Creation Theory vs. Evolution Theory
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
There is no such things as creationist science...simply because there is no science to it. All other sciences are based on observation...cause/effect etc. The basic premise for creation theroy is: "you cannot catagorically disprove it (because we will not allow you too) therefore our theroy is valid" Matt ------ Accept that some days you are the pigeon and some days the statue.
-
Jason Gerard wrote: Actually Christian, the Hebrew words used in Genesis are for literal consecutive 24 hour periods. The "Day-Age" theory as it is known, corresponding the days of Genesis to periods of time that correspond to earth's formation/evolution is totally unsupported by the biblical text. Wrong. The word 'Yom' CAN mean a literal day, but it literally means a period of time. Jason Gerard wrote: I believe the earth was create by God in six days. I believe He could have made it in 6 nanoseconds, had He so desired, but that the Bible is not clear enough on the time it took for me to be pedantic about it. Jason Gerard wrote: I don't know how long ago it was, but 6,000 years is not a problem for me to believe. Well, the Bible CERTAINLY does not say that. Adam and Eve where in Genesis 2, and as a seperate account God created men and women in Gen 1 at some indeterminate time before that. Jason Gerard wrote: Call me a fool, OK, you're a fool :P Jason Gerard wrote: but I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. So do I. But I believe the Bible, rather than my Sunday School upbringing. Jason Gerard wrote: I have faith. Cool. What are you doing about it ? Have you recieved the Holy Spirit since you believed ? Jason Gerard wrote: You have faith that God created the Earth as his Word said he did, or you believe the earth was created in millions of years as man has said. Man says it was not created at all. When it was created is irrelevant to me. At some time after that, God made Adam and Eve. That was 6,000 years ago, and that was the start of the plan that will reach fulfillment when Jesus returns. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: Wrong. The word 'Yom' CAN mean a literal day, but it literally means a period of time. You are correct, however when 'Yom' is used with a referece to a number, as in "So the evening and the morining were the first day" it refers to a 24 hour period not to mention the reference to evening and morning. Christian Graus wrote: Adam and Eve where in Genesis 2, and as a seperate account God created men and women in Gen 1 at some indeterminate time before that. Gen 1:26-27 briefly tells of Gods creation of man on the sixth day. Then Gen 2:7 introduces the full story of Adam's creation. Just because this is written after the seventh day is described, doesn't mean that it took place after the seventh day. The "And the Lord God.." of Gen 2:7 show the moving on to a new idea, a recounting of the full story of mans creation along with the Garden on the sixth day. Christian Graus wrote: Cool. What are you doing about it ? Have you recieved the Holy Spirit since you believed ? What do you mean by "received the Holy Spirit?" I received the "gift" of the holy spirt, which is the forgiveness of my sins when I believed, repented and was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38). If you mean spirtual gifts like speaking in tongues, then no. I, nor anyone else for the last 1900 years have had a spirtual gift for they were only for the Apostles and those the Apostles laid there hands upon. Jason Gerard
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. Ok, that whole paragraph was rather insulting, but i'll let it slide. I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'. Jim A. Johnson wrote: Which seems more likely? Ah, well that's the rub though, isn't it? No matter how involved an explanation you come up with, it doesn't mean jack shit until someone believes it. In any case, how is when the Universe was created relevant?
Shog9 --
Maybe Java is kind of like God, it "works in mysterious ways". It seems like your apps are running slowly, because in the backgroud Java is solving world hunger, or finding the cure to cancer. - Ryan Johnston, Don't die java!
Shog9 wrote: Ok, that whole paragraph was rather insulting, but i'll let it slide. I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'. Well, don't let it slide if you don't want to. I find the whole notion of creationists hijacking science to be beyond offensive. Anyone who would read a whole book of that shit is clearly already so far deeply into it that as to be gone already. But why don't you respond to the meat of my objections? You're a programmer.. according to creation science, the computer you're working on right now can't work. The triumph of science is that it's predictions WORK, and can be translated into practical applications. And if the predictions don't work, they are adjusted until they do.
