[ksw walker]

04
Ecclesiastes

Gathering mud some water a lizard, ken and barbie
Mixing it all together in a metal bowl putting it in the
Microwave trying to create the world

Big bang the world was created turning barbie and ken
In to cave people who got eaten by t-rex then choked
Falling dead creating a big earthquake


Ecclesiastes is right the world is meaningless without God
Without a God the world would make no sense thinking
The world was created by mistake would be foolish

Gathering the heavens and the stars the worlds creation was started
Adding a sun and the moon there was light adding a cup of water, trees
Bringing animals, took some dust, creating man, God saw it was Good

Big bang or Genesis one an accident, the other made
Don't know what to believe, I for one would rather
Think I was created in the image of God

[vyper]

I for one would rather believe the universe is so vast and full of possibilities that we did pop out of a probability equation.

[Scuddie]

If he's wrong?  He'll go to hell.  Peacefully, quietly, he'll enjoy it.  But if he's right, and he can prove this thing, Jpheu...  You will have confirmed the ideas, of millions of acclaimed scientists.

Hmmm...  I think I'm in a weird mood today .

On a more serious note, I am actually very curious as to why it seems science and religion are almost always closed minded, even if they are proven wrong.  The idea of that something is true because I say it is, or someone else says it is, really gets to me.  As does the idea that something is not valid because it hasnt been proven.  If you're like me, you'd take religion and science with a grain of salt.

Now if you excuse me, I will attempt to make a coherant thought...  Any time now...  Yep, I'll come up with a brilliant argument that will make everyone realize they are right and wrong at the same time...  Yep...

Or not .

EDIT:  And walker, I understand your human right to follow the Christian religion.  However, do you believe that the pattern of life is fixed as it was eons upon eons ago?  Or do you believe the pattern of life changes as time passes?  If you want to take part in this thread, I suggest making reasonable and logical arguments, rather than stating ideas that are extremely biased and based on inherited belief.

[Black Wolf]

I can't believe people are still going on about the flood as a way of sorting fossils - it doesn't make any logical sense. How would the flood sort these echinoids, when they are all of close to the same size? Why are they not sorted based on their physical structure, but on the degree of biological complexity? And why oh why are the vast majority of fossils marine animals? Wouldn't land animals have died in far more copious amounts during some kind of global flood?

And as long as we're on the subject, why don;t we find scablands (Which are known flood produced landscapes) all over the world? Why do we see genetic diversiy in species that could not have developed from a single pair of animals? How did noah gather two of every animal when he could not have accessed the vast majority of the planet in order to get unique animals from these places?

If there was enough water to cover all the landmasses on earth, where did it go and where did it come from?

But we're not debating the flood here... well, we shouldn't be.

[EDIT]Oh, and I strongly reccomend you read this to answer your problems with radiometric dating. You might want to browse some of the other articles on the site while you're there too - very informative.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Scuddie
If he's wrong?  He'll go to hell.  Peacefully, quietly, he'll enjoy it.  But if he's right, and he can prove this thing, Jpheu...  You will have confirmed the ideas, of millions of acclaimed scientists.

[/b]

Yeah, because evolution theory as we see it is wrong it's inevitable that I go to hell, not that some other scientific theory would emerge victorious. I see your point though.

Of course I have linked a ****load of proofs of evolution in this thread alone, so wade back a couple of pages if you want your

On a more serious note, I am actually very curious as to why it seems science and religion are almost always closed minded, even if they are proven wrong.  The idea of that something is true because I say it is, or someone else says it is, really gets to me.  As does the idea that something is not valid because it hasnt been proven.  If you're like me, you'd take religion and science with a grain of salt.
Or not .

You maybe should read up on your scientific method and ethics of science before making such claims.

 Science is close-minded only in that aspect that it only accepts provable stuff. Some crackhead's hallucinations are to be outright ignored unless someone suddenly pops out of the framework and goes: "Hey, I have proven Jack the Crackwhore's idea!" Then scientist go all "wtf" and subject said thingie into inspection, critics and finally to dismission/acceptance.

[jpheu]

Janos,
It hasn't in the evedentary sence.  I thought we fought this round already.  Who's dodging?
Personal truth is relitive!  As for true truth that isn't.

