Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 432,916 views
Tacet_Blue
Good I need a good laugh;)

BTW did you read the article yourself...I wasn't aware that the ark sank

Ever think of the possibility that the ark was "discarded" after its purpose was fulfilled? Do you keep dead batteries laying around your house?
 
I still can't comprehend the size of a "boat" that could carry two of every animal. Maybe someone could explain, as I have only read the first few pages of the Bible, and that was all I needed to make my mind up.
 
One more thing...

the clue is in the URL that you provided..have a look at the end.

2000Sep12&notFound=true

notFound=true...oh the irony :lol: God is indeed a practical joker :lol:

And you notice the date...it's five years old, funny how the story seems to have faded away..maybe it wasn't the ark after all :)
 
Tacet_Blue
One more thing...

the clue is in the URL that you provided..have a look at the end.

2000Sep12&notFound=true

notFound=true...oh the irony :lol: God is indeed a practical joker :lol:

And you notice the date...it's five years old, funny how the story seems to have faded away..maybe it wasn't the ark after all :)

Or maybe events that occured 364 days later... never mind, you wouldn't understand.

pimpin_t
I still can't comprehend the size of a "boat" that could carry two of every animal. Maybe someone could explain, as I have only read the first few pages of the Bible, and that was all I needed to make my mind up.

It could be a metaphor or symbolic of something else.
 
Wayne Gratiot
First, I want to apologize somewhat for being so "over the top" with my previous post, but I intended it to be very harsh for good reason. Some of the fundamentalist creation myth proponents on this thread were getting a little too pompous and rude in their comments when confronted with modern day factual scientific knowledge about the overwhelming evidence of how evolution works and also how extremely preposterous the creation myth is.

First, calling a theory a fact is a contradiction in terms.

Second, truth is personal. I believe that it's true that the world is a round ball floating through space. If you believe that to be true, great if not, then it's not true to you, but still valid there is a difference.

Second, you guys can through things at me all you like, but the Evolutionist theory is setup as "convienently" as you say the the creationist statements are. We don't come directly from ooze, but we do, but not directly from fish but maybe and not directly from monkeys but maybe the chimpanze. That's what I'm talking about. Famine has said many times that evolution can't explain the origin of life. Ok, but it also can't lay out for me, right now, EXACTLY how the human came from "whatever" to being human. Can't do it. I at the very least have scripture that everyone here totally denies. Fine, but if you don't even recognize my way of validation(while I do reckognize yours) how does that make me the tunnel visioned one?
 
MrktMkr1986
Ever think of the possibility that the ark was "discarded" after its purpose was fulfilled? Do you keep dead batteries laying around your house?

You see, this is how the Bible is written. People just make things up whenever they like. Does it say it was discarded? An angel told me that they used the wood to make houses...quick write that down.

Oh and the ark is meant to be boat shaped isn't it...not Barn shaped :lol: I think you'd need a bigger one...are you telling me it took Noah 120 years to build a barn :lol: Those contractors are SLOW!
 
Tacet_Blue
You see, this is how the Bible is written. People just make things up whenever they like. Does it say it was discarded? An angel told me that they used the wood to make houses...quick write that down.

Oh and the ark is meant to be boat shaped isn't it...not Barn shaped :lol: I think you'd need a bigger one...are you telling me it took Noah 120 years to build a barn :lol: Those contractors are SLOW!

That artical didn't talk about the ark but the flood. And if you knew, the ark was NOT shaped like a traditional boat because that's not what it was designed for. It was designed to float. That's it. Not navigate, not cruise, just float.
 
Swift
Tacet Blue: I said it was about the flood. not the Ark. The flood itself.
Sorry didn't see that post...but they still can't date when that flood (Edit: the Black Sea Flood mentioned in Article) happened

Swift
That artical didn't talk about the ark but the flood. And if you knew, the ark was NOT shaped like a traditional boat because that's not what it was designed for. It was designed to float. That's it. Not navigate, not cruise, just float.
In all the images I've seen, it has a hull, but you could be right....still it needs to be A LOT bigger :lol:

Edit:
MrktMkr1986
Or maybe events that occurred 364 days later... never mind, you wouldn't understand.
You're right, I haven't got a Scooby Doo as to what you mean :lol:

Let me check...date of article

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 13, 2000; Page A01

Do you mean they were using Clairvoyant reporting?
 
