Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden...

DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
... What a reputable fellow! ...
OK then, screw Gish, show me the ancestors though. Can you do that? Show me a Precambrian multi-celled fossil. If not, you're just regurgitating the erroneous bull**** somebody fed you. You don't understand, I'm a REAL nerd, I use to have a kick ass fossil collection myself! :) I was quite a collector, lol. I have studies all these issues personally. I'm telling you, there's something that your missing if you'd only look. Instead of trying to disprove me, try to prove your claims. When you can't (just like I never could) then you can reconsider my logic and better form your own conclusions.
 
bLacKjAck.

bLacKjAck.

Lift Heavy
Awards
1
  • Established
Observing this whole thing, I just to say to you D. You do an amazing job explaining from a scientific standpoint the reality of Creationism/Jesus Christ(the true God). I am not much into all the science stuff, most of my studies and time is spent in faith-based types of sudy, but reguardless this stuff is really interesting to read.
 

jasonschaffin

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I do like Dr.D's points, however, I still believe that if both sides to the creationism/evolution argument would be men about it and sit down and have a talk instead of constantly arguing trying to prove 100% correctness they would realize the truth is somewhere in the middle.
 
dsade

dsade

NutraPlanet Fanatic
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I do like Dr.D's points, however, I still believe that if both sides to the creationism/evolution argument would be men about it and sit down and have a talk instead of constantly arguing trying to prove 100% correctness they would realize the truth is somewhere in the middle.
How can truth be somewhere in the middle? These are vastly divurgent explanations.

One of these explanations relies on zero observation, and only faith to support it. Science rejects this 100%...so what does science have to gain by the complete abandonment of the entire basis of scientific thought and understanding?

Scientific method has brought about a huge number of advances that alleviate physical suffering (just look at things like SmallPox eradication), while relying on only faith (which SHOULD be enough) has brought about...what?

If these people were to be relied upon, smallpox and polio would still be running rampant, because nobody would have ever said "faith and praying is doing NOTHING, there must be an alternate, useful explanation".
 
bludevil

bludevil

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
How can truth be somewhere in the middle? These are vastly divurgent explanations.

One of these explanations relies on zero observation, and only faith to support it. Science rejects this 100%...so what does science have to gain by the complete abandonment of the entire basis of scientific thought and understanding?

Scientific method has brought about a huge number of advances that alleviate physical suffering (just look at things like SmallPox eradication), while relying on only faith (which SHOULD be enough) has brought about...what?

If these people were to be relied upon, smallpox and polio would still be running rampant, because nobody would have ever said "faith and praying is doing NOTHING, there must be an alternate, useful explanation".

Not really, as these diseases would not exist if it wasn't for sin. Once Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden, then death, disease & destruction was entered into the equation. All humans sin, but if we didn't, the diseases you mention wouldn't exist.
 
dsade

dsade

NutraPlanet Fanatic
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Not really, as these diseases would not exist if it wasn't for sin. Once Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden, then death, disease & destruction was entered into the equation. All humans sin, but if we didn't, the diseases you mention wouldn't exist.
It is UNJUST to punish someone for another person's action. So, those babies that are born with diseases could not have sinned, correct?

Again, where is there ANY proof that disease came from sin...you will never get any scientific respect until proof (non bible-related) is provided.
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Scientific method has brought about a huge number of advances that alleviate physical suffering (just look at things like SmallPox eradication), while relying on only faith (which SHOULD be enough) has brought about...what?

If these people were to be relied upon, smallpox and polio would still be running rampant, because nobody would have ever said "faith and praying is doing NOTHING, there must be an alternate, useful explanation".
You are absolutely correct. God help's those who help themselves. These scientists were given a gift of the ability to understand and practice medicine. This gift has allowed them to save thousands, if not millions of lives. The rediculous hyper-literal application of faith healing without medicine, IMHO, is ignorant and God should not be faulted for those who die because they prayed for healing and God did not 'deliver'.

The joke about the guy who is talking with Peter at Heaven's gates after drowning after a boat wreck:

Peter: Hey, what are you doing here.
Guy: I drowned because God did not save me.
Peter: Did you ask Him to.
Guy: Yes
Peter: So, what about that boat, helicopter and cruise ship that God sent your way to rescue you? Why did you not let them take you aboard their vesels and save you from drowning?
Guy: I was waiting for God to save me.

