 |
Doctor Who Club of Australia
Having trouble registering?
email the forum admin at grrreg@bigpond.com for help!
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Chris
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 37
Location: Launceston
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| dave wrote: | | Would that be the Utnapishtim or the Deucalion version of the Flood story? |
It's the Utnapishtim version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 892
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dave wrote: | Would that be the Utnapishtim or the Deucalion version of the Flood story?
Whilst I guess it's relevant to our discussion, there's no way S-J will accept that any other version of the Flood story predates the Biblical account. We've been over this before, just not in this current thread. |
Of course I will. Wow it's amazing how quickly individuals conclude what my thoughts on things must be due to the simple fact that I support creation over the riddiculous lies trumped up by so-called unbiased and open-minded evolutionary scientists.
I can accept the recorded Gilgamesh story pre-dates the biblical one, no problem.
Moses wrote the biblical account after it was passed down for many generations.
So what if that one was recorded before Moses' version? Considering there are flood legends in every corner of civilization, it's hardly surprising that there was a mesapotamian version too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 892
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dave wrote: | | Likening a house building itself to an organism adapting to suit its environment is ridiculous. Organisms are known to adapt to environment. Non-living materials aren't known to form complex structures in most circumstances |
I'm giving evolution a chance by using this illustration. A house is a far simpler construct than life, and 'life from non-life' is exactly what evolution theory preaches. Come on! If evolution can't build me a simple house, I can't see any way it can rustle up a tin of life for me. It doesn't make sense, unless of course you are predisposed to a denial of a creator. It's VERY frustrating to be constantly told I am biased toward a creator, a statement that implies I cannot have a sensible thought about science. I am in no way out to prove that a creator exists by examining creation. However, creation does back up my own personal belief in the creator.
To answer your quetion, what evidence is there to support a creator. If Hebrews 3:4 which says "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God" is too simple a concept to comprehend, then all I can see is keep on looking for that link. It will never come. Evolution doesn't make sense no matter how you want to dress it up scientifically. Romans 1:20-22 . . .For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish. . .
Adaptation does not prove evolution. There is nothing that proves that one species 'adapts' into another species. Experiements to attempt this have only resulted in sterile mutations.
Where is the info on the fossil record you posted? Was the information put forward by creation scientists, evolutionary scientists, or objective scientists. (Is there really such a thing as an objective scientist anyway? Or is that just a fancy name for a philosopher?) I'd like to know more about it, before throwing up my arms in evolutionary defeat.
You'll be telling me we were sneezed from the great green arklseizure next........ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dave
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 605
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't this fun!??
I need to point out that evolution as a theory deals with the development of life. It doesn't deal with how life might have started. For that you need to look at the theory of abiogenesis (which I think actually means the creation of life from non-life) or biogenesis (only life creates life). I don't know a great deal about abiogenesis, but I'll see what I can find out.
Sorry to be so presumptuous on stating your opinions for you, S-J. The Sumerian Ziusudra Flood Story is even older than the Babylonian Utnapishtim one. I meant, of course, that regardless of when it was actually set to paper, you'd be of the opinion that the Biblical account recounted the original story.
As for the list of transitional fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Is it free of gaps? No, of course not, as fossil formation is rare. Only a very small percentage of all life forms ever present on Earth will have been fossilised, apparently. The most complete fossil record we have for a modern animal, as I mentioned above, is that of the horse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
To touch on whether or not accepting the theory of evolution as likely requires one to start from the presumption of the non-existence of God, I'd like to point out that there are plenty of people who believe both in Evolution and in God. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Evolutionary theory is regarded by mainstream science as one of the most well-grounded theories we have, because there is so much evidence to support it. Richard Dawkins even said something to the tune of "Of course we've seen evolution. We just haven't seen it happening." If you can figure out what that actually means, please tell me.
Finally, as I discovered today, it should be very easy to disprove evolution. All it requires is for someone to produce a fossilised rabbit (or any modern animal) from the pre-cambrian layer of fossils, or any layer preceding the modern. Which should be simple, seeing as the Bible tells us all animals were created on the same creative 'day'. In the absence of such an anomaly, I'll continue to regard evolution as more likely than special creation, and remain agnostic on whether or not God exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dave
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 605
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to deal with your house analogy by breaking it down to what I see as the essence of the argument: unordered materials do not self-assemble into an ordered structure. Once again, as I've said this a few times already, this is true in the macrocosmic world. But spontaneous order does arise in microcosmic systems, such as, again, the snowflake.
I keep mentioning the snowflake, 'cause it destroys the basis of your argument. Now, if you wanted to have your house turn into a living organism at the end, then I'd be stumped.
But I'm happier to admit 'I don't know' than to assume that because we haven't yet got a decent theory for how things got started that it necessarily means it must have been started off by some intelligence. But that's just me, lots of people prefer unprovable certainties to admitting not to know the answer to difficult questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phase5
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just popped back to see how it's going. Oh dear ....
| SharazJek wrote: | | Oh please. Can't you guys ever leave the Bible out of this? |
Happy to. Provided you leave it out as well. Absolutely no references to it or to its "author(s)". EVER.
| SharazJek wrote: | | Design is scientific, not religious. |
Unfortunately "Intelligent Design" to give it its full and proper title, implies that ultimately everything was designed and made by an "itelligence". A "creator" aka "God". Which means the whole concept is based in religious belief. And as this "intelligence" cannot be produced, you cannot demostrate the concept, so it's not science.
| SharazJek wrote: | | I'm happy to theologize with you till the cows come home, but that is not why I started the thread. |
So why did you start "Evolutionists Still Grasping At Straws!"