Where did all the water for this magic flood come from? Oh sorry, I'm mixing science and religion again!
How did the kangaroo get to the ark anyway, swam over an ocean?
How did noah build this impossible ship?
How did he stock, supply and keep it running?
Wouldn't only 2 of every animal cause gross inbreeding in the end (a bible favorite). If theres only 2 of each, how are the predators meant to survive afterwards? Wouldn't alot of the plant life have died quite quickly?
Isn't it abit CRUEL for a God just to punish and kill so many things?
Would Ghandi be allowed in heaven? (allways a good one)

In the words of pen and teller, bull****.

Swift, you know it's lies, stop pretending. It's getting sad now :(. Your a smart guy, but your making a fool of yourself, talking as if unicorns were real, and giant magical boats that housed 2 of everything actually existed. The logistics of this in it self are ridiculous, never mind the fact that a flood can't happen in the first place on that kinda of scale.
 
code_kev
Where did all the water for this magic flood come from? Oh sorry, I'm mixing science and religion again!

Don't provide the ammo Kev...there is no disputing that floods happen when Icebergs melt. The problem I, and most rational thinkers have, is with the Ark :lol:

From Article
Interest in the Black Sea quickened last year with the publication of "Noah's Flood," by Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman, suggesting that the modern-day sea was formed 7,500 years ago when melting glaciers raised sea level until the waters of the Mediterranean breached the natural dam at the Bosporus.

According to the theory, a cataclysmic deluge followed. Seawater from the Mediterranean poured into the Black Sea basin at 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls. The heavier salt water plunged to the bottom of the existing fresh water lake and began to fill the basin like a bathtub.

The theory holds that the rising lake-sea inundated and submerged thousands of square miles of land, destroying communities, killing people and wiping out uncounted species of plants and animals as the ecosystem flipped from fresh water to salt water in a period of only two years.

There you go...important fact number one highlighted in red ;) I don't think the legend of Noah dates back that far, you'll have to find another flood.
 
Tacet, there ISN'T enough water even in the ice caps to flood the glode, and anyways, most of the ice there has been there too long.
 
code_kev
Where did all the water for this magic flood come from? Oh sorry, I'm mixing science and religion again!
How did the kangaroo get to the ark anyway, swam over an ocean?
How did noah build this impossible ship?
How did he stock, supply and keep it running?

In the words of pen and teller, bull****.

Swift, you know it's lies, stop pretending. It's getting sad now :(. Your a smart guy, but your making a fool of yourself, talking as if unicorns were real, and giant magical boats that housed 2 of everything actually existed. The logistics of this in it self are ridiculous, never mind the fact that a flood can't happen in the first place on that kinda of scale.

The word of God is not lies. You will never convince me of that. Maybe if you can find a tablet or two dening the old testament(nobody can deny the happenings of the new testament) then we'll talk.

You do not have any faith. Period, you don't. You have no hope in anything you can't see. So, for you and the rest of the people going for evolution, you need it because it gives you a view to where you came from. For me, I have faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen.

See, what you don't get is that God is not limited to our plane of thought. You're trying to quantify God in a small box. Even the theory of evolution requires you to get out of the box and think in a new way. Don't just assume you know everything about what I'm saying. Code, you clearly have no idea of the scriptures so don't act like you do. At the very least, Famine knows the references that he's disputing.
 
Swift!!

Boy, it's a good thing I decided to catch up on all the posts herein before going back to GT4 or I might have not been able to answer your latest mangling of information presented in clear English.

There is NO dispute about the FACT of evolution. There are MANY theories on how evolution actually works and they will gradually come together and give us a better understanding of just that. How It Works. That is what the theories of evolution are. They are not debating on whether or not evolution is a fact. We already know that. No wonder Famine has to keep repeating things to you over and over.

Also, you misread the part about current primates living today. All the aforementioned primates have all descended from a common ancestor who, of course, is not one of the current living primates. We and all the other primates are cousins, not father and son or mother and daughter or aunt and uncle. You must learn to interpret what is actually written and not what you think you read. Reread many times if you are having problems remembering what you have just read. It is really quite easy if you try. And who knows you might learn something yet.

Now, really I want to get back to GT4. I'll come back later tonight and see if you still need any help with your reading skills. Good Luck. You seem to really need it.
 
Wayne Gratiot
Swift!!

Boy, it's a good thing I decided to catch up on all the posts herein before going back to GT4 or I might have not been able to answer your latest mangling of information presented in clear English.

