Originally posted by CreepySlashStep away from your computer screen, go outside, walk out of the city to a natural area, and count the number of different species, noting their fundamental unities (you might use a micrscope to examine particular cells). Evolution accounts for all that you will observe, and can even enhance the quality of your observations.
Tell me of some observations for evolution.My evidence is from the Bible,which yes is plain faith.I think that God is more sensible than any other god or evolution for that matter.How can evolution say that a Big Bang brought about such a complex universe.I mean how can random chemical reactions bring about a humans,who have such a complex structure!
Creationism distorts all that you observe, and even misleads you as to the similarities and varieties that you see.
The Bible can do either, depending on how you read it. If you read it literally, it becomes important that you skip many portions, as they will no longer make sense unless you abandon all logic.
Originally posted by WulebgrLogic should be banned.
Step away from your computer screen, go outside, walk out of the city to a natural area, and count the number of different species, noting their fundamental unities (you might use a micrscope to examine particular cells). Evolution accounts for all that you will observe, and can even enhance the quality of your observations.
Creationism distorts all that ...[text shortened]... ant that you skip many portions, as they will no longer make sense unless you abandon all logic.
P-
Originally posted by TheSkipperOk the big bang theory and evolution are different.I have investigated others,but none make sense to me.Please then eplai the basics of evolutin to me then...
Ahhh…ahem, evolution says nothing about the big bang. Evolution and the big bang are two separate theories that answer completely different questions.
Now I have a question. If you do not know the difference between the TOE and the big bang theory why do you think you know enough about either one to make any judgments about their validity at all?
...[text shortened]... nations. Heck, this tactic might even win you some bonus points with your god! 😉
TheSkipper
Originally posted by WulebgrDo you even know what creationism is?If you have a Bible read Genesis Ch.1-2.
Step away from your computer screen, go outside, walk out of the city to a natural area, and count the number of different species, noting their fundamental unities (you might use a micrscope to examine particular cells). Evolution accounts for all that you will observe, and can even enhance the quality of your observations.
Creationism distorts all that ...[text shortened]... ant that you skip many portions, as they will no longer make sense unless you abandon all logic.
Originally posted by CreepySlashWhy don't I read the books on my shelf by Duane Gish and Henry Morris instead? After all, if you had read my posts in this thread, you would see that I have attacked misreadings of Genesis, not the text itself.
Do you even know what creationism is?If you have a Bible read Genesis Ch.1-2.
BTW, I have a stack of Bibles, should I prefer any particular translation?
7 edits
Originally posted by CreepySlashDude, I am glad that you hold to creationism. I to believe in creationism, however, this does not necessarily mean there was not a "Big Bang" and that the earth is not billions of years old. I am what you would call an "Old Earth Creationist". The camp is split between old earth and new earth creationists. For a good explanation of the OEC position please have a look at this site.
Ok the big bang theory and evolution are different.I have investigated others,but none make sense to me.Please then eplai the basics of evolutin to me then...
http://www.worshipradio.com/home/ZolaVideo.html
Just go to the site and click on a video called the six days of creation. One of the points made by Dr. Schroder, who is a physicist, is that science and religion need not be at odds with each other. However, know that Genesis is not a scientific text and science not concern itself with religion. Therefore, the connection between the two can be difficult to assimulate. He points out, for example, that the ancient Hebrew terms for morning and evening are used no where else in the Bible except during the six days of creation. The term evening can be interpreted as "chaos" and morning can be interpreted as "order". Then when Adam and Eve come into being the description of time changes and time becomes normal human time. Inferences can be made in scripture such as Deuteronomy 32:7 "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations......." Here we see a reference to the days of creation and then human time begining. Also look at Psalms 90:4 that says, "For a 1000 years to thy sight are but yesterday when it past, and as a watch to the night." Also consider Genesis 2:4. "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here we see clues to what a day might have meant in Genesis. Also consider what a day represents. A day is one rotation on the earths axis as it rotates around the sun, no? How is it then that the sun was created on the 4rth day? Were the authors stupid or is there something that young earth creationists are missing thinking the days are a literal human type day.
