Chrysaor said:
This is unfortunate
I'd like to consider myself unbiased but It's obvious that I am.Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread
- Thread starter QUALTHWAR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
This is unfortunate
I'd like to consider myself unbiased but It's obvious that I am.
this is a fundamental problem with creationists. to them, creation is right until something else proves it wrong, so proving evolution wrong = creation wins. like you said, how they come up with that is beyond me.Mister_Prophet said:
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
This page pretty much answers every question that has been asked here regarding Christianity and creation, but, you'll simply deem it biased or not credible at your own whim.
This page pretty much answers every question that has been asked here regarding Christianity and creation, but, you'll simply deem it biased or not credible at your own whim.
Cat_Fuzz I'd like to take more time to check out that site but after breezing through a few passages it's more or less the same logic I'm seeing in here. More biblical speculation to account for scientific speculation. Only in there I get the joy of getting THIS shiit shoved in my face: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolifesigns.html
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
bobtheking said:
As far as I'm concerned, creation is right, period. If someone comes along with supposed evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that the evidence is wrong and the Bible is right. Critics of the Bible are always saying that it can't be trusted because man is not perfect and makes mistakes, I'm turning that reasoning back around on your science.
if we are going to start using pages to reference, you should check out horse evolution. There is a very clear, complete fossil record for them. Also, each fossil can be dated older than the other, so it's not that there were a lot of animals that were similiar living at the same time.
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
Cat Fuzz said:
I understand that. What I don't understand is the fact that you guys tend to ignore the fact that Science, unlike religion, is willing to accept constant altercations and adjustments as that human error you mentioned is accounted for and updated. New evidence is gathered and analyzed all the time and that's why I lean toward science. I can't trust a belief structure that is so rigid, vague, and totally unable to apply to things I can see, taste, smell, and experience in my own life...with the exception of some universal moral codes that you could find in a Chinese fortune cookie.
bobtheking said:
Well, I'd still say, on the whole, most of humanity does not understand imaginaries. But they can be understood completely, sure. This might be equivalent to there being few men on the globe who have attained enlightenment. It works perfectly once you understand it. ... Yeah, this secondary set of operations will become understood by science someday, but it will never be applicable for the layman. The simple solution. Maybe science has grown beyond helping us with what matters.
Bob, this religious debate isn't ever going to "resolve" but can we claim a small victory in maybe understanding each other's viewpoints?
As far as dinosaurs and men are concerned, I agree with Mister Prophet that it is much more likely that the dinosaurs lived on in small numbers until humans hunted them off, than humans being around 600 million years ago. They find weird corpses sometimes, and Q's earlier mention of the coelecanth reappearing is a really great documented example. Sure wish we could net a giant squid.
Last edited:
oh definitely, it is much more than will ever be achieved with the bible = final truth crowd.Chrysaor said:
Chrysaor said:
Yep I'm in total agreement here. People tend to look at the Time Periods as exact begining and extinction cutoff's for species but there's no way that can be the case. Not every animal or lifeform will die off. My Crocodile example is one illustration and so are Birds....assuming you're willing to except certain theories of evolution.
There was this book, The Hidden History of the Human Race, by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, that I read a few years ago, that just talked about hundreds of evidences of weird archaeology. They had something in there about the dinosaurs/humans IIRC, and the whole book was really fascinating.
so it takes you less trust to trust the few authors of the bible working thousands of years ago than it does the thousands, millions of scientists that built the field relatively recently?Cat Fuzz said:
btw, i never said that the bible can't be trusted because man makes mistakes. it can't be trusted because its nonsense without some credible evidence. and yes, i would hold evidence of the bible being right to the same standard that i would evidence of a scientific theory. the weaker the evidence, the less reason i have to think the theory is right. the bible has no evidence, therefore i have no reason to think anything in there is accurate.
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
I trust God. Its just one of the reasons I trust the Bible more because its older than science.bobtheking said:
I never said you said that.