Prove Evolution...win money

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Call me crazy, but I don't see anything in that line stating that God created the heavens and the earth out of "nothing." 😉

No why don't you explain to me how "chemical life" was created. Let me guess..a young virgin earth..was impregnated by Space Aliens? 😆

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the Space Aliens..

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the creator of the Space Aliens.

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the creator of the creator of the Space Aliens...

😕 😆

We all have our own religions my friends. Some of us however, are at least competent enough to understand that our belief systems rely on those principles grounded in faith, as opposed to being grounded on principles representing the empirical.

Fin

hmmm, which BEGS the question, WHO MADE GOD. if ur mind thinks that EVERYTHING should LOGICALLY be created, then god should also have been created.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Since the people's "natural collections" are imperfect, it hasn't been found.

This is what he says, yes?

Then if the "crust of the earth is a vast museum" then why, 100 years later, with much more effecient, accurate means of search,..... have we not found a GENUINE missing link?

Again, not being a jerk, ...I just want to know. 🙂

as I said before... if the entire human race droped dead tommorrow, in 1000 years you would be very lucky to find any of them... Its pure luck that they find some fossils.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So God, who drifted around in the big nothingness and did things like say " let there be light, and lo there was", actually had matter to work with? It's not really nothing then. So where were his materials? What did he use? Where did he produce his materials from? Where in the bible does it say God got some play dough and created the heavens and the earth? To all intents and purposes it's implied he created everything out of nothing. So it's erroneous to condemn evolution based upon a theory it stopped using long ago when creation essentially uses it as well.

A marvelous piece of inquisitive fiction. But tell me how did you interpret all of that, out of this one simple sentence..

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning, God Created the heavens and the earth.

Me thinks someone is adding a bit of extraneous information to posted scripture above...😖hifty:

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And you never my responded to my query about cats, lions and Neanderthals.

taken from http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeo...eanderthal.html

There was a dispute to whether Neanderthals were direct ancestors or an extinct species of their own. Immediately, they were portrayed as slouched over, violent, brute/ape-like cavemen. And this image was carried on until almost 1960. At this time, scientists realized that the first found Neanderthal had arthritis, and they did in fact walk upright. It is said that if you were to put a "cleaned up" Neanderthal with a group of modern day humans, there would not be much difference at all.

Fagan, Brian M., The Journey From Eden, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London,1990.

Wenke, Robert J., Patterns in Prehistory: humankind’s first three million years, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 1980, 1984, 1990.

Come on boy..jump through the hoop..😉

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And no, I didn't say seeding aliens. Once again - do you know the human body, the live, living human body is a sum of many parts?

Genisis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

Just a little food for thought...interpret it as you so desire.

Let's get a bit metaphysical for a bit. What if this universe that we live in..was created from a part of God?

Wouldn't that then mean that everything that is "created" is essentially a part of him?

Thus "something" did not come from "nothing", but rather...everything that we see created before us..was a part of God at some point.

To be..or not to be..that is the question..right?

When one starts asking questions like who created the Creator..you end up with a never ending paradox. By faith alone..we assume that the one who created, has no creator, and that humanity is too limited in intellect to completely understand the concept of "being"...without something "having been" before us.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
...Let's get a bit metaphysical for a bit. What if this universe that we live in..was created from a part of God?...

What if it was not just a part but all of God?

All of it, everything! All parts of god. Running all through us.

Originally posted by debbiejo
All of it, everything! All parts of god. Running all through us.

A bit more food for thought...

We were at one point "part of God"..however since "sin" entered us..our existence within him became much like a disease. The only way to completely cure this disease..and bring us completely back to him..is through Jesus Christ. Those who do not accept the "cure"..end up being completely removed from God's presence..and we are no longer in anyway part of him.

peace out guys..

I'll be waiting for that "proof" supporting evolutionary theory..😉

Originally posted by whobdamandog
A bit more food for thought...

We were at one point "part of God"..however since "sin" entered us..our existence within him became much like a disease. The only way to completely cure this disease..and bring us completely back to him..is through Jesus Christ. Those who do not accept the "cure"..end up being completely removed from God's presence..and we are no longer in anyway part of him.

peace out guys..

