Jump to content


Photo

Designed Or Not Designed...


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 01:02 AM

Umm, Ike, these selection, fitness and time gods you speak of don't exist. Or if they do they're very lonely as no one worships them :rolleyes:

Since they don't exist perhaps you can understand why we have imperfect creatures running about (us included).

Actually I thought a better answer to "why did an all-powerful creator make us imperfect?" was "because of the fall". Doesn't make a lot of sense if you don't already believe the Bible, but it's a lot better than making up new Gods.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Well let's test who has the time god.

Question: What is the main reason macro-evolution cannot be observed? Could it be that it takes to much time (time god)?

Loads of time vs. the fall? Not much difference if you ask me. Neither one can be observed or proven to a absolute either. So what makes one better than the other? It supports a view that people agree with.

#42 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 July 2009 - 02:56 AM

Well let's test who has the time god.

Question: What is the main reason macro-evolution cannot be observed? Could it be that it takes to much time (time god)?

Loads of time vs. the fall? Not much difference if you ask me. Neither one can be observed or proven to a absolute either. So what makes one better than the other? It supports a view that people agree with.

View Post


I'm impressed ikester. I think you're starting to understand this :rolleyes:

Regards,

Arch.

#43 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 10 July 2009 - 03:49 AM

Just like the wonderful natural selection god, or the survival of the fittest god, could have done the same thing. So what happened there? Were they asleep when it came time to select the best things for survival? Or will time god be the excuse, as to claim: Not enough time has passed to correct the problem. So poof two gods failed, and poof one god saves the day with time. Because time is your friend when it's so loooonnnng that no one can comprehend it. Nor will they never ever be able to observe what is claimed to have happened. Bow to the time god. The answer to all unanswerable question and problems.

Time god flow chart:

Creationist ask a question + The evolutionist cannot answer question = time god did it (given enough time, time god can make anything happen). And if time god says it happened, it happened. For how can you dispute a claim by the time god when you cannot go back in time? So time god wins everytime. :rolleyes:

I can be funny too.

View Post


Just wanted to make a point here, I wasn't trying to be funny. I was just eliminating one major counter argument to my point that a divine being could have fixed the issues that obviously you see yourself and agree with.

Although I'm sure you would say that sin is the cause of those issues as opposed to evolution "re-using" features. B-)

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:14 PM

I'm impressed ikester. I think you're starting to understand this :lol:

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


It's not understanding so much as being able to step put of a box and look with an almost unbias view. Can you do it?

#45 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:18 PM

So the amino acids did not form in a primordial soup? They formed in the atmosphere?

Go look at a diagram of Miller's experimental equipment and work out where the amino-acids were formed.

Also, comparing to Miller's experiment. How many volts are in lightening compared to the volts Miller used in his experiment? Huge difference. Now, do you actually believe that this much voltage zapped again upon the newly formed amino acid structures is not going to break them apart? An if you believe this, can you supply a test in which this voltage was applied so we can be sure?

I think I explained quite clearly that the spark or lightning voltage was not important.
If you think I was wrong, then find a reference, preferably not from a creationist who knows no more chemistry than you do.
You might read this abstract:-
http://scitation.aip...=cvips&gifs=yes
For CO-N2-H2O gas mixtures, a spark discharge was not energetic enough, it was more effective to heat the gas to 10,000 K and then cool quickly.

I did not think so. You see Miller's experiment is no where near real world conditions. And neither are the revised experiments. One has to duplicate everything possible, or it becomes a controlled experiment with controlled results, instead of a real world experiment.

Most graduate students can not afford to run experiments on whole planets, so they have to make do with lab equipment.
They design experiments to learn the principles and the parameters which influence the results. The surprise in Miller's initial experiment is that the first trial was so successful. Many other experiments have since been run since, with different atmospheres, different arrangements, different energy sources etc. You might try something exotic like doing your own literature search.

What is wrong with a controlled experiment? Specifically, what were the 2 or 3 greatest shortcomings in Miller's experiment? What would you consider a suitable real-world experiment to study amino-acid formation?

#46 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:31 PM

Just wanted to make a point here, I wasn't trying to be funny.  I was just eliminating one major counter argument to my point that a divine being could have fixed the issues that obviously you see yourself and agree with. 

Although I'm sure you would say that sin is the cause of those issues as opposed to evolution "re-using" features. B-)

View Post


What ever you believe, there are rules to those beliefs. One rule of the Bible is that perfection cannot exist where sin exists. That is why all that we know is that we live and die.

But if we were able to acheive a sinless world, would you not agree it would be different? God says it's not only different, but it's eternal as well.

Since it is understood that God says sin = death. What would be all the mechanisms that would have to exist in order for death to work?

1) Time + aging = eventual death.
2) Decay = eventual death.
3) Birth, life, death.
etc....

