[_ Old Earth _] One of my arguments

[jasoncran]

as you wish.

just saying that if one did reasearch and came to different conclusion based on a wordview.

that is wrong.

but yeh dont let logical conundrums of natural laws building better things then any intellgent being ever could bother you.

some how by natural laws and random mutations we have eyes that see better then guided and well studied designed cameras after reasearch. im sorry i guess that i dont buy that.


your faith in men far more then i would ever bother.

so can you tell me why mendel didnt get a chance to be heard by darwin?


and if theres no chance that the first cell by natural laws to have occured, then evolution is dead , unless panspermia is the answer and even that what made them or it?if its natural laws then then what?

it has to be answered. not it just did happen or we dont know.

OFF TOPIC

explain karma in an amoral universe that doenst care if we as humans die or live.

 

[MarbleShooter]

as you wish.

just saying that if one did reasearch and came to different conclusion based on a wordview.

Halt, Darwin was studying in theology to expand his faith. So the worldview nonsense dosen't apply. Neither dose world view matter when research hits peer review. Lets not get into another peer review argument, because we already had several.

that is wrong.

The only thing that is wrong is the idea that your personal world view wont be put into scrutiny when you submit your opinion. Sorry every single person's world view comes into question when research is questioned. It dosen't matter if you re Hindu or Muslim, or Ralian, If you make a supernatural claim and can't show how that claim works with a testable model then tough.

but yeh dont let logical conundrums of natural laws building better things then any intellgent being ever could bother you.

Don't pull an Asyn, boasting about having all these conundrums but not showing them dosen't sway me. You tried this in another thread and it ended up with your logical conundrums not being impressive at all.

some how by natural laws and random mutations we have eyes that see better then guided and well studied designed cameras after reasearch.

Certain animals have better eyes then us to. Whatever, I've seen the studies and they have convinced me because they source their information and repeat the information.

im sorry i guess that i dont buy that.

Fine, just don't expect anyone who dose understand the science behind eyes and the studies done on eyes to take you seriously.

your faith in men far more then i would ever bother.

Whatever. You can assume whatever you want. Doesn't make it true or even correct.

so can you tell me why mendel didnt get a chance to be heard by darwin?

Darwin couldn't speak German. Mendel's native language.

and if theres no chance that the first cell by natural laws to have occured, then evolution is dead

No, because the theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of the first cell or cells. You've been told this multiple times, but never acknowledge it. So do you have a reason for using the same broken argument again and again?

unless panspermia is the answer and even that what made them or it?if its natural laws then then what?

Or we can acknowledge that we just don't know enough yet and keep looking for the answer. To be honest that is the best answer. I don't have to believe in panspermia or anything. I just have to acknowledge that we are still studying and be on my way.

it has to be answered. not it just did happen or we dont know.

Why? I don't see why I should stick to an answer you want me to stick to when the correct answer I see it is that we are still studying and figuring it out. I can state some models that make sense based on the little evidence we have. If it makes you mad that I don't fall into one of your holes sorry.

OFF TOPIC

Says the guy ranting about Karma.

explain karma in an amoral universe that doenst care if we as humans die or live.

I'm not a hindu so I don't believe in karma, that is that what I do in this life will effect me when I would be reincarnated. So I don't think I need to explain karma. By chance, do you get mad at a rock if you trip on it? Why would you get mad at it? Its not like the rock has the ability to care? Personally I don't see any difference between a rock and the universe when I consider caring. If God exists, then I doubt the universe cares unless you believe God is the universe.

 

[Barbarian]

so would barbarian allow a dropout to teach science.

Would I invest in an operating system produced by a dropout? I wish I had. By the time Darwin had returned to England from his trip, he was made a member of the Royal Society, the most prestegious scientific society in England. So he was already an accomplished scientist, whose work, explaining the origin of coral atolls, had established him as a superior scientist.

he did some work but seriously.. yes had a theology degree.

And he had studied under some of the best geologists and biologists in the world when he was in school.

