|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 16, 2004 15:52:30 GMT -5
I do not pick and choose from the bible, how could you possibly say that? I believe the entire bible and i have never dismissed part of it and said i will not believe in that. Well thats absolutly rediculous. So anyone who believes in God is not allowed to belive in gravity? Yes thats right, all scince INCLUDING creation science. Well this is just falling apart here. If you use logic as you say then you would agree with me here....LOGIC will tell you that sea shells got on top of mountains by way of flood. LOGIC will tell you that there are human fosils and what not at the layers claimed to be billions of years old prove creation. Dont use this logic thing. And you were just telling me a little bit ago that old scince is no science at all(which makes no sence because the law of gravity has been around for a while) and now your telling me to rely on previously understood data. haha, direct observation. If you walk through the woods and see a 3 random rocks laying there you will say "this came about by random chance" If you walk to stone henge your going to think "this is no way random, this MUST have been created" If you look at a human being and all its incredible parts you are going to say "this was created, there is no way on earth this is random". Now take a look at our complex and incredible universe, your going to tell me that something exploded and after a while it became this? Out of random chance? Now your going to tell ME about direct observation? Thats laughable! Direct observation says "this was all created"! How can you even second guess that? this is my favorit part..... Now let me get this straight....I really love this. I provided you with scientific information disproving evolution, you mocked me saying i was as dumb as a 3rd grader and that a 5th grader could disprove me. You(being in high school) could not disprove me and had to go look up the information. Now you refuse to look up information, you claim that your science is right without even looking at what people call "contradictions". Now you are going to go right ahead and say this..... You claim to be open minded and call me close minded. I have looked at the contradiction in the bible and thought about them and researched them, after all this i believe in the bible still. You refuse to look into the obviouse information i gave you because you have that much faith in your science! WHOS CLOSE MINDED? The one who blindly believes or the one who looks into the stuff? This reminds me of a bible verse.... Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of saw dust in your brother eye, yet pay no attention to the plank in your own?" i think that best sums up what i need to say. I also want to thank you for proving my point. i think i need to quote myself: You proved my other point. My beliefes have held true for the past 2000 years! Never has it changed. It has remaind 99.9% accurate from 2000 years ago! You believe in something that has Historically changed its veiw based on how people think, and what people like! It changes constantly and it still can not come to an accurate conclusion. thats all i got, but i would appreciate it if you would stop calling me close minded untill you take the time to step back and look at the situation
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 16, 2004 15:53:47 GMT -5
why is there sad faces??
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 16, 2004 16:50:59 GMT -5
Wow, I'm not sure where to begin. I'll try from the beginning... I don't recall saying the laws of gravity (or any other scientific laws) contradict the idea of your God... The point of science is not to disprove anything, but to learn about the world around us and to prove ideas. I believe you were the one who tried to disprove science, so I was merely using correct science to reprove what was already proven. Creation science isn't direct observation, it is people using real science and trying to twist it to make it seem flawed when it really isn't. LOGIC would say that if you believe in the whole deal with tectonic plates, you would also believe that mountains are formed when those tectonic plates are pushed up, a lot of times from what was formerly oceanic crust, which would have fish fossils. LOGIC wouldn't use a flood to explain something that has already, I believe, been made into a law. LOGIC would find a way to actually explain the flood in scientific terms, if trying to disprove real science by means of this flood. I didn't say all old science was flawed. I said that OBSELETE science was flawed. The theory of gravity and its whole deal is still around because it is still, as far as we are aware, applicable in modern science. You're not talking about direct observation here, you're talking about hypothesizing based on direct observation. There is a big difference. One you are taking raw data; the other you are using that raw data to try to find a pattern or an idea to prove something. I can second guess that because it has no scientific backing that is accepted by the majority of scientists worldwide. If creation science is so sound and obvious, then IT, not any other theories, would be the predominantly accepted ones. Again, you are implying something based on something almost entirely different that I said. At the beginning of those two posts, I said I was still going to do the research, but I felt strongly about what I had to say then, so I said it after assuring you I would do the research this weekend. I could, (and did, on a few occasions) disprove you, but you didn't accept my arguments so I went to a more formal source. I told you many times that I accept your beliefs as a viable theory, and I have also many times accepted that my beliefs could easily be wrong. I have done very much research into both my science, and a whole shit load of research into your creation science sources recently. As a matter of fact, your sources have made me question a good deal of my beliefs, which has prompted me to find out as much as I can on this topic. Don't you dare call me close minded, and yourself openminded, until you can tell me that there is a good possibility that your beliefs are flawed, and mine are correct, as I have done for yours. Science, as I said, is NOT static, it changes as we learn more, and yes, it is effected by people's thinking. JUST AS IS YOUR RELIGION. Look at all the sects of Christianity, most of which split for entirely political reasons. Hell, even your half of christianity (protestant) didn't split from Catholocism until the 1500's, and then ONLY because the king of England wanted a divorce. Don't tell me your religion's views haven't changed. They have changed almost as much as science's has. I am not trying to attack you here... I apologize profusely if I have. I am trying to defend my beliefs, which I feel you attacked unjustly with the first post in this thread... PS: Isn't it the 'mote' in your brother's eye?