-
Christian Graus wrote: Wrong. The word 'Yom' CAN mean a literal day, but it literally means a period of time. You are correct, however when 'Yom' is used with a referece to a number, as in "So the evening and the morining were the first day" it refers to a 24 hour period not to mention the reference to evening and morning. Christian Graus wrote: Adam and Eve where in Genesis 2, and as a seperate account God created men and women in Gen 1 at some indeterminate time before that. Gen 1:26-27 briefly tells of Gods creation of man on the sixth day. Then Gen 2:7 introduces the full story of Adam's creation. Just because this is written after the seventh day is described, doesn't mean that it took place after the seventh day. The "And the Lord God.." of Gen 2:7 show the moving on to a new idea, a recounting of the full story of mans creation along with the Garden on the sixth day. Christian Graus wrote: Cool. What are you doing about it ? Have you recieved the Holy Spirit since you believed ? What do you mean by "received the Holy Spirit?" I received the "gift" of the holy spirt, which is the forgiveness of my sins when I believed, repented and was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38). If you mean spirtual gifts like speaking in tongues, then no. I, nor anyone else for the last 1900 years have had a spirtual gift for they were only for the Apostles and those the Apostles laid there hands upon. Jason Gerard
Jason Gerard wrote: Gen 1:26-27 briefly tells of Gods creation of man on the sixth day. Then Gen 2:7 introduces the full story of Adam's creation. That simply cannot be true. It is not suggested in Genesis, and causes all sorts of questions later on. For example, when the sons of God saw the daughters of men, who were the daughters of men ? The sons of God where Adams children. Jason Gerard wrote: What do you mean by "received the Holy Spirit?" I received the "gift" of the holy spirt, which is the forgiveness of my sins when I believed, repented and was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38). According to Acts 2, recieving of the Holy Spirit involves speaking in tongues. Acts 8 also records a group of people who believed, repented and were baptised and did not have the Holy Spirit. This could not be true if your interpretation of Acts 2:38 were correct. Jason Gerard wrote: If you mean spirtual gifts like speaking in tongues, then no. I, nor anyone else for the last 1900 years haven't had a spirtual gift for they were only for the Apostles and those the Apostles laid there hands upon. Well, that is astounding. A young earth person who thinks that God is retired ? I'd VERY interested to know where from the Bible ( as opposed to your own lack of experience and that of those who teach you ) you justify this idea. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
Oh. Well, you obviously know more about this than me. Please list the different parts of the eye and the functions that each part can perform in the absence of the others. If I lost my retina, what will the rest of my eye do for me, etc. ? Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
imagine you're an ancestral line in group of bacteria that can sense light; not one, but a whole line. and, for the sake of drama, pretend you're a sucessful line, not an extinct line like the trilobites, the TRex, the dodo, soon the condor, etc.. as some bacteria will tell you, it's handy to be able to sense light, even without being able to focus an image. day vs. night is enough of a reason to have a photo-sensitive component. maybe that gives you an edge in hiding from the sun, for example - to find cooler water so you don't boil. your stupid cousins, who can't tell the difference between night and day and hide, have boiled and are dead. why do you find yourself in boiling water - climatic change, perhaps. please, hold your "but how did light sensing evolve????" questions, for now. ok, so everyone in your group can tell night vs. day (a binary situation). but maybe those who can tell shades four shades of daylight (night, dawn, day, dusk) have an advantage over those who can't - maybe critters who prey on your line can also sense night vs day and know that you're feeding at night; so they come out at night. those of you whose sensors are a little off think dusk is night, so they come out a little eariler, eat and don't get eaten. then after a while, maybe it's nice to be able to tell 16 shades of light. postulate your own reasons. and remember, we're still talking about one component of a bacterium. so, after awhile, bacterium who form clumps are starting to do better than those who don't. reasons? defense, food gathering, shared resources, whatever. so a bunch of cells get together and they can all tell light shades. after a while, it turns out that some clumps of cells can tell when one side can see light and when the other can't. now you can tell direction relative to a light source - pretty much what a moth can do. a million years go by. by the action of random mutation, local and widespread catastrophe, newly arrived predators or whatever, your clumps of cells have started to specialize. some cells are for eating, some for defense, some are for interpreting the outside world, etc.. again, those whose cells didn't specialize are dead - those whose random array of characteristics give themselves an edge over the others win - this is especially true in large-scale catastrophes, where even the slightest difference can make all the difference. where do those "random" characteristics come from ? well, look around any group of people and you'll see differences: height, we
