A Case for Theism

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Ah, I see. You are very wise, Blackdragon.

Anyways guys, I'm not pretending to be infallible, and on many finer points I have little experience. It's just a basic overview.

Obviously you have researched it yourself, and have come to a conclusion. I wrote it for the people who haven't; I'm not really interested in changing minds that are made up.

Anyways, BD, I don't know why you would label Creationists/Theists dishonest. I'm not seeing what I have to gain from this. Except flame, of course.

Well, eventually a debate gets to the point where the two sides don't accept each others' evidence as credible, and then further argument is futile.

At any rate, as I said, I'm not going to scour over this thread every minute, and I've already got enough arguments started to last me days, which I don't have.

So in short, you are welcome to debate specific topics in more specific threads, or perhaps a few people will come in here and take you up on a few points. But, I've already argued them in other areas; again, this is just a summary.

Oh, but I will clarify in case I didn't already, that essentially I believe Theistic evolution to be rather a fallacy. No religious book records such a thing, which means that if it were true, all the traditional gods (including the God ) are either false or sloppy.

In which case you just have a god somewhere that left no record for man, and there is no reason at all to believe in something like that.

So my statements generally are based on the concepts stated above.

[The Count(er)]

Ah, I see. You are very wise, Blackdragon.

Anyways guys, I'm not pretending to be infallible, and on many finer points I have little experience. It's just a basic overview.

Obviously you have researched it yourself, and have come to a conclusion. I wrote it for the people who haven't; I'm not really interested in changing minds that are made up.

Anyways, BD, I don't know why you would label Creationists/Theists dishonest. I'm not seeing what I have to gain from this. Except flame, of course.

Well, you could try looking at your previous 2 sentences, trying to get people to agree with you on a subject you know nothing about and refusing to give all the information is quite dishonest, your not trying to disprove the theory or show that it can be wrong, your just trying to make people agree with you via keeping them uninformed.

Well, eventually a debate gets to the point where the two sides don't accept each others' evidence as credible, and then further argument is futile.

And we may reach that point when you actually post some evidence, instead of more claims backed up by nothing to try to back up your previously un-backed claims.

Oh, but I will clarify in case I didn't already, that essentially I believe Theistic evolution to be rather a fallacy. No religious book records such a thing, which means that if it were true, all the traditional gods (including the God ) are either false or sloppy.

So if you believe in the God of a certain religious book you can't accept anything that is not included in that book, so you don't believe in gravity, or accept math, pretty much all modern ideas and technology can't be accepted by you either I guess.

[VALIS]

In science, when a molecule disentegrates into particles, these particles will spin in the same direction as the parent molecule. If this is so, why do two of the planets in our system spin different ways???

Well, someone told me that Venus was flipped over by a meteor or flipped upside-down by the sun's gravity, and that's why it spins in another direction.

Well, Occam's Razor seems to indicate that this answer is coming up with a lot of conjectures to salvage the precious theory.

HOWEVER, even if the conjectures about Venus were correct, how about this?

WHY ARE WHOLE GALAXIES SPINNING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS???

Again, the atheist will dismiss this question because he's already decided that his theory is correct. This is the very opposite of what science is supposed to be.

The scientist is supposed to be willing to question anything that has not been established as natural law. That's not what I'm seeing.

This is an example of refusing to accept that the theory could be wrong. You can find that attitude in many areas.

Now, I'm not saying that clinging to a core principle is necessarily wrong!!! What I AM saying it's NOT SCIENCE! The atheist clings to his FAITH just as religiously as I do; only he (being very clever) has set his faith up as "science." That way, he can get it into the schools.

lawl, you've been watching that moron Kent Hovind haven't you? What does particles separating from one another have anything to with how the galaxies spin?
You need to look at some intelligent Christian apologetics like William Lane Craig or JP Moreland.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'll do that. Thank ya Duke!

Admittedly, Hovind is a bit of a blot on our reputation. The whole tax business... rather embarrassing.

He said a lot of grand things, but they were often outweighed by his rather caustic manner and... the tax thing. I dunno, I guess only history will tell...

Oh, and the essence of spinning particles is that:

if the big bang were true, then everything would be a product of that original molecule, in which case they should all obey the laws of science and spin in the same direction as their parent molecule.

Yes, this is specific to the big bang theory. It hardly disproves abiogenesis as a whole, since there are billions of theories.

Still, though, all those theories start with something, and don't explain where it came from.

[VALIS]

I'll do that. Thank ya Duke!

Admittedly, Hovind is a bit of a blot on our reputation. The whole tax business... rather embarrassing.

He said a lot of grand things, but they were often outweighed by his rather caustic manner and... the tax thing. I dunno, I guess only history will tell...

Oh, and the essence of spinning particles is that:

if the big bang were true, then everything would be a product of that original molecule, in which case they should all obey the laws of science and spin in the same direction as their parent molecule.

Yes, this is specific to the big bang theory. It hardly disproves abiogenesis as a whole, since there are billions of theories.

Still, though, all those theories start with something, and don't explain where it came from.

Ok, if you want to be a good Christian Apologetic buy these books:

Scaling the Secular City
Reasonable Faith
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

Now, the reason why that big bang argument is flawed, is this. Hovind (and you, I presume) are basing this from one of Newtons laws of motion. I've seen this argument from Hovind before, he bases it on explosions and he notes that whenever theres an explosion all the particles that spin off from the explosion spin in the same direction as the explosion itself.

Big problem; The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was(and is) a rapid growth of space, time and matter that expanded into all dimensions. The name big bang leads people to wrongly believe that the bang was some sort of explosion when it wasn't.

[Pious Agnost]

Ok, if you want to be a good Christian Apologetic buy these books:

Scaling the Secular City
Reasonable Faith
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

I am mostly intolerant to the silly beliefs of others as I consider them laughable and stupid.
So intolerant and proud of it!

If that is the opposite to self-proclaimed intolerance, I'd choose apologism anyway...

Obviously quite a bit of work went into this post, so I've got to give you credit for it. Basically everything I wanted to say has been covered, so I'll just re-iterate that Creationism and Evolution, or Evolution and God/a God, are not mutually exclusive

[VALIS]

If that is the opposite to self-proclaimed intolerance, I'd choose apologism anyway...

Know thy enemy!
And I'm a Meliorist anyway.

