Things from the Old Testemant that raise questions

Not really, not at all. For the latter, you have billions of years in which to work, as well as solid principles of physics and chemistry, as well as DNA, which we know is variable (thus a change in it can change how an organism looks and behaves, how well it survives and reproduces, therefore propogating it's new DNA code in the species).

In the former, not only do you only have 7 days, but you also have to find evidence for a god. That is what kills it, because we have ZERO hard evidence for god, but a mountain of it for evolution. Maybe god exists, I can't say, but even if one does, and even if it's our creator, it creates through evolution over millions, even billions, of years.

 

It's likely He's still in the process of creating then. So this current 'reality' is only one phase. Perhaps mankind is an as yet unfinished creation.

 

If I could get just one thing through to Evolutionist followers.
The Super-long time frame do NOT make something anymore likely than unlikely.
Next off - your hoping for spontaneous creation to happen BILLIONS of times.
(and it goes well into the trillions)

I know this will 'weird out' followers but next time something is 'explained away' by "Ya but that was over millions of years"...
..I challenge you to stop and question whether that is actually making it more plausible OR LESS.


as well as solid principles of physics and chemistry,[/QUOTE]
Err.. like what now?
Entropy?
Abiogenesis?
Solid principles of physics and chemistry know nothing about soup morphing into dinosaurs.


as well as DNA, which we know is variable (thus a change in it can change how an organism looks and behaves, how well it survives and reproduces, therefore propogating it's new DNA code in the species). [/QUOTE]
Actually.. you do NOT HAVE DNA.. (yet)
That is the question.
How did DNA appear?

Second to that - DNA is not 'Variable' as you tried to use the term.
DNA can be changed and when it is - it results in deformity, weakness and often lethal consequences.

It sounds like you are describing the likelyhood of a theory by citing the theory as evidence of the theory.
Evolutionists can seem to escape this.

In anycase, ,, The question ISNA appeared from SPace-Gas or Divine creation.

You have one week of life being created from non-life.
As opposed to
Millions of years of life being created from non-life.

Im no statistician or mathematician but It would seem pretty obvious to me that 7 times is more likely than a Trillion Times.

The question is what is more believable... and at least we have evidence that complex working order (which we can observe now) is created by Intelligent Design.

No. You have mountains of evidence that complex working information requires and Author.
You dont have ANY evidence of Evolutionism, however if you CHOOSE to IMAGINE that the Fish Fossil "Must have" morphed into the Lizard Fossil - thats your right to a free imagination.

Interesting Dogmatic Assertion based on Faith.
I dont entirely disagree.

IF new information is spontaneously creating and fitting itself into lifeforms - and DID do that millions of times - then it most definately was by the hand of some sort of Intelligence.

 

Brocktoon, I ask you again, explain creationism.

If there is a 'God', I doubt it is conscious. Probably more of force of creation, nothing like the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God. I would say that I was Agnostic [if it was Occam's* definition], however, it is still more likely that there isn't a God. And if by some scientific evidence there proves to be some sort of creative force, it is still, nonetheless more likely that there wasn't a God [unless this force necessarily created life on earth], and for all practical matters, I will still be an Atheist aside from acknowledging its presence. It is contradictory I realize, only to a degree, however, because theism [necessarily] implies aherence and worship. And if there is a God He has done a shitty job, and I would let him know that right before he banishes me to nothingness. However, once again, I doubt very much that the mysticism that has been applied to it, actually exists in this `potential` creative force.

 

Creationism is something a general term.
In fairness.. so is Evolutionism

Really.. 'Evolutionists' do believe in 'Creationism' - they just tend to believe it happened many millions of time over billions of days
(Instead of just Seven).

For purposes of the discussion
Creationism is generally describing those who reason that because working order is observed to be guided by intelligent design - it stands to reason the most likely explantation for working order in lifeforms also has that cause.

There are less and less 'Naturalist' Evolutionists around today - but that school believed that, even though complex working information is observed to 'de-evolve' nowadays - it 'must have' worked in the opposite fashion all times previous to ours.

They also believe that 'Stuff' was created from nothing
(or possibly that 'stuff' always existed)

However.. they dont believe it was guided into order.
They think it happened 'by accident'.

This is generalising of course.

 

Please elaborate on working order and what you are refering to specifically. Also please go more in depth in the general belief.

Am I correct in assuming that creationists do not necessarily believe in the 'seven day' [Christian] explaination, just intelligent and conscious creation?

Brocktoon, do not attemt to explain evolutionary theory, you have failed many times and only inflame the mindset of those participating in the discussion. I am sure Geckopelli has tired of correcting you. Just explain your theory and be sure that your information is accurate when referencing others.

 

No.
You explain your theory to me Thumbotico.
(If you want?)

I will decide if I think its valid or not.
Be accurate and cite references (if you feel like it)

 

Why do you keep doing this? Expain your position.

Stop acting like a child, unless you are a child, then grow up, so that you can communicate meaningfully without showing your wounded ego every time you post.

 

Thumbotico.

Not often do I say this to another poster but in your case

You are an absoluter LIAR.

You repeatedely interjected into discussions where YOU READ AND COMMENTED ON MY POSITIONS, THEORIES, SUGGESTIONS so on and so on.

Since everyone else can read (and you pretend you cant) I wont bother reposting MASSIVE amounts of my ongoing opinions, theories and positions on Creationism.

YOU go and read them then come back with some meaningful counterpoint.

Once again.. No. I will not simply 'Answer to you' and 'Explain myself to you' simply because you tell me to.
IF YOU want to explain yourself to me then go right ahead.
Otherwise,
I suggest you CONTRIBUTE ideas as we go along.
So far - all you do is post 'disapproval' messages about the posts and then stupidly insist we make me seek your approval. [because..lol.. if not you will call me a 'baby']

Also.. stop being a liar.