I'll be waiting for that "proof" supporting evolutionary theory..😉

Sin is also part of God.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
A bit more food for thought...

We were at one point "part of God"..however since "sin" entered us..our existence within him became much like a disease. The only way to completely cure this disease..and bring us completely back to him..is through Jesus Christ. Those who do not accept the "cure"..end up being completely removed from God's presence..and we are no longer in anyway part of him.

No no...sin is mans teaching. We are still part of god regardless of what men my say...We are the essence of what god gave and since god gave it it is perfect. Since god is perfect then, we can not be imperfect.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sin is also part of God.

No, in the Christian religion,(I think it's what he's referring to), God is perfect, sinless, and unable to commune with us.

We require, purification of our sins through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by debbiejo
No no...sin is mans teaching. We are still part of god regardless of what men my say...We are the essence of what god gave and since god gave it it is perfect. Since god is perfect then, we can not be imperfect.

(Again, in Christianity), we are created by God in his image, but we are not part of him. He is perfect, and we are not. We resemble him in some ways, (Personal guess: our capacity for love)but we are not equal to him.

We were originally created perfect, but do to our mistakes, selfishness, pride, second-guessing God, sin,etc.... we have seperated ourselves from God, and it is necessary for our sins to be cleansed by Jesus.

Interestingly, the Lord knowingly created us with a sin nature, so that we would have to choose wether or not to accept Jesus death for our sins, or not to, and die and accept our punishment then.

I hear the Almighty has a thing for games, like skeeball.
(see DOGMA) 😆

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, in the Christian religion,(I think it's what he's referring to), God is perfect, sinless, and unable to commune with us...

I never speak for the Christian religion. God is everything, good and evil both.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, in the Christian religion,(I think it's what he's referring to), God is perfect, sinless, and unable to commune with us.

We require, purification of our sins through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

(Again, in Christianity), we are created by God in his image, but we are not part of him. He is perfect, and we are not. We resemble him in some ways, (Personal guess: our capacity for love)but we are not equal to him.

Well put sith. What I stated above was just my own limited interpretation of "God"...flawed in many respects..I tried to rationalize God to a level that I thought would be understandable..without really realizing that it's impossible for me to do..thanks for the clarification though... 😎 👆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well put sith. What I stated above was just my own limited interpretation of "God"...flawed in many respects..I tried to rationalize God to a level that I thought would be understandable..without really realizing that it's impossible for me to do..thanks for the clarification though... 😎 👆

No prob, Bob.

God is hard for me to wrap my head around sometimes, too.

(Almost as hard as the idea that there is no creator.)

The big bang seems more in line with the Genesis account of the start of the world (i.e. God created something out of nothing, by His will), than to suggest the big b. was for nothing. A cosmic ejaculation, .... just 'cuz.

Life formed out of nothing, into energy, then into matter,.... just 'cuz.

(most evolutionists can give good theory's about HOW that would have happened... but not WHY.)

Why did life just all of sudden up and decide to form one day?

Any answer given would seem out of order, chaotic,..."it just did, there is no reason why, all life, with it's perfect design, was, I guess... an accident."

Or, it wasn't an accident and God formed it, with all it's designs and systems of self support, on purpose.

At least my answer is logical, and shows order, and design. (two things that only an idiot would try to argue the life on this planet doesn't have.)

But, I guess we're the "fanatics"... 😛

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hey all, thought this would be fun.

$250,000 Reward

Offered by Dr. Kent Howard to:
Anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.(see h**p://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article1.htm.)

He gives 15 questions for an evolutionist to answer with proof(not theory/guesses) :