-
This whole thread is so stupid, I can't believe that so called 'intelligent' people even bother arguing about creation vs. evolution. I myself believe the whole universe and every thing in it was created by God. I don't know how or when and I don't really care, I can't prove it either way anyway. Those who look at the book of Genesis as absolute proof of how we were created forget that Genesis was written by Moses, some 5000 years ago, based on stories passed down from generation to generation for eons. Moses was raised in pharoahs court, so he would have been taught to read and write, a skill that his ancestors would not have had, so he used that skill to write down the stories he heard. As for the bigbang theory, I have yet to hear a pausable explanation of what was there before it went bang, and how did it get there? So why don't you people let the scientist theorize without taking a shit fit that they might prove there is no God because they can't prove that. and also let us foolish Christians believe what we want because it makes us happy, and in no way changes what science discovers. No matter what any one says, neither side (why are there even sides here?) will change, so give it up, smile, and be happy. There, My 2 bits :mad:
CPUA 0x5041 Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little My pet, My pet stick Nicer than a twig Cooler than a rock. (Microsoft ad) Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
I have a foot in both camps. PJ Arends wrote: As for the bigbang theory, I have yet to hear a pausable explanation of what was there before it went bang, and how did it get there? It was what could be called a singularity Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I am sick of fighting with Martin, I think I will ignore his posts from here on in, and spend the time working on articles instead. Christian Graus
-
I'm not talking purely about genes found in one species are found in another, but rather, silent mutations which appear only appear in one branch (which can only be explained by saying God created each species from another existing species with some modification), by broken genes which appear in one branch of life, but not another. And when species are separated by distance, they form completely different methods to accomplish the same task (what? God doesn't reuse genes now?). For example, fish near the north pole and south pole use completely different genes to form "antifreeze" which prevents their bodies from freezing in the water. When you look at the evidence for a chromosome fusion event between chimps an humans, you quickly conclude that either God did some quirky things while making human chromosomes or God never made them at all. Or the fact that 98% of a human's DNA is never used. It's junk. If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
On the contrary. A god would no doubtedly want a society to live in moderate peace without any crime. This "crap dna" you call it, scientifically are called introns. These introns are the way criminals today are being identified forensically. I however do, honestly believe in Evolution, and I think that the simple fact that a banana has more than half the same working genome as the human genome...
-
On the contrary. A god would no doubtedly want a society to live in moderate peace without any crime. This "crap dna" you call it, scientifically are called introns. These introns are the way criminals today are being identified forensically. I however do, honestly believe in Evolution, and I think that the simple fact that a banana has more than half the same working genome as the human genome...
This "crap dna" you call it, scientifically are called introns. These introns are the way criminals today are being identified forensically. But, couldn't forensics get along quite well without introns? It seems to me that as long as everyone has a different combination of alleles, people can be identified by their genes. (Example: The functional genes create what we look like, and people can be distinguished by their appearance, so people can be identified by their combination of functional genes alone.) ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Exactly. That's a hell of a complex thing to just come from no-where, especially as it had no use and no idea of it's function until it was finished. Why would nature favour a being with half an eye, when it did nothing ? Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
That's the typical creationist reply: "a partial eye would be useless. Any transitional creatures would have endured a disadvantage, rather than enjoyed an advantage." But the fact is, that there are numerous sea creatures alive today whose eyes are stages in that sequence of evolution. The evolution of the eye is an example of a sequence of evolution that provides incremental benefits. The truth is that a "half eye" is just a low quality eye. For example, blind cave fish shows that creatures without the need for an eye may loose them. Some have eyes which just tells whether it's dark or light (like Chlamydomonas). An evolution with an incremental benefit will then give you the ability to point your eye, in this way a sea creature can know which way the surface is. With petter pointing you have the ability to actually hunt/prey. The evolution of the eye starts with an eye spot and can in the course of 350,000 years evovle into a fish eye.
