Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it Evolution versus Creation?
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 45 (368128)
12-07-2006 4:16 AM


I don't understand this ongoing debate. Christians don't have to debate whether evolution occured or not; let scientists figure out if it happened. I hate that evolutionists are pushing evolution as a fact simply because they don't want to believe in something higher than themselves. It has prevented me from validifying their scientific discoveries because I believe there is alterior motive. Arguing evolution vesus ID is like me arguing reality with my nintendo. Who am I to argue a billion years of evolution didn't occur in a single day when I am restricted by time and he is not. You should be forming mathematical proofs to prove that 0=1 instead of arguing with christians, whom are going to believe in creation whether evolution is fact or not. Why not try arguing why our ancestors evolved instead of arguing if they evolved. The fact that so many evolutionists are still arguing "if" leads me to believe you aren't so confident in your findings.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 9:06 AM geatz has replied
 Message 4 by duf31, posted 12-07-2006 10:20 AM geatz has not replied
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2006 10:57 AM geatz has not replied
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 12-07-2006 3:33 PM geatz has not replied
 Message 38 by DemonScythe, posted 12-08-2006 2:46 PM geatz has not replied
 Message 40 by rrammcitktturjsp012006, posted 12-09-2006 9:39 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 45 (368176)
12-07-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
12-07-2006 9:06 AM


Again you make it seem you only believe science, and therefor creation is wrong. Science can find answers only to what we can percieve or understand, so why do you think that that ID isn't possible? I believe that ID is just as possible as evolution. There is corroborating evidence to support jesus and his miracles(Josephus, Paul's letters, Terullian, Caria), authentic documentary evidence(The Bible), eye witness evidence(thousands of people witnessed his miracles), as well as archaeological confirmation. I'm not going to throw out overwhelming evidence because you believe you've scientifically disproven the first 2 pages of the bible, which science has no right to analyze since god is talking about his perceptions. But more than likely in the grand scheme of things, science is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 9:06 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 11:07 AM geatz has not replied
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2006 11:08 AM geatz has replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 45 (368327)
12-07-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
12-07-2006 11:08 AM


Thousands of people may have witnessed his miracles - but unfortunately they don't exist now, and they didn't write it down. We have no documentary evidence that is contemporary with Jesus that is relevant, except possibly some Roman records.
The Gospel of John was written by the disiciple John(a witness to his miricles and it was written down). There is plenty of Documentary evidence to jesus's existance I mentioned some authors before.
The historian Josephus author of, The Jewish War, The Jewish Antiquities, Life, and Against Apion. He wrote
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, "if indeed one out to call him man"(possible interpolation in my opinion). For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladely. He won over many jews and many greeks. "He was the christ"(possible interpolation again). When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life"(again I believe this may have been added later but that's my opinion), for the prophets of God had prophesied these countless other marvoulous things about him. And the tribe of Christians , so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Tacticus author of, annals of Rome, he wrote
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it's origin, suffered the extreme penelty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, pontious Pilatus, and a most mishievous superstition, thus checked for the moment again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as hated against mankind."
Pliny the Younger, author of Epistulae, he writes:
"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If the persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborneness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished....They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternatly amongst themselves in honor of christ as if to a god, and also to blind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery....This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom the called deaconesses. I found nothing but degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagent lengths"
Thallus, whom wrote a history of the eastern mediterranean world since the Trojan War in A.D. 52. His works were lost but he was quoted by Julius Africanus in about A.D. 221. He writes, "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me.(refrencing the darkness after the crufication)
You can look up the authors I posted earlier for more documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus and him as a miricle worker.
As well as archaeological refutation, as Brian would no doubt love to explain to you.
I would like to hear the archaeological refutation as to the existance of Jesus. Here is what I know. The Bible's historical inaccuracies every year are becoming accurate.
Luke author of about 1/4 of the new testament is very accurate as an historian. Archeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.
Luke 3:1 he refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For years scholars pointed to this as evidence Luke didn't know what he was talking about since everybody knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather the ruler of Chalcis a half century earlier. However Archaeology had later found an inscription which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near damascus.
Acts 17:6 references "politarchs" which translates to "city officals" by the NIV, in the city of Thessalonica. For a long time people thought Luke was mistaken because no evidence of the term politarchs had been found in any ancient Roman documents. However an inscription on a first century arch was later found that begins "In the time of the politarchs"(You can go to the british Museum and see it for yourself.)
There are many more examples of this throughout the Bible so please bring Brian. I'd like to know what parts of the NT were disproven.
What does this have to do with biology or geology?
Nothing, if all that mattered in a court case was DNA evidence we'd have many criminals in the street and innocent people in jail. You can't look at evolution as only science, there are many other factors that need to be looked at and I think this where most evolutionists fall short. Evolutionists have to much faith in science more faith than I do in being a Christian.
No, what people are saying is that they will believe the evidence that is in front of their faces and will give credence to the logical inferences that can be made based on that evidence.
What about the historical evidence for Jesus I just pointed out. Why do you choose to ignore that. I look at all the evidence, historical archaelogical, scientific, mathematical...And Evolution to me just doesn't add up. Even if I assumed evolution were possible, to think that all the different creatures in this world came from evolution would be a mathematical improbobability (in my opinion) even if the world were a trillion years old.(I have my undergrade in Mathematics, I'm not a mathematical genius, but I know what is an accepted mathemtical improbability.) I'm not saying you should believe ID, either you do or you don't, it has nothing to do ith science, it has to do with faith, but I think there might be better scientific evidence for other theories if someone bothered to look.
If you all think ID may be true, then why do you think it shouldn't be taught in schools? Wouldn't learning all the theories help us to find the truth. Why do evolutionists attack those that look for holes in their theory? Without these attacks, science would be meaningless. It's people like the creationalists that help us to find the real truth because they question that which is believed to be true. The idea that man came from beast is an old belief dating back well before the time of christianity, it just got a great publicist in the 1800s.
Edited by geatz, : No reason given.
Edited by geatz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2006 11:08 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2006 11:21 PM geatz has replied
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2006 11:48 PM geatz has replied
 Message 35 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2006 2:15 AM geatz has not replied
 Message 42 by Brian, posted 12-11-2006 7:19 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 45 (368329)
12-07-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
12-07-2006 11:21 PM


