Creation vs. Evolution

[DCP]

So what gives you the right or the responsibility to try preaching to people who don't want to hear it?

The way I see it, you have made your position on the matter clear. It's now up to others to cone to you if they want to know more. If they do, that's great. But if they don't, then take the hint and stop running every thread off topic with your biblical discourse.


Really? You didn't notice the rest of the forum?

Apologies, didn't mean it that way. I meant not much else Christians can do, other than share the Gospel.
Yeah, the forum is great. I've hit a dip with GT since last year, but only came across these threads since my first post last week... This forum is run very professionally, as I've not been sworn at once...

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's not much longer to wait man. Hang in there.

As @Scaff (and later @niky) have noted, that question (Planes in the bible?) is off-topic here. I'll ask you elsewhere and tag you.

 

[Touring Mars]

@DCP I'd like to see you properly answer this point that Scaff made some time ago, as I was going to ask the same thing:

@DCP - What evidence can you supply to support your claim that Creation is true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Your not allowed to use the Bible, but actually evidence to a scientific standard, if you are not sure what that entails please ask.

Science, and evolutionary theory in particular, explains in great detail how new species can arise from a common ancestral stock. These processes have been elucidated by painstaking analysis of physical evidence over the last 200+ years, across a number of different disciplines and from a range of separate yet mutually corroborating sources. With access to the right tools, anyone can question and test the theory of evolution, and tens of thousands of professional research scientists are doing this very thing day in, day out.

So where's your evidence of Special Creation? What was the mechanism? Who is the creator, and how did they do what they did? Where is the detail, the explanation? And, my personal favourite - why would a creator choose to make life on Earth look exactly like it has evolved?

 

[JKgo]

.....This thread is quickly morphing into DCP Q & A session. If this keeps up, might as well open a new thread calling it that.
I believe God do exist, but even then, I'm not a Christian - and to say Creation and Evolution aren't a good dance partners don't gel with my sensibilities. Everyday people who study these things discover new, evolved species and modified behavioral patterns from species we thought we understood.

God meant for the Evolution to happen. He CREATED the conditions for it, then provided the right catalyst for it, too.

Please don't put all your stock in a book that weren't written by God, but by men.

That's all I have to say.....for now.

 

[dylansan]

I don't believe in luck. Einstein wasn't an atheist, although didn't believe in a personal God, but I respect a man for working his butt off, and this guy did just that.

I don't know anything on his theory, but if it's true and helps mankind, then it fits scripture.

"If it's true..."

The whole point I'm trying to make is, how can you know a theory is true? The answer is, you test it. Einstein didn't get lucky with relativity. It's predictions came true because the theory was a accurate description of reality. That's how we know it's true.

So what do you think we've done to test evolution? Probably more than you think.

 

[DCP]

@DCP I'd like to see you properly answer this point that Scaff made some time ago, as I was going to ask the same thing:



Science, and evolutionary theory in particular, explains in great detail how new species can arise from a common ancestral stock. These processes have been elucidated by painstaking analysis of physical evidence over the last 200+ years, across a number of different disciplines and from a range of separate yet mutually corroborating sources. With access to the right tools, anyone can question and test the theory of evolution, and tens of thousands of professional research scientists are doing this very thing day in, day out.

So where's your evidence of Special Creation? What was the mechanism? Who is the creator, and how did they do what they did? Where is the detail, the explanation? And, my personal favourite - why would a creator choose to make life on Earth look exactly like it has evolved?

Maybe these can help answer:

http://www.icr.org/science

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Either which way, the plan was always confusion and destruction. Like good and evil, there are always two things to compare. Young and Old. Since a young earth fits more with the bible, people rather not believe it, because they don't believe in the bible. How would they believe that a planet hit the earth to create the moon. There are many ways to decide how the moon got there. How is this evidence compelling?

For example, man says there is a core beneath earth, and it's hotter than the sun. The bible says that hell is real, and it's on earth, and it's described to be very hot. Has man found hell?


