QUOTE:
Originally Posted by CrazyAce01
Actually, the Big Bang theory allows there to have been a setting of initial conditions at all and therefore allows a creator. The continuous universe theory, in which the universe did not start at a singularity, actually disallows any position a creator might had because there would be no chance for initial conditions to be set. This is of course assuming the creator hasn't been there all the time and just decided the time to create earth and all the rest arbitrarily. So, the big bang theory is actually good news for creationists.
|
I'm just going to say this bluntly, the Big Bang theory is not good news for Creationists because even though it might allow room for a Creator, it still isn't right. We don't have to "fit in" Intelligent Design; the way that God says it was still is the way it actually happened.
QUOTE:
|
I bolded that one statement because you can say that about anything. Anyone can "interpret" anything they want about anything. Two people can read the same book, watch the same movie and get different things out of it - that's why more than one person writes a review or criticism, because one person's opinion is not law. Two people can see smoke in the distance; one thinks a house is on fire and one thinks it is a campfire. The point is, I could say you are interpreting the bible the way you want because that's the way you want to interpret the bible. What if I read the bible and interpreted it completely different? No one who had anything to do with the bible is around to tell us what they really meant when they wrote it. As we won't get anywhere arguing about this, just leave it alone. It's like the kettle calling the frying pan black.
|
I do want to say one thing, though. You claim that I interpret the Bible the way I want to interpret the Bible. Let me give you a few examples of how this is not true. I say that the Bible says that God allows evil in the world. I say that the Bible says that God allows some to go to hell. I say that humans can do nothing to save themselves (contradictory to most religous beliefs). I say that the Bible says that God created in six days (raised debate and maybe eventually persecution with unbelievers). These are not the way I want to interpret the Bible but rather the way it should be interpreted (really, there isn't much interpreting to do; it is mainly literal).
QUOTE:
|
No scientist talks about what color animals were based on their bones... that's just artistic license for movies and pictures. Although they did find one incredibly well preserved fossil lately that still flesh on it.
|
Ok, I was wrong about the color, sorry. Anyways, the point you brought up about the incredibly well preserved fossil gives much more evidence for Creation then Evolution. There is a much better probability that one of these dead creatures "survived over a few thousand years then many million years.
QUOTE:
|
Don't be so hasty to discredit rocks as sources of information. We know animals with flat teeth nowadays eat plants, right? The flat teeth grind up the plants. It stands to reason that teeth bones that are flat from a fossil were also used to eat plants. Plant fossils found near the plant-eater are probably what was eaten. Finding groups of dinosaur fossils together suggests they lived in herds. Sharp-toothed dinosaurs probably ate meat. Scientists can easily tell the age of rock using carbon dating and relative dating. If we find 100 dinosaur fossils in the same area, you can start to make connections between how they might have interacted. None of this sounds that far fetched - they are perfectly reasonable conclusions based on simple logic. These people aren't just pulling this out of their butt, and they certainly aren't guessing.
|
Ok, but this is only true IF there were never any catastrophes (such as a flood) or any other events that could have slightly changed the surface of the earth. Also, you can't find the age of a rock by using carbon dating; carbon dating can only be used on things that were once alive. You can use radiometric dating but still, all current dating methods are
extremely flawed. I have said this in many other posts (with examples).
QUOTE:
|
Uh, what? How does this evidence I just talked about support creationism? I thought you just said we had a time-limit of a couple thousand years after creation. Those rocks they are finding are millions of years old. Also, you have the common misconception that scientific theory is a "guess" or "just a theory". Scientific theory is based on hundreds of thousands of experiments that the theory correct predicts. When's the last time something you dropped floated up to the sky instead of falling to the ground? Hence the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution is similar in this manner.
|
If you are referring to the "perfect, ideal, flawless" method of dating, then you are wrong here. These dating methods certainly aren't "laws" like gravity; the scientists only show you the examples they want you to see. They don't tell you about all the times where there methods bring up huge contradictions (ex. 200 year old tree in millions of years old rock).
QUOTE:
|
This is the second time you said "the evidence supports creation more than evolution". What exactly are you referring to? You immediately contradicted yourself as evolution requires millions of years while the bible only allows several thousand. Again, the rocks we've found, i.e., the evidence, date to millions of years ago. The only piece of evidence you seem to have is the bible. Everything else points towards evolution as being correct.
|
I will not go into the dating methods again....yet. Show me where I "contradicted" myself. I'm not really sure what you are getting at. (I'm positive that I didn't; I think you might have misunderstood me.)
QUOTE:
|
Also, I don't get how a book written 2000 years ago is undeniable proof of creationism. All you have is a book. That's it. What is the evidence you are referring to? I've got a book too, it's called "The Origin of Species". Well, the origin of species is a book, and therefore irrefutable evidence that evolution is true.
|
What I was saying was that the Bible "came out" long before all the scientific advances we currently see today. It would be extremely hard to make up some theory that long ago when they didn't even know that the earth was a sphere and not flat and make up a theory that still stands today.
QUOTE:
|
Since we have too contradicting books, both that are inherently irrefutable, what are we to do? Oh, wait. Darwin's book is based on evidence you can go and see for yourself right now, and the bible isn't.
|
Lol, Darwin's book isn't based on evidence that you can see for yourself. Darwin stated that there should be intermediate fossils (missing links, which are still missing) everywhere in the fossil record. He said that they were there but they haven't been found. Now, we see, that there aren't these missing links but rather large gaps between the different species (one obvious problem with your book). Also, you can't go out and see creatures evolving from basic lifeforms all the way to what we see today; no one has seen it or ever had actual proof that it has happened. It is just a theory and can not be observed in a laboratory. The only thing that you can't "go out and see for yourself" from the Bible is the idea of God. We have much reason to believe that there must have been a God but still there is not actual evidence of his existence. Other than that, everything the Bible says can be seen for real.
QUOTE:
|
Look man, I'm Christian. I believe God exists. I love Jesus and I think the message of Christianity is great. But what you are saying just doesn't make any logical sense. And before you say how I can accept one part of the bible and not the other, remember that the bible is two books, new and old. That old part sounds like a lot of lost, distracted people trying to find some meaning in a confusing and inexplicable world by writing everything off as the work of God. The new part sounds a bit more coherent, and focuses on how man is responsible for himself and has to be good and do good. I don't think it's too hard to separate the gold from the dirt here.
|
You say that you have the Christian belief and then you go on to say the rest? Sorry, but you are not a true Christian. Don't you see that the New Testament
fulfills the old? That Jesus dying on the cross fulfilled many OT traditions (ex. sacrificing of animals) and changed the emphasis of the true faith (looking forward vs. looking back). Tell me what doesn't make sense to you about what I said in the previous post so I can explain it more thoroughly
QUOTE:
|
There's a book out about how a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the god and creator of the universe. It's got just as much evidence behind it as the bible does: absolutely nothing.
|
Coming from a "Christian".....sigh.