sure it is. If scientists are going to overlook evidence for Jesus then why should people not overlook the holes in evolution. How can someone believe in evidence as to one subject and then ignore it on another.
Edited by geatz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2006 11:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by iceage, posted 12-08-2006 12:00 AM geatz has replied
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2006 12:40 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 45 (368335)
12-08-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
12-07-2006 11:48 PM


Wow are you gonna backup anything you say, where are you getting this information, off a google search lol. I've read these texts. The Gospel of John was written by John and not in 100-120 AD I believe what you are refering to is probobly the earliest found COPY of the Gospel of John which is not the original document. I could go into depth about every single one of your posts as to how absolutely false they are but I'm hoping that the rest of the community can see where you are getting your information from. The internet is a bad source for information.
Edited by geatz, : said only when i meant earliest

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2006 11:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:08 AM geatz has replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 45 (368337)
12-08-2006 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by iceage
12-08-2006 12:00 AM


ahh the sarcasm begins, humor for the weak.
Edited by geatz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iceage, posted 12-08-2006 12:00 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:10 AM geatz has not replied
 Message 39 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2006 3:59 PM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 45 (368339)
12-08-2006 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:07 AM


Simply this, if there is more evidence for Jesus and God then why should I believe Evolution when there are holes in the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:07 AM geatz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:15 AM geatz has replied
 Message 20 by Cthulhu, posted 12-08-2006 12:18 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 45 (368342)
12-08-2006 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 12:08 AM


proof....i quoted text? You aren't showing proof. You musta read the atheists view of John. Yes there are some that believe that John may have borrowed from the other three texts, but the concensus does not believe this to be so. It's strange that you would take the word of those that use "fuzzy" logic in this case and yet distaste those that use the same type of logic to disprove evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:08 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:26 AM geatz has replied
 Message 43 by Brian, posted 12-11-2006 7:22 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 45 (368343)
12-08-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 12:15 AM


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! protein modeling? what are you starting with? how did you prove 0=1? or 0=?
Edited by geatz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:15 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:25 AM geatz has replied
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:30 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 45 (368344)
12-08-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:22 AM


if this is just a stupid statistical proof don't bother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:22 AM geatz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:26 AM geatz has replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 45 (368346)
12-08-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:25 AM


But if you have an actually mathematical proof I would like to look at it.
Edited by geatz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:25 AM geatz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by DrJones*, posted 12-08-2006 12:29 AM geatz has not replied
 Message 27 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:30 AM geatz has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:32 AM geatz has replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 45 (368348)
12-08-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:26 AM


looking up text for you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:26 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 45 (368353)
12-08-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 12:26 AM


"There is enough of a discrepency to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such sustantional agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction" Craig L. blomberg, PH.D., Craig Blomberg is widely considered to be the one of the country's formost authorities on the biographies of Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:26 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2006 7:34 AM geatz has not replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 45 (368354)
12-08-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 12:32 AM


I'll take it to someone if I don't understand the science, I just want to see the mathematics really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:49 AM geatz has replied

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 45 (368355)
12-08-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:46 AM


I'm going to bed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:46 AM geatz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:49 AM geatz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024