@dylansan
The problem is the missing links in the fossil records.

 

[Denur]

Has man found hell?

Yes he has, and not only that, man has already located a few doorways to hell.

 

[DQuaN]

Maybe these can help answer:

http://www.icr.org/science

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

They really can't. It seems like a load of nonsense to me and not Science.

Since a young earth fits more with the bible, people rather not believe it, because they don't believe in the bible.

No. They don't believe it because there is exactly zero evidence that this is the case. Because it isn't. The earth is not 6000 years old. Fact. Believe whatever you want. That it's a Trillion years old or was created last Thursday. It doesn't change the fact that it is 4.5 Billion years old.

How would they believe that a planet hit the earth to create the moon. There are many ways to decide how the moon got there. How is this evidence compelling?

Because there is actually EVIDENCE. The fact that the moon has the same rotational period. It's wobble. The composition of the rock there compared to the Earth. It all points to the fact that it was formed by a collision.

For example, man says there is a core beneath earth, and it's hotter than the sun. The bible says that hell is real, and it's on earth, and it's described to be very hot. Has man found hell?

Man was aware of volcanoes and lava pits long before the concept of Hell. It's quite simple to see where the idea came from.

@dylansan
The problem is the missing links in the fossil records.

Which missing links would these be then?

 

[dylansan]

@dylansan
The problem is the missing links in the fossil records.

First of all, no theory, including relativity, gravity, etc. have all possible evidence recorded for them. We have not measured the bending of every beam of light, the acceleration of every possible object under gravity. And yet no one has ever used that to discredit those theories as if they're not complete.

The important thing is that every fossil we've found to date fits into the theory of evolution.

Let's talk about the whale evolution again. The order of events is as follows:

- Someone noticed that whales and dolphins, despite seeming a lot like fish, shared some qualities with mammals, like blowholes and live birth. At this point someone made a prediction that dolphins and whales might share many more qualities, based on the idea that all species are related. An idea which comes from evolution. Without evolution there would be no reason to predict that whales have other characteristics in common with humans, and yet...

- Upon observing dolphin skulls, we find that there are TWO holes in the skull where the blowhole is, despite there being only one blowhole. No one would have any reason to predict this except with the idea that the species is related to other mammals. Certainly, there would be no reason to design them that way.

- Further, we observed that the dolphin skeleton contains bones which very much resemble legs and feet of other creatures, despite not having anything like that function. Again, no one would have reason to think these would be here, and yet evolution predicted it.

- Then we found really old skeletons of creatures that looked sort of like whales but different. They had way bigger leg and feet bones, and nostril holes in their skull way closer to the front as in most land mammals. Okay, that doesn't prove anything. But then someone predicted that we would find a skeleton with characteristics between that old whale-thing and modern whales. No one had yet seen such a creature, and yet somehow we knew it probably existed.

- Lo and behold, we then find a skeleton of an old creature - it doesn't matter how old, but it's older than whales and younger than the really old one - which has nostri holes between the front and the top. And the leg bones are smaller than the really old one's but larger and more defined than modern whales. WOW, what a huge coincidence, right? How lucky evolution got! Oh that's right, you don't believe in luck. So explain these observations and how evolution knew that they would be found before anyone else did. Seriously, explain it.

Then explain all the other thousands of similar predictions evolution has made over the past century and a half.

 

[JKgo]

.....I forgot to ask this earlier: just what the heck is a young Earth theory? I see 6000 years bandied about, but I don't get it. Help?

 

[DQuaN]

.....I forgot to ask this earlier: just what the heck is a young Earth theory? I see 6000 years bandied about, but I don't get it. Help?

The bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Some people actually believe this...

