Evolutionism or Creationism

[Eggroll]

I believe in creationism, i mean come on! Evolutionism is ppl evolving from a rock (then to the premortaily <----spelt wrong soup and so forth)
im not from a rock......who may i add is not a living organism

[Viduus]

Originally Posted by JesiGash

Well first off I would like to say that I am all for the Creation "theory". Why? Well, there is some much scientific and historical proof that the Bible is real that it's not even funny. The first verse in Genesis, chapter one says, "In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth."

How in the bloody hell is that scientific and historical proof?

Hey Ryuuzaki, how much do you actually know about the Bible? Did you know that it has been proven by secular historians that the Bible was written by 40 different people over hundreds of years, in several different countries and in several different languages and there is not ONE contradiction?

You do realize the bible was originally written in latin, and was considered a rare commodity till printing presses made it available to the population (by which time translation was fairly commonplace).

Also did you know that the Bible is THE ONLY book that can 100% accurately describe the past, explain the present, and pre-scribe (foretell) the future?

I'm searching for for some sort of witty response, but you've boggled my mind to the point that I'm speechless. The bible predicts events as well as astrology. You can always find something in hindsight and say see, see!

Lets see tarot cards do that!

What in the world do tarot cards have to do with anything here?

I mean there are over 300 different prophecies in the Bible and everyone, that don't foretell something happening in our lifetime or in the future, has been proven to have come true! Most, if not all, of those prophecies were written hundreds of years before they happened!

Straight up, I don't believe you. At all.

Tell me, could some guy on crack write a book like that?

This is the one part of your long post which doesn't seem completely made up. You're right. The bible wasn't written by some guy on crack. Does that make the bible the absolute truth? Not in the least bit.

Yeah, what created the boom, where did the materials come from, and how did those get there?

I don't feel like like typing out 10 pages on the subject of the Big Bang, so here's a link instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang





Now onto someone who has some interesting ideas and wasn't just spouting the same regurgitated archaic religious talk..

I will start with our character and what we call free-will.
How do we make decisions? We act based on our character.
How is our character shaped, though? I would say it is based on the experiences we had in our life and maybe our DNA.
Then, were our characters shaped randomly? According to the above yes.

DNA isn't random though, it's a combination of what your parents had.

You can say that different people interpret the same experience differently. However, what made them interpret it differently? It was their character. So, when they were first born, they should interpret all experiences the same way, which leads again to the statement that our characters were based on the events that happened in our life.

This is assuming that we all interpret everything the same when born, which I believe is a fallacy. Let's continue though...

Then, what is free will if our characters, which is to say us, depends upon other things?

Do you have the ability to say yes and no? Then you have free will. Do you have the ability to say I want that, or I don't want that? Then you have free will. Do you have the ability to take whatever someone says to you, contemplate it and then draw some conclusion from it? Then you have free will.
Is our character shaped by the experiences in life? Certainly. Does that mean that the way we think about those experiences are pre-determined? Certainly not.

Just thought I'd add this link tho the thread.

http://bobbie-the-jean.deviantart.com/journal/23586617/

Well written :)

I believe in creationism, i mean come on! Evolutionism is ppl evolving from a rock (then to the premortaily <----spelt wrong soup and so forth)
im not from a rock......who may i add is not a living organism

Please refrain from posting things which are downright lies.

[leshinor]

Originally Posted by Viduus

DNA isn't random though, it's a combination of what your parents had.

Our DNA is indeed randomly made! Of course, most of it is the same as other human's (it's not like a fish will be born!) and even more so as our parent's DNA but the part that makes us unique is randomly selected!

Originally Posted by Viduus

This is assuming that we all interpret everything the same when born, which I believe is a fallacy. Let's continue though...

Now, this is quite debatable! The argument is basically like that:
The moment we are given life do we already have a character or are we all the same. I need to point out here that the moment we are given life is not the moment we are born. Babies can already interpret information even inside the womb!!!
And, if we have a character before hand does it depend on our DNA or maybe a soul...?

Originally Posted by Viduus

Do you have the ability to say yes and no? Then you have free will. Do you have the ability to say I want that, or I don't want that? Then you have free will. Do you have the ability to take whatever someone says to you, contemplate it and then draw some conclusion from it? Then you have free will.
Is our character shaped by the experiences in life? Certainly. Does that mean that the way we think about those experiences are pre-determined? Certainly not.