[Pontifex Maximus]

You are, however, welcome to call me a retard as many times as you wish.

Actually, they are not.

And before you call me an idiot, please read the whole thing.

A reasoned post like that should be no cause for ridicule. Also, name calling will be met with a nice little red card, so don't worry about that.

And, quite frankly, this forum is rather an "Atheist's Old Boy's Club," if you will.

That it is, but I quite like it. I am surounded by fundamentalists everywhere else I go in the world its nice to have a little slice of the internet where I can talk about my beliefs without being told (too often) that satan is waiting for me in hell.

Considering that even if I was wrong and atheism was "the Truth," I wouldn't go to Hell (since there wouldn't be one in that case), I see no reason that my oppinion should bother atheists so much.

I think it is more due to a large amount of people believing what is written in the bible as opposed to reasoned, logical conclusions that scientists come to regarding the origins of life. I think that all too often readers of the bible have no idea how to read it correctly. The stories and parables are not mean tto be taken literally, and I picture Jesus facepalming himself every time someone does (if he is indeed up in the sky somewhere looking down on us)

It's not as if you're concerned about my soul.

I think the concern has to do with creationists not looking gullible, for lack of a better word, and backwards. I mean no offense by that, I'm just trying to explain the mindset.

We'll be dead all the same... and if it made us happy while we were here...

I would prefer my happiness was not an illusion cooked up by a few corrupt Europeans living in palaces.

Anyways, I just don't see why all the atheists on the forum get so worked up about this that they feel obligated to bring my sanity and intelligence into question.

I hope not all of us do, as that is not only poor manners, but uncalled for. Some of the most learned men alive were devout Christians, among them my favorite authors.

I hope that this is just a result of the anonymity of the internet, and that you don't treat people this way in RL for disagreeing with you.

It allows people to act a certain way with no reprocussions other than an occasional slap on the wris by a colored, bolded guy.

Essentially, I see no reason to buy the idea that evolution and theism can coexist. In fact, here is a quote from a prominent 18th Century (I think) evolutionist:

"The theory of evolution is a theory universally accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur . . or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." ~D.M.S. Watson

I think that is more modern than the 1700s, but I see little why that matters because the Catholic Church's stance now is intelligent design, evolution inspired by god. Though I think that is just more to appease the group of faithful that are more moderate in nature and not fundamentalists. Surely the evangelicals won't necessarily need to believe in intelligent design because they read everything literally. Then again, they think the earth is 6,000 years old, so...

Now of course you will argue that there has been credible evidence since then. I'm not using this quote to suggest that evolution has no evidence, I'm placing emphasis on the reality that evolutionism is essentially the atheist's method to rationalize God out of the picture.

I have no intention of trying to rationalize that which does not exist. I am on no path to seek god, that ship sailed quite some time ago. Evolution is simply the scientific explanation of how modern man came to be, take it or leave it. Every culture and religion has creation stories, but only the 'theory' of evolution seems to be closely supported by all the evidence thus far unearthed.

Why? Because the concept that I will have to give account of my actions to a supreme Being one day might make me uncomfortable, so I'd rather not believe in Him.

It doesn't to me. If god exists, I will just ask him why he would call himself my father then leave me all alone in the world for the entirety of my life. Seems rather unfatherly to me.

OK, so if evolution is the polar opposite of Theism, then obviously I have issues with it.

My background is purely Catholic, so I can only speak with that knowledge in mind, but this is only a half truth from the Catholic perspective. They agree evolution occured, but it was all in god's divine plan. Attribute it to god, and you can believe in it.

"Creationists/Theists are anti-science."

They are when they point to the bible and try to explain the inception of man.

Creationists always make the point that evolution is not science.

Which, to me, seems a rather ridiculous argument.

Evolutionists always make the point that it is science.

Thus, a favorite way that atheists will rebuff Creationism is to suggest that the Creationist opposes all science. He makes the comparison that evolution is a theory on the same tier as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity.

When fossils are pulled out of the ground that indicate organisms changed over time into what they are now, I'm sorry, but the evidence speaks for itself. It shouldn't be a matter anymore of whether or not evolution occured, it is obvious it did, now its just a matter of believing it was the work of a higher being. Sure, some people are still going to deny evolution happened, but they are literalists and generally don't even know how to read their own bibles correctly. These types of people are to be pitied and helped, however, not scolded.

Now, considering this point, I would like to mention that many great scientists were devout Christians. Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, spent a great deal of time defending Creationism.

Naturally, he lived two centuries before Darwin published.

Does this mean that ALL creationists are good scientists? No; I'm not making that comparison. I'm saying that there is no reason to brand creationists as mystical hermits who consider science to be witchcraft.

True, yet with these historical points you bring up, it cannot be denied that science has been enemy #1 of religion since the renaissance. Historically the church has responded in a barbaric way, killing those that disagreed or forcing them to recant.

I think this is a pretty inconsistant comparison. Since the theory of evolution essentially calls the very existence of God into question, it obviously deals with a lot more than gravity etc.

It is comparing the tangible with the intangible. The only difference, now, between the two concepts is that one is widely accepted and one is not as widely accepted. Not all people are going to have the benefit of comparing fossils and looking at the compiled data about evolution, but gravity is something everyone experiences and experienced before Newton. Did gravity not exist before Newton named it? Just because many of us refuse to recognize something as absolute truth does not make it so.

No; God cannot be proven. Since He cannot be proven, to believe in Him requires one to take a few things on faith.

Which I cannot.

However, this is hardly unreasonable. God is infinite; He cannot be discovered or completely known. If we could know God entirely, if we could understand Him completely, what would be so Godlike about Him? He'd just be one of us.

I can't worship something I know so little about. It would be unethical.

So the atheist takes the idea of God, which is an abstract concept, and demands that He be explained solely with logic.

An all knowing, all powerful god should be able to explain itself logically.

The atheist requires that the intangible be made tangible, in order to prove that it was intangible in the first place.

god is experienced by people that want to experience it.

So I suggest to the atheist that he explain to me (scientifically) the concepts of love, hope, and peace.

In terms of chemical triggers in the brain? Love and hope are emotions completely controlled by chemical processes in the body. Peace is easily defined as a state devoid of war. I find those concepts to be much more tangible than a god, and especially the Christian god.

Or perhaps you can logically tell me how to determine that something is beautiful.

So that is why we don't NEED proof, and why we're not retarded for not needing it.

