Your Religion or Spirituality

"inFINSible wrote:

I can answer this as a christian....Yes, god wiped out ALL evidence of humanity. That would include any partially digested human tissue inside a dinosaurs belly. God is perfect and infallible so why would he make a mistake by leaving some behind. Don't look for any human DNA in fossilized stools either, he got all that too. He doesn't miss a trick so, don't think you're ever going to find any evidence that humans and dino's lived at the same time because god doesn't want any evidence found.....but it IS true.

That was easy....

Could you send me a PM and please explain to me what you think a Christian is? Because you have me confused.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I see this, and I wonder how you cannot see how that is not considered science. God did it? Might as well say thunder is caused by Zues.

Evolution says life happened from non-life. They don't know how, but it happened.

Evolution says that through some still unknown process, new DNA is created to move species to species to genus to family etc.....

Do you wonder why this isn't considered science?

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Evolution says life happened from non-life. They don't know how, but it happened.

How is that any different than what creationist believe?

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Evolution says that through some still unknown process, new DNA is created to move species to species to genus to family etc.....

Do you wonder why this isn't considered science?

No it doesn't. That is what creationist say the science says. There is difference.

Science is easy to dismiss if you don't understand it.

Here are a few excellent videos that, I hope, will help you understand what science actually believes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

"Rick 1966 wrote:

Sorry, that's wrong. According to what we know from the fossil record, mineral samples, deep ice cores, etc... Earth has gone through many, many different stages: lush and tropical, hot and arid, cold and glaciated, multiple times over. There have been at least three or four mass extinctions and at least a couple dozen radical climate shifts since the appearance of life.

Of course they say that. But remember that they demand long time periods in order for the theory to fit. Appearance of life is sudden in the fossil record, coupled with the mass extinction. Not several.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3SAGDZXLxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

that is what you call scientists.

Natural means is the best way to explain the data.

They are not nice suggestions. There exists many things that fit on a world wide basis. Mostly since shifting place is world wide.

Ok please understand the difference between finding natural explanations, if they exist.........

and everything must be explained naturally.

This is where evolution has hyjacked science.

Everything must be proved to have a natural cause. It they can't find one, they must keep looking. And when nothing fits right, they change the predictions: Punctuated Equilibrium, Facilitated Variation......

But at no point in time can they ever say - "It looks like there is evidence of design"

That would be sacreligious!

"Celtkin wrote:

How is that any different than what creationist believe?

No it doesn't. That is what creationist say the science says. There is difference.

Science is easy to dismiss if you don't understand it.

At its's basic core, evolution requires a mechanism to explain how simpler organisms evolve into more complex organisms. With the last 100 or so years of discovery at the molecular level, at the DNA level, we come to find out that there is no way new DNA, no new gentic material is possible in a natural setting. There is no evidence that adds new material to an organism. Reshufling, rearranging, change in quantities, yes......but nothing new. We can grow a bigger specimen, or a different specimen, but not a new specimen.

Evolution demands new genetic material to be created. And it is impossible.

And you know this.

You can post all the videos you want that explain what things are called and how things evolve, but at the end of the day you can't get around what every evolutionists faces everyday and that is there is no known mechanism for change to happen naturally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

"Dolphan7 wrote:

At its's basic core, evolution requires a mechanism to explain how simpler organisms evolve into more complex organisms. With the last 100 or so years of discovery at the molecular level, at the DNA level, we come to find out that there is no way new DNA, no new gentic material is possible in a natural setting. There is no evidence that adds new material to an organism. Reshufling, rearranging, change in quantities, yes......but nothing new. We can grow a bigger specimen, or a different specimen, but not a new specimen.

Evolution demands new genetic material to be created. And it is impossible.

And you know this.

No it doesn't; No it isn't; No I don't.

Please don't assume what I know, my friend.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

You can post all the videos you want that explain what things are called and how things evolve, but at the end of the day you can't get around what every evolutionists faces everyday and that is there is no known mechanism for change to happen naturally.

I believe I got around it nicely :) Besides, I just thought that since you use your understanding of science to substantiate your arguments, you might as well know what scientists are actually saying and why.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Evolution demands new genetic material to be created. And it is impossible.

And you know this.

Creation demands that new genetic material comes from some invisible man in the sky. And it is also impossible.

But you'll never admit to that.

You can post all the videos you want that explain what things are called and how things evolve, but at the end of the day you can't get around what every evolutionists faces everyday and that is there is no known mechanism for change to happen naturally.
And the known mechanism for the creation myth is?

Haven't you realized by now that every argument you use against evolution while touting that creation is the only "logical" answer can be turned around and used against you?