It is kinda hard to say whether we have free will or not because from all the above we actually haven't come to a conclusion on the definition of one's self! What do we mean by saying I, you, etc! I say we leave this question for later, after we have solved the above questions!

[JesiGash]

Originally Posted by Viduus

1.) How in the bloody hell is that scientific and historical proof?

That isn't. I just threw that in there in attempt to stay on topic while using the Bible as reference.

2.) You do realize the bible was originally written in latin, and was considered a rare commodity till printing presses made it available to the population (by which time translation was fairly commonplace).

Well, considering that the most common language of the time was probably Latin. However, this part of my post wasn't so much to discuss where and what language the Bible was written as to point out the numerous author and not having any contradictions.


3.) I'm searching for for some sort of witty response, but you've boggled my mind to the point that I'm speechless. The bible predicts events as well as astrology. You can always find something in hindsight and say see, see!

Can you tell me about ONE time that the Bible referred to something in the past-tense?


4.) What in the world do tarot cards have to do with anything here?

This was one of my, "OH SNAP!... But not really!" moments. Just a personal quirk.

5.) Straight up, I don't believe you. At all.

If you have time read this. The author has a "one up" on me and my research.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-prophecy.htm


6.) This is the one part of your long post which doesn't seem completely made up. You're right. The bible wasn't written by some guy on crack. Does that make the bible the absolute truth? Not in the least bit.

Originally, my post was meant to prove that the Bible wasn't written by a crack head (some post by some guy on the first page). While he didn't claim it was written like that, I just wanted to be sure he KNEW it wasn't.

7.) I don't feel like like typing out 10 pages on the subject of the Big Bang, so here's a link instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang

If you are going to post a link anywhere, please make sure it has a credible author. Wikipedia, has a tendency to have posts that run something like this; "I was watching this anime about a guy.... Oh look! Cookies!". I take it as opinions, nothing more.

8.) Now onto someone who has some interesting ideas and wasn't just spouting the same regurgitated archaic religious talk..[/QUOTE]

Better in and out than not in at all.

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by JesiGash

[COLOR="Red"]

1Well, considering that the most common language of the time was probably Latin. However, this part of my post wasn't so much to discuss where and what language the Bible was written as to point out the numerous author and not having any contradictions.


2Can you tell me about ONE time that the Bible referred to something in the past-tense?


3If you have time read this. The author has a "one up" on me and my research.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-prophecy.htm If you are going to post a link anywhere, please make sure it has a credible author. Wikipedia, has a tendency to have posts that run something like this; "I was watching this anime about a guy.... Oh look! Cookies!". I take it as opinions, nothing more.

1. The numerous authors of the bible are a bit problematic. It's been mentioned that there are missing stories that were never included in the bible. There have also been debates over the influence of the church on the contents of the bible. Many stories written by credible authors aren't recognized by the vatican. Of course these are substantiated claims that certain stories are false, and some are later proven false and others simply aren't spoken of. Still it begs to wonder if a religious organization can pick and choose what is said about it's past, then how are you to know what truly happened.
Secondly, the old testament was a copy of the hebrew bible that held greater support to christianity. Not surprising, as Jesus himself was born a Jewish man, and that christianity is a simple deviation from Judaism. This makes it easy to see how mistranslation is suspected in the bible's authenticity.

2.One of the more common mistakes in writing is changing tense. Any good writer (and I presume the bible had some) would stick to one tense rather than wandering around. This neither supports nor denies the answer to your question, but I thought it should be mentioned that this is truly a rhetorical question.

3. First, it's good to question sources, but the problem here is that your link (to which I have a question in a moment) has no sourcing material, while wikipedia does. If you scroll to the bottom of most wiki pages, there's a section called references. It's a bibliography that will direct you to further backings of the information cited. If you doubt it, go to the source. I didn't seem to notice any citations on the link you provided.
now about the link. Is it just me or does Daniel's prophecy happen before he writes about it? how is that prophetic? I read the dates of 6 BC and 160 BC as the possible dates of it being written, while it's prophecy occurs during sometime around 500 BC...maybe I'm missing something here.