-
a lot of this sounds like "Man can't do this in the lab, therefore it must be impossible for it to happen in nature". so what if man can't reproduce granite? there are lots of things we can't reproduce perfectly. frankly, you need to do more than disprove geology to prove creationism (the points you list here don't even touch evolution). show me some *evidence* that creation happened, and maybe you have an argument. and no, the bible doesn't count. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917I couldn't agree more... :) "An expert is someone who has made all the mistakes in his or her field" - Niels Bohr
-
I recently had a biology class which seems all we did was watch videos and take tests on evolution. While they force fed us the "evolution" belief I rhink they had decent evidence to support it. One video we watch was on the AIDs virus. The AIDs virus alone proves the evolution theory is the right one. AIDs is impossible to cure because it reproduces at an outragously fast rate. As the host of the virus recieves medical treatment it kills off some of the viri. The remaining viri are immune to the treatment, which can occur because of mutations. So the next generation of viri are immune to it, until they slowly have mutations that undo the first mutation. Maybe the earth was created in under three minutes contrary to the theory, but I feel that as a whole it is strong and it is accurate.
kmaz wrote: AIDs is impossible to cure Never say never ;) "An expert is someone who has made all the mistakes in his or her field" - Niels Bohr
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
Call me cynical, but ever listen to the technobabble on Star Trek ? This guy starts with a superficial statement then slides one "assumption" in after another,e.g. "all that granite had to originally become solid in far less than three minutes". Not so much a faoundation of granite as sand. Sorry, but he has an agenda despite his impression of a scientist. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
The important thing to remember is that the Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is this mistake that makes a lot of Creation Science look plain dumb. Beyond that, I agree that Creation is what happened, and that this stacks up scientifically at least as well as Evolution. The Bible says that the heavens declare that there is a God, i.e. it is totally illogical to think that the world around us just happened. For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? Until it functioned, the body has no way of knowing what vision IS, and for an eye to spontaneously mutate in one generate and thus give it's owner a competitive edge is as ludicrous as to suggest that my next child may have wings or breathe fire. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: I agree that Creation is what happened, and that this stacks up scientifically at least as well as Evolution. How so...??? When for hundreds of years those who studied science were condemned to the depths of hell??? :) Anything i've ever read about Creationism and Darwinism that was scienitifically related...evolution walked away the victor. Christian Graus wrote: it is totally illogical to think that the world around us just happened. I agree sorta...I fully believe in evolution...so everything past the big bang is believable, but what started it is what i'd like to know. Christian Graus wrote: For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? Thats the point behind evolution. :) it's every living organisms way of over time selectively or being forced into dropping a feature or adapting a new one to better suit it's surroundings... Besides what kinda cruel god/higher power would say...you humans are the apex predator of all predators... Christian Graus wrote: competitive edge is as ludicrous as to suggest that my next child may have wings or breathe fire. I'd love to make you a zillion dollar bet...but I say...if you and your family move to the local lake and u raise yer next 1000 generations of family members strictly in water...I promise you'd eventually grow gills...and I bet your skin would change after 500 generations to a more scaley fish like skin. I also bet...after about 50 generations maybe even sooner...your hands and feet would become webbed...seriously...why not...? I've heard stories about people with webbed feet...you gotta wonder why them and not you...??? What will you do when the day comes that humans (maybe even me) discover the cure for eternal departure...? What are you going to think then...? I'm telling you it's not far off...next 1000 years anyways... For you to disagree is ridiculous IMHO...My grand father thought it nutts that man would even try and goto the moon...they did...and so the story goes...basically never say never... However until I see some solid concrete evidence that a higher power exists...like science proves were advancing and it's only a matter of time until we figure it all out...I'm afraid I will remain a skeptic (a.k.a) aethiest Anyways...it's nuttin personal Christian obvios
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