Overzealousness by both arguments is the downfall of both.
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
What if "god"/the creator is just beyond our realm of understanding. What if God created this world and then evolution took place. What if god doesn't answer prayers because you only pray when you need something. What if the bible was written to help keep the faith in God but was not 100% completely true (it was written by man remember, not to mention back in a time when wine was a very popular drink). What if you sat back and thought, most religions have many common grounds, perhaps they all just believe in "a creator" and some take it to far. What if God created a virus that evolved just like everything else (AIDS). What if prayers won't cure diseases, but just possibly someone out theres brain has evolved enough to come up with a cure(the brain we were given after god started this whole mess).
What if Evolutionist and Creationist both had their good points...
:thumbsup: the winner right here
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
It is UNJUST to punish someone for another person's action. So, those babies that are born with diseases could not have sinned, correct?

Again, where is there ANY proof that disease came from sin...you will never get any scientific respect until proof (non bible-related) is provided.
I agree with you on this. There are specific issues that are inherently wrong with the disease is from sin argument.

My friends son was born with a disease that basically has made it where he needs surgery twice a year. He is 4 now and has suffered on levels that were totally cruel. He never sinned to be born with this, yet it is sin that caused it?
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Archaeopteryx is acknowledged by paleontologists as a true bird, sorry, try again. :)
Give me a name of one of these paleontologists, and what they said.

"Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds."

Archaeopteryx -Trunk region vertebra are free.
In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused

"Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990)."

"Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds"

"Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle."


I can go on...
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
OK then, screw Gish, show me the ancestors though. Can you do that? Show me a Precambrian multi-celled fossil. If not, you're just regurgitating the erroneous bull**** somebody fed you. You don't understand, I'm a REAL nerd, I use to have a kick ass fossil collection myself! :) I was quite a collector, lol. I have studies all these issues personally. I'm telling you, there's something that your missing if you'd only look. Instead of trying to disprove me, try to prove your claims. When you can't (just like I never could) then you can reconsider my logic and better form your own conclusions.
Gish is your example.
He was your "proof" that there aren't any Precambrian Fossils, and I just showed that he was a liar.
That kinda shows where your "evidence" against evolution is coming from...

PROVE YOUR CLAIMS!


What is your proof of God creating everything (or anything for that matter)?

Even IF evolution isn't correct, GOD DOES NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING!

It's not "evolution is wrong, that means God did it!"

You need to provide REAL EVIDENCE that God in fact did do it...

There are NO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS (peer reviewed) ANYWHERE SAYING THAT GOD CREATED ANYTHING!
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
OK then, screw Gish, show me the ancestors though. Can you do that? Show me a Precambrian multi-celled fossil. If not, you're just regurgitating the erroneous bull**** somebody fed you. You don't understand, I'm a REAL nerd, I use to have a kick ass fossil collection myself! :) I was quite a collector, lol. I have studies all these issues personally. I'm telling you, there's something that your missing if you'd only look. Instead of trying to disprove me, try to prove your claims. When you can't (just like I never could) then you can reconsider my logic and better form your own conclusions.
"The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today."

"The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods"

"Anomalocaris, from the Cambrian and Precambrian, has a pair of segmented appendages, indicating arthropod affinities, but it also seems to have lobopod legs. The related Opabinia also apparently had lobopod legs. Other rare Cambrian and Precambrian fossils show some promise of shedding more light on relationships. For example, Spriggina, another Precambrian animal, has a head shield similar to trilobites (Conway Morris 1998, 184-185)."

"Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals"
 
CRUNCH

CRUNCH

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians

Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.

Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.

Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
 
bludevil

bludevil

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I agree with you on this. There are specific issues that are inherently wrong with the disease is from sin argument.

My friends son was born with a disease that basically has made it where he needs surgery twice a year. He is 4 now and has suffered on levels that were totally cruel. He never sinned to be born with this, yet it is sin that caused it?

I'm not referring to the sin of a specific child. I'm speaking of sin of all mankind, starting from Adam and Eve. Example would be, because Eve sinned first in the Garden of Eden, all women now have to bear children, go through menstrual cycles, etc...

