Creation vs. Evolution

[Denur]

By the rules of Scientific evidence, that you and others here insist upon,
Creation and it's, like or same kind reproduction, is comparitively, far and away more Scientifically substantiatable, than Evolution.

Interesting, and based on what data do you make the claim that Creation has any scientific basis? (and why do you write Scientifically with a capital S?)

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Because evolution theory and evolutionary biology are immensely broad subjects.

No doubt.

All of these chapters will have other, more detailed books on these sub-topics, not to mention a vast and ever-expanding body of scientific literature and researchers specialising in these particular areas. Each area is a field of study in its own right, concerning any number of different theories, from atomic theory to the theory of evolution. That means that there are a plethora of sub-topics that are part of evolutionary theory that are being tested as we speak, and may or may not become generally accepted. It is quite possible that certain hypotheses currently being explored will turn out to be incorrect.

Atomic theory was taken to the conclusive demonstrable stage some 60+ years ago.

Evolutional Theory? No end in sight.

I think I can agree with that last sentence.

 

[AndersonG22]

Creation and it's, like or same kind reproduction, is comparitively, far and away more Scientifically substantiatable, than Evolution.

Then why do 97% of scientists support evolution as oposed to creationism? Because its "far and away more Scientifically substantiatable" then creationism.

Please SCJ, show us the evidence, I want to belive I really do.

 

[Touring Mars]

I can't believe you would make such a patently foolish and completely false statement, TM.

The key word I said was demonstrably. Creationists make plenty of statements about how they think species come into existence, but provide no evidence at all to back up their claims. Most of such claims are indeed demonstrably false, i.e. there is evidence to refute them. In real science, on the other hand, compelling evidence that refutes a hypothesis or even an entire theory, doesn't go away - the hypothesis or the theory goes away instead.

It is about time a creationist in this thread came up with some evidence to support their statements rather than simply making vague comments about how valid their so-called 'science' is.

By the rules of Scientific evidence, that you and others here insist upon,
Creation and it's, like or same kind reproduction, is comparitively, far and away more Scientifically substantiatable, than Evolution.

I've asked you about this already, but I think you may have missed it. But, since you have repeated the same point, I'll ask you again...

Regarding your "Like or same kind" comment... I think we can all agree that there are only two possibilities: either a species reproduces more of its own species exclusively, or it doesn't. Evolution theory says that it doesn't. Amazingly, creationists now agree... apparently species do give rise to new, distinct species - species that are different to themselves. But, creationists also impose an artificial limit on how far these differences can go by saying that differentiation/speciation is limited to occur within the limit of 'kinds' (or baramins etc.). They cite a supposed lack of observable evidence of species diversifying beyond their kind (notwithstanding the mountain of genetic evidence that shows that this is indeed what has actually happened in life on Earth.) But, even by simple logic, it is clear that this limitation is false, and does not reflect reality. If a species is ultimately capable of producing different species, and those different species are also capable of producing different species, then, given a long enough stretch of time, it is entirely possible for vastly different species to share common ancestry. There is a way to test this hypothesis - if that had happened, then all species should, to a greater or lesser extent, share commonly inherited characteristics, e.g. genes, with closer relatives sharing a greater proportion than more distantly related species. This is exactly what is observed, therefore the hypothesis is valid, and the theory supported by the evidence.

I would like to see you or any other creationist not merely state that it is not possible for different kinds to be genetically related by common descent, or to just state that they are not, but to provide evidence that refutes that hypothesis comprehensively. I will not be holding my breath.

On the other hand your parents, like most people on earth, realized the importance of the spiritual, and your exposure to it.

It may disappoint you to learn, then, that my parents, like most other rational people, no longer accept the biblical account of creation that they (and I) were introduced to at school, and now accept that science provides a far more compelling explanation for the origin of (our) species. Spirituality or personal beliefs does not come into it.

 

[homeforsummer]

Because its not Scientific enough, or not judged as proof by you is wholly irrelevant.
Doesn't mean that it isn't Scientific or Scientific enough for someone else.
21 grams is 21grams.
It has to constitute something.
If its not the spirit then what is it?

