Evolution Versus Creationism

[princeofvegas 0]

Wow, I have come back to see that I have started a pretty heated debate. LOL. My belief in faith is a little bit different than that of most people. There is such thing as faith and then there is "blind" faith.I grew up as a scientific mind and I generally need to see some kind of proof in order to believe in something. (i.e. The Article that was just posted about the exploding gum.. lol). Even though I am not religious (too many things just do not add up for me personally), I do like to think I am spiritual. It is hard to have a scientific viewpoint and not believe that we are the only intelligent species in our vastly undiscovered and unexplored universe. That being said I believe that there is a higher power somewhere out there, maybe even a greater existence for human beings, but facts are facts. The oldest discovered *person* sapien remains date back almost 200,000 years ago, long before any passages of the Bible were ever written. Now I personally have read the Bible and if you read it without taking every translation literally, then it can begin to make more sense. You can see how though taken literally, the theory of intelligent design did come about.

[shadowx 0]

In fairness you can read any story, not take it literally and it then becomes "true" Spider man comics... If we dont take it literally and instead take the following from it:A man is bitten by a spider and thinks it is really cool so he becomes a free runner and does amazing tricks and stuff and pretends to be a superhero to scare criminals.Thats entirely possible. but it's not the story of superman.

[truefusion 3]

This all leads us back to the debate at hand... From a religion that is essentially paganism rebranded we are taught that God created the world in 7 days. Now, i know age doesnt affect the "truth" of any religion. And im not saying Paganism is 100% correct, however. You have to admit that if paganism existed thousands of years beforehand and then Christianity comes along using the same symbolism, the same holidays and the same ideas (even the holy trinity can be traced to paganism with the triple goddess who represents the maiden, mother and crone/(older lady)) and then tortures, kills and beats anyone who doesnt believe before using the "Youre going to hell!" guilt trip and then taxing its followers very heavily (i mean come on. The pope probably wipes his backside with gold leaf) is really not something i can ever believe.

At first i was wondering where all that other stuff came from (as i don't recall asking for it), but i can now see the connection. However, i do see a major problem (which is very common in the secular world, by the way): using the word "Christianity" to include everything, even if it is not promoted by Christianity itself. You say Christianity promotes this and that, but what i see you talking about isn't from Christianity but from what believers have allowed outside of Christianity, which many they have "Christianized"—note, i am referring to celebrations and similar here. In other words, if it is not Biblical, then i cannot see how you can argue Christianity this and Christianity that. Sure, many things that people do (celebrate) today (note, this involves all kinds of people) can be traced back to pagan origin. But does that mean that you are justified in claiming that many of these things are of Christianity? No, for that is hasty generalization. You can say that Christians celebrate many of these things, but that does not mean that it is part of Christianity.

 

Likewise, i have heard many argue (complain) that believers in the past have done such and such horrible things, but rarely, if at all, does anyone provide any actual information about these things. That is, in what point in time exactly did these things occur? And are you (or the source you got this information from) forming conclusions based on one small thing which you have for the sake of argument made big, or is it really something big? How can i tell? You say done for the sake of promoting Christianity. However, you will have to explain to me how or why anyone would try to promote Christianity, which means bringing salvation to that person, only to kill the potential convert in the end, therefore ruining the whole point of promoting Christianity. I can only conclude that such an illogical action has to be but something completely different than what is being illustrated here, if indeed it is the case that they were promoting Christianity.

 

I remember being referenced a certain Wikipedia article in another topic (which was a small time ago) which was supposed to show the very thing they were talking about, but i can't remember the specific article (and i'm not going to go out to search for it, at least not right now). If you could point out at least one of these for your words to carry at least an ounce of weight, we can then begin a proper scholarly debate. Pick any to start off first (e.g. promoting Christianity only to kill the person in the end; Christianity, as it is properly defined, copied from others—since what you have said doesn't follow to this; or what-have-you), we can start on the others later, if you are willing.

 

that is just ridiculous. so you are saying that heaven is actually in the sky from the earth's perspective? does that intimate that thee really is no "heaven"? because you are referring to heaven as galaxies? am i getting this correctly? your arguement just has no basis for it. how many times does the bible refer to heaven? too many to count....obviously heaven is one thing and heavens is multiples of that one thing.

According to the Bible, our sky is the first heaven, as implied by the verses where Jesus "looks up to heaven," where Jesus mentions that he'll be "riding on the clouds of heaven" on the last day, and verses like Matthew 13:32 (this one requires a word-for-word translation to see the connection) and others. And, no, i am not referring to the heavens as galaxies. As i understand it, there are multiple layers of heavens. I am uncertain as to the start and ending point of the first heaven, that is, whether or not it starts at our sky and continues onward to the ends of the universe, or if it stops at the edge of earth's most outer atmosphere. But anything starting at the third heaven and upward cannot be accessed through physical means, and, for that reason, i am inclined to say that only our first heaven can be traveled (however limited that may be) by physical means. It is not difficult to differentiate between the heaven where it is said that God is stationed at (i.e. the last and final heaven) and the lower heavens. Context is key in determining what is meant.

 

also, for the sake of arguement that god is always right, that doesn't mean MAN is always right. therefore, the probability of the bible being right now decreases because it was written by man. not god.

The ever-so-common "it is written by man" argument is impractical and fallacious. You cannot point out to me a book that was not written by man; does that therefore make everything written false or lose credibility? It not need be written by God in order for it to be true. Also, a lot of what is written consists of Jewish history and therefore does not concern spiritual things.

 

as far as your astronomy statement, what are you saying? you are being vague like usual to not state your own beliefs. are you saying that there isn't any purpose to the "heavens" and we cannot predict things through the stars and planets? because what i am getting through your vagueness is that if it's not in the bible, it wasn't created by god. is this what you were trying to say?

