Creationists

[Underhill]

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form. Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from. *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away. But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence. None that I know of anyway.

 

[Youwerecreated]

To your first comment. How can Behemoth and leviathan be considered myths, or allegories When they actually existed and exist ? So the bible was speaking of something that was not a fantasy.

You are assuming everything in the Bible is accurate and historical. That's fine to believe in, and I'm not saying your belief if wrong. But when it comes to proof, you have none. It's a matter of faith. Therefore, you cannot say with any certainty that those creatures were real. If you disagree with me, please provide a link to proof.

Many men within the scientific community lock in on a natural explanation because they have no explanation for the designer but neither do they have a viable explanation for the origins of life.

You did not address my argument that your hypothesis requires a large, powerful conspiracy that has existed for hundreds of years. Such a conspiracy is highly unlikely. While scientists as a whole may or may not have a viable explanation for the origin of life, that doesn't mean evolution is incorrect. The two are apples and oranges, and you can believe that God created life while still believing in evolution.

Also, you claim "many men within the scientific community" are in on this conspiracy. Can you provide any proof? Links?

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

There are also hypotheses that the world really is flat, that ghosts exist, and that Nazis live in a secret base on the moon. Just because crackpots create a theory doesn't mean the scientific community embraces it. To put it another way, just because some Christians use religion to justify being racist doesn't mean all Christians are racist.

If you have proof and links that show I'm wrong, please provide them.

The description of the Behemoth could have been describing the

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...wKn4YGQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1221&bih=849

Job 40:15 Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox;
Job 40:16 see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.
Job 40:17 He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
Job 40:18 His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword.
Job 40:20 For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
Job 40:21 He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh.
Job 40:22 The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him.
Job 40:23 Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth.
Job 40:24 Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords?

Sounds interesting no ?

If you read the scriptures there has been a conspiracy agains't God with the very first fall of man by his advesary. Really maybe you should turn on the T.V. and watch the history channel. I was part of that science community and you're wrong.

It does not mean they can provide a viable explanation for macroevolution either. There is plenty of scientific evidence that does not support the Theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yep. Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof! There they were.

Yes if you understood the molecular make up of just one cell let alone a trillion cells that make up a human.

So tell me this. How would the molecular make up of a god look? How likely do you think the odds are of his existence, as apposed to ours?

I would say pretty good since there is so much evidence showing complex things simply do not come into existence it takes intelligence to produce them. Why do you draw the lines at biological organisms.

The molecular machines in a cell provide a necessary function.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.

The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.

The maps in Columbus's day claimed there were dragons.

Someone could see a blue whale or a whale shark and call them leviathan. A person could have seen the rhinos or elephants in Africa and called them behemoths.

The lie is in that second bit. We can prove with reasonable certainty what happened. We have in many cases.

Can we prove everything? No. But since you can't prove anything about god, our position is vastly superior.

If you want to hold onto faith I have no problem with that. But this lie, that science is inferior in the evidence department, is laughable. Science depends on evidence. It is the basis for all science. Faith requires a good story. Nothing else.

Many cultures used the term dragons and how do you know that was not the term that best described dinosaurs at the time after all the term Dinosaur came much later.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form. Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from. *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away. But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence. None that I know of anyway.

Watch the history channel more and you will see them.

 

[wjmacguffin]

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form. Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from. *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away. But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence. None that I know of anyway.

I think he's talking about the Ancient Astronaut idea, that aliens landed on Earth and gave tech to Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. Because people of color couldn't have invented those things by themselves!

 

[wjmacguffin]

The description of the Behemoth could have been describing the

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...wKn4YGQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1221&bih=849

Job 40:15 Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox;
Job 40:16 see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.
Job 40:17 He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
Job 40:18 His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword.
Job 40:20 For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
Job 40:21 He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh.
Job 40:22 The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him.
Job 40:23 Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth.
Job 40:24 Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords?

Sounds interesting no ?

Sure! But it doesn't prove jack. Your own words betray you: It "could" have been describing a dinosaur. "Could" doesn't mean proof! It could have been a myth! It could have been someone tripping on mushrooms! It could have been anything.

Again, your BELIEF in the Bible as historically true in all cases doesn't count as proof, because it's belief. Proof does not equal belief.

Look, I believe in God. But I could be wrong. I have no proof. Now, I don't need proof because it's a matter of faith. But when it comes to science, you cannot use faith--you have to use facts and evidence. And all of the facts and evidence collected so far suggests dinosaurs died out long before the Bible was written.

If you read the scriptures there has been a conspiracy agains't God with the very first fall of man by his advesary. Really maybe you should turn on the T.V. and watch the history channel. I was part of that science community and you're wrong.

I have read Scripture--I'm a practicing Catholic. Again, please provide evidence that Satan has been behind all of the scientific community who has advocated evolution for hundreds of years. Bear in mind that said community has math and science behind their assertions.

It does not mean they can provide a viable explanation for macroevolution either. There is plenty of scientific evidence that does not support the Theory.

Please share with me some of the "plenty" of evidence, will you?

 

[Underhill]

The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.