One of the foundations of science is that it's repeatable. Does sodium rapidly oxidise in air? I don't know, let's test it! Yes, it does! If someone over the other side of the world does the same test, they'll get the same results. How about the sun? Do coronal ejections release streams of particles through space? We can test that too, by measuring the particles that hit the Earth. Again, it's a theory that shows repeatable results through scientific study.

The "weight of the soul" theory has, thus far, been unrepeated. Even by the bloke who did the test in the first place. To me, and to the scientific community, if the guy can't even find a suitable pattern of repeatable results from his own tests, then there's probably no scientific basis behind the theory.

So in answer to your question:

If its not the spirit then what is it?

My answer is, "probably bollocks".

Sorry for posting it so much, I think its a great video. If anyone is wondering what video we speak of you can find it in my sig, below the howard stern pranks recommendation.

It may well be a great video, but if people were interested in watching it they would have seen it one of the first four times you posted it.

 

[Touring Mars]

My answer is, "probably bollocks".

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure mine weigh more than 21 g...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The Creation myth has as much scientific validity as an episode of Battlestar Galactica.

I am yet to see SCJ produce any evidence for creationism.

Well lets see.

First we start with Famine's definitonal standard of Scientific evidence.
Totally unbiased, unprejudicial, and unimpeachable.

No. What constitutes scientific proof is very specific and not subject to individual whim.

I don't have to present any evidence of Creationism's like or same kind reproduction,
because it is proved out everyday in literally billions of examples going back as far as any reasonable determination can be made.

You, I and all life around us are examples of the absolute consistent repeatability of it.
It is clearly and unequivocally, the completely substantiatable, quintessential, scientific standard.

In fact I contend if it were not Biblically based, it would already be, as is clearly established, akin to gravity, and a law.

Now for Evolutionary Theory.
It is clearly evident, as has been pointed out here by those in the Evolutionist camp, the whole claim of evolution is clearly unsubstantiatable. Thats obvious.
So having retreated to part and parcel of evolution, for some evidentiary ground, references are made to mutation, adaptation, similarites, commonalites, and natural selection.
While this can be claimed as evidence for evolution, it is certainly not revolutionary.
Rather it is easily assimilated into, and part of, the established like or same kind reproduction.
This is where evidentiary substantiation ends by the way.

Now using the scientific standard as described above , which of these two explanations can be reasonably considered to have the weightier evidence of proof.

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

The key word I said was demonstrably. Creationists make plenty of statements about how they think species come into existence, but provide no evidence at all to back up their claims. Most of such claims are indeed demonstrably false, i.e. there is evidence to refute them. In real science, on the other hand, compelling evidence that refutes a hypothesis or even an entire theory, doesn't go away - the hypothesis or the theory goes away instead.

It is about time a creationist in this thread came up with some evidence to support their statements rather than simply making vague comments about how valid their so-called 'science' is.

See above.

I've asked you about this already, but I think you may have missed it. But, since you have repeated the same point, I'll ask you again....

I'll have to get back to you on this one or I'll never get this post done.

Regarding your "Like or same kind" comment... I think we can all agree that there are only two possibilities: either a species reproduces more of its own species exclusively, or it doesn't. Evolution theory says that it doesn't. Amazingly, creationists now agree... apparently species do give rise to new, distinct species - species that are different to themselves. But, creationists also impose an artificial limit on how far these differences can go by saying that differentiation/speciation is limited to occur within the limit of 'kinds' (or baramins etc.). They cite a supposed lack of observable evidence of species diversifying beyond their kind (notwithstanding the mountain of genetic evidence that shows that this is indeed what has actually happened in life on Earth.) But, even by simple logic, it is clear that this limitation is false, and does not reflect reality. If a species is ultimately capable of producing different species, and those different species are also capable of producing different species, then, given a long enough stretch of time, it is entirely possible for vastly different species to share common ancestry. There is a way to test this hypothesis - if that had happened, then all species should, to a greater or lesser extent, share commonly inherited characteristics, e.g. genes, with closer relatives sharing a greater proportion than more distantly related species. This is exactly what is observed, therefore the hypothesis is valid, and the theory supported by the evidence.

To the contrary, staying within the confines of scientific method, the limitation is upheld.
For such a scientific fellow, how do you fail to realize, once you cross over to abstract time periods, you leave the confines of scientific method.
Of course thats why its still a "theory".