It's totally plausible for someone else's sin to cause grief for other people, case in point- a drunk driver sins and kills an innocent family. The sin of another man caused pain and suffering for an innocent family.
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not referring to the sin of a specific child. I'm speaking of sin of all mankind, starting from Adam and Eve. Example would be, because Eve sinned first in the Garden of Eden, all women now have to bear children, go through menstrual cycles, etc...

It's totally plausible for someone else's sin to cause grief for other people, case in point- a drunk driver sins and kills an innocent family. The sin of another man caused pain and suffering for an innocent family.
what are you talking about

adam and eve never existed. it is impossible to propogate an entire species from 2 people.

i take it this happend 6000 year ago too?
 
bludevil

bludevil

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
what are you talking about

adam and eve never existed. it is impossible to propogate an entire species from 2 people.

i take it this happend 6000 year ago too?
Well, I'm talking about Genesis
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Give me a name of one of these paleontologists, and what they said. ...
It's conventionally accepted now, big time. Better yet, give me the names of 5 or 10 credible paleontologists that do still believe this falsehood? Good luck.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Gish is your example.
He was your "proof" that there aren't any Precambrian Fossils, and I just showed that he was a liar.
That kinda shows where your "evidence" against evolution is coming from...

PROVE YOUR CLAIMS!


What is your proof of God creating everything (or anything for that matter)?

Even IF evolution isn't correct, GOD DOES NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING!

It's not "evolution is wrong, that means God did it!"

You need to provide REAL EVIDENCE that God in fact did do it...

There are NO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS (peer reviewed) ANYWHERE SAYING THAT GOD CREATED ANYTHING!
Either move on or abandon your dead claim. I said forget Gish, show me ONE expert that will indicate anything existed Precambrian, except for single celled colonies of algae! I don't have to prove anything, evolution disproves itself because if fails it's own predictions. Our ancestors do not exist. Evolution is a failed theory, whether you credit it to creationism or not.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
... "Anomalocaris, from the Cambrian and Precambrian, has a pair of segmented appendages, indicating arthropod affinities, but it also seems to have lobopod legs. The related Opabinia also apparently had lobopod legs. Other rare Cambrian and Precambrian fossils show some promise of shedding more light on relationships. For example, Spriggina, another Precambrian animal, has a head shield similar to trilobites (Conway Morris 1998, 184-185)." ...
Post your evidence! Lets see a reference and a picture of this fossil. You are reaching with obscure, nonconventional, unproved speculation. Stromatolites are the oldest know fossils, prove otherwise.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians

Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. ...
So, did they develop lungs in the water too? That defies evolution's own law of economy! How could an unneeded trait develop by natural selection? There is no imperative to fuel that change! I guess maybe they would scamper out of the water with their gills, then run back in the water to take a quick breath, then run back on land again real fast, back and forth till lungs spontaneously developed? Hmm, that's a great scientific theory! lol
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
what are you talking about

adam and eve never existed. it is impossible to propogate an entire species from 2 people.

i take it this happend 6000 year ago too?
Man, as much smack as you talk about the ladies, you still ain't figured out it only takes 2?! Bro, call me or PM me, I'm give you the whole birds and bees rundown. :cool:

Do the math by inverse exponent if you wanna see how long it would take. I say at least 150k to get where we are now, where is this 6k coming from anyway?
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Well, I'm talking about Genesis
thats not really what i asked. gensis is a story.

do you believe two people. one named adam, one named eve. existed 6000 years ago (the beginning the universe?) and propogated the entire human race through sexual reproduction (began it).

its a yes or no type of question
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
So, did they develop lungs in the water too? That defies evolution's own law of economy! How could an unneeded trait develop by natural selection? There is no imperative to fuel that change! I guess maybe they would scamper out of the water with their gills, then run back in the water to take a quick breath, then run back on land again real fast, back and forth till lungs spontaneously developed? Hmm, that's a great scientific theory! lol
here ya go

The Dipnoi are a group of sarcopterygiian fish, are are commonly known as the lungfish. Their "lung" is a modified swim bladder, which in most fish is used for buoyancy in swimming, but in the lungfish also absorbs oxygen and removes wastes. Modern lungfish in Africa and South America are able to survive when their pools dry up by burrowing into the mud and sealing themselves within a mucous-lined burrow. During this time, they breathe air through their swim bladder instead of through their gills, and reduce their metabolic rate dramatically. These fish will even drown if they are kept underwater and not allowed to breathe air!
 