Feel free to believe anything you wish, but don't get carried away with ideas written in a book that has been translated four times and written for ancient people that have long since been dead.

Simply that abstract concepts such as love exist tells us that there is an element of us that is not explained by science. So if we are the result of pure science, where did all that extra baggage come from?

Love is easily explained.

Also, Creation is an evidence of God.

Disagreed.

Which is of course why we debate evolution vs. creation, because the evolutionist will not accept this.

The opposite can also be said then, that Evolution is proof god (as many claim to know it) does not exist. This prospect is too horrifying for many because that means that we are completely mortal and there is no life after death.

And another evidence is personal; what God has done for me. Of course, that is different for everybody and outside the realm of logic, so I can't present it as evidence.

I take credit for my own accomplishments.

I can't prove evolution wrong either!

That's the tricky thing about scientific fact.

Why? Because it's proponents have cleverly set evolution up as a process that takes 10000000000s of years old. Obviously, I will never live long enough to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So all the evolutionist has to do is place the burden of proof on me!

Not at all. The proof has been provided, but people prefer to stick to what they were indoctrinated to believe.

So I point to the fact that one species has never been OBSERVED to change to another.

That thinking can be proven incorrect when analyzing how species clearly evolved defense mechanisms against heir common predators, and then how the predators responded.

Last I heard, TRUE SCIENCE was that which can be proven by observable, testable, and demonstrable evidence.

...all of which has been done.

But the evolutionist tells me it makes sense, and then turns around and presents it as IRREFUTABLE FACT in the classroom, and never presents the other side.

Because the other side is folklore. A good story maybe, but nothing that should be presented as fact.

I would hasten to remind you all that, a few centuries ago, a lot of very smart people said that IT MAKES SENSE that big rocks fall faster than small ones.

They also pooped in pots and then threw it on the streets of their cities.

But still I often see people mocking me because I'm not a bobblehead that automatically agrees with "all the scientists."

You're generalizing. I am not a bobblehead, and I actually refuse to believe that man is causing global warming.

Yeah, scientists have a great record. Consider how many flukes evolutionists have created!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY "FINDS" OF THE "MISSING LINK" WERE DELIBERATE, FRAUDULENT PLANTS?!?

Do you know how many women were killed during the test to see if they were witches during the inquisition? *oops*

One "scientist" planted chunks of pig teeth in England, and "dug it up" later and presented it as evidence. Great legacy you guys have. Real authentic science, yessir.

Hmm? Sorry, but this is starting to turn into a ramble.

Obviously, there have been scores of religious counterfeits as well. But they aren't the ones I'm putting my faith in, for a variety of reasons including the ones listed above.

Perhaps the fact that religion itself is a lie.

So what's left is a load of circumstantial evidence, such as monkey skulls. Ironically, the evolutionist accuses me of being naeive for my beliefs, while he chooses to believe in monkey skulls and drawings of dinosaurs with feathers.

I'm no expert, but I know it is more involved than that. People who have no desire to undertsand the basic principles of the 'theory' of evolution can hardly be expected to believe it. At the very least at least we have evidence.

When we question the notion that men are apes, the evolutionist makes fun of us by saying that we don't believe that genetic mutations occur!

Anybody can see that genetic mutations occur! Creationists aren't anti-science; they're against the anti-science parts of evolution!!!

1. That makes no sense.

2. Creationists are against the fact that evolution disproves a key part of their belief system.

Thus, the gene pool is always shrinking!!! And if it is shrinking, then we are DEVOLVING, not EVOLVING.

I think you fail to grasp key concepts here. Rarely do species evolve just for the hell of it. Traits in the individual animals that favor survival are passed along to generations after it. Eventually, negative traits are bred out. Of course, part of this is the mutations that occur that make a trait more favorable to survival. Call it what you will, you can't deny the fact that over time-however extended-that species have changed, vanished, or emerged.

HOWEVER, even if the conjectures about Venus were correct, how about this?

WHY ARE WHOLE GALAXIES SPINNING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS???

For someone that claims to take thing on faith, you sure do demand many answers. Anyway, I'm sure that one day we will find out, but considering that as of right now we know little about the outside galaxies that answer may be long in coming. We've only just begun to fully understand our own origins, remember.

The scientist is supposed to be willing to question anything that has not been established as natural law. That's not what I'm seeing.

This is an example of refusing to accept that the theory could be wrong. You can find that attitude in many areas.

Let's make another example. Galileo. Everyone was pretty damn sure the earth was flat, too. The notion was an ancient principle supported by the church. Of course, when it was proved otherwise and we turned out not only to be round, but heliocentric, things changed. Fast. As it is with evolution now. Evolution is fact regardless of whether religious people want to acknowledge it as fact. The Church in general is slowly coming to accept this fact. Let us keep in mind that at the time the Church was so vehemently opposed to Darwin's work, the pope outlawed the installation of street lamps in Rome because it would allow people to meet after dark.

Now, I'm not saying that clinging to a core principle is necessarily wrong!!! What I AM saying it's NOT SCIENCE! The atheist clings to his FAITH just as religiously as I do; only he (being very clever) has set his faith up as "science." That way, he can get it into the schools.

I think that generalizing is bad.

1. The U.S. lunar lander had enormous landing pads. This was to keep the lander from sinking in the dust that accumulated on the moon over time. Now, our scientists determined that (since the earth and moon 100000000s of years old) there would be feet and feet of dust on the moon, so the lander had to have great big pads.

When they arrived, the astronauts only found centimeters and centimeters of dust. So, if the planets are that old, why isn't there more dust? Obviously, if there is no explanation, this discredits the basic principle of evolution that the earth is extremely old.

....the earth is extremely old. To be honest that example is a pretty awful argument. Because we predicted something wrong about the nature of a body of land no human in history has ever traversed, evolution is incorrect?

3. The sun, in producing such enormous quantities of energy, is eating itself up. Now, REAL scientists have calculated the speed of earth's shrinkage. If the universe is SOOOO old, the sun would be practically gone by now, and all the planets in the system would be flying around and out of control!

But what credentials do you have to speak so absolutely?

So they imprisoned, sterilized, and murdered people with infirmities both mental and physical. And now the Nazis are universally hated and despised for their "scientific" methods, and even to salute in the Nazi fashion is a crime in Germany today.