There is NO dispute about the FACT of evolution. There are MANY theories on how evolution actually works and they will gradually come together and give us a better understanding of just that. How It Works. That is what the theories of evolution are. They are not debating on whether or not evolution is a fact. We already know that. No wonder Famine has to keep repeating things to you over and over.

Also, you misread the part about current primates living today. All the aforementioned primates have all descended from a common ancestor who, of course, is not one of the current living primates. We and all the other primates are cousins, not father and son or mother and daughter or aunt and uncle. You must learn to interpret what is actually written and not what you think you read. Reread many times if you are having problems remembering what you have just read. It is really quite easy if you try. And who knows you might learn something yet.

Now, really I want to get back to GT4. I'll come back later tonight and see if you still need any help with your reading skills. Good Luck. You seem to really need it.


Hmmm...If you can't prove evolution, with the facts that you say. Going from the one celled ameboa to us, then it's a theory.
 
Tacet_Blue
There you go...important fact number one highlighted in red ;) I don't think the legend of Noah dates back that far, you'll have to find another flood.

:dunce: Someone hasn't been reading my posts. One minute everyone is saying the date/calendar doesn't matter, and now here you go bringing it back up again.

Wayne
Now, really I want to get back to GT4. I'll come back later tonight and see if you still need any help with your reading skills. Good Luck. You seem to really need it.

You know what Wayne, you should continue to play GT4 and stop posting in the Opinions forum. If there's anyone on this board that needs help with reading skills, it's you.
 
I have never claimed to have any knowledge on scriptures, and fankly, I have no interest in reading them, I make my own mind up based on evidence from experts, not some sheep farmers 2000 years ago. Modern day evidence = the win.

You do not have any faith. Period, you don't. You have no hope in anything you can see.

At least I don't live a lie based on ancient mans ramblings and fears. Now, do I think something MAY exist up their? Hell I can't prove other wise, but I doubt it. Who cares, I'll live my life, I won't do anything too evil, and if there is some god after life heaven...thing, then it's a bonus.
I have a few Creationist friends, and even I, with my limited knowledge can rip these guys to bits. It's so easy, it's sad, and they just quote the same stuff as you do, from Funide sites like AG etc, yet they can't deny the utter CRAP LOAD of evidence backing us up. I also don't need faith to have a happy life, if a God exists, great, when I die he can judge me which ever way he sees fit. Plus if I pretended to have faith, just to go to heaven, God being all seeing blah blah would see this, and kick my arse anyway, so at least I'm being true to myself, and not an ass kiss.

Also, why would a God even want our faith anyway? Why should he/she/it care anyway? If God is fair, God will see this and be fair towards me regardless of my beliefs.
 
MrktMkr1986
:dunce: Someone hasn't been reading my posts. One minute everyone is saying the date/calendar doesn't matter, and now here you go bringing it back up again.
They all say Truth vs Fact don't they :lol:
I'm using the Gregorian calendar, the same one the scientists were using to come up with that figure...the same one used when they mention 2000AD and BC...The one used when they say Noah's myth was from around 900BC. You do the math...900BC or 5500BC...not very close.

Are you going to clue me up as to what you meant with the 364 days thing as that has something to do with a calendar...being one day short of a year
 
code_kev
Tacet, there ISN'T enough water even in the ice caps to flood the glode, and anyways, most of the ice there has been there too long.
...but there is enough to flood the area of the Black Sea. The article is valid, it is still being looked into as evidence of a massive flood.

The thing that seems to have evaded Swift, and is very interesting, is the evidence of human habitation along the shore of the Sea....7,500 years ago pre dates many civilisations...(and the age of the earth :lol: )

Edit: oops...in the excitment I've double posted :lol: Sorry :dopey:
 
Tacet_Blue
They all say Truth vs Fact don't they :lol:

I started that trend! 💡

I'm using the Gregorian calendar, the same one the scientists were using to come up with that figure...the same one used when they mention 2000AD and BC...The one used when they say Noah's myth was from around 900BC. You do the math...900BC or 5500BC...not very close.

That's what I was trying to say. It's possible that times cited in the Bible were off because they did not have "atomic" time. So you get fanatastic conclusions like "6 days to create Earth and 6,000 years ago etc."

