shadeyinka:

That is not true. Your information should be from the bible shouldn't it?

God of mercy. I was discussing what DoctorAlien said.

What is wrong with you?

johnydon22:
God of mercy. I was discussing what DoctorAlien said.

What is wrong with you?

I am saying that the information you got wasn't true: I wasn't castigating you

The earth alone is so very old that no one really knows how it was created and become what it is today, so I really don't have a belief either way, though literal creationism in 6 days defies logic and is absurd! I have heard a thousand other creation myths (Obatala done it with maize and a cock, it sprung out of Visnu's navel, Rangi and Papa done it, it emerged out of Sipapu, Bang!), so which of all the creation stories would one claim is true?

So, here's my myth, wrapped around the biblical creation myth only because it dominates amongst my people, but bear in mind that when the Bible says God done it in six days, I read billions of years for each second, and I don't mean a traditional God, and neither would I say I believe it.

Billions of years ago, God said, "let there be" and Bang! there was! And everything evolved from there.

There's just way too much to evolution for me to ignore I suppose. But only ignorance would make me claim my myth is the only true myth, though some defy the observed evidence and are just absurd.

shadeyinka:

I am saying that the information you got wasn't true: I wasn't castigating you

Take it up with DoctorAlien.

It wasn't my idea, I'm simply arguing over it.

Both.

Something must have triggered something before the big bang

DoctorAlien:
I don't speak Latin But I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by God.

Primarily because the Bible says so. I believe that the Bible contains truth. The Bible informs my belief. Observations seems to agree with, and solidify, it.

I think the best way for me to answer this is to say that if the evidences come, I will recognize them. But a good place to start is to try to show that the Bible is dubious (both in its origin and in what it teaches).


Can I really list all of them right now? [url]Creation.com[/url] I believe is doing a good job of documenting them.


The primary reason, not exactly, the "only" reason.

I admit that my worldview is creationism. It is based on the Bible. Through that lens I look at things. This does not mean that I am not able to receive other people's arguments on their merits, and critically examine them. But when the only thing that clashes is the worldview, I take the side of creationism. Thus, the geologic column may serve as evidence of evolution to some, but it may as evidence of Noah's flood for me.

Other people have other worldviews, like materialism, naturalism, etc. And if creationism is dogmatic, these other worldviews are just as, if not more, dogmatic.

Deductions have certain starting assumptions. Those assumptions have roots. I have only been very candid with my views. Suffice it to say that my worldview in no way prevents me from engaging the real world which we observe. But it may prevent me from taking a position that is built on a conflicting worldview.

Gen 1:1-3:
1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning is a time in the past when God created the heavens and the earth. No one knows when this beginning was as a scientist, one can speculate the beginning as the time of the Big bang.


2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.

This was the state of the earth at this point. Some theologians speculate that something dreadful happened to submerge the earth (which was created from the beginning) in both water and darkness. No one is sure of what really happened: but it is assumed that the fall of Lucifer threw the world into the great darkness.

No one knows the interval of time before verse 1 and 2 of Genesis 1:



3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

This marks the beginning of the 6000 years in question. If you like , call it a recreation of the earth. Light (not the Sun) was the first creation in this sense.

helinues:
Both.

Something must have triggered something before the big bang

So, you are arguing cause and effect transcends this space and time?

johnydon22:


So, you are arguing cause and effect transcends this space and time?

The mystery is beyond religions and scientists

shadeyinka:


Gen 1:1-3:
1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning is a time in the past when God created the heavens and the earth. No one knows when this beginning was as a scientist, one can speculate the beginning as the time of the Big bang.


2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.

This was the state of the earth at this point. Some theologians speculate that something dreadful happened to submerge the earth (which was created from the beginning) in both water and darkness. No one is sure of what really happened: but it is assumed that the fall of Lucifer threw the world into the great darkness.

No one knows the interval of time before verse 1 and 2 of Genesis 1:



3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

This marks the beginning of the 6000 years in question. If you like , call it a recreation of the earth. Light (not the Sun) was the first creation in this sense.

what was this light ?

FOLYKAZE:
Evolution and Intelligent Design both have no tangible evidence.

Evolution does not contradict inteligent design in my own opinion . What if evolution is the mechanical tool for inteligent design. Inteligent design can include evolution.

Evolution has overwhelmingly evidence that any accurate and legitimate findings against it could rewrite biology textbook and practically change our medical health understanding.

hakeem4:
what was this light ?

This light is that which dispels darkness!
The Light is a form of Energy that illuminates!

