- 3,001
God created living creatures. Also, he didn't strategically place fossils? What makes you say that?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,258 views
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
... the point being, if he had read some of the thread, he would know about the fossil placement argument already... 💡
....If you believe that God created the Earth 6000 years ago, then it should follow that you also believe that He created the whole universe at that point as well? (Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.)
So here's a thought...
If the universe is just 6000 years old, then every object in it, no matter how distant from the Earth, is no more than 6000 years old... that must be the case if Genesis is literally correct...
But most objects in the night sky are alot further away than that... infact, our galaxy alone is some 100,000 light years across... our planet is about 28,000 light years from the centre of the galaxy... but if the universe is only 6000 years old, then we should only be able to see objects up to 6000 light years away (given that light travels at a finite speed)... but this is clearly not the case... there are literally billions of objects visible from Earth.. our Sun is a typical example of a star, and it is some 1.4 million kilometers across. Each of those billions of stars are also on that scale, although many are much bigger (e.g. Betelgeuse, estimated to be around 600 times larger than the Sun... )... given that our nearest neighbouring star is some 4 light years away (that's about 50 trillion kilometers away...), the space required to accomodate those billions of similarly sized objects (that are clearly visible from Earth) must be in the region of hundreds of thousands of light years, yet we still see them all... hence, the assertion that the Universe is only 6000 years old, is palpable nonsense...
... my problem is not with the text of the Bible itself, it's with the people who insist on taking it so literally... perhaps God did create all life, perhaps he did create the Universe... perhaps it did only take him 6 days... but those 6 days were not October 17-22, 4004 BC... they were much much longer ago than that, and the evidence is clear to see every time you look into the night sky...
....If you believe that God created the Earth 6000 years ago, then it should follow that you also believe that He created the whole universe at that point as well? (Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.)
So here's a thought...
If the universe is just 6000 years old, then every object in it, no matter how distant from the Earth, is no more than 6000 years old... that must be the case if Genesis is literally correct...
But most objects in the night sky are alot further away than that... infact, our galaxy alone is some 100,000 light years across... our planet is about 28,000 light years from the centre of the galaxy... but if the universe is only 6000 years old, then we should only be able to see objects up to 6000 light years away (given that light travels at a finite speed)... but this is clearly not the case... there are literally billions of objects visible from Earth.. our Sun is a typical example of a star, and it is some 1.4 million kilometers across. Each of those billions of stars are also on that scale, although many are much bigger (e.g. Betelgeuse, estimated to be around 600 times larger than the Sun... )... given that our nearest neighbouring star is some 4 light years away (that's about 50 trillion kilometers away...), the space required to accomodate those billions of similarly sized objects (that are clearly visible from Earth) must be in the region of hundreds of thousands of light years, yet we still see them all... hence, the assertion that the Universe is only 6000 years old, is palpable nonsense...
... my problem is not with the text of the Bible itself, it's with the people who insist on taking it so literally... perhaps God did create all life, perhaps he did create the Universe... perhaps it did only take him 6 days... but those 6 days were not October 17-22, 4004 BC... they were much much longer ago than that, and the evidence is clear to see every time you look into the night sky...
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Well, not really... my point is that you shouldn't take Genesis literally... I don't believe that "creation" was a single event that occured over a finite period of time with finite consequences as described in the Bible... 'Creation' is happening right now, throughout the universe... new stars and planets are forming continually, and doubtless new life is appearing all over the universe, in myriad forms... and it doesn't take 6 days to make a planet, nor does it take a few days, weeks, or months for new species to evolve... both things take aeons to happen, but there is no place for these realities within creationist arguments, simply because their literal interpretation of the Bible forbids it...
- 283
- PjotrStroganov
- PjotrStroganov
Touring Mars
No matter how objective you try to explain why many thing in the bible shouldn't be taken litterally, people who do take it litterally will not be convinced anyway. That is because the discussion of science vs religion is one of reason vs faith. Faith is much more embedded in humans. The whole thing about reason is that opinions can be changed.
I have seen such a discussion on another forum, where the amount of creationists and "orthodox" christians was much higher. Supporters of the evolution theory had a much harder time to convince others, because there just wasn't a real discussion based on facts.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
PjotrStroganov
Unfortunately I agree... it seems opinions based on faith are difficult to change... but at the same time, it's important to remember that the creation v evolution debate is not entirely a science v religion debate. Although not religious myself, I think there is ample room for faith and religion to co-exist peacefully with modern scientific thinking (such as the theory of evolution)... it's only when certain findings from science seemingly directly contradict the literal word of the Bible that the battle-lines get drawn...