I'd say the answer is within your own words. You speak of predictions, but a prediction, or any form of study, requires a conscious being that is capable and willing to do such a thing. Therefore, until a willing, conscious being takes the time to study the stars and space, astrology will not enter existence.

 

it's funny that some people use science to prove creationism. they use examples of science that goes with things that was written in the bible("god's word") it's argued that god's word came before the science to prove the validity of the bible. what i have to say on that is to take your own words that science is ever changing. what is true in science today is false tomorrow. this has been proven time and time again. this is why we haven't been using the same science books today that our grandparents used when they were kids.

Interesting statement. Nevertheless, i feel there are some things which should be safe to make a connection with. But true, it can be dangerous to link things up.

 

i am not going to search for a thread that will take me hours just to prove a point, but you did describe evolution as part of god's plan for our future. you DID say that. i am not making that up bud haha. it's either you believed in that or you were doing what you do alot and spew b.s. just to argue a point that you don't even believe in.

You laugh, but i know what i wrote. Since i know how to retrieve them quickly, i will provide links to the ones i remember stating: [1]; [2].

 

in these types of threads, to get to the real answers to the questions, one must talk from personal experiences. or trying to go the philisophical route in using logic to determine an answer. questions like, "if god exists, does that mean evolution doesn't?" or "if the big bang created the universe, does that mean there is no higher power?", etc...etc.. but even when you look at this subject at a philisophical standpoint, there are no conclusions so everything is still left up in the air....UNLESS we respect the beliefs in others, respect the beliefs of others, and assume there is truth in most every belief. we would get further as a world society without trying to discredit beliefs and try to understand the truth in the different beliefs and why it's a belief or a religion in the first place. but i also believe that there is also untruths to everything as well(in regards to beliefs and religions).

Your use of the word "respect" bears the same ambiguity that i've seen from you before. That is, you appear to be using the word as if it were the same as "accept." In that sense, it is impossible to "respect" other people's beliefs, as they tend to be in conflict. And if you intend it to mean to honor theirs above yours, then that would involve dropping ours in place of theirs, which will only lead us back to square one.

 

Also what anwii said is interesting. The debate between big bang and god being the creator of the universe. Its a chicken and egg situation because something needed to create god, yet it seems unfeasible that the big bang created itself, so therefore perhaps it was created by god, but then with no universe where was god before the big bang? He cant have been outside of the big bang because the outside didnt exist. But he cant've been inside the big bang because how could he cause it if he hadnt been created by it yet?

 

That being said if science proves the big bang in the future it still doenst disprove god. God could well have been created by the big bang.

To say that something needed to create God is to put yourself into an infinite regression. That is, you will continually ask, "Who or what created God?" for there is no end to it in the position you place yourself in. Therefore, in order to avoid an infinite regression, you must, by necessity, conclude that God has no beginning and no end: He just is. The big bang cannot cause itself, for that implies that the big bang existed before its own existence. We know, for that reason, that nothing can cause its own existence—this is an absolute fact. Following from this absolute fact, the thing in question must have either always existed (i.e. bearing no beginning and end) or it must have been caused into existence by an outside force. There is no chicken and egg dilemma here (although i would practically always argue that the chicken came first). Concerning the big bang, for us believers, the question is whether or not "let there be light" implies a big bang.

 

Yes. Put simply. I dont think its impossible for god to exist. Ive stated my belief but i am open to the existence of god. However, what i do not believe is:

This god is the property of christians, or hindus, or muslims etc... i dont believe their stories of the properties of their respective god(s)

God created everything. Sorry, i dont buy it.

God will send me to hell if i dont believe in him. Sorry but damn what a bast**d! you dont think iom real eh? TO HELL WITH YOU! No "nice" god would do that.... Would you? No.

There is a heaven and a hell. nope. Cant logically happen. What if i love my mum, but she killed someone and was a complete sinner? Yet i was a god loving christian. By rights i should go to heaven and she should go to hell. But my love for her is so strong that to be without her it would be like hell. So even though i go to heaven im not with her so i feel really sad and it is like hell to me. So what happened? I was good yet i still get punished? So then god would have to take my mum to heaven, but shes a sinner so he cant do that so he would have to send me to hell, but he cant do that because im good... Maybe he could clone her? But no... Because thats a sin too according to the church... So god is royally stuffed! Hence heaven/hell cannot exist. (plus heaven is subjective to every person). Instead i think there is a universal plane or universe we all go to when we die. Those who are spiritually "dead" like murders etc.. who sacrifice their soul and their love for a life or killing. These people are low frequency spirits and hence are stuck to the bottom plane of existence where the other low lifes are. The more spiritual you are the higher your frequency until you reach "heaven" a place of pure light and power. Here the universal truths exist and this is where a god would reside if one exists. (sounds similar to heaven/hell huh? The lower you are the more "evil" people are, and the top level is where the good people and god exist... Strange that.. another christian-pagan link....

And finally, i dont believe in creationism! The evidence tells me its false!

No wonder why you say it can't logically happen: you don't believe in the scriptures, you believe in word-of-mouth. In heaven there will be no such thing as sadness (Revelation 21:4). It is impossible for you to bear any pain or discomfort in heaven. Therefore the scenario you provide is not Biblical.

 

Concerning the "Christian-pagan link" you speak of: Does one truth found in multiple areas make it false? (To remove the implication: that is a general question; i am not asking you to assume that heaven and hell is a truth. But does it make it false?)