In Darwin's second year he joined the Plinian Society, a student natural history group whose debates strayed into radical materialism. He assisted Robert Edmond Grant's investigations of the anatomy and life cycle of marine invertebrates in the Firth of Forth, and on 27 March 1827 presented at the Plinian his own discovery that black spores found in oyster shells were the eggs of a skate leech. One day, Grant praised Lamarck's evolutionary ideas. Darwin was astonished, but had recently read the similar ideas of his grandfather Erasmus and remained indifferent.[19] Darwin was rather bored by Robert Jameson's natural history course which covered geology including the debate between Neptunism and Plutonism. He learned classification of plants, and assisted with work on the collections of the University Museum, one of the largest museums in Europe at the time.[20]

This neglect of medical studies annoyed his father, who shrewdly sent him to Christ's College, Cambridge, for a Bachelor of Arts degree as the first step towards becoming an Anglican parson. As Darwin was unqualified for the Tripos, he joined the ordinary degree course in January 1828.[21] He preferred riding and shooting to studying. His cousin William Darwin Fox introduced him to the popular craze for beetle collecting which Darwin pursued zealously, getting some of his finds published in Stevens' Illustrations of British entomology. He became a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Henslow and met other leading naturalists who saw scientific work as religious natural theology, becoming known to these dons as "the man who walks with Henslow". When his own exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity.[22] In his final examination in January 1831 Darwin did well, coming tenth out of 178 candidates for the ordinary degree.[23]

Darwin had to stay at Cambridge until June. He studied Paley's Natural Theology which made an argument for divine design in nature, explaining adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[24] He read John Herschel's new book which described the highest aim of natural philosophy as understanding such laws through inductive reasoning based on observation, and Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narrative of scientific travels. Inspired with "a burning zeal" to contribute, Darwin planned to visit Tenerife with some classmates after graduation to study natural history in the tropics. In preparation, he joined Adam Sedgwick's geology course, then went with him in the summer for a fortnight to map strata in Wales.[25] After a week with student friends at Barmouth, he returned home to find a letter from Henslow proposing Darwin as a suitable (if unfinished) gentleman naturalist for a self-funded place with captain Robert FitzRoy, more as a companion than a mere collector, on HMS Beagle which was to leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America.[26] His father objected to the planned two-year voyage, regarding it as a waste of time, but was persuaded by his brother-in-law, Josiah Wedgwood, to agree to his son's participation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

i could go on the both talkorigins who had two amateurs that reasearched and came to conclusion and aid in attacking believers and yet had no degree in biology.

I know a creationist who is an auto repairman, who learned a good deal of evolutionary theory. It's not that hard.

darwin didnt know of mendel yet mendel know of him. oddly.

Darwin's various papers on geology and biology had made him famous in the scientific community. Mendel was a monk in a small town in Austria, teaching science in the local school. It's not surprising that Darwin didn't know of him. It's unfortunate; one of Mendel's discoveries cleared up a serious problem in Darwin's theory.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Show us where God claims new species don't evolve over time. Since we have directly observed speciations, that would be more than odd.

Every Bible known to man (besides the one's that are bogus) will tell you GOD made the animals and the humans. Evolution will suggest that humans evolved overtime. If you can provide me with Biblical evidence to support Evolution, I'll listen.

 

[Barbarian]

Every Bible known to man (besides the one's that are bogus) will tell you GOD made the animals and the humans.

You'll admit that much, but then you balk at the way He actually did it.

Evolution will suggest that humans evolved overtime.

Why does it offend you that God did it any particular way? Why not let Him be God, and do it the way He chooses?

If you can provide me with Biblical evidence to support Evolution, I'll listen.

So you won't accept protons as real, unless the Bible endorses them?

Why?

 

[EricTheBaptist]

You'll admit that much, but then you balk at the way He actually did it.



Why does it offend you that God did it any particular way? Why not let Him be God, and do it the way He chooses?



So you won't accept protons as real, unless the Bible endorses them?

Why?

It doesn't offend me, it offends me that people make assertions without proof. Sorry, but I can't take the world's word for Evolution, especially when it was endorsed for Atheists. You'd be AMAZED by how destructive our kind can be. And yes I do believe in protons because the Bible states they exist, and I'm educated in Chemistry. There's a difference between believing invisible particles, and believing that God exists or doesn't.

Also, let's hear what this man has to say.

Thomas Huxley
I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?

*Taken from another website*.

Also explain dinosaurs being in the Bible, and explain why animals were dead before the Great Flood. If I'm correct the Bible says there was no death before the Garden of Eden.

 

[MarbleShooter]

It doesn't offend me, it offends me that people make assertions without proof. Sorry, but I can't take the world's word for Evolution, especially when it was endorsed for Atheists. You'd be AMAZED by how destructive our kind can be. And yes I do believe in protons because the Bible states they exist, and I'm educated in Chemistry. There's a difference between believing invisible particles, and believing that God exists or doesn't.

Also, let's hear what this man has to say.

Thomas Huxley
I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?

*Taken from another website*.

