Creation or Evolution? (Maybe both)

Consider these two points:

1. Religion will exist and be profitable as long as it can continue to cast doubt on scientific advancement.

2. Science will exist and be profitable based on its ability to question everything and provide fact-based alternatives to religious ideals.

Which team do you think will win? I see it as a competition between the World Is Flat team and the World Is Round Team. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

My argument is that the naturalist FACT-BASED alternatives are
somehow only fact-based by some kind of method of default.

The claim that " We are right because the alternative in our
eyes is not a possibility "---Where are all of your proofs and
supposed facts since there are many gaps in your theory
of naturalistic evolutions claim to be the answer to all existence---
" We fill in those gaps with our idea that the alternative (Creationism)
is not a possibility, therefore we must be right even though many of our
supposed facts are just that, supposed "

Therefore they claim to win by default. " If the alternative is not possible
and should not even be considered we ( THE NATURALIST ) win by
default, not through actual facts. After all naturalism is the only true
science there is "---Where are all the facts to back up that claim
beyond any doubt--- " I already told you, the only real fact that
we need is our claim that the alternative is not a possibility "

My summation is that the playing field is level, and ether idea
has to be accepted by faith.

In this guys article he explains it much better than I ever could.
Read the whole thing.
www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm

I always see people mention Noah and the ark with two of every animal. How did two of every animal get on the boat and how did those animals repopulate? Did your god make incest OK for a short period of time, at least till they could build their numbers? Did the ark have a magic compartment that could fit millions of different species of animals, bugs, and fish? How did noah collect the millions of animals, or did they go to him?

My argument is that the naturalist FACT-BASED alternatives are
somehow only fact-based by some kind of method of default.

The claim that " We are right because the alternative in our
eyes is not a possibility "---Where are all of your proofs and
supposed facts since there are many gaps in your theory
of naturalistic evolutions claim to be the answer to all existence---
" We fill in those gaps with our idea that the alternative (Creationism)
is not a possibility, therefore we must be right even though many of our
supposed facts are just that, supposed "

Therefore they claim to win by default. " If the alternative is not possible
and should not even be considered we ( THE NATURALIST ) win by
default, not through actual facts. After all naturalism is the only true
science there is "---Where are all the facts to back up that claim
beyond any doubt--- " I already told you, the only real fact that
we need is our claim that the alternative is not a possibility "

My summation is that the playing field is level, and ether idea
has to be accepted by faith.

In this guys article he explains it much better than I ever could.
Read the whole thing.
www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm Originally Posted by bojulay

I always see people mention Noah and the ark with two of every animal. How did two of every animal get on the boat and how did those animals repopulate? Did your god make incest OK for a short period of time, at least till they could build their numbers? Did the ark have a magic compartment that could fit millions of different species of animals, bugs, and fish? How did noah collect the millions of animals, or did they go to him? Originally Posted by sroach23

You must think that I am some kind of Literalist Fundamentalist
that believes in a Universal Flood Theory, and some Young
Earth Theory, I am not.

A localized flood is plausible and has no problem fitting into
the biblical story.

This mans article (If you bother to read it) dose a very good job
of proving that.
www.orange-street-church.org/text/noah-flood.htm

The only quarrel I have with his article is that it might lead
someone to believe that anyone that believes in creationism
also holds a literal fundamentalist view of all things biblical
as well, this is not true.

Do I believe there was a man named Noah that God told to build
an Ark and take his family and some animals aboard it because
there was going to be a flood--YES

Do I believe that it was a world wide event that destroyed
all of creation--NO

There are some silly arguments that get made from both sides.

My argument mainly is that whichever you choose to accept
as the answer for existence, a creator, naturalist evolution
with no creator involved, aliens transplanting life onto
this planet. It takes faith to believe in any one of them.

Don't go and tell me that naturalist evolution is some
proven fact that cannot be questioned, and holds all
authority over all other ideas on the origins of life and
existence-- It quite simply dose not.

You must think that I am some kind of Literalist Fundamentalist
that believes in a Universal Flood Theory, and some Young
Earth Theory, I am not.

A localized flood is plausible and has no problem fitting into
the biblical story.

This mans article (If you bother to read it) dose a very good job
of proving that.
www.orange-street-church.org/text/noah-flood.htm

The only quarrel I have with his article is that it might lead
someone to believe that anyone that believes in creationism
also holds a literal fundamentalist view of all things biblical
as well, this is not true.