[nolan 0]

It's fickle to debate between evolution vs. intelligent design. With either route you end up at a point of no return where it's impossible to uncover the additional information that would be necessary to prove either concept to be the absolute truth.Personally, I think it's obvious that various species evolve, but that this does not exclude the concept of creationism. Whereas most "scientific" minds would claim that creationism is illogical, I see it making more sense than the alternative. It makes very little sense that living creatures should appear (given -any- amount of time) with not only a will or instinct to sustain their lives (in the greater scheme of things, why should life want to sustain itself? There's no reason for it. We're less than a blink of an eye in the greater cosmos), but also have all of the necessary ingredients to replicate themselves in some meaningful way and to adapt to their environments. That's a -very- tall order for any random series of particle collisions, even given all the space and history of the universe.I know people get heated during these kinds of discussions, but really we're all just people taking stabs at something we'll never be able to reach for. You might as well ask a computer program what the computer it's running inside of looks like.

[anwiii 17]

HAhahahaha! you didn't ask for his thoughts? let's make a rule right now that nobody should post ANYTHING until truefusion asks for it....hahahaha! that was funny.....

 

so all this heaven talk leaves you confused too, huh? what you are saying is god uses the same word to describe many different things. he doesn't use different words to describe different things. i mean, it's not like we are using heaven as an adjective and a noun. they are all places according to you....DIFFERENT places. so for someone who believes in the bible but doesn't really understand it, your validity should be questioned. why would you reference something in the bible to help your arguement where you don't even understand it??? so you still are pussyfootin' around with answering my question. why does god not talk about the things like other galaxies? why is it just earth that is the written word? it suggests that if there is other lifeforms somewhere else, the bible will never pertain to them so what....do the aliens, if any, have their own different version that only pertains to their own world? or is it suggesting that earth is the only place for intelligent life that needs a book to guide them.

 

i am not being impractible when i say the bible was written by man and therefore is subject to mistakes since man isn't perfect. that is am undisputable fact. the bible even suggests it several times. therefore, it DOES have to be written by a perfect god in order for it to be true because once any part of the bible is discredited, the WHOLE thing should be discredited as a whole because nobody will know what the heck is true or false about the bible. most experts also believe that the bible was unfinished. it was never completed. so my question is why....what are people trying to hide? and if a book is incomplete, how valid is the incomplete book? (i am referring to the book as a whole...not the differen't "books" in the bible)

 

we have to have a willing and conscious being to study something before it becomes true? now who is being contradicting. your belief isn't based on research, but FAITH. so you can't possibly believe what you said about the stars, space, and astrology.

 

don't be crossing any line here telling me how i should believe in respect and accepting. i know exactly what i believe and why i believe and although respect and accept are different, they are also similar. yes, i accept other peoples belief, but i go futher and state i respect other peoples beliefs because i believe there is truth in EVERYTHING that surounds us. so don't tell me how i don';t respect. by your own words though, it's YOU that doesn't respect other peoples beliefs because you don't even know what they are to resepct them. i respect yours believe it or not, but you are turning an issue in to something personal in trying to dictate what i believe using twisted words and thought. in fact, it's the other way around. in fact, i HAVE to accept other peoples beliefs if i am to get along with other people. what i don't have to do is respect them. that comes from a personal choice i made a long time ago.

 

i know what you said, and i know what you wrote. you don't need to quote pull up anything. what i don't know was your intentions of writing something like that.

 

 

 

To say that something needed to create God is to put yourself into an infinite regression. That is, you will continually ask, "Who or what created God?" for there is no end to it in the position you place yourself in. Therefore, in order to avoid an infinite regression, you must, by necessity, conclude that God has no beginning and no end: He just is. The big bang cannot cause itself, for that implies that the big bang existed before its own existence. We know, for that reason, that nothing can cause its own existence—this is an absolute fact. Following from this absolute fact, the thing in question must have either always existed (i.e. bearing no beginning and end) or it must have been caused into existence by an outside force. There is no chicken and egg dilemma here (although i would practically always argue that the chicken came first). Concerning the big bang, for us believers, the question is whether or not "let there be light" implies a big bang.

you believe that when you die, you go to heaven as long as you have been saved and there is no pain in heaven. so either you don't believe in lingering spirits that are around us or gaurdian angels becuase it would be impossible to experience their presense in the non physical world(as heaven is a place in the non physical world....oh...one of MANY definitions of heaven haha). or you believe in lingering spirits that can be at least felt in the physical world, but they were never saved and not in heaven? what about shadowx's thoughts on the different levels of spirituality? what if saved just means many lifetimes of progressing to that top level of heaven? could that be?

 

you have to believe that 1 book is fact. otherwise your whole belief system wouldn't be based on any facts that you always ask others for. 1 book. you believe in 1 man made book that has already been shown to be not understandable by you, but you fail to question it at all because you can't. christians believe in marriage and bearing many children. are you married? how many children have you beared? have you ever stoned anyone, have you ever taken a neighbor as a slave? are you born again? do you continually preach the word of god and tell people they as well need to be saved for their own salvation as it states that will be your job in life until you pass on? let's get to the nitty gritty here true fusion. what are your beliefs and how strong are they. shadowx stated his belief. i have stated my belief several times in many threads as you quite well know. what about yours. why do you hesitate to post about them? let's go. you wanted to comment on this thread, you can't really do any good here until you post about your beliefs so we can analyze every different belief and option to learn something from it. why do you allow fear to limit you? what are you afraid of? aren't you proud of your beliefs? don't you have the need to share them in topics like this when the god you believe in wants you to? or are you just choosing a different path of jesus for some reason? why why why....let's talk about you for a change because your input is also valuable, true?

