Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 45 (368338)
12-08-2006 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:00 AM


Wow are you gonna backup anything you say, where are you getting this information, off a google search lol.
No, from years of Bible study. I was a Christian too, once, and I studied the Bible for a while.
The Gospel of John was written by John and not in 100-120 AD
What makes you say that?
I believe what you are refering to is probobly the only found COPY of the Gospel of John which is not the original document.
No, that document was a copy made in 150 AD. John was obviously written earlier, but written at the time of Jesus? Written first, as you said? There's no evidence of that. Considerably evidence against it - like the fact that John borrows heavily from the other three Gospels, so clearly it can't predate them.
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.
How about you substantiate your own assertions? You presented absolutely no proof of any of your statements, after all. What, we're just supposed to take your word for it?
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show your math.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:00 AM geatz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:20 AM crashfrog has 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 45 (368340)
12-08-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:10 AM


Because evolution has been mathematically proven true. At least, that's my conclusion based on work in theoretical protein modeling and the operating forces of natural selection and random mutation. (And I can show my work.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:10 AM geatz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 20 of 45 (368341)
12-08-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:10 AM


And what, pray tell, are the holes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:10 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 45 (368345)
12-08-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:20 AM


proof....i quoted text?
You quoted nothing in support of your view of John's authorship. Can you present evidence, or can't you?
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.
From what I've read, you've got it 100% wrong. In my undergraduate Bible study - at a Lutheran college, nothing to do with atheism - the consensus view of John as presented was that the author was unknown (definately not John the Apostle) and the date was sometime around 100-120 AD, making it the latest of the gospels. You've certainly presented absolutely zero evidence that John is the earliest gospel, as is your assertion. Not even the extremely conservative Christian churches date John before the other Gospels.
You're way out on the fringe with your position. What evidence do you have for it? Why do I have to keep asking?
And when are you going to show your math?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:20 AM geatz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:45 AM crashfrog has not 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

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 26 of 45 (368347)
12-08-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:26 AM


Tip: If you reply to your own posts it makes it hard to figure out who you're addressing. Click the reply button on the post you're replying too.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

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 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 45 (368349)
12-08-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:22 AM


what are you starting with?
Proteins, and the laws of physics, obviously. Why, what are you starting with? It'd be nice if you could show your math.
If you want to know more about what I'm talking about, start with Information Theory and Molecular Biology by H. P. Yockey. I'm sure you can find it at your university library.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:22 AM geatz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 45 (368350)
12-08-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:26 AM


I'll try and put something together next week (I'll be away all weekend.) What's your background in molecular genetics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:26 AM geatz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 45 (368351)
12-08-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by geatz
12-07-2006 11:30 PM


topic? we don't need no stinkin' topic.
quote:
sure it is.
Actually, it's not. I'm not sure what the problem here is. The theory of evolution will either be confirmed or refuted on its own merits, based on evidence, and anything about Jesus is entirely irrelevant.
Are there "holes" in the theory of evolution? If so, present them.
Is there evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or that all the species were individual acts of creation? If so, present it.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by geatz, posted 12-07-2006 11:30 PM 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