Do I believe there was a man named Noah that God told to build
an Ark and take his family and some animals aboard it because
there was going to be a flood--YES

Do I believe that it was a world wide event that destroyed
all of creation--NO

There are some silly arguments that get made from both sides.

My argument mainly is that whichever you choose to accept
as the answer for existence, a creator, naturalist evolution
with no creator involved, aliens transplanting life onto
this planet. It takes faith to believe in any one of them.

Don't go and tell me that naturalist evolution is some
proven fact that cannot be questioned, and holds all
authority over all other ideas on the origins of life and
existence-- It quite simply dose not. Originally Posted by bojulay

How many times must you be told evolution has nothing to do with origins? Are you stupid or do you lack comprehension skills? And evolution has tons of facts all over the planet while laughable creation has zero. So, I can see that liberal arts degree leaves you lacking in reading comprehension and basic science knowledge, among other things no doubt.

How many times must you be told evolution has nothing to do with origins? Are you stupid or do you lack comprehension skills? And evolution has tons of facts all over the planet while laughable creation has zero. So, I can see that liberal arts degree leaves you lacking in reading comprehension and basic science knowledge, among other things no doubt. Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

Too dumb to respond to. Is this guy fucking kidding,
I mean no for real are you.

It has everything to do with origins. I don't even know how to
respond to this, it's like saying the democrats and republicans
have nothing to do with politics.

Someone tell me, I don't know.

Even their bible " Darwins on the ORIGIN of Species "
has it in it's title.

Sounds like you have a bigger argument with evolutionist
than I do, go take it up with them.

Wow, the intelligent debate is great. I completely disagree with wellendowed1911 and the material he has presented, but it was intelligently presented and I read every bit of it.

The key for advancement of the human race and the union of science and those with faith is a questioning open mind. Any religion that purports to have all the answers because they are written in a book that was written a couple of thousand years ago and re-written through the ages to suit the whims of Kings, Popes, and other corrupt individuals is bogus. Similarly, there are too many scientists who have locked on to specific theories and as a result are probably failing to question assumptions that may or may not be valid. In both cases, dogma is the problem and open minds are the solution.

I think faith is a personal thing, like conscience, and is the result of the parsing of all the available inputs that a person has access to. Your beliefs should be open to change whenever you learn something new. I think religion is the corruption of faith. Religion doesn't encourage questioning, it tells you what to believe and the ages-old Sunday sermons are designed to drill it into your brains and collect money. A lazy mind will choose that option over the more difficult challenge of trying to maintain an educated personal opinion and religions have been exploiting that fact forever. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Lust I agree that religion has been exploited and has been responsible for numerous of senseless death. I am very open minded and I am not stuck to one particular faith or denomination, but I will always believe in the existence of God.
However, the one mistake people make with the Bible is that translate it in their own words and that's a mistake- the Bible was written in times where people had to explain things based on what they were familiar with- for example do I believe angels have wings or demons have horns? No, I don't.
You are right to say that the religion is the corruption of face- but honestly I have been amazed at what's in the bible that no way could this book be a fable- as old as the bible is there are things going on as we communicate that the Bible foretold thousands of years ago.

Too dumb to respond to. Is this guy fucking kidding,
I mean no for real are you.

It has everything to do with origins. I don't even know how to
respond to this, it's like saying the democrats and republicans
have nothing to do with politics.

Someone tell me, I don't know.

Even their bible " Darwins on the ORIGIN of Species "
has it in it's title.

Sounds like you have a bigger argument with evolutionist
than I do, go take it up with them. Originally Posted by bojulay

The ignorant one is you child, evolution only pertains to life once it was already here. The field of abiogensis is the field that is concerned with origins. Read here, MAYBE it is simple enough for someone with your limited capacity to understand. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

After learning how stupid you are, come back apologize for being so frickin stupid. I mean really kid, how many times must be told the same thing before you get a frickin clue?

Ex-NYer and Look-at-stupid- tell me this one thing- archaeologist to my knowledge have never found a crane or any remains of a heavy construction vehicle in the ruins of Egypt. So please tell me how did the Pyramids get constructed? Do you honestly think they were constructed with using thousands of slave labor?
Remember, the stones of the great pyramids of Egypt weigh several tons and the Great Pyramid is mathematically perfect and they are even aligned perfect with a constellation?