 

my main question though is how can you ever believe in people and show that you believe in them when ytou are always trying to discredit them? why? so now i am asking something from you, as that is how you started your whole post in responding to shadowx. therefore, you should be inclined to answer....since i asked....but please...don't say anything that i never asked for either from now on. shame on you that you feel you are better than the rest an talk about things sometimes that others didn't ask for.

[inverse_bloom 0]

Personally i was more happy and content when i believed creationism to be valid. One good way "for anyone" to objectively analyze this topic and explore it more fully is through a PMI worksheet, if no one has already. Its a very simple tool but is surprisingly effective (that is if you go through it without bias and wholeheartedly).

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_05.htm

It initially may seem lame but if you with hold yourself from "that" belief long enough, you list all your points in equally long long lists in the columns and categorize the level of importance or "validness" they mean to you. When you add them up at the end what is particularly interesting is the score that comes out. What you often find is your bias is shifted often to a much more grey area rather than the tendency towards black and white views.

So for this topic you could start with the question "Which seems more valid Evolution or Creationism?"

Its win/win really in my opinion, because if you still get the same result as before, at least you've looked at a topic steered in a more objective "exploratory" way and can justify it so.

Ok, i better stop at that before someone picks holes with my precious PMI worksheets.

Edited December 12, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

i actually really like that worksheet for those that are confused and unable to make a decision on their own. but that sort of worksheet wont work in this thread because of the possibility of people cheating to make a point or arguement where the worksheet is literally invalid. i think those types of worksheets are best used for personal issues and such worksheets should always remain private. also, there can be many holes to it. you are writing down all the pros and cons and assigning a + or - number to those things. that table doesn't account for the things that you don't think of or forget to write down. i like the idea behind it though if a person can give it some great thought to it.

Ok, i better stop at that before someone picks holes with my precious PMI worksheets.

[inverse_bloom 0]

Well its kinda true, depends on the person really. If they are willing to "leave" their feelings for a moment and just look at discovering a topic more fully then it is useful. Trust me the worksheet isn't just about making descions based on the final outcome of the sheet, but just "exploring" subject matter in a different way from what you are used to. I think you've got the wrong idea, im not suggesting doing it and using it as justification for your beliefs. By writing an equal amount of points in each column you get a much more balanced view and can then accomodate more rationality for what you hadn't previously realized. If you havn't undertaken a few earnestly with an open mind, than you couldnt know what i mean. It really shouldn't be compared with Pro's and Con's if you look at its explanation carefully. Please look at the credentials of the man who constructed this (Edward DeBono) he knows his stuff.

[nolan 0]

For the record, if anyone ever asks you this question, just politely inform them that chickens, themselves, and all of their closest relations, have never been asexual. This means that in order for the chicken to have come first, there would have had to have been two chickens to continue the species (very unlikely). Likewise, in order for the egg to come first, there would have had to have been two eggs (also very unlikely), they would have needed a way to incubate (not available), and add on a whole realm of other complications, such as their ability to sustain themselves in an infantile state without support from others of their race and virtually no system of learned behavior (entirely instinctive).

Whenever you're talking about the first of a new species, you end up with complications. For example, most modern animals have live births (including humans), but this wasn't always the case. Historically, all animals have laid eggs. This means that the first animal capable of live birth had to come from an egg. Before eggs, you had cellular division, meaning that the first creature to be capable of laying eggs had to derive from something that was able to divide at the cellular level into a more complex life form, e.g., a sea sponge evolving into a primitive fish.

When looking at things in this (appropriate) light, you have to conclude that all originals of a reproductive species were either (a) capable of division or ( asexual. Further, at each evolutionary step in reproduction, the new species would be a family of one, and from that, all other species of the same reproductive subset would derive. (Note, however, that this leaves aside the highly unlikely consideration that the same genetic anomaly could have created two of said species at or around the same time.)

There is no chicken and egg dilemma here (although i would practically always argue that the chicken came first).

Notice from truefusion:

Corrected quote. I was the one that said it, not anwiii.

[anwiii 17]

ummm EXCUSE ME?!?!?!? i NEVER said anything about a chicken and the egg theory. you just quoted something that i never mentioned....EVER! that qoute came from shadowx or someone else or you just made it up entirely. whatever the case, i hope you edit that quote to take me name out of it....

[shadowx 0]

Ok i mentioned tghe chicken and egg, and the only possible explanation is the egg came first. There was an animal that was 99% chicken, due to a genetic mutation is produced an egg that was 100% chicken. That's how it works.

Now, TF im sorry but im going to tear your protective barrier of falseness from around you. I apologise.

However, you will have to explain to me how or why anyone would try to promote Christianity

The pope has his own country, lives a gold plated palace that is probably bigger than that of any monarchy on this planet. He has his own army of soldiers and gold. More fame than you can shake a stick at and BILLIONS of people all over the world will do anything he says. If he told everyone that they need to repent by killing themselves there would be well over a billion dead people on the streets. POWER and MONEY my friend. Stronger forces than any god ever conceived and the pope is no exception. Perhaps he does it for good reasons, to guide people to better lives but it is still probably the most powerful seat in the world.



As for the infinite loop of god vs big bang, you say that the big bang needed to be created. It couldnt create itself, which is half true. But then you say that god has always existed.... Well... who or what made god? The problem is, if you can believe that an infinitely powerful god just existed forever, with no creator then you must also believe that a small pocket of infinite energy could also have just existed without being created. you cant believe one is possible without the other. In fact a ball of pure energy (which the big bang was, it wasnt matter at all e=mc2 reversed.) is easier to understand than an all powerful sentient being.

I must go now as im going out and my lift is here. But id like to see your reaction to those arguments.

Have fun kids!