[JesiGash]

Originally Posted by analogZero

1. The numerous authors of the bible are a bit problematic. It's been mentioned that there are missing stories that were never included in the bible. There have also been debates over the influence of the church on the contents of the bible. Many stories written by credible authors aren't recognized by the vatican. Of course these are substantiated claims that certain stories are false, and some are later proven false and others simply aren't spoken of. Still it begs to wonder if a religious organization can pick and choose what is said about it's past, then how are you to know what truly happened.
Secondly, the old testament was a copy of the hebrew bible that held greater support to christianity. Not surprising, as Jesus himself was born a Jewish man, and that christianity is a simple deviation from Judaism. This makes it easy to see how mistranslation is suspected in the bible's authenticity.

2.One of the more common mistakes in writing is changing tense. Any good writer (and I presume the bible had some) would stick to one tense rather than wandering around. This neither supports nor denies the answer to your question, but I thought it should be mentioned that this is truly a rhetorical question.

3. First, it's good to question sources, but the problem here is that your link (to which I have a question in a moment) has no sourcing material, while wikipedia does. If you scroll to the bottom of most wiki pages, there's a section called references. It's a bibliography that will direct you to further backings of the information cited. If you doubt it, go to the source. I didn't seem to notice any citations on the link you provided.
now about the link. Is it just me or does Daniel's prophecy happen before he writes about it? how is that prophetic? I read the dates of 6 BC and 160 BC as the possible dates of it being written, while it's prophecy occurs during sometime around 500 BC...maybe I'm missing something here.

1a.) Interesting. I'll have to look into that more.

2a.) Well that was exactly the question I was trying to get across (only you put it better). Why indeed would the Bible refer to anything in the past tense except to explain the events that had happened during that time?

3a.) I guess the author of that article didn't do a very good job of explaining what he was talking about. What he was trying to say was that secular historians have been trying to push that point across when, in fact, it holds no meaning. Daniel was writing his book around/between 529-522 B.C. There are records of Alexander the Great obtaining a copy of Daniel during his "visit" to Jerusalem in about 332 B.C. So the prophecy did take place after it was written. (I'll be sure to clarify the article next time.)

As for the web page not having sources, a valid point. However, the author is a member of the organization that runs the web page. This type of website is just like writing a book. If it's information in your own words you don't necessarily need sources. I do agree that there should be some way to cross reference the information on the site.

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by JesiGash

1a.) Interesting. I'll have to look into that more.

2a.) Well that was exactly the question I was trying to get across (only you put it better). Why indeed would the Bible refer to anything in the past tense except to explain the events that had happened during that time?

3a.) I guess the author of that article didn't do a very good job of explaining what he was talking about. What he was trying to say was that secular historians have been trying to push that point across when, in fact, it holds no meaning. Daniel was writing his book around/between 529-522 B.C. There are records of Alexander the Great obtaining a copy of Daniel during his "visit" to Jerusalem in about 332 B.C. So the prophecy did take place after it was written. (I'll be sure to clarify the article next time.)

As for the web page not having sources, a valid point. However, the author is a member of the organization that runs the web page. This type of website is just like writing a book. If it's information in your own words you don't necessarily need sources. I do agree that there should be some way to cross reference the information on the site.

I recall an article or video I came across not too far back, that discussed what was mentioned in my first point. I'll see if I can find it, once I recall where and what it was. Leerock mentions something similar in the "is the bible real" thread, I believe, so maybe you can squeeze it out of him too.
That takes me to the second part of my post, it holds true that most everything we say here isn't backed up by reference either. Kinda hard to back track what you can't backtrack, huh? so while it is helpful to have references on links, it's also open to speculation regardless. I doubt many people have gone through the references pages on the wiki big bang, much less back tracked the actual pin point dating of the book of daniel. So no worries there.

[Viduus]

Originally Posted by JesiGash

That isn't. I just threw that in there in attempt to stay on topic while using the Bible as reference.

Ok, you still haven't explained how scientific and historical proof backs up the bible though.

2.) You do realize the bible was originally written in latin, and was considered a rare commodity till printing presses made it available to the population (by which time translation was fairly commonplace).

Well, considering that the most common language of the time was probably Latin. However, this part of my post wasn't so much to discuss where and what language the Bible was written as to point out the numerous author and not having any contradictions.