As for the Bible it has never been proven wrong and it won't be.    You post from your preconcieved notions and I from mine.    To say that one can be proven wrong, I have shown,  is incorrect.  You cannot hold evolution to the same tests as gravity or relitivity for it isn't reproducable.  
As far as the Bible written by man I would agree.  But it was inspired by God.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by jpheu
 You cannot hold evolution to the same tests as gravity or relitivity for it isn't reproducable.  
 

It is reproducable. We've seen laboaratory speciation of fruit flies, bacteria and lots of other organisms, and wild speciation of snakes, more insects, more bacteria, fish and even more other organisms.

[jpheu]

You people are smart, web-savy people.  You can find the evidence against evolution just as much as evidence for.  We can argue certain points from now until Christ returns and we will be exactly where we are now.

It is ultimately like I said.  We make a choice to believe what we want in this matter.

[Scuddie]

Originally posted by Janos
Yeah, because evolution theory as we see it is wrong it's inevitable that I go to hell, not that some other scientific theory would emerge victorious. I see your point though.

Of course I have linked a ****load of proofs of evolution in this thread alone, so wade back a couple of pages if you want your

You do realize that it was a butchery of a Ghostbusters quote, right?  For some reason, the "But what if you're wrong?" line made me come up with that.  I still dont know why.

You maybe should read up on your scientific method and ethics of science before making such claims.

 Science is close-minded only in that aspect that it only accepts provable stuff. Some crackhead's hallucinations are to be outright ignored unless someone suddenly pops out of the framework and goes: "Hey, I have proven Jack the Crackwhore's idea!" Then scientist go all "wtf" and subject said thingie into inspection, critics and finally to dismission/acceptance.

Look at Leonardo Da Vinci.  Many people thought he was crazy, and it wasnt until later where many of his ideas came to light.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
It hasn't in the evedentary sence.  I thought we fought this round already.  Who's dodging?
Personal truth is relitive!  As for true truth that isn't.

As for the Bible it has never been proven wrong and it won't be.    You post from your preconcieved notions and I from mine.    To say that one can be proven wrong, I have shown,  is incorrect.  You cannot hold evolution to the same tests as gravity or relitivity for it isn't reproducable.  
As far as the Bible written by man I would agree.  But it was inspired by God.

Personal truth has jack **** to do with this. I can claim that I personally believe that Bulibubu, the great jackrabbit, created the world in seven days. I cannot then go and try to disprove, say, scientists with my Bulibubu account, and when being excessively roasted with objectively credible evidence retreat and shout "yeah but that's like your opinion man".  

I would also be happy to know what this "evidentiary" fact means. I am not an native English speaker, and only thing that I found by rabid googling is that evidentiary fact is a fact. "It has been proven in factual sense." What else do we need?

And as for your "NOT REPRODUCIBLE" (which is, btw, not one of the critic points of larger theories, mind you!), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
You people are smart, web-savy people.  You can find the evidence against evolution just as much as evidence for.  We can argue certain points from now until Christ returns and we will be exactly where we are now.

If you now would just show us that credible evidence you've been talking so much about, ok? One that does have validity behind it?

Thank you.

[jpheu]

Janos,
Your bulibubu is just as defenceable as another theory if it offers an alternate evidence as to how things got here.  I doubt it would be as effectual as evolution or Creation unless, it exactly mirrors one or the other.  

Evidentiary proof is the process of proof that is used in a court system.  It is the proof your link set foreward as evidence of evolution, it however is flawed in that it assumes the truth of the matter first when it should start with asking what is true.

The "not reproduceabe" part is taken from the scientific process which requires a hypothesis be testable and reproducable in order to become any more than a hypothesis.  For example, You cannot prove scientificaly that you were born.  It isn't reproducable.  Evedentiary proof would lead me to believe it is true, since you are where you are and no one gets to be where they are without being born.

[jpheu]

If you need links to start (google is broken I guess)  Here are a few
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.icr.org/
www.answersingenesis.org
www.creationscience.com

My recomendation is to start with http://www.icr.org/ and when your done reading that whole site come back.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by jpheu
...and when your done reading that whole site come back.

Did you read the whole TalkOrigins.com site, per any chance?

And no flame-baiting. Further posts containing content that I consider to be flame-baiting will be edited or deleted.

[Janos]

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
edit: Damn you Styxx, you stole my punchline!

Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
Your bulibubu is just as defenceable as another theory if it offers an alternate evidence as to how things got here.  I doubt it would be as effectual as evolution or Creation unless, it exactly mirrors one or the other.  