I would like to see you or any other creationist not merely state that it is not possible for different kinds to be genetically related by common descent, or to just state that they are not, but to provide evidence that refutes that hypothesis comprehensively. I will not be holding my breath.

You don't have to hold your breath.
I can freely admit we have a common ancestor, well sort of.
It's called "dirt".

It may disappoint you to learn, then, that my parents, like most other rational people, no longer accept the biblical account of creation that they (and I) were introduced to at school, and now accept that science provides a far more compelling explanation for the origin of (our) species. Spirituality or personal beliefs does not come into it.

Perhaps you are the one that unduly influenced them and not the other way around.

 

[Famine]

First we start with Famine's definitonal standard of Scientific evidence.
Totally unbiased, unprejudicial, and unimpeachable.

Actually, that's not what I said. I said that's one of the qualities of scientific proof.

Now using the scientific standard as described above , which of these two explanations can be reasonably considered to have the weightier evidence of proof.

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Yes - it's the one that actually has evidence and has been repeatedly tested, clarified and retested over time, not the one derived from a narcissistic viewpoint and flawed reasoning to arrive at a conclusion which doesn't stand up to a single scientifically valid experiment ever conducted.

For such a scientific fellow, how do you fail to realize, once you cross over to abstract time periods, you leave the confines of scientific method.

I know many paeleontologists and cosmologists who would be very clear on disagreeing with you on this. But no doubt you've devoted the same amount of lifetime to studying in their fields as they have.

Of course, evolution isn't just proven in "abstract time periods". It's done daily in laboratories throughout the world - while a hundred generations of humans might be a bit "abstract time period" for you, it's three weeks for a bacterium.


Creationism is as scientifically valid as phrenology and even when they try to give themselves scientific credence with "creation science" (a field dedicated to proving creation, iin direct contradiction of what all science is) and we end up with "baraminology" - which, as Touring Mars points out, completely contradicts your present "like with like" stance - it ends up tying itself in knots and disproving itself. Creationism is bunk.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure mine weigh more than 21 g...

You were thinking grammes? I was talking gigatons...

 

[AndersonG22]

Now for Evolutionary Theory.
It is clearly evident, as has been pointed out here by those in the Evolutionist camp, the whole claim of evolution is clearly unsubstantiatable. Thats obvious.

Your not a very good liar.

 

[homeforsummer]

You, I and all life around us are examples of the absolute consistent repeatability of it.
It is clearly and unequivocally, the completely substantiatable, quintessential, scientific standard.

Can you or anyone else prove that it was God who created everything? If not, then it's not scientific.

In essence if we can't repeat all this ourselves and create a whole new universe to prove that a greater power did the same, then it has absolutely zero basis in science.

Not to mention that a huge number of things that you'd claim were created by a god can be scientifically proven otherwise.

It is clearly evident, as has been pointed out here by those in the Evolutionist camp, the whole claim of evolution is clearly unsubstantiatable. Thats obvious.

At what point have any of the evolutionists in this thread used those exact words?

Difficult to prove? Yes, because it generally happens over an unobservable timeframe. Unsubstantiable? No. Evolution of fruit flies can be observed in several generations. Evolution of bacterium can be observed on a daily basis, and has been observed since the early 1980s.

 

[Dotini]

Creationism is bunk.

In the world of the educated, this must be at least initially accepted as true.

@ SCJ: However, all is not lost!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
If you study the anthropic principle wiki, which is an acceptable reference source even to most rigorously moderated physics forums, you can make a considerably better and more acceptable argument than you are presently making. When very highly educated people feel a need to discuss such questions as god and our universal origins, they often do so under such scientifically acceptable labeling as "anthropic principle" or "fine-tuning". I'd like to see you brush up on the anthropic principle and its variants so that your arguments are as strong and sound as science permits.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[dylansan]

SCJ, do you think the banana was created, in it's current form, by God many many years ago?

 

[DK]

Designed perfectly for the function of sex-ed teachers demonstrating contraception...

 

[AndersonG22]

Designed perfectly for the function of sex-ed teachers demonstrating contraception...