Attachments

jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
page one of this thread D.

"Educators Criticize Creation MuseumEducators Criticize Creation Museum
A new $27 million museum that tells a biblical version of the Earth’s creation is drawing fire from science educators, who say the exhibits are scientifically inaccurate.
By Dylan T. Lovan, AP

A museum where Adam and Eve share exhibit space with dinosaurs is drawing criticism from groups of science educators as it nears completion.

The $27 million Creation Museum, a few miles south of Cincinnati, tells a biblical version of the Earth's history, asserting that the planet is just a few thousand years old and man and the giant lizards once coexisted."

if youre a religious idiot, the start of the universe, and genesis, takes place almost exactly 6 thousand years ago.
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
btw do you want to address the lungish i just showed you or are you going to ignore it because it anally rapes your point?
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
here ya go

The Dipnoi are a group of sarcopterygiian fish, are are commonly known as the lungfish. Their "lung" is a modified swim bladder, which in most fish is used for buoyancy in swimming, but in the lungfish also absorbs oxygen and removes wastes. Modern lungfish in Africa and South America are able to survive when their pools dry up by burrowing into the mud and sealing themselves within a mucous-lined burrow. During this time, they breathe air through their swim bladder instead of through their gills, and reduce their metabolic rate dramatically. These fish will even drown if they are kept underwater and not allowed to breathe air!
So what is your point? This was a survival adaption J. Humans in Africa also developed a dominate gene for sickle cell because it protected against malaria. Reproductive advantage determines this but are you claiming Dipnoi is the missing link?! These fish only date to the Permian range and amphibians and dinosaurs had been on the scene a long time already. Like I say, where are the intermediates? Where is the amphibian connection? You are reaching bad.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
... if youre a religious idiot, the start of the universe, and genesis, takes place almost exactly 6 thousand years ago.
Look, I never endorsed any museum! I don't believe all that crap either! There are lots of religious idiots out there, but don't take it out on God. You'll find idiots everywhere. Stop getting God mixed up with religion and just focus on facts. The truth is still the truth, that's all I've ever defended here. Evolution doesn't work and science supports God, period. I am not pushing religion!
 
mmowry

mmowry

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Well lets just say for arguements sake god doesnt exist.Then each mans will would be his or her governing force so what I feel is right is my basis for morality.And what you believe is yours.So then noone can be wrong for there actions since we make our own standards to live by.We are our own gods in essence.

So its OK to commit adultery,lie,steal,murder,rape and manipulate or to have it done to us or our children; even though that may not be our standard.So where is the line drawn?If you say its the govs job(so now weve made the gov our god) then we better quit complaining about all the things they do that we dont like.If not the gov then what is our standard to measure right and wrong?

And if we "evolved" then survival of the fittest is still the only "law" that matters so that leads to chaos. Chaos only leads to destruction which will lead to ruin.
 
bludevil

bludevil

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Well lets just say for arguements sake god doesnt exist.Then each mans will would be his or her governing force so what I feel is right is my basis for morality.And what you believe is yours.So then noone can be wrong for there actions since we make our own standards to live by.We are our own gods in essence.

So its OK to commit adultery,lie,steal,murder,rape and manipulate or to have it done to us or our children; even though that may not be our standard.So where is the line drawn?If you say its the govs job(so now weve made the gov our god) then we better quit complaining about all the things they do that we dont like.If not the gov then what is our standard to measure right and wrong?

And if we "evolved" then survival of the fittest is still the only "law" that matters so that leads to chaos. Chaos only leads to destruction which will lead to ruin.
Exactly. Everyone has a conscience (Christian and Non Christian alike). We don't need a set of rules or the govement telling us not to rape, murder, etc... We know from the inside that it's a sin and that it's just wrong. God put that in us.
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Exactly. Everyone has a conscience (Christian and Non Christian alike). We don't need a set of rules or the govement telling us not to rape, murder, etc... We know from the inside that it's a sin and that it's just wrong. God put that in us.
no he didnt
 
TheCrownedOne

TheCrownedOne

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
page one of this thread D.