[mahesh2k 0]

If anyone never heard of debate of zakir naik then i'll suggest checking youtube for people like zakir naik and harun yahya. Hilarious thing about them is they ridicule one religion to portray another religion as good. (Real point is why show each others religion as wrong anyway ?). Here is the link to video for zakir naik vs william campbell, here zakir debates about 7 day argument of Christianity.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

His explanation for Big bang:
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Is this how islamic creationists proves stuff to be valid ? (All i can say, is it's pure word salad and no empirical evidence).

[shadowx 0]

Ok im back and im going to carry on with TFs post...

using the word "Christianity" to include everything, even if it is not promoted by Christianity itself.

Christmas, Easter and the creationism story that i reference IS Christian in origin. it IS in the bible the church DOES teach it. I accept many of the celebrations around christmas and easter are not christian. however, the holidays themselves are portrayed as Christian when they are not.

Likewise, i have heard many argue (complain) that believers in the past have done such and such horrible things, but rarely, if at all, does anyone provide any actual information about these things.

Well apart from the biggest guilt trip in history "If you dont believe in god, and go to church you WILL go to hell" I can see nothing else christianity has ever done wrong... Apart from the almost systematic abuse of children by Catholics, the subjugation of women and their rights, damage that has been done by branding all other religions evil, and the followers of those religions as devil worshippers has caused through their reputation and subsequent abuse. I actually feel comfortable saying that Christianity is an evil religion. I truly do. It has done nothing good for this world, and if i were the christian god personally i would send many of the people that claim to represent me to the fires of hell. Many of those representatives are truly evil people.

promoting Christianity only to kill the person in the end

Christians are largely brain washed fools. They cant have this person around them for whatever reason, so they have to get rid of them. They are also fools in that they feel they mast save everyone... damn... so they have to save them form the flames of hell, obviously, but they cant have them around so they try to save them then kill them. Either that or they think they are doing the person a favour by saving their soul and then sending them up to god before they do bad again.

According to the Bible, our sky is the first heaven, as implied by the verses where Jesus "looks up to heaven," where Jesus mentions that he'll be "riding on the clouds of heaven" on the last day, and verses like Matthew 13:32 (this one requires a word-for-word translation to see the connection) and others. And, no, i am not referring to the heavens as galaxies. As i understand it, there are multiple layers of heavens. I am uncertain as to the start and ending point of the first heaven, that is, whether or not it starts at our sky and continues onward to the ends of the universe, or if it stops at the edge of earth's most outer atmosphere. But anything starting at the third heaven and upward cannot be accessed through physical means, and, for that reason, i am inclined to say that only our first heaven can be traveled (however limited that may be) by physical means. It is not difficult to differentiate between the heaven where it is said that God is stationed at (i.e. the last and final heaven) and the lower heavens. Context is key in determining what is meant.

Welcome back to pagnism my friend. 7 astral planes, I've been through this already.

Plus the skies arent heaven in the sense that many used to believe. The skies are the skies. Clouds rain etc... however, i cant disprove that heaven is a non-physical realm that occupies the same space as our sky. No-one can prove or disprove that.

Concerning the "Christian-pagan link" you speak of: Does one truth found in multiple areas make it false? (To remove the implication: that is a general question; i am not asking you to assume that heaven and hell is a truth. But does it make it false?)

I haven't once said that paganism is the only true religion, nor that it is true in any sense. I have actually said many times that paganism is what i personally believe and that it may not be true, and may not be for you.

[nolan 0]

Sorry, anwiii. I probably just hit reply on the wrong post. I'm always bouncing between things, and the spam protection warning goes off on me at arbitrary times.

Thank you for correcting the quote, truefusion.

ummm EXCUSE ME?!?!?!? i NEVER said anything about a chicken and the egg theory. you just quoted something that i never mentioned....EVER! that qoute came from shadowx or someone else or you just made it up entirely. whatever the case, i hope you edit that quote to take me name out of it....

If this was in response to what I said, for the most part it's saying the same thing (re: genetic anomaly), except with regards to the larger perspective that looks at the issue beyond just chickens and eggs. As a quick aside, however, this isn't entirely accurate. An animal that's 99% chicken (it would be a lot more than 99%, by the way -- genetic code is extremely precise) wouldn't just lay an egg that becomes a chicken and that be that. It's just the start to a much longer process.

The first issue you'd have would be the derivative species not producing young that carry on its exact genetic code, due to the range of mates it would have available to it (all of a slightly different genetic code). This is countered by the fact that, as evolutionary stages pass (following extensive timespans), the onset of change and the creation of derivative species is relatively quick, meaning that more and more genetic anomalies continue to occur, until they're no longer anomalies. Eventually, the dominant traits of the new species prevail and the old species fades away.

This is the short version of how it works, but there are plenty of resources out there to learn more about evolutionary cycles.

Ok i mentioned tghe chicken and egg, and the only possible explanation is the egg came first. There was an animal that was 99% chicken, due to a genetic mutation is produced an egg that was 100% chicken. That's how it works.

[truefusion 3]

[1]HAhahahaha! you didn't ask for his thoughts? let's make a rule right now that nobody should post ANYTHING until truefusion asks for it....hahahaha! that was funny.....

 

[2]so all this heaven talk leaves you confused too, huh? what you are saying is god uses the same word to describe many different things. he doesn't use different words to describe different things. i mean, it's not like we are using heaven as an adjective and a noun. they are all places according to you....DIFFERENT places. so for someone who believes in the bible but doesn't really understand it, your validity should be questioned. why would you reference something in the bible to help your arguement where you don't even understand it??? so you still are pussyfootin' around with answering my question. why does god not talk about the things like other galaxies? why is it just earth that is the written word? it suggests that if there is other lifeforms somewhere else, the bible will never pertain to them so what....do the aliens, if any, have their own different version that only pertains to their own world? or is it suggesting that earth is the only place for intelligent life that needs a book to guide them.

