Religious Debate Thread

[artemis-lady-warrior]

yes you should blazemane. I want to hera yout take on this.

Yes! It seems I'm not the only one who reads Answers Magazine! WEEEEE! that makes me really happy.

[SkyxDB]

Dang you sure miss a lot when you're only gone your couple of days. Okay this may be longest post I've ever written, but I've got quite a few things to comment on.

About what 7Knight-Wolf said about Americans, I think we covered something like that in a Sociology class I took. We had to read this book called the Wilding of America and according to the author Americans are taught by their society to achieve ambitions no matter what. It may be true that are Americans out there that are willing to achieve their ambitions no matter who gets. But I'm sure that both 7Knight-Wolf and can agree that not all like that. I'll admit that I do have my selfish moments, but at the same time to me it doesn't sound right to have to hurt someone else to get ahead.

As for Canadians, I've mostly seen them portrayed as people who say "Eh" a lot and like hockey and maple syrup. I have been to Canada once on vacation. Yeah I know that someone who has lived there all their life would know more about than I do. But from what I've seen of it, the stereotypes don't seem to be all that true.

As for carbon dating, I was just pointing something out. Didn't mean to cause a stir by it.

Also I thought Agnostics were people who weren't sure if there is a god. I don't know maybe I'm somewhere in between Agnostic and Atheists.

But even if I do go 100% Atheists, I'm not gonna force my beliefs down people's throats. I believe that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

Oh while I was in Chicago, I decided to try reading the copy of the Bible in my hotel room. Of course sometime I do wonder why hotel always have to put a copy of the Bible in the rooms, but oh well. Honestly it didn't really hold my interest, so I didn't read the whole thing, besides I didn't have time to anyway. Now that I think about it, I think it's kind of funny that I thought "What the hell?!" while reading the Bible. XD Oh and no offense to anyone who loves the Bible. Besides, I think that was my logical side talking. In real life I prefer to think about logically about things and a lot of thing in just the first few chapters just seemed to defy logic.

Logical me response to the Bible: Information does not compute. System crashing. @~@

Anyway that's just my opinion and I'm sorry if anyone is offended and I assure that I didn't mean to offend anyone.

But despite that I don't really care if something has Biblical references in it. Like even though Narnia is suppose to be an allegory of the Bible, I still kind of like it. Also the only other things I like that contain Biblical references that I can think of at the moment are Trinity Blood and Xenosaga.

But when you think about there probably are Biblical references in a lot of things. Some probably more subtle than others. Heck, I betcha the bible has been referenced more in fiction than Star Wars.

But as Beast Wars goes the only Biblical reference I ever caught in that was the "Let there be light" line.

[artemis-lady-warrior]

Just felt I needed to let you know why Hotels have Bibles. It's in case somebody gets bored and wants something to read. So there you have it. It's just something to read. Not many people pay any attention to it anyway.

[SkyxDB]

Artemis wrote:

Not many people pay any attention to it anyway

Yeah that was why wondered why they put them in there, epsecially since not that many people will pay attention to them.

[artemis-lady-warrior]

Like I said. it's just something to read if you get bored.

[7Knight-Wolf]

...and the by the way... evolution IS a religion.

Razor, I think the assumption here by 7KnightWolf here is not that evolution is a full headed religion, where purpose in life is found, or where we can meet somebody who loves us more than we will ever know, or where we can pray and be heard, but merely, that Christianity and evolution are both beliefs. They both take faith.

In that light, evolution is a religion, not as a text-book defined religion, but as a belief which takes as much faith (and in my opinion, far more) to believe in as does Christianity.

7Knight may correct me if I have misinterpreted him.

No, you got me right.

And good to see you! I take it you're a creationist too?

[artemis-lady-warrior]

O.O who moved the topic?

[Razor One]

The topic was split from the original thread. I only just got round to it now as I've been extremely busy.

I'll address points when I've had a chance to get through my exams.

You can still find the original thread in the Beast Wars Talk forum. Religious debate occurs here, Biblical references and discussion thereof occurs there.

Stay on topic =)

[Blazemane]

I certainly don’t expect this to be an undeniable proof for God. If there was such proof, more people would believe in Him. But the truth is, whether we believe in Him or not, we are still taking a leap of faith. What we must base our beliefs on, no matter what those beliefs are, is evidence. Just as no one can “prove” God, no one can disprove God. And therefore, it is best to look at the evidence for both sides and choose which one is truly more logical.

Now the way I see it, there are 3 types of evidence for God: theological, scientific, and personal experience. The last type is of course, as may be deduced by the title… personal. Therefore, it is more evidence for me than anyone else, but I find it fair to mention, and see what anyone have against it.

Theological

If there is no God, how does one suppose we got here? Well, I got here from my parents, and they got here from their parents, and their parents, and so on and so forth. Eventually, if one believes in evolution, they can follow the line to monkeys. And then eventually they follow the line down to amoebas and ammonia. Then where did those materials come from? Well where did anybody in the universe get here?

Well, people have tried to explain it with the big bang. If I understand it correctly, the big bang is defined as a the universe compressed into one dot the size of a period, which eventually exploded into a massive expansion, and now we have the universe, right?

Now, supposedly, this dot came from a previous universe which compressed. And according to that logic, our universe will compress again at some point, and the whole cycle will start over, right?

So where did that material to put in that dot come from? Well, a previous universe. And where did that previous universe come from? Well, another previous dot, which also use to be a previous universe.

But... there's still no true origin. Where did all this compressing and expanding material come from? There's no logical starting point. It is obvious that we exist, so we had to come from somewhere, but where did we and all this material come from?

We exist right? And the world exists doesn’t it? But there is no way we could have without a God, because eventually, matter needs a starting point.

"Nothing" is never going to create anything.

Everything has to have come from somewhere, but unfortunately, nothingness does not provide this basis.

Now, the same question can be asked of Christianity. Where did we come from, and where did the universe come from? Well, God created us and the universe.

Well… great God created us and the universe. But isn’t that along the same lines of the big bang? The big gang created us and the universe, but there still is no explanation given. So then, the same question can be asked of God- where did He come from? In fact Razor, you did ask that. Doesn't He need a starting point too?

In a world where God rules, there is one explanation- He said so. Now wait for one second. I did say “He said so.”, and I’ve run into many people who hate that explanation, so allow me to try explaining it further. Just because we can’t see God, doesn’t mean he is excluded from existence. Just like in a scientific world, you would think there has to be a beginning. But in a world where God exists, laws just plain are not always laws. If indeed God is real, then He created laws, and boundaries of science. But He can just as easily throw them away, because that’s within the realm of His power. The Bible says that God is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning, and the End. So how can God just… exist timelessly? Well, the Bible says God is beyond all human comprehension, and it figures with His omniscience, and omnipotence. Therefore, when he says He is the beginning, just because we can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not true. God, unlike laws, is allowed to transcend explainable boundaries. There was never nothingness, there was always God. And God didn’t start just one moment. He always was.

So to put everything into one big picture, we have 4 options to consider:

Premise A.) God is the reason for our existence:

Option 1.) He has a beginning point.
Option 2.) He exists timelessly.