👍

 

[dylansan]

Some here might find this video both amusing and amazing. I know I quite enjoyed it:

 

[Lain]

Heh, awesome video. 👍

 

[pjs123456789]

I personally have read the bible alot and I personally have abserve many thing in the bible for myself. I think the bible is inspired like it says, the proverbs is like dead on perfect wise sayings. If the bible is taken in its right contents you will find it quite insightful. I don't think you can go wrong putting your faith in the word. When I think about life plants, humans and animals I think everything was intelligently designed. The prophecy of the scripture are so acurate. I personally have pray and seen my prays answered. I can remember praying for rain one evenin and it came shortly after I prayed and this was during dry weather. I am sure if anyone read the scripture daily and apply it to their life their will find how powerful the word really is. I have experience many things which opened my eyes to the truthfulness of the bible. By the way evolution takes faith and you will surely be lead astray by it. You guys should check out 3abn. If you can find it on television look up www.3abn.org and watch the live program. 3abn will give you a good start in look at the bible in its right perspective. I think the god spoken of in the bible is blessing that group. (3abn)

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Actually, that's not what I said. I said that's one of the qualities of scientific proof.

Isn't that a wee bit on the contradictory side.
Perhaps you could clarify.

Yes - it's the one that actually has evidence and has been repeatedly tested, clarified and retested over time,

Thats sounds like a clear vote for Creationsm, since of the two, it stands alone in the ability to overwhelmingly fulfill that qualification.

not the one derived from a narcissistic viewpoint and flawed reasoning to arrive at a conclusion which doesn't stand up to a single scientifically valid experiment ever conducted.

If I didn't know better, I would have to say this reeks of "individual whim".
So the overwhelming reality of; "literally billions of examples going back as far as any reasonable determination can be made", cannot be reasonably considered "scientific proof"?
If not, pray tell what is it, a mirage?

I know many paeleontologists and cosmologists who would be very clear on disagreeing with you on this. But no doubt you've devoted the same amount of lifetime to studying in their fields as they have.

I freely admit, I have not.
My point is, projections in this realm, are subject to much broader interpretive possibilities and therefore evidentially circumstantial.
Consequently, as I said to TM, Evolution remains in the "theoritical".

Of course, evolution isn't just proven in "abstract time periods". It's done daily in laboratories throughout the world - while a hundred generations of humans might be a bit "abstract time period" for you, it's three weeks for a bacterium.

I didn't say evolution, I said the "whole theory".
And as I have also said, you still have a "bacterium".
Congratulations, in reality you just added another example of "like kind reproduction".

Creationism is as scientifically valid as phrenology and even when they try to give themselves scientific credence with "creation science" (a field dedicated to proving creation, iin direct contradiction of what all science is) and we end up with "baraminology" - which, as Touring Mars points out, completely contradicts your present "like with like" stance - it ends up tying itself in knots and disproving itself. Creationism is bunk.

The fact remains, that as far as "demonstrable consistent repeatability" demanded by Scientific method for the establishment of proof, Creation's "like-kind" reproduction reigns supreme.
Thats undeniable.

Evolutional Theory, has no comparitve foundation whatsoever.

In the world of the educated, this must be at least initially accepted as true.

@ SCJ: However, all is not lost!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
If you study the anthropic principle wiki, which is an acceptable reference source even to most rigorously moderated physics forums, you can make a considerably better and more acceptable argument than you are presently making. When very highly educated people feel a need to discuss such questions as god and our universal origins, they often do so under such scientifically acceptable labeling as "anthropic principle" or "fine-tuning". I'd like to see you brush up on the anthropic principle and its variants so that your arguments are as strong and sound as science permits.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Fret not, its not only not lost, its not even missing.

BTW, God clearly knows about limited evolution when he says:
"they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"

Thanks again for your all your help.

 

[Famine]

Isn't that a wee bit on the contradictory side.
Perhaps you could clarify.

It is a quality of science, not the only quality.

Thats sounds like a clear vote for Creationsm, since of the two, it stands alone in the ability to overwhelmingly fulfill that qualification.

On the basis of your say-so - which is unscientific.

If I didn't know better, I would have to say this reeks of "individual whim".
So the overwhelming reality of; "literally billions of examples going back as far as any reasonable determination can be made", cannot be reasonably considered "scientific proof"?
If not, pray tell what is it, a mirage?

It's a fantasy brought about by completely ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

My point is, projections in this realm, are subject to much broader interpretive possibilities and therefore evidentially circumstantial.