Could you send me a PM and please explain to me what you think a Christian is? Because you have me confused.
Apparently sarcasm flies right over you, huh? ;)

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Of course they say that. But remember that they demand long time periods in order for the theory to fit. Appearance of life is sudden in the fossil record, coupled with the mass extinction. Not several.

No, sorry, that's not true. You ignore evidence that disagrees with your religious beliefs, like the vast majority of Creationists.

"Celtkin wrote:

No it doesn't; No it isn't; No I don't.

Please don't assume what I know, my friend.

I believe I got around it nicely :) Besides, I just thought that since you use your understanding of science to substantiate your arguments, you might as well know what scientists are actually saying and why.

Nice try. Dodgeball anyone?

When no answers are available, it must be the questions!, Or the questioner doesn't know science.

Science has no idea how to get from species to above species. They have no idea how new DNA, information, can be created in nature. You have to be able to see this, show this in nature for evolution to ever get down the first stretch. They say it must have happened, but they don't know how.I understand the theories, but you are lacking a mechanism.

And we haven't even got out of the gate yet because another stumblling block, and it is a huge one, is how can life come from non-life? Although evolution theory doesn't really address this, it certainly relies on it, otherwise they are at zero.

"Pagan wrote:

Creation demands that new genetic material comes from some invisible man in the sky. And it is also impossible.

But you'll never admit to that.


And the known mechanism for the creation myth is?

Haven't you realized by now that every argument you use against evolution while touting that creation is the only "logical" answer can be turned around and used against you?


Apparently sarcasm flies right over you, huh? ;)

Apples to oranges. Go back to the flood posts. Evidence of creation, not creator.

Evolution demands observable natural explanations, which it hypothesizes and theorizes and predicts the outcome.

You can't harness supernatural events/entities.

All we can do is observe the after effects of a supernatural event.

There is large amounts of evidence that support a world wide flood. Go back to that.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Apples to oranges. Go back to the flood posts. Evidence of creation, not creator.

Evolution demands observable natural explanations, which it hypothesizes and theorizes and predicts the outcome.

You can't harness supernatural events/entities.

All we can do is observe the after effects of a supernatural event.

There is large amounts of evidence that support a world wide flood. Go back to that.

Yes, you are correct...in the minds of people desperate to cling to their faith, there's plenty of evidence - when interpreted the way they want - to support a worldwide flood.

Except for the fact that it's well known that most of the world was covered in water at one time, before the continents split apart. That also would kind of leave the same "evidence."

Bro, it's become apparent that if somewhere an elephant farts you'll find some way to say it's evidence of creation, no matter how many people point out the inaccuracies of it.

Anything can be twisted and interpreted to "prove" your myth, much as people twist and interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to.

When no answers are available, it must be the questions!, Or the questioner doesn't know science.
*AHEM*

We're STILL waiting for your "answers". Been years now, haven't gotten them. Do you realize just how foolish your arguments are when you keep demanding "answers" from everyone without providing any of your own?

How can you expect anyone to take your demands seriously when you're using them as an obvious smokescreen to the fact that YOU have no answers. The best defense is a good offense, eh?

Until you provide yours, stop asking others for theirs.

I don't see how not fully understanding something means automatically that an invisible man in the sky created it. The evolution theory may not be perfect but at least it's not just say everything was done by magic.

"muscle979 wrote:

I don't see how not fully understanding something means automatically that an invisible man in the sky created it. The evolution theory may not be perfect but at least it's not just say everything was done by magic.

not magic... mud... which is not the same thing.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Nice try. Dodgeball anyone?

When no answers are available, it must be the questions!, Or the questioner doesn't know science.

Science has no idea how to get from species to above species. They have no idea how new DNA, information, can be created in nature. You have to be able to see this, show this in nature for evolution to ever get down the first stretch. They say it must have happened, but they don't know how.I understand the theories, but you are lacking a mechanism.

And we haven't even got out of the gate yet because another stumblling block, and it is a huge one, is how can life come from non-life? Although evolution theory doesn't really address this, it certainly relies on it, otherwise they are at zero.

My friend, your defense of the absurd dissolves into oblivion with every deflection of the facts.

You have done nothing but parrot what all creationists have said, and you do so despite evidence that has already been presented. That leads me to one sad conclusion; You don't read replies and respond to the issues. Instead, like most anti-science minded people, you run to anti-science fact sites and paste answers.

"Pagan wrote:

Yes, you are correct...in the minds of people desperate to cling to their faith, there's plenty of evidence - when interpreted the way they want - to support a worldwide flood.

