Is there a GOD? - ding! ding! ding ding geeeeet reaaaaaady toooooo rummmmble!!!!

[Bub]

Ask me in twenty or thirty years and I should know definitively by then.

[Hemodoc]

No, what I ment is how did we get on that subject in the first place?

Rob, the age of the earth and the amount of time needed for evolution to take place is a fundamental part of evolution and it is in complete contrast to the Bible which gives an age of around 6000 years.  Many people such as my sister and her husband reject the Bible outright because of this issue alone.  As Epoman has said, if he is right, then those that don't believe in Jesus as their Saviour, then they will end up in hell.  If people choose to not believe the Bible or that there is a God, that is certainly their right to do so.  All i am pointing out is that the age of the earth is an issue that people feel seals the fate of the Bible being factually not true, yet the ages are based on unproven and unprovable assumptions.  I find that very shaky ground to stand on especially when our eternal immigration status is in the balance of heaven or hell based on what you believe.  If the Bible is true, then we better pay attention.  Saying that the Bible is false based on research built on unprovable assumptions is very unstable and shifting sand.  I will stand on the Rock of Jesus and what the Bible says instead and that is why I believe that there is a God.  The age of the earth is assumed in the theory of evolution.  Evolution assumes that there is no God that brings about these naturalistic processes.

[fc2821]

Evolution assumes that there is no God that brings about these naturalistic processes.

    No, as I have stated before, It does not.  This is your interpretation of what it says.  I on the other hand think it says something else. 

[Hemodoc]

Evolution assumes that there is no God that brings about these naturalistic processes.

    No, as I have stated before, It does not.  This is your interpretation of what it says.  I on the other hand think it says something else.

Actually, the majority of evolutionists consider adding God to the equation is adding an unnecessary element in their assessment.  There are many on the other hand that believe in God directed evolution which is better called theistic evolution.  I find it a great stretch to get evolution out of reading of the Bible.  You are correct that is my interpretation of the issue, but I am curious how you reconcile the Bible and evolution if you consider that.  Perhaps I should have said that evolution is not compatible with the God of the Bible.  Just asking.

Peter

[fc2821]

The age of the earth is assumed in the theory of evolution. 

    Your jey word is assumed, a presumption.  Evolution does not have anything to do with the age of the earth, as a comological or geological fact.  Mixing apples and oragnes here.

[fc2821]

You are correct that is my interpretation of the issue, but I am curious how you reconcile the Bible and evolution if you consider that.  Perhaps I should have said that evolution is not compatible with the God of the Bible.  Just asking.

Peter

     As I have stted severl times before, I believe it is one of God's mechanisms for running the universe.

[Hemodoc]

The age of the earth is assumed in the theory of evolution. 

    Your jey word is assumed, a presumption.  Evolution does not have anything to do with the age of the earth, as a comological or geological fact.  Mixing apples and oragnes here.

Actually, Sir Fred Hoyle rejected the big bang theory because of the time issue for evolution in only 20 billion years as well as too little matter in the universe for evolution to occur as well.  Assuming that the big bang is the correct origin of earth would lead you to falsely reject his mathematical calculations leading to his conclusion.  Time is the magical ingredient to the evolution mixture.  we don't see it happening before us today because it takes a long time to happen, over millions and millions of years.  If the earth was only 6000 years old as accounted by the genealogies in the Bible, then there is absolutely not enough time for all of the changes to happen and occur.  Time is the central issue of evolution in many ways.

An Old Age For The Earth
Is The Heart Of Evolution
Jonathan F. Henry, Ph.D.

“Time” in general, and the age of the earth in particular, is the heart of evolutionary theorizing.  Even more, the conventional age of the earth is the ultimate foundation for other long chronologies, both inside and outside the solar system.  The evolutionary age of the earth is ultimately based on nothing more than Lyellian uniformitarianism, radiometric claims notwithstanding, and Lyell’s own agenda was to displace the biblical chronology with a secular one.  Aside from the evidences that the cosmos does not have a long age, it is also true that discrediting an old age for the earth discredits old ages for the universe as well.  Since the earth is not truly old, the billions-of-years chronology for the sun, the solar system, and the universe has no foundation.  It is therefore no wonder that the humanist community has steadfastly rejected the concept of a recent creation for the earth.  It is also clear that recent creationists must continue to defend the biblical doctrine of a young earth.