They are not. The requirements of science are not subject to whim and thus not subject to "realms".

The same standards that have resulted in us being able to participate in this discussion, with computers and the internets, say that you are wrong to maintain the position you maintain.

I didn't say evolution, I said the "whole theory".
And as I have also said, you still have a "bacterium".
Congratulations, in reality you just added another example of "like kind reproduction".

A fantasy long-since abandoned by "creation science", which now prefers "baramins" of similar creatures - cats, dogs, hoofed animals and even dinosaurs - speciating through the exact processes described by evolutionary theory. They just happen to reject one part of it they don't like - like you do, but a different part.

What qualifies as "like" for you? Is a lion only "like" with other lions, or is it "like" with tigers too? Is it "like" with the domestic cat? Is it "like" with meerkats and hyenas? With fossas and aardwolfs? Is it "like" with dogs, bears, skunks, ferrets or seals? Where does "like" start and stop in your unscientific world?

The fact remains, that as far as "demonstrable consistent repeatability" demanded by Scientific method for the establishment of proof, Creation's "like-kind" reproduction reigns supreme.
Thats undeniable.

It is wholly deniable - even creation "scientists" deny it! It requires you to ignore every scientific endeavour in the field of life sciences ever undertaken to retain belief that it's true!

You're just trotting out the same old microevolution vs. macroevolution nonsense again - you're happy to accept microevolution, but not macroevolution despite the fact it's exactly the same thing, because it requires generational timescales longer than you can comprehend easily and you just pin an "abstract timescale" label onto it as a result. As pointed out to you, many paeleontologists and cosmologists work within these timescales on a daily basis and they aren't even slightly abstract - you just can't deal with them (though you seem happy to accept two thousand years as a timescale, despite requiring fifty generations of your family).

 

[Touring Mars]

To the contrary, staying within the confines of scientific method, the limitation is upheld. For such a scientific fellow, how do you fail to realize, once you cross over to abstract time periods, you leave the confines of scientific method. Of course thats why its still a "theory".

As Famine has already suggested, we are not talking about 'abstract' time periods at all, but real time, real history. There is nothing abstract about it. That creationists dispute how long life has existed on Earth is yet another example of a mountain of evidence and facts that they either must ignore or nefariously misrepresent in order for their version of events to make any sense. Despite that, the facts as observable today speak for themselves - similar "kinds" exhibit greater levels of genetic similarity that different "kinds", and yet different "kinds" still exhibit levels and patterns of genetic similarity that can only be adequately explained by evolution theory. That evolution theory explains observed patterns of genetic relatedness of all life on Earth is not up for debate. It does.... and creationists just have to live with that. If you want to refute this point, show me your evidence. Waffle and blather will not be accepted.

Here's an analogy of what your argument sounds like to me:

A person walks into a room and finds a dead body. The police arrive and begin an investigation to find out how that dead body came to be there. They begin documenting the facts as they are available, and subsequently use them to piece together a plausible version of events, concluding that the person was murdered about two weeks ago. Their goal is to eventually demonstrate to a neutral third party (e.g. a jury) that their evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that their version of events is an accurate portrayal of what really happened, and explains how that dead body came to be there. This is pretty much what scientists are doing when addressing the question, 'how did the human body get to be here today?', and evolution is by far and away the most plausible answer that fits the evidence.

Your argument(s), however, are a mixture of the following creationist gems: "you can't ever know what happened in the past because you weren't there" (Ken Ham actually uses this argument, all the time); "the 'evidence' might make it look like a murder has occured a few weeks ago, but actually God just put that dead body there today... (we're sorry that we have no evidence that God even exists or any evidence of how he did this, but it still beats your evidence anyway)" and "you are assuming that the planet is old enough for these events to have occured, but infact the Earth is only a day old and so what you are saying happened could not have happened... (again, we're sorry that we cannot substantiate anything that we are saying, but our story is still superior to yours). This is pretty much what creationists are doing when disputing the evidence of evolution. To finish the murder analogy, what version do you think would hold up in a court of law?

The fact remains, that as far as "demonstrable consistent repeatability" demanded by Scientific method for the establishment of proof, Creation's "like-kind" reproduction reigns supreme.