He then goes into a discussion about the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang and the "red shift effect". He correctly states that time varies from place to place in the universe. For example, if you travel in a space ship at thousands of miles an hour and come back to earth after about an hours ride, you may come back to earth after years have passed by even though you only experienced an hour passing. Time can be distorted. He states that every time the universe doubles in size, time halves. He then creates a time line of day one equaling 8 billion years, day two equaling 4 billion years ago and so forth. He shows that the first life occured on day three which was about 3.8 billion years ago and which science supporsts. Day 5 was about 750 million years ago and is when the creatures of the sea were created in Genesis. This simultaneous generation of life is supported by scientific finding and is known as the Cambrian explosion. For me the explosion of life must be creation and not the product of a quick simultaneous evolutionary birth as scientists speculate. All 6 days of creation add up to about 15 billion years which is about what scientists estimate the age of the Big Bang. The video is quite interesting but is a little long. Hope you have time to check it out.
Just keep in mind that science merely observes and then formulates theories based on those observations. Their findings are not manufactured to attack creationists. I will admit that their conclusions are not always accurate and they should admitt as such. They simply formulate the best theories that they can until a better theory comes along based on their findings. However, what choice do they have except believing species evolve into other species unless they incorporate creation into their theory? I am not prepared to believe species can and have evolved into other species. However, there are some evolutionists that are also creationists and believe this is how God creates. Also know that science cannot put God in a test tube and God will not be placed to the test as scripture indicates. THerefore, science does not refer to God because sceince is all about the scientific method and testing things. This does not make science bad, however, and is useful in understanding the laws in which God set up our physical, natural universe.
Originally posted by whodeyYou were doing well till the last paragraph!
Dude, I am glad that you hold to creationism. I to believe in creationism, however, this does not necessarily mean there was not a "Big Bang" and that the earth is not billions of years old. I am what you would call an "Old Earth Creationist". The camp is split between old earth and new earth creationists. For a good explanation of the OEC position please ...[text shortened]... ul in understanding the laws in which God set up our physical, natural universe.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThere is a lot of debate about how God created the earth,but the important qustion is:Who is the God who created the earth?Do you believe He is the Triune God?
Dude, I am glad that you hold to creationism. I to believe in creationism, however, this does not necessarily mean there was not a "Big Bang" and that the earth is not billions of years old. I am what you would call an "Old Earth Creationist". The camp is split between old earth and new earth creationists. For a good explanation of the OEC position please ul in understanding the laws in which God set up our physical, natural universe.
Originally posted by whodeyIt is far more likely that god created nothing , that is if there is a god, and the "creation" was formed by the same natural processes that might have created a god.
Dude, I am glad that you hold to creationism. I to believe in creationism, however, this does not necessarily mean there was not a "Big Bang" and that the earth is not billions of years old. I am what you would call an "Old Earth Creationist". The camp is split between old earth and new earth creationists. For a good explanation of the OEC position please ...[text shortened]... ul in understanding the laws in which God set up our physical, natural universe.
BTW the bible is really junk when it comes to science so if you plan on using it to contradict science , be forewarned, you wont get any agreeement form me.
Originally posted by CreepySlashIt is not an assumption. Modelling the Earth as being very old explains things like radioactive decay, geological formations, why organisms are the way they are, etc.
How is the earth millions of years old?It is just an assumption and evolution bases itself on this assumption.So all evolution could be very easily wrong.
Creation is based on faith in God and His Word(the Bible).
I'm not an expert in either theology or science, but I have read a fair bit around this issue, and it seems to me that the evidence for evolution is questionable. To give just a couple of examples.
1) Genetics - Isn't it true that as animals 'evolve' in the short term, genetic information is actually being lost? How can evolution explain creatures developing greater complexity?
2) How does evolution explain an organ such as the eye, where all the different components need to be in place for the eye to be useful? A partially evolved eye would have been useless wouldn't it?
As for the evidence for creation, well, as with evolution, it can't be proved in a laboratory. For myself, I'm happy to accept that, "The heavens declare the glory of God."