Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

As Far as the dinosaur thing goes....

Ok, the Garden of Eden was not the entire planet. It was a specific section of property with two rivers coming through it. It was not endless. So, there could've been mass amounts of other animals all over the planet that weren't described in Genesis chapter 1. Infact, I'm sure of it. But since I'm really not worried about how the animals got here it's not a big deal for me.

I'm willing to listen to any logic. But my challenge is that the logic of creation of evolution is broken. It doesn't go from nothing to us. It goes from "however life started" to us. That's my challenge.

 

[code_kev]

Which, I might add, include fictional animals like the Basilisk and Unicorn...

Your kidding. You have to be. It's just too ridiculous.

I can see the fundies now "OMG Unicorns existed!!11"

 

[Swift]

It's not even slightly loaded.

However, I'll make it easier for you.

Here is Luke. Luke lived around the time of Christ (4-36AD). Here is a volcano. It is erupting. Ask Luke what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Here is Yamada-san. Yamada-san is a vulcanologist and was born in 1972. Here is a volcano. It is eurpting. Ask Yamada-san what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Which of the two explanations do you take as being true? Why do you prefer that explanation over the other?

It's simple enough and the point should reveal itself in your answer.



Why wouldn't He? It's a big book and there's been plenty of time to write it. Why just pick on the 126 ones named? Which, I might add, include fictional animals like the Basilisk and Unicorn...



Hmm. Interesting.

I really think that you guys have the wrong idea of what the bible is. The bible is for us to reveal God and his salvation to us. To give us a guide for our lives. It shows the beginning, middle and ending. Why not list all the animals that existed at the time? Because it's pointless. Oh, how do you know a unicorn never existed? You don't, just because you can't find a fossil of one doesn't mean it never existed.

With the Volcano thing....The answer is the same. I understand that humans knowledge of the planet and all has increased exponentially through time, but you still haven't sited a place in the bible where "magic" takes place.

 

[code_kev]

Oh, how do you know a unicorn never existed?

The same reason I know that vampires and the bogeyman don't exist. Common bloody sense.

 

[Swift]

The same reason I know that vampires and the bogeyman don't exist. Common bloody sense.

Whoa whoa, I said never existed, I didn't say currently existed. There are plenty of animals that existed before we had a chance to record them in anykind of history books. Do you mean to tell me unless you dig up a fossil of it, it never existed?

 

[code_kev]

Do you mean to tell me unless you dig up a fossil of it, it never existed?

Just because ONE religious text (iffy at best when used for evidence) says it did means nothing to me. No findings + No other real support for the existance = ridiculous. If they existed only 6k years ago, evidence would exist.

 

[Swift]

Just because ONE religious text (iffy at best when used for evidence) says it did means nothing to me. No findings + No other real support for the existance = ridiculous. If they existed only 6k years ago, evidence would exist.

Ok bud. that's fine. Frankly, I don't even want to convince people that evolution is wrong. But that it is a flawed line of thinking that doesn't begin or end in resolution.

 

[Famine]

With the Volcano thing....The answer is the same. I understand that humans knowledge of the planet and all has increased exponentially through time

So, whose answer do you prefer to be "the truth"?

In your own time.

Here is Luke. Luke lived around the time of Christ (4-36AD). Here is a volcano. It is erupting. Ask Luke what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Here is Yamada-san. Yamada-san is a vulcanologist and was born in 1972. Here is a volcano. It is eurpting. Ask Yamada-san what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Which of the two explanations do you take as being true? Why do you prefer that explanation over the other?

 

[smellysocks12]

No, common sense invalidates the creation theory.




Famine why do you even bother? I TOLD you not to get into a discussion with jesus freaks.




It's like telling someone with the down syndrome not to act so damn retarded.

 

[Swift]

So, whose answer do you prefer to be "the truth"?

In your own time.

The bible is not man's word. It is inspired by God and written by men. But you don't believe that so no matter what I say in what answer I look like a moron. Clever question that honestly evades the subject of devine intervintion.