It wasn't a matter of latin being the most common language, it was a matter that if you wanted to be a holy man, you needed to learn latin. My point in it was that your statement of it being written out in 40 different language is false.

3.) I'm searching for for some sort of witty response, but you've boggled my mind to the point that I'm speechless. The bible predicts events as well as astrology. You can always find something in hindsight and say see, see!

Can you tell me about ONE time that the Bible referred to something in the past-tense?

No I can't, but that would be because I haven't read the bible (nor will I). My point was that it's easy to take a look at something that happened, then read the bible, and connect things which may actually have no real connection. It's very easy to read something and then say "Ah-ha, see! That was totally written here!" but the truth of the matter is that you can only infer that's what it meant, you don't actually know.

4.) What in the world do tarot cards have to do with anything here?

This was one of my, "OH SNAP!... But not really!" moments. Just a personal quirk.

Very well, it just seemed like you were attempting to connect evolutionists with retarded crap like tarot cards which is totally bogus. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I'm all hocus pocus dark magic tarot card reading person :P But that's all a side note.

5.) Straight up, I don't believe you. At all.

If you have time read this. The author has a "one up" on me and my research.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-prophecy.htm

I'll skim through it at some point at see what it has to say. My answer to this would most likely be the same as what I had for 3) though.

6.) This is the one part of your long post which doesn't seem completely made up. You're right. The bible wasn't written by some guy on crack. Does that make the bible the absolute truth? Not in the least bit.

Originally, my post was meant to prove that the Bible wasn't written by a crack head (some post by some guy on the first page). While he didn't claim it was written like that, I just wanted to be sure he KNEW it wasn't.

We agree on this point here.

7.) I don't feel like like typing out 10 pages on the subject of the Big Bang, so here's a link instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang

If you are going to post a link anywhere, please make sure it has a credible author. Wikipedia, has a tendency to have posts that run something like this; "I was watching this anime about a guy.... Oh look! Cookies!". I take it as opinions, nothing more.

You're right, Wikipedia shouldn't be relied on, however for the most part they have accurate statements and is a good place to gain some quick info. If you wish I will find some more credible sources about the subject (as credible as the internet can go).

8.) Now onto someone who has some interesting ideas and wasn't just spouting the same regurgitated archaic religious talk..

Better in and out than not in at all.

No, it's really not, but I must say that you were significantly better in this post that your last :) I'm not sure I'll post about the bible in here any more though since there's the other topic for it.


Now, onto part 2!

Our DNA is indeed randomly made! Of course, most of it is the same as other human's (it's not like a fish will be born!) and even more so as our parent's DNA but the part that makes us unique is randomly selected!

It's partly random, but from a fixed pool of genes. You can't randomly get something your parents didn't have.

Now, this is quite debatable! The argument is basically like that:
The moment we are given life do we already have a character or are we all the same. I need to point out here that the moment we are given life is not the moment we are born. Babies can already interpret information even inside the womb!!!
And, if we have a character before hand does it depend on our DNA or maybe a soul...?

Or, as I said in my very first post here, it could just be a product of the electrical signals in our brain. I still believe that even as babies, even as embryo's we're still all different.

It is kinda hard to say whether we have free will or not because from all the above we actually haven't come to a conclusion on the definition of one's self! What do we mean by saying I, you, etc! I say we leave this question for later, after we have solved the above questions!

Now we border on the metaphysical which is a can of worms I don't really wanna open. I will say that our definition of free will may different, and that could perhaps be why our points of view differ.

[minato2085]

Originally Posted by Ryuuzaki

I'm an atheist, so that pretty much sums up what I think... But that's too short of a post. Personally, I believe we evolved from apes (and/or various other animals). Firstly, because there is scientific proof of it. I'm sure if you use the nifty thing known as Google, you can find stuff like that since I currently don't have proof or anything. And, what proof do we have of God? The bible? It's a freaking book, yo. Some guy on crack could have written it.

im thinking the samething

[madman]

evolutionism

it is possible that there was a guiding hand involved whether it be a god, gods, aliens, or the flying spaghetti monster.

also creationism is not a theory, a theory is an educated guess with supporting evidence, creationism has no evidence.