|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - - NicK -
Pages: [1]
1
« on: April 25, 2006, 08:36:33 pm »
You're trying to marry the evolution and creation beliefs now.
To believe in the concept of a pre-Adamite world, you must believe in Adam; and by extension God. God is the common origin of all life and.....uh......he made the water. It's one of those supernatural things that logic cannot be applied to. Convenient.
2
« on: April 25, 2006, 08:21:56 pm »
Explain? There are those in Christianity who believe that the world existed for a long time before the advent of man (probably believing thus because of the apparent discrepancy between the times put forward for the beginning of the earth). This is referred to as the 'pre-Adamite' world. Genesis states that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." However it is sometimes translated to "...Now the earth became formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep...." This version implies a world before the creation of man and all the creatures we know today. Perhaps this world had it's own creatures; perhaps dinosaurs were of that world, not ours. It also speaks of it being submerged and being made formless, or worn down. It could have been that Noah's was not the only flood God inflicted upon this rock. If the water wore down the earth 'til it was formless, would that not have created a great deal of sediment? This story also provides creationism with a very flexible timeline, as it makes creation of present life unrelated to the formation of the earth itself. Keep in mind the above is pure conjecture.
3
« on: April 25, 2006, 07:47:55 pm »
Would a big-arsed flood accelerate that at all?
If not, a pre-Adamite world could account for the build up.
4
« on: April 25, 2006, 05:33:52 pm »
@Space Monkey : Perhaps, but I thought the accuracy of dating methods had already been questioned by others in this thread.
@Simon : Pre-Adamite world....maybe?
5
« on: April 25, 2006, 05:00:49 pm »
Dinosaur remains found 2200m below ocean floor. How exactly is this supposed to be at odds to the creationist belief?
6
« on: April 20, 2006, 10:26:25 pm »
Saw a flash movie with 'What We Need More of is Science' a while back, should be on Newgrounds somewhere. EDIT : link
7
« on: April 10, 2006, 01:55:43 am »
Fair enough.  I guess I'm just struggling to define the difference between religious and scientific faiths.
8
« on: April 10, 2006, 01:38:46 am »
So, then should teaching evolution (or indeed any theory) be aswell?
9
« on: April 10, 2006, 12:40:24 am »
Your a perfect example of why it is pointless to argue points of fact against. Thank you. It IS pointless to argue about facts because nothing CAN be proved!
10
« on: April 09, 2006, 11:00:22 pm »
Without a shadow of doubt I can prove that what I did eat for dinner tonight was not shit.
That is 'assumption' it is a fact. If I choose to I could follow the chicken from the battery, to the freezing works, then to the supermarket for me to buy. Second I could take a pile of shit, get out my chemistry set and note the differences in chemical make up between shit and chicken. While I am eating the chicken I could take scans of the brain waves then compare then to brains waves of when im eating shit.
...
Genetics have been changed in a very small amout of time. See. That is not proof that you're not eating faeces. Your assumptions, observations and tests are all based on your physical senses. Fallible inputs. Are the foxes not still foxes? Same number of chromosomes etc. All they've done is remove certain traits from the genotype. If the foxes could be reinserted into their species' population and successfully breed, would their eventual descendants not resemble their wilder ancestors? (Ignoring of course the fact that the more placid animals would be unlikely to survive in the wild, just trying to get at that it would be possible to return the characteristics that have been removed.) Show me scientists breeding flamingos from viri.
11
« on: April 09, 2006, 10:40:45 pm »
That's right it was written by many over a long period of time. It is probably because of the involvement of man that such a fuss is made about interpreting the Bible.
Convenient? Certainly. But isn't all evidence that supports an idea? Evidence isn't formed to justify theories. Theories are written to connect and explain evidence. Anyway, I've already stated that I find scientific method flawed.
12
« on: April 09, 2006, 10:28:42 pm »
No it wasnt. It was written after his death. As far as I understand it the authors of the Bible wrote through divine influence. i.e. God wrote it through men.
13
« on: April 09, 2006, 10:05:36 pm »
Getting back to the topic, Steady I think we should be careful not to confuse the god with the church, as they are in fact separate entities. The Church is a construct of man and so is very, very fallible. The Bible was 'written' by God and is what should be focused on in this debate. what kind of fucked up mind considers the consequence of eternal damnation as a hand in hand part of free will? oh wait I've seen sopranos, i know exactly what kind. God the creator of evil. God the creator of suffering. God the creator of Hell. God the perfect creator of imperfection. Perhaps damnation should not be seen as the punishment, but salvation seen as a gift. We all have the free will to accept this divine gift, or reject it.
14
« on: April 08, 2006, 11:31:29 pm »
Where did you get the quote from Nick? I wrote it myself. I've wanted to write what I believe for a long time but it's not the easiest thing to put together. My previous post is perhaps an over-simplification of what has been plaguing my mind for years. The phrase "all fact is faith" came up in one of the frequent discussions I have with my sister (she being a Christian) and I found it explained my view brilliantly.
15
« on: April 08, 2006, 10:56:47 pm »
Please excuse me if something along these lines has already be posted, I never did read through this whole thread. The only 'truth' I subscribe to is that "all fact is faith." i.e. one can never really know anything, we all just believe in our 'truths'. If you want to label my beliefs then I guess you could call me an agnostic nihilist.
In relation to the Creation vs. Evolution debate (and by extension any other debate), both sides accept reality as it is. Both accept that studies have been done, evidence found and then differing conclusions made. It is amusing to me that although both sides are falling over themselves to declare their belief is scientific and logical, a mere report in the media of studies and evidence is proof enough to them that any such studies or evidence exists. Can you prove to me, or more importantly yourself, that this is so?
I believed not, and so the next step in my logic was that the only way to find the truth would be to conduct the tests and examine the evidence for oneself, firsthand; then one could draw their own conclusions. However I realised that I was again taking reality at face value, relying on our physical senses to 'show' us reality. Our senses are not infallible, and can you prove that what you see is real? What you hear, feel, taste, touch and even what you think all cannot be proved to be accurate.
So in the end all scientific endeavour is futile; you may as well take the blue pill and believe what ever you want to.
16
« on: October 22, 2005, 10:05:49 pm »
I like to pretend the prequels never happened.
Then the series kicks ass........ ignoring the whole ewok thing of course.
17
« on: September 29, 2005, 09:24:34 pm »
There are also the poor few who aren't able to believe it.
18
« on: September 23, 2005, 11:34:07 pm »
Warning : Freelancer forum in-joke imminent.
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
