Creation vs. Evolution

[SeaYoda]

...I think that the most telling arguement for evolution is something you already said which is that all scientific evidence points to evolution and there just isn't any that makes a case for creation. I don't think I've been quick to discount it as an option, I just have not one shred of proof to hang a hat on. If such a thing does appear I will respectfully reconsider my stance, but I just can't see how it could have happened as written without ANY small inconsistency that we can look to for the alternative explanation. R

Thanks for the update on the PE theory.

I won't ever have in my hands tangible evidence that irrefutably says God created the universe. I'm at kind of a disadvantage because I start with God wanting us to believe and not see:

Heb 11:1
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NKJV
Heb 11:3
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
NKJV

Rom 8:24-25
24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
NKJV

I guess in this fight I'm like the Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie - I have to fight with no arms and legs . If we get evidence that is conclusive that God could not have done what is claimed in His creation, I'll change my mind too .

 

[MikeFerrara]

I think that the most telling arguement for evolution is something you already said which is that all scientific evidence points to evolution and there just isn't any that makes a case for creation. I don't think I've been quick to discount it as an option, I just have not one shred of proof to hang a hat on. If such a thing does appear I will respectfully reconsider my stance, but I just can't see how it could have happened as written without ANY small inconsistency that we can look to for the alternative explanation.

R

Except, that as far as I could find out, they can't yet explain the existance of the very first living thing let alone anything that could be called a cell. From the little reading I did, I don't see any eason to believe that it's possible let alone likely.

I doesn't seem to me that you can have evolution without life. Until science can explain the generation of the very first cell they are nowhere at all, as far as I can tell.

Once you have life, I suppose that you can start over with the examination and arguement about how it did or didn't evolve.

 

[MikeFerrara]

This is rich...

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back for some 60 million years, as one of the oldest of all surviving placental mammal groups. Most paleontologists consider that primates share a common ancestor with the bats, another extremely ancient lineage, and that this ancestor probably lived during the late Cretaceous together with the last dinosaurs.

So, lets see if I got this straight. The ooz comes to life although we don't seem to even have a plausible theory as to how that might have happened. Then around the time of the dinos we have a bat-monkey kind of thing. But...we can't explain or show evidence of the path in order argue it one way or the other. Already we are at a point where we can't explain what heppened during most of the earths history (4.5 billion years?). Then some of those bat-monkeys become bats while others get more monkey. I don't suppose we can show just how that happened either, can we?

Even if we start with the primates that could even be considered viable candidates for ending up as people we're into just the last few million million years.

Is it just me or do we have about a billion times as many blank pages in our book as we do pages that are filled in? They can't even do a complete job of getting from the various other primates to man, never mind from batmonkey to primate or from ooz to batmonkey.

I'm not a biologist but I spent a good number of years as an engineer and I can tell you this...I would have never been able to get dollar number ONE from the finance guys with a story this full of completely blank holes and pure conjecture. They would have taken away my engineering c-card and sent me to work on the dock.

 

[wardric]

Yeah, sometimes, I see documentaries and think that some scientists with a 2 inches fragment of bone tend to jump to conclusions like: "this bone belonged to a middle aged man with a birthmark on his forearm who was coming back from hunting empty handed and was thinking, oh, my, the wife's gonna be p.o.ed that I didn't catch supper."

On the other hand, the Bible is not full of blanks, it's all blank. It relies on faith alone. No proofs. Just pages written by humans.

We'll know the truth one day (or we wont care if there's nothing).

