Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

What makes you say that it's a fact.....It's never been proven?

I called it that because you're being deliberately inflammatory. To me it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

We lets start with the myth of Adam and Eve then....

As above. You have a history of only wanting to discuss it to ridicule and I have no reason to suspect otherwise now so is there any point?

Originally Posted by downquark1

Again without being too pendantic, scientists generally define something that exists as something that is observable or has an observable effect. Philosophically you can't disproof the existance of something that doesn't match this criteria. So in that respect we agree.

The common atheist arugment is you could use the arguement for the existance of god for virtually anything (the flying spagetti monster etc.). So its mainly for the sake of sanity and consistancy that they refuse to believe in god. Plus if something does exist and has no observable effects does it really matter if it exists or not?

But in your last sentence you are assuming that there are powers that are above us.

Originally Posted by Russ B

Not until people start demanding proof of what I believe in.

I dont think people do, Expect in cases where we are debating the existance of god. You cannot really prove or disprove god so any arguements such as that are pointless. Although downquark1 makes a good point from my point of view that there are many things you cant disaprove which begs the question "Why that belief?" etc

I only talk about proof when a religion is disagreeing with science. Such as evolution, if your going to say its wrong then proof should be argued. Also Dinosaurs, there is a whole peroid of history in between the newest dinosaur bones and the first humans? Including a mass extinction and an ice age

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

I dont think people do, Expect in cases where we are debating the existance of god.

That's as you're not a Christian! You won't see the challenges we get from other people. For the most part it's good natured questioning with a genuine interest but on many occasions (and especially in threads like this) people are deliberately critical, cynical and destructive. That's fine if people want to be like that but they then shouldn't be surprised when we don't want to answer them!

Originally Posted by Damien

I only talk about proof when a religion is disagreeing with science. Such as evolution, if your going to say its wrong then proof should be argued. Also Dinosaurs, there is a whole peroid of history in between the newest dinosaur bones and the first humans? Including a mass extinction and an ice age

We don't have concrete evidence of when the dinos were around. There are compelling arguments but we only have assumptions. I believe they were also around during biblical times.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I called it that because you're being deliberately inflammatory. To me it's a fact.

Eh? So you don't really think it's a fact; you just said that because you think I'm being inflammatory?

As above. You have a history of only wanting to discuss it to ridicule and I have no reason to suspect otherwise now so is there any point?

Hmmm......you often seem to retreat to this position when I ask difficult questions....

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Russ B

We don't have concrete evidence of when the dinos were around. There are compelling arguments but we only have assumptions. I believe they were also around during biblical times.

If you go with adam and Eve, and Genesis, then there wasn't an earth before biblical times, let alone anything else like the Jurassic era etc.

I don't remember Noah sticking 2 Pterodactyles and 2 T-Rexs on his Ark.

To believe in one thing you have to dismiss another or anything else for that matter. To say the world is in decay makes it an open door for a general wide open excuses, eg global warming etc.


Edited for spelling only.

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I don't remember Noah sticking 2 Pterodactyles and 2 T-Rexs on his Ark.

The Bible did not list the animals if I re-call correctly.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Bible did not list the animals if I re-call correctly.

No, but I'm still pretty sure of 'the story'. Unless I'm missing something very major here.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

We don't have concrete evidence of when the dinos were around. There are compelling arguments but we only have assumptions.

iirc, this point has already been quite effectively refuted on this forum way back....I can't be bothered to find the thread/posts..............

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Eh? So you don't really think it's a fact; you just said that because you think I'm being inflammatory?

I refrain from making certain statements out of respect for other peoples' views. It would be nice if others would return the gesture.

And I do believe it's fact.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Hmmm......you often seem to retreat to this position when I ask difficult questions....

If you were respectful with your 'difficult questions' then I'd be happy to discuss anything. But I'm sure we both know your position there.

Originally Posted by peanutkp

If you go with adam and Eve, and Genesis, then there wasn't an earth before biblical times, let alone anything else like the Jurassic area etc.

As I said, I don't think the bible contains everything - only what we need to know. Yes I'm sure there were dinosaurs around then, I just don't think God found it imperative to have it included.

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I don't remember Noah sticking 2 Pterodactyles and 2 T-Rexs on his Ark.

Neither do I - your point being....?

Originally Posted by peanutkp

To believe in one thing you have to dismiss another or anything else for that matter.

Really??

Originally Posted by peanutkp

To say the world is in decay makes it an open door for a general wide open excuses, eg global warming etc.

I always thought global warming was the result of our actions?

[peanut]

I repect all views, but it should be allowed open for question or question for the intent of interest and for general knowledge.

I or anyone can have simple, complex, stupid, naiive questions about subjects like these, and if we don't 'understand' or god forbid (no pun intended) re-question using nothing more than simple logic, then we are often faced with the usual ignorance. (never a straight answer).

Now I like to think I have an open mind and I am no better than the next person, but this IS a discussion, (albiet it can be seen like a grinding, hopefully you don't see it like that), but are you ever wrong?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I refrain from making certain statements out of respect for other peoples' views. It would be nice if others would return the gesture.