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

[fc2821]

    Ever watch a dog chase its tail?  This is beinging to look like that dog.

[Hanify]

But the question is - does the dog believe in God???

[fc2821]

Ask me in twenty or thirty years and I should know definitively by then.

    You are the only sane one here.  Stay that way, run and don't come back.

[fc2821]

But the question is - does the dog believe in God???

     I'd be afraid to ask.  But I bet he beleives in evolution.   

[rocker]

Dear Rocker,

It is interesting that you easily see that the assumptions of the Drake equation render it to nothing more than a thought experiment.  However, have you ever looked at the equations for radiometric dating as well that are based on unproven and unprovable assumptions?

I find this fascinating from a psychological standpoint.  The link between fundamentalism and the authoritarian mindset is well-documented.  (An authoritarian mindset is a person who believes in strong hierarchies - there is one leader at the top.  People lower in the hierarchy are subject to those higher, etc.)

Peter had an entire thread devoted to his thoughts on evolution.  And yet, no matter how many times people mention that they do not find the topic entirely welcome here, he continues to bring it up again and again and again.  When someone gently suggests he take the topic where it belongs, he appeals to a higher authority - the dear departed Epoman.  Over and over he insists that since Epoman mentioned evolution in the post that started this thread, he is justified in bringing it up whenever he likes, no matter who objects.  No matter how unwelcome people find it now, he is justified in his crusade.

I just find it interesting.

 - rocker

[dwcrawford]

Now if this a real quote from Epoman, it's a topic I'm all for. 

   "Some people say we evolved from apes, well they can bite my ass."

In fact there is very little difference in this thread and the sister thread "the truth about evolution".  I thought the later was created to allow this one to stay on topic.  Can you find anything in Epoman's writings and rules about staying on topic?  If no, I'm quite sure it is in the Bible somewhere.

Rules general mean  everyone without a written exception.

Ok inspired by thread: http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=620.0 that topic was getting off course, it was about gays and marriage. It turned into a GOD debate. Well lets continue the debate here.

Is there a GOD? I personally believe YES! I can't imagine that with the complexity of the human body especially the brain, and all the feelings we have, that go hand in hand, for example sex, it serves a purpose and it FEELS GOOD!  I just can't imagine that we were an accident, a "Big Bang" happened and a million years later we have Tivo.  There are so many beautiful things in this world that are just too perfect. Some people say we evolved from apes, well they can bite my ass. If apes evolved into man, why are there still apes? Is the bible right I hope so! remember though, it was written by man, and things do get lost in translation. I don't know which religion is correct, there are so many! Catholics believe Christians are going to hell and Christians believe Catholics are going to hell, and everyone thinks buddhists are all going to burn. Who is right? I personally think that as long as you believe in a GOD and live a good life, you will go to heaven when you die, if I didn't believe in GOD and NO forgiveness for the ultimate sin (suicide) I would have offed myself 13 years ago. But I fear GOD and I try to follow his rules as much as possible. Because when I die I want to go to heaven and chill with "THE MAN" and talk about the mysteries of the universe, things like what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

Well that should start things off....

DISCUSS!

Dear Dan,

Nothing wrong with the other thread, but Epoman started this thread talking about evolution and why he believed in God.    "Some people say we evolved from apes, well they can bite my ass."

Likewise, the Bible states that by the things that He has created, He has shown us that He is God, even the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  We are still on topic on this thread.

Thank you,

Peter

Edited - Fixed quote error: paris, Moderator

[willowtreewren]

Dan, I noticed you were interested in reincarnation so I thought you might like this. I first heard it sung by Dan Barker, an evangelical preacher turned atheist. Funny guy.