Except for the fact that it's well known that most of the world was covered in water at one time, before the continents split apart. That also would kind of leave the same "evidence."

Bro, it's become apparent that if somewhere an elephant farts you'll find some way to say it's evidence of creation, no matter how many people point out the inaccuracies of it.

Anything can be twisted and interpreted to "prove" your myth, much as people twist and interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to.


*AHEM*

We're STILL waiting for your "answers". Been years now, haven't gotten them. Do you realize just how foolish your arguments are when you keep demanding "answers" from everyone without providing any of your own?

How can you expect anyone to take your demands seriously when you're using them as an obvious smokescreen to the fact that YOU have no answers. The best defense is a good offense, eh?

Until you provide yours, stop asking others for theirs.

Pagan come now. We had agreed to discuss the evidence that supports creation. I provided some factual flood evidence. I don't feel inclined to show more because of the response I get from you , which was expected, but I had hoped that you had arrived at a place where we could at least discuss it.

Flood evidence is there. Saying that the world was underwater anyway isn't really debating the issue, because correct me if I am wrong but that kind of under water is totally different than a catastrophic world wide flood that happened at the same time. The evidence supports this. Your statement that earth was underwater at one time was actually over millions of millions of , or maybe billions of years ago. The evidence shows a recent world wide flood.

Possible in your mind?

I am not asking you to believe it. I am not saying that others don't have alternative theories. I am asking you if the evidence could support a worldwide flood?

It is really a simple yes or no.

"Celtkin wrote:

My friend, your defense of the absurd dissolves into oblivion with every deflection of the facts.

You have done nothing but parrot what all creationists have said, and do you so despite evidence that has already been presented. That leads me to one sad conclusion; You don't read replies and respond to the issues. Instead, like most anti-science minded people, you run to anti-science fact sites and paste answers. If they can find no suitable response, they respond as you have..

Fascinating, what would make Christianity at it's core Anti Science?

BTW I'm a gap theory person myself, the idea that somehow string theory or even the actual theory of relativity would be relevant to pre 100 BC people seems a touch absurd to me.

The 6 day theory for example is based on the Hebrew for "Day" that being "yom", the first appearance of the word is in Genisis, in the 6 days of creation, which leads me to think that "yom" was made backwards compatatible...

"Celtkin wrote:

My friend, your defense of the absurd dissolves into oblivion with every deflection of the facts.

You have done nothing but parrot what all creationists have said, and do you so despite evidence that has already been presented. That leads me to one sad conclusion; You don't read replies and respond to the issues. Instead, like most anti-science minded people, you run to anti-science fact sites and paste answers. If they can find no suitable response, they respond as you have..

Likewise. I haven't sold my objectivity for a piece of worthless paper and called that wisdom, or science.

All you have to do is show me where there is a natural occurance of new DNA being created that shows one organism being made into a different organism.

Not within species. Not adaptation. Not a mutation that does nothing, or makes a copy of something already made.

Something new.

This is why creationists say what they say over and over again becasue evolution is not only false, it is impossible.

We say this because there is no evidence to show that evolution is true, yet we teach it to our kids as fact. Hogwash!

Remember - you still haven't gotten out of the gate - non-life becoming life.

So you can sit there and say people don't know science. You can say they don't answer posts. I don't answer videos. You can say whatever you want. I have attempted to answer every post in this thread, with my own words, not some video to speak for me. I educate myself on the issues I feel are important. I ain't no expert, but I know a fake when I see one.

Evolution is a fake, and can't answer the two tough questions I have posed.

Not only that ...some leading secular scientists have the same exact issue with evolution.

Origin of life and mechanism of change.

If you can't answer these two fundamental question, then step out of the batters box.

I may not be popular here. I may be outnumbered. I may be hated I don't know. But I won't let anyone try to pass off as fact something we all know to be false.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Ok please understand the difference between finding natural explanations, if they exist.........

and everything must be explained naturally.

This is where evolution has hyjacked science.

Everything must be proved to have a natural cause. It they can't find one, they must keep looking. And when nothing fits right, they change the predictions: Punctuated Equilibrium, Facilitated Variation......

But at no point in time can they ever say - "It looks like there is evidence of design"

That would be sacreligious!

That is what science is. If it wasn't for that germs wouldn't be known as fact. We would have no idea what an atom is, the world would still be a flat disc riding on a turtle, and thunder would still be caused by Zues with god crying tears for rain.

Does science answer all questions? No, and it never will because there will always be more questions. There is always more to know. Always more to figure out.

In fact in my lifetime there have been at least 5 things that they found in space that were physically impossible until they found them to be a reality. So they asked the questions and learned. In fact that is how you learn.