Ironically, creation theory itself goes counter to the very point of faith... If faith is about trusting God and the unknowns of the universe, then why do creation theorists feel the need to explain the unexplainable?? Evolution theory merely attempts to explain what is actually happening... and leaves the conjecture about pre-evolutionary times to religion and the faithful... Creation theory, however, for me anyway, serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to misinform, mislead, and muddy the waters of reality...
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Well, if you ask me, it's because many religious people feel the fundamental need to make others believe as they do and have the same faith as they do. So it's an attempt to persuade the non-believers to believe. They know we'll dismiss it unless it can be backed with something other than pure scripture-based faith, so they attempt to put a veneer of rationality over something that is fundamentally irrational.Touring Mars
- 283
- PjotrStroganov
- PjotrStroganov
Burnout, I have the feeling you don't support the evolution theory and want others to come with "Well, we don't really know yet," crap, so that you can tell them they're wrong.
But, I can tell you were we came from, according to the majority of most scientists who study evolution related sciences. We came from Africa. Good enough?
But, I can tell you were we came from, according to the majority of most scientists who study evolution related sciences. We came from Africa. Good enough?
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I have a solid answer in which I believe, based on the strongest facts and theories derived from those facts that I can find. That answer is that we evolved from an ever-increasingly complex chain of organisms that evolved from simpler organisms that were able to reproduce themselves.
Note that Evolutionary Theory does not and was never intended to answer the question of the origin of life itself. That's more of a biochemistry issue. Current best thinking has it that organic compounds spontaneously developed (over millions, if not billions of years) the ability to replicate themselves. This replication process became increasingly more complex and efficient, leading to the rise of differentation and speciation. This is where evolutionary theory takes over.
Scientists are comfortable with not knowing 100% of everything, and are much more interested in the journey towards 100%. They don't feel the spiritualist's need to shortcut the learning process by throwing away rational thought and grasping for a supernatural explanation.
Note that Evolutionary Theory does not and was never intended to answer the question of the origin of life itself. That's more of a biochemistry issue. Current best thinking has it that organic compounds spontaneously developed (over millions, if not billions of years) the ability to replicate themselves. This replication process became increasingly more complex and efficient, leading to the rise of differentation and speciation. This is where evolutionary theory takes over.
Scientists are comfortable with not knowing 100% of everything, and are much more interested in the journey towards 100%. They don't feel the spiritualist's need to shortcut the learning process by throwing away rational thought and grasping for a supernatural explanation.
- 1,153
Burnout
You guys are so hung up on belief it's funny
If you jump off a building with the belief that you can fly, do you believe that it will make any difference as to the outcome Try Google if you really want to know...me thinks you don't
Here's the answer...Woman popped out of a 900 year old mans rib, and their two sons created the whole population....obviously with some more rib tricks as there weren't any women
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine
No, however, since we are all people and emotional beings. We do hang on certain "beliefs" Most of which were taught to us by our parents. But these are things that have no foundation in fact, but do infact hold true in life.
If you want to say that your beliefs don't sway fact. That's fine and very feasible. However, to say that you do not "believe" doesn't make sense.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Nevertheless, belief is not required. Rational thinking and logic can lead you from observed evidence to theory - and to further ways to test the theory. Whether or not I "believe" that the theory is correct or incorrect is immaterial since it is demonstrable and proveable.
I do not "believe" in evolutionary theory any more than I "believe" a kettle full of water which has just successfully boiled will be hot.
I do not "believe" in evolutionary theory any more than I "believe" a kettle full of water which has just successfully boiled will be hot.
- 2,808
If you cannot answer where, exactly, we originated, then somewhere along the line of whatever theory you believe to be correct, or the fact as you may put it, you must believe in something which cannot be proven (that is to say, for example, that scientist think, or believe, that we evolved from simpler forms, the likes of which theory cannot be proven scientifically, or otherwise, but rather require belief). Simple as that.Famine
- 1,620
Burnout
Famine just explained exactly why scientists with rational thought do not need to believe in anything. If a scientist doesn't know something, they're just comfortable with that hole in their knowledge until some solid evidence comes along (maybe never!). They only make up theories based upon what might logically be correct, and then set out to test that theory. It is only ever a THEORY until proven/disproven, never a belief. If its proven, it becomes fact, if disproven, its obviously rubbish.