Thanks

 

Okay, perhaps you are right. In that case can you direct me to the thread in which you explained your theory on creationism? All I have seen of yours are arguements against evolutionary theory (mainly against Geckopelli).

As I have told you before, I take stock in the theory of evolution generally accepted by the scientific community. Once again, your move, your choice.

I realize that your theory cannot be really argued for and that is probably why you go to these great lengths to avoid explaining it, so if you wish we can leave it at that, or leave it at some OTHER conclusion.

Just an observation: Your passive aggressive 'lol's remind me of a simple minded teenage girl.

P.S.
"Please elaborate on working order and what you are refering to specifically. Also please go more in depth in the general belief.

Am I correct in assuming that creationists do not necessarily believe in the 'seven day' [Christian] explaination, just intelligent and conscious creation?

Brocktoon, do not attemt to explain evolutionary theory, you have failed many times and only inflame the mindset of those participating in the discussion. I am sure Geckopelli has tired of correcting you. Just explain your theory and be sure that your information is accurate when referencing others."

The first two paragraphs are neutral in tone, the second one even appeals to you. Granted the third is somewhat offensive. Let us disregard that one and focus on the first two.

 

Thumbotic..

Considering this is coming from someone who deems Geckopelli's bizarre rants and 'dismissal posts' as Correction - Its impossible to take you seriously.

Your position is what?
"You have been Vanquished Fool!"

But at least Geckopelli states his wacko spectulations about morphing soup.
At least we know where I start..

But I dont even know what you are doing here?

Reminding us that you believe in Evolutionism.. Great.
Wow.
Thanks.

Do you have a reason why, other than because Geckopelli believes Space Gas became Earth and that Natural Selection is the mechanism for Evolution?

 

Go read my post in the Atheist/Agnostic forum
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=725351#post725351

 

i think since old hebrew has not a word for "our" or "dominion" yall are reading to hard into the interpretation of mans words.... secondly christianity being the bottom of the spiritual evelutionary ladder i think one should consider the source governing the text and use not faith to disect its meanings but instead an understanding of the hearts of men... king james was a lunatic and the roman catholic church is the most corrupt organization ever instituted... both being the translating bodies of the text... funny how a god can be anything you worship and none think to call themselves monetarians or sex-tians or even better materialisions hell that encompasses all of the perversions that one can worship yet seek forgiveness for!

 

I agree with much that you say. I think Paulianity would be a more appropriate name for the religion. Or, Paulism....

The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed more light on the events and activities after the 'crucifixion'.

 

BlackGuard..
I wonder if you can explain where Pauls Epistles introduce new ideas or conflicts with the rest of the Gospels and Epistles?

Also, could you please explain what you meant about the Dead Sea Scrolls 'Shedding more light' on events after the Crucifixtion?

Maybe after that Willpower will explain why he thinks King James had anything whatsoever to do with writing or translating the Bible and why Orthodox Catholic, Coptic Christians and later 'Protestant' groups end up with the same translations of the Bible?

Im also interested to know why the Roman Catholic Church is said to be a 'Corrupt Organisation' - ?
Is this one of those theories like the Dick Cheney is making millions of dollars for his former co-workers by killing people or ?

 

For you, I will do it this once.

1. Paul founded Christianity, that is all I am referring to.
2. The interpretations of the scrolls that I refer to concluded that the 'liar' that James and other disciples mention is Paul. They apparently felt he was spreading the wrong message.
3. Have you heard of a 'King James Authorized Version' of the bible, it is actually quite well known. That is likely what he refers to.
4. In the 1980's, the RCC is alledged to have paid 250 million dollars so that Italy, Britain, and Switzerland would drop their accusations that funds were illegally being funnelled through the Vatican to support latin american right wing militias. Among other things, these militias killed RCC nuns.

Of course, after the 250 million was paid, the church has been absolved of any wrongdoing. So the corrupt organization label is clearly unfounded.

 

Maybe its one of those theories that Halliburton was handed the contract to the oil in Iraq? But Dick Chaney and George Bush are infallible just like Brocktoon.

 

Christ founded Christianity.
Paul was just one of many Apostles who went on to establish Churches.

No.
'They' did not 'Conclude that'.
A Crackpot named Eisenman (sp?) came up with one of the stupidest ideas ever when he 'imagined' the dates of the Damascus Document being AD 0-70 then for basically no good reason suggests Paul is the The Liar, Spouter of Lying, Scoffer/Comedian.

Its amazing to me how you will accept some wacko interpretation of the Damascus Document as 'Fact'.. Yet you refuse to accept well established history as 'Suspect'.

King James had nothing to do with writing, translating, interpreting ANYTHING to do with the King James Bible.
As King of England he commisioned an English Bible for his land.
Pomp and Circumstance says they honour him with the Title.
Again.. King James had nothing to do with it other than calling for it on behalf of the English.

Interesting allegation.
If its ever founded on anything i will be interested to follow it closer.

 

Yeshua Ben Joseph was Jewish, a Rabbi of either the Nazorean or Essene sect.

He DID NOT found Christianity, as you so proudly exclaim, he never left Judaism.

James was the person wholly responsible for that book being produced. It was his wish that it be done, and he obviously hired people to do it. As if he would, he was the King! And likely not a top notch language expert.



As for the Paul is the liar, you don't like that conclusion, I do. nuff sed.

 

So you think Eisenmans theory that Damascus Documents 'Scoffer' is actually the Apostle Paul because .....you 'Like it'.

Wow. Good Answer!

Thousands of Documents and Historical Evidence indicating Paul as one of twelve towing the line of Christ be dammed .... they must all be frauds because "I Dont Like them".