We have brought back Future of KINGDOM HEARTS as our main Kingdom Hearts section. Discuss any projects including Phase 2 developments, the rumored Disney Plus series, all TWEWY-related news, theories about the future of Kingdom Hearts, and any general topics in this section. For anything related to Kingdom Hearts Memory of Melody, please discuss it in the KINGDOM HEARTS Memory of Melody section.
Although unrelated to Kingdom Hearts, we are aware that there might be fans of The Last of Us on our forums. We ask that you please keep all spoilers for The Last of Us 2 spoiler-tagged. Any untagged spoilers will result in a temporary ban from the site.
Sounds a bit...drastic, but then again, I was pretty damn frequent around here at one point, and for quite a while at that, so no one knows better than me the base depravity you'll see from the site staff around here. XD
It's a pretty common problem on this forum. There are maybe 4 or 5 instances where anyone capable of making a solid, intelligent argument disagrees with the rest of the back-patters around here. Elitist as it may sound, most of the smarter people on this site typically agree with one another on pretty much every subject, and we tend to get an increasing number of subjects they all agree on simply because they all agree on it.
Once in a while I try to inject a little fresh viewpoint on a subject, and it almost always ends with either me being called a bastard, or the entire bandwagon jumping on me, and to be honest (and it's quite a guilty pleasure), I tend to enjoy the commotion. You get a more complete view of an issue when both sides are equally presented and fairly criticized.
My debate coach in high school always said I was a strong debater, but I have an issue with being headstrong. I like to call it passion for the intellectual, but it tends to manifest itself as intractability.
The thread is over-flooded enough with supporters, to the point where no one seems to even care or give credit to the views of the opposition, which must have some reasonable point, as they are currently the prevailing group in this debate, at least in the US.
...Ok, you gonna back that up with something or am I just going to have to take your word on that? Even then, I'd like you to forget about scientific facts for one second to think about evolution put into practice. How does believing we are nothing more than an intelligent monkeys affect a person's morality? What is a human's life worth if he's just another animal? What does evolution excuse, morally speaking? What happens when we really put natural selection into practice? I already know the answers, but I want to see what you come up with.
Sorry for the late reply. Been busy with schoolwork.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how yours was better. I also fail to see how the things I mentioned concerning scientific fields aren't scientific. You never gave a shred of evidence proving Creationist can't also be in those fields, but I gave you evidence that not only there were Creationists in those fields but some actually began those fields. I mentioned things outside of science to show you just how much you have to ignore to believe in evolution.
But if you want science, how about this...?
Last time I checked, primordial soup would not be a living thing. Evolution: disproved. I will mention that Pasteur was a Christian. You owe a Bible believing Christian a debt of graditude for that bacteria-free milk you drink and many scientific concepts.
Richard Dawkins? I think he sorta did in Expelled: No intelligence allowed (I used clips from that movie in the post before last). It's a documentary that you definitely need to see. You can watch it here, but i'm not quite sure it's the whole movie. It looks like it though.
(Sorry to double-post. My last message was too long to include this.)
Which would logically mean the Bible is absolute truth. If you can't prove it's a lie, it's truth.
Johannes Kepler, astronomist, dedicated his life to "finding the mathematical harmonies in the mind of the Creator. When he discovered the three laws of planetary motion, he found nothing in his studies that proved God did nothing to put those planets into motion. So, you're saying that Newton's belief in God would mean he gets kicked out of his own devision of science? Robert Boyle, a Christian, is the "Father of Modern Chemistry". Ever heard of Carolus Linnaeus, the great botanist who was also a devout Christian? Genetics? Creationist can use that to prove Creation in a snap as seen in the quote below.
- This page
My dad is a systems administrator for computers, yet he stands firmly on Creation and the Bible. Oh, you mean all the people that use circular reasoning to prove evolution? As seen here:
Besides, there's a whole radio series about a vertebrate paleontologist who proves through different divisions of science that evolution is false. More info is found here. That's strange considering many archealogical finds prove the Bible and its historical accounts to be true - not evolution. How does belief in Creationism mean I need to ignore history? I've already given you names of people in history who believed in it.
By the way, I hope the color-coding thing wasn't too confusing. Either way, there's a scientist/historian (in the past or present) for every division you mentioned that has brought forth evidence from their field that proves Creationism. Every single one.
Now, it my turn to list what you have to ignore if you believe the earth is billions of years old.
The Bible and God. There's only one thing that devout creationists and evolutionists agree on: God and evolution are like oil and water - they don't mix. God clearly said in Genesis that He made the world out of nothing. If He used evolution, that would mean He's lieing. If God lied in the very first sentence of the Bible, why believe the rest of it?
Linguistics, the study of Lanquages. According to evolution, cavemen first communicated with hand signals and grunts before eventually (somehow) learning to speak. Following evolution's logic, you would expect lanquages get to more and more complex as the ages roll by. But that's not what we actually see. If an average man today goes to a shakespeare play, they usually sit there looking at the actors as if they're speaking Japanese. Modern day lanquages our so much simpler than they used to be. But according to evolution, shouldn't the King James Version of the Bible read like a pre-school book to us by now?
Nature. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Romans 1:20)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." (Psalm 19:1)
- This page
Archaeology. There's plenty of archaeological finds that stand behind the Bible. It was once questioned whether the Hittites existed despite the Bible repeatedly referring to them. In 1906, Hugo Winkler found their capital city, proving all doubters wrong. I've seen evidence of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews myself at the British Museum. It was a slab of wall that depicted Jews being led into captivity that came from a palace in Ninevah.
History. There are many historical events that can't be explained with science or evolution. Was it just random luck that Louis Pastuer was able come up with the rabies vaccination while not even being able to see the virus he was working with? How about George Washington not being hit by a single shot during a battle in the French and Indian War even though his coat was full of bullet holes?