 

[3]i am not being impractible when i say the bible was written by man and therefore is subject to mistakes since man isn't perfect. that is am undisputable fact. the bible even suggests it several times. therefore, it DOES have to be written by a perfect god in order for it to be true because once any part of the bible is discredited, the WHOLE thing should be discredited as a whole because nobody will know what the heck is true or false about the bible. most experts also believe that the bible was unfinished. it was never completed. so my question is why....what are people trying to hide? and if a book is incomplete, how valid is the incomplete book? (i am referring to the book as a whole...not the differen't "books" in the bible)

 

[4]we have to have a willing and conscious being to study something before it becomes true? now who is being contradicting. your belief isn't based on research, but FAITH. so you can't possibly believe what you said about the stars, space, and astrology.

 

[5]don't be crossing any line here telling me how i should believe in respect and accepting. i know exactly what i believe and why i believe and although respect and accept are different, they are also similar. yes, i accept other peoples belief, but i go futher and state i respect other peoples beliefs because i believe there is truth in EVERYTHING that surounds us. so don't tell me how i don';t respect. by your own words though, it's YOU that doesn't respect other peoples beliefs because you don't even know what they are to resepct them. i respect yours believe it or not, but you are turning an issue in to something personal in trying to dictate what i believe using twisted words and thought. in fact, it's the other way around. in fact, i HAVE to accept other peoples beliefs if i am to get along with other people. what i don't have to do is respect them. that comes from a personal choice i made a long time ago.

 

[6]i know what you said, and i know what you wrote. you don't need to quote pull up anything. what i don't know was your intentions of writing something like that.

 

[7]you believe that when you die, you go to heaven as long as you have been saved and there is no pain in heaven. so either you don't believe in lingering spirits that are around us or gaurdian angels becuase it would be impossible to experience their presense in the non physical world(as heaven is a place in the non physical world....oh...one of MANY definitions of heaven haha). or you believe in lingering spirits that can be at least felt in the physical world, but they were never saved and not in heaven? what about shadowx's thoughts on the different levels of spirituality? what if saved just means many lifetimes of progressing to that top level of heaven? could that be?

 

[8]you have to believe that 1 book is fact. otherwise your whole belief system wouldn't be based on any facts that you always ask others for. 1 book. you believe in 1 man made book that has already been shown to be not understandable by you, but you fail to question it at all because you can't. christians believe in marriage and bearing many children. are you married? how many children have you beared? have you ever stoned anyone, have you ever taken a neighbor as a slave? are you born again? do you continually preach the word of god and tell people they as well need to be saved for their own salvation as it states that will be your job in life until you pass on? let's get to the nitty gritty here true fusion. what are your beliefs and how strong are they. shadowx stated his belief. i have stated my belief several times in many threads as you quite well know. what about yours. why do you hesitate to post about them? let's go. you wanted to comment on this thread, you can't really do any good here until you post about your beliefs so we can analyze every different belief and option to learn something from it. why do you allow fear to limit you? what are you afraid of? aren't you proud of your beliefs? don't you have the need to share them in topics like this when the god you believe in wants you to? or are you just choosing a different path of jesus for some reason? why why why....let's talk about you for a change because your input is also valuable, true?

 

[9]my main question though is how can you ever believe in people and show that you believe in them when ytou are always trying to discredit them? why? so now i am asking something from you, as that is how you started your whole post in responding to shadowx. therefore, you should be inclined to answer....since i asked....but please...don't say anything that i never asked for either from now on. shame on you that you feel you are better than the rest an talk about things sometimes that others didn't ask for.

[1] He already told me his thoughts. I don't see why i should ask for it again after he said it. If you look back at my request, i asked if he could provide sources for his claims.

 

[2] One of the points of study is to learn. I have not done extensive research on the boundaries of the first heaven; all i know is that the first heaven is our sky. I never said i don't understand this. Indeed, as you say, why would i promote something i don't understand? What is found in the Bible need not inform me of all things. These other things are merely things i ran across while reading the Bible, which i have found interesting. And, no, i am not saying that God uses the same words to describe the same thing. In fact, if you look at the Greek or Hebrew, you might just find a different word used (not to say that God wrote the verse). My validity should be questioned, but as mentioned before, it is not hard to differentiate between the heaven that God is stationed at and the lower heavens. I have already provided verses to show that the first heaven is our sky. I provide the verses because i cannot testify for myself. And even if i didn't understand what was written in the verses, why shouldn't i provide the verses that i have trouble understanding? Shouldn't others know the verses i am having trouble with? How else are they going to help me?

 

To answer your question: in order to study the Bible, one of the first steps to study is figuring out why what is written was written for. Why didn't they go in-depth on the galaxies and stars? Because they did not need to; the focus was else where, whether it be on prophecy, Jewish history, or church related matters. Why should anyone go in-depth on unrelated matters?

 

[3] While humans are not perfect, it does not follow that everything they do is a mistake. Being prone to mistakes doesn't mean they'll cause a mistake. The Bible doesn't suggest that in order for Scripture to be perfect that God had to write it. What an expert believes doesn't mean anything to me if they can't prove it. I could take in what they say with faith, but that will only work against me when it comes time to proving the very things i assert. If the authors therein wanted to say more, they would have done so—this is often seen in the form of numbers, for example, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel; 1 Kings, 2 Kings; et cetera.

 

[4] What am i contradicting myself in? I do not support something if i am incapable of doing so. You say all that i support is not based on research but on faith because you believe that this stuff can only be accepted on faith. But you are not me; you have not done the studies i have done. It is not me who is contradicting myself, it is your perception of me that is contradicting me.