[/b]
But it cannot be proved in any reasonably ways and as such should not be used as an equal option for something that is internationally confirmed as true. It's close to Creation, because it's a myth.

Evidentiary proof is the process of proof that is used in a court system.  It is the proof your link set foreward as evidence of evolution, it however is flawed in that it assumes the truth of the matter first when it should start with asking what is true.

The "not reproduceabe" part is taken from the scientific process which requires a hypothesis be testable and reproducable in order to become any more than a hypothesis.  For example, You cannot prove scientificaly that you were born.  It isn't reproducable.  Evedentiary proof would lead me to believe it is true, since you are where you are and no one gets to be where they are without being born. [/B]

I assume you did not read the link I gave to you at all?

And as for your evidentiary part, well, what other kind of set could you really use? You really can't evaluate the truthfulness of something unless you have some kind of an hyopthesis you are trying to prove or disprove. Besides science is self-correcting, that is, if something is found that contradicts the previous theories, then everything is inspected and false theories are discarded or modified.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
If you need links to start (google is broken I guess)  Here are a few
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.icr.org/
www.answersingenesis.org
www.creationscience.com

My recomendation is to start with http://www.icr.org/ and when your done reading that whole site come back.

LOL

Random snips from that HUGELY SCIENTIFIC AND NOT RELIGIOUSLY BIASED site:

Well I started with this WHOA:

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear—and apparently—unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Already debunked in this same thread.

Then I found this gem:

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same." Nature is so full of these cyclic processes, and nature and organisms themselves are completely isolated from everything else, right?

Then this:

Special creation by a divine Creator can account for the actual observed facts of nature much better than a hypothetical process of development in the past which is contrary to basic known scientific law in the present. It is more reasonable that “similarities” be explained in terms of a common Designer, who created similar structures for similar functions, rather than by assumed ancestral relationships. Furthermore, creation accounts for the differences as well as the similarities, which evolution cannot do.

Contrary to known what laws - the infamous misinterprated second law? Metaphysical wizard in the sky is the best explanation for things that have completely normal and concrete explanation as well? And evolution is quite heavy in similarities.

That site makes my head hurt. I guess you're busily wading through talk.origins archives finding something to use against me.

[pyro-manic]

*pops head into HLP*

Good grief. Quite an impressive thread, this....

Righty then:


An0n: good article - very interesting. Thanks. And yes, if there is a god (something nobody can ever know, btw - so arguing for or against is entirely futile and a massive waste of your life), it's going to get an earful when I find it!

jdjtcagle: An emphatic to you. When did you go all fundie?

As for the new people,



Some points, though:


ksw walker: If you're going to post, at least make some useful pint. Mindlessly quoting... whatever it is you're quoting from... isn't much use.

Creationists: One little point. The bible was written by people. People are not god. God is/would be of another order, existing on an entirely different plane of reality. These people weren't visited by god - why would god speak to someone and tell him things? God wouldn't care what humanity thinks of the universe, how it came to be, etc.

I could come back tomorrow and say I have been visited by god in a dream/on top of a hill/on the toilet and am going to write a book about it. I can't prove it. Nobody else was with me. Would you accept my words as the words of god? Somehow I doubt it. If I went and preached my revelations on the streets, I'd probably get a lot of funny looks, and eventually some nice men in uniforms would drag me away...

[jpheu]

Janos,
What you linked isn't any better;  Sites that are just as militant in confirming evolution.

I didn't get how you were trying to debunk the second law of thermodynamics proof.  Please clarify.

Pyro,
We can get into a discussion about the existence of God and why He is a involved God in another thread.

Styxx,
Sorry, consiter it withdrawn.

[Ghostavo]

jpheu, the second law of thermodynamics simply cannot be applied like that site mentions, first it does not applies to any case in general that I am aware of and even if it did, they don't even take into consideration all of the entropy (heat, material losses between generations, etc, etc, etc...) which would in essence refute any possible claim of violating that law. In other words, it is the most used fallacy on the face of the Earth and any mention of it grants the speaker of such violation a pair of

Search around the forums, I believe it has been mentioned like a billion times before.

[ksw walker]

The first part of my first post and my last two posts are not quotes. I write song/poems those were 3 of them and they had to do with God's creation. Isn't this thread on how everything was made? My IMO are in the songs/poems that I write.