Or

Premise B.) The universe is the reason for our existence:
Option 3.) It has a beginning point.
Option 4.) It exists timelessly.

Now, it is a scientific law that matter can not be created or destroyed. I believe the same applies for God. He can not be created or destroyed. Let’s see what that does to our arguments:

Premise A.) God is the reason for our existence:

Option 1.) He has a beginning point. Invalidated- He can’t be created or destroyed.
Option 2.) He exists timelessly. Not invalidated, but certainly not validated yet.

Or

Premise B.) The universe is the reason for our existence:

Option 3.) It had a beginning point. Invalidated- Matter can’t be created or destroyed.
Option 4.) It exists timelessly. Not invalidated, but certainly not validated yet.

Now look where we are:

Option 1.) God exists timelessly

Or

Option 2.) The universe exists timelessly.

Your reasoning:

God exists timelessly- This only adds a level of confusion to our existence. Therefore, it is not believable. Besides, have you ever seen God? Can you test Him?

The universe exists timelessly- I don’t know your thoughts on this. You were saying it’s because matter can not be created or destroyed, but all that does is eradicate our previous options, #1, and #3.

My reasoning:

God exists timelessly- He is all-powerful. He has the power therefore to exist timelessly. I don’t get why you call that an unfair condition. The Bible has numerous validations (remember, this is my reasoning), and the Bible speaks of a timeless God. I have even more reasons to believe in God, but I understand you have no desire to hear them.

So let’s look at option 2- The universe exists timelessly. In my understanding, the universe has no potential to do this. No universal property gives it the ability to destroy the barriers of time. Not even string theories, or the idea you presented that there will always be some law of science higher up in our potential understanding which we just don’t know yet, can break the barriers of time. For, in order for the basis of the string theories to exist, existence has to exist. What I mean is, that string theories need… time, and… mathematical laws. But these laws have to co-exist with the string theory. It just doesn’t work. Existence doesn’t just exist without a catalyst.

In a world where science rules, even nothingness would need a beginning point. Even timelessness would need a reason.

In a world where God rules, there is no specified beginning point, nor is there one needed, because God is unexplainable, and He does transcend scientific laws, both using and suspending them. Either the universe or God have to have the power to exist timelessly in order for existence to be real. Which of those two actually can exist timelessly? Which is actually powerful enough? One of those has to transcend our understanding. Which One does?

God actually can logically exist timelessly- He has to be the answer. He is logical, ironically, because of the incomprehensibility of his power. He actually has the power to go beyond our understanding of existence. The Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End.


The question after that for me is... which God is real? There are so many religions out there, so how does one decide which one is real?

I choose Christianity, because I have cried out to God, and He has heard me, and delivered me from the worst of situations.

But then, people of other religions pray, don’t they? And they sometimes get what they pray for, don’t they? I suppose individual analysis is needed. That doesn’t mean every religion requires scanning, but at least one needs winning support.

In the case of Christianity, the most loving and merciful God is presented. And the rules make a lot more sense too. In a logical sense, all of us truly have sinned, no matter what our religion. No other religion assures salvation. They all say that you do good, and see if you get into heaven. But… since all of us obviously have our faults (which is also, completely logically true- don’t we always say nobody’s perfect? So why are people afraid to accept that when they get into a theological discussion? Haven’t we all wrongfully offended someone in our lives?), doesn’t that mean we have all offended whichever God is real in an irrevocable way? If we sin against someone so high above us, we have committed an ultimate defiance. And our good acts could never make up for that, not only because we sin more than we do good, but nobody that powerful could be impressed by our good deeds in and of themselves, because God is perfect. Righteousness in itself is not impressive to God, because since He is completely righteous, we’ll never come close to Him anyways. Sin however is an ultimate defiance, because God is perfect, and because He is so high above us. Think about it- what if I was to disobey my parent? Defiance right? Relatively unlikable consequences. What if I were to disobey President Bush (Well, I am an American), or national law in general? It's an even larger defiance right? I am in much less of a position to threaten him than a parent, and there would be *severe* consequences right? So take that up even more. How about if I sin against God, Who is all-powerful? Considering His eternal position above us, there is actually no limit to the consequences.

In that way, God’s promise is the only one which could make sense. The other religions say… ah, maybe you can make it. Depends on how good you were. Unfortunately, none of us are good. But the God of Christianity doesn’t claim we can get in by our good works. He offers one opportunity in His son Christ Jesus. It’s quite a good deal. God offers us eternal life- we must merely accept it and follow Him. And the fact that God loved us enough to send His own Son to die one of the most gruesome deaths conceivable in order to rise again and show He had power over death, and to reconcile such sinful creatures as us to Him, and the fact that Jesus loved us enough to die that death, and do all that- all those reasons attract me to Jesus quite much. Who wouldn’t want to leap into such amazing love?

(I should brush up one technicality though. There is another religion that guarantees salvation in one way. That's Islam. But in order to get that guarantee, the koran says you need to die in a "holy war.", trying to kill those who aren't Muslim. Now, I'm not trying to say every Muslim believes that, in fact very few do. But, since faith in the Islamic religion requires faith in the koran, then the words of that book should be the thing one judges to decide whether to accept it or not. Those who aren't killing (and don't get me wrong, I'm glad they don't) are merely ignoring the koran on that subject. Anyways, I'm not trying to side attack Muslims. I’m only talking about this because I was saying no other religion guarantees salvation, but technically Islam does. But... it's not a very good guarantee.)

Scientific

The Bible in Genesis 10: 25 says “Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, [a] because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.”

Earth divided huh? After all, isn’t one of the main concepts of evolution’s version of the history of the world Pangaea, the concept of a large body of land originally present on the earth which eventually split and became our continents? The evidence for it is compelling- similar fossils records along the coastlines of nations now separated by oceans. The simplest one is this- if you look at a map, look for a moment at South America, and then across to Africa. Doesn’t it seem entirely feasible that they would fit together? If you haven’t done this already, I really encourage you to do so. The same can be said of other nations. They look like they could be put together like a jigsaw puzzle in order to create one large mass of land.

That verse and this concept go very well together in terms of giving the Bible evidence. Genesis must have been written before A.D., because Jesus often referenced the Old Testament. If you want to try to say the Bible was a hoax, so people looked at world maps, saw the continents and then came up with this concept, there is a big problem: Nobody had circumnavigated the globe.

Well, maybe people were able to combine knowledge of territory in order to create a world map? That isn’t feasible, because even in the Middle Ages, people thought the Eastern hemisphere was the only land-based part of the world. The America’s were an entirely unknown concept. Before the Middle Ages, in the time of Jesus, the Roman empire was practically considered the known world. World maps, and even maps of the entire Eastern Hemisphere could not have been present when Jesus walked this earth.