So please tell me how these were built without cranes? can you imagine in 2012, man building the WTC with no crane are heavy lifting equipment?

So that concludes one of 2 things had to have happened:

1) Either the Egyptians had technology back in those days that we no longer have or got lost over time- -if you believe in that concept than that defies current thinking in science since they dare not believe that mankind 1000 years ago were as advacnec as man today.

2) The Egyptians had help(i.e- the Pyramids were created via supernatural force or supernatural beings)- this would defy mainstream science since they don't believe in the supernatural.

So how were the Pyramids constructed or Stonehedge for that matter???? Stonehedge is believed to be erected between 2000-3000 B.C. Can you please tell me how mankind in those days were able to hoist these stones which weigh several 100 tons????

Ex-NYer and Look-at-stupid- tell me this one thing- archaeologist to my knowledge have never found a crane or any remains of a heavy construction vehicle in the ruins of Egypt. So please tell me how did the Pyramids get constructed? Do you honestly think they were constructed with using thousands of slave labor?
Remember, the stones of the great pyramids of Egypt weigh several tons and the Great Pyramid is mathematically perfect and they are even aligned perfect with a constellation?

So please tell me how these were built without cranes? can you imagine in 2012, man building the WTC with no crane are heavy lifting equipment?

So that concludes one of 2 things had to have happened:

1) Either the Egyptians had technology back in those days that we no longer have or got lost over time- -if you believe in that concept than that defies current thinking in science since they dare not believe that mankind 1000 years ago were as advacnec as man today.

2) The Egyptians had help(i.e- the Pyramids were created via supernatural force or supernatural beings)- this would defy mainstream science since they don't believe in the supernatural.

So how were the Pyramids constructed or Stonehedge for that matter???? Stonehedge is believed to be erected between 2000-3000 B.C. Can you please tell me how mankind in those days were able to hoist these stones which weigh several 100 tons????



Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

It is very possible they had technology that was lost over time. When religion ruled the world lots of knowledge was lost. And what proof do you have anything supernatural exists?

It is very possible they had technology that was lost over time. When religion ruled the world lots of knowledge was lost. And what proof do you have anything supernatural exists? Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

I just gave you the proof- it's all across the world: Nazca Lines in Peru, Puma Punku in Boliva, the Great Pyramids of Egypt-just to name a few- How did ancient men who were one step out of the cave man era build these monuments????
I have NEVER heard any scientist state that 3000 years ago they had superior technology- quote me one scientist who agrees with your position. There's no way out of this- either science is wrong and they have to admit that there was a period where man's brain or knowledge was far superior than ours or you have to believe that these different groups of people had some type of help either supernatural or spiritual help to construct these monuments. Again, there has NEVER been any type of Crane or heavy machinery found anywhere in any ruins - so I ask you again- how were these monuments built?

[B]Pumu Punku one of the most incredible unexplaind ancient ruins in the world
Supposedly the wheel hadnt even been invented at the point Puma Punku was built So what they want us to believe is stone age people built this great structure? How did they carry these stones? How did they transport them- plus where PumaPunku is located there are no stones near them- so they had to have been carried. Also, the stones are perfectly cut- between each stone is less than 1mm- how do you do that by hand? Wake up fellas!!!

I just gave you the proof- it's all across the world: Nazca Lines in Peru, Puma Punku in Boliva, the Great Pyramids of Egypt-just to name a few- How did ancient men who were one step out of the cave man era build these monuments????
I have NEVER heard any scientist state that 3000 years ago they had superior technology- quote me one scientist who agrees with your position. There's no way out of this- either science is wrong and they have to admit that there was a period where man's brain or knowledge was far superior than ours or you have to believe that these different groups of people had some type of help either supernatural or spiritual help to construct these monuments. Again, there has NEVER been any type of Crane or heavy machinery found anywhere in any ruins - so I ask you again- how were these monuments built? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

It seems you have a poor concept of the word "proof". All you did was make a claim for which you have zero evidence. And then point out where I said "superior" technology. Simple tools such as levers and such existed back then. And on a large scale could have been enough to do the job.

I suggest you learn what a strawman argument is, so you can stop using them. For the 2nd time I ask you, here is proof of anything supernatural?

