I've come to a conclusion...

[DaveC]

I've come to a conclusion. There's absolutely no reasonable grounds for belief in evolution. Most evolutionists say that the universe came from a single atom (the primordial atom), right? So, where did this atom come from? and if 2 atoms (nitrogen and carbon) had to have collided to create life, where did the second atom come from? Did the primordial atom split? because if so, it would just create another primordial atom and even if they did collide (the odds are like 1 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) wouldn't they not do anything since they're the same type of atom? That, and if they split there would be force pushing them apart, so unless the universe is round they would never collide. there's no grounds for belief in evolution. I'm convinced that God created the universe.

Not that I ever doubted this, but i was thinking today and this just kind of cememnted it up for me.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks.

[Travis]

Oops, sorry but I need one "evolution" changed to "creationist evolution" :) Clicked it before I looked at all of 'em.

[Travis]

Also, how about you change that option to "Evolution from God"

[Karen M]

er...Thats the primordial soup theory, not evolution ;) Evolution deals with things that are already alive...

[guitarman]

Capsaicin, do you really wanna argue this? Just look at some of the other creation/evolution threads. It's gonna go on for 10 pages and any staunch creationist or staunch evolutionist will get beat down pretty good.

You may want to specify that this thread is not discussion, just voting :).

Aaron

[Travis]

Why the heck do 15 year olds think they know more about this stuff than scientists?

I am 19 and have had college zoology and I realize that I am totally ignorant of evolution compared to them.

[guitarman]

Yeah, really. I'm 21 and I've studied it a little. Enough to know that I don't have a clue.

Aaron

[Phil]

Originally posted by pleasurespain
Why the heck do 15 year olds think they know more about this stuff than scientists?


Faith like a child. (This doesn't mean you can debate it scientifically... but is reason enough in terms of creation)

[DaveC]

Gee thanks, bash me because of my age again why don't you?...:mad:

I never said i know more than anyone, or even that this is meant to be a discussion...I just wanted to share my thoughts. Geez.

[Blindman]

Originally posted by Capsaicin
I've come to a conclusion. There's absolutely no reasonable grounds for belief in evolution. Most evolutionists say that the universe came from a single atom (the primordial atom), right?

Actually, no... The Big Bang theory says that the universe came from an infinitely dense point which contained all the matter and energy in the universe. Not that I would expect everyone to know that...

[Travis]

Originally posted by Capsaicin
Gee thanks, bash me because of my age again why don't you?...:mad:

Don't even start this "bashing" crap again. I am just pointing out that there is almost no way you could have a fraction of their knowledge at your age.

Originally posted by Capsaicin
I never said i know more than anyone, or even that this is meant to be a discussion...I just wanted to share my thoughts. Geez.

This is a discussion board, not a share your thoughts board.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Capsaicin
I've come to a conclusion. ......... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH........ I'm convinced that God created the universe.

Mind if I rephrase this??? ;)

I've come to a conclusion. The infallible Word of God says that God created the universe. I'm convinced that God created the universe.

And, in response to the whole "know more about this stuff than scientists" thing...... I completely concede that I am ignorant regarding evolution. The only reason I do not believe in evolution is because I believe it to be unBiblical. God most certainly knows more about this stuff than any scientist..... if He says He created the world, I'll take His word for it. ;)

[Travis]

So do I. I just think he created it through evolution. :)

[Nate]

But there's no question that the ORIGIN of the universe was from God..... correct??? :) Whether evolution has taken place since then, I'm not qualified to say..... but I do know that God has, in one way or another, created all that we see. Agreed?

[Travis]

Absolutley :)

[JerryLove]

But there's no question that the ORIGIN of the universe was from God..... correct??? Whether evolution has taken place since then, I'm not qualified to say..... but I do know that God has, in one way or another, created all that we see. Agreed? Of course there is, but that is a different discussion.

[Nate]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Of course there is, but that is a different discussion.

I realize that.... I was asking if there was no question in Travis' mind about the origin of the universe. I realize that there are people, like you, who refuse to believe in God as the Creator.

[JerryLove]

"I've come to a conclusion. There's absolutely no reasonable grounds for belief in evolution."

There is plenty, and plenty of very reasonble people who acccept evolution. The fact that you don't see it, don't believe it, or don't have the capacity to accept that it is not only reasonable, but convincing, is hardly someone else's fault.

"Most evolutionists say that the universe came from a single atom (the primordial atom), right?"

No. I don't believe anyone before you just now has said that. I can only presume you are confucing evolution with the Big Bang theory in Astrophysics, which says the univers is expanding from a single point.

"(the odds are like 1 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)"

Please put up how you pulled those odds. Make sure to support.

"I'm convinced that God created the universe. "

Even if your belief were to be correct, it lacks any reasonable support.