So how would fake writers of the Bible be able to throw in that the world split at one point? Like I said it isn’t definitive proof- but it’s pretty good. Especially against evolution. Evolution took ‘till the 1800’s to even become anything as a developed theory. The Bible already accounted for the splitting of the world. The Bible has been around far longer than the theory of evolution, without nearly the advantage of world geography that evolution has had to develop. So if the Bible can already speak of a large land mass which split during the time of humanity, and then that claim becomes reaffirmed later, then the Bible immediately gains a ton of believability over evolution as to when that land split (since the Bible turned out to be right about the land splitting, without the benefit of world geography, then the methods by which that knowledge was acquired suddenly become very credible. Since the only ways they knew about it were God’s instruction and experiencing it, they *had* to have experienced it just as they claim since they were right, and that was the only way they could have been right.). Because of this, the Bible’s claim of the existence of earth for 6,000 years makes a lot more sense than evolution’s claim of however many millions of years ago, since there is such a strong argument for humanity being around when it happened.

Now, Sinead did already bring that up. I believe, Razor, that your response was that something that momentous should have had more words attributed to it. My question is why? Why does it matter? The verse is succinct, but it gets it point across: the earth divided. In my personal opinion, the exact length of that verse isn’t quite enough to invalidate it.

Here’s another one: One time when Jesus came into Jerusalem (the time which has come to be known as Palm Sunday), people were hailing Him as Israel’s savior and king (in fact, they were correct, but not in the same way they were thinking of. They expected a new king to come and free them fro Roman rule. Many prophesies in the Old Testament about the Messiah can be understood as militaristic. What those prophesies really referred to was Jesus defeating sin and death.).

Luke 19: 37-40 says: “37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: 38’Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!’[a]
‘Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!’ 39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, ‘Teacher, rebuke your disciples!’ 40‘I tell you,’ he replied, ‘if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

Scientists have determined that rocks (among I think… everything) have natural sound frequencies. The human ear only picks up a certain range of these frequencies however. So it is true, if we are quiet (and even when we aren’t), the rocks do cry out! Literally!

I’ve got one more. If you look at the makeup of an atom, it has whatever given number of neutrons, and a certain number of electrons which are equal in number to the protons in that atom. Scientific laws state quite clearly that in terms of charges, opposites attract, and like charges repel. All protons have a positive charge. All electrons have a negative charge equal in magnitude of charge (although they themselves are much smaller). So… aren’t atoms… impossible? Shouldn’t the protons be running away from the other proton and the electrons be running away from the other electrons as fast as they possible can? That’s what scientists think as well. They have determined that there is a force holding the similarly charged parts together, and they have resorted to calling it “strong force.” They don’t know what it is.

Colossians 1: 15-17 says this of Jesus: “15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

The emphasis I should perhaps place is upon verse 17 “…in him all things hold together.”

That’s New International Version. The King James Version of the same verse says it even more definitively “…and by him all things consist.” But they mean the same thing. All things hold together because of Jesus. If you take science with faith here, Jesus is that “strong force”. Now, before I get called out for ambiguous interpretation, look at the context of the whole passage. It’s talking about the creation of everything, including the creation of matter- and then says God holds all things together. This passage is definitely about the creation of matter (and the spiritual realm), and it is also about the sustaining of matter. And we know there needs to be a sustaining force.

Here's another thing. Almost every historian will agree that whether or not He was the son of God, there was a Jewish person named Jesus at the time the Bible says. Since almost everybody seems to agree he existed, you simply must choose whether He was a.) insane (physiologists have reviewed the Bible and said Jesus is just about the most sane person in history. It isn’t much of an option) b.) lying (in which case you must argue with the every other defense of Christianity in order to assert, which is of course, what we’re doing right now) or c.) telling the truth.

Personal examples

In terms of personal examples, I must tell you about probably my hardest struggle in life. You may regard it as minimal, but I certainly do not. In the summer of 2005, something very important to me was happening: Star Wars 3 was coming out! Finally I would be able to see how everything worked.

I was not pleased with the answer. Between the Anakin’s sudden betrayal, and then the killing of all the jedi, including children, it was not a good story.

I had never experienced anything like this before, but by the end of the movie, my breath felt like a ventilation system with a steam pipe blowing into it. My blood felt like it was raising temperature at a rate I had never felt before- it was semi-painful. I noticed a correlation. I would look at the screen with Anakin and Obi-wan or Yoda and Palpatine fighting their final battles, and it would start again. I would look away and then have some relief. So, it must have been adrenaline from an exciting and action packed movie I decided. But even in the car, there was no screen, and I was feeling horrible again. It was weird; they were flashes of sickness, most including blood temperature.

Well, what I perceived as adrenaline eventually went away. But the next morning, I woke up. The first thing I thought about was Star Wars. I couldn’t calm myself for the whole rest of the day, because I was perplexed why the sickness wouldn’t go away. It led to more sickness.

I calmed down after about two to three hard days. About one and a half months later, I got the bright idea of reading the novel version of the movie. I never even finished the book before I became sick again. It was then that I learned it had to be mentally-induced, primarily by worry.

There wasn’t anything quite so scary at that point as realizing that no matter what I would do, the sickness was waiting around to be induced by my mind, because you can never run away from your mind. My mother was my main support through that time. You know what saved me? She found me verses which would help me through my panic. The main one that helped was this:

Romans 8:15:

"For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." It seemed to jump at me from out of the Bible. My main enemy was fear, and that enemy could always be there to threaten me. But I knew I had a much more powerful Ally. Whatever fears the mind can conceive of, the Lord is far more powerful than. I pretty much decided not to worry after that, because I knew whatever fears I had, I would always be able to cry out like a really young kid (Abba, Father in this case equates to “DADDY, DADDY!”) to God, and that the peace He would provide me would always be stronger than my fears. He can do whatever He wants, He is all-powerful.

Fear has still been with me, but I no longer see it as unconquerable.

My cousins once were very afraid of something different and they say they saw an angel reassuring them (I know- vague. But its not something I’m supposed to specify.)

My mom and dad once were driving to my grandparents, and while they were on the highway, they were behind a large steel-carrier. Then they saw one of my uncles and one of my aunts, and their three kids. They slowed down to wave to them (they were going to the same destination). My aunt and uncle waved back to them. As they slowed down, the steel-carrier in front of them stopped suddenly, and the steel it was carrying fell out of its back. Had my parents been directly behind it like they were earlier, their probably would have been crushed, or the steel could have gone through the windshield, or both. Fortunately, my parents had slowed down. But once they arrived at my grandparents, they saw my aunt and uncle and mentioned seeing them on the highway. But they were kind of’ confused at this. See- they never saw my mom and dad on the road.

A person at my church once crashed into a tree when she was sledding. But she couldn’t manage to get up and get back to her house. A little girl dressed in white grabbed the sled handle and pulled her to the house and knocked on the door. When her mother answered, the shedder asked where the girl in white had gone. Her mother said that she saw no girl in white.

My parents once had no food left in the house, and nearly no money. A farmer came by and told them he couldn’t find somebody he was supposed to sell corn too. My mom went and looked up the name. It turned out to be a person down the road. So she told him where to find him, and then he asked if they wanted to buy some. The corn turned out to be within my parent’s meager price range, and they gladly bought some. Later they called the person down the road that the farmer was looking for, who the farmer was, or if they could find him later to buy some more. But the neighbor said he never bought from any farmer. To this day, my parents say it’s the best corn they ever tasted.