Let's look where religious fundamentalism takes us, ethnic cleansings in the Middle East and holy wars in which people justify flying planes into buildings and blowing themselves up because it is the will of god. How else could we as humans truly feel good about "Running the streets red with the blood of infidels?"

I'd encourage you to check out where humanism takes us.

Look where religion takes us! How many people have been killed in history because god willed it? How many innocents executed?

Now, obviously, religion has pulled some doozies in the past too. Some sick ones.

Therefore, YOU MUST BE EXTREMELY careful WHICH GOD YOU CHOOSE. Yes, you do have to choose the God that you will believe in. And only one will do what He's promised. The others, as history shows, will get you into all kinds of trouble.

You can't rectify the evils of faith by trying to distance yourself from the bad things and picking and choosing what you want to believe. You have to be willing to accept that the same people that worshipped your god also killed in the name of it.

So let me tell you about mine.

Yours? Hmm, funny how things work. The introduction of personal beliefs and faiths in god was a key part of enlightenment, which was scorned by the religious during its day.

Next, He says that He loves us. Now, without getting too complicated, God does NOT send people to hell. God gives man all the chances He can; if man doesn't take those chances (and man really blew it in the beginning), God's perfection means that He will not accept sin into Heaven, so sinful man must be punished.

That's not unconditional love. He is being sadistic. I certainly wouldn't send myself to hell, so who is sending me? god.

Therefore, all men are headed for punishment. But God doesn't want that; He is most glorified when we choose to trust in Him. So He sent His son, Jesus Christ, who is perfect. Being perfect, He is qualified to take ALL of our sins, because He has none of His own.

If Jesus is fully god and fully man, is he not then too born with original sin? Because if not then he has obviously not felt the true human experience thus making any work he did null and void, since he couldn't have possibly sacraficed himself unless he were wholly man.

Thus, if we will accept Christ's payment (this is a conscious decision you make for yourself), He will give us salvation, that is, allow us into Heaven because we are now sinless.

Regardless of our deeds in this life? Seems hardly likely. The entire system is contradictory because if god loved us in the beginning, why can't he just conceive of a way to make us perfect, or find a way for us to live with him? If god created us as you so adamantly believe, and he loves us, why did he make us evil?

Now, we will sin afterwards because we still have a sinful nature, but Jesus paid for all sins, including future ones. And we will not lose this salvation.

I didn't see that anywhere in the bible.

And of course if you can't do that, I encourage you to get your hands on the Holy Bible and read through the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament.

Especially John 3, Romans 3-6, and Ephesians 2.

And for all of you who think that is superstitious hodge-podge, you may content yourselves with flaming the other stuff.

It isn't superstitious hodge podge, it is simply text written down by second person, not even first person witnesses that stood to make money/control people with their texts and the ministry of yet another man claiming to be the messiah. honestly, there were dozens of men at that time claiming to be god, why are they any less credible? Julius Caesar was made a god, and why not? Were not some of his victories in Gaul utter miracles? Why is he any less god? See, put into historical context, there really isn't anything remarkable about Jesus at all. He was a good, pious man, as was Buddha, but he was not a savior and he was not a messiah.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

@ Oldgamer:

BTW, posting on the thread has nothing to do with whether I agree or not (as you can see) so feel free to post away. If, of course, you just don't want to there's no reason you should feel obligated.

Anyways, just thought I'd say so for the record.

@ Pontifex:

Well, thought, sir!

Also yes, I do want to emphasize that the attitude on this thread is impressively civil! I confess I began the thread in an overly defensive posture, having been exposed to plenty of argumentum ad hominem in many other threads, being likened unto rocks and such.

But I see little to none of that here! So thanks to all you guys for your reasonable attitudes! I am most impressed, and truly you do much more for your viewpoint by presenting it in a cool and collected fashion.

Now, I will talk a bit about Biblical interpretation, if I may.

I think that approaching the Bible with a heavily allegorical method is quite dangerous. There is, obviously, allegory, but it's not the majority.

But if you allegorize everything, you can make it say whatever you want! Then, of course, it's largely pointless.

I would direct you to Genesis and give the (perhaps overused but quite logical) argument that after each day of Creation, the Bible says, "and the evening and the morning were the (x) day."

That seems quite literal.

Basically, why I don't accept theistic evolution is that it seems like a stepping stone to atheism.

When evolution was in its infancy, it obviously was widely criticized etc. So since the evolutionist could not stand up and give straight-up evolution, he simply mixed it in with the Bible so that it was pretty close. And then, of course, all you have to do is keep edging a little closer to pure evolution.

Thus it seems to me that theistic evolution is simply part of a process to undermine the credibility of Theism. Since it might not be palatable to flat-out deny God, it would be much easier to dilute Him by steps, untill He is virtually gone.

Anyways, those are just my views on the subject.

Thanks!

[Ariovistus Maximus]

OK, in appreciation for the largely reasonable atmosphere on this thread, I have removed most of the content in the original post that references my expectation of nuclear flaming.

Thanks again guys.

Well, you could try looking at your previous 2 sentences, trying to get people to agree with you on a subject you know nothing about and refusing to give all the information is quite dishonest, your not trying to disprove the theory or show that it can be wrong, your just trying to make people agree with you via keeping them uninformed.


And we may reach that point when you actually post some evidence, instead of more claims backed up by nothing to try to back up your previously un-backed claims.


So if you believe in the God of a certain religious book you can't accept anything that is not included in that book, so you don't believe in gravity, or accept math, pretty much all modern ideas and technology can't be accepted by you either I guess.

Indeed. But the reason I'm posting it in an open forum is to present my views (which no doubt I will at some point look back on and see many errors myself) and allow YOU to respond as you see fit! I'm not trying to keep people uninformed at all. I'm giving them other information than that which they would find elsewhere on the Atheist's Club.

What claims are unbacked? If you mean that, for instance, my claims of the Bible are unbacked because you disagree with my interpretation, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

But show me an unbacked claim (and no doubt there are some in there) and I will be just as glad to correct or remove (as necessary) those claims as you would be.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Also yes, I do want to emphasize that the attitude on this thread is impressively civil! I confess I began the thread in an overly defensive posture, having been exposed to plenty of argumentum ad hominem in many other threads, being likened unto rocks and such.

I understand why you were defensive at first, some members are rather aggressive in their debating styles. I find it to be much easier to just have civil discussions, not screaming matches.

