Creation Theory vs. Evolution Theory
-
Brit wrote: If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. *ahem* Those are the comments...
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!
-
Then may I direct you to Evolution Facts which contains the full text of the book, which I have quoted only a extremely small portion of. I believe that you'll discover that every base has been covered and every scientific fact proven to the best of current scientific ability. It's an interesting read to say the least. It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
Evolution facts: >>>> Someone will ask, “But what are the evidences that Creationism is true?” There are two. First, the only alternative is clearly disproved by a massive amount of findings. Second,—and if possible—even more solid, we have the very existence of everything about us! Whether it be the whirling of electrons in the atom, the orbit of our world which mysteriously does not decay and crash us into the sun, or the existence of a living creature. <<<< Who says the scientific theory of earth' creation as it's known now is the only single one alternative to creationism? It's like throwing away a whole basket of apples because of one rotten apple. There is no mystery in the earth not crashing into the sun. It just takes time with the bigger distances, ye know? You don't need god to put an electron into orbit, just a lot of tax payers money. "living creature" is a term coined by us. There is until now no evidence of a fundamental constructional difference between a rock, and a man.
To comply with a request by Mike Mullikin, the US will be given a break from all my statements for the duration of one week, up to and including July 17th, 2002, 19:05 MESZ
[sighist] -
Reverend Stan wrote: Christians should stop wasting their time being hostile towards it. I guess it depends if the Bible is full of facts or suggestions. Big E evolution directly contradicts the Bible. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: Big E evolution directly contradicts the Bible. How so? 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. 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. Fighting science simply detracts from that goal. When confronted with evolutionary theory, the christian should just shrug and say "Well, if that is true than that is simply the process God used" and leave it at that. If Christianity determines to confront science head on, than Christianity will lose. The scientitifc method is simply too powerful - which is proven by the fact that Christians have been reduced to trying to employ scientific methodology to disprove scientific methodology but science has not been reduced to using religion to prove it's own methodlogy. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
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
I got an idea. Why don't we artificially(sp)? impregnate an ape with human semem and see if it gives birth. If it gives birth then I'll believe evolution since an ape is supposedly our "common ancestor". ;P
-
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
Found a very nice one at http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml (and the "a creationists reply" is... weak, to say the least) [edit] and there's http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye\_stages.html for a *possible* evolution.
To comply with a request by Mike Mullikin, the US will be given a break from all my statements for the duration of one week, up to and including July 17th, 2002, 19:05 MESZ
[sighist] -
Christian Graus wrote: Big E evolution directly contradicts the Bible. How so? 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. 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. Fighting science simply detracts from that goal. When confronted with evolutionary theory, the christian should just shrug and say "Well, if that is true than that is simply the process God used" and leave it at that. If Christianity determines to confront science head on, than Christianity will lose. The scientitifc method is simply too powerful - which is proven by the fact that Christians have been reduced to trying to employ scientific methodology to disprove scientific methodology but science has not been reduced to using religion to prove it's own methodlogy. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
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
-
I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'. The word 'theory' has a different meaning in science than in vernacular english. Parhaps you'd also like to question the validity of 'atomic theory' because it's "only a theory". ------------------------------------------ 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
Brit wrote: Parhaps you'd also like to question the validity of 'atomic theory' because it's "only a theory". Who said i was questioning the validity of anything? I certainly did *not* use the phrase "only a theory". Enough with what i haven't said... Brit wrote: The word 'theory' has a different meaning in science than in vernacular english. Since you didn't read it, i'll quote Mr Johnson's original paragraph: Jim A. Johnson wrote: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) Ok, now here's a handy copy'n'pasted description of the "scientific method"; feel free to post corrections as they become relevant:
Make an observation Formulate a hypothesis Reproduce with experiments Establish a theory. Reproduce the observation in all conditions, to make a fact.