Are you going to clue me up as to what you meant with the 364 days thing as that has something to do with a calendar...being one day short of a year

The article was released Sept. 12th, 2000. One year later, minus one day = 9/11. I was implying the fact that certain events tend to overshadow others.

edit: I saw you correct my spelling. :sly: I was rushing. :dopey:
 
Swift
Hmmm...If you can't prove evolution, with the facts that you say. Going from the one celled ameboa to us, then it's a theory.

For christ's sake Swift, not only has Famine repeated it, but I have said it twice in this thread and others. How about you go back and read it for a change.

[edit]

Note that "christ" is not capitalized, and I therefore use it out of frustration and not as a personal or general attack of any kind.
 
PS
For christ's sake Swift, not only has Famine repeated it, but I have said it twice in this thread and others. How about you go back and read it for a change.

[edit]

Note that "christ" is not capitalized, and I therefore use it out of frustration and not as a personal or general attack of any kind.

No, he didn't. He specifically said that one theory doesn't need another one. Tell me that's not what he said.

And stop taking the Lord's name in vain. I know you don't believe in anything, but at least respect those who do.
 
Swift
No, he didn't. He specifically said that one theory doesn't need another one. Tell me that's not what he said.

And stop taking the Lord's name in vain. I know you don't believe in anything, but at least respect those who do.

More frustration that in vain...

But here it is again. I'll explain how something may come to be.

1. hydrogen + oxygen + whatever atoms are blown out of the big bang.

2. a couple million years go by, and planets are formed.

3. another couple million go by, and gasses have collected around earth, mainly nitrogen gas (N2), carbon gas(C2) and oxygen gas(O2)

4. the hot magma pouring out of the earth's crust burns things it may have touched, and produces heat, light, and more different gas.

5. pyroclastic flow from volcanoes contributes to the swirling gasses.

6. another million years go by and things start to settle down, become more stable etc.

7. Earth is now habitable. Molecules have formed, and pyroclastic flow has contributed to produce small amounts of acid rain, in the form of Sulfuric Acid.

8. more reactions, with more products being formed. Eventually, over enough thousands or millions of years, different acids are formed through a vairety of similar ways, and a protein is formed. After enough of these proteins are formed, they may develop into DNA and RNA and create cells. As temperatures fluctuate along with the UV rays, humidity, gasseous atmosphere, different ones begin forming, and more complex ones have been produced.

9. The cells can now go through mitosis, and can grow. This is the first sign of life.

10. As they grow and divide, small mutations occur (some beneficial, some not) due to environmental factors, and enough of them result in a new species.

11. Evolution now in progress.

12. small organisms are (now) form(ed/ing) (this is over the course of perhaps +1 billion years, who knows)

13. water is now optimal for sustaining sexually reproducing life. Kryl, shrimp, mosses and plant life are now growing, and decaying adding more matter and variation to the seas allowing different molecules to form into acids-proteins-cells etc. and evolution keeps on chuggin.

14. These animals evolve into more efficient and effective predators or bottom dwellers.

15. full scale fish are formed.

16. as fish become less dependant on gills through shallowing riverbeds, and contaminants in the sea during the mating season, a potentially beneficial mutation may have occured allowing the birth of amphibians. As amphibians grew and evolved they (probably) evolved into reptiles. They began to eat each other, along with fish, as the predators they are. Insects are also flying/crawling around and eating stuff.

17. Another couple hundred million years pass. What ever environmental changes have occured, have now given smaller dino's feathers, and small mammals are now becoming more prevalent than before.

18. Dinosaurs eventually become extinct.

19. another couple million years go by. Many crazy looking mammals are now extinct.

20. apes are now living in trees and in the jungle(s).

21. another few hundred thousand years go by and due to environment and predator change, they slowly evolve into something that relies more on its' brain than on sheer strength.

22. the species is starting to split up into different (although similar) categories. They are slowly comming near neanderthals, which is still hundreds of thousands of years away.
*few hundred thousand years go by*
23. neanderthals are now formed. they live in small groups throughout Europe feeding on deer and other wild animals. they have a limited knowledge of fixing wounds using plants (which have also evolved and changed) and primitive bandages.

24. 100,000 years go by. Cromagnon kills off neanderthals. The more prevalent and advanced species moves forth.

25. the upright standing, cave-man-browless homosapien now roams the earth, throughout africa and asia.

26. more thousands of years go by. Egyptians.

27. 2000 and some odd years go by. Greeks.

28. 500 years go by. Earth now round according to mathematicians.