And I do believe it's fact.

What proof do you have that it's fact rather than fairy tale? The reason I ask is that you aren't prepared to accept the validity of the work of thousands of individuals, peer reviewed publications, and a mountain of fossil/radiocarbon/plate tectonic/magnetic pole fluctuation/etc data but you are quite happy to believe in a book written a very long time ago. You demand total concrete proof from science before you will accept the parts of it that you don't like but are conversely happy to accept the bible (or big bits of it) at face value!

If you were respectful with your 'difficult questions' then I'd be happy to discuss anything. But I'm sure we both know your position there.

You may make assumptions about my motives. I find it interesting that you always seem to retreat to this huffy position with me when the going gets tough.....

[Russ]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I repect all views, but it should be allowed open for question or question for the intent of interest and for general knowledge.

I or anyone can have simple, complex, stupid, naiive questions about subjects like these, and if we don't 'understand' or god forbid (no pun intended) re-question using nothing more than simple logic, then we are often faced with the usual ignorance. (never a straight answer).

Now I like to think I have an open mind and I am no better than the next person, but this IS a discussion, (albiet it can be seen as a grinding), but are you ever wrong?

I welcome questions from anyone with sincere intent, however there are plenty of those who only ask to ridicule. Those people I have no time for. If someone has a genuine interest then I'll answer to the best of my ability. Am I ever wrong? Of course I am, I'm only human. But I have my beliefs which make most sense to me and the more someone tries to remove me from them, the closer I get. I can take questions from someone who wants to learn more but from those who seek to debunk and criticise - go and find someone else.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

What proof do you have that it's fact rather than fairy tale?

Sorry, did you miss the part where I said "I believe it's fact"?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

The reason I ask is that you aren't prepared to accept the validity of the work of thousands of individuals, peer reviewed publications, and a mountain of fossil/radiocarbon/plate tectonic/magnetic pole fluctuation/etc data but you are quite happy to believe in a book written a very long time ago.

You must have me mistaken for someone else. I accept much of what science claims, the difference being when science says "It can't be because we can't prove it" I'm willing to look a little further.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You demand total concrete proof from science

You really need to stop posting things like that as if you know me. I don't demand anything of the sort from science.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You may make assumptions about my motives.

Assumptions based on previous discussions and PMs from you. If I thought your motives were genuine then I'd happily discuss anything with you.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Sorry, did you miss the part where I said "I believe it's fact"?

I didn't miss it. I'm wondering what basis you have for believing it's a fact; given that it's just something that was written in a very old book....what proof are you using to base your belief on?

You must have me mistaken for someone else. I accept much of what science claims, the difference being when science says "It can't be because we can't prove it" I'm willing to look a little further.

Science doesn't say that it can't be so because it can't be proven. It actually says something like, 'we can't prove it but we're still looking'.

You really need to stop posting things like that as if you know me. I don't demand anything of the sort from science.

Wasn't it you who posted this in this thread?
Seems like you do actually demand pretty strict evidence from science that you don't seem to demand of the bible....

it's still a theory, as no-one was there to witness it

No-one witnessed the story of Adam and Eve either but you are happy to believe that as fact....

[handyman]

How would you explain that 'poof' God creates Adam and Eve in his own image then................what 'poof' creates Jesus as his son. What has he done in the last 2000 years?

er nothing, zip , nada. Did he put David Icke here? Why nothing new in nearly 200o years? I mean the bible was a good seller, normally you would expect a sequel. Is it because humans have become educated and as such able to distinguish between natural scientific happenings and religious waffle?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I didn't miss it. I'm wondering what basis you have for believing it's a fact; given that it's just something that was written in a very old book....what proof are you using to base your belief on?

I've been over that countless times and from the following quoted post from you, you should already know judging from the attention you seem to pay the posts I made going back 18 months...

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Wasn't it you who posted this in this thread?
Seems like you do actually demand pretty strict evidence from science that you don't seem to demand of the bible....

I'm equally flattered and uncomfortable that you store my posts from such a long time ago - in any case what I've posted there makes no such demands - I do now what I did then and always have done - I look at the options and chose which ones makes the more sense to me.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

No-one witnessed the story of Adam and Eve either but you are happy to believe that as fact....

Yes.....because it's a belief...that's what a belief is, yes?

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

Originally Posted by handyman

How would you explain that 'poof'...

You calling my God a poof??

Originally Posted by handyman

....God creates Adam and Eve in his own image then................what 'poof' creates Jesus as his son.

There isn't proof....because that's what a belief is, right?

Originally Posted by handyman

What has he done in the last 2000 years?

Loving you, amongst other things.

Originally Posted by handyman

er nothing, zip , nada. Did he put David Icke here? Why nothing new in nearly 200o years? I mean the bible was a good seller, normally you would expect a sequel. Is it because humans have become educated and as such able to distinguish between natural scientific happenings and religious waffle?

No, it's because the bible isn't really a book, it's a collection of documents. But you knew that though, right?