Now eternity would be a sin-less place. Sin-less place has no death so the rules of that parallel universe would be different. In it you would have:

1) Time - aging = eternal life.
2) No decay = eternal life.
3) No birth, no death = only life.
4) No birth, no death = having to be created. In eternity there is no beginning or end. That is why birth (beginning) and death (end) do not exist. And why being created is the only thing left.

Sin, the cause of birth and death, did not happen until the 6th day of creation. That is why everything on the 6th day and before that were created. The earth was in eternal time where the rules for existence were different. Time without aging, time with no decay, and life with no birth or death. That is why the Biblical creation does not fit the rules of the time-line we currently exist in. The creation was done in eternal time, we live in non-eternal time. So when we try to explain the creation by non-eternal laws, it does not make sense.

#47 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 10 July 2009 - 09:22 PM

What ever you believe, there are rules to those beliefs. One rule of the Bible is that perfection cannot exist where sin exists. That is why all that we know is that we live and die.

But if we were able to acheive a sinless world, would you not agree it would be different? God says it's not only different, but it's eternal as well.

Since it is understood that God says sin = death. What would be all the mechanisms that would have to exist in order for death to work?

1) Time + aging = eventual death.
2) Decay = eventual death.
3) Birth, life, death.
etc....

Now eternity would be a sin-less place. Sin-less place has no death so the rules of that parallel universe would be different. In it you would have:

1) Time - aging = eternal life.
2) No decay = eternal life.
3) No birth, no death = only life.
4) No birth, no death = having to be created. In eternity there is no beginning or end. That is why birth (beginning) and death (end) do not exist. And why being created is the only thing left.

Sin, the cause of birth and death, did not happen until the 6th day of creation. That is why everything on the 6th day and before that were created. The earth was in eternal time where the rules for existence were different. Time without aging, time with no decay, and life with no birth or death. That is why the Biblical creation does not fit the rules of the time-line we currently exist in. The creation was done in eternal time, we live in non-eternal time. So when we try to explain the creation by non-eternal laws, it does not make sense.

View Post


Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's also good to see that you realize that part of the bible where it says 1 day is but a thousand years and a thousands years is but a day is metaphor saying that god is timeless.

Now knowing this, you obviously don't take the entire bible literally. But why do you take the creation story as literal testament to how things were done as opposed to metaphor stating that God created everything regardless of the how and why's?

#48 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 July 2009 - 04:05 AM

It's not understanding so much as being able to step put of a box and look with an almost unbias view. Can you do it?

View Post


Whatever you want to call it, I think it's good for you. I admit I was starting to think you might be a lost cause and far too close minded to take in anything new. This gives me some hope :lol:

As for me doing it, wasn't it only a couple of days ago you commented on me using the word "belief"?

Regards,

Arch.

#49 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 July 2009 - 04:09 AM

What ever you believe, there are rules to those beliefs. One rule of the Bible is that perfection cannot exist where sin exists. That is why all that we know is that we live and die.

View Post


I'm pretty sure it's impossible when we live in an imperfect world, but hypothetically, if we were to purge sin from this world do you think we could achieve immortality?

Regards,

Arch.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 July 2009 - 04:46 AM

I'm pretty sure it's impossible when we live in an imperfect world, but hypothetically, if we were to purge sin from this world do you think we could achieve immortality?

View Post

What do you mean by "we"? Does this imply "we" without God?

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:24 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  It's also good to see that you realize that part of the bible where it says 1 day is but a thousand years and a thousands years is but a day is metaphor saying that god is timeless.

View Post

I see that you are keenly aware of “a” verse that some attempt to use to refute scripture by attempting (wittingly or unwittingly) to separate it from its literal contextual meaning. But are you also aware of the contextual implications of the surrounding verses you are supporting while quoting this verse.

So, on one hand, you are blindly ripping something out of context in order to make it fit your skewed perspective, or you are ignorantly supporting the surrounding context by unwittingly corroborating their meanings while misusing this verse (or both).

Either way, you may want to read the surrounding verses prior to using something that doesn’t support your point of view.


Now knowing this, you obviously don't take the entire bible literally.  But why do you take the creation story as literal testament to how things were done as opposed to metaphor stating that God created everything regardless of the how and why's?

View Post


Knowing that one doesn’t effect the other in any way, just hacks away at the base of your argument Java.

If you actually researched the linguistics and context of both verses, you’d immediately understand where you err. You may also wish to discover what יום means when read in the context of Genesis.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:35 AM

What do you mean by "we"? Does this imply "we" without God?

View Post


I highly doubt that they even understand what they mean Adam. It’s like stabbing at water with your finger in the dark. You keep hitting something, but all you end up doing is getting wet without affecting (or effecting) anything.