Martyrs' testimonies found in the Bible. I think this song says it best.
- "People" by Apologetix
Hope and Morality. Evolution means there's no hope of any afterlife. Natural selection can be used as an excuse to step over people - figuratively or literally. It's even evolutionary thoughts that caused the holocaust!
You could put the Bible to the test, but everyone who has tried to prove it false has failed. Either way, evolution will never be proven and will never be a law.
Also, I would like to mention another problem with evolution. I'm sure you know that the sun shrinks over time. What result do you get when you calculate how big the sun would have been billions of years ago? The sun would have been taking up a good chunk of earth. How about 6,000 years ago (the age of the earth according to the Bible)? The sun is at a safe distance, but it would have been hotter back then.
Then why did that man in the video say the opposite? Or did you even watch the video?
Yea, and they turned out to be fossils miles apart put together (like I said with "Lucy"), a pig's tooth, to still actually exist (like the Coelacanth), or to be a true bird or whatever animal it's supposed to be. Besides even if I do pretend that a fossil is a missing link for one second, I can't help but notice that they only find one at a time. Transition fossils should be common, but they're not. We don't find tons of schools of transitional fish. Where's the Neanderthal man's family? We should be buried in overewhelming ammounts of missing links. And why don't we find transitional things walking around today?
What do we find? We find fossil graveyards with exstinct animals mixed with mondern animals. Not only that, but the sights show signs of water damage. These graveyards are all over the world. It's almost as if there was a world-wide flood that jumbled them all together. Hmm...sounds familar...
Then what does it mean? My science book says it is a hypothesis that has yet be proven a law.
...I don't think you get it. The second law of thermodynamics says things decay and become simpler as time goes on. Evolution says things get better and become more complicated. See the problem? Back when science was about truth and not pride, scientists would have admitted that there's a problem.
But you said in your previous message that Science can prove the Bible false. And this is my whole point. God made science; so, it can't prove that He does not exist - it will do the opposite. Don't you see it? The Bible stands firm in all areas of life, but evolution is unscientific because it goes against the second of thermodynamics. Positive results means that the Bible is truth. Which one makes more logical sense to believe in? The Bible that has yet to be proven false or evolution that has yet to be scientificallly proven?
Whether Newton had cell theory to work with or not, we were discussing physics. I've already said before that you can't say that Newton believed in God out of default. He could have been an Atheist or believed in spontaneous generation. And i'm willing to bet that he wouldn't believe in evolution today because of what we know now. In that quote from him I used earlier, he was saying the universe is too complicated to be the result of chance. What we know now would only reinforce his thoughts. He was very smart and would agree with every problem that Creationists have pointed out.
1.) Mutations are rare. When they do happen, they're usually harmful. They're unpreditable, random, and have never been observed to have developed a new species. How did mutations happen to everyone at a gradual rate and cause our bodies to work so well? Epecially since it's mutations that are killing people everyday (cancer). Just think about how many errors had to be made before evolution finally got it right. Video on mutations.
2.) Darwin based his whole theory - i'll say it again: THEORY - on the false notion that cells are extremely simple. He has already been proved wrong on that, and that was his foundation for evolution. What happens when to a building when you destroy the foundation? Video on how complicated cells are.
3.) All "missing links" have been proven false. Lucy: the kneecap used was found miles away and deeper in the ground. Eohippus: "Losing toes does not make an organism more complex, but more simple" - Heinze
- This page
And that's not even half of what I could say. Science can't prove the Bible to be wrong or that God doesn't exist. Scientific accuracies of the Bible.
Yet, he adamently claimed what he was seeing was pointing towards one Creator - not a common ancestor. And if you think he believed in God out of default, you'd be wrong. He could have been atheist or he could have believed in spontaneous generation, but he chose God because he could see God at work in science and it just made logical sense to him. In fact, he was saying that atheism and spontaneous generation make no sense when everything in nature is perfectly designed. So, was he someone who knew what he talking about or just a religious quack? The same question can be asked of every single scientist that believed/believes in God.
No, you can't dispprove God exists. If fact, alot of people have put God to the test and weren't disappointed. Read Gideon's story. He's not the only one, but he is a good example. I must say, i'm a bit confused as to what made you believe in God in first place if you also believe that there's so much evidence to the contrary.
Sorry this reply took so long. Been busy. Anyways...
Yes, for the most part, the Catholic church did control science for a good many years, but that doesn't mean the scientists of that time didn't believe in God. Look at the chart here. Alot of those people were alive during times when science was no longer under the Catholic church's rule. Issac Newton and others thought God's design in the universe and the Bible was enough proof to believe that God, in fact, exists. I don't know about you, but I believe Isaac Newton is someone who knew what he was talking.
"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared. " - Isaac Newton
First of all, there are more people whose lives have been influlenced by God than the two I mentioned. I am one of them, in fact. Second of all, your putting a limit on God's power. You can't do that. God can do whatever He confines himself to do. Saying that God might not help you with something that in His will (like passing a test) means that following the verse and verses like it are lies: "Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am..." (Isaiah 58:9a). He promises to always help when we ask for it - unless it's outside his will. For example, He won't help you get away with murder if you asked Him to.
For someone who believes in God, you sound an aweful lot like someone who doesn't. Your image of God seems to be a person in Heaven who isn't relative to things on earth. God isn't like that.
There's proof outside the Bible. He's seen through people's changed lives. Look up John Newton or George Muller. Both of their lives reflects God's power. There's also proof in nature. Most of the "Founding Fathers" of science credited God for nature's design.
I can't but help question why you would believe or follow something that you're not even 100% certain of.