1.) WHERE did the universe come from?
2.) WHERE did matter come from?
3.) WHERE did the LAWS of the universe come from (gravity,inertia, etc.)?
4.) HOW did matter get so perfectly organized?
5.) WHERE did the ENERGY come from to do all the organizing?
6.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life come from dead matter?
7.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life learn to reproduce itself?
8.) With WHAT did the FIRST cell capable of reproduction reproduce?
9). WHY would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of its survival? (Does the INDIVIDUAL have a drive to survive, or the SPECIES? How do you explain this?)
10). HOW can MUTATIONS (recombing of the genetic code) create any NEW, IMPROVED varieties? (Recombing English letters, no matter how many times, will never produce Chinese books.)
11). Is it possible that similarities in design prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12.) Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends to keep a species stable. HOW would you explain the Increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?
13.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did:
a) Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three- celled intermediates?)
b) Single-celled animals evolve?
c) Fish change to amphibians?
d) Amphibians change to reptiles?
e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) HOW did the intermediate forms live?
14.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, HOW, and from WHAT did:
a) Whales evolve?
b) Sea horses evolve?
c) Bats evolve?
d) Eyes evolve?
e) Ears evolve?
f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15.) Which evolved first (HOW, and HOW LONG, did it work without the others)?
a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies RESISTANCE to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive ot reproduce, or the ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus linning to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e) The termite or the flagea in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f) The plants, or the insects that live on and POLLINATE the plants?
g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i) The immune system or the need for it?

Man, that is just a retarded bunch of logic spewed forth there. More than half of those questions are not scientific in the least. I wonder what his response is when someone asks him to prove that god exists?

A response from the other side.

Kent Hovind, who often calls himself "Dr. Dino," is a charismatic proponent for young-earth creationism who enjoys enormous popularity with audiences (and web forums participants) from around the United States. He runs Creation Science Evangelism and offers (U.S.) $250,000 to anyone who can prove to his satisfaction that evolution happened. It should be noted that many of his fellow young-earthers consider him to be an embarrasment and that many of his arguments can be found in Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp) published by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis. Nevertheless, many people are directly or indirectly getting their facts on evolution from him and his influence among "rank and file" creationists cannot be doubted.

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html)
Dave E. Matson's classic and detailed refutation of the arguments used by Kent Hovind and many other creationists to "prove" that the Earth is young.

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html)
Shows why no one has collected is not evidence against evolution since the offer is a sham, worded so as to be impossible to meet.

The Hovind Bankruptcy Decision
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html)
An appendix to the previous article that gives the judge's finding that Hovind filed false tax schedules, made a bad faith court filing, and lied about his income in order to evade paying income tax he lawfully owed.

Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html)
Kent Hovind's claimed doctorate is from a diploma mill. This page documents false degrees held by Hovind and several other well-known creationists.

www.talkorigins.org seems to have Hovind in their sites and exposes his character rather brutally. Although they have an agenda of their own, they do so by posting info that can be researched. Any person who gets a doctorate from a diploma mill should probably hush hush when discussing or questioning scientific theories.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B]No prob, Bob.

God is hard for me to wrap my head around sometimes, too.

(Almost as hard as the idea that there is no creator.)

The big bang seems more in line with the Genesis account of the start of the world (i.e. God created something out of nothing, by His will), than to suggest the big b. was for nothing. A cosmic ejaculation, .... just 'cuz.

Life formed out of nothing, into energy, then into matter,.... just 'cuz.

I've always thought of it as the other way around..that God has always existed..as oppossed to the universe really starting out from nothing.
But I guess it all get's down to semantics after a bit...none of us will really know what happened, because we weren't there to witness what happened..and we can never completely understand all that makes up God in this lifetime..😉

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Man, that is just a retarded bunch of logic spewed forth there. More than half of those questions are not scientific in the least. I wonder what his response is when someone asks him to prove that god exists?

A response from the other side.

www.talkorigins.org seems to have Hovind in their sites and exposes his character rather brutally. Although they have an agenda of their own, they do so by posting info that can be researched. Any person who gets a doctorate from a diploma mill should probably hush hush when discussing or questioning scientific theories.

Well I guess that makes me one of the Creationists who they say should stay away from using his ideas.
😮 😮 😮 😮

While it doesn't change my beliefs, I can understand if you folks want to close this thread.(as there are already threads about evolution.)

However, if you guys want to keep the discussion going, that's cool.

Everybody that I have been debating with is entitled to one free pot-shot at my dumb-ass, please take it now. 😛

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well I guess that makes me one of the Creationists who they say should stay away from using his ideas.
😮 😮 😮 😮

While it doesn't change my beliefs, I can understand if you folks want to close this thread.(as there are already threads about evolution.)