EVOLUTION AS DOGMA
www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm

THE DOGMA OF EVOLUTION
www.icr.org/article/dogma-evolution/

Did I say DOGMA, what I really meant to say was DOGMA. Originally Posted by bojulay

You posted two articles - one from a creationist religious website - as some kind of proof that science has dogmas, not just religion?

Are you serious?

The nitwit who wrote "The Dogma Of Evolution" used Dogma as a pun to case aspersions on the evolution of dogs. It had nothing to do with the meaning of "dogma" Did you even read that article? Also, the nitwit actually talks about the Flood from the Bible as if it actually happened.

And the other long-winded and convoluted article make what point exactly? If it is offering some kind of proof that there are dogmas in science, I don't see it.

Ex-NYer and Look-at-stupid- tell me this one thing- archaeologist to my knowledge have never found a crane or any remains of a heavy construction vehicle in the ruins of Egypt. So please tell me how did the Pyramids get constructed? Do you honestly think they were constructed with using thousands of slave labor?
Remember, the stones of the great pyramids of Egypt weigh several tons and the Great Pyramid is mathematically perfect and they are even aligned perfect with a constellation?

So please tell me how these were built without cranes? can you imagine in 2012, man building the WTC with no crane are heavy lifting equipment?

So that concludes one of 2 things had to have happened:

1) Either the Egyptians had technology back in those days that we no longer have or got lost over time- -if you believe in that concept than that defies current thinking in science since they dare not believe that mankind 1000 years ago were as advacnec as man today.

2) The Egyptians had help(i.e- the Pyramids were created via supernatural force or supernatural beings)- this would defy mainstream science since they don't believe in the supernatural.

So how were the Pyramids constructed or Stonehedge for that matter???? Stonehedge is believed to be erected between 2000-3000 B.C. Can you please tell me how mankind in those days were able to hoist these stones which weigh several 100 tons????



Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Also, in addition to your strawman logical fallacy, you're also guilty in part of another logical fallacy called Pascal's Wager. Who are you to say there are only 2 possibilities? Just as possible as invisible sky man is any number of conjectures that make just as much sense.

It seems you have a poor concept of the word "proof". All you did was make a claim for which you have zero evidence. And then point out where I said "superior" technology. Simple tools such as levers and such existed back then. And on a large scale could have been enough to do the job.

I suggest you learn what a strawman argument is, so you can stop using them. For the 2nd time I ask you, here is proof of anything supernatural? Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

You can't possibly be serious- can you please google Pumapunku and get a close up visual of that structure? Are you saying the Great pyramids, stonehedge, and Pumapunu all you needed was a lever on a large scale to build that monument?? Even the most skeptical Archaeologist would laugh in your face at that comment.

I promise you that you get by the most advanced machinery at Lowe's and you couldn't even build a tree house without making major flaws.
If a lever is all you needed, how do you carry and lift 100 ton stones???? How do you carve them?


Are you telling me a hundred men gathered around the stone and said:" on the count of 3 let's all lift???" You surely can't be that naive or gullible? Look at the pictures of Puma Punku- there are no other stones in that vicinity- that had to have been carried from one location to another- the wheel was not invented yet- so who carried these 100 ton stones???
Just admit you don't have an answer instead of digging yourself a hole- again either they had technology far superior than what we have in 2012 or they had divine help- there's no way out of this mystery.

You can't possibly be serious- can you please google Pumapunku and get a close up visual of that structure? Are you saying the Great pyramids, stonehedge, and Pumapunu all you needed was a lever on a large scale to build that monument?? Even the most skeptical Archaeologist would laugh in your face at that comment.

I promise you that you get by the most advanced machinery at Lowe's and you couldn't even build a tree house without making major flaws.
If a lever is all you needed, how do you carry and lift 100 ton stones???? How do you carve them?


Are you telling me a hundred men gathered around the stone and said:" on the count of 3 let's all lift???" You surely can't be that naive or gullible? Look at the pictures of Puma Punku- there are no other stones in that vicinity- that had to have been carried from one location to another- the wheel was not invented yet- so who carried these 100 ton stones???
Just admit you don't have an answer instead of digging yourself a hole- again either they had technology far superior than what we have in 2012 or they had divine help- there's no way out of this mystery.
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Why not just answer my damn questions? I more than answered yours. People who duck questions and answer questions with a question know deep down they have no clue