Ed and God

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

I wish I could show you God, but I think that this theory that we call 'evolution' is so ingrained in us, from every wildlife documentary, every reference to the 'stone age' or the 'age of the dinosaurs' that we are often unable to see God for ourselves in what he has made. All I can say is when you see a cliff face, try to suspend your automatic thought of 'those layers took millions of years to form' and consider that they could have been laid down by a great flood. Next time you see a bird of prey circling above, try to forget what the narrator said about evolutionary arms-races on the documentary, and consider that it could be a thought of God, a creative masterpiece to remind us that he is always watching from above, and imagine what kind of mind would have designed such a majestic creature.

i cant do that. i cant entertain the existence of God, ive tried. it just makes me feel stupid. hence why i am an atheist.

but you know that great flood you speak of. it is my opinion that a great flood did occur. but the world that was spoken of was more localised. remember back in the day, and even to an extent today, the notion of one's world was/is subjective.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

You are missing the point. Whatever you think the oldest human ancestor was, to get from that to man, you have to add a lorryload of information.

and youre tailoring your argument to suit yourself. you said amoeba. so i went with that. now youre telling me thats not quite what you meant. there is a big different between amoeba and man's ancestor (whatever that ancestor may turn out to be). i do not believe we are descended from apes. i do however believe it is entirely possible that apes and man share a common ancestor.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

i cant do that. i cant entertain the existence of God, ive tried. it just makes me feel stupid. hence why i am an atheist.

but you know that great flood you speak of. it is my opinion that a great flood did occur. but the world that was spoken of was more localised. remember back in the day, and even to an extent today, the notion of one's world was/is subjective.

God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

and youre tailoring your argument to suit yourself. you said amoeba. so i went with that. now youre telling me thats not quite what you meant. there is a big different between amoeba and man's ancestor (whatever that ancestor may turn out to be). i do not believe we are descended from apes. i do however believe it is entirely possible that apes and man share a common ancestor.

I'm not 'tailoring' anything. I dont believe we evolved from anything. Evolutionists have suggested that the first life was something like an amoeba. I dont care what you think it was, personally I think its all bullshit. whatever you think it was, you've still got to get from that to us. Look, if you find an answer to ths question let me know, my point about generating information is crystal clear, quit trying to avoid it.

Gotta go now.

Peace.

grazman

timsinclair wrote:

God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.

open your eyes you numpty

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.

well i imagine it was a great flood to those drowned by it. for me the bible as a book and the stories within, relates to a particular region and culture of the world. for those involved God was not a liar. to me, all those animals in the ark were local fauna. unless of course you are telling me that EVERY animal on earth was on that boat? must have been a hell of a boat. and if that is what youre telling me then i guess i dont have to say what a problem i have with that.

yes you are correct sedimentary rock is found world wide. all this proves(for want of a better word) is that the process of the laying down of these rocks is the same. not that it happened at the same time due to one occurrence.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

I'm not 'tailoring' anything. I dont believe we evolved from anything. Evolutionists have suggested that the first life was something like an amoeba. I dont care what you think it was, personally I think its all bullshit. whatever you think it was, you've still got to get from that to us. Look, if you find an answer to ths question let me know, my point about generating information is crystal clear, quit trying to avoid it.

Gotta go now.

Peace.

evolutionists have suggested. that to me says they dont know for sure. you however are dead certain we are the product of what? the worlds biggest magic trick? one minute the earth is devoid of humans, the next minute man is here. im not the one in avoidance here.
and the first doesnt mean the only. much like the women absent from the bible when all that begatting was going on. they arent mentioned but they have to be there, right?

writersu

Collin wrote:

It indeed tries to tell us who we are, where we came from etc. This is based on studies, research... Not a book, written by man. It's not a religion, though.

Indeed, we can create our own morality. It doesn't tell us it's ok to trample on others to succeed. I don't know where you got that.




They should "look" for signs of design and they shouldn't look for signs of evolution. They should look for data and study it.



I don't think those events seem "more and more to defy any naturalistic explanation" at all. New theories suggest that the universe actually did come out of nothing, more or less. It's interesting and something we should definitely look into.

OK, if the earth and the universe were created by god, who created god? Your argument is that things are so complex that they need a creator, that matter or energy cannot be created... Yet the creator himself, probably the most complex, intelligent being, exists without cause or end. Where did it come from?



I think they are. I don't see how Greek mythology is any different than christian mythology.

You have no proof whatsoever god exists, and there's no proof whatsoever these creatures exists, or Ra or Zeus etc. exist.

Don't you think science should be looking for evidence that the Greek gods created the earth and universe, or the Egyptian gods, or Slavic gods...

You don't believe in those because they don't fit your biblical worldview. Let me paraphrase your own words:

"This is faith, and once you accept the [biblical] narritive, all things that are not strictly biblical (ie other mythical creatures from other religions) become, not just unproven, but ridiculous - not even worthy of consideration."

So, I sincerely hope you'd explore all those possibilities too when you're looking for evidence of a intelligent designer.