However, if you guys want to keep the discussion going, that's cool.

Everybody that I have been debating with is entitled to one free pot-shot at my dumb-ass, please take it now. 😛

raygun 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
A marvelous piece of inquisitive fiction. But tell me how did you interpret all of that, out of this one simple sentence..

Me thinks someone is adding a bit of extraneous information to posted scripture above...😖hifty:

By the fact it doesn't say what he created in from? I guess we can both extrapolate out from it - you clearly read it as saying he had a mass of matter to work with, I read it as him simply bringing it into existence. And after all, virtually every creation myth from the past how the creator was using raw materials - the corpse of a dead chaos God, the primordial fabric of space, a chaotic bit of water - but not here, no - he simply created it. Not in the beginning God took matter and created the heaven and the earth. No, God simply created it.

And since we are using Bible quotes - lets look at these ones.

Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

That sounds strangely like a certain now disproved scientific theory to me.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's get a bit metaphysical for a bit. What if this universe that we live in..was created from a part of God?

Wouldn't that then mean that everything that is "created" is essentially a part of him?

Thus "something" did not come from "nothing", but rather...everything that we see created before us..was a part of God at some point.

To be..or not to be..that is the question..right?

When one starts asking questions like who created the Creator..you end up with a never ending paradox. By faith alone..we assume that the one who created, has no creator, and that humanity is too limited in intellect to completely understand the concept of "being"...without something "having been" before us.

Well, that could be something, though of course the fact the Bible says nothing of the sort is irrelevant - and it does mention when God does something personal - like breathing into the nose of Adam, yes it's sure mentioned. Surely if the Bible is valid (as you keep using the heaven and earth quote) it would have said something like - God cut of his big toe, and lo had the materials to create the heavens and the earth.

That, and if we are forged from Gods body, well, he to is made from matter then. Physical matter. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the Church had a field day a long while ago declaring people heretics if they suggested God might not be so supernatural, that he had something approaching a corporeal form - has that position changed?

And I'm not questioning who created the creator - but in evolutionary terms a creator isn't necessary, other then circumstance, as chemical evolution would be a blind process. Just like evolution. And I see no reason to think otherwise. Seeding aliens aren't required for it to work.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
By the fact it doesn't say what he created in from? I guess we can both extrapolate out from it - you clearly read it as saying he had a mass of matter to work with, I read it as him simply bringing it into existence. And after all, virtually every creation myth from the past how the creator was using raw materials - the corpse of a dead chaos God, the primordial fabric of space, a chaotic bit of water - but not here, no - he simply created it. Not in the beginning God took matter and created the heaven and the earth. No, God simply created it.

I thought about this for a bit..and it seems as if it would be a bit of a paradox, if God created this universe out of "nothing."

He would in a sense..be denying his own existence by stating that from nothing..came "something." So moving forward..I feel pretty confident with stating that God did indeed create this universe, and all that inhabits it..with a part of himself, granted..this universe may no longer be a part of him because of "sin"..however, as I stated before..he is able to bring those who are part of this universe back to him..through Christ.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And since we are using Bible quotes - lets look at these ones.

That sounds strangely like a certain now disproved scientific theory to me.

I don't think so. I believe you're misinterpreting again..and unintentionally leaving a bit of the scripture out..😉

If anything the versus you have given above, only support the notion that life is dependant upon something else to sustain it..

Everything is created in a "logical" order..and everything is in essence "brought forth" off of something else that has already been created.

Let's put the sequence of events in Genesis in chronological order...to get a better picture of this..

First we have...

Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning..God created the Heavens and the Earth

God creating the "Heavens and the Earth"...Earth of course means "earth"..I'm assuming that heavens probably alludes to not only the "spritual" heaven that we know of..but probably also relates to earth's atmosphere..and the universe which earth is a part of..

Then we have..

Genisis 1:3 Let there be light!

God allows the Heavens that he created..to be illuminated..stars are formed from the various parts of the universe already created. (which I'm sure mainly consists of various gases at this time)

Next we have...

Genesis 1:6 Let there be an expanse between the waters to seperate the water from water

I believe expanse refers to God bringing down various parts of the atmosphere that had just been created, and condensing it into the sky..and subliming it into to water..to form earths oceans..

