might agree there are things in the Bible that cannot be proved but neither can those things be disproved as not having once existed.
the creation story in the first few paragraphs is false. it did not happen that way. imagine a perfect god that cannot get his own creation story correct...hmmmmm.

the flood of Noah's Ark fable did not happen. imagine tht perfect god lying about that...hmmm...

the bible proves the god of the abrahamic cult to be false. just another made up character from one of thousands of religious cults.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99701 Sep 16, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
About a century ago the Bible's stories were ALL fanciful fairy tales and nothing more. Some names were correct, a few places were correct but that was all. The Bible was viewed in it's entirety as nothing but false and fairy tales by its critics.
A hundred years later and we now know many of those fanciful stories, fairy tales and imaginative named people and places actually existed.
So instead of the entire Bible being false, now the saying is, much or most of the Bible is false.
And if a book of the Bible is false, then all the information inside that book is false. Can you show evidence that everything in the first two books of the Bible is false as you claim? I might agree there are things in the Bible that cannot be proved but neither can those things be disproved as not having once existed.
Yes, I can show that the first two books have been debunked.

Your faith is rather weak if you have to believe in a fairy tale to believe in God.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#99702 Sep 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I can show that the first two books have been debunked.
Your faith is rather weak if you have to believe in a fairy tale to believe in God.
Joshua has pretty much been debunked too.

:-)

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99703 Sep 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitively we can say the universe created us, to be it's eyes and ears to see and hear with our senses, and with knowledge to create ways to see and hear beyond our senses. The intelligent designer is US, and if the universe is to be populated by the living biosphere, it entirely rests on the shoulders of humanity to do so. There is no indication there is any other thing that can ever do so. So understanding the burden on our shoulders is but the real cross humanity has to bear, and if there is a god, it is of OUR making. Otherwise extinction and forgotten are all the dreams of creation and a living universe.
No small task for the best creation of the biosphere , but a task none the less and a goal for the living apex predator this universe has ever known.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =foa18lWDPy4XX
Nice theory :)

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99704 Sep 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you just contradicted your earlier statement that humans are the only animals that do not pass down such instincts...
bwahh bwahh bwaaaahhhhhh....
I wasn't using the definition of 'instinct' as you were incorrectly using it.
I never said 'all' infants had an instinct to hold their breath and swim. You insinuated that, not I. I said "So though it's 'instinct' for some it's not instinct for all."
Try reaqding what was written before you make a fool of yourself, just saying...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99705 Sep 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Joshua has pretty much been debunked too.
:-)
I have no doubt.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99706 Sep 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the creation story in the first few paragraphs is false. it did not happen that way. imagine a perfect god that cannot get his own creation story correct...hmmmmm.
the flood of Noah's Ark fable did not happen. imagine tht perfect god lying about that...hmmm...
the bible proves the god of the abrahamic cult to be false. just another made up character from one of thousands of religious cults.
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99707 Sep 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I can show that the first two books have been debunked.
Your faith is rather weak if you have to believe in a fairy tale to believe in God.
What I believe or don't believe isn't the issue. You're statement is the issue. You stated "But the first two books of the Bible...have been shown to be false." Don't inject a word like debunked. Stick with your statement. You said the first two books of the Bible have been shown to be false, meaning there is no truth in them. No truth of geography, personal names, places or events. That their all lies and none have ever been shown to have existed.
Please present your evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99708 Sep 16, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What I believe or don't believe isn't the issue. You're statement is the issue. You stated "But the first two books of the Bible...have been shown to be false." Don't inject a word like debunked. Stick with your statement. You said the first two books of the Bible have been shown to be false, meaning there is no truth in them. No truth of geography, personal names, places or events. That their all lies and none have ever been shown to have existed.
Please present your evidence.
When you debunk something you don't have to show that all aspects are false. Just the main tenets. There was no flood. There was no Garden of Eden, there was no Exodus. Tell me what you want debunked and I can list some of the evidence debunking it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#99709 Sep 16, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.
so the infallible god couldn't get humans to write his story down correctly about the creation? good, you just showed no divine inspiration in the writing of the bible, so it is just the work of man, thus the god is a creation of man.

fun facts about water, but there was no global flood in the time of humans on this planet. proven fact.

your god is a proven myth. just like all the other cults.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#99710 Sep 16, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.
Your cult information sources are lying to you my friend.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#99712 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
And if a book of the Bible is false, then all the information inside that book is false.
No, it could be entirely false, or parts of it could be false.

Even the second case shows its not the inerrant word of God. Its a mythical / historical chronicle of the Israelites.

Just like the Iliad and The Odyssey are mythical / historical records of the early Greeks.

Now, in the latter we see Greeks mingling with their Gods, and we also see them attacking Troy. We found Troy in 1880ish - a historical reality and sacked at about the right time too....does that mean that Achilles was REALLY the half human son of Thetis the River Goddess?

Its no surprise to find some historical aspects of the Bible are true. But others have been found wanting in the facts department.

And as we would expect, its the earliest parts that are the most mythical.