"What is reincarnation?" A cowboy asked his friend.
His friend replied "Well Son,
it happens when your life has reached its end.
You see, they comb your hair and they wash your neck
and they clean your fingernails.
And they you down in a batted box
far away from life's prevails.
Now the box and you goes in a hole
that's been dug into the ground.
And reincarnation starts
when you're planted beneath the mound.
You see the box melts down just like the clods
with you who is inside.
And then, you're just beginning your transformation ride".

"Well, in a while some rain's
gonna come and fall upon the ground.
'Til one day on your lonely little grave,
a little flower will be found.
And say a hoss should wander by
and graze upon the flower
that once was you but now becomes
a vegetative bower.
That little flower that the hoss done ate up
with all his other feed
becomes bone and fat and muscle,
essentials for the steed.
But some he's consumed, he can't use.
So it passes through.
Finally it lays there on the ground,
this thing that once was you.

And then say that I should wander by
and gaze upon the ground.
And wonder and ponder
on this object that I've found.
Well it sure makes me think of reincarnation,
of life and death and such.
And I ride away concludin' -
You ain't changed all that much"

 

[dwcrawford]

Aleta, If you'll read my original post about believe in a higher power perhaps you'll see how my theory isn't all that far off...based on your cowbody song that is...

[willowtreewren]

True enough, Dan. True enough.

 

[sullidog]

I believe in god. I believe he saved me from dieing when I was suppose to be in a coma, he has blessed me with many things throughout my kidney failure and I will never have it any other way!
Troy

[willowtreewren]

Troy,
The good thing is that we can all believe what we want and be respectful of one another's views.

 

[Hemodoc]

Dear Rocker,

It is interesting that you easily see that the assumptions of the Drake equation render it to nothing more than a thought experiment.  However, have you ever looked at the equations for radiometric dating as well that are based on unproven and unprovable assumptions?

I find this fascinating from a psychological standpoint.  The link between fundamentalism and the authoritarian mindset is well-documented.  (An authoritarian mindset is a person who believes in strong hierarchies - there is one leader at the top.  People lower in the hierarchy are subject to those higher, etc.)

Peter had an entire thread devoted to his thoughts on evolution.  And yet, no matter how many times people mention that they do not find the topic entirely welcome here, he continues to bring it up again and again and again.  When someone gently suggests he take the topic where it belongs, he appeals to a higher authority - the dear departed Epoman.  Over and over he insists that since Epoman mentioned evolution in the post that started this thread, he is justified in bringing it up whenever he likes, no matter who objects.  No matter how unwelcome people find it now, he is justified in his crusade.

I just find it interesting.

 - rocker

Now, one more round of insults to Hemodoc down.  Does anyone actually want to discuss the topic of this thread? You are allowed to speculate on the Drake equation but if I mention that the equations for aging the earth are likewise based on unknowns and assumptions which are unprovable, you fail to answer that issue and instead state an insult that i am just of an authoritative mindset and that is why I keep on my own crusade.  Yes, I agree, I find it interesting. So Drake is an allowable topic on this thread but the age of the earth behind the theory of evolution is not. Yes, that is quite interesting indeed.  Once again, Epoman would no longer be welcome on the thread that he started. Yes, interesting indeed.  But thank you for one more insult in the long list of Hemodoc insults.  That is actually becoming quite amusing to see over and over again, but no answers to the challenges put forth.

Perhaps you may want to comment on the issue of the unknowns used in radiometric dating just as you did with the Drake equation.  Both are speculative thought games.  Both are based on assumptions also known as unknowns in mathematical sense.  You readily comment about one but not the other and avoid answering a fairly simple question.  What does that say about your psychological profile?

Thank you.

Peter

[Hemodoc]

I believe in god. I believe he saved me from dieing when I was suppose to be in a coma, he has blessed me with many things throughout my kidney failure and I will never have it any other way!
Troy

What a great testimony Troy, my prayers are with you.