Some remarks: John Aldrich wrote: in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. If they are extrapolations, it's an hypothesis, not a proven fact. John Aldrich wrote: These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), No. It just means that half of the atoms will desintegrate in 3 minutes. The desingration duration depends on the original number of atoms John Aldrich wrote: Since Po-218 halos are found by the trillions throughout all the granites of the world, all that granite had to originally become solid in far less than three minutes, when it was first created, in order for the Po-218 halos to form properly. No, because of the definition of half life. John Aldrich wrote: Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210 halos in granite cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. No one can give an acceptable explanation of how independent polonium could have gotten in those granites in the first place. It is an impossible situation, but there they are. So ? What kind of proof is it ? If I have found no solution, there's definitively no solution ? Where 's the demonstration there's no solution ? John Aldrich wrote: This indicates that the Earth was conceivably created in under 3 minutes ti No, it would (perhpas) indicate that granite was created in 3 minutes. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Reverend Stan wrote: IMHO, it merely contradicts current literalist interpretations of the bible. For example, the bible says man was created from the materials of the earth itself, so does evolutionary theory. The bible says it took 7 days, but then goes on to say that such time frames are of little significance to God. It actually says that it took seven periods of time, not literal days, and that Adam and Eve were formed sometime later. Reverend Stan wrote: To me the importance of the bible is not in gaining an understanding of how we got here, it is to gain an understanding of how to get out of here. That is true, but if what it says about the former is not true, how do we trust it in the latter case ? Reverend Stan wrote: Fighting science simply detracts from that goal. I agree, and misreadings of Genesis do much to discredit the idea of creation being a scientifically verifiable idea. Reverend Stan wrote: If Christianity determines to confront science head on, than Christianity will lose. Christianity is quite a scientific thing, actually. God defines what He will do when people give Him a chance, and then we get the option to verify what He says by giving Him a chance to act. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: Christianity is quite a scientific thing, actually. God defines what He will do when people give Him a chance, and then we get the option to verify what He says by giving Him a chance to act. There are millions of suffering and/or starving people around the World happy to give God a chance. They get no option to verify what he says and he continues to do - *nothing*. Perhaps proof shouldn't be a case of creationism vs evolution, perhaps it should be simply a case of how long, supposedly a loving and ultimately compassionate being, can allow the suffering and despair of millions of sentient beings, made in His own image. Or do we all deserve it because a couple of our distant ancestors once got chucked out of Eden? "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
This whole thread is so stupid, I can't believe that so called 'intelligent' people even bother arguing about creation vs. evolution. I myself believe the whole universe and every thing in it was created by God. I don't know how or when and I don't really care, I can't prove it either way anyway. Those who look at the book of Genesis as absolute proof of how we were created forget that Genesis was written by Moses, some 5000 years ago, based on stories passed down from generation to generation for eons. Moses was raised in pharoahs court, so he would have been taught to read and write, a skill that his ancestors would not have had, so he used that skill to write down the stories he heard. As for the bigbang theory, I have yet to hear a pausable explanation of what was there before it went bang, and how did it get there? So why don't you people let the scientist theorize without taking a shit fit that they might prove there is no God because they can't prove that. and also let us foolish Christians believe what we want because it makes us happy, and in no way changes what science discovers. No matter what any one says, neither side (why are there even sides here?) will change, so give it up, smile, and be happy. There, My 2 bits :mad:
CPUA 0x5041 Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little My pet, My pet stick Nicer than a twig Cooler than a rock. (Microsoft ad) Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
PJ Arends wrote: As for the bigbang theory, I have yet to hear a pausable explanation of what was there before it went bang, and how did it get there? And while wer'e at it, I'd like to know what was before God and how did she get there!. :-D The laws of nature as we theorize them started some microseconds after the big bang. What was before were in a shape that can't be measured by any of the current theories. The world right now is allready quite difficult to grasp as it is, and no 12 dimensional superstring theories are needed to make it any more cloudy. Just because there are something that aren't explained yet, it doesn't mean that the theory is wrong. "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!" -Rincewind
-