The maps in Columbus's day claimed there were dragons.

Someone could see a blue whale or a whale shark and call them leviathan. A person could have seen the rhinos or elephants in Africa and called them behemoths.

The lie is in that second bit. We can prove with reasonable certainty what happened. We have in many cases.

Can we prove everything? No. But since you can't prove anything about god, our position is vastly superior.

If you want to hold onto faith I have no problem with that. But this lie, that science is inferior in the evidence department, is laughable. Science depends on evidence. It is the basis for all science. Faith requires a good story. Nothing else.

Many cultures used the term dragons and how do you know that was not the term that best described dinosaurs at the time after all the term Dinosaur came much later.

So there happened to be dinosaurs just off the edge of all the maps?

No, it was a term of ignorance. They didn't know what was there so stories loomed large. Sounds a lot like religion aye?

 

[Underhill]

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form. Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from. *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away. But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence. None that I know of anyway.

I think he's talking about the Ancient Astronaut idea, that aliens landed on Earth and gave tech to Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. Because people of color couldn't have invented those things by themselves!

Thus the term "serious people" in my post... But yeah, I understand.

 

[Underhill]

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form. Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from. *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away. But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence. None that I know of anyway.

Watch the history channel more and you will see them.

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

 

[koshergrl]

Unsolved Mysteries...and Unsolved HISTORY (haha that's a little word fun, eh?)

Gotta love the history channel.

But you still have to do research. Everything they broadcast is not incontestable, or even necessarily current. Or real.

 

[HUGGY]

I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form. Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from. *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away. But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence. None that I know of anyway.

Watch the history channel more and you will see them.

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

Why is a printed "book" any more credible than any other source of information? Print alone is no more "real" than a video presentation ..nor less.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The description of the Behemoth could have been describing the

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...wKn4YGQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1221&bih=849

Job 40:15 Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox;
Job 40:16 see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.
Job 40:17 He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
Job 40:18 His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword.
Job 40:20 For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
Job 40:21 He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh.
Job 40:22 The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him.
Job 40:23 Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth.
Job 40:24 Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords?

Sounds interesting no ?

Sure! But it doesn't prove jack. Your own words betray you: It "could" have been describing a dinosaur. "Could" doesn't mean proof! It could have been a myth! It could have been someone tripping on mushrooms! It could have been anything.

Again, your BELIEF in the Bible as historically true in all cases doesn't count as proof, because it's belief. Proof does not equal belief.

Look, I believe in God. But I could be wrong. I have no proof. Now, I don't need proof because it's a matter of faith. But when it comes to science, you cannot use faith--you have to use facts and evidence. And all of the facts and evidence collected so far suggests dinosaurs died out long before the Bible was written.

If you read the scriptures there has been a conspiracy agains't God with the very first fall of man by his advesary. Really maybe you should turn on the T.V. and watch the history channel. I was part of that science community and you're wrong.

I have read Scripture--I'm a practicing Catholic. Again, please provide evidence that Satan has been behind all of the scientific community who has advocated evolution for hundreds of years. Bear in mind that said community has math and science behind their assertions.

It does not mean they can provide a viable explanation for macroevolution either. There is plenty of scientific evidence that does not support the Theory.

Please share with me some of the "plenty" of evidence, will you?

The fossil record has been given. What is your mechanism for the process of Macroevolution ? I will be more than happy to present evidence once I know what you claim as the mechanism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form. Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from. *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away. But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence. None that I know of anyway.

Watch the history channel more and you will see them.

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

 

[Truthbetold]

The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys. If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige. I just came from the side where human beings were created.

 

[Underhill]

Watch the history channel more and you will see them.

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

Why is a printed "book" any more credible than any other source of information? Print alone is no more "real" than a video presentation ..nor less.

Of course. But there are plenty of good sources for information among print media and very few on television. What is on television tends to be watered down or dramatically oversimplified.

My point was to pick up a book from those who have actually done the research rather than watch a mockumentary from some shill trying to get ratings.

 

[Underhill]

Watch the history channel more and you will see them.

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

And I from RIT.

My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings. They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science. The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.

There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense. But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country. If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

Why is a printed "book" any more credible than any other source of information? Print alone is no more "real" than a video presentation ..nor less.

Of course. But there are plenty of good sources for information among print media and very few on television. What is on television tends to be watered down or dramatically oversimplified.

My point was to pick up a book from those who have actually done the research rather than watch a mockumentary from some shill trying to get ratings.

You mean many of these men and women that worked very hard for their degrees and built their reputation are gonna put that all at risk over a documentary ? If they did the documentary the way they learned their field in school no one would stick around to watch it.

You mean they lack the credentials to give their opinions ? What is the difference between that summary vs the summary of a Professor in the class room ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

And I from RIT.

My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings. They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science. The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.

There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense. But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country. If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.

Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?

 

[Underhill]

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

And I from RIT.

My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings. They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science. The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.

There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense. But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country. If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.

Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?

Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about. They are most likely already labeled a crackpot. But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.

If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet." And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.

The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.

This is what these shows do for ratings. The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it. The more play it receives. So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.