Light could be Physical or Spiritual: Genesis wasn't specific on the nature of the Light at creation.

johnydon22:
There is no doubt that on this board, we are majorly separated into two camps when it involves the origin of species or even the universe itself.

1. Evolution Camp (Mostly atheists, a decent number of theists, agnostics and so forth)

2. Design Camp (Mostly Theists, a minority of atheists and agnostics)

The argument for both camps has been raging through the years on this board, to be honest, i quite enjoy them.

Let's say, I've grown to the point where I'd like to give everyone an equal listening ear, try not to start off an argument from a definite position, initially or probably not letting what i think get in the way of what i may discover in what others think.

So, I'm opening this thread to understand why exactly do the proponents of these schools of thought agree with them.

When you agree with a particular idea, this connotes that there are elements of this idea that satisfies your own framework or logical expectation of how that question should and can be answered.

So the question here is
Why do you agree with evolution?

Why do you agree with design theory?

And why do you think the other theory you disagree with is wrong?

P.S; No copy and paste of online articles or journals, I am simply asking you what you personally think, or isolated elements in either school of thought that compels you to agree with it

let me add my view as a novice. Evolution does not negate design.


It is valid statement that evolution does not explain all what we need to know about biology, it is also a valid statement that designer proponent does not support all their notion well, why will a biological human needs an inteligent design. No theory to demonstrate it yet.


So my appealing to the proponent of inteligent design is to come up with emperical or well propounded logical analysis to demonstrate that adding a designer concept to the theory of evolution will improves our approximation so that we can add this to our textbook and become a new knowledge of science.

vaxx:
Evolution does not contradict inteligent design in my own opinion . What if evolution is the mechanical tool for inteligent design. Inteligent design can include evolution.

Evolution has overwhelmingly evidence that any accurate and legitimate findings against it could rewrite biology textbook and practically change our medical health understanding.

Can you please enlighten me about the evidences you talk about?

With or without a design or intelligent design the universe-evolution still looks as it suppose to look like.

If we assume there's a design behind everything, the universe-evolution still looks accidental, chaotic, orderly and all that and if we assume there's no design it's still the same.

While there are no sufficient evidences(strong one) for this design or what this design is I have no reason to believe the universe was intelligently designed by someone or something until proven. But I still find the logic and assumptions of design valid.

If this intelligent design is said or argue not to be designed by a more higher intelligent design then why can't we also say the universe-evolution wasn't design?

Atleast there's a possibility something can evolve from not being design right?

shadeyinka:

This light is that which dispels darkness!
The Light is a form of Energy that illuminates!

Light could be Physical or Spiritual: Genesis wasn't specific on the nature of the Light at creation.

okay this isn’t a falsifiable claim. But when you talk the physical light you must need a source for the light. But your spiritual light is in falsifiable

FOLYKAZE:


Can you please enlighten me about the evidences you talk about?

rigorous evidence for those who understand the discussion.

Self organization...

Genetic shift influence

Punctuated equilibrium.

Epigenetic inheritance.


Basic understanding of evolution to every lay man with basic understanding of biology.

Lots of fossils.

Common metabolic pathway in diffrent organism.


Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.


A demo of evolution bacteria by Harvard uni below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

hakeem4:
okay this isn’t a falsifiable claim. But when you talk the physical light you must need a source for the light. But your spiritual light is in falsifiable

Of course Spiritual lights need not have a source!
Rev 21:23:
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

Rev 22:5:
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

shadeyinka:

Of course Spiritual lights need not have a source!
Rev 21:23:
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

Rev 22:5:
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

shadeyinka stop using the bible as evidence. Imagine if I make a claim that I have three dragons at home and you ask me for evidence then I start telling you to check my diary would you actually take me seriously?

hakeem4:
shadeyinka stop using the bible as evidence. Imagine if I make a claim that I have three dragons at home and you ask me for evidence then I start telling you to check my diary would you actually take me seriously?

I didn't use the bible as evidence for you to believe. I used it to show where I got my information from.

I didn't write the Bible and even if you don't believe, it works for me!

shadeyinka:

I didn't use the bible as evidence for you to believe. I used it to show where I got my information from.

I didn't write the Bible and even if you don't believe, it works for me!

I'm happy you find solace from the bible. But it doesn’t make it true.

hakeem4:
I'm happy you find solace from the bible. But it doesn’t make it true.