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 18, 2004 15:00:18 GMT -5
My religion did not come from catholicism. Catholicism is based off of the bible. Peter started the catholic church in the early years (50-80AD). People joined that church and they believed the same things then that i believed today. The bible has not changed. The people in the church became corupt and they changed the religion based on what they wanted. At the same time there were christians who still believed the bible and still obeyed its commands, they were not apart of the catholic church. Later in the 1500's there was a reformation when people realized that the catholic church was wrong. No one challenged it before because you had to be a monk or a priest and read latin to be able to read the bible. Everyone had no choice but to believe what the preacher told them. Finally and educated man came forward and said they were wrong and people left the church. this was NOT the begining of the protestant this was the mear reformation in it. The bible and what i believe has not changed, corupt people have changed. They are the ones who had an agenda, they were looking for money. The bible has not changed and it continues to remain 99.9% accurate to this day. Once again if you look at the facts with an unbiased oppinion the logic will point to creation. Their remains to be no problems that creation can not explain. Evolution still has a hard time explaining why there are manmade objects burried in rock layers which are called "2 billion" years old. The plate tectonics theory has some major flaws often overlooked.... Cutting across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge at almost right angles are hundreds of long cracks, called fracture zones. Whenever the axis of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge is offset, it is always along a fracture zone. [See Figure 42 on page 95.] Why? According to plate tectonics, plates move parallel to fracture zones. But fracture zones are not always parallel. Sometimes they are many degrees “out of parallel.” 2 Several fracture zones practically intersect! How then can solid plates be bounded by and move in the direction of these fracture zones? Can a train move on tracks that aren’t parallel? (Notice the white arrows in Figure 42 showing nearly intersecting fracture zones.) In many places on the Atlantic and Pacific floor, segments of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge overlap for about 10 miles. These are called overlapping spreading centers.3 (Figure 43.) If plates are moving away from the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, then the distance between overlapping segments must be increasing. However, overlapping regions are always near each other. Three of the most perplexing questions in the earth sciences today are barely verbalized in classrooms and textbooks: “What force moves plates over the globe? By what mechanism? What is the energy source?” The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and water—lots of it. c:\my documents\osc[/img]
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 18, 2004 17:08:56 GMT -5
I'm not positive, but I think the force that moves the plates is convection within the mantle. That is, heat shifting around and causing the mantle to fluctuate then moves the relatively thin crustal plates floating on its surface.
Ok... I know neither of us is going to convince the other of the trueness of our beliefs regarding our origins, but you don't need to repeat the same supposed flaws over and over again. Science isn't completely correct, and is addmittedly lacking in that area.
The purpose of science isn't to find all the answers at once, but to take time and careful observation and theorizing to find the answers.
But at the same time, Creationism supposedly has all the answers not by any scientific means, but by divine means. If creationism is indeed the only possible explanation, I'd prefer to learn that for myself via science rather than have it handed to me to believe on what I consider to be blind faith. I cannot believe in something just because someone tells me it is so based on little to no evidence that I know of. I have on many occasions not even believed the science I have been taught until researching and finding farther 'proof' towards its trueness.