 

[5] I did not cross any line. When did i tell you to do anything? But even with everything you say here, i still don't understand what you mean by "respect." Nevertheless, i guess i am taking this a bit personal by asking you what you define as "respect," but i am a bit amazed that the very person who asked me to be more personal is stating things that imply that you do not like such a thing.

 

[6] How can you know what i said if you don't know my intentions? "Knowing" here implies more than just seeing and reading.

 

[7] Hell was never created for humans but for fallen angels (Matthew 25:41). People and spiritual beings become eligible for hell when they sin; they will not go to hell if they have never sinned. Evil spirits (i.e. fallen angels) are not allowed in heaven. Concerning shadowx's position on working your way to heaven level by level, it sounds like something taken from the Buddhist religion. I cannot (currently) properly refute anyone asserting that position; however, i can say that i do not believe in such a thing, even more so if it involves reincarnation where you can become just about anything, from a turtle to a rock, in the "afterlife." I will also say that i find it weird that the process of reincarnation causes the person to lose the memory they had from their previous life (as it is the only possible explanation). By losing your memory, you can only be prone to an ever occurring starting point. To have your memory lost is like starting back on square one. Therefore you might as well assert that it is not possible to make it to heaven through this method except perhaps if you just so happened to be born into enlightenment, therefore skipping all levels and heading straight into heaven, which implies that there is no one keeping track of these things—that it is all random.

 

[8] I cannot say that everything i have read i understand, but i can say that further study has allowed me to understand. This implies that in due time, i will eventually understand everything i do not currently understand. This is the same with anything. Take for example math. Do you understand every part of it, or did you need help or further study? Not being able to fully understand everything about something does not make the thing in question false.

 

You say i can't do any good until i post my beliefs. Interesting rhetoric, though all those other questions that follow are likewise rhetorical. I am a non-Trinitarian—that is all you need to know; this topic need not go into whether or not this position is true or false (i already have my fill of that). This discussion is supposed to be on evolution versus creationism (though i am inclined to say that intelligent design is a matter that is slightly different to creationism).

 

[9] Define "believe in them." But i never said i was better than anyone. I'ma assume you are referring to the part to where i said "i didn't ask for that." This does not imply, or is not supposed to imply, that i believe i am better. Rather, it was said in the hopes of directing the discussion to where it is supposed to be.

 

For the record, if anyone ever asks you this question, just politely inform them that chickens, themselves, and all of their closest relations, have never been asexual. This means that in order for the chicken to have come first, there would have had to have been two chickens to continue the species (very unlikely). Likewise, in order for the egg to come first, there would have had to have been two eggs (also very unlikely), they would have needed a way to incubate (not available), and add on a whole realm of other complications, such as their ability to sustain themselves in an infantile state without support from others of their race and virtually no system of learned behavior (entirely instinctive).

 

Whenever you're talking about the first of a new species, you end up with complications. For example, most modern animals have live births (including humans), but this wasn't always the case. Historically, all animals have laid eggs. This means that the first animal capable of live birth had to come from an egg. Before eggs, you had cellular division, meaning that the first creature to be capable of laying eggs had to derive from something that was able to divide at the cellular level into a more complex life form, e.g., a sea sponge evolving into a primitive fish.

 

When looking at things in this (appropriate) light, you have to conclude that all originals of a reproductive species were either (a) capable of division or ( asexual. Further, at each evolutionary step in reproduction, the new species would be a family of one, and from that, all other species of the same reproductive subset would derive. (Note, however, that this leaves aside the highly unlikely consideration that the same genetic anomaly could have created two of said species at or around the same time.)

I cannot support that position. You say in order for either the chicken or egg, there has to be two of each: male and female. By this the chicken would have never existed. You also state that in the beginning the only way to give birth is to lay eggs. How can an egg exist if there is no one to lay the egg? You say before the egg, there was cell division. It therefore follows that the creature that lays eggs would have come first, not the egg then the one that lays the egg. Therefore the chicken came first.

 

If you say there is a problem or many complications when trying to figure out how things evolved into what they are now, how can you support the theory of evolution?

 

[1]The pope has his own country, lives a gold plated palace that is probably bigger than that of any monarchy on this planet. He has his own army of soldiers and gold. More fame than you can shake a stick at and BILLIONS of people all over the world will do anything he says. If he told everyone that they need to repent by killing themselves there would be well over a billion dead people on the streets. POWER and MONEY my friend. Stronger forces than any god ever conceived and the pope is no exception. Perhaps he does it for good reasons, to guide people to better lives but it is still probably the most powerful seat in the world.

 

[2]As for the infinite loop of god vs big bang, you say that the big bang needed to be created. It couldnt create itself, which is half true. But then you say that god has always existed.... Well... who or what made god? The problem is, if you can believe that an infinitely powerful god just existed forever, with no creator then you must also believe that a small pocket of infinite energy could also have just existed without being created. you cant believe one is possible without the other. In fact a ball of pure energy (which the big bang was, it wasnt matter at all e=mc2 reversed.) is easier to understand than an all powerful sentient being.

[1] The pope is irrelevant to me. I am not a Catholic, nor do i believe that anyone on earth that was voted into power by man can ever be the representative of God. I am willing to go as far as to say that the last and final representative of God was Christ Jesus. Nevertheless, regardless of my beliefs, your statement leads to nowhere. What were you trying to prove with this? So the man is arguably the most esteemed person on earth. And? What does that show? It only shows that he is arguably the most esteemed person on earth, nothing more. Unless you have anything else to say on the matter, you can move onto any of the other choices from your previous statements. Personally, i was hoping you would have touched on perhaps "how Christianity took from other religions," or "how believers did horrible things to promote Christianity." What's next?