From what I read in the original post the only reason for doing so is to promote the religious concept of "Intelligent Design".
| SharazJek wrote: | | Palm it all off onto my beliefs if you like, |
Actually your original post appears to be pushing your religious beliefs which means they are part of the discussion, which includes the Bible, no need to "palm it off" on anyone.
| SharazJek wrote: | | but can't evolutionists just for once defend themselves without lowering themselves to Bible denigration? |
Could you kindly cut and paste any remark of mine in this thread that has sullied or blackened any religious text and place it below.
I'm yet to encounter any "evolutionist" that has used this approach.
Questioning the history of the bible and it's content is not denigration.
It seems to me that the reverse is what actually happens.
However:
| SharazJek wrote: | | Wow it's amazing how quickly individuals conclude what my thoughts on things must be due to the simple fact that I support creation over the riddiculous lies trumped up by so-called unbiased and open-minded evolutionary scientists. |
Really says it all doesn't it.
"Evolutionists" are "liars"?
Do you actually mean that?
Who's denigrating who?
Any further "discussion" after reading that fair and unbiased statement would be pointless.
I'll keep evolving if you don't mind ........
BTW:
| SharazJek wrote: | | Moses wrote the biblical account after it was passed down for many generations. |
Sadly; like Robin Hood "Moses" did not actually exist. His existance is the conflation of the biographies of several leaders of the bibical era and much seems to be invention and borrowing. So it's unlikely "he" wrote anything down.
And while you wrote:
| SharazJek wrote: | | I suggest I know a great deal more about the Bible than you'd expect, especially as regards mis-translation and editing. But if you have any questions feel free to ask them. Or any criticisms in the Bible, feel free to fire them at me. I'll answer you as best I can. |
I suggest you check it out again, you seem to be a little out of date as per the Moses reference.
And I've never had any "criticisisms" of the Bible.
It's an excellent book.
Perhaps a little too much sex and violence for my tastes.
Final Thought From Me On This:
It'll be a cold dark day when all you need to do to pass science class is write "God did it". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 37
Location: Launceston
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
phase5, your a champion!
i was really getting into this thread too, but then SJ left... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 892
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
evoultion is just as 'religious' as creation, in that there is no ultimate scientific proof, only inconclusive evidence tagged on to make it fit the belief.
It takes just as much faith to believe those inconclusive facts fit evolution, and to me, more blind faith because it doesn't make sense when looking at the complexity of the material universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlie
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1348
Location: Currarong (never heard of it?! Its near Nowra. What?! Nowra's below The Gong!)
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SharazJek wrote: | | It takes just as much faith to believe those inconclusive facts fit |
I just want to contribute a little aside here;
Has anyone ever noticed that the Big Bang theory says that the universe sprung from an infinitecimal point but at the same time science says that the universe is infinitly large and Einstein's theory of relativity says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?
I don't have a degree or anything but it seems to me that science contradicts it self on this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 892
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| phase5 wrote: | | And as this "intelligence" cannot be produced, you cannot demostrate the concept, so it's not science. |
That's not a very logical comment.
Just look at the technologies we use today compared to 200 years ago. Are you saying that because the internet for instance 'could not be produced' in the year 1800 that the concept is only scientific now? Was it magic then? There may be plenty of scientific discoveries still to be made, but simply not being able to do so at this point in time does not make them unscientific, just unknown at this point in time.
On the flipside, there are many facts we do know nowadays that don't change many people's behaviour despite the evidence. For instance, it has been demonstrated that smoking greatly increases the risk of cancer and death, and there are even warnings on the packets. But does this change many people's behaviour? No.
We've known for years that climate change is a massive problem, but governments are still arguing over the 'cost' involved in saving the planet, and procrastinate due to potential loss of maney rather than act.
I would venture to say that even if the creator would appear and let the world know that enough is enough and these are the changes that need to be made to fix the situation, most of the population would be uninterested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phase5
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you are an intelligent human being, and if you want to understand the true nature of God, you owe it to yourself to ask, "Why won't God heal amputees?"
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
Perhaps the "intelligent designer" made a mistake?
Whatever you believe it's a rather interesting read for those with open minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 892
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If God exists and the Bible is the word of the Lord, then everything that Christians believe is true. Jesus is God, God does answer prayers, God did create Adam and humans have both souls and eternal life. |
The above quote was taken from the site in question.
While many Christian religions teach that Jesus is God and the immortality of the soul, the Bible does not. You will not find these teachings anywhere in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phase5
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"God On My Side" - Just wonderful.
"The God Delusion" - Classic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 892
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| phase5 wrote: | | "God On My Side" - Just wonderful. |
This was a great example of how biblically wrong mainstream Christendom is.
Unfortunately, critics choose to look at these so-called representatives of the Bible and conclude that because of the rubbish that comes out of their mouths, the Bible must also be rubbish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