Then we have..

Genesis 1:11 "Then God said Let the land produce vegetation.

If something is produced..that generally means it is the by product of something else..😉

God "brings forth" the grass, plant life and vegetation from the earth. I'm assuming he needs water and light to do this, which as referenced above..has already been brought forth.

note: When we see the word "bring forth"..I believe one can allude to something coming from something else..not coming from "nothing."

Then we have..

Genesis 20: Let the water produce living creatures..

There's that word again.."produce"...so once again..the creatures of the sea..would be the by product of what the sea is made up of...

Next we have:

Genesis 24: Let the land produce living creatures..

Once again..something is being produced..from something else..

At this point..I believe it is quite apparent..that the Bible does not allude to spontaneous generation, but rather..shows everyting being the by- product of something else..

Finally:

Genesis 26: Then God said..Let us make man..

Man is created from the earth..

Good try..But read the entire first chapter of Genisis next time..not just two versus..😉

Oh one more thing..I believe it's now up to you..to explain how "life" came into existence through the process of evolution..

I believe your choices consist of the following:

a) Space Aliens
b) Spontaneous Generation
c) The chemicals that make up the universe have always existed..(thus kind of supporting my theory of God "always existing..and the universe at one time being a part of him..)
d) Parallel Worlds..(I just threw that one in there..)

It's your turn now my friend to explain how out of "nothing".."something" was created...

Oh and don't forget to explain how this "something" managed to lay out the universe..in the perfectly designed fashion in which we see it today..without intelligence guiding it..

The floor is now yours..😉

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't think so. I believe you're misinterpreting again..and unintentionally leaving a bit of the scripture out..😉

If anything the versus you have given above, only support the notion that life is dependant upon something else to sustain it..

Everything is created in a "logical" order..and everything is in essence "brought forth" off of something else that has already been created.

Let's put the sequence of events in Genesis in chronological order...to get a better picture of this..

First we have...

Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning..God created the Heavens and the Earth

God creating the "Heavens and the Earth"...Earth of course means "earth"..I'm assuming that heavens probably alludes to not only the "spritual" heaven that we know of..but probably also relates to earth's atmosphere..and the universe which earth is a part of..

Then we have..

Genisis 1:3 Let there be light!

God allows the Heavens that he created..to be illuminated..stars are formed from the various parts of the universe already created. (which I'm sure mainly consists of various gases at this time)

Next we have...

Genesis 1:6 Let there be an expanse between the waters to seperate the water from water

I believe expanse refers to God bringing down various parts of the atmosphere that had just been created, and condensing it into the sky..and subliming it into to water..to form earths oceans..

Then we have..

Genesis 1:11 "Then God said Let the land produce vegetation.

If something is produced..that generally means it is the by product of something else..😉

God "brings forth" the grass, plant life and vegetation from the earth. I'm assuming he needs water and light to do this, which as referenced above..has already been brought forth.

note: When we see the word "bring forth"..I believe one can allude to something coming from something else..not coming from "nothing."

Then we have..

Genesis 20: Let the water produce living creatures..

There's that word again.."produce"...so once again..the creatures of the sea..would be the by product of what the sea is made up of...

Next we have:

Genesis 24: Let the land produce living creatures..

Once again..something is being produced..from something else..

At this point..I believe it is quite apparent..that the Bible does not allude to spontaneous generation, but rather..shows everyting being the by- product of something else..

Finally:

Genesis 26: Then God said..Let us make man..

Man is created from the earth..

Good try..But read the entire first chapter of Genisis next time..not just two versus..😉

In Genesis 1:1-31, the creation takes six days, but in Genesis 2:4, the creation takes one day.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:11-27, God creates the plants before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:5-25, God creates man first, the plants next, and then woman.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:14-19, God creates the stars before He creates the earth, but in Job 38:4-7, God creates the stars after He creates the earth.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:20-22, God creates birds from the water, but in Genesis 2:19, God creates birds from the ground.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates the animals before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, the animals next, and then woman.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:27, God creates man and woman at the same time, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, then woman.

Which is correct?