And you still won't show me somewhere in the bible that magic happened. So until you show me that, there's no point at all to your question.



Smellysocks, call me what ever you want as long as you leave Jesus in there.

 

[Famine]

The bible is not man's word. It is inspired by God and written by men. But you don't believe that so no matter what I say in what answer I look like a moron. Clever question that honestly evades the subject of devine intervintion.

And you still won't show me somewhere in the bible that magic happened. So until you show me that, there's no point at all to your question.

I'm not talking about magic, and I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm asking a simple question.

Here is Luke. Luke lived around the time of Christ (4-36AD). Here is a volcano. It is erupting. Ask Luke what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Here is Yamada-san. Yamada-san is a vulcanologist and was born in 1972. Here is a volcano. It is eurpting. Ask Yamada-san what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Which of the two explanations do you take as being true? Why do you prefer that explanation over the other?

Incidentally, would you not describe the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of Lazarus and the Plagues of Egypt as events of a magical quality?

 

[Swift]

I'm not talking about magic, and I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm asking a simple question.

It's not a simple question. and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest why Luke would thing that the volcano erupted. Because Luke was just a pen for God when he was writing the bible. So who cares. If you question isn't in reference to the bible, then why ask it?

Yes, I would call those events mystical and incredible.

 

[Famine]

It's not a simple question. and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest why Luke would thing that the volcano erupted. Because Luke was just a pen for God when he was writing the bible. So who cares. If you question isn't in reference to the bible, then why ask it?

Actually, I randomly picked the name Luke. Your Luke of course didn't write his gospel until some 30-50 years after the Luke in my question.

This thread isn't in reference to the Bible. It's in reference to "Creation vs. Evolution".

The important thing is not why I'm asking it but why you are so resolutely refusing to answer it, citing non-issues.

Here is Luke. Luke lived around the time of Christ (4-36AD). Here is a volcano. It is erupting. Ask Luke what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Here is Yamada-san. Yamada-san is a vulcanologist and was born in 1972. Here is a volcano. It is eurpting. Ask Yamada-san what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Which of the two explanations do you take as being true? Why do you prefer that explanation over the other?

 

[Swift]

This is about creation. Creation is based on the first 5 chapters of Genesis. How can it NOT be about the bible?

The fact that you randomly picked the name luke that is an entire chapter in the new testament shows the level of ignorance only matched by mine(earlier) about evolutionary theory.

Also, you're asking a person that is of normal education level and comparing him to an expert. What kind of comparison would that be? I could ask what a doctor would thing make the the person have a heart attack then and ask a person of average education now. I doubt the answers would be much different.

So again, why am I answering a question that makes zero sense?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

For anyone that's interested, the BBC are running a five episode documentary on the 500million years of evolution on the planet earth.

It's called "Journey of Life" and tonights episode is the amphibians crawling out of the sea

I'm sure Famine new this already, but so far I've learned that the armoured arthropods are the most successful species on the planet...Go arthropods 👍

Also the five fingers and four limbs is an ancient blue print that land based animals have inherited.

Our first true ancestor is not the monkey (or ape to more accurate)..it is a four legged air breathing amphibian

You have to admit that the four leg, five toes is a bit of a clue to a link...that...and the same number of vertebrae...yes including Giraffes...they have twelve in their necks, the same as you and me

 

[Swift]

For anyone that's interested, the BBC are running a five episode documentary on the 500million years of evolution on the planet earth.

It's called "Journey of Life" and tonights episode is the amphibians crawling out of the sea

I'm sure Famine new this already, but so far I've learned that the armoured arthropods are the most successful species on the planet...Go arthropods 👍

Also the five fingers and four limbs is an ancient blue print that land based animals have inherited.