 

[Touring Mars]

It's based on the idea that if one adds up the ages of all the people mentioned in the Bible, all the way back to Adam and Eve, you can figure out how old the Earth (and the Universe) is, and it comes to about 6000-10000 years, depending on who you talk to. Of course, there is the rather large assumption that everything in the Bible is literally correct, totally accurate and complete. The fact that you would need to rewrite the laws of physics and ignore physical evidence from chemistry, geology, astronomy, biology and just about every other branch of science while you are at it doesn't seem to stop some people from believing that Biblical aging is a more robust way of determining the real age of the Earth than modern science.

Note that not all Creationists are so-called Young Earth creationists, but YECs certainly do exist.

 

[Dennisch]

The bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Some people actually believe this...

The bible says nothing about that.

It was made up by a 15th century bible scholar, James Ussher, who tried to tie certain biblical events with archeological evidence.

 

[DQuaN]

It's based on the idea that if one adds up the ages of all the people mentioned in the Bible, all the way back to Adam and Eve, you can figure out how old the Earth (and the Universe) is, and it comes to about 6000-10000 years, depending on who you talk to. Of course, there is the rather large assumption that everything in the Bible is literally correct, totally accurate and complete.

Really? It doesn't even state the age of the earth? It's just a rough estimate made by adding up peoples ages?

How can anyone even conceive that this could be accurate?

It really is infuriating!

The bible says nothing about that.

It was made up by a 15th century bible scholar, James Ussher, who tried to tie certain biblical events with archeological evidence.

Insanity!

 

[Dennisch]

Insanity!

Religion!

 

[Touring Mars]

How can anyone even conceive that this could be accurate

We're talking about the same people who truly believe that the first female human being was made out of a rib plucked from a man by a supernatural entity, but consider the idea that generations of genetic mutation can produce new species from older ones as ludicrous.

 

[JKgo]

....Oh, so that's what it was. Yeah, I've heard about this too, back in high school - 20 years ago. Gee whiz.

6000 years, eh? Well, I'm pretty sure Chinese, Indian and Korean historians have something to say 'bout that, seeing their recorded history stretches as far back as 10,000 years....

 

[Denur]

A colleague of mine is a young earth creationist. We try to avoid the subject, because we both realize the sensitivity and the possible negative influence it might have on our working relation. The other day however, he led slip that all this science is only in our minds. I didn't respond, couldn't respond, too flabbergasted. In the end it's just an indication to me, that it is pointless to bring science into an argument with people like him. It doesn't matter what we say, we're just as delusional to them as they are to us (well, to me anyway).

 

[BobK]

The problem is the missing links in the fossil records.

Missing links? Perhaps this is worth repeating:

I find the whole "missing link" argument to be rather specious, particularly when something like the following happens.

Let's say there was an ancestral species "A" and its modern descendant "B". The creationists will argue there is no proof that "B" evolved from "A"*, where is the missing link? So some anthropologist discovers the remains of a previously undiscovered species "X" which is clearly midway between "A" and "B". The opponents will, instead of accepting the new evidence, will now claim that there are now two missing links, one from "A" to "X",and one from "X" to "B". So instead of agreeing that the argument for "B" being a descendant of "A" is strengthened, they'll claim it's now even weaker!

*actually a creationist will argue that evolution doesn't take place, period.

 

[Scaff]

Maybe these can help answer:

http://www.icr.org/science

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Either which way, the plan was always confusion and destruction. Like good and evil, there are always two things to compare. Young and Old. Since a young earth fits more with the bible, people rather not believe it, because they don't believe in the bible. How would they believe that a planet hit the earth to create the moon. There are many ways to decide how the moon got there. How is this evidence compelling?

For example, man says there is a core beneath earth, and it's hotter than the sun. The bible says that hell is real, and it's on earth, and it's described to be very hot. Has man found hell?

To repeat the question I asked:

What evidence can you supply to support your claim that Creation is true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Your not allowed to use the Bible, but actually evidence to a scientific standard, if you are not sure what that entails please ask.

And yet you still fail to provide the evidence (to a real standard - not one that is simply 'look its big and complex it must be God).