Alright, so let's get started: we've got *lots* of observations recorded, hard not to observe what you're a part of, even if it is difficult to get any real perspective on it. A hypothesis? Well, how 'bout this "God created everything, and set it in motion". What? That sounds like a cop-out? Like an admission that my observations are possibly flawed? Better come up with something better. Here's one: "Life started out as something else, but somehow become Life, and kept changing to meet the needs of it's environment until it became Life As We Know It". Hmm, needs some refining, but that'll do. 'k, on to step three: whip out yer handy-dandy Popeil Pocket Universe and - W0T! You left it at home?!? Well, HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PROVE THIS SHIT BY EXPERIMENTATION THEN? You mean the best we can do is a hypothesis? We can't even get within *sight* of a theory? We've got to go up to people and say "Hey, i've got this grand new Hypothesis, wanna buy my book?" And then explain to them, "Well, actually, it's not much of a hypothesis, i can't test it by experimentation, but hey, it's one HELL of a conjecture!" Nooooo, no, that won't do at all, conjectures are a dime a dozen :( Wait-a-minute! What if we just *say* it's a theory? Most people have a pretty fuzzy idea of what a theory is anyway, right? It
-
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
...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... Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that aan eye can "spontaneously mutate" - as is the suggestion that that is how evolutionists propose that complex organs like the eyes came to be. There is nothing ludicrous about the gradual generation of a patch of light sensitive cells giving an andvantage to some organism, and why not a simple thickened translucent epidermis over that patch confering a a rudimentary focusing ability ... etc, etc. I think the biggest barrier to most people's ability to accept evolution (other than religion conviction) is that as a relatively short lived creature we have tremendous difficulty comprehending the vast time scales over which, according to the theories, evolotion works. Steve T.
-
I got an idea. Why don't we artificially(sp)? impregnate an ape with human semem and see if it gives birth. If it gives birth then I'll believe evolution since an ape is supposedly our "common ancestor". ;P
They aren't that close of a genetic relative, it wouldn't work.
-
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
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!
-
peterchen wrote: I don't want to destroy your ability to see God in any equation that leaves a small error remaining. But if you want to do science, keep god out of the equation (unless you find him scientifically - which I seriously doubt). Geez, Pete, I was just playing the Devil's advocate there. I have fought the good fight my entire life in the backwood hinterlands of the American bible belt defending the theory of evolution. I am willing to accept the notion that a God is behind it all, but it there is, there is no sin in trying to understand how God did it. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
ooops... the "Reverend" was a bit misleading, I guess :-O I don't think god made the world, but the world made god. It's an "holistic effect", a result of the "humans common subconscious". Although I don't see a "need" for a creator, I have no problem with it. But it's definitely not the guy you are supposed to meet in an average american backcountry church.
Help! My SIG expired! [sighist]
-
3 minutes? Was God on the phone or something while he created Earth? Why did it take him so long? Todd Smith
God must have needed some booty after he came with the idea for the universe, this why it took so long to make the earth. had to do it while makin the booty call...;P All kidding aside, as I said earlier, I favor the creation theory, be it by an entity that we as humans would call god or by some other source that we dont' have the understanding to grasp. But at the same time, I won't discount the theory of evolution as a possibility. The reason being, We're fast reaching a threshold of our ability to understand WHY things happen and what causes them to happen. Centuries ago, we believed the world was flat...then it was proven that it was round. centuries before that, we believed we were at the center of the universe (( some of us still do... )), then it was proven that it was not true. There are simply some things that we cannot explain rationally. Take for example a cat. Let's say you sit down with your cat and preceed to read it a book on particle physics...you could talk to it all day, and it wouldn't have any clue what you were saying. The major stumbling blocks to understanding creationism or evolution theory are that we as humans, do not have the intellectual ability to fully understand all the nuances of either theory and arrive at a definitive conclusion. For this sole reason, no theory that we can or will come to can be anymore valid than the other. It's all a matter of interpretation. And my interpretation leads me to believe that creation theory is the strongest possibility. this doesn't mean I'm religious by any stretch of the imagination. It simply means that -my- understanding of the evidence, based on my intellectual ability, leads me to that conclusion. It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
-
They aren't that close of a genetic relative, it wouldn't work.
We can't do that with an ape...that'd be like the same as inbreeding...:omg: It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
-
Brit wrote: There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
no, the point is that those parts can all be reduced to separate components that all have useful functions of their own. -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.