I’ve had a dream in which I’ve been told not to play video games (Whoever told me was either what I imagined Jesus looks like, or it was an angel. God says that we would die if we actually looked at Him. I think that changes in heaven. Whoever I saw, I know it was a valid thing ordered to me by God). My brother says he saw me sit up in bed that night. I suspect that it was the same time I had the dream although I remember kneeling in my dream. At any rate, I wish I had obeyed sooner, but now it’s been years since I’ve played.

And this one isn’t quite as personal, but still cool. A girl was declared clinically dead, but then resuscitated quickly. Later she was at a baseball game, and it started to rain. Her mom noticed she was smiling, and she asked why she was. Then she said “This is what God smells like.”

Proof? I didn’t figure it would be. No matter what choice we make, we are making a leap of faith. And this is a lot of the evidence I have for God.

Everything is faith- nothing has definitive proof. But which do you truly believe takes more faith- saying there is a God, or that there isn’t one? That you have to decide for yourself.

(EDIT: Before anybody replied. Spelling error.)

[Beastbot]

Wow, I didn't know there was a religious debate going on all this time. Until the topic was split, I just thought this was about biblical allusions in BW (which didn't interest me), so I never clicked. So, I'm apparently really behind. I'll just comment on things that particularly stuck out upon reading/glancing through this thread, since if I commented on everything I had a response to I'd be here all day.

First, though, I gotsta say-- Razor, Sinead, you guys are freaking human encyclopedias. (And I thought I knew a lot about the Bible, wow, Sinead...) I'm very impressed.
I'm also impressed that this topic has been kept so civil-- that's one of the main reasons I luvs you guys s'much: any other board and this would have degenerated into a flame-fest 5 posts in.

Now, onto the meat (Ugh, I wish this board had Multiquote. It would make this so much easier):

First, my beliefs right off the bat-- I'm a Christian, and believe in Intelligent Design. Literal creationism? I'm not sure, I see legitimate holes in that argument that I have not seen (IMO) adequate answers for, though I believe it's still better founded than evolution. My actual answer for how everything came into existence will come shortly, but it's no more than my guess, as you cannot prove/disprove my theory. I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong, and I think anything from God-guided evolution to literal creationism is possible. Just not evolution in the atheist sense.

However, lookup Archaeopteryx. Most notably, it is a transitional fossil of a bird species rising from dinosaur stock. It is the most ancient bird fossil found, dating back 150 million years to the late jurassic period.

This is where many of the "evolution is a faith" arguments come from. Unless you have literally thousands, if not millions, of ever-so-slight intermediary steps in between, say, a raptor and an archaeopteryx, you scientifically cannot prove that they are related. You must go in with the assumption that one species becomes another to make this connection. For example, let's say I drop right here. And then, one million years later, a monkey dies in roughly the same spot. Does that mean the monkey evolved from me? No. If a thousand people die right here, and then a million years later a thousand monkeys drop here-- however unlikely that might be-- it still is not proof.

I don't really buy into the Carbon dating thing or whatever.

Neither do I. Again, it comes back to us not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How do we know something is 35,000 years old? Is there a sticker on it somewhere that tells us how old it is? I understand we know quite a lot about atoms and how fast they decay and what not, but even being a little bit off can drastically affect how "old" things appear when you're talking about such large time frames. We were not around back then, therefore we cannot know how accurate our dating methods are for such long time periods.

Such attempts include redefining science.

Science, as defined by the dictionary, is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

ID supporters want this changed to include supernatural forces and this is why some have their proverbial boxers in a bunch. It effectively dethrones the scientific method and allows for almost any explanation one could want to stick in there.

ID is not redefining science if the knowledge gained through observation and experimentation leads one to suspect supernatural causes. Rather, teaching only evolution is taking the science definition and tacking on something extra-- that all observations must have a physical/material cause. There is no reason why science must be constricted to that.

Human and chicken DNA share a 60% similarity. Humans and chickens share a common ancestor from 310 million years ago. One species became two (or more) and have been separate ever since.

Human and corn DNA share about a 30-45% similarity (I forget the exact percentage, somewhere in that area). I don't think the amount of shared DNA between species shows anything more than how similar species may be in features. I'm fully willing to put humans in the "primates" subcategory, but that doesn't mean that primates are all related. It just means they have somewhat similar features.

If the earth is so young, why then does the cratering record on the moon and mars suggest otherwise. Why then does radioactive dating prove the earth is far older then a mere 10,000 or so years old?

Alright, beyond the whole "we really can't prove radioactive dating" thing, here's where my explanation for the origin of the world comes from, and it's actually quite simple. The universe was created already in motion. It's the only explanation that makes sense, to me. Not because God wanted to "fool us" or anything, but because that's the only way things would work, since sunlight and starlight takes so long to reach the Earth, etc. If you believe in God, than believing that the universe was created already in motion is the only thing that can logically follow from that, I think.

If you reject macro evolution, you also reject micro evolution and thus have to explain why anti-biotic resistant bacteria has appeared from nowhere.

Why? Why does adapation necessarily equal evolution on a short time scale? Why does a resistant strain of bacteria necessarily mean that bacteria can eventually become fish?

There is no way to logically prove that god exists, just as there is no way to logically prove that god does NOT exist.

Since god can neither be proven to exist or not exist, it falls to faith (or lack thereof) to fill this uncertain void with certainty.

This is one of those things where I disagree with you, but to really explain it would require me to dig up old books and post huuuuuge quotes from it. If you have the time, the money, and the interest (all very big ifs, I certainly understand), I highly recommend Josh Burcham's book, Evidence of Christianity. It's dull as chalk, but it's so fact-filled your head will explode if you read more than 15 pages of it at a time (and it's about 800 pages long, teeny tiny print). Josh Burcham was a former atheist who set about to "disprove Christianity once and for all" with scientific evidence, only to discover that all the evidence points towards Christianity being real. Now Burcham's a devout Christian who goes around talking about his findings. The book provides exhaustively exhaustive historical evidence of Jesus' Resurrection, raising every possible objection one might have towards certain bits and then refuting them one by one. He concludes in one of the larger chapters-- very persuasively, IMO-- that Jesus' resurrection is not merely based on faith, but fact. We're more sure of it than we're sure that Shakespeare's plays were actually his. To discount Jesus' resurrection, he says, you'd basically have to also conclude that any document older than about 200 years cannot be trusted.

Sorry for sweeping generalizations...I'm just basing this on what I've seem in the media...and quite frankly, America LOVES and WORSHIPS media, so they are what they see.

Do they? Or does the media portray them as worshiping, well, the media? I'd argue that of all the Westernized societies, America, overall, is the most resistant to the mainstream media's brainwashing tactics. The ACTUAL America is FAR different from the America portrayed in most media.

(Insert TONS of measurements of Noah's Ark here)

That's all well and good, but you're forgetting one important thing; miracles. The Bible is full of them, and it's not a stretch to say the Ark is a miracle too. Like with Jesus feeding a huge mass of people and ending up with more bread and fish than he started with, for example.

The article goes on to say a lot more. Either way, the vampire finch is an example of a new species evolving in order to survive a trying climate.

You say that the vampire finch is an "example of a new species", but the article itself says that the vampire finch is NOT a new species. Again, I'm not making the connection where slight adaptions must= we evolved from fish. Adapation equaling the first steps of evolution is an assumption, and is not proven.