- 1,168
Ever looked at a Paracemwhatducallitvirusthingy under a microscope?
Proof of evolution is found when comparing it to other germs and bacterium. This atleast proves that microscopic organisms evolve, since humans are essentially a "superscopic" framework of these cells and germs why shouldnt we evolve???
OK, maybe I lost you, why do you think Giraffes exist in places where food is hard to reach, why not have horses or zeberas?
Answer: probably giraffes evolved from a sort of horse like animal. Because cells constantly change by "accident" a few Giraffes would have longer necks. All the short-necked Giraffes would die, and the longer-necked ones would breed. Both Giraffes DNA would tell the baby to have an even longer neck. It would breed with another survivor and the baby would have an even longer neck, etc etc etc.
10,000 years later all Giraffes would have VERY VERY VERY long necks. They are still growing...
Or try this one, if we are all cross breeding why is everyone not retarded?
Humans are getting smarter, not dumber!
Proof of evolution is found when comparing it to other germs and bacterium. This atleast proves that microscopic organisms evolve, since humans are essentially a "superscopic" framework of these cells and germs why shouldnt we evolve???
OK, maybe I lost you, why do you think Giraffes exist in places where food is hard to reach, why not have horses or zeberas?
Answer: probably giraffes evolved from a sort of horse like animal. Because cells constantly change by "accident" a few Giraffes would have longer necks. All the short-necked Giraffes would die, and the longer-necked ones would breed. Both Giraffes DNA would tell the baby to have an even longer neck. It would breed with another survivor and the baby would have an even longer neck, etc etc etc.
10,000 years later all Giraffes would have VERY VERY VERY long necks. They are still growing...
Or try this one, if we are all cross breeding why is everyone not retarded?
Humans are getting smarter, not dumber!
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Burnout
Do you honestly think that religious belief/creationist belief answers your question better than a scientist can answer your question?? The reality is that no-one knows the answer to your question, yet you seem to think that we should know.... if you claim to know, as creationists do, then you are wrong, because you don't. Science, and evolutionary theory, does not claim to know either...
Creationists will have you believe that the answer is that life was 'created' by God... and that everything God created was intellegently designed... but then, how do you explain the presence of God...? Another God...?
Perhaps you should give the current scientific knowledge the credit it deserves... we know a whole lot about the origins of life, but not everything... evolutionary theory can explain where we as a species originated from, but Creationism does not... Creationists will have you believe that humans have existed for as long as the Earth has.... that is simply not true and is scientifically verifiable... if you want to argue this point, read some of my most recent posts in this thread and then get back to me....
Science may not satisfy you, but unlike Creationism, it doesn't seek easy answers to very complex questions.... and neither should you.
- 1,620
Swift
Yes it does. Famine had already disproved it regardless. I helped explain in a general sense why Burnout's premise was flawed. His assumption that scientists believe in un-proven theories was totally wrong. If a scientist believed in something without feeling the need to test the theory and prove it conclusively, then they're a pretty lousy scientist. I would say they wouldn't be a scientist any more at that point.
- 1,168
We know that things evolve, FULL STOP (period 
)
The only theory part of this is, did we?
I and most sane people will agree here, YES!
Babies born with 6 or 3 fingers are proof of the never-ending stream of random mutations trying to find the recipe for a "Superhuman"
And if (as no doubt will happen) all humans die out and are replaced with "Superhumans" they will continue to evolve maybe growing extra heads (two cores= twice the logical processing power) or eyes (SLI pwns 1 GPU setups!!!)
)The only theory part of this is, did we?
I and most sane people will agree here, YES!
Babies born with 6 or 3 fingers are proof of the never-ending stream of random mutations trying to find the recipe for a "Superhuman"
And if (as no doubt will happen) all humans die out and are replaced with "Superhumans" they will continue to evolve maybe growing extra heads (two cores= twice the logical processing power) or eyes (SLI pwns 1 GPU setups!!!)
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Flame-returnsWe know that things evolve, FULL STOP (period
No we don't ... that is the whole point of this thread...