[Nate]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Even if your belief were to be correct, it lacks any reasonable support.

It's "support" is our faith. All reason, logic, and common sense might tell us otherwise.... but we must have faith in our God.

Hebrews 11:1, 3
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen....

....by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.


You only have faith in what you can see. We have faith in what we cannot see. Blind faith, you ask???? Yep!! ;)

[Enobmurt]

Even if your belief were to be correct, it lacks any reasonable support.

The support is all around you in creation. We just view it differently :)

[Travis]

The things around us are not proof of the method of creation. :)

[Enobmurt]

The things around us are not proof of the method of creation.

I was talking Theistic Evolution, Creationism, Evolution. The things around us are proof of a creator because of the complex design that needs a designer.

[DaveC]

Wow, thanks for being mean, guys! I try to share my thoughts and I get smacked for it. Thank you very much morons. You've just turned me off from CGR. I've been taking this kind of crap far too often. Bye y'all! It's been a crappy time!
:(

[Travis]

Laters. While you are gone you might want to figure out what a web forum actually is, you see at a web forum you discuss things.

I think it would be cool if you stayed, just know that we will discuss things and your opinions will probably be called into question. :) All of ours are!

[DaveC]

It's also a place to share thoughts. Maybe you should get a crash course on compassion while i'm supposed to be learning what a forum is. Goodness, I've never seen such idiocy and callousness since I joined.

[Travis]

You share thoughts and we discuss them. I'm sorry I came off as rude, I certainly didn't intend to. Don't scrap the whole board because I offended you, there are lots of great people here.

[MrCrabby]

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the full meaning of this board before you posted.
Please don't leave.

[Jeffro-Wilson]

I have no idea why christians get so upset about evolution. The bible does no rule it out at all. we are the ones that made up kpcofgs. how far must something change to become something else ? I think that evolution supports a creator more than lack of one. where did orignal life come from ? no evolutionist can answer that without eventually coming to a belief in a creator.

[JerryLove]

The things around us are proof of a creator because of the complex design that needs a designer. The major problem I have with that logic (other than it's an impression rather than a supportable fact) is that it doesn't extend well. After all, isn't God more grand and more complex than the universe? (after all, he could hardly be expected to have made something more wonderous than himself). Doesn't the extension of this logic dictate that God too must have a creator? And that creator, being more wonderous still, must have one. Ad infinitum, ad nauesium.

Thank you very much morons. You've just turned me off from CGR. I've been taking this kind of crap far too often. Bye y'all! It's been a crappy time! Well gee, if I had realized you were such a shining example of a nice, polite guy yourself, I might have seen that indeed discussion boards are not about discussions but about allowing you to say what you want without comment from others. Thanks for clearing that up :(

[Jakubiakski]

you don't have to have a vast knowledge of sceince or eveolution to understand that it is totally bogus. There are so many things things that prove the absurdity of evolution.
For example there are many many examples of things that are irroducibly complex. things like vision, intracellular transportation and the process of blood clotting. Mike Behe's has done a lot of work and has several books that exsplain this complex systems and how it is impossible for these things to evolve. A designer is neccisary.
as far as thiestic evolution goes it goes against what the bible says. If you want to beleive that God used evolution, it is up to you but in doing that you pretty much have to throw out the bible. some will argue that only the first 12 chapters of genisis are made up, but you have to remember that Adam, Noah and the deluge are mentioned in the new testiment.

[Jeffro-Wilson]

the thing about the whole complicatedness needing a designer is that given infinite rolls of the dice, you can get any number as long as the number is POSSIBLE even if it takes 4 billion years.


The thing is . .. . if you reduce everything back as far as it goes, youll find an unliving substance. . . . which would have stayed unliving without something to spark it . . . or if you believe big bang, an atom that could not spark .. . there was nothing there to make it spark

[Jeffro-Wilson]

an illustration commonly used is watch parts in a box, the thing is though, given eternity, you COULD get the watch together by shaking the box . . its possible. . . you COULD get the right mutations, and the right elements to form planets. . . i mean it would be rare, but earth isnt the only planet out there . . " mother nature " would have had infinite tries.


but like i said. . . the numbers are just impossible. . . the origin of life demands a creator

[JerryLove]

"For example there are many many examples of things that are irroducibly complex. things like vision, intracellular transportation and the process of blood clotting."

Please be more specifc. I have addressed the eye directly (and presumably your vision referrence). I don't see how circulatory systems or platelets rare irreduceably complex.

"Mike Behe's has done a lot of work and has several books that exsplain this complex systems and how it is impossible for these things to evolve. A designer is neccisary."

I am happy for him, but that is a rather useless comment.

"as far as thiestic evolution goes it goes against what the bible says. If you want to beleive that God used evolution, it is up to you but in doing that you pretty much have to throw out the bible."