There is a cycle. However, did cars exist before the last ice age? No. Did plastic manufacturing exist 10000 years ago? No. We're still putting things in to the atmosphere that shouldn't be there, and that's going to do something regardless of how much we as a species stick our fingers in our ears and scream "lalala!"

Who decides what "should" be in the atmosphere and what shouldn't? I don't see the evidence supporting man-made global warming of any significant sort. At best, it's negligible. Human emissions are such a ridiculously small portion of the total amount of "pollutants" that are emitted each year, I don't see how it can do anything. NASA data from the year 2000 showed that the biggest contributor of pollutants to the air by far was-- ready for it-- a forest fire in Africa. Nothing manmade came close.
Also, "greenhouse gases" have an algorithmical effect-- the more of them there are, the less each additional atom, or ton, or whatever, has an overall effect.

[7Knight-Wolf]

Beastbot, Blazemane--good job on arguing your beleifs, both of you.

Beastbot--I didn't really think about it before, but we are a very nice group in comparison to some forums, aren't we? We've come close to some flaming now and then, but we've kept it under control.

So you believe that God guided evolution and created the universe in existence? I disagree, but then I do have several friends who also believe in "theistic" evolution, so no hard feelings. My main argument against God-guided evolution is that it turns the Genesis story into an allegory, and I don't like that. If the Genesis story is just an allegory, how do we know that anything in the Bible is true?

Some people use the Bible verse saying that a day is a thousand years to God. But let me also point out that in Hebrew, there are several words meaning day. The words can mean a literal day or various other time periods. But the word used for day in Genesis (can't think of it...grrr) is primarily used for a real twenty-four hour day. Notice I say "Primarily." The final proof is that in the Genesis story, an evening and morning is mentioned with all of the days. In Hebrew, this is the most solid proof that the word used for day in Genesis actually meant "day."

And another thing--almost all time periods we use come from a cycle of planets or the sun...all of them except the week. Who invented the week? God, when he created the world in seven days. (IMO.)

Blazemane--I like your personal stories about God. Most of my experiences with him involve nature. Because I'm really passionate about nature, God often uses this as a way of talking to me. That's when I feel him the most. For example, when I feel sort of distant and stressed, and I swing the back door open to get a breath of fresh air--there have been several times when the door opens for me in a strong breeze. It was weird, when the door opened for me and the wind rushed by face, I got this strange feeling that there was something else going on here. It was almost like I could hear the wind laughing, or like the air was smiling at me. I knew that God was in the wind and had planned to open the door for me to make me aware of his presence.

Now Razor and other athiests can "explain" this till they're blue in the face, but I'll still believe tht it's God and not coincidence.

Oh, last thing. Hey Blazemane, why do you think God told you not to play video games? I'm careful about games, but there are several I enjoy like Harvest Moon, Spyro, and Kingdom Hearts.

[Jagna]

.......ow.

My brain cannot possibly comprehend nor stimulate anything of too much relevance in what's just been said, there's just too much.

Beastbot...the corn DNA really stuck out in my mind. Nice. Actually, it brings up a point about the probability match, and DNA theories in general. (Oh boy, here I go...) Even though corn (muh?...) shares X% of our DNA, it wouldn't exactly mean it's closely related. I know that's not what you're saying (and if it is, well... ) in terms of numbers of living organisms on this planet that is next to nothing. Just think CSI

Has anyone ever read a play called 'Mnemonic'? The plot at this moment is irrelevant, but the opening monologue (or lecture rather, about 15 pages long!) is an interesting read. (I think Blazemane brought this up):

Imagine a leaf. Hold it up to the light in your mind's eye. You see the veins of the leaf, stemming out from the stem. Imagine now that you are the stem. You are standing in a room. Behind you are your parents. And behind each of them are their parents. That makes 6 plus you. And behind each person is a pair of parents. Even if we consider siblings, cousins, step parents/siblings etc the further back in time we go, the larger the leaf becomes. And the further back we go, the less possible t is to determine who we came from or how. Because, considering all the facts and calculations, there would be too many people for a handful of people throughout history and pre-history. So in theory, you are related to every person in this room.

It went something like that. That play was a mind-f***! I guess what I'm saying is we'll never know how we got here. regardless of what we may or may not believe. We just can't. We're all from the same planet, despite what my sister says Even if the very first life came on an asteroid, it evolved (not getting evolution, btw) since then. Now,I'm not saying the bugenvillia in my garden is a close cousin, but we are all linked, no matter what. Somehow.









...I've completely forgotten the original point of my post. 0-o

I think it was something like...............we believe what we believe, we choose to believe what we believe, let's just accept that, get along and be happy...? Meep.

[artemis-lady-warrior]

we could do that but we won't. I don't mind discussing things here because people on both sides seem pretty reasonable, though somebody got a little accusing at one point and I nearly lost my temper. I'm just happy that nobody here is acting like a jerk. Some people (atheist or christian) can be real jerks sometimes. Like Richard Dawkins... eh sorry. I just don't like that guy. He's a jerk.

Last night I lay in bed considering something in evolution (trying to see if it could somehow make sense just for arguments sake) about fish coming out of water and becoming dinosaurs. I entertained the idea for a whole half hour, trying to figure out how a fish could suddenly start sprouting legs over millions of years and suddenly getting lungs and walking on land.
The ending result was a totally confused me and a head that felt like it was going to explode.

So yeah, I can honestly say I thought about it but still could make no sense of it. It's just not for me.

I prefer believing that a highly intelligent being who knew what he was doing and knew what to put where made everything because that concept does not leave me confused and asking more questions.

Hey, has anyone been to the Creation Museum? I haven't yet but I want to. It sounds cool.

[Beastbot]

So you believe that God guided evolution and created the universe in existence? I disagree, but then I do have several friends who also believe in "theistic" evolution, so no hard feelings. My main argument against God-guided evolution is that it turns the Genesis story into an allegory, and I don't like that. If the Genesis story is just an allegory, how do we know that anything in the Bible is true?

No, you misunderstand-- look back at my post again. My current belief, after thinking about it for some time, is that the universe really is ~6,000 or so years old, but the universe was created in motion by God, since things wouldn't "work" without everything already being in motion. I made that response because of Razor One's question about why there are so many craters on the moon & other planets if the universe is so young. I agree with you on your points.
When I mentioned God-guided evolution, I just said I can see it being possible. I don't believe in it anymore-- I used to believe in God-guided evolution back when I sucked in everything public schools taught me without criticially examining it, and then when I started questioning that kind of stuff in my teen years, I switched to literal creationism-- i.e., when the world was created, everything in the universe was in fact "new". I've since seen a few holes in that theory that I haven't seen adequate answers for, and though I still think it possible, I dropped believing in that theory about 4-5 years ago. I'm just saying that I'm not particularly held to my current belief that the universe appears far older than it is even though it really was created ~6,000 years ago. I see both the positives, and in a few cases, the negatives, from everything ranging from God-guided evolution to literal creationism. And, in time, maybe something will come along that will convince me again that there aren't any real negatives in one of those theories. The only thing I said I'm absolutely certain DID NOT happen was atheistic evolution.