Our first true ancestor is not the monkey (or ape to more accurate)..it is a four legged air breathing amphibian

You have to admit that the four leg, five toes is a bit of a clue to a link...that...and the same number of vertebrae...yes including Giraffes...they have twelve, the same as you and me

Let me ask you, have you eaten any of your dung recently? or thrown it at someone else? Because that's what monkeys and apes do.

 

[code_kev]

Well we do share some characteristics with them, facial expressions etc.

Swift, what you said is pretty damn stupid. Notice how people have different colour skins, shaped eyes depending on where their ancestors were from? EVOLUTION BABY! Now imagine that happening over a longer period of time, and apes to humans is quite plausable, hell remains been found to back it up, and yes, they burial depth etc fits in with the times.

 

[PS]

I suppose the Christophiles in here also dis-count Judahism, Budhism, Sikhism, etc. ? Because of course, your religion is the only right one.

 

[Swift]

Hmm...well PS. You have no faith apparently. So, why do you care if I think I'm right? or even if I think everyone else is wrong.

Sure, I know that Jesus is the way the truth and the Life and that none shell get to the father except through him. But that doesn't mean I go around bashing muslims or jews(I have a jewish best friend for almost 20 years) for not believing what I believe. That would be the most unChristian thing to do.

BTW, why such the horrific, graphical, grotesque avatar? I've actually put you on my ignore list and view your posts in another window because I really don't want that picture on my main browser.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Let me ask you, have you eaten any of your dung recently? or thrown it at someone else? Because that's what monkeys and apes do.

Wasn't there a cartoon of Darwin depicted as an ape...about 150 years ago...

What's with the monkey/ape problem anyway. Why do you find it so offensive?

Since you ask though...my bum hole is in the same place, and I think could throw some...you know, with the two arms and ten fingers, that I have in common with apes...oh yes and the opposing thumb

 

[code_kev]

BTW, why such the horrific, graphical, grotesque avatar? I've actually put you on my ignore list and view your posts in another window because I really don't want that picture on my main browser.

You could just ask him to change it. Personally I couldn't give two hoots.

 

[Swift]

Wasn't there a cartoon of Darwin depicted as an ape...about 150 years ago...

What's with the monkey/ape problem anyway. Why do you find it so offensive?

Since you ask though...my bum hole is in the same place, and I think could throw some...you know, with the two arms and ten fingers, that I have in common with apes...oh yes and the opposing thumb

But of course you don't walk on your hands. But now we're getting into semantics and it's really not pertanant to this discussion.

But since you said that. Do you really want to be a monkey's uncle?

 

[code_kev]

But since you said that. Do you really want to be a monkey's uncle?

Swift, its 2005, not 1900.

Doesn't skin colour count as proof of evoultion?

BTW congrats, you've been brainwashed. 👎

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Swift, there was more to my post than just an ape reference.
You seem to have skipped over the rest and gone straight ahead with your monkey fixation

Edit:

But since you said that. Do you really want to be a monkey's uncle?

Wouldn't I be a "monkeys nephew" as we are saying that we are the descendants...oh never mind

 

[Famine]

Also, you're asking a person that is of normal education level and comparing him to an expert. What kind of comparison would that be?

A pretty reasonable one.

So again, why am I answering a question that makes zero sense?

You aren't. You're dancing around it, like you have with every other question which nails a dagger through the chest of Creation, and totally failing to answer it.

What ARE you so scared of that you won't answer?

The fact that you randomly picked the name luke that is an entire chapter in the new testament shows the level of ignorance

Sure it does. Ignoring the fact of course that I mentioned the Gospel by name two pages ago and gave the approximate date of authorship in the post prior to this.

Is "ignorance" a new word for you? You seem to be using against everyone who doesn't agree with you. Some may construe it as a personal attack. Be careful with what you say and to whom you say it.

This is about creation. Creation is based on the first 5 chapters of Genesis. How can it NOT be about the bible?

The Raelians believe in Creation. They don't read your Bible. There are many, many Creation myths. Don't be fooled into thinking, like religions, that yours is the only one.