 

[Iruka]

As a number of people have said earlier, I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here. I think the crux of the problem is how the bible (or any religious text) is viewed. Belief in a "god" or supreme being does not necessarily mean belief in a particular text or religion. The basis of science is essentially observation of nature used to develop hypotheses & theories.....if the facts don't fit the theory, then it must be altered. I think creationism, in general, starts with the premise that "the bible is true, because it's the word of God" and any facts observed must be made....or interpreted...to fit into this "truth." Many people believe the bible to be literally the word of God....while others see it as a book of many translations over the millennium from...I think it was first Aramaic (sp?) then Hebrew, Latin & various European languages. Somewhere along the line, somehow this came to be accepted as God's word by many. That's okay with me; people are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they want. But while the bible/koran/talmud/etc might have pertinent things to say about life, morality etc., I personally don't feel they supercede observable data. So from a scientific point of view, quotes from these documents/texts aren't very persuasive. Evolution seems to be the "best fit" for most observable facts, though, as with any legitimate scientific pursuit, it will be fine-tuned, adapted, or even discarded if new facts come to light which render it invalid. In science, "knowing" the truth before you have all the data will lead people down the wrong path....one must be willing to throw away what is believed to be the "truth" if facts prove it wrong.

Anyhow, again, everyone is free to believe what they want. (I believe Halle Berry is going to come to Guam soon for diving lessons! )

 

[scubafool]

even pizza that tastes like dirt is darn good... you just need more beer.
i dont' know how many slices of pizza i've dropped on carpets with dog and cat hair, or out in the dirt of the backyard, sand, water, even paint ... and more
beer always makes it taste real good

so, who cares whether it's cheese or dirt?

Gems of wisdom such as this are what makes me love you so (in a non-BrokeBack kind of way, mind you). So many posts with so little content, but occasionally you redeem yourself.

Ok, off to finish reading this thread.

 

[H2Andy]

That's not how it works...at least in the Bible.

but aren't you making a big assumption here that the Bible = truth?

if you see facts that directly contradict the Bible, would you not disregard them
and believe the Bible?

so, you see, nothing can possibly challenge your circular line of reasoning

which is fine, and i respect you for having made that choice in the deepest part of your core.

just saying, it doesn't seem open to challenge or re-evaluation

 

[Green_Manelishi]

but aren't you making a big assumption here that the Bible = truth?

if you see facts that directly contradict the Bible, would you not disregard them
and believe the Bible?

so, you see, nothing can possibly challenge your circular line of reasoning

which is fine, and i respect you for having made that choice in the deepest part of your core.

just saying, it doesn't seem open to challenge or re-evaluation

It's not an assumption.

If it's a fact it will not directly contradict the Bible. Nor is faith circular reasoning.

Please provide a "fact that directly contradicts The Bible".

 

[H2Andy]

the sun cannot stop in the sky, as the book of Judges tells us happened

the Red Sea cannot part for Israelites to walk through and then drown the Egyptians

a virgin can't have a baby

no one can come back from the dead. no one ever has, no one ever will.

some more complicated ones: the (Babylonian) creation myths that the Bible echoes don't reflect what we know of the world. for example, plants were created before the sun. plants can not survive without the sun.

also, woman was not taken from man's rib. both men and women have an identical number of ribs.

Jesus said he would return while some listening to him would still be alive. it's been
2,000 years and he's not back yet.

and so on.

 

[MikeFerrara]

On the other hand, the Bible is not full of blanks, it's all blank. It relies on faith alone. No proofs. Just pages written by humans.

Of course, a lot of us disagree.

Moses wrote Exodus and he was there. He's the guy with the burning bush remember?

Mathew and John knew Jesus and were eye witnesses.

Luke wasn't an eye witness to the events recounted in the Gospel of Luke but he certainly was eye witness to many of the events that he documented in the Book of Acts. Luke spent time with Paul and documented the story of Pauls own conversion on the road to Domascus. A guy making a living persecuting Christians one minute (and enjoying his job) and teaching the gospel to gentiles the next. An amazing story in itself. Not only did they not profit by their lies if they weren't telling the truth but it got them beat, thrown in prison and in most cases killed. Then of course there are the many many old Testament prophisies that were fulfilled. Of course I realize theat the authorship of many of the books of the Bible are disputed by so called scholars however after reading both sides, I think their case is as weak as the scientific basis for ooz comming to life on it's own. In fact these arguements seem to share a lot with some of the science we're discussing here. So much of it smells like people wildly and desperately grasping at anything-but-God-straws.

You might not consider it as proof but many have gone to prison or even the electric chair with far less proof.

It will all continue right to the end just as we see it now and the Bible fortold that also.