But I look at this way-- does it really matter if the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Since I unabashedly believe in God and Jesus' resurrection, it doesn't affect my life in any way. So even though it's a question I have, it's not a question that I'm so desperate to get answered, you see.

And just to throw another "makes you think" thing out there-- several years ago, I read a magnificent sci-fi series, the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke. (Turn back now if you plan on reading this book and want to avoid spoilers!) Towards the end of the four-book series, Mr. Clarke put forth, in a very plausible manner that didn't seem at all "politically correct", that the Ramans could be either a super-advanced intelligent alien race we never see, OR the "Ramans" are actually God, who has created these great suppositories of knowledge for other alien races. It is revealed that, among all the myriad alien races out there, EVERY ONE had a Jesus-like figure at some point in its history. I could easily see something like that being the case. After all-- and Sinead can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall anything like this-- the Bible never explicitly states that there AREN'T other intelligent life forms out there, though it doesn't explicitly state that there ARE, either.

[Razor One]

Long Post Inc!

I'm not sure what you're getting out here but a cubit is about... 45.72 centimeters which is about 18 inches... adding up the whole thing it's about 836507 or 83657 feet! YIKEs!

I Just gotta say that some species of animals have come to be recently. Some species of cats for example are mixed breed but go by other names. Like the mule which was created from breeding horses and donkey.

And a LOT of species of animals most likely dies during the flood as well, ever heard of a floating forest?

My estimate was higher, and upon reflection, I forgot to halve the value to accommodate "Two of every kind" which in turn halves the value of Volume Per Species required on the ark, not taking into account room for supplies.

That's 1 Animal for every .5 Cubic meter of space.

For reference, the average human takes up 2/3's of a cubic meter of space.

And again, that's a low estimate with a larger measure of cubit relative to yours.

I think neanderthal man was proven to be a human...

Nope. Analysis of bone structure and DNA proves that Neanderthals were a distinct species from Homo Sapiens.

*Jokers laughs for about ten hours*
You know what? I recently took out some astronomy books form my library that were evolution based books and they too said Neptune was creating heat as well Jupiter and Saturn. I must have taken out a defective copy. Mwahahaha.

Actually.... about those planets. This might be dumb for me saying this but. I found out that if those outer planets exist to keep the earth in its current orbit. Like a gravity magnet thing or something.

O_o Planets do NOT migrate! They're not bird and butterflies! they're huge chuncks of rocks, like the moon.

Speaking of the moon. If there's water on the moon it's because or comets impacts. (which I also read about in the evolution star gazing book. If people are trying to say there was once life on the moon they're not reading their science books right)

Going to bold the relevant portion of my post since you missed it.

While there is some amount of internal heating and reason for this is unknown, possible theories include radiogenic heating from the core (which may also occur on Earth) or chemical reactions within the atmosphere.

Futhermore, you're confusing Evolutionists with Cosmologists.

Now to rebut the other parts.

You're exactly right, planets are chunks of rocks like the moon, and like the moon, they obey the laws of gravity.

If a planet, moon, chunk of rock or say, a flowerpot of petunias happens to find itself in an unstable orbit in the inner solar system, it can either find itself with a one way ticket to the sun, to the rest of the universe, eaten by jupiter or a new stable orbit further in, further out, or on a highly elliptical orbit that takes it millenia to complete.

The outer planets might have the effect of stabilising the earths orbit but it is not their reason for being. Accretion and gravity are.

The moon is currently theorised to have formed when proto-earth was smashed by a mars sized planet early in the solar systems formation. Fortunately the impact was a glancing blow, throwing out a major amount of crustal material into orbit, completely melting both bodies and essentially destroying all geological evidence before the impact. Theorised to have happened 4.5 or so billion years ago.

The result made the moon bone dry. Water, in the form of ice, has been accumulating in the polar regions of the moon which lie in permanent shadow. If those regions are ever exposed to sunlight, the water will vaporise.

but now they are saying the whole thing was created by a local 'Megaflood" instead of millions of years. >.< DOH!

Care to substantiate that?

I will however provide some cursory rebuttal.

If a flood did create the grand canyon, we would expect to see a wide shallow bed, and not a deep sinuous river. We know this because we can see floods today.

We would see coarse grained sediments, boulders and gravel on the canyon floor. We Dont.

Streamlined Relict Islands. None apparent.

Furthermore, if the flood did create the grand canyon, why then do we not see even more canyons of equal majesty dotting the landscape of every region?

don't get mad at me. I looked it up. It's not my fault!

Not getting mad, stating fact. That is all.

If I could write down the entire article I just read on this subject you would understand what I mean a whole lot more. but unfortunately I cannot which makes it harder for me to explain it to you. I have never been very good at this sort of thing. If the magazines website has this article on it would it be okay if I gave you the link so you could read it for yourself?

Feel free to link me, but I've been perusing some of the content on the AiG website and quite frankly a lot of the stuff I'm finding is fallacious. If you'd like me to elaborate on my point of view I'd be happy to.

Perhaps? You did not even read them and the basis is too logical. It's more logical than people saying "This was all an accident. " and "it all happened by blind chance."
Rolling Eyes accident and blind chance my Aunt Rocsan!

On the contrary. I have been reading AiG and will prove it.

Case Study Link

The article linked to essentially says that Stalin justified his many purges and iron fisted rule because he read the works of Charles Darwin.

This assertion however is false and hardly historical.

Stalin supported Neo-Lamarckism Link

Furthermore, Stalin was above and beyond all else an ideological Marxist. If something did not agree with his ideals, he threw the notion out (or had it shot).

Darwinian evolution basically states that species change over enormous periods of time.

Lamarckism is an evolutionary theory that traits acquired during ones lifetime can be passed on to one children (IE, if your father was a good chess player, you too will be a good chess player).

Marxism is (Roughly) the political theory that essentially states that the state exists to facilitate the exploitation of lower classes by the upper class, that revolution would eventually break out, leading to a brief period of dictatorship, followed by the formation of a classless society.

Stalin favored Lamarckism because it "Jived" better with his Marxist ideals and was in line with his ideas of Revolution, not Evolution.

This is just one of many articles on AiG that proclaim that Atheism, Darwinian evolution, Science and so forth lead to justifications for mass murder.

It is flawed in it's presumption, biased in it's execution and fallacious in it's conclusions.

so now you're saying that creationsist are dirty and underhanded and yet... Evolutionists are just as bad. Like Richard Dawkins for instance. Who says things like:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in Evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane)or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that."

Yeah, those Evolutionists would NEVER say something like that!

sorry, just had to point that out.

Refer to the above treatise of just one article on AiG to see why Creationists of that calibre are no better and are at times worse.

If you feel one article on AiG is not representative however, I can do an in depth analysis on yet more articles to prove their biased slant and their clear opinions on Atheists and Evolutionists and how it prevents them from providing anything close to a realistic representation of the facts.

You're determind to make me kill my brain aren't you?
Okay I'll give this a try. Well we do know form what the bible says about the flood that the earth below ALSO gave up water, not just the sky. That means giasers shot water out of the ground. Below the oceans volcanoes most likely erupted and covered the floors with lave, creating mountains and raising the water level.
All these goings on probably did a number to the ocean floor.