"Educators Criticize Creation MuseumEducators Criticize Creation Museum
A new $27 million museum that tells a biblical version of the Earth’s creation is drawing fire from science educators, who say the exhibits are scientifically inaccurate.
By Dylan T. Lovan, AP

A museum where Adam and Eve share exhibit space with dinosaurs is drawing criticism from groups of science educators as it nears completion.

The $27 million Creation Museum, a few miles south of Cincinnati, tells a biblical version of the Earth's history, asserting that the planet is just a few thousand years old and man and the giant lizards once coexisted."

if youre a religious idiot, the start of the universe, and genesis, takes place almost exactly 6 thousand years ago.
It's funny how one religious idiot criticizes another for a fault they too propagate. Unless you were there, you don't know how it started or when it started. Therefore, claiming that because some math you read that someone else threw together came out somewhat coherent you now know something for certain that you can't genuinely know for certain because you can neither replicate it nor observe it makes you guilty of the same religiosity you cast aspersions at Dr.D for perpetrating.
 
TheCrownedOne

TheCrownedOne

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I agree with you on this. There are specific issues that are inherently wrong with the disease is from sin argument.

My friends son was born with a disease that basically has made it where he needs surgery twice a year. He is 4 now and has suffered on levels that were totally cruel. He never sinned to be born with this, yet it is sin that caused it?
Sin created the existence of disease and death. God is life. Death is caused by absence from God. Sin separated us from God. Therefore, disease is fundamentally caused by sin.

This story is a good example of the awkward means God employs to do His Will.


Where is God's Perfection?

In Brooklyn, New York, Chush is a school that caters to learning disabled children. Some children remain in Chush for their entire school career, while others can be mainstreamed into conventional schools.

At a Chush fund-raising dinner, the father of a Chush child delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended.

After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he cried out, "Where is the perfection in my son Shaya? Everything God does is done with perfection. But my child cannot understand things as other children do. My child cannot remember facts and figures as other children do. Where is God's perfection?"

The audience was shocked by the question, pained by the father's anguish, stilled by the piercing query.

" I believe," the father answered, "that when God brings a child like this into the world, the perfection that he seeks is in the way people react to this child."

He then told the following story about his son Shaya:

One afternoon Shaya and his father walked past a park where some boys Shaya knew were playing baseball.

Shaya asked, "Do you think they will let me play?"

Shaya's father knew that his son was not at all athletic and that most boys would not want him on their team. But Shaya's father understood that if his son was chosen to play it would give him a comfortable sense of belonging.
Shaya's father approached one of the boys in the field and asked if Shaya could play. The boy looked around for guidance from his teammates. Getting none, he took matters into his own hands and said "We are losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him up to bat in the ninth inning."

Shaya's father was ecstatic as Shaya smiled broadly. Shaya was told to put on a glove and go out to play short center field.

In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shaya's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shaya's team scored again and now with two outs and the bases loaded with the potential winning run on base, Shaya was scheduled to be up. Would the team actually let Shaya bat at this juncture and give away their chance to win the game? Surpassingly, Shaya was given the bat.

Everyone knew that it was all but impossible because Shaya didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, let alone hit with it. However as Shaya stepped up to the plate, the pitcher moved a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shaya should at least be able to make contact.

The first pitch came in and Shaya swung clumsily and missed. One of Shaya's teammates came up to Shaya and together the held the bat and faced the pitcher waiting for the next pitch. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly toward Shaya. As the pitch came in, Shaya and his teammate swung at the bat and together they hit a slow ground ball to the pitcher.

The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could easily have thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shaya would have been out and that would have ended the game. Instead, the pitcher took the ball and threw it on a high arc to right field, far beyond reach of the first baseman.

Everyone started yelling,"Shaya, run to first. Run to first." Never in his life had Shaya run to first. He scampered down the baseline wide-eyed and startled. By the time he reached first base, the right fielder had the ball. He could have thrown the ball to the second baseman who would tag out Shaya, who was still running. But the right fielder understood what the pitcher's intentions were, so he threw the ball high and far over the third baseman's head. Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second." Shaya ran towards second base as the runners ahead of him deliriously circled the bases towards home. As Shaya reached second base, the opposing short stop ran to him, turned him in the direction of third base and shouted, "Run to third." As Shaya rounded third, the boys from both teams ran behind him screaming, "Shaya run home."