 

[2] I've already mentioned the reason why you would always ask who or what made God; you place yourself in that dilemma unnecessarily. With a simple process of elimination, you will always end up with God as being eternal, not matter or the physical universe. Let us recount everything in hopes of understanding: Nothing can cause its own existence, therefore it must either have been created or it must have always existed. Hence we are left with merely two options that we, by necessity, have to apply to God and the physical realm (to which you appear to label "infinite energy"), one for each. The fact that you ask who or what created God merely means that you yourself realize the infinite regression behind that question. The infinite regression informs us that something creating God is illogical, therefore we are left with only one choice: God is eternal.

 

Using the same logic you could argue that energy is eternal. However, any supporter of the big bang or of science can never hold that position. Why? Anything that is eternal will never come to an end. But energy is not an infinite thing, therefore will eventually come to an end (even if it is said that it will take billions of years on its own). The big bang, think about it: energy is not a conscious thing—if it were standing still, it would never move on its own. Therefore how could energy ever group itself up to the point of causing a universe? You cannot tell me that there was nothing before the big bang, for then you will have to explain where energy came from—you know, that thing you call infinite (i.e. "infinite energy"). If you argue that science says that it is illogical to ask, "What came before the big bang?" then you are, by necessity, forced to admit that energy is not infinite or eternal, and that energy could never exist; the only way for it to exist, then, is for it to have been created. But nothing can cause something into existence without a conscious, because a will or desire to do something requires a conscious.

 

So what would happen if you weren't a supporter of science or the big bang theory and claim that energy is infinite? You'd still be left with the dilemma of an immobile entity, that is incapable of doing anything on its own. So while the energy may exist, it will never lead to life as we know it, at least without a conscious being. You might as well, then, assert that energy cannot exist in that scenario given the fact that there is matter and life in existence today.

 

You say infinite energy and the big bang is easier to understand than what i have mentioned. But i find the way i explained it to be wholly acceptable the way i have explained it; yours implies dilemmas that cannot be avoided without accepting my position.

 

[1]Ok im back and im going to carry on with TFs post...

 

[2]Christmas, Easter and the creationism story that i reference IS Christian in origin. it IS in the bible the church DOES teach it. I accept many of the celebrations around christmas and easter are not christian. however, the holidays themselves are portrayed as Christian when they are not.

 

[3]Well apart from the biggest guilt trip in history "If you dont believe in god, and go to church you WILL go to hell" I can see nothing else christianity has ever done wrong... Apart from the almost systematic abuse of children by Catholics, the subjugation of women and their rights, damage that has been done by branding all other religions evil, and the followers of those religions as devil worshippers has caused through their reputation and subsequent abuse. I actually feel comfortable saying that Christianity is an evil religion. I truly do. It has done nothing good for this world, and if i were the christian god personally i would send many of the people that claim to represent me to the fires of hell. Many of those representatives are truly evil people.

 

Christians are largely brain washed fools. They cant have this person around them for whatever reason, so they have to get rid of them. They are also fools in that they feel they mast save everyone... damn... so they have to save them form the flames of hell, obviously, but they cant have them around so they try to save them then kill them. Either that or they think they are doing the person a favour by saving their soul and then sending them up to god before they do bad again.

 

[4]Welcome back to pagnism my friend. 7 astral planes, I've been through this already.

 

[5]Plus the skies arent heaven in the sense that many used to believe. The skies are the skies. Clouds rain etc... however, i cant disprove that heaven is a non-physical realm that occupies the same space as our sky. No-one can prove or disprove that.

 

[6]I haven't once said that paganism is the only true religion, nor that it is true in any sense. I have actually said many times that paganism is what i personally believe and that it may not be true, and may not be for you.

[1] I was just about ready to post everything else i have written, only to find out that you came back and posted more.

 

[2] Out of the three, only creationism is referenced. Churches may celebrate Easter and Christmas, but that doesn't make it Biblical. If it is really in the Bible, then you should be able to easily provide verses for your claims. Indeed, looking for the word "easter" or "christmas" or a celebration that wholly resembles what is celebrated today shouldn't be hard, then.

 

[3] Remember when i said how am i supposed to know whether or not you are making something small (e.g. something you can count in one hand) into something big if you don't provide your sources? So we've heard on the news that some Catholic priests have molested children. I can count the amount of those that i have heard in my hand. This leads me to conclude that you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. You cannot testify for yourself; while it may be easier to just state things, if i did the same thing, whose statement would weigh more? Neither of ours; they would weigh the same. You have told me nothing new from all of the things i have heard unbelievers (mostly atheists) say, but repeating things does not make something true.

 

[4] This thing touches on what i will say for number 6 (i.e. my response). But there are other things involved here: 1. What religion exactly are you alluding to? 2. The Bible doesn't state how many heavens there are (i do know, however, that the Qur'an states that there are 7 and that a certain Gnostic text says that there are 13—but that is irrelevant). 3. Read number 6 below.

 

[5] Other people believing that the sky isn't the first heaven doesn't mean that it is not the case for the Biblical authors or those within Biblical times. We need not take on a post-modern understanding of what the sky is, for it is irrelevant.

 

[6] Your response merely shows that you did not understand my question, even though i took the time to make sure that you would at least understand it. You say there are things stated in the Bible that can be found in pagan religions. I asked, to put it in another way: if that one thing is true, does it matter who says it or in what context it is said in? Does that make it false or untrue? I did not say that you said that paganism bears more truth or that it is the truth over Christianity. But does it make it untrue?