If the water had come from within the earth, the water would have to be deep in, being that there had to be a lot of it. Given this fact, the water could only come out in one form: Steam. The deeper you go on planet earth, the hotter it gets. One mile down it's pretty damn hot. Noah would have been roasted alive.

We dont see nearly enough mountains and volcanoes in the sea to support your volcanic theory of raising the sea level.

Anything massively bad for the ocean floor (where the crust is thinnest and youngest) would also be massively bad for the oceans too.

After about a year the world calmed down and cooled off from the whole thing or something and the planet comprassed and the water levels went down.
ARGH! I cannot explain this well. just read the article. I'm not so good at this.

The... planet compressed? O...kay.

For the planet to compress, the earth would have to expand. For the earth to expand any great deal, you need massive forces exerting outside pressure.

Result? Boom.

And if the earth "compressed", the oceans would get deeper, not shallower.

Feel free to link me the article and I'll be happy to tear it's logical fallacies to shreds.

Also there were dinosaurs afetr the flood because they're mentioned in the book of Job which was like the very first book of the Bible ever written. I know this because I asked my parents.

Except for one thing. Even if you discard billions of years, evolution and so forth, Dinosaur bones never show up in the same rock and soil layers as human bones do.

Ergo, Dinosaurs died and were buried and ceased to be a living species before people died and were in turn buried. If man lived beside dinosaurs, we wood see Dinosaur fossils lying in the same rock and soil layers that humans are found in.

Furthermore, your parents dont know everything. There is contention as to which book in the bible came first, the book of Job, or the Pentateuch.

To your questions about animals....
Once upon a time on a large body f land called Rodinia there lived many kinds of plants an animals and humans.
Because Rodinia was specially created so that every living thing had exactly what they needed to life there were many kinds of plants that grew on this land mass. Some no longer exist and some still do.

Ah Rodinia, the Paleo-continent that preceded Pangea.

So, you say that animals and plants once lived on Rodinia.

Except for one thing. Only the most primitive multicellular life is found in rock deposits from that Era. No animal bones, no land plants we'd be familiar with today. Only hard shelled fish at best.

One day the Big Boss said to a man. "Built me a giant boat and put two of every kind of animal in it."

So the man set out to do so. On a side note the Boss told the man that he should also remember to pack food for all the animals. Because there were so many animals living around the man knew what food to bring and if he didn't the Boss most likely told him.

Thanks for running down genesis for me. Please refer back to my calculation that shows precisely how much room you've got to toy with without factoring in supplies and get back to me when you find a way around that that doesnt involve suffocation.

So after a hundred years a major disaster struck, covering the land with water and killing everyone except those that were on the Boat.

A hundred years? That's quite some time. Given that life expectancies only started going up as medical science started getting better and better at it's job, how is it that Noah lived past 121 years of age thousands of years ago? Assuming he was 21 when he started building the ark, that is.

While this was happening bad things were going on outside the boat. Storms and waves and horrible weather that had never been seen before. and while this was going on above, bad things were happening below as well.

earthquaks and volcanos caused the land masses to shift and change, breaking apart into pieces then coming back together again in a new form and shape called Pangaea.

So from one supercontinent to another eh? Lets consider that if all the fossils we're finding were wiped out in the flood, Rodinia would have been unbelievably overcrowded.

Let's forget that though. These plate tectonics you're talking about are quite catastrophic. Precisely what mechanism would trigger them? Volcanoes and earthquakes are not strong enough to do so by far.

Finally things calmed down and the water's resided. The boat landed on a mountain possibly created by the earthquacks and everyone got out to a new world.

The animals spread out, covering the entire world with creatures, going to places on the world that most suited their life styles and after many years the humans did as well.

Except for the fact that Mount Ararat is volcanic in nature and didnt exist when Pangea was around.

Furthermore, a global flood would kill every plant.

Even Furthermore, the salt from the salt water of a global flood would kill the seeds too, and any that survived the year long submersion would die in short order as they wouldnt fare too well in the sediments left behind by the flood and bees wouldnt be around to help in pollination except in a limited radius around the Ark.

If I broke this rules writing this down I'm sorry. PLEASE DON'T BAN ME!

The ban threat was a joke for anyone willing to crack a joke about Uranus.

the ridiculousness you just read? You refering to my post or Razor Ones?

I have an excuse. I'm not a student. Sad

Most likely she meant me.

BTW I got a problem.

Okay science and theories about the earth are always changing. Whether it's dates or what came from what.
so...
Why does it seem like some people refuse acknowledge this?

Science and theories about the Earth are always changing, and that's a GOOD thing. As new knowledge comes to light we adjust and refine scientific theory to give us a better picture. This is widely acknowledged by anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge.

Say i pick up a rock and see fossiles of plants in it? Immediately someone will say that it came from a certain time because of what's in the rocks and these plants were extinct later on?
Well what say I look at this same rock and realize it's got fossiles in it from an animal that wasn't supposed to be there at the time? It's the same rock and it still has the plants but the animal is right next to it?
Then what do you do?
If this plant was supposed to exist millions of years before said animal, how can you explain the animal?

You would have an "Oh Snap!" situation there, except that doesnt happen. Dinosaurs never appear in Permian rocks, Humans never appear in the cretacious or jurassic rocks. The only example I've ever heard tell of is Paluxy, and it's fraudulent.

Wouldn't that mean you would have to come up with another theory to explain why this extinct plant that's many years older than the animal are in the same rock from the same time period?

Some people might be smart enough to say that they need to come up with a better theory to explain it. Others will discard the said rock and stick to the older evolutionary theory and ignore the new facts represented to them.

Just thought I'd give you something to think on.

When anachronistic data turns up in any scientific investigation, it must be tested, and retested. If the anomaly continues to turn up, and continues to pass the testing and retesting of it's authenticity and verifiability, the theory can be adjusted to account for the anomaly. If the theory cannot be adjusted, or creates more problems, then a new theory can be developed if it better explains the anomaly.

However, one instance of an exception does not totally invalidate all prior research. The anomaly must turn up many times, not just the once.

Refer to Phlogiston

I think you forgot that after the Venus-like conditions of Earth's youth, it rained for a few thousand-some-odd years straight. And while it's been a while since that science class, I get the feeling I'm giving an extremely conservative estimate compared to what the video said.

Cant recall what this is in reference to exactly, but I do remember reading about that. If this is with respect to runaway greenhouses, the sun has become brighter and hotter since the initial formation of the earth. It's possible that if the conditions required to create a runaway greenhouse on earth were to recur, we wouldn't be so lucky this time around.

No one said there was life on the moon. The moon's gravity is too low, it's too small, half of it is permanently dark, it's too cold and has a too-thin atmosphere. Mars is the one in question, and they did find water. Now the search for life starts.

Right on all counts except for the moons rotation. It's tidally locked with the earth, it's rotational period is two weeks long so it always presents the same face to the earth.

When the moon is dark in the sky, the opposite side is experiencing daylight

Okay, fine. Scratch the Kirlian for now. And pardon my absent-mindedness, but what does a swinging pendant have to do with a black mood ring?