29. another 100 years go by, Earth pretty much round now depending on who you ask.

30. 405 years go by. PS explains how we got here.

Now you see how we got here. Any questions? And yes, a DNA strand is made up of molecules (or one giant one if you prefer), which is made up of atoms. Mostly nitrogen, or hydrogen, I forget which.

[edit]

Hydrogen, my final answer is "Hydrogen".
 
Swift – Let me put things into perspective: I have no clue what you've studied in school, but assuming you've taken Calculus, you know that there are some people who just totally hit a wall and "don't geddit", no matter what technique you use to teach them or how much you teach them. That doesn't make Calculus unbelievable, false, misinforming, etc. It is still totally valid, whether or not someone understands it.

Evolutionary Theory is just as valid as Calculus – the cogs fit together perfectly in the same way Calculus does, it's repeatable in the same way Calculus is, and there has been just as much study, experimentation, analysis, etc. into Evolution as into Calculus (maybe even more so).

Evolution is not irrefutable at this point – there might be evidence in the future that tweaks it a bit (much in the same way computer makers learn more and are able to tweak their CPUs), but there is too much evidence to just wipe out Evolutionary Theory.

You cannot tell me that Calculus is a bunch of hocus pocus, yet you're saying that about Evolution, even though they have the same level of validity.

Don't pretend that Evolution is a dynamic, unstable theory, because it isn't – there may be small tweaks here and there, but the fundamental pillars will always be intact. You could make more arguments against the Big Bang (if only because the current laws of physics break down at around 10^-43 seconds, since denominators go to zero and make it impossible to calculate stuff), but you just can't against Evolution. It would be like trying to convince a chemist that Hydrogen doesn't actually exist.

You might want to read A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell, both by Stephen Hawking (if it's any consolation to you, he believes in a God). You might not understand half the stuff in either book (I didn't), but that doesn't make any of it the less valid (except the specific theories that he notes we're still unsure of).
 
I'm just done. Totally bored at 2 things. One, the nonchristians inability to expand their minds to what they CAN'T see and Two, the christians not standing up for themselves. Just weak. I was willing to fight and go down fighting if needed. However, this is not a thread of evangelism. Since it's obvious none of you are at the point that you would consider the fact that there's a greater power then what we can analyze with a carbon dating system.

Have a good one guys. Believe what you will.
 
Swift
I'm just done. Totally bored at 2 things. One, the nonchristians inability to expand their minds to what they CAN'T see and Two, the christians not standing up for themselves. Just weak. I was willing to fight and go down fighting if needed. However, this is not a thread of evangelism. Since it's obvious none of you are at the point that you would consider the fact that there's a greater power then what we can analyze with a carbon dating system.

Have a good one guys. Believe what you will.

I'm not finished yet. I'm not here to make a believer out of anyone, but I will not stand by and listen to bunch of people flame because their beliefs differ from ours. Expect to here more from me later. :mischievous:
 
@ Swift - Hopefully you'll stop by this post. I saw what you had to say earlier today and didn't get a chance to respond till now.

Swift
The word of God is not lies. You will never convince me of that. Maybe if you can find a tablet or two dening the old testament(nobody can deny the happenings of the new testament) then we'll talk.

You do not have any faith. Period, you don't. You have no hope in anything you can't see. So, for you and the rest of the people going for evolution, you need it because it gives you a view to where you came from. For me, I have faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen.
I agree with everything but the part in red. Let me explain.

Sorry, I feel an urge to comment on this quote
See, what you don't get is that God is not limited to our plane of thought.
Exactly that - so why is it not possible for there to have been evolution? After all, we are here out of God's will, right? Can't it be possible for God to have coaxed the original "primordial soup" of single cell organisms to have evolved into every living and breathing creature on the earth?

So, back on the subject at hand.

I'm a Muslim, so our beliefs are somewhat similar but they have their differing points as well. Another thing about being a Muslim is that we acknowledge the words of both Jesus and Moses and we believe them to be prophets who tried to convey the message of god.

The key similarity on this topic for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is that all 3 religions believe that God created man from clay. Now, think about that for a moment - when the earth was created, that's all it was. A mass of dirt, hydrogen, and various other things all needed for life. The way I see it, life doesn't just "appear." It starts as a single cell and it grows from there. Just look at the process of going from an egg/sperm cell to a fully functioning human being with billions upon billions of cells. If you think about it, that's a pretty huge miracle, right? I mean, a pair of cells join, and they split and form into a living, breathing human. Couldn't life have come from a single cell just like we do now?