There is no sin now. At least not according to me and so many other people. What's your point?

I may have missed this altogther but I think there is still sin. The sins that were before are still as well as the arrogance that I always count as the biggest sin. That is the sin that we do when in church sometimes ourselves (although I have checked myself for this constantly so I don't do this; but I may have before).
We are only forgiven if we say to God that we are sorry and ask for His help in changing our behavior. Sin is still sin. And yes, we can all be forgiven but it is not a disclaimer that says,"ok, do what you want; you now have God".

Sorry if I missed the point you were making, I just had to point that out.

Are you a believer?

catefrances

writersu wrote:

I may have missed this altogther but I think there is still sin. The sins that were before are still as well as the arrogance that I always count as the biggest sin. That is the sin that we do when in church sometimes ourselves (although I have checked myself for this constantly so I don't do this; but I may have before).
We are only forgiven if we say to God that we are sorry and ask for His help in changing our behavior. Sin is still sin. And yes, we can all be forgiven but it is not a disclaimer that says,"ok, do what you want; you now have God".

Sorry if I missed the point you were making, I just had to point that out.

Are you a believer?

sin does not exist without religion.

vedderfan10

For me, this thread is sucking the fun out of pearljamism...

slightofjeff

Vedderfan10 wrote:

For me, this thread is sucking the fun out of pearljamism...

Really?

I thought it was pretty interesting shit. People expressing their very different points of view without getting hostile.

It's what this message board SHOULD be about.

slightofjeff

catefrances wrote:

sin does not exist without religion.

I don't think this is true.

For instance, no matter who you are, and what you believe, murder is wrong.

If you believe that murder would be OK if it weren't for religion ... well, we just found one benefit of religion then, didn't we?

Fahka

i believe this thread has gone on long enough maybe?



I don't think its really any of our biz what ed believes. If theres one thing a person has in life is their mind.. i think dwelving into eds psych/religious beliefs, well its just not fair.. especially since he really cant defend himself and say his peace...






I get it but.. i dunno.. Just enjoy Yield because "given to fly" made ure entire body orgasm the first time u heard it :P Leave the religious bs by the way side.. i don't think pearl jam is about that at all ..

Fahka

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't think this is true.

For instance, no matter who you are, and what you believe, murder is wrong.

If you believe that murder would be OK if it weren't for religion ... well, we just found one benefit of religion then, didn't we?

Yeah but knowing murder is wrong is a natural instinct.. has nothing to do with any form of "god'

I was born knowing that murder is wrong.. its common sense people .. not freaking celestial

catefrances

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't think this is true.

For instance, no matter who you are, and what you believe, murder is wrong.

If you believe that murder would be OK if it weren't for religion ... well, we just found one benefit of religion then, didn't we?

perhaps i should have said, the concept of sin is religious in context. to sin means to miss the mark. the mark being the perfection embodied in christ. this makes everyone a sinner, because as we all know no one could possibly come up to the perfection that is christ. this is why when one sins one must repent if one is to seek salvation. this is what i mean when i say without religion there would be no sin, not that there were would no morally reprehensible actions. murder is morally reprehensible. we all know that.

Collin

writersu wrote:

I may have missed this altogther but I think there is still sin. The sins that were before are still as well as the arrogance that I always count as the biggest sin. That is the sin that we do when in church sometimes ourselves (although I have checked myself for this constantly so I don't do this; but I may have before).
We are only forgiven if we say to God that we are sorry and ask for His help in changing our behavior. Sin is still sin. And yes, we can all be forgiven but it is not a disclaimer that says,"ok, do what you want; you now have God".

Sorry if I missed the point you were making, I just had to point that out.

Are you a believer?

I'm not a believer.

A sin is a religious concept. That's my point.

slightofjeff, of course there are actions that are wrong regardless of your creed, I think murder is one of them. I don't believe it's a sin, though. Because a sin is a biblical concept, it's against the rules of god, who I don't believe in.

Cate really explained it already in her post, though.

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Yes. I read it, the same old passing off information losing adaptions as 'evolution in practice'. the same old claims of transitional fossils that are not transitional at all. The same old claims that evolution is a 'fact', not a theory, and the same old misrepresentations of creationism.

Have you read 'Darwin on Trial' by Philip E. Johnson?

I will try to find a copy of Darwin on Trial.

Do you discard everything evolutionist scientists say?

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

after observing shedloads of mutations on the genetic level, none have been observed to add anything, all either subtract or damage the existing information. Sometimes this is relatively harmless, once in a while it is usefull, mostly it is destructive.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.

God said he would never destroy every living thing again or curse the ground.

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

No I do not discard everything darwinists say, I listen intently, but I disagree with them about the theory, I think it is unsupported and based on philosophical naturalism alone. This is demonstrated in Darwin on Trial, this conversation will be a lot more interesting after you have read it. I have read these links. I will try to find the peices of research cited as examples of information generation. For anyone who likes reading links and wants to see some for my side of the argument, here you go:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp