|
|
Post by Kee on Jun 10, 2006 23:35:01 GMT -5
Hi all! <<kee waves and smiles>>
Has been a long time!!
Traf,
How you been? Well I hope! And Still undefeated I would wager.. ;D
Hey, I saw this comment posted elsewhere tonight and thought wow...that sounds like a creationsist argument to me. Then, of course I thought of you! You know me and my curiosity...lol... so I was wondering how you would respond to it. If you have time and are still here that is...
Hugs and kisses.....
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jun 11, 2006 20:32:41 GMT -5
Hi Kee! Long time no see sweetie! This quote you posted shows how ignorant that speaker is about the Theory of Evolution. The theory says nothing about the origin of life - just how it diversified. You'd think people would at least educate themselves about what they arguing before they enter the fray. I hope you are doing well!  |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 12, 2006 6:19:12 GMT -5
Heathen,
You say that, but neither you nor Traffic provided any solid evidence for evolution when it was being debated, and I'm quite sure that Traffic doesn't need you to post on his behalf.
And I happen to agree with the above statement.
God Bless,
Andy.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jun 13, 2006 16:20:08 GMT -5
Heathen, You say that, but neither did you nor Traffic provided any solid evidence for evolution when it was being debated, and I'm quite sure that Traffic doesn't need you to post on his behalf. And I happen to agree with the above statement. God Bless, Andy. Don't be confused. You refused to look at the solid evidence that was presented. Just because you refused to look at it or accept does not make it invalid. Also, which statement were you agreeing with? |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 15, 2006 10:02:05 GMT -5
I'm not confused. The Theory of Evolution does not acknowledge the existence of a Creator of all life. The law of dynamics that Kee mentioned suggests that everything was created by a higher power, that is God. Evolution without God makes no sense whatsoever. Life never created itself.
As for Traffic's atheistic nonsense, give me a break.
God Bless,
Andy.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jun 15, 2006 17:43:54 GMT -5
No, just willfully ignorant. Nor does it talk about the creation of life at all. Just it's diversification. The Laws of Thermodynamics say no such thing. This pkmtyolpage that Kee quoted comes from some of the same literally-interpreted nonsense that you cling too. Once again, you show your ignorance of anything scientific. Science cannot and will not address (confirm or deny) the existence of God or the influence of God on anything. Why? Because the concept of God is not a provable one. The existence of God and belief in God are purely and unequivocably matters of faith. Your level of belief have no bearing whatsoever on this very simple concept. You can believe all that you want that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. Fine. That is your right and I support your right to believe as you wish. However, I will also express my right to dismiss it outright when you try to use it for matters that it has no business in. I would contend that Traffic's level of faith is at least as high if not higher than yours. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he still subscribes to the Bible and the belief system contained therein. You have stuck your head in the sand and hope that one day everyone else will agree with your interpretation. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Jun 17, 2006 0:03:16 GMT -5
I would contend that Traffic's level of faith is at least as high if not higher than yours. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he still subscribes to the Bible and the belief system contained therein. You have stuck your head in the sand and hope that one day everyone else will agree with your interpretation. Good luck with that. I see Traffic the same way. It is easy to believe blindly and be a naysayer about hard evidence. Forgot I posted this! How ya doing handsom?  |
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jun 17, 2006 2:23:45 GMT -5
I would contend that Traffic's level of faith is at least as high if not higher than yours. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he still subscribes to the Bible and the belief system contained therein. You have stuck your head in the sand and hope that one day everyone else will agree with your interpretation. Good luck with that. I see Traffic the same way. It is easy to believe blindly and be a naysayer about hard evidence. Forgot I posted this! How ya doing handsom? Doing fine. Busy as all get-out. I've got about a year or so to go in school, then off to get back into a real income. Definitely in my sweet spot - enjoying my work quite a bit. Otherwise things are pretty much on an even keel. No complaints. I hope all is well with you. Drop me a line - I still check the PMs here. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 17, 2006 5:55:25 GMT -5