 

[Swift]

Swift, its 2005, not 1900.

Doesn't skin colour count as proof of evoultion?

BTW congrats, you've been brainwashed. 👎

How does skin color prove evolution?

Famine: OK, I'd go with the super educated guy about the volcano. So, now what?
My point about the ignorance was that you first picked Luke. KNOWING that it was a book in the bible and all kinds of dates. So that would of course lead me to think that you were talking about that Luke. I know you can follow that train of though.

I also know that I'm not the only one. But it is the correct one.

 

[code_kev]

How does skin color prove evolution?

I'm quite poor at explaining this stuff...

Dark skinned peoples ancesters lived around the equator areas, why? Dark skin = less chance of skin cancer/ burning. The people with darker skin lived longer, had more babies etc, while the paler ones died off. More darker skinned babies, and they have more babies etc etc. While pastey people, such as my self have no need too have skin this dark, why? Well blimey, I guess my ancestors in general lived in colder climates, thus didn't need skin to combat the harsh sun quite so much. As time went on their skin got paler and paler.

 

[Duke]

Let me ask you, have you eaten any of your dung recently? or thrown it at someone else? Because that's what monkeys and apes do.

Nope. That's what a hundred million years' worth of evolution will do for you. You non-evolutionists (or whatever name you care to choose) seem to want to pretend that we think we were apes one day and then *poof* humans the next. That's much more like creationism... evolution would indicate that the change was extremely small and multiplied over many many many generations. So rather than the absurdity of "having a monkey for my uncle", it's more like "a monkey and I share a common ancestor 10 million generations of uncles ago".

And frankly I don't find that even faintly embarrassing, as many creationists seem to. Look how far we've come since then. I find it fairly amazing, myself, and I'm proud of my 10 million ancestors who each took a step higher up that path.

It's like telling someone with the down syndrome not to act so damn retarded.

That's totally uncalled for, and it will not be tolerated at all. If I see another crack like that out of you, you'll be looking for a new forum full of people to offend, because you won't be posting here. Got it?

 

[Swift]

Now I'm gonna make some generalisations.

Dark skinned peoples ancesters lived around the equator areas, why? Dark skin = less chance of skin cancer/ burning. The people with darker skin lived longer, had more babies etc, while the paler ones died off. While pastey people, such as my self have no need to have skin this dark, why? Well blimey, I guess my ancestors in general came from colder climates, thus didn't need skin to combat the harsh sun quite so much. As time went on their skin got paler and paler.

ROFL!!!!! Yeah, black people don't burn or get skin cancer. That was good. Sheesh. I admit that people moving throughout the world changed there appearance due to climate. But that doesn't mean that they all couldn't have come from one place and moved to another.

Nope. That's what a hundred million years' worth of evolution will do for you. You non-evolutionists (or whatever name you care to choose) seem to want to pretend that we think we were apes one day and then *poof* humans the next. That's much more like creationism... evolution would indicate that the change was extremely small and multiplied over many many many generations. So rather than the absurdity of "having a monkey for my uncle", it's more like "a monkey and I share a common ancestor 10 million generations of uncles ago".

And frankly I don't find that even faintly embarrassing, as many creationists seem to. Look how far we've come since then. I find it fairly amazing, myself, and I'm proud of my 10 million ancestors who each took a step higher up that path.

That statment begs the question....where's the middle ground then? I mean intellectually we're leaps and bounds beyond apes and monkeys. So where are the people that are slightly dummer then us?

 

[code_kev]

less chance of skin cancer/ burning.

SHHESSHH I said LESS chance.

I admit that people moving throughout the world changed there appearance due to climate.

So you agree with evolution. Thank you, case closed.

That statment begs the question....where's the middle ground then? I mean intellectually we're leaps and bounds beyond apes and monkeys. So where are the people that are slightly dummer then us?

Remains have been found.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6522090/

an example, not fully on topic, but it's something.