#53 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 July 2009 - 02:57 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  It's also good to see that you realize that part of the bible where it says 1 day is but a thousand years and a thousands years is but a day is metaphor saying that god is timeless.

Now knowing this, you obviously don't take the entire bible literally.  But why do you take the creation story as literal testament to how things were done as opposed to metaphor stating that God created everything regardless of the how and why's?

View Post


Actually, I believe the 1 day, and 1 thousand year comparison, is the difference in speed in which an eternal universe has to operate in order to be eternal. This is known in science as time dilation. The formula for this in the Bible is that the eternal universe has to move 365,000 times faster than what we are used to, which makes time stop.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

You see the term with the Lord is refering to heaven. And one day is a reference to being here on earth.

1) It would explain how God can know everything because the past, present and future become one.
2) It would explain how God can know every thing because He is everywhere in time.
3) It would explain how God can be everywhere at once because He moves 365,000 times faster than we do.
4) It would explain why we cannot see the other side, because we cannot see things that move 365,000 times faster than us.

These things make the laws of the parallel eternal universe different from our own. But yet coexist and be connected in time. Our side have time plus age (non-eternity). Their side have time minus age (eternity) because time moves there 365,000 times faster which changes all known laws.

How many parallel universes are there?

2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Before man sinned on the 6th day, all three universes (realms) where in sync moving 365,000 times faster than what we now know. When we sinned, this time dilation started to slow down. That's how you get humans living to almost 1 thousand year old. Time dilation to eternity cannot stop all at once. So while it was slowing down. man lived longer until it slowed up to what we now know and observe.

Do I believe in the Bible literally? Yes. But you have to look beyond the words to comprehend it.

#54 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 12 July 2009 - 06:54 PM

I see that you are keenly aware of “a” verse that some attempt to use to refute scripture by attempting (wittingly or unwittingly) to separate it from its literal contextual meaning. But are you also aware of the contextual implications of the surrounding verses you are supporting while quoting this verse.

So, on one hand, you are blindly ripping something out of context in order to make it fit your skewed perspective, or you are ignorantly supporting the surrounding context by unwittingly corroborating their meanings while misusing this verse (or both).

Either way, you may want to read the surrounding verses prior to using something that doesn’t support your point of view. 
Knowing that one doesn’t effect the other in any way, just hacks away at the base of your argument Java.

If you actually researched the linguistics and context of both verses, you’d immediately understand where you err. You may also wish to discover what יום  means when read in the context of Genesis.

View Post


Ron, I don't think that you are really trying here. I have not dismissed you for your beliefs in anyway, but it seems that you are just dismissing me because i don't have the same view as you. I think it is a disservice to yourself as well as everyone else to treat people this way. As far as my perspective is concerned, well I guess it is only fair to say that everyones perspectives are skewed.

From my point of view those verses only told me that God is timeless. When many years later I heard some Christian friends saying that the world was around 6 to 10 thousand years old I was immediately confused. I asked how this could be, and this was one of the verses they refereed to. Now that I have had a chance to re-read it, my view has not changed. Thanks Ikster for providing the scripture.

Ron, do you use this scripture for dating the age of the earth? Or do you use the dating method that uses the number of generations since Adam and Eve? Just curious really.

Perhaps someone can help me with the definition of יום, unfortunately the only info I can get on that is that it means blood. I'm sure that I completely missed what Ron wanted me to look up.

#55 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 July 2009 - 07:08 PM

What do you mean by "we"? Does this imply "we" without God?

View Post


Interesting point. I'm not sure how this would work, especially since it's all hypothetical.

I think the original idea was that death only exists because of sin (correct me if I'm wrong), so I was asking if we removed sin (however impossible that might actually be) would we achieve immortality.

So I think I'd say yes, is this possible on earth, removed from God? (Obviously to reject God is a sin, so we'd all have to become believers first).

From a slightly different perspective, would it be possible with God? I mean if we were to purge sin from earth, do you think God would grant immortality to those here and in heaven?

I'd be interested to hear you views on either scenario.

Regards,

Arch.

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 July 2009 - 02:47 AM

Ron, I don't think that you are really trying here.  I have not dismissed you for your beliefs in anyway, but it seems that you are  just dismissing me because i don't have the same view as you.  I think it is a disservice to yourself as well as  everyone else to treat people this way.  As far as my perspective is concerned, well I guess it is only fair to say that everyones perspectives are skewed.

View Post

No, Javabean, you are not only in correct here, but you fail to make a cogent point. My point of view has absolutely nothing to do with your inability to keep contextual accuracy. And your perspective is directly affected by your inability to keep contextual accuracy.

For you to insinuate that I am somehow dismissing you because you cannot grasp contextual accuracy, or that I am somehow doing a disservice (to you, myself and this forum) because I am pointing out that inability of yours to keep contextual accuracy, is itself a disservice, disingenuous and possibly a ploy to misdirect in order to avoid the rebuttal. And, your reply has less to do with perspective than it does understanding the written word itself.