Now, I will talk a bit about Biblical interpretation, if I may. I think that approaching the Bible with a heavily allegorical method is quite dangerous. There is, obviously, allegory, but it's not the majority.

Initially, the bible needs to be looked at from many angles. Historically, contextually, allegorically, metaphorically, but not literally. No matter how religious you are, it can't be denied that the bible was not written for this generation of people. The themes and morals of the book might be timeless, but much of what is written is lost to modern man. How many of us have actually seen a mustard seed or understand what Jesus meant by 'the eye of a needle?' I can tell you I've read all the Gospels despite being an atheist, and it is actually a good moral guide if you take it to be simply a moral guide, and nothing else.

But if you allegorize everything, you can make it say whatever you want! Then, of course, it's largely pointless.

So can the people that take it literally. The old testament is full of lines calling for the Israelites to stone adulterers et cetera. Now, obviously, Christians are not Israelites, they are not even Jewish.

I would direct you to Genesis and give the (perhaps overused but quite logical) argument that after each day of Creation, the Bible says, "and the evening and the morning were the (x) day."

And the theory of evolution states there are a wide variety of species on earth. Bits and pieces of every teaching are going to be partially and frgamentally acceptable to the opposite belief simply because some things are known as fact universally.

Basically, why I don't accept theistic evolution is that it seems like a stepping stone to atheism.

I don't see it that way at all. technically, the entire Catholic Church is taught that evolution occured, but it was by god's hand.

When evolution was in its infancy, it obviously was widely criticized etc. So since the evolutionist could not stand up and give straight-up evolution, he simply mixed it in with the Bible so that it was pretty close. And then, of course, all you have to do is keep edging a little closer to pure evolution.

As time went on our understanding of evolution increased. Religion, if anything, was a crutch.

Thus it seems to me that theistic evolution is simply part of a process to undermine the credibility of Theism. Since it might not be palatable to flat-out deny God, it would be much easier to dilute Him by steps, untill He is virtually gone.

The ultimate goal of scientific advancement is not to undermine religion, but to discover the truth of the world around us. We've been around for many thousands of years in one form or another, but we are only now beginning to understand our origins. There's a lot yet to become aware about and many questions will probably remained unanswered by the time we die.

[black-dragon]

Part 2:

So when I criticize evolution, the evolutionist will run behind REAL science such as genetics, and tell me that I'm insane for not accepting genetics!!!

Gee, I dunno, maybe because genetics provides proof for evolution?

This is why evolutionists accuse creationists of being unscientific clowns.

Because "evolutionists" have genetic evidence and creationists don't?

When we question the notion that men are apes, the evolutionist makes fun of us by saying that we don't believe that genetic mutations occur!

Errr, they don't. Nice strawman you got there.

Anybody can see that genetic mutations occur! Creationists aren't anti-science; they're against the anti-science parts of evolution!!!

Okay, so they accept that mutations happen. There's still a whole lot more to accept before they can escape the label of "anti-science".

So some guys have shown me a list of HELPFUL mutations. Well, that really is cool, and I didn't know about them. However, there are a whole lot more NEGATIVE mutations!!!

You say that as if nobody knows this. You learn this in high school science. Did you?

Now, good ol' mathematics tells me that it is more reasonable to think that if there are MORE negatives than positives, the negatives will overwhelm the positives. Thus, the gene pool is always shrinking!!! And if it is shrinking, then we are DEVOLVING, not EVOLVING.

Yeah, and "good ol' mathematics" is useless if you don't know how to apply it. You're totally forgetting about selection pressure, which would weed out the bad mutations and select for the beneficial mutations. I don't quite understand what you mean by "the gene pool is always shrinking". Do you mean that mutations shrink the genome of an organism? Well, sometimes. Not always, some even enlarge the genome. There's no such thing as devolution. It's a pseudo-scientific concept. For devolution to be true, evolution must be going down a specific pathway of increasng complexity. It isn't. Evolution is merely the change in the gene pool from one population generation to another. Loss, gain or substitution of genetic information are just different directions of evolution.

Again, when we argue against evolution, evolutionists often put words in our mouths to suggest that we are arguing against established science.

That's an easy one: YOU ARE.

_________________________________________________________

This ties into a statement that I made earlier to the effect that the evolutionist tends to come up with evidence to support his theory, rather than form a theory based on evidence.

What are you on about? Scientific theories don't become theories until they're backed by plenty of evidence.

Why do I say this?

Because you're ignorant of the facts.

Well, awhile ago I asked a question:

In science, when a molecule disentegrates into particles, these particles will spin in the same direction as the parent molecule. If this is so, why do two of the planets in our system spin different ways???

Well, you do realize that the particles belong in quantum physics, whereas the planets belong in cosmology, right? The two don't meld or match, so your question is invalid. You've just committed the fallacy of composition. Just because certain particles work in some way, it doesn't mean that things made of these particles will behave in the same way. For example, (2H)O isn't a blend of the properties of oxygen and hydrogen..

Well, someone told me that Venus was flipped over by a meteor or flipped upside-down by the sun's gravity, and that's why it spins in another direction.

Someone? You're really just going to trust "someone", that may or may not know what they're talking about, when it comes to trying to refute science? And what the hell does physics have to do with "evolutionists"?

Well, Occam's Razor seems to indicate that this answer is coming up with a lot of conjectures to salvage the precious theory.

Theory of what? What are you talking about? You started off talking about "evolutionists" and went on to talk about spinning planets. How can somebody argue against you when you haven't even presented us with whatever other theory you're arguing against? I'm guessing that it isn't the theory of evolution because I'm sure that you do know that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the way planets spin.

HOWEVER, even if the conjectures about Venus were correct, how about this?

WHY ARE WHOLE GALAXIES SPINNING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS???

Again, quantum physics and cosmology. Fallacy of composition.

Again, the atheist will dismiss this question because he's already decided that his theory is correct. This is the very opposite of what science is supposed to be.

What the does spinning galaxies have to do with atheism?

The scientist is supposed to be willing to question anything that has not been established as natural law. That's not what I'm seeing.

Because your source of science is "someone" and you haven't done any research aside from asking "someone". If you want to attack science, at least quote respected scientists, "someone" just doesn't cut it. But either way, your argument was invalid, so this is irrelevant.