Shaya ran home, stepped on home plate and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit a "grand slam" and won the game for his team.

"That day," said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, "those 18 boys reached their level of God's perfection."
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
It's conventionally accepted now, big time. Better yet, give me the names of 5 or 10 credible paleontologists that do still believe this falsehood? Good luck.
Conventionally accepted by who?

Name ONE

and once again...
if even evolution is completely wrong...

IT DOESN'T PROVE GOD CREATED ANYTHING!
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Either move on or abandon your dead claim. I said forget Gish, show me ONE expert that will indicate anything existed Precambrian, except for single celled colonies of algae! I don't have to prove anything, evolution disproves itself because if fails it's own predictions. Our ancestors do not exist. Evolution is a failed theory, whether you credit it to creationism or not.
Yes you do...You're saying God created everything...prove it.

Once again: even if evolution is wrong (it's not), that doesn't prove god did anything...

Yes, a failed theory that 93% of the National Academy of Sciences endorse...

AND...the Pope and many Christians believe it as well.
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Sin created the existence of disease and death. God is life. Death is caused by absence from God. Sin separated us from God. Therefore, disease is fundamentally caused by sin

This story is a good example of the awkward means God employs to do His Will.

Why would anyone worship a god that "creates" death/disease because Adam/Eve did something GOD KNEW they would do?!!!

Does God have a plan or not?

Regarding the story...what about the countless other times when the disabled boy is ridiculed mercilously, and/or beaten up?!

where's the good will in that?!
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Well lets just say for arguements sake god doesnt exist.Then each mans will would be his or her governing force so what I feel is right is my basis for morality.And what you believe is yours.So then noone can be wrong for there actions since we make our own standards to live by.We are our own gods in essence.

So its OK to commit adultery,lie,steal,murder,rape and manipulate or to have it done to us or our children; even though that may not be our standard.So where is the line drawn?If you say its the govs job(so now weve made the gov our god) then we better quit complaining about all the things they do that we dont like.If not the gov then what is our standard to measure right and wrong?

And if we "evolved" then survival of the fittest is still the only "law" that matters so that leads to chaos. Chaos only leads to destruction which will lead to ruin.
So you're saying you'd kill and rape people if you didn't believe in God?

If so, I'm glad you do believe!

I don't need an imaginary "watcher" to prevent me from doing those things...
 
mmowry

mmowry

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
So you're saying you'd kill and rape people if you didn't believe in God?

If so, I'm glad you do believe!

I don't need an imaginary "watcher" to prevent me from doing those things...
1) if evolution was the source of our existence then it wouldnt be wrong.

2)I didnt say I would do these acts (yet were all guilty of some of them) but I didnt come from an ape either.:D

3) Since you dont do some of these things what is your standard of reference for right and wrong?Evolution/survival of the fittest?
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
... Yes, a failed theory that 93% of the National Academy of Sciences endorse...

AND...the Pope and many Christians believe it as well.
I know, sad isn't it? Oh well, good thing I have a mind of my own.

You are either a poor reader or intentionally trying to obscure my premise. My point was never to PROVE God existed, just to point out the FACT that science does support that assertion very well and evolution does not prove anything but how creative some men will get who refuse to face the truth! Maybe I am wrong about God, but you are necessarily wrong about evolution, so I am at least closer to the truth than you are. Why have you rejected the possibility of God, even going so far as to play the fool? It's a losing stance man. You're just resigning yourself to being a loser automatically. At least jump in the game were you have a shot at winning! Don't like God? OK, find a better explanation, I'm still waiting............
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Sin created the existence of disease and death. God is life. Death is caused by absence from God. Sin separated us from God. Therefore, disease is fundamentally caused by sin

This story is a good example of the awkward means God employs to do His Will.

Why would anyone worship a god that "creates" death/disease because Adam/Eve did something GOD KNEW they would do?!!!

Does God have a plan or not?