/. #3848917 -
Brit wrote: Parhaps you'd also like to question the validity of 'atomic theory' because it's "only a theory". Who said i was questioning the validity of anything? I certainly did *not* use the phrase "only a theory". Enough with what i haven't said... Brit wrote: The word 'theory' has a different meaning in science than in vernacular english. Since you didn't read it, i'll quote Mr Johnson's original paragraph: Jim A. Johnson wrote: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) Ok, now here's a handy copy'n'pasted description of the "scientific method"; feel free to post corrections as they become relevant:
Make an observation Formulate a hypothesis Reproduce with experiments Establish a theory. Reproduce the observation in all conditions, to make a fact.
Alright, so let's get started: we've got *lots* of observations recorded, hard not to observe what you're a part of, even if it is difficult to get any real perspective on it. A hypothesis? Well, how 'bout this "God created everything, and set it in motion". What? That sounds like a cop-out? Like an admission that my observations are possibly flawed? Better come up with something better. Here's one: "Life started out as something else, but somehow become Life, and kept changing to meet the needs of it's environment until it became Life As We Know It". Hmm, needs some refining, but that'll do. 'k, on to step three: whip out yer handy-dandy Popeil Pocket Universe and - W0T! You left it at home?!? Well, HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PROVE THIS SHIT BY EXPERIMENTATION THEN? You mean the best we can do is a hypothesis? We can't even get within *sight* of a theory? We've got to go up to people and say "Hey, i've got this grand new Hypothesis, wanna buy my book?" And then explain to them, "Well, actually, it's not much of a hypothesis, i can't test it by experimentation, but hey, it's one HELL of a conjecture!" Nooooo, no, that won't do at all, conjectures are a dime a dozen :( Wait-a-minute! What if we just *say* it's a theory? Most people have a pretty fuzzy idea of what a theory is anyway, right? It
I thought your comment "I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'." was a comment on the phrase "Evolutionary theory" - as in "evolutionary theory is only a theory". Overall, I wasn't entirely sure if you were disagreeing with the word "theory" being used in "creation theory", "evolutionary theory", or both. "Well, actually, it's not much of a hypothesis, i can't test it by experimentation, but hey, it's one HELL of a conjecture!" The process of evolution can (and has been) tested by experimentation - at least on a small scale. The question of whether or not past life is a result of evolution is not directly testible, but there are plenty of clues in the DNA of animals, fossils, etc. If you take what we can see happening, and apply it to the past, things look pretty consistent. This is similar to what we do in astronomy (which you can't carry out experiments on, either). We can see gravity occuring on earth, though we can't actually test that gravity holds the earth in orbit around the sun. We can't grab a piece of the sun, but by using knowledge about what frequencies of light elements give-off on earth, we can make statements about what the stars are composed of by looking at the frequencies of light they give-off. ------------------------------------------ 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
-
no, the point is that those parts can all be reduced to separate components that all have useful functions of their own. -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.
/. #3848917Oh. 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
-
ooops... the "Reverend" was a bit misleading, I guess :-O I don't think god made the world, but the world made god. It's an "holistic effect", a result of the "humans common subconscious". Although I don't see a "need" for a creator, I have no problem with it. But it's definitely not the guy you are supposed to meet in an average american backcountry church.
Help! My SIG expired! [sighist]
peterchen wrote: ooops... the "Reverend" was a bit misleading, I guess Paul Watson referred to me as "Reverend Stan Shannon" a few weeks ago, and I'm just having some fun with it. :) peterchen wrote: not the guy you are supposed to meet in an average american backcountry church. You could do worse. Most of 'em are darned fine folks. :) "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
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
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. I believe the earth was create by God in six days. I don't know how long ago it was, but 6,000 years is not a problem for me to believe. Call me a fool, but I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I have faith. And that is what it's all about. 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. Jason Gerard
-
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. I believe the earth was create by God in six days. I don't know how long ago it was, but 6,000 years is not a problem for me to believe. Call me a fool, but I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I have faith. And that is what it's all about. 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. Jason Gerard
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
-
No, I mean cannot, in the sense that we do not live long enough. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Sure we do, various insects developed resistance to DDT and other insecticides within the course of a few years. The flu virus mutates almost every year, which is why they have to come up with a new shot every year.