And as I have asked you twice already, you must provide evidence that shows how the same processes that allow species to give rise to different species does not also extend to "kinds". The genetic similarites between different "kinds"* that I and others have referred to repeatedly in this thread is an example of the sort of evidence that has been completely lacking in your argument thus far. These data fully support the evolutionary hypothesis that different 'kinds' are related by descent. These data also strongly refute the creationist hypothesis that different kinds are not related by descent.

* This image shows the chromosomes of humans (left in each pair) and chimpanzees (right in each pair).

Creationism is bunk.

It's much worse than that. It's lazy. It's boring. It's dull. It's totally inaccurate. And it seeks to rob people of the truth behind their incredible history in deep time. AND it's bunk.

 

[arora]

BTW, God clearly knows about limited evolution when he says: "they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind

Are you quoting Hosea 8:7? For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.

Hosea preached in a figurative manner, that verse is a metaphor meaning something like; Israelites had sown the seed of unrighteousness and shall therefore reap a harvest of judgment, in a simple term. How does that have anything to do with evolution?

It is wholly deniable - even creation "scientists" deny it!

Any part of ones faith is deniable, some religious would call creation scientists 'cherry pickers' and anything further even worse. From a spiritual standpoint I guess that lands in the category of 'between you and god'. IMO denial of faith comes from a lack of understanding and/or study of the bible(speaking of Jew and Christians, not those with no faith to start with). Personally I would rather not see that, but I'm an extremist, much in the way I'd hate to buy a vw when I could own a porsche. Not really speaking of evolution or creation I know but thought it a point to make.

It requires you to ignore every scientific endeavor in the field of life sciences ever undertaken to retain belief that it's true!

This is very much the case.

.
1st Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

I'm not going to quote all of this(1st Corinthians 1:18-31) but for those interested it is one explanation why a creationist will NEVER believe in Evolution Theory(unless they denounce their faith). There are of course many attempts to reconcile the two things, for instance The Gap Theory, etc. I'm sure most theologians study science and adapt what they learn, or find a way to make it fit within their sets of beliefs, could go on and on about that but it's never going to be on the same plane as Creation Theory the way it's discussed here.

I have something exactly like that floating around in my mind, I rationalize and come to terms the way I see things and what is acceptable to me. If I'm called ignorant for that I don't really care, I've studied in college all the arts and science courses that build a foundation for evolution, so stubborn or stupid would be better choices for name calling. There is a division between 'flesh' and 'spirit' and I choose to pursue one over the other.

 

[AndersonG22]

This is the thread that never ends
Some people refuse to look into evolution my friend yada yada yada you get the idea.

Einsteins definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." According to einstein, the theory of evolution is insane.

Based on the overwhelming evidence creationism makes more sense then evolution.


Back to reality, SCJ trys to bash evolution by calling it a theory. He fails to realise creationism is a belief, nothing more.





EDIT:

I personally have pray and seen my prays answered. I can remember praying for rain one evenin and it came shortly after I prayed and this was during dry weather.

Im sure the people in auschwitz prayed to make it out alive, where was god when they needed him?

 

[arora]

Im sure the people in auschwitz prayed to make it out alive, where was god when they needed him?

That doesn't prove evolution but it might prove this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[AndersonG22]

That doesn't prove evolution but it might prove this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I intended to disprove the ridiculous notion that an almight god made it rain for one man, yet he lets eazy e and others die of aids, cancer, or a drunk driver taking out entire families. These deaths will most likely be explained away as "gods will". Yet this almighty god who created an entire planet did something as meaning less as making it rain? Theres thousands of people who die every day and there prayers arent answed but god will make it rain for one man?

 

[arora]

I have never read anywhere in the bible where it says all prayers are answered, Jeremiah 21: 2-4, James 4: 1-7 one from old and new testaments both state otherwise, as well as many other examples.

"If there was a god, why do so many bad things happen?" Probably the most asked or stated phrase by people who either don't believe in god or are unsure. No where in the bible does it say god will keep all bad things from happening(the opposite John 15 5-10), it could be argued before the fruit of knowledge deal but that is the very first dispensation and didn't last very long. It is a puzzling reason to me, 'I don't believe in a god who broke promises he never made', that is no reason at all. It should be easy enough to just say you don't believe what the book says instead of arguing fabrications.