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/evolution.htm
Evolution means change over time. We see this everywhere. Language is changing (Old English to Modern English), computers are changing, the earth is changing, and the universe is changing. Life itself is changing. Bacteria that once was stopped by penicillin has now evolved to be resistant to penicillin. Man himself is changing.

The Bible itself seems to declare this. In Genesis 1:11 God commands, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed" God does not directly create the plants.

Verse 12 "the earth brought forth grass" This seems to be a clear statement of evolutionary process from scripture.

In Genesis 1:20 God commands, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" The waters bring forth life. God does not directly create them.

In Genesis 1:24 God commands, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind" Again the earth not God brings forth life.

It took a damn hard search to find this though... every other source I've found in my short search on google turned up a bunch of Christian run sites preaching strictly about creationism.

To my knowledge, Christianity also believes the Torah to be the word of God - so does my religion. Lets look at what it has to say, shall we?

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_evolution.htm
How did G-d create the world? The Torah commentator Rashi tells us that G-d created everything in potential on Day One, and then different species developed from that primordial soup. (see Genesis 1:24, 2:4) It is worthwhile noting that as he was writing in the 11th century, Rashi was not making apologetics in the face of a scientific challenge!

Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch (19th century Germany) further explains that each "Day" represents a specific stage of creation - i.e. a mingling of raw materials and bursts of dramatic new development. As you go through the Torah's account, you see described a gradual process from simple to more complex organisms - first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This pattern may be similar to the evolutionary process proposed by science.

One more reference, this time from the Quran. I realize that Christianity and Judaism both don't believe in it, but it *is* what we believe to be the final word of God.
http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm
The Qur'an states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54). While on the surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are some important distinctions.

The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). The word "youm" is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day" creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during each period.

And of course, one on the various Islamic theories on evolution based on the Quran:
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=255

Now, a few key points I want to touch on here:
-Why is creation not at all a possibility?
-What makes it so hard to believe in this concept?
-Science is fact. Scientific fact is in the end irrefutable... Unless of course you want to go back to believing that the world is flat and the universe revolves around us......

Aaand to end on a slightly humorous and most likely offensive note...
[begin sarcasm]
Anyone can create a universe in one day. But to painstakingly create it over billions of years and create life from just a few cells and make those few cells evolve little by little till they become every living, breathing thing on the planet. Now THAT is god at work.
[/sarcasm]

I truly appologize to anyone I may have offended in that statement just now.

I hope this made sense, it's almost 1am and thanks to exams, I haven't had much sleep for the past few days.
 
Swift
One, the nonchristians inability to expand their minds to what they CAN'T see…
Now that's unfair. There are plenty of things that I can't see (or can't even create a visual model in my mind), yet I still accept as existing – electrons, quarks, gravity's affect on spacetime, little packets of information running through lines to create the Internet, sound waves, radiation, evolution, p-branes, the way capacitors and inductors work, etc. etc.

The difference is that all of the above have substantiated evidence to support their existence (again, you wouldn't dare tell me that electrons don't exist, yet you tell me that evolution doesn't exist, even though both have been fully substantiated, proven, however you want to say it – to refute the scientific method that discovered evolution would be to refute the same scientific method that discovered electrons, DNA, mechanical physics, Newton's 3 Laws, the combustion engine, etc.). There is a wealth of information to support Evolutionary Theory (you could probably fill thousands of books with just the raw data, not even including the analysis of that data). On the other hand, with Creationism, you have just one book (with questionable origins, I might add).

I'll gladly take the millions of bits of data. It's unfair to call that being "close-minded".

You have to realize that it's not easy being on this side of the fence either – I don't know if you have any idea how incredibly frustrating it is to present this kind of insurmountable evidence (or to watch Famine present it, anyway ;)), and see Christians just snub at it, defying millions of hours of scientific experimentation and research to try and find truth – instead, passing it off as "unbelievable".

Again, I suggest you read A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell, keeping in mind that Hawking also believes in a God, yet relies on science to find truth (even though I'm an atheist, his writing still applies, no matter what you believe).
 
Emad's quote
The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47).

Thank you, Emad. Just the kind of information that I needed to help me build my case. This is exactly what I was talking about before. The calendar or time measurement is paramount to the Creation/Evolution argument. More later.
 
Back