From my point of view those verses only told me that God is timeless.  When many years later I heard some Christian friends saying that the world was around 6 to 10 thousand years old I was immediately confused.  I asked how this could be, and this was one of the verses they refereed to.  Now that I have had a chance to re-read it, my view has not changed.  Thanks Ikster for providing the scripture.

View Post


If you cannot understand context Javabean, you cannot begin to have perspective of the verses you are misquoting. If you cannot correctly quote, in context, the verses you want to use to refute an idea (or group of ideas), then your refutation (and perspective) are baseless, and bear a serious reexamination on your part.

Ron, do you use this scripture for dating the age of the earth?  Or do you use the dating method that uses the number of generations since Adam and Eve?  Just curious really.

View Post


Can you show me a more reliable dating method Javabean? One that empirically proves an accurate date?

Perhaps someone can help me with the definition of יום , unfortunately the only info I can get on that is that it means blood.  I'm sure that I completely missed what Ron wanted me to look up.

View Post


There are many fine online sources to help you with the correct definition for יום Javabean. And here’s a hint, it isn’t blood.

#57 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 13 July 2009 - 09:38 AM

Arch,

I believe there were 2 trees in the Garden that were "magical" in nature. One of course was the tree of knowledge, and the other was the tree of life. We were not allowed to eat of the first tree, but unfortunately we were kicked out before we could eat of the other.

Ron, and what other point is there to get from that scripture???? If you want my bare bones assessment of that scripture it really state that you will be in such a euphoric high that you won't notice time passing when you are in the presence of God. To suggest that it could mean anything else means that you are reading into it another meaning. Which actually means you don't take the bible at face value. :rolleyes:

Be that as it may, if you wish to educate someone don't send them on a wild goose chase. When that person has an honest question or confusion then you should try to help them or guide them...i don't know maybe suggest a site, or a link that they could follow. That would be nice.

For all I know from your responses so far you feel that I am below you. All I see is you trying to hide from any questions that I have proposed by insulting me. So thanks I appreciate that.

#58 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2009 - 12:34 PM

Actually, I believe the 1 day, and 1 thousand year comparison, is the difference in speed in which an eternal universe has to operate in order to be eternal. This is known in science as time dilation. The formula for this in the Bible is that the eternal universe has to move 365,000 times faster than what we are used to, which makes time stop.

Ikester might be about to prove Einstein wrong.

Einstein predicted that clocks moving at high speed would appear to slow down, as seen by an observer in an inertial frame of reference.
If Ikester can prove that time actually stops, he should be a favorite for a Nobel prize in physics.

#59 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 July 2009 - 06:08 PM

Ron, and what other point is there to get from that scripture????  If you want my bare bones assessment of that scripture it really state that you will be in such a euphoric high that you won't notice time passing when you are in the presence of God.  To suggest that it could mean anything else means that you are reading into it another meaning.  Which actually means you don't take the bible at face value. ;)

Be that as it may, if you wish to educate someone don't send them on a wild goose chase.  When that person has an honest question or confusion then you should try to help them or guide them...i don't know maybe suggest a site, or a link that they could follow.  That would be nice. 

For all I know from your responses so far you feel that I am below you.  All I see is you trying to hide from any questions that I have proposed by insulting me.  So thanks I appreciate that.

View Post


Your whole point here, in an attempt to skirt the issue of not researching the contextual application of your statement, has nothing to do with my calling you on it. But, rather, it’s more to the fact that you do not want to accept your mistake.

No one sent you on a wild goose chase Javabean. You were, in fact, busted on your inability to follow through on your misunderstanding of contextual literacy. And, if you “honestly” went back and checked your post, you’d soon realize that you weren’t making and “honest” inquiry, but a mistaken statement (you may want to check it again).

So, no matter how you attempt to spin this Javabean, you are running from the truth in both of your last responses to me.

#60 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2009 - 06:09 PM

Arch,

I believe there were 2 trees in the Garden that were "magical" in nature.  One of course was the tree of knowledge, and the other was the tree of life.  We were not allowed to eat of the first tree, but unfortunately we were kicked out before we could eat of the other.

View Post


Hi Java,

I don't think I've actually responded to any of your posts yet, so welcome and nice to meet you ;)

You raise a good point by bringing up Genesis. This would then suggest eternal life has less to do with a lack of sin, and more to do with 'eating from God's table'. In other words being in the presence of God. And I guess to eat at God's table you would need to be free of sin.

I think that answers my original question. Eternal life is only possible through God. So even if we were to purge sin from this world it would not grant eternal life unless God made it so.

Is this a reasonable summary? Anyone got anything else to add?

Regards,

Arch.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users