No, just willfully ignorant. Even though I've read about evolution. How so?Nor does it talk about the creation of life at all. Just it's diversification. If we weren't created, we shouldn't even exist!The Laws of Thermodynamics say no such thing. This pkmtyolpage that Kee quoted comes from some of the same literally-interpreted nonsense that you cling too. Actually, it's reality pal. You should try it sometime!  Once again, you show your ignorance of anything scientific. Science cannot and will not address (confirm or deny) the existence of God or the influence of God on anything. Why? Because the concept of God is not a provable one. Nor is evolution a provable concept. Confusing so-called microevolution with macroevolution is cheating in my book. The existence of God and belief in God are purely and unequivocably matters of faith. Same goes for evolution then. Your level of belief have no bearing whatsoever on this very simple concept. So why do you waste your time responding to me? You can believe all that you want that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. It's not simply a matter of belief, but historical fact as well. Fine. That is your right and I support your right to believe as you wish. However, I will also express my right to dismiss it outright when you try to use it for matters that it has no business in. I have absolutely no problem with that, but as a realist and a Christian I have felt it to be my duty to point out to you where you are in error. I would contend that Traffic's level of faith is at least as high if not higher than yours. Wishful thinking not backed up by evidence. Faith is believing in that which you cannot see but know to be true. I do not doubt what God says about the earliest days of Creation - Traffic does. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he still subscribes to the Bible and the belief system contained therein. Only partially. You have stuck your head in the sand and hope that one day everyone else will agree with your interpretation. Good luck with that. Thank you.God Bless,
Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by Shirley on Jun 20, 2006 14:15:12 GMT -5
What historical fact would that be?
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 21, 2006 6:52:00 GMT -5
The biblical account in Genesis of how God created everything in the very beginning is historical fact. The Bible is an historical text.
Andy.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 21, 2006 7:49:56 GMT -5
ther·mo·dy·nam·ics
n.
(used with a sing. verb) Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy.
(used with a pl. verb) Thermodynamic phenomena and processes.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
ther·mo·dy·nam·ics
n.
Physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy.
Thermodynamic phenomena and processes.
Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Main Entry: ther·mo·dy·nam·ics
Pronunciation: -iks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : physics that deals with the mechanical action or relations of heat
2 : thermodynamic processes and phenomena
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
thermodynamics
n : the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
Heathen,
Given the above definitions for thermodynamics, I'm surprised that you can honestly say they have nothing to do with Creation, which would include evolution - if that theory was true.
Here are some thoughts of mine in relation to this:
1. Heat is thermal energy.
2. All matter consists of energy.
3. Life is animate matter.
4. Non-living matter cannot create life.
5. In the very beginning life on Earth could not have created itself.
6. Therefore, a higher power, a supreme being who we Christians call "God" created everything. He has always existed.
7. God created a source of raw thermal energy called the "sun" to enable life on Earth to flourish.
God Bless and Shalom,
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jun 23, 2006 7:46:26 GMT -5
Andy,
This is the biggest problem we have at the moment, you refuse to see what evolution really says (no, reading A book on evolution doesn't mean you know what it REALLY says). It REALLY does not have ANYTHING to do with the creation of the world.
The "Big Bang" theory (which does have to do with the creation of the world) is a COMPLETELY different and separate theory from evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Jun 25, 2006 19:22:27 GMT -5
Andy,
What they are trying to say is that evolution does not explain how the universe was created. It only explains how the variety in the universe came about. Evolution starts from the assumption that the universe existed, not that the universe needed to be created.
So your statement that evolution is wrong because it does not explain the creation of the universe is like saying a cookbook is wrong because it does not explain how to plant and grow fruits and plants, or raise animals and then butcher them for meat. The cookbook assumes that you have the ingredients and are ready to make some sort of food. In the same way, evolution assumes that there was an already created universe that life then came about in.
So your true demand should not be that evolution prove how the universe was created. Your demand should be that evolution prove how the universe became the way it is since it was created.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shirley on Jun 26, 2006 20:43:19 GMT -5
The biblical account in Genesis of how God created everything in the very beginning is historical fact. The Bible is an historical text. Andy.  Uhm, no, it isn't. Its a religious/faith document and is no more historical than the Bagahvad Gita. |
|
Uhm, no, it isn't. Its a religious/faith document and is no more historical than the Bagahvad Gita.