The important thing to remember is that the Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is this mistake that makes a lot of Creation Science look plain dumb. Beyond that, I agree that Creation is what happened, and that this stacks up scientifically at least as well as Evolution. The Bible says that the heavens declare that there is a God, i.e. it is totally illogical to think that the world around us just happened. For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? Until it functioned, the body has no way of knowing what vision IS, and for an eye to spontaneously mutate in one generate and thus give it's owner a competitive edge is as ludicrous as to suggest that my next child may have wings or breathe fire. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: Until it functioned, the body has no way of knowing what vision IS, and for an eye to spontaneously mutate in one generate and thus give it's owner a competitive edge Its like longer legs on some animals allowing them to outrun the predator better than their short legged friends. They are more likely to survive and pass on longer legs to the next generation, so you could see a scenario where after several generations, only the long legged variety are likely to be about, unless the short legged version found a different way of avoiding being eaten. Actually, I read a book once called "Illegal Alien" by Robert J Sawyer. In this at one point 2 people are arguing on whether the eye can prove or disprove evolution or creationism. Now on one side the argument went the way you suggest, that such small changes etc couldn't have developed a whole eye. On the other side a scientist showed all the steps from going from no eye to an eye in a minimum of about 80 generations! Also, whats wrong with the human eye? Did you know that its very badly designed, the blood supply at the back of the eye sits on top of the retinal area and obscures your vision! This is obviously not the optimum design! But you could just say, God did not make us perfect. I myself beleive the universe was created - I don't know how or by whom (if any), but left to go its natural course. Roger Allen Sonork 100.10016 If I had a quote, it would be a very good one.
-
PJ Arends wrote: Those who look at the book of Genesis as absolute proof of how we were created forget that Genesis was written by Moses, some 5000 years ago, based on stories passed down from generation to generation for eons Moses was a prophet of the Lord and and inspired by the Holy Spirt, therefore what he wrote is the infallible word of God, not just some stories passed down through the years. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Tim 3:16) Jason Gerard
So because some guy writes down his stories and adds, "This is the infallible word of God, honest guv!" at the end, that means it must be true? What about all the other religions, whose religious texts include similar statements. Are you saying that they must be true as well, even though they contradict yours? Or are you just implying that your faith is the only valid one because it's the only one you believe in?
-
So because some guy writes down his stories and adds, "This is the infallible word of God, honest guv!" at the end, that means it must be true? What about all the other religions, whose religious texts include similar statements. Are you saying that they must be true as well, even though they contradict yours? Or are you just implying that your faith is the only valid one because it's the only one you believe in?
PJ Arends Wrote: "and also let us foolish Christians believe what we want because it makes us happy" I was writting to PJ as a fellow Christian. If he believes in the God of the bible, then he must believe that what Moses wrote was the inspired Word of God as it claims to be. Otherwise he has nothing to believe in because if the bible is not inspired, then it is just a book of bedtime stories. Jason Gerard
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
John Aldrich wrote: I woudl be interested in hearing others thoughts on this I once talked to an atheist who was so dead set against believing in God that he went so far as to say, "Even if God himself came right up to me and shook my hand I still wouldn't believe. I'd check myself into an insane asylum and live the rest of my days whacked out on thorazine. There is NO GOD!" Such is the attitude of many of the atheists I've encountered. There is no God because they don't want there to be one, not because it hasn't been proven. We believers are all self-deluded, grasping at straws in an insane effort to find meaning to our pathetic little lives. They are far too smart to fall for such nonsense. In essense trying to convince an atheist of God's existence using personal testimony doesn't work because they dismiss it as subjective. Using Science doesn't work because "creationist science is biased". Sometimes the best thing to do is to just walk away. "Don't cast your pearls before swine," as Jesus said. If you have done everything you can and the atheist still isn't swayed, then you simply commend them to God and move on. "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." -2 Timothy 2:23-26 PS. I'm still friends with the atheist I quoted above, though we have yet to convince each other either way.
"I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" -xterm
