Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #94 - proudnerd (08/31/2012) [-]
Hey, OP, you do realize that many creationists, myself included, acknowledge evolution. You have to be stupid not to. It's evidence is everywhere. The subject of debate is whether man evolved from a common ancestor with the primate family. Many argue that there is not enough evidence to support such a theory. I see that we were rejected from a garden after being created. One of the major developments that changed humans from primates was the knee that extents all the way. It was necessary for long travel on ground, instead of tree climbing. Human origins remain in the northern African area, which is next to a desert know as the Sahara. It is also known that the Sahara was once a lush forest. So man evolved into what we see today after leaving a lush forest in northern Africa. Coincidence? Maybe I'm just crazy, but I think not.
User avatar #103 to #94 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
That's not creationism, that's you trying to connect two things that have nothing to do with each other, and putting them together in order to make since of the Bible. In the Garden of Eden, God created not only man and woman, but every single animal on Earth. Common sense tells us that polar bears cannot live in a forest, especially one near the equator. It is also known that polar bears did not evolve in Africa. Of course a polar bears, including other bear species as well, is only one example. There are many others, such as, and this a big one, all salt water animals. No shark is going to develop in a river or lake that was in a big forest. They would have no way of even getting to the ocean. It is also known that life began in the oceans, seeing as how the atmosphere was still developing, and there wasn't any breathable air.
Nice try, I give you props for at least accepting some of macro-evolution. Most "creationists" won't even go that far.
User avatar #117 to #103 - tepeniam (08/31/2012) [-]
What if I told you that I believe in both. I believe God created Man and all beasts. Adam named them (hence multiple languages having similar names), and then animals spread out and evolved over time.
User avatar #123 to #117 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
Can you provide me with a timeline? How long ago was man created? Same question goes for animals. And when did they all spread out?
User avatar #127 to #123 - tepeniam (08/31/2012) [-]
That's an answer still being debated. My Pastor says about 6-7,000 years ago, but as far as I'm concerned, a Genesis "day" could be drastically different from a current day. So animals and man were created a Genesis "day" apart, and hadn't spread out enough yet, therefore Adam could name most of them.
User avatar #128 to #127 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
By most, do you mean only the animals the people were exposed to at that time? As in the lower middle east and north Africa? I doubt Adam new about Polar bears, or Penguins, or dinosaurs. The fossil record is against you my friend. Evidence shows that many different species of animals originated in many different parts of the world. Plus, the humans as a species are only between 100,000 to 200,000 years old. Most other animals have been around for far longer.
User avatar #130 to #128 - tepeniam (08/31/2012) [-]
I mean he named a bear (as in, he called it a bear, it then spread out and changed), various birds, lions, tiger, giraffes, etc. And I'm a creationist, I don't care about "carbon dating" and "fossil records" per say(sp?) Yes, they're important, and yes, they prove certain things. But I could just as easily say, "The Bible's against you."
#138 to #130 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
No, no you couldn't. See, the Bible is a book filled with ancient texts whose stories had been passed down from word of mouth until a about 1,500 years ago, someone started putting them together. The people who originally thought up of any of the ideas in the Bible were uneducated and poor. If God were smart at all, he would have spread his message to the Chinese or other sophisticated groups of people. While the message of a the savior being born into a poor, yet humble family is nice, it would have been much better to be born into a rich, royal family, just for practicality. They could write things down, and actually think about the message, rather than accepting it because they needed the hope. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is competing with thousands of other gods, and in fact, the Judaic tribes used to be polytheistic, until the idea of monotheism came along.

http://www.youtube . com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg (it's long and the guy has a boring voice, but very informative. You can google everything it says, if you want)

On the other hand, science is based on what we have observed in the universe. Scientists don't accept ideas, they bash them, they do their best to find flaws. Only after numerous bashing and testing, and after lots evidence for the idea is gathered, are these ideas accepted.
User avatar #156 to #138 - proudnerd (08/31/2012) [-]
You're missing the point. Jesus was born to a poor family to prove that EVERYONE is important, and no one is too little or too weak to be used greatly. The Bible is FULL of stories like this, the most prevalent being the David vs. Goliath battle. And the Bible tells of how the Judaic tribes would have bouts of polytheism, they were very bad at being Gods' people. The fact that the people ****** up here and there doesn't disprove the Bible.