This is an example of refusing to accept that the theory could be wrong. You can find that attitude in many areas.

What theory?! The strawman theory that you made up?

Now, I'm not saying that clinging to a core principle is necessarily wrong!!! What I AM saying it's NOT SCIENCE! The atheist clings to his FAITH just as religiously as I do; only he (being very clever) has set his faith up as "science." That way, he can get it into the schools.

What isn't science? Your planet spinning theory? What does atheism have to do with scientific theories? A good deal of respected scientists from all fields are religious. There's no atheist or religious camp in real science, so stop trying to represent it like that.

________________________________________________________________

OK, just a couple points left.

Oh, thank God.

This one directly concerns evolution.

I asked 3 questions earlier, and one of them was the one about planets and galaxies spinning the wrong way. Here are the others and one more:

I can't wait..

1. The U.S. lunar lander had enormous landing pads. This was to keep the lander from sinking in the dust that accumulated on the moon over time. Now, our scientists determined that (since the earth and moon 100000000s of years old) there would be feet and feet of dust on the moon, so the lander had to have great big pads.

Who said this? Lets get some references.

When they arrived, the astronauts only found centimeters and centimeters of dust. So, if the planets are that old, why isn't there more dust? Obviously, if there is no explanation, this discredits the basic principle of evolution that the earth is extremely old.

You don't think that (if your previous claim is even true, it probably isn't) scientists may have just gotten it wrong? Forgot to take this factor into account, didn't know about that factor, etc. Way to go assuming things.

2. Hydrogen (I said Helium earlier oops) is produced by the decay of various molecules in the atmosphere. Thus, the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere is increasing constantly. So if the earth is so old, why aren't we just saturated in hydrogen??? "Oh, it all combined with oxygen to become water."

References.

THEN WHY AREN'T WE OXYGEN-STARVED AND DROWNING IN WATER?!?!?!?!

Most likely because your claim is BS.

3. The sun, in producing such enormous quantities of energy, is eating itself up. Now, REAL scientists have calculated the speed of earth's shrinkage. If the universe is SOOOO old, the sun would be practically gone by now, and all the planets in the system would be flying around and out of control!

Earth's shrinkage..? That doesn't even make sense. Again, references please.

"Well, the sun was bigger back then."

You've got quotation marks and it seems like you're attempting to quote somebody. Nice, but next time actually link to your source so that it's not obvious that you're arguing against a strawman.

Guess what? If we go back as far as evolution says, the sun would be so big that life on Earth would be impossible!!! The planet would be like charcoal.

_________________________________________________________

Alright, thanks for your patience. This is the last issue.

I can tell that I'm going to love this..

Moving away from science for a moment, let's look at history for a bit.

Being the naive fool that I am, I'm hoping that your education in history is greater than your education in science..

Let's look at what humanism, which is fueled by evolutionism, produces. Note that without explaining God away with evolution, humanism has nowhere to go.

Yah, that's why they got this at wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

Let's look at Germany. The Germans in 1930-45 really took "survival of the fittest" to heart. How?

You mean...1933 - 1945?

Well, they figured that if the only thing keeping man from evolving into a god was bad genes, they would just breed out all the bad genes.

Who thought that? You've been watching too many BS Nazi occultism documentaries. Hitler disdained Himmler's mysticism.

So they imprisoned, sterilized, and murdered people with infirmities both mental and physical. And now the Nazis are universally hated and despised for their "scientific" methods, and even to salute in the Nazi fashion is a crime in Germany today.

And that was science how? Nazi racial anti-Semitism was largely inspired by Christian religious anti-Semitism, btw. The Catholic Church held the Jews collectively responsible for deicide up until about 1965..

I'd encourage you to check out where humanism takes us.

The Nazis weren't ing humanists.

Now, obviously, religion has pulled some doozies in the past too. Some sick ones.

"Some" is a colossul understatement.

Therefore, YOU MUST BE EXTREMELY careful WHICH GOD YOU CHOOSE. Yes, you do have to choose the God that you will believe in. And only one will do what He's promised. The others, as history shows, will get you into all kinds of trouble.

Yeah, don't choose any sexist, homophobic, petty, arrogant, unforgiving, sadistic, malevolent, genocidal ones.

So let me tell you about mine.

Sure, and I'll add the parts that you leave out.

First of all, He says that He is the only One. That is key.

Yeah, he says that he's special, just like all the other gods.

He also says that man is evil; that man will naturally do bad things.

As well as that we should kill kids that talk back to us.

Next, He says that He loves us. Now, without getting too complicated, God does NOT send people to hell. God gives man all the chances He can; if man doesn't take those chances (and man really blew it in the beginning), God's perfection means that He will not accept sin into Heaven, so sinful man must be punished.

Yah, he only makes up an impossible list of commandments, creates us evil (as you just said! Man is evil; who created man?) and sets up everything to send us to hell...

Therefore, all men are headed for punishment. But God doesn't want that; He is most glorified when we choose to trust in Him. So He sent His son, Jesus Christ, who is perfect. Being perfect, He is qualified to take ALL of our sins, because He has none of His own.

Hey, so you admit it. We're all going to hell by virtue of Yahweh's benevolent universal design. But we can escape this by showing our gratitude to a father that had his son murdered.

Thus, if we will accept Christ's payment (this is a conscious decision you make for yourself), He will give us salvation, that is, allow us into Heaven because we are now sinless.

Do you seriously think that worshipping God just so that you can get into heaven will please that jealous guy?

Now, we will sin afterwards because we still have a sinful nature, but Jesus paid for all sins, including future ones. And we will not lose this salvation.

And scapegoating is morale how?

At any rate, there you have it. You can take it or you can choose not to take it. Actually, doing nothing is the same as choosing not to.

That was horrible.

Also, if you are interested, PM me for additional info etc.

And of course if you can't do that, I encourage you to get your hands on the Holy Bible and read through the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament.

Actually, I too recommend this. You have to actually read the Bible to absorb the absurdity.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You would do well, sir, to content yourself with responding to the same statement once rather than multiple times.

As I have debated you before, I know that to present my reasons for belief is futile. You will simply want more reasons for my reasons because the other reasons weren't reasonable enough for you.

You are totally free not to buy it. We have established that.

Honestly, you seem to be somewhat akin to an atheist "Rush Limbaugh," if you will.

[black-dragon]

You would do well, sir, to content yourself with responding to the same statement once rather than multiple times.

