Creation vs. Evolution

[photohikedive]

Kind, not species. How much room do you need?

an exerpt from Mark Twain's "Letters From The Earth"

Noah began to collect animals. There was to be one couple of each and every sort of creature that walked or crawled, or swam or flew, in the world of animated nature. We have to guess at how long it took to collect the creatures and how much it cost, for there is no record of these details. When Symmachus made preparation to introduce his young son to grown-up life in imperial Rome, he sent men to Asia, Africa and everywhere to collect wild animals for the arena-fights. It took the men three years to accumulate the animals and fetch them to Rome. Merely quadrupeds and alligators, you understand -- no birds, no snakes, no frogs, no worms, no lice, no rats, no fleas, no ticks, no caterpillars, no spiders, no houseflies, no mosquitoes -- nothing but just plain simple quadrupeds and alligators: and no quadrupeds except fighting ones. Yet it was as I have said: it took three years to collect them, and the cost of animals and transportation and the men's wages footed up $4,500,000.

 

[photohikedive]

photohikedive,



Your sig, what does it relate to?

my current means of aquatic transportation, at least on the surface

 

[MikeFerrara]

If I recall, the Bible, either in genesis or exodus, lays out very specific instructions regarding dietary behaviors, the treatment of women with regards to hygienic issues, food preparation and so on. It's been a while since I read it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Do fundamentalist Christians follow these detailed instructions, as the Jews do, and if not, why not? Christ, when admonished by the Pharisees for not washing or following other dietary requirements as required by the Law, rejects the Law. Is not Christ the new covenant, to replace the old?

Yes Christ fulfilled Mosaic law and hence the new convinent. That doesn't mean that we throw out the Old Tetament. It does mean that we are no longer under Mosaic law in terms of sacrificial and ritual law.

Also notice that the last verse I quoted for you is not from the old Tetament.

As for other aspects of the new testament, such as the acts of the apostles, revelation, the letters of Paul, they were written by people who never met Christ and, even in the case of the gospel of John, never even met anyone who had met Christ. There is no historical evidence that these writings contain anything but second-hand stories or the personal philosphy of the authors.

We've been all over authorship of the New Testament books earlier in the thread so I don't know that we should rehash it all but, in short, obviously those who believe the Bible is the word of God don't believe everything that secular historians have to say on the subject.

 

[photohikedive]

We've been all over authorship of the New Testament books earlier in the thread so I don't know that we should rehash it all but, in short, obviously those who believe the Bible is the word of God don't believe everything that secular historians have to say on the subject.

it is this sort of comment..... "we don't care what the facts are, they don't coincide with what we want to believe" that tends to ruin otherwise thoughtful arguments

 

[MikeFerrara]

don't argue with Mike. he'll just throw in a bunch of Bible verses from all over that
don't quite say what he says they say, and argue that it's crystal clear



and when you show him a crystal clear verse, he'll throw in a bunch of other Bible verses that make everything muddled and say that the verse you first quoted is far from clear and it doesn't mean what it says



for example, when Jesus said, "some of you won't taste death before you see the Son of Man coming in his glory," that's not what he meant.

somehow Jesus meant something else, like "what i mean is that 2,000 years from now, you'll all be dead, but i won't have showed up yet. don't worry."

Gee Andy, I think that's a complete misrepresentation of what I said. In your example I said that I believed that Jesus was refering to the transfiguration. I tried to carefully lay out exactly what I thought that. Of course, what I did write, is still on the board so those who are interested can go look it up and see for themselves..

With that, I'm afraid that I'm going to bow out of this thread because it has turned to personal attacks and I've gotten some strange PM's. The tolerant secularists can be a scary bunch at times.

 

[tangaloomaflyer]

I find the resurgence of creationism at best comical and at worst a step backward in the development of our understanding of how the biosphere came to be.

Evolutionary theory and religion can happily co-exist. The faithful may see the hand of their God directing the chance mutations that must occur for evolution to progress. Evolutionary theory is not concrned with why we are here and or what power if any created the universe. The wording of your comments about the big bang seem to imply that to subscribe to evolutionary theory you must refute the existence of God as creator of the universe, a view that many enlightened Deiists would object to.

Whatever your personal beliefs the findings of fair, objective science should never be cast into doubt by matters of faith. You mention that you believe evolutionary theory is no good. It is simply your belief that the theory is no good. If you were to rationally analyse the available evidence, you would quickly come to the conclusion that the elegantly simple method of evolution (complex forms arising from random incremental changes, selected and concentrated by advantages conferred) is a much more satisfactory theory than that all the lifeforms on Earth were put there in a week about 6000yrs ago by an omnipotent deity.

You ask how old do people think the world really is? I think it is about 4.6 billion years old. I think this because it is the figure concluded by scientific investigation using radiometric dating and it is a figure that ties in with our knowledge of the history of the solar system. You think the world is only 6 or 7 thousand years old. Why?! Because thats just what you feel? Because someone told you?

Do you believe the Earth is the centre of the universe? That is one reading of the bible that seems to have gone out of fashion. Decades of cosmic observations tell us otherwise but should'nt we have FAITH and believe it?

 

[sandjeep]

Originally Posted by sandjeep
Yes, I will state also that nothing has ever been discovered in Archeology that disproves the Bible and historical events.

Andy says

that's not true.
you say that because you haven't taken the time to study archeology.
you just read one side of the story, and think that's sufficient.
on the other hand, you probably shouldn't waste your time reading archeology. you'd find some way to discount the evidence.

Well Andy, the evidence must not be that strong then.

because NOTHING can prove to you that God is not real? am i right?
you'd still believe.

Nothing on this side of the curtain of death will ever cause me to doubt the existence of God.

 

[photohikedive]

With that, I'm afraid that I'm going to bow out of this thread because it has turned to personal attacks and I've gotten some strange PM's. The tolerant secularists can be a scary bunch at times.

If this is the case, I am sorry. I for one Mike, enjoyed your participation in the discussion. While our views may differ, I thought you handled your side of the debate very well.

I do not belive that Andy's posts are so much personal attack as friendly jabs. To read his posts in the past, is to see this as his way.

 

[MikeFerrara]

it is this sort of comment..... "we don't care what the facts are, they don't coincide with what we want to believe" that tends to ruin otherwise thoughtful arguments

Sorry, I didn't see this so I'll respond quickly on my way out.

I don't know who you are quoting here with this "we don't care what the facts are, they don't coincide with what we want to believe" but it isn't me.

What some "historians" would like to present as facts are not facts at all but their interpretation of the evidence that they have chosen to accept based on on their own bias.

Have a good one.

 

[sandjeep]

photohikedive,

An excert from the feasibility study in John Woodmorappe’s book currently in print.

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

You just quoted Mark twain? Hey, he's a good source if I want to fool someone into painting my fence I'll agree, however....