And if you want to belive that the sky seperates the "water above" from the "water below" and the sun, moon, and stars exist inbetween, that's fine. But you will have to through out working brain cells.

--------------------

"The thing is . .. . if you reduce everything back as far as it goes, youll find an unliving substance. . . . which would have stayed unliving without something to spark it"

"life" and what is required for aboigenesis is not very well known. There is no reason to believe that this could not occur without intervening some sort of god-being.

"an illustration commonly used is watch parts in a box, the thing is though, given eternity, you COULD get the watch together by shaking the box . . its possible. . . you COULD get the right mutations, and the right elements to form planets. . . i mean it would be rare, but earth isnt the only planet out there . . " mother nature " would have had infinite tries. "

Bad analogy. You do get things in nature that record time, uranium spiral fractures in crystal for example. To take a specific goal *before* the event is worlds apart from discussing the likelyhood of "something" occuring. The odds of life forming will only be know after we have had the chance to survey other locations where life was realistic, and see how many actually contain life.

[Enobmurt]

The major problem I have with that logic (other than it's an impression rather than a supportable fact) is that it doesn't extend well. After all, isn't God more grand and more complex than the universe? (after all, he could hardly be expected to have made something more wonderous than himself). Doesn't the extension of this logic dictate that God too must have a creator? And that creator, being more wonderous still, must have one. Ad infinitum, ad nauesium.

I understand where you are coming from. The Bible tells us God always has been and always will be, He has always existed. Christians just have faith that this is true.

But you will have to through out working brain cells.
No need to attack people. Scientists use to think that flying was impossible. Try not to be so harsh in revealing your opinion.


There is no reason to believe that this could not occur without intervening some sort of god-being.

There is no reason to believe that this could occur without intervening some sort of god-being.


an illustration commonly used is watch parts in a box, the thing is though, given eternity, you COULD get the watch together by shaking the box . . its possible. . . you COULD get the right mutations, and the right elements to form planets. . . i mean it would be rare, but earth isnt the only planet out there . . " mother nature " would have had infinite tries.

The thing with this analogy is that you have someone shaking the box. The box does not shake itself.

When you have a bunch of carparts in a garage and just let them sit there for billions of years, I'm sorry, a car will not build itself.

As for theistic evolution, I use to believe that until I realized that the bible does not allow for it and it contradicts the bible.

I think that evolution supports a creator more than lack of one. where did orignal life come from ?

I think Creationism supports a creator even more :D

[JerryLove]

I understand where you are coming from. The Bible tells us God always has been and always will be, He has always existed. Christians just have faith that this is true. One could make the same argument about the universe. It has one real advantage over the God hypothesis, we *know* the universe exists at all.

No need to attack people. Scientists use to think that flying was impossible. Try not to be so harsh in revealing your opinion. No, conventional weisdom was that man could not fly, anyone near birds or insects can tell you flying is a reality. Besides, I am talking about beliveing the Bible over obvious knowledge. I don't condem a stone-age goat-herder for the conclusions in Genesis, I do condemn a modern, literate, first-world person.

There is no reason to believe that this could occur without intervening some sort of god-being. Occoms razor, I say "it happened", you say "It happened because an anthrapomorfiic God who lives up in heaven above the water created the universe with a word so he could have people worship him". Simplest answer that meets all the facts is usually the right one.

The thing with this analogy is that you have someone shaking the box. The box does not shake itself. The thing with that analogy is that it is horrible.

[Travis]

Originally posted by Enobmurt

I think Creationism supports a creator even more

How does it support one any more if I think he engineered evolution?

[Enobmurt]

How does it support one any more if I think he engineered evolution?

Because it doesn't defy the bible like engineered Evolution. Not to mention how much more magnificent it is.

One could make the same argument about the universe. It has one real advantage over the God hypothesis, we *know* the universe exists at all.

We do? What happened to the pink phase shift unicorns? Maybe it's their dream.

Besides, I am talking about beliveing the Bible over obvious knowledge. I don't condem a stone-age goat-herder for the conclusions in Genesis, I do condemn a modern, literate, first-world person.

I could argue the opposite that there is so much reason for a creator. I am talking about not believing the Bible over obvious knowledge.
This is circular though and just comes down to opinion.

I say "it happened",

Everyone says that, it's how it happened that we disagree on.
Of course "it happened" is true.

[JerryLove]

"We do? What happened to the pink phase shift unicorns? Maybe it's their dream. "

While we could get into a side discussion on what is truely prooveable, I don't think that's useful since we both agree the universe exists.

"I could argue the opposite that there is so much reason for a creator. I am talking about not believing the Bible over obvious knowledge."

The beginning obvious knowledge here is that the sun is not placed in a seperation between two planes of water.

"Everyone says that, it's how it happened that we disagree on."