And you'd better be at Botcon. You can at least watch me work on Silver, since he's already agreed to be my guinea pig.

It was a joke on my part Mood rings are meant to change color depending on personal disposition or emotional state. The ring turning black means that I was either depressed, tense, harassed, overworked etc.

The butt of the joke was that I was so "Negative" that it permanently broke the mood ring and locked it to black

And I'd love to attend Botcon, but school comes first

A new breed evolving to survive the climate? I don't think that's evolution. I think that's adaptation like when the weather gets cold and your blood thickens.

Adaptation (whether to climate or any other selective pressure) eventually leads to speciation over a lengthy enough period of time.

Can we please stop it with this "survival of the fittest" stuff. If that were so how come a lot of respectively weak creatures life today?

Weak according to whom? To us? Flies are pretty damn weak, but nobody on earth could annihilate them all. Trust me. I've tried.

Inbreeding as in the type of animal. Like a house cat with a house cat and a lion with a lion. Types of cats today are the result of inbreeding and they all live in just fine.

Selective breeding, not in breeding.

In breeding in pet species (Cats, Dogs etc) is done to preserve "Purebreeds" and leads to major problems when done long enough.

Case in Point: Saint Bernards

Mars might have water but it never had life. and if it does have life its microscopic. People say the sun cooling killed living things on Mars and yet they say our planet has global warming. How is it that Mars is cooling when earth is supposedly warming and yet they say the sun is cooling as well? You can't blame this all on us. I'm reading an article on this. So we'll see just how much is our fault.

Earth was never like Venus at one point. If it was there is no way that life could have suddenly popped up on here by random chance. When the earth was formed it was already the right temperature. The Flood changed all of that.
The earth had to adjust to the changes so the weather got funky for awhile.

Mars was too small, low gravity and solar wind blew away its atmosphere, low pressure leads to inability to retain heat and the place goes frigid.

Solar radiation has been increasing over the past few billion years.

Also, why is it that Microscopic life is somehow so insignificant as to be equivalent with finding no life at all? Proof of life originating on other worlds would be the find of the century.

As to the venus-like comment, false. A hostile environment is beneficial to the production of the precursors of life. Lab tests have proven that simple organic molecules can form in boiling water with an atmosphere that was theorised to have been around at the time, along with a generous helping of lightning.

Given enough time, the seas would have been roiling with organic, non-living matter created through abiogenetic processes. We dont have a full understanding of the process by which life may have arose abiogenetically, but we're working on it.

Alternatively, Panspermia states that life may not have originated here at all.

Furthermore, stating the environment of the earth has always been so is fallacious. Gelogical evidence, which by the way is also evidence for Pangea and Rodinia, points to a changing climate varying between agreeable and hostile. Unless geology is bunk. But then so too is Rodinia and Pangea.

I've thought about some things mentioned in evolution and it just resulted in more questions than answers.

The goal of Science is not only to seek answers to our questions but to generate new questions and answer them in turn, and ask more questions too

First of all, while creationists don't believe that one animal can change into a totally different one, we do believe in natural selection. Back in Noah's time, there much MUCH fewer kinds of animals. Probably the only kind of dog in existence was some kind of wolf with a LARGE gene pool, and one kind of cat, and so on. You can read about this kind of thing in Answers magazine.

For a vast database of creationist articles, vist www.answersingenesis.org. You can find all sorts of good, solid arguments against Evolution...

...and the by the way... evolution IS a religion. Twisted Evil

Prepare to be wowed. Scientists have successfully interbred two different butterfly species in the lab to produce a hybrid species similar to an already existing butterfly species which is thought to have arisen via this method.

Heliconius heurippa was suspected to be a hybrid of Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene. H. Heurippa can only be said to be a species all it's own if it's parent species, H. Cydno and H. Melpomene refuse to breed with it.

It took just three generations of in-the-lab breeding to produce the hybrid. Source

Answers in genesis is biased and fallacious. For a more neutral source, might I suggest the following websites: Answers In Creation and Reasons to believe

Please note that both websites are theistic in nature. I dont agree with everything written on Reasons to Believe but they certainly seem to have a more scientific approach to ID then most ID proponents seem to have, such as actually submitting scientific papers instead of playing politics.

Oh, and by the way, Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory.

Stating it is a religion without proof does not make it so.

Also, I have one very important point to take into account when facing an evolution/creation argument: WE USE THE SAME EVIDENCE. Both evolutionists and creationists use the Grand Canyon as an important argument in their case, but how they interpret it depends on their PERSONAL beliefs. I say that the Grand Canyon is undeniable evidence of a gigantic flood, evolution says it's undeniable evidence of its theory. All facts can be manipulated to fit your beliefs. That is why both creation and evolution are THEORIES. I just happen to have enough faith in mine to stake my life on it.

Except for that niggling little issue of Sandstone deposits that form part of the grand canyon, and the fact that the geology of the grand canyon does not fit the flood model.

Hint: Sandstone requires a dry desert environment to form. Flood conditions wont allow for it.

Furthermore, scientists are skeptics. If one manipulates data to suit their beliefs, they are called out in peer review. The only way you can account for scientists agreeing with each other on things like evolution and geology is if there is a conspiracy.

And contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not, I repeat DID NOT, come to see evolution as "the only way." He was bais befoer he ever went to Galapados. His grandfather was a big-time materialist, and he also was very materialistic and doubting of any higher power. He did not observe nature and decide that evolution made the most sense; he came there with PRESUMPTIONS. I repeat PRESUMPTIONS.

Charles Darwin was born in 1809. Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather, died in 1802.

How pray tell might he have affected him with notions of materialism and the "Doubting of any higher power" from beyond the grave?

Furthermore, he was first exposed to ideas of evolution in the form of Lamarckism, and eventually, yes, to his grand fathers ideas about evolution.

Yet Furthermore, it seems that my research has turned up that Darwin was influenced by the writings of William Paley and his notions of perfect adaptation and divine design in nature!

Oh Snap! It seems that Darwin founded evolution, originally at least, on a theistic basis! Source

Even Furthermore, Creationist scientists are guilty of what you ascribe to Darwin. They take their answers from the bible and then look for evidence in nature to support it, when instead they should be looking for evidence that can only be explained by the biblical account and not by any scientific process.

Razor, I think the assumption here by 7KnightWolf here is not that evolution is a full headed religion, where purpose in life is found, or where we can meet somebody who loves us more than we will ever know, or where we can pray and be heard, but merely, that Christianity and evolution are both beliefs. They both take faith.

In that light, evolution is a religion, not as a text-book defined religion, but as a belief which takes as much faith (and in my opinion, far more) to believe in as does Christianity.

I have faith that you and the others on this forum exist. Does that make this forum a religion?

For all I know you could simply be a highly advanced form of Spam Bot designed and built to pass the turing test on every level and I would be none the wiser. It takes a leap of faith to believe that you are a human being sitting at a computer at some point on this vast interweb.

Believe you or anyone else on this forum are humans does not make this forum a religion.

That's all of Page 7 done, Page 8 incoming when I can find time between study periods.