Also explain dinosaurs being in the Bible, and explain why animals were dead before the Great Flood. If I'm correct the Bible says there was no death before the Garden of Eden.

The Bible dose not talk about protons nor dose it talk about dinosaurs. You can bring up the "leviathen" but its an extreme stretch to claim its a dinosaur. The Leviathan isn't even really described. So we don't even know what dinosaur it could even have been if it was. Heck the Leviathan could have been a whale for all we know.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

The Bible dose not talk about protons nor dose it talk about dinosaurs. You can bring up the "leviathen" but its an extreme stretch to claim its a dinosaur. The Leviathan isn't even really described. So we don't even know what dinosaur it could even have been if it was. Heck the Leviathan could have been a whale for all we know.

According to the Bible, invisible things make up everything. Also fun fact, dinosaurs weren't called dinosaurs until 1820 I believe. Before that time they were referred to the Biblical name for them. (Behemoth or Leviathan)

 

[Barbarian]

According to the Bible, invisible things make up everything.

No protons, though.

Also fun fact, dinosaurs weren't called dinosaurs until 1820 I believe. Before that time they were referred to the Biblical name for them. (Behemoth or Leviathan)

Behemoths are elephants. And it appears leviathans are crocodiles. Dinosaurs were often confused for griffins or dragons by the ancients, who stumbled upon their fossils. In particular, we know the behemoth could not be a dinosaur, because dinosaurs did not have external genitalia.

The Griffin myth appeared in central Asia, where protoceratopsian fossils were found. And they look a little like the classical notion of a griffin.

 

[Barbarian]

It doesn't offend me, it offends me that people make assertions without proof. Sorry, but I can't take the world's word for Evolution, especially when it was endorsed for Atheists. You'd be AMAZED by how destructive our kind can be. And yes I do believe in protons because the Bible states they exist, and I'm educated in Chemistry.

Show us a biblical reference to protons.

There's a difference between believing invisible particles, and believing that God exists or doesn't.

You seem to have lost your focus here. The Bible doesn't mention protons, but you accept them as true, while you deny evolution, because the Bible doesn't mention it. The difference seems to be the protons don't scare you.

Also explain dinosaurs being in the Bible,

That would be like explaining the tooth fairy. Just an imaginary thing, with no substance to it.

and explain why animals were dead before the Great Flood

They died.

If I'm correct the Bible says there was no death before the Garden of Eden.

We know the death God spoke of in Genesis was a spiritual one, not a physical one.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

No protons, though.
Protons make up Atoms, you realize that right? Guess not.


Behemoths are elephants. And it appears leviathans are crocodiles. Dinosaurs were often confused for griffins or dragons by the ancients, who stumbled upon their fossils. In particular, we know the behemoth could not be a dinosaur, because dinosaurs did not have external genitalia.
Befoe 1820, dinosaurs were called behemoths.
The Griffin myth appeared in central Asia, where protoceratopsian fossils were found. And they look a little like the classical notion of a griffin.

That's cool.

Show us a biblical reference to protons.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20


You seem to have lost your focus here. The Bible doesn't mention protons, but you accept them as true, while you deny evolution, because the Bible doesn't mention it. The difference seems to be the protons don't scare you.
Except I have scripture for protons, and protons don't disprove God. Or they don't make him look like a bad creator.


That would be like explaining the tooth fairy. Just an imaginary thing, with no substance to it.
Answer the question.


They died.
So let me get this picture straight. God made the Earth 4 billion years ago, and he had apes and other primates evolve and some 6,000 years ago he decided to make humans good. So basically my creator messed up for 4 billion years and then got it right. Not buying it, but good attempt.


We know the death God spoke of in Genesis was a spiritual one, not a physical one.

Prove it.

 

[Barbarian]

You seem to have me and another poster muddled together. I'll deal with the parts I wrote.

But I'm thinking it's a rather transparent dodge to claim that if the Bible says there invisible things, that must mean protons. In fact, you can clearly see that Paul is referring to the nature of nature, that he asserts is sufficient evidence for God. He's talking about natural law that all men are accountable for, believers, or not believers.

Nothing about protons there.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

You seem to have me and another poster muddled together. I'll deal with the parts I wrote.

But I'm thinking it's a rather transparent dodge to claim that if the Bible says there invisible things, that must mean protons. In fact, you can clearly see that Paul is referring to the nature of nature, that he asserts is sufficient evidence for God. He's talking about natural law that all men are accountable for, believers, or not believers.

Nothing about protons there.

Open to interpretation.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. Explain how protons make God's majesty clear to first century people. For that matter, explain how protons are clearly seen.