Creation vs. Evolution

[Wolverine]

This is rich...

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



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.

That is why we are still searching. And that is why Evolution is a science and Creationism is not. One day, we would find out how the first cell was created and the process replicated in a controlled environment. One day, we will find the link between mammals and reptiles (like the Protarchaeopteryx is the link between dinosaurs and birds). It is a discovery process. This is science.

That is why there is so much opposition for intelligent design/creationism to be taught in schools as a science. It is religion/faith disguised as science. And it should never be taught as science.

 

[H2Andy]

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?

you know... i'm thinking ... i don't think you'd react too kindly if someone showed this kind of contempt for your beliefs

(so... you're telling me this chick got pregnant and said God got her pregnant? oh yeah... i believe that ... and then ... he walked on water? like... regular water or
was there an oil slick that day?)

that sort of thing

i would ask that we try to keep respect for each other's views in our discussion

i may not agree with your views, but i am not about to start ridiculing them

 

[Green_Manelishi]

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.

Well obviously you proceed from the perspective there is no supernatural world but that what does exist "just happened" despite the lack of evidence and two major stumbling blocks: something from nothing, life from lifelessness.

Anywho ...

The sun does not move; it is more (or less stationary). Given a supernatural God who created the heavens and the earth it would be entirely possible for Him to keep the earth in one place while the enemy was routed.

Why could the Red Sea not be parted? Not long ago man (who is mortal and not omnipotent) would never walk on the moon.

A virgin can have a baby. Invitro (?) fertilization makes in possible for a virgin to have a baby.

The Bible contradicts your statement about death. Were you there to NOT see it happen? People have actually been dead and been revived.

The Bible does not "echo" any myth. It is the foundation. The myths are perverted versions of the truth. Noah and his family knew God. As mankind scattered following the Tower of Babel the truth was lost but elements remained. Hence all the flood myths, the creation myths, etc.

The first thing created was light. Sun etc created after light.

The Bible clearly states the place where Adams rib was removed was filled. God would obviously have filled it with a rib.

What He said (if I recall correctly) is the generation would not pass away. The word generation can also be translated "race".

Since you are so sure it's all crap, you'ld better pray you are correct

 

[H2Andy]

Since you are so sure it's all crap

that's your word, not mine ... i am simply chosing to be skeptical. i can see how
you would believe those things. however, if stated as "facts," i can't help but
determine that they are not correct.

here are a few more items i dug up, in terms of the Bible not being exactly consistent all the time:

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"
2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..."
1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."

1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..."
2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."

2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem"
Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"

1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw
that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..."
2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."

Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle ...two of every sort shall come unto thee..."
Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished:
and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."

two major stumbling blocks: something from nothing, life from lifelessness.

that is, indeed, the great question. i don't think you or i will ever know
(i know your answer; i'm just saying, i don't agree with it).

 

[MikeFerrara]

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

Not at all. I was explaining to him what the Bible says.

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

hmmm I'll have to deal with that if I ever see facts that contradicts the Bible. That hasn't happened yet.

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

My circular line of reasoning?

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

I didn't make the choice.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

That is why we are still searching. And that is why Evolution is a science and Creationism is not. One day, we would find out how the first cell was created and the process replicated in a controlled environment. One day, we will find the link between mammals and reptiles (like the Protarchaeopteryx is the link between dinosaurs and birds). It is a discovery process. This is science.

That is why there is so much opposition for intelligent design/creationism to be taught in schools as a science. It is religion/faith disguised as science. And it should never be taught as science.

Correction. Evolution masquerades as science.

The Protarchaeopteryx is believed to be the link; despite no directly observed change. It might just be a feathery dinosaur. God is very creative and imaginative. So, are we .. made in His image.

 

[H2Andy]

I didn't make the choice.

yes... you did

My circular line of reasoning?

the Bible is truth
but this contradicts the Bible
then that is wrong
why?
because the Bible is truth
how do you know?
because the Bible says it
why do you believe the Bible?
because the Bible is truth
but what if the Bible is wrong?
it can't be, it's truth
how do you know?
because the Bible says it

and so on

 

[Wolverine]

Correction. Evolution masquerades as science.

The Protarchaeopteryx is believed to be the link; despite no directly observed change. It might just be a feathery dinosaur. God is very creative and imaginative. So, are we .. made in His image.

Now that is a statement. How do you expect to have OBSERVABLE change in fossils? One can only say that the fossil records indicate that the theory of evolution is plausible, whereas it totally debunks Creationism.

And the Creationist response to this? Oh, the fossil records are not real. They are planted. How is that for science?! God put it there to confuse people. Yah right. And that is the basis of Creationism? Which is masquerading as science now??

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Now that is a statement. How do you expect to have OBSERVABLE change in fossils? One can only say that the fossil records indicate that the theory of evolution is plausible, whereas it totally debunks Creationism.

And the Creationist response to this? Oh, the fossil records are not real. They are planted. How is that for science?! God put it there to confuse people. Yah right. And that is the basis of Creationism? Which is masquerading as science now??

Yes, it is a statement. The fossil record indicates nothing about the "plausibility" of evolution. Nothing about the fossil record "totally debunks Creationism".

The fossil record clearly shows an "explosion" of life forms; some are no longer alive, others are, some were/are believed to be extinct until a living specimen is/was found. Evolutionists look at the fossils and believe they show some sort of progression; a progression that they did not actually witness and cannot replicate via experimentation. Yet they claim it's "science".

What Creationist claims the fossils are not real? What Creationist claims they are "planted"? Who claims they are "there to confuse people"?

 

[wardric]

The Bible clearly states the place where Adams rib was removed was filled. God would obviously have filled it with a rib.

Why would God take a rib of Adam if he was to replace it with another rib? Why not use the spare part in the first place to make Eve?

I dont think these scriptures were meant to be taken at the first degree, they are symbolic. I dont say God had no part in the creation, just that the Bible's version, written by humans, is not literally the way it happened, IMO.