If you really believe in God, I suggest that His universe as revealed by our observation and logic is far harder to fake than a few old fables from an obscure source. Even the light from many stars took thousands of times longer than the allowed "6000 years" to reach us. Did God fake that or did early cultures get the timing wrong????
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#99713 Sep 17, 2013
+++++
Obama OKs Chemical Weapons Aid to Syria
By Devin Dwyer

Sep 16, 2013 5:23pm
WASHINGTON — President Obama has formally authorized American shipments to Syria of non-lethal equipment and supplies specifically aimed at countering the threat of Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons as the world waits for them to be neutralized.
In a signed order, Obama today waived prohibitions of such shipments by the Arms Export Control Act, determining that the assistance is “essential to the national security interests of the United States.”
The materials — including chemical weapons-related personal protective gear and medical supplies — will be sent to “vetted” members of the Syrian opposition, international aid groups inside Syria, and any other organizations working to “prevent the preparation, use, or proliferation of Syria’s chemical weapons,” an administration official said.
Among the groups expected to receive the aid is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the group expected to lead any monitoring and enforcement effort under the deal to transfer stockpiles under international control.
An administration official said the authorization has been in the works since before the massive Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack. This aid is separate from the lethal and other assistance the U.S. has been shipping to Syria.
+=========

Related to the above report, Chemical weapons at Syria pose no threat to the security of the people of the planet, as they are not like nuclear reactor leaks or explosion.
Chemical weapons by large have not been known being exercised in the region, except US weaponry and drones which killed too many innocent people already.
Assad says he did not use chemical weapons,as they give lies, for which whoever used sarin gas if any , it was not Assad then.
US weapons and aggression prove to be serious threats to world safety, whereby US weapons have been proven exercised over the degree being too much.
Muslim rebels pose as serious threat to the security of Syria and Middle East and global cultures by using too much violence, where US supports the rebels and threats.
The Russian-US proposal in attempt to check into Syria to dismantle chemical weapons is impossible, and is a violation of sovereignty of Syria, of which it imposes serous threats to the stability of Syria and the ME region, as in this situation Putin is trying to do favor for Muslim rebels--for doing their further unwanted violences when chemical weapons of Syria were to be looked into.
Obama is more than a sinner as a radical fundamentalist BEING THE Failure in everything he does--in Libya where embassy and such alike buildings were bombed recently by terror rebels, in the constant chaos and volatile turbulence in Egypt time after time upon letting go of Mubarack, and in the doing the extremism to Syria now.
Obama is the robotic molded enactment of Bush, by doing abuse of civil rights and freedom privacy of supporters, by carrying the Patriot Act and flying 800 drones in snooping and spying Of the US public, more than Bush did.
The drama of appalling silliness is the expertise of Obama going after Bush's hopeless done-deal drama horror again in the same old thing in pursuit of recycling Bush's terrified drama of looking for the destroying chemical weapons (yet Bush found nothing but devised the fake chemical weapons drama in Iraq), in Syria right now.
One never knows if it is true or not that they really have chemical weapons In Syria.
Yet, they only keep playing the uncertainty drama of chemical weapons cycle again and again.
As Obama might have done too many drones, that is nothing unusual to strike and bomb as he says to find out nothing instead as if something is there in Syria. However, Syria and Iran are ready to battle US strike, to make US drama terror of itself.
NO wonder the Russians say US is full of exceptionalism by doing its terrified drama emptiness all the time.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#99714 Sep 17, 2013
Syria is somewhat like Vietnam, as Muslim rebels want war only (they don't want to participate in a peace plan of talks and negotiations to see if they can have their say), but not peace, that a war has to be fought out to determine the outcome.
There are two sides, as Syria might label REBELS AS OUTLAWS AND COMBATANTS.

Rebels are mostly Muslims from everywhere, from Chechen, ME and North Africa, grouped with inside mostly Muslims in Syria for violences in this battle.

Chemical weapons issue is a side-track of Obama by pointing to the unproven 8/21 incident with no clear and concrete proof to call strike of Syria.

It is wrong that Obama thinks that is another Libya or Egypt to support rebels. Putin is also wrong to call a peace plan because rebels are also from Chechen, and they just want war all the way.

They have to make certain that rebels can first agree to talks first as pre-requite and fundamental requirements from US and Russia, otherwise, it is useless to call Syria not to fight rebels or not.

As Syria already signed the chemical weapons treaty, it is not possible for US to say about Syria, since they would not use sarin gas.

But, if US wants to strike and use ground troops to find out, Syria might not have any, or already destroyed them, or had already shipped away, US will end up finding nothing. So, the question if Syria really has any chemical weapons will never be known, like Iraq.

The choice is between Syria and rebels.
But, Obama is doing his empty drama horror by calling on chemical weapons terror.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Change-Six-Of-Six-Letters....Fun Game! 2 min Northners 434
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 3 min beatlesinafog 7,632
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 min Dadgam you 7,810
20,000th Post Wins - 2d Edition (Jan '13) 4 min Truths 1,750
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 5 min Dadgam devil did it 30,083
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 7 min After going 4,299
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 9 min My bird dog 3,042
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 51 min black shuck 152,874
Is it possible to....... 3 hr wichita-rick 613
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr eleanorigby 37,787
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 hr -Lea- 26,019
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 5 hr DondoDork 3,034
More from around the web