Regarding the story...what about the countless other times when the disabled boy is ridiculed mercilously, and/or beaten up?!

where's the good will in that?!
You were a bad kid huh? I would have spanked your little butt daily! You have a responsibility to follow God, not vise versa. He doesn't have to explain anything to you. Did your parents explain things to you before you would do them? If so, it explains why you're such a brat now! The rule at my house was, my parents would gladly explain the rational of their rules to me, but I better then do it whether I objected or not. Sorry, but as a parent God doesn't always have to supply you with an explanation. It's His universe, His rules. When you get big enough in your britches to make your own universe, you can make your own rules too. :)
 
poopypants

poopypants

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
i havnt even finished reading this but im disgusted.. carbon dating has had so many holes punched through it with multiple fruads made up over time to test the carbon dating and many other examples shown where later proof was found near by that contriicted previously belived coarbon dating... i feel there are more holes in many scientific theories then scientists and evolutionists are ever willing to admit and were have yet to find any "missing link".... its cause there is none, we didnt evolve and only a few species have evolved but to a minimal extent to adapt to their environment... i really think there are good arguments for both sides but most are too pig headed and stubborn to even listen to the others ideas with any respect.
 
TheCrownedOne

TheCrownedOne

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Sin created the existence of disease and death. God is life. Death is caused by absence from God. Sin separated us from God. Therefore, disease is fundamentally caused by sin

This story is a good example of the awkward means God employs to do His Will.

Why would anyone worship a god that "creates" death/disease because Adam/Eve did something GOD KNEW they would do?!!!

Does God have a plan or not?

Regarding the story...what about the countless other times when the disabled boy is ridiculed mercilously, and/or beaten up?!

where's the good will in that?!
God created me of His own accord. Based on His dealings with mankind these some six or seven thousand years, and based on His abiding faith in following His own Word, I trust in Him. I condescend enough to see that I am a created thing, and that I have nothing that wasn't given to me. Existence was given to me so that I could enjoy the goodness and fullness of God's love shown through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
God did not create disease and death. Death is the natural and necessary outcome of division from God. It's like that bumper sticker:
No God = No peace
Know God = Know Peace
We cannot understand how God can see the outcome of all things, yet still give us the free will to choose one thing over another. I am only human; I cannot comprehend my God. I do know, however, that God is smarter than I am. Because of His exceeding wisdom, I trust Him unconditionally. There is no such thing as why God does what He does with me - there is only trust, as only trust is wise and appropriate when I am bound by space and time and He is not. Anything else would be arrogance.
My understanding is not a requisite of His existence and/or approval.
 
TheCrownedOne

TheCrownedOne

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
i havnt even finished reading this but im disgusted.. carbon dating has had so many holes punched through it with multiple fruads made up over time to test the carbon dating and many other examples shown where later proof was found near by that contriicted previously belived coarbon dating... i feel there are more holes in many scientific theories then scientists and evolutionists are ever willing to admit and were have yet to find any "missing link".... its cause there is none, we didnt evolve and only a few species have evolved but to a minimal extent to adapt to their environment... i really think there are good arguments for both sides but most are too pig headed and stubborn to even listen to the others ideas with any respect.
Evolution is the only scientific theory that is defended with religious zeal. Think about it. Any other theory is abandoned when it is shown to have the countless errors or inane improbabilities that evolution proffers. Evolution is defended ardently and with dire furor.
 
poopypants

poopypants

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
this is no longer a theory in that case but a belief..... it should be taught in schools no more then any other religous belief in public schools..... why they HAVE to even cover the creation/evolution or beggining when state and religion are supposed to be seperated and one has been no more "proved" then the other i dont know.... they should allow the parents to cover this with their own children and in the end all will have a chance to make up their own mind when they have a conscience.... i jsut dont want my child any more brain washed with evolution ary theories then the evolutionist does with christian beleifs..... :rant: i cant stand these topics we were founded "one nation under ........" what its become is disgusting.
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Evolution is the only scientific theory that is defended with religious zeal. Think about it. Any other theory is abandoned when it is shown to have the countless errors or inane improbabilities that evolution proffers. Evolution is defended ardently and with dire furor.
evolution is defended because all of the arguments against it are brought upon it by religious nuts, not scientists....crowned one
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
evolution is defended because all of the arguments against it are brought upon it by religious nuts, not scientists....crowned one
Dude, how are you going to call them nuts just because they believe in some stupid museum exhibit, when you believe you were spawned from a primordial slime mold? Who's nuts again?! Check yourself man because you sound crazier than they do.
 

Similar threads


Top