No, the first post addressed the first half of your rant. The most recent one addressed the second half.

As I have debated you before, I know that to present my reasons for belief is futile. You will simply want more reasons for my reasons because the other reasons weren't reasonable enough for you.

Because your reasons in that debate were "because I do". Your reasoning was a bit better in this thread, but still bad.

You are totally free not to buy it. We have established that.

And there's no doubt that I'll do just that.

Honestly, you seem to be somewhat akin to an atheist "Rush Limbaugh," if you will.

Heard the name, but I'm Australian. I have no idea who he is.

[Manco]

The entire OP is somewhat confusing. A case for theism? Yet it's actually a case against the theory of evolution and atheism.

A case for theism would suggest you actually make arguments in favour of theism, yet you instead attack well-established scientific theories and a general stance on god. What's even worse is that your attacks are rather uninformed, filled with logical fallacies and quite often simply wrong.

If you want people to engage in a serious and civil debate, it helps if you bring good and reasonable arguments to the table.

(I'm not gonna address the post's content point by point as I should be studying and also because Playfishpaste has done so quite well. Perhaps you could address his points sometime? That is the essence of debating I think)

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The entire OP is somewhat confusing. A case for theism? Yet it's actually a case against the theory of evolution and atheism.

A case for theism would suggest you actually make arguments in favour of theism, yet you instead attack well-established scientific theories and a general stance on god. What's even worse is that your attacks are rather uninformed, filled with logical fallacies and quite often simply wrong.

If you want people to engage in a serious and civil debate, it helps if you bring good and reasonable arguments to the table.

(I'm not gonna address the post's content point by point as I should be studying and also because Playfishpaste has done so quite well. Perhaps you could address his points sometime? That is the essence of debating I think)

Yes; a case for creation might have been better. But I didn't want to use "Creation" because then people would dismiss it based on the title.

Well, since good, reasonable arguments are in the eye of the beholder, we could go on about that for some time.

Perhaps I can get to Playfishpaste, but as I said each of these points is being/has been debated in another thread, and this is a summary because it seemed to me that my arguments were scattered all over the place.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Oh, BD, Rush is a rather excessively outspoken Conservative talk-show host.

Basically, I'm suggesting that the attitude or mode of posting kind of detracts from the material you have to present.

And another reason that I can't spend too much time debating here is that (I confess) I hardly have higher education in physics, quantum mechanics, molecular biology, etc.

[The Count(er)]

Crap, I auto-logged out, so the quality of this post may be lower than it was originally, because I don't really want to bother rewriting it all now.

OK, in appreciation for the largely reasonable atmosphere on this thread, I have removed most of the content in the original post that references my expectation of nuclear flaming.

Thanks again guys.

I think that we've been as civil as we've always been, your position is often criticised for a few reasons, more importantly this forum has a much higher number of people who choose to not believe in god than average, and of course there's the mountains of evidence for evolution, and generally against creationsim as you see it.

Indeed. But the reason I'm posting it in an open forum is to present my views (which no doubt I will at some point look back on and see many errors myself) and allow YOU to respond as you see fit! I'm not trying to keep people uninformed at all. I'm giving them other information than that which they would find elsewhere on the Atheist's Club.

Well, if we're talking evolution then it's not the Atheist Club, but it is the "Everyone Except a Small Group of Fundamental Christians" Club

What claims are unbacked? If you mean that, for instance, my claims of the Bible are unbacked because you disagree with my interpretation, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

But show me an unbacked claim (and no doubt there are some in there) and I will be just as glad to correct or remove (as necessary) those claims as you would be.

I was generally refering to how you think your literal view of the bible is true, even though that is essentially impossible, if they were true it would be so unbelievably easy to prove, that it would have been done decades ago, like finding dead bodies at the bottom of the Red Sea, or just a bit of research to see how possible what happened in Genesis was. And of course there are things that are simply impossible, like the whole world flooding, if you would like I could link you to videos explaining why, of course they are a little patronizing to creationists.

And another reason that I can't spend too much time debating here is that (I confess) I hardly have higher education in physics, quantum mechanics, molecular biology, etc.

Well that's the problem, if you don't understand all sides to this then you are in no position to be giving advice on what side people should choose, if you want I could attempt to help you understand evolution at least, I've learned quite a lot about it while defending it from creationists, but my knowledge is rather limited to just undertanding physics and quantum mechanics, so I can't really do a good job at teaching it.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Crap, I auto-logged out, so the quality of this post may be lower than it was originally, because I don't really want to bother rewriting it all now.

Erg; I know. I HATE that auto-logout! I don't know how many times I've lost or almost lost a post to that thing. It always eliminates the long ones.

I've gotten into the habit of copying my posts onto MS word before I submit a post.

I think that we've been as civil as we've always been, your position is often criticised for a few reasons, more importantly this forum has a much higher number of people who choose to not believe in god than average, and of course there's the mountains of evidence for evolution, and generally against creationsim as you see it.

Yes, the vast majority of you are quite good. There are some, however...

I was generally refering to how you think your literal view of the bible is true, even though that is essentially impossible, if they were true it would be so unbelievably easy to prove, that it would have been done decades ago, like finding dead bodies at the bottom of the Red Sea, or just a bit of research to see how possible what happened in Genesis was. And of course there are things that are simply impossible, like the whole world flooding, if you would like I could link you to videos explaining why, of course they are a little patronizing to creationists.

So you don't believe in God because if there is a God, He can't do miracles?

Just a question I'm sure you will answer easily but I'll ask all the same:

Why are fossilized seashells found on some mountains? They sure didn't crawl up there.

Well that's the problem, if you don't understand all sides to this then you are in no position to be giving advice on what side people should choose, if you want I could attempt to help you understand evolution at least, I've learned quite a lot about it while defending it from creationists, but my knowledge is rather limited to just undertanding physics and quantum mechanics, so I can't really do a good job at teaching it.

I don't understand the sides in the sense that I'm not a PhD. I still am allowed an oppinion, though, and I can get the basics.

[Rich86]

Essentially, I see no reason to buy the idea that evolution and theism can coexist.

Why? There is in fact no reason why they can't co-exist - plenty believe the two do in fact co-exist. Many believe their particular super-being of choice started evolution - the two may be incompatible in your belief system, but they are not incompatible for everyone else.