As for the Holocaust, bible scholars will say it was predicted in 3 books of the old testament, Deuteronomy 28 is worth a read, I forget the other two but most likely Ezekiel and maybe Daniel. So yes, that would fall under the catagory of "god's will"

 

[Denur]

As for the Holocaust, bible scholars will say it was predicted in 3 books of the old testament, Deuteronomy 28 is worth a read, I forget the other two but most likely Ezekiel and maybe Daniel. So yes, that would fall under the catagory of "god's will"

Predicted? I just read a translation of D-28 and it talks about bad things to happen when they disobey (I think hearken means something of the kind):

15¶But it shall come to pass, IF thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

I read a big IF there, not WHEN. I see no prediction in this part, just a warning.

 

[AndersonG22]

15¶But it shall come to pass, IF thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

It looks like the good lord is a fear mongerer.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

On the basis of your say-so - which is unscientific.

It has nothing to do with my say-so.
It is the established standard.
Which by the way you choose to completely ignore.

It's a fantasy brought about by completely ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

What evidence.
And BTW something with conclusiveness, like the obvious record of like -kind.

[They are not. The requirements of science are not subject to whim and thus not subject to "realms".

Scientific "theories" and scientific "facts" are two different things.
Which you also choose to ignore.

The same standards that have resulted in us being able to participate in this discussion, with computers and the internets, say that you are wrong to maintain the position you maintain.

See above.
I find it truly amazing, you point to the scientific factual in this example, and yet completely dismiss it, when likwise you are a factual scientific example using the science you cite.

What qualifies as "like" for you? Is a lion only "like" with other lions, or is it "like" with tigers too? Is it "like" with the domestic cat? Is it "like" with meerkats and hyenas? With fossas and aardwolfs? Is it "like" with dogs, bears, skunks, ferrets or seals? Where does "like" start and stop in your unscientific world?

Good question.
Since I didn't set the boundaries on this I could not exactly say.
All I know is it is part of the record of creation in Genesis, but is not very distinguishably detailed.
I believe it is confined to what we call breeds and varieties of a given species, hence it would remain "like kind".
I do not believe it could vary much, less God would be lying when he says
"he is not mocked, a man will reap what he sows".

You're just trotting out the same old microevolution vs. macroevolution nonsense again - you're happy to accept microevolution, but not macroevolution despite the fact it's exactly the same thing, because it requires generational timescales longer than you can comprehend easily and you just pin an "abstract timescale" label onto it as a result. As pointed out to you, many paeleontologists and cosmologists work within these timescales on a daily basis and they aren't even slightly abstract - you just can't deal with them (though you seem happy to accept two thousand years as a timescale, despite requiring fifty generations of your family).

The only things I am trotting out is the factual historic record.
When I say I accept evolution in part, I'm referring to changes that have and do observably occur.
Not what is speculated on to occur beyond that in abstract time frames.
If as the Bible indicates, life as we know it ends relatively soon,
then its sort of irrelevant anyway, since a new heaven and earth may usher in many changes in things.

At what point have any of the evolutionists in this thread used those exact words?.

Parts of evolutionary theory can be tested in real-time and have (flys once again), does it prove the whole of evolutionary theory? No, but then again no one has claimed that.

 

[Touring Mars]

All I know is it is part of the record of creation in Genesis, but is not very distinguishably detailed.

A stunning admission - although it is arguably the most accurate thing you've said in this thread. You are right - it is not very detailed at all, and you know why... the Bible is not a science textbook. It isn't one, it never was, it never will be, and it was never intended to be one. Yet, creationists insist that their interpretation of the few words that broach the vast subject that is modern-day biology is somehow superior to the entire canon of scientific research accumulated over millennia. Unbelievable.

I would like to repeat my great admiration and respect for those original authors and scientists of their day who, over the centuries, contributed and modified the text of Genesis in an early attempt to describe life on Earth as they saw it, because their insights were, and still are, impressive for their time. I like to think that those same people would be amazed and impressed by the vast amount of work that has been done since to refine their insights and knowledge into the science we have today. Obviously, the Biblical treatment of biology hasn't kept pace with science and is now obsolete. Sadly, some people will insist that the Bible is the last word when it comes to science (or anything else for that matter) and I personally find that absurd.