Do you believe in evolution?

fishycpa

fishycpa

Member
I think that the aquarium hobby disproves evolution. Now hear me out, how can we spend thousands of hours and dollars researching, setting up, perfecting a miniature ecosystem and still manage to mess it up and destroy it. How then can one, random, destructive act such as a big bang create something as complex and vast as the ocean itself or something so complex as a single human skin cell. I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.
I have not read this entire thread and do not know if this has been mentioned yet, but there is a man who set out to disprove God and prove there is no God and there is evolution. During the course of his study, he came to believe the opposite. His name is Josh McDowell and his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is a MUST read if you want to study this further.
That's my 2 cents. God bless.
 
clown boy

clown boy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Clown_Boy: Is it possible to post links on this forum? Yes, it is. Cool.
I'd like to see some linked sources for some of the stuff you posted.
-Ozmar the Web Researcher
LOL don't you see them all? Look at post #256.
 
clown boy

clown boy

Active Member
Originally Posted by fishyCPA
I think that the aquarium hobby disproves evolution. Now hear me out, how can we spend thousands of hours and dollars researching, setting up, perfecting a miniature ecosystem and still manage to

[hr]
it up and destroy it. How then can one, random, destructive act such as a big bang create something as complex and vast as the ocean itself or something so complex as a single human skin cell. I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.
I have not read this entire thread and do not know if this has been mentioned yet, but there is a man who set out to disprove God and prove there is no God and there is evolution. During the course of his study, he came to believe the opposite. His name is Josh McDowell and his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is a MUST read if you want to study this further.
That's my 2 cents. God bless.
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by fishyCPA
I think that the aquarium hobby disproves evolution. Now hear me out, how can we spend thousands of hours and dollars researching, setting up, perfecting a miniature ecosystem and still manage to mess it up and destroy it. How then can one, random, destructive act such as a big bang create something as complex and vast as the ocean itself or something so complex as a single human skin cell. I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.
I agree with you. I think the evolutionist's main response is that if you had 800 trillion fish tanks and 800 trillion years to ignore them, then maybe one of them would evolve into a working ecosystem.
And how do we know that it would ever happen? Well, it clearly happened at least once, right? Because we're here arguing about it.
But of course, that's arguing for the source from the result. I think that's called "a posteriori". It doesn't prove anything - its a form of circular reasoning. How do I know that I could exist? Well, clearly I do exist. The same argument shows that God created us. Why? Because we're here, aren't we?
Ozmar the Circular
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
LOL don't you see them all? Look at post #256.
Yeah... see my edited reply in #260.
Ozmar the Slow Typer
 
fishycpa

fishycpa

Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
And how do we know that it would ever happen? Well, it clearly happened at least once, right? Because we're here arguing about it.
Well, no, isn't that what we are debating?
 
kjr_trig

kjr_trig

Active Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Yeah... see my edited reply in #260.
Ozmar the Slow Typer
Ozmar, you do make me laugh.
KJ the usually sarcastic
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by fishyCPA
Well, no, isn't that what we are debating?
I was showing the flaw in that reasoning.
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
I was showing the flaw in that reasoning.
Cool. I'm so good, I even reply to myself.
(P.S., this was someone else at my home computer...)
Ozmar the Doppleganger
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Please quote chapter and verse. That would constitute proof. I think someone is tossing about promises of big rewards for such.
Without the quotation, I call your bluff: there are no unicorns mentioned in the Bible! You made that up! (Or you're repeating something someone else made up.)
Ozmar the Skeptic
Dear skeptic
When searching the bible one should refer to the bible, not google.
please do the same search at
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksea...n&qs_version=9
You may even choose your language and translation. Notice I said translation and not version. Many Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) words do not have English equals or use context to determine the true meaning of the word. This is why there are different (KJV,NIV,etc.) translations. I own a Hebrew and Greek word for word translation. The basics are the same, but some minor variations occur due to differing translations of specific Hebrew or Greek words.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
I like this reference to unicorns the best:
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
I can't imagine someone's dust being made "fat with fatness" but I'm sure it's not a good thing.
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
Dear skeptic
When searching the bible one should refer to the bible, not google.
please do the same search at
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksea...n&qs_version=9
You may even choose your language and translation. Notice I said translation and not version. Many Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) words do not have English equals or use context to determine the true meaning of the word. This is why there are different (KJV,NIV,etc.) translations. I own a Hebrew and Greek word for word translation. The basics are the same, but some minor variations occur due to differing translations of specific Hebrew or Greek words.
Very cool. I stand corrected. I now believe in unicorns.