Creationists always make the point that evolution is not science.

And they're always wrong on that point. Evolution adheres to the scientific method - Creationism does not. Creationism has arrived at a conclusion ("God did it") and then looks for the evidence.

Thus, a favorite way that atheists will rebuff Creationism is to suggest that the Creationist opposes all science.

Few do this (and so this is a strawman) - Creationists don't oppose all science (most in fact quite enjoy the benefits science has given them) - they reject only the science which contradicts their chosen beliefs - whilst accepting the rest.

I would like to mention that many great scientists were devout Christians

Ergo Christianity is right?
Many great scientists were also Muslims.
Many great scientists today are atheists.

Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, spent a great deal of time defending Creationism.

........So?

the theory of evolution essentially calls the very existence of God into question

No, it doesn't. It might not fit in with your beliefs but many people accept evolutio whilst believing in a God just fine - they don't have any problems with doing this whatsoever.

So I suggest to the atheist that he explain to me (scientifically) the concepts of love, hope, and peace.
Or perhaps you can logically tell me how to determine that something is beautiful.

Playfishpaste has already done this better than I could.

So that is why we don't NEED proof, and why we're not retarded for not needing it.

I find it ridiculous that you wouldn't buy a used car without seeing the evidence that it works, yet you're willing to accept wild claims about how the universe began, or what your 'purpose' on this planet is without evidence.

Simply that abstract concepts such as love exist tells us that there is an element of us that is not explained by science.

Love can be explained by science.

Also, Creation is an evidence of God.

Nope.

Let's assume you can prove that everyone was designed - that proves the presenece of a designer - you're making a huge assumption to assume this designer is supernatural in nature also.

evidence is personal; what God has done for me. Of course, that is different for everybody and outside the realm of logic, so I can't present it as evidence.

In that case the Muslim's 'evidence' is valid also - the fact he hears Allah must be accepted. The fact I don't have any experience of any super-power must also be accepted as evidence too surely?

So obviously, if abiogenesis never occurred, then there would be no life for evolution to work with.

No. You're saying "If theory X about the origins of life is incorrect then unrelated Theory Y is wrong" - this is like me saying "If the leaves on the tree are not green then I can breathe under the water unaided".

So the evolutionist will tell me, "Well, duh you're stupid because we know that there is life here today, therefore evolution is still true."

No - the evolutionist will tell you what I have just told you - even if you discount one theory (Abiogenesis) that doesn't mean there is suddenly NO possible way for life to have arisen without supernatural intervention.

the evolutionist who makes this statement is saying that evolution is the only possible explanation.

No. Evolution is the only possible explanation based upon current evidence. I, and virtually everyone else will be quite willing to accept another theory if the evidence supports it.

He will not even consider that God could have created everything, because that contradicts his theory.

Wrong again. I will consider that God created everything - but there is no evidence for this idea, as such - I will consider it in the same way I will consider Santa could be real.

If there is no God, then NOTHING could have created anything

And now you are assuming that everything had to have had some sort of 'start point' whilst also begging the question - what created your God?

Where did the particle come from? Where did the soup come from?

Where did your God come from?

Why? Because it's proponents have cleverly set evolution up as a process that takes 10000000000s of years old.

Erm - no, they've not 'set it up' - it just is a process that takes a long time to see noticable changes in.

So all the evolutionist has to do is place the burden of proof on me!

No the burden of proof lies with the evolutionist - however that 'burden' has been met quite easily.

So I point to the fact that one species has never been OBSERVED to change to another.

Wrong

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Just one example - go research some more please (I'm not going to waste my time doing something you should have done yourself before you posted!!!!)

Last I heard, TRUE SCIENCE was that which can be proven by observable, testable, and demonstrable evidence.

Yup - this is why evolution is considered science. Had you done any research (no - talking to your pastor does not count) you would have seen the evidence that is available.

But the evolutionist tells me it makes sense, and then turns around and presents it as IRREFUTABLE FACT in the classroom, and never presents the other side.

Assuming this were true (which it is not) - isn't this what you do with the case for your God? You certainly don't put forward any evidence! Why is it acceptable for you to do this, but not others?

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY "FINDS" OF THE "MISSING LINK" WERE DELIBERATE, FRAUDULENT PLANTS?!?

NO WHY DON'T YOU TELL US.

One "scientist" planted chunks of pig teeth in England, and "dug it up" later and presented it as evidence. Great legacy you guys have. Real authentic science, yessir.

Source?

Now, good ol' mathematics tells me that it is more reasonable to think that if there are MORE negatives than positives, the negatives will overwhelm the positives. Thus, the gene pool is always shrinking!!!

lol what?

And if it is shrinking, then we are DEVOLVING, not EVOLVING.

It's not shrinking though. Your problem is you don't actually understand what you're talking about - that's why this doesn't make any sense to you.

The U.S. lunar lander had enormous landing pads. This was to keep the lander from sinking in the dust that accumulated on the moon over time. Now, our scientists determined that (since the earth and moon 100000000s of years old) there would be feet and feet of dust on the moon, so the lander had to have great big pads.

When they arrived, the astronauts only found centimeters and centimeters of dust. So, if the planets are that old, why isn't there more dust? Obviously, if there is no explanation, this discredits the basic principle of evolution that the earth is extremely old.

One of creationism's own websites debunks this - again if you had done any research you'd have found this;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...4/moondust.asp

Hydrogen (I said Helium earlier oops) is produced by the decay of various molecules in the atmosphere. Thus, the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere is increasing constantly. So if the earth is so old, why aren't we just saturated in hydrogen??? "Oh, it all combined with oxygen to become water."

Because put simply it ends up in space.

The sun, in producing such enormous quantities of energy, is eating itself up. Now, REAL scientists have calculated the speed of earth's shrinkage. If the universe is SOOOO old, the sun would be practically gone by now, and all the planets in the system would be flying around and out of control!

The earth is shrinking?

The Bible.

Of course, you refuse to treat the Bible as you would any other record.

Actually, the reason we don't accept the bibble is precisely because we treat it as any other record.

You say it must be impossible because it says things you don't understand.

Which is exactly what you've just spent ages doing with regards to evolution.

on many finer points I have little experience

Judging from your post you have no experience regarding what you are talking about at all.

Obviously you have researched it yourself, and have come to a conclusion

And clearly you've not researched this stuff at all.