God bless,

Peter

[Hemodoc]

According to a Newsweek poll done in march of 2007:

Only 13% of Americans believe in naturalistic evolution (that is that God had no part in evolution)

However, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

30% of Americans took the middle ground responding that they believed "Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

9% remained unsure.

And it seems that this poll is not a fluke as many other polls from different polling companies have reported very similar findings. Go to polling report and look around at some of the other polls if you'd like.

It seems, to me, that these results are good news for Mike Huckabee who has gotten some heat for saying that he doesn't believe in evolution. Those kinds of attacks seem quite strange in light of America's views on the origin of life on earth.

I mean why would you attack someones view when it lines up with about 78% of Americans?

But all that aside, Im not even sure why you would bring up this question in a presidential campaign as it has nothing to do with what it takes to be president.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution

[Hemodoc]

There have been a couple of posts on the anthropic principle which should not be lost in the mindless Hemodoc shoutdown that happens every few days.

Let's get back on topic.  The Anthropic principle is an incredible scientific observation of the mathematical perfection of the universe in such a way allowing life on earth, but within incredibly narrow tolerances.  I would wager that most have never heard of the Anthropic principle.  It is very much an issue of evidence of an intelligent designer.  For some background information on this issue, take a look at the conclusion from one article on this subject.  It is an incredible topic to explore that many such as myself believe is a testimony of the God of the Bible as our Creator.  In the issue of "Is there a God?"   The Anthropic principle is factual evidence of not only God, but a benevolent God who provided for all of our needs.

Cheers,

Evidence of the Design of the Universe through the Anthropic Principle

The Meaning of it all

In contrast with strict intelligent design theory, Anthropic Principles reveal more about the Designer than simply the notion that it was, "intelligent." Anthropic Principles show that a Power outside of space and time (not extra-terrestrials) has had something do with life on earth. Anthropic Principles imply that there are Forces capable of providing all the energy for the universe, changing physical laws, manipulating a galaxy, precisely ordering a solar system, and controlling the geological history of Earth. The fact that anthropic principles are deduced all the way from the beginning of the universe to the last earthquake we had show that this Being must have had us in mind from the beginning, and that it is a single Power which did all this. To put it bluntly, the design of the universe imply there is a Creator God. The feelings provoked by these evidences is well typified by Professor of Astronomy George Greenstein:


"It was not for some time that I was able to place my finger on the source of my discomfort. It arises, I understand now, because the contention that we owe our existence to a stupendous series of coincidences strikes a responsive chord. That contention is far too close for comfort to notions such as: We are the center of the universe. God loves mankind more than all other creatures. The cosmos is watching over us. The universe has a plan; we are essential to that plan."25


The very mathematical elegance of the universe is also a compelling observation. Physicist Paul Davies speaks for many scientists saying, "The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgement, is overwhelming. The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists."2

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/837

[Hemodoc]

On September 14, 1972, the following letter written by Wernher von Braun was read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford.

Dear Mr. Grose:

In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

http://www.eadshome.com/VonBraun.htm

[del]

   I wanted coffee but no icon for that!! 

[fc2821]

   I have tried to get other views expressed here so we could have sane, inteligent discussion about God from various view points. Not everyone has the same view point about God.  instead, we continiusly argue. One person beats us over the head telling us his views are THE ONLY VIEWS TO HAVE. Everyone else wants to argue with him. This is rediculious.  I have had my fill. If I may quote that famous cartoon figure Popeye, "That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more!" I have had my fill of ego and argument.
   Peter, people aren't attacking Christanity as a whole. Face it man they are telling you your views are your views, but quit trying to shove down everyone"s throut. I have resisted calling you a "bible thumper", becauser I don't believe in personally insulting you. I know you only mean well by telling people why your view of God is "the one true way". Understand, I am not insulting you, if you are insulted I appologise.  You may be right, but I'd like other people to express views too. That can't happen if we argue all the time.
    So, I am leaving this thread forever. If anyone replies to this, I won't read it I'm not coming back here to this thread to read it. Fight, argue all you want. You will just do so without me taking part in this madness.