Oh, but wait... a little more research finds some interesting exegesis:
The Authorised Version of the Bible in English, known far and wide as the King James Version, mentions unicorns. In fact, the word which is translated nine times as "unicorn" or "unicorns" is the Hebrew re'em. This Hebrew word is translated as "ox" or "wild ox" in every other English version of the Bible (including those translated before the King James). That's what re'em means: ox.
The Hebrew word for unicorn (I am informed by a speaker/reader of Hebrew) is actually Had-Keren. My Hebrew isn't that good, but according to the Hebrew dictionary I have handy, keren (or qeren) means "horn" and had (or 'echad) is "one". The usual name for a unicorn in almost any language is "one-horn" (see: A Unicorn by Any Other Name).
I am aware that there are those who insist that the King James Bible is perfect (apparently having fallen from heaven gift-wrapped and landing on the steps of Canterbury Cathedral in 1611), but I've done enough historical and Biblical research to know that the KJV, although a lovely work of poetic usage and expressive forms, is not The Official Word of God™ in English, any more than any other translation can claim to be. It's got errors, and this happens to be one of them.
So it looks like the original poster was correct: the english word "unicorn" is indeed used in the KJV of the Bible. I never knew that. Cool!

And according to Apologetics Press (agreeing with the above quote):
The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by “unicorn” is re’em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus or aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The re’em still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian buffaloes.
And this quote is attributed to none other than Issac Asimov, an intelligent man who doubtlessly knew what he was talking about.
I think that's really cool. I like learning new things.
-Ozmar the Researcher
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by fishyCPA
Another good resource is www.blueletterbible.com
For some reason the Isaiah verse didn't show up in blueletter's search, but when I searched for Isaiah 34:7 the unicorn appears. Just thought that was a bit odd.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Ozmar, this is one issue skeptics use to discount the Bible. I have many translations for this very reason and is why I spent the money on the Hebrew/Greek with English translation. The truth is there. It just get garbled by people. Whether the wrath of God contains one horned unicorns or ancient oxen does not matter when facing said wrath.
Now...what about the behemoth and leviathan? Behemoth could be a dinosaur just as easily as a hippopotamus. Anyone believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Job speaks of him.
Nice debate, BTW.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by b bauer
have someone drop a bowling ball from 10' on to your foot and I will prove that gravity can hurt.lol
Naw, it will just make me THINK that it can hurt...
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Quite honestly, I would spend more time with this. But I have learned long ago that it is impossible to convince people through forums. If I post any evidence, you just ignore it and move on.
I will, however, post a few things as promised.
I am still waiting to see the proof you claim to have the Homo erectus and Homo hablis are 'proven falsehoods'
Just to give you a history, I attended a religious school from 3rd grade through the 12th. All the claims you are making, I have already seen them, you have provided me with nothing new. On the other hand, I have spent a much smaller fraction of my life reading differing points of views and I have come to the conclusion that I could spend the rest of my life studying the natural word and still not get to all the evidence.
I am not here to prove anything but when people say, "there is no evidence" I will attempt to offer some places to look for this evidence. Look into Genetics, go to your local library and see if they can get you a RECENT genetics textbook. Look at the way genes can move in cells. Look into promoters and see how they impact the expression genes. Look at how genetic mutations occur and how they are passed down. If that isn't enough evidence or you don't care to learn about ATGCGA sequences ask for a geology textbook. Learn how people ACTUALY attempt to date rock layers, not how people wanting to disprove them imply they date them. If geology isn't your forte, checkout a patheontology book and see how much detail the paleontologists go into studying not only the bones but the ostiometric points on the bones. But please, please, please, if you actually want to learn something, don't relay on watered down magazine articles or flashy showmanship. There is plenty of evidence out there, look at it, if after you look at it you think of a better explaination, give it to us. Give it to the world.
Read or hear differing opinions and judge for yourself don't just read what one side wants you to read, read it all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top