You claim there are no problems creationism cannot explain... Well, there are no problems that the Greek or Roman gods could not explain, or the Norse gods, or the Egyptian gods, or any other ancient polytheistic god system (That is, of all the problems they knew of, their belief systems worked just fine). Just because you can explain everything doesn't mean you have a rational explanation. For example: The greeks said lightning was thrown by Zeus. As far as the greeks were concerned, that explained it perfectly. You claim everything was just created by an all-powerful being. As far as you are concerned, that explains it perfectly. So what's the difference between you and the greeks? They had much literature similar to the bible which explained the origins of their gods and their own origins via the gods, so I will not accept an answer that uses the Bible as the only possible answer. Please, if you can explain creationism to me without making it sound like you are simply using a god to explain the unknown rather than figuring it out for yourself, I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you.
I didn't quite understand your reasoning with the tectonic plates, I think maybe because you tried to put a picture in, but I can't see it for some reason. If you have a website I'd like to look into it further.
I kind of see what you mean about Catholocism and 'your religion', as you put it. Yes, there are many corrupt people, and just because they are assholes doesn't mean all people of your faith or similar faith are the same as the corrupt ones. I'm not quite sure of the history, but the main Protestant branch (Which is the branch which the majority of American Christians are, I think) broke off when Henry the VIII split England off so he could get a divorce; at least, that is what I thought.
Oh, about picking and choosing from the bible... I have mostly only read the Old Testament so far, and I've noticed that not everything stated there is adhered to by Christians (such as Kosher foods and such). I didn't mean to offend you, I was just confused by it.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 18, 2004 23:57:47 GMT -5
so i guess were at a point where it comes down to the fact that you cant prove creationa dn i cant prove evolution.....i guess its the other way around but anywho. Educated people have been doing it for years and as long as there is scince there is going to be mistaking calculations and corupt people, on both sides of the argument. I dont know why i thought we would get anywhere arguing although i have learned a lot. So i am done arguing this because as the thread title says "the endless debate" So yeah
But anyway back tot he bible thing, in the old testiment the jews had all these rules because they were gods "choosen people" so he told them they could not eat unclean animals and i really dont know why but i hear different things about not being ablr to cook it right or something, i dont know. But anyway they had all these strict rules because they were Gods choosen people and they were to live differently then the rest of the world. But then the jews did not have the personal relationship and all they did was follow the rules. They "honored God with there lips but there hearts were far from him" so when jesus came he said you dont have to follow the same strict laws but you must honor God. They still had to obey the ten commandements but it was changed a little. Like for instance the jews wouldnt do any work on the sabath. So this one tiem jesus healed a man on the sabath and they flipped out because he did work. And jesus was all like "YO! Im helpin a brother, i dont care what day of the week it is", ya know. So we are not still commanded to obey all the sustoms like circumcision and what not but jesus wants us to be focused on having a personal relationship and not be so concerned about the laws. We are to obey him but our aim is to love hima nd be his friend and if all that exists then we will not want to sin. i hope this answered the question
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 7, 2004 18:47:43 GMT -5
"If the world about us is so complex and wonderful that it had to have a creator, then surely a being capable of creating it would be even more complex and wonderful - and even more in need of its own creator!" - Frank R. Zindler
I believe the quote speaks and stands up for itself.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 9, 2004 21:02:15 GMT -5
well then you enter into a cycle of endlessness, however the reason he said that is because he has a small brain and can not fathom anything bigger
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 9, 2004 21:07:09 GMT -5
" I have read, in Greek and Latin, scores of myths, but I did not find the slightest flavour of myth here....No man could have set down such artless and vulnerable accounts as these unless some real Event lay behind them." J.B.Phillips
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 9, 2004 21:56:28 GMT -5
well then you enter into a cycle of endlessness, however the reason he said that is because he has a small brain and can not fathom anything bigger I see no problem with the logic of the quote I used... if this world is so complex that it needs a creator, then the creator would have to be more complex, and then by the same logic would need its on creator. Therefore, either your logic is flawed, or there is a god to your god, who also has his own god, etc, etc... (by the logic of complexity needing creator)
|
|
|
Post by Lynnet on Mar 9, 2004 23:02:53 GMT -5
"The greatest mystery of the universe is not life, but Size..." -The Darkman to The Gunslinger, Stephen King's The GunslingerGoes on to detail how in a single blade of grass there could be a whole imperceptible universe existing, and by stepping on that blade of grass, we could be bringing that universe to an end...all the while, our own universe exists within a blade of grass at an even larger level of existance... This just reminded me of that for some reason Nothing is unfathomable given enough time, energy, and creative thought...