My point is that everything else, you are basing on no support whatsoever.

[Travis]

Originally posted by Enobmurt
Because it doesn't defy the bible like engineered Evolution. Not to mention how much more magnificent it is.

Metaphor.

HOW is it more magnificent? Would designing the first organism where all of this would evolve not be just as amazing? That is not a rhetorical question either btw, I want to know how your version of creation would be more magnificent.

It stands to reason with me that since this world runs on the laws of science that God created all of it using these laws. This is hard to put into words so I will be thinking of a better way to say it.

[Enobmurt]

The beginning obvious knowledge here is that the sun is not placed in a seperation between two planes of water.
I'm sorry, you've lost me here. :confused: Can you explain please?

My point is that everything else, you are basing on no support whatsoever.

Again, I'm sorry I don't understand your point. If you say I have no support, I could easily say that about you.

HOW is it more magnificent?

Creating all organisms separately in 6 days I imagine is much harder than doing it over billions of years. Considering He also created the laws, not just using laws to create something.

[JerryLove]

Tell me you are doing this deliberately and you are not this inept at following the conversation.

I'm sorry, you've lost me here. Can you explain please? Genesis 1:7-8So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Genesis 1:14 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

Since it is well known and very obvious that the sun does not lie below a plane of water as Genesis says, the Bible is wrong.

Again, I'm sorry I don't understand your point. If you say I have no support, I could easily say that about you. Sigh.

Me "Abiogenesis occured"..."There is no reason to believe that this could not occur without intervening some sort of god-being."

You "There is no reason to believe that this could occur without intervening some sort of god-being."

Me "Occoms razor, I say "it happened", you say "It happened because an anthrapomorfiic God who lives up in heaven above the water created the universe with a word so he could have people worship him". Simplest answer that meets all the facts is usually the right one."

You "Everyone says that, it's how it happened that we disagree on. Of course "it happened" is true."

(note that you have just agreed with me, and validate my entire stance that abiogenesis occurred, I have not said "how" so there is nothing more, my statement is agreed fact)

Me "My point is that everything else, you are basing on no support whatsoever."

(that would be me saying that you have no support for everything after the fact we agree on)

You "Again, I'm sorry I don't understand your point. If you say I have no support, I could easily say that about you. "'

What could you say I have no support on? That at some point life started? We both just agreed on that. Are you flip-flopping and disagreeing with my statement that life started? Do you now believe that there is no support that life started (even though it's of tantimount importance to your point of view?) or are you just regurgitating what I said because you either lack a counter argument or are not putting in the effort to even recall what is being discussed?

Creating all organisms separately in 6 days I imagine is much harder than doing it over billions of years. Considering He also created the laws, not just using laws to create something. Interesting. So you think it would be harder to build several machines than it would be to design a single machine that would build and spawn aa near-infinate variety of other functioning machines. As a programmer, I disagree.

[Enobmurt]

"Tell me you are doing this deliberately and you are not this inept at following the conversation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, you've lost me here. Can you explain please?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis 1:7-8So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Genesis 1:14 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

Since it is well known and very obvious that the sun does not lie below a plane of water as Genesis says, the Bible is wrong.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I'm sorry I don't understand your point. If you say I have no support, I could easily say that about you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh.

Me "Abiogenesis occured"..."There is no reason to believe that this could not occur without intervening some sort of god-being."

You "There is no reason to believe that this could occur without intervening some sort of god-being."

Me "Occoms razor, I say "it happened", you say "It happened because an anthrapomorfiic God who lives up in heaven above the water created the universe with a word so he could have people worship him". Simplest answer that meets all the facts is usually the right one."

You "Everyone says that, it's how it happened that we disagree on. Of course "it happened" is true."

(note that you have just agreed with me, and validate my entire stance that abiogenesis occurred, I have not said "how" so there is nothing more, my statement is agreed fact)

Me "My point is that everything else, you are basing on no support whatsoever."

(that would be me saying that you have no support for everything after the fact we agree on)

You "Again, I'm sorry I don't understand your point. If you say I have no support, I could easily say that about you. "'

What could you say I have no support on? That at some point life started? We both just agreed on that. Are you flip-flopping and disagreeing with my statement that life started? Do you now believe that there is no support that life started (even though it's of tantimount importance to your point of view?) or are you just regurgitating what I said because you either lack a counter argument or are not putting in the effort to even recall what is being discussed?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating all organisms separately in 6 days I imagine is much harder than doing it over billions of years. Considering He also created the laws, not just using laws to create something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. So you think it would be harder to build several machines than it would be to design a single machine that would build and spawn aa near-infinate variety of other functioning machines. As a programmer, I disagree."

blah blah blah blah....I'm sorry, I do have responses for all of this, but the fact is you lost all validity and jurisdiction when that type of attitude was expressed from the very first sentence.