#160 to #156 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
I don't mean bouts of polytheism. Your religion came from polytheism. Hell, your god was the war god of that polytheistic religion. I know I'm missing the point, all I'm saying is that that wasn't a very smart move on gods part. He wasn't spreading his message very well. There were many other "messiahs" around at that time as well. Jesus just got more recognition.
User avatar #165 to #160 - proudnerd (08/31/2012) [-]
I see no strong evidence that states that western religion was based on polytheism. The issue with saying this is that we don't know who copied who. Just because you were the first to write it down, doesn't mean you were the first one to know the story. And why do you think Jesus got more recognition? Because he ******* died and came back to life. He did some **** that no one else could, and that's because he was God in the flesh.
User avatar #170 to #165 - cullenatorguy [OP](09/01/2012) [-]
Have you ever heard of Horus, Krishna, or Mithra?
http://www.youtube . com/watch?v=4lLiRr_mT24 (only 2 minutes)
As for that evidence, if you were to research the early religions of the mediterranean, you would be able to set up a timeline of when different religions appeared, and where the originated from. No one who ever wrote about Jesus even met him, all the gospels were written many years after Jesus' death. There isn't even any records written by anyone of that time that one man was going around performing miracles. By the way the story is told, that was a big event, even for the Romans. You'd think that they would write something about it down.
User avatar #171 to #170 - proudnerd (09/01/2012) [-]
How do you tell when religions showed up and disappeared? How? And the whole "the gospels weren't even written by the apostles" idea is still being debated. I don't see how you can prove they weren't written by the apostles. And the Romans would record that they killed a man who later came back to life? When they put him to death, they wanted to shut him up, and why would you record that in doing this, you actually fulfilled his greatest purpose?
User avatar #172 to #171 - cullenatorguy [OP](09/01/2012) [-]
The Romans were not stupid. They were not so petty that they wouldn't write about something as incredible as a man coming back to life. The Romans didn't even have anything against Jesus. They weren't the bad guys. They didn't call for Jesus' death, the Jews did. Even if the Romans were afraid of looking bad, you'd think someone else would write about Jesus.
Just as there are methods used to date rocks, there are methods that allow us to date old writings. We don't even have the original writing from Paul, or and of the gospel writers. Or the copies of the originals. Or the copies of the copies of the originals. There isn't any real debate, facts are facts. The only thing that people are doing is trying their best to find more writings in a desperate attempt to prove their religion. Even if they did find them, it would only prove that they were written. Their are texts written about other demigods in other religions. Those have just as much supporting their truth as the gospels.
User avatar #109 to #103 - proudnerd (08/31/2012) [-]
Have you read Genesis? Do you know that animals were created on the fifth day, starting with fish, and then land animals. It wasn't until the sixth day that man was created.
User avatar #121 to #109 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
Yes, yes I have. As it turns out, you're both wrong and right.
Creation of animals: Genesis 1:25-27
Then creation of man: Genesis 1:27
Compared to
Creation of man: Genesis 2:18-19
Then creation of animals: Genesis 2:18-22
User avatar #141 to #121 - proudnerd (08/31/2012) [-]
In gen 2:19, God is bringing the animals to man, so that he is not lonely, that is not his first creation of them.
User avatar #147 to #141 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
And where was their first creation? I'm pretty sure that they were all created in the garden of eden
User avatar #148 to #147 - proudnerd (08/31/2012) [-]
They were all created in Gen 1:20, on the fifth day. In gen 2 they were simply brought to man in order for him to name them and know them.
User avatar #151 to #148 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
All 5 million species of animal? Wow, that's quite impressive.
User avatar #157 to #151 - proudnerd (08/31/2012) [-]
And you thought YOU'VE had a long day at work... But seriously, as tepeniam said earlier, it could be simply naming things "bear" and "bird" and "beetle" and "fish". I don't know, nor do i think it subtracts form the overall message of the Bible.
User avatar #163 to #157 - cullenatorguy [OP](08/31/2012) [-]
Will you do something for me? Just sit and think about exactly what you're saying. What you believe goes against everything science has discovered about the world we live in. Everything. Do you really think that a several thousand year old bronze age story told by a nomadic people in the middle of the desert with no way of writing things down, who had no idea about anything we know to be true today, was right? That the religion you were born in to was the correct one, and every other religion to ever exist was wrong? With absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
 Friends (0)