To you it may not be true. Everything in life is about choices we make among options.

shadeyinka:

To you it may not be true. Everything in life is about choices we make among options.

yes everyone is entitled to his or her wrong opinion. But you can’t say your theory (colloquially) is a fact without any data. A fact without data is just an opinion. And that’s the category god falls in

hakeem4:
yes everyone is entitled to his or her wrong opinion. But you can’t say your theory (colloquially) is a fact without any data. A fact without data is just an opinion. And that’s the category god falls in

Oh no!
To you, existence is strictly limited to the Physical
For Me, existence isn't strictly limited to the physical but also encompasses the Spiritual.
While the physical require Physical data and the associated,
The Spiritual is strictly from a subjective experience.

The fact that it is subjective doesn't make it less real. It's only that it's realm is different.

shadeyinka:

Oh no!
To you, existence is strictly limited to the Physical
For Me, existence isn't strictly limited to the physical but also encompasses the Spiritual.
While the physical require Physical data and the associated,
The Spiritual is strictly from a subjective experience.

The fact that it is subjective doesn't make it less real. It's only that it's realm is different.

well I can’t prove your spiritual claim right or wrong because it’s not testable. I can also claim I have three invisible horns on my head. That claim is untestable. So I’m sorry if I don’t take your spiritual claim serious without evidence ( don’t cite the bible as your reference)

hakeem4:
well I can’t prove your spiritual claim right or wrong because it’s not testable. I can also claim I have three invisible horns on my head. That claim is untestable. So I’m sorry if I don’t take your spiritual claim serious without evidence ( don’t cite the bible as your reference)

Yes you may claim you have three invisible horns on your head BUT is the statement real and true to you? If it is false, then you'll be the biggest fool. But if it is real and true to you, it can only mean two things
1. You are hallucinating
2. You are seeing something no one else can see

Don't mind man. Time he will use to praise his creator..he will be using it to be reasoning. Soon he will die. Just watch. He will soon die again.

Lol. Funny man.

shadeyinka:

Yes you may claim you have three invisible horns on your head BUT is the statement real and true to you? If it is false, then you'll be the biggest fool. But if it is real and true to you, it can only mean two things
1. You are hallucinating
2. You are seeing something no one else can see

Oh the irony!

hakeem4:
evolution natural selection is not compatible with the ID

I fully understand where you're coming from, for someone who thinks evolution by natural selection is compatible with the big bang.

Well that distinguishes us, for in my own belief the Creation takes the place of the big bang in yours, for we have the evolution by natural selection in common.

Only that in mine, evolution by natural selection is not according to Darwin but the jesusjnr evolution theory which is coming soon.

johnydon22:
So, we can say man is subject to design but still evolves.

Precisely, man is a design that has evolved overtime.

Let me use an illustration to drive my point.

A intelligent designer made a beautiful car and handed the keys of the car to a man that had absolutely no idea of how to run the car.

But before he left the man with the car he taught the man how to drive the car, and gave him a manual to operate and maintain the car to ensure that the car would yet remain the beautiful car in the care of the man that it was when the intelligent designer first gave it to him.

But after leaving the man with the beautiful car, the man thought he knew better than the intelligent designer of the car and refused to follow the instructions he gave to him concerning the beautiful car, and started to do things contrary to what was contained in the manual that intelligent designer had given to him concerning the car.

So the result is a car that still manages to be moving but has become so ugly and badly damaged in the hands of the man that the intelligent designer had given the keys to the beautiful car.

So you could say the car was intelligently designed and beautiful when it was first handed over to man.

But in the hands of the man, it has undergone evolution from the beautiful car it was in the beginning, to the ugly and badly damaged car that it currently is.

johnydon22:


What informed this position?

Obviously Biblical account is very factorial but also the abounding evidence in our human space to back it up.

And this position has also been confirmed by personal experiences and signs that have followed such a belief to prove that it is true.

Thanks.

LordReed:


Oh the irony!

How do you mean?

jesusjnr:
I fully understand where you're coming from, for someone who thinks evolution by natural selection is compatible with the big bang.

Well that distinguishes us, for in my own belief the Creation takes the place of the big bang in yours, for we have the evolution by natural selection in common.

Only that in mine, evolution by natural selection is not according to Darwin but the jesusjnr evolution theory which is coming soon.

well I hope your evolution by jesusjnr theory will come with evidence

shadeyinka:

How do you mean?

shadeyinka:

To you it may not be true. Everything in life is about choices we make among options.

shadeyinka:

Yes you may claim you have three invisible horns on your head BUT is the statement real and true to you? If it is false, then you'll be the biggest fool. But if it is real and true to you, it can only mean two things
1. You are hallucinating
2. You are seeing something no one else can see

You tell someone that bible may not be true for them but it true for you but do not see the irony of saying a person in your position may be hallucinating? Wow!