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 10, 2004 23:09:15 GMT -5
Ok here we go, deep breath... Look all of you i could not even finish reading the end og the thread b/c you were all being so absurd. Joel you are an ass and i do not agree with you at all, infact if i had to take sides it would be with more or less every1 else that responded to you even though i don't particualrly agree w/ them either but not for the same reasons that you are a total fool. You, my friend, have no concept of science in any of its forms be it physical, environmental, biological or even the religous facts. i am sorry but you have no bases for anything that you have said, not only have you made outragious clames but you have not provided any evidence besides a few second rate web pages. and you know what the same goes for the rest of you, though ur facts are alot more real then his there are alot of discrepencies. science is my life, physical and biological, if u want to argue facts w/ me i will sit you down with over a hundred text books from whatever the hell year you want and teach you a whole course worth of facts that u have no idea exist or r completely out of touch with. the same goes for any of you; for example the speed of light is constant, there is no debating that the speed of light through a vaccuum i.e. space is 3.00x10^6m/s, there is no questioning that countless scientists have proven that, nicola tesla for one einstein for another. the continents are being pulled back into the earth by some of the techtonic plates but u know what at the same time new land masses are being added at other fault lines that are repacing what is lost, if u want an easy example the hawaiian island where all formed by a volcano on a fault in the ring of fire and the smaller farther ones will eventually receed back into the earths crust. and as for the bible u do pick and choose i was forced to read that thing so go back and read it it has a tendency to contradict its self all over the place, so if you believe all of it, joel, then you follow it very blindly , if you are going to believe it atleast fully understand ur own belief. but like i said i could go on about this for hours upon hours but if u really want the facts and to debate this live then IM me or call i am more then willing to go on about this but for now u guys hurt my brain this was so wrong.
sorry for the spelling i suck at that but hey atleast i am not putting "FACT:...." all over the place when i can't back it up...
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 10, 2004 23:14:40 GMT -5
btw: if you want me to drop a name of someone who could back me up on some of these things my uncle is the head of the science department at the university or cornell and one of the top 5 scientist in the country from what i understand. so even if this is idle banter of the masses and we r just young ppl talking keep in mind there r those out there who know far more then us and if u want the facts go to the source and the actual people who prove these things. i enjoy talking to these things about him and it would be hard to call him whone when he writes the books and i would have to say i have learned alot from him and my other teachers and text books all of which i am willing to lay down to prove w/e u feel needs answered.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 13, 2004 1:20:47 GMT -5
To start off there have been scientists that have found the rate of light to change, of course it is the minority of the group. And of course you know that the majority is ALWAYS right, i mean apparently it turns out the earth is round, and of course the bible has been claiming that one since the begining, and of course all the scientists laughed and mocked the bible for thinking the earth was round, and of course it turns out the earth is round. I stand on something that does not change, it has remained constant for thousands of years.
apparently i am ignorant, why dont you go ahead and fill me in on what i have wrong about the bible, oh knowledgable one
before i go i would just like to shout a big warm 'thank you' out to cypris, since i dont know as much about science as you do i will never voice my oppinion for fear of being called...
and so on.....
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 13, 2004 15:09:09 GMT -5
If you wish to take what i said personally go right ahead but i was underthe impression we could say what we wish here and our own views i am not saying u r wrong to think that just that ur facts are wrong. besides that where the hell does it say in the bible that the earth is round, every religion was in the same boat about the world being flat until it was proven other wise and i would like very much for u to show me the lab f these scientist that proved how the speed of light has changed. honestly i plan to take it to my uncle and see what he has to say so lets have it and see if u r right. if it is a fact and the scientist used the scientific process then we could infact reproduce the expirament and beyond a shadow of adoubt see that you are right and by all mean if you are correct i will appologise.
|
|