Have you never questioned why the only 'papers' your source site cite are themselves?

The problem is the missing links in the fossil records.

Is it now? Do you know just how many transitional fossils have been found and cataloged?

 

[Com Fox]

6000-10000 year old Earth thing makes no sense to me. Didn't dinosaurs go extinct 65 million years ago, or do Dinosaurs just don't exist????

 

[Scaff]

6000-10000 year old Earth thing makes no sense to me. Didn't dinosaurs go extinct 6.5 million years ago, or do Dinosaurs just don't exist????

No, that's the best bit. According to YEC (Young Earth Creationists) man and dinos lived happily together was ages.

http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/

Seriously nuts

 

[Dennisch]

6000-10000 year old Earth thing makes no sense to me. Didn't dinosaurs go extinct 6.5 million years ago, or do Dinosaurs just don't exist????

65 million year.

 

[wfooshee]

Interesting that they did not go extinct until after the flood, yet they were on the ark. Science proved it!

No, I'm not confused at all........

 

[JMoney]

6000-10000 year old Earth thing makes no sense to me. Didn't dinosaurs go extinct 6.5 million years ago, or do Dinosaurs just don't exist????

The only possible reference to dinosaurs the Bible gives is a passage in Job 40 and 41; in Job 40 God describes an animal called a "Behemoth".

Another creature, the Leviathan, is described in Job 41:

Some have interpreted these two creatures as species of dinosaurs.

Personally I don't have an opinion on dinosaurs; I neither believe they existed nor do I deny their existence; I admit that I don't know. If they did existed, I believe they probably did live alongside humans but certainly not for millions of years; that's where I take issue with the existence of dinosaurs, and not only because I believe the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. To have a bone existing in the ground for hundreds of millions of years seems pretty far-fetched to me. Common sense tells me that an organic substance wouldn't stay in the ground untouched for that long. It just sounds unrealistic to me. Recorded history only goes back a few thousand years, so it's pretty hard for humans to realize just how long a hundred million years is. It's 100,000 millennia. That's an incredibly large figure, and my unbiased opinion leads me to believe that it is foolish to come up with such a conclusion for the age of a bone based only on carbon dating.

To me, an invisible, all-powerful being is far, far more logical than an organic bone sitting in the ground perfectly preserved for 100,000 millennia. So if dinosaurs existed, I don't think they existed nearly that long ago, and yet you can't ignore the fact that it doesn't make sense for humans to have lived at the same time as a T-Rex. Thus, I don't really believe or disbelieve in dinosaurs. I'd rather spend my time focusing on the more important parts of the Bible. I really don't think my opinion on the Earth's age will affect my salvation.

And yes, my opinions on this matter have changed. You could probably go back and find some of my old posts in this thread that contradict what I just posted.

 

[Dennisch]

They don't pull dinosaur bones out the ground. The bones turn into minerals, and those minerals is what they find.

If they found bones we would have a Jurassic Park by now.

Educate yourself, it really helps.

 

[Exorcet]

To have a bone existing in the ground for hundreds of millions of years seems pretty far-fetched to me. Common sense tells me that an organic substance wouldn't stay in the ground untouched for that long.

Does common sense give an age at all? If it does, is it worth listening to? You're fighting a losing battle already if common sense is why you oppose scientific research. By it's nature science goes beyond common sense guessing and tries to find the actual answer. As in what are the mechanics at work that drive fossilization.

Common sense is not very reliable. It's just our experience based expectation. Things we don't experience first hand break the whole model.

It just sounds unrealistic to me. Recorded history only goes back a few thousand years, so it's pretty hard for humans to realize just how long a hundred million years is. It's 100,000 millennia. That's an incredibly large figure, and my unbiased opinion leads me to believe that it is foolish to come up with such a conclusion for the age of a bone based only on carbon dating.

The reliability has nothing to do with comprehending numbers, but a lot to do with how accurate dating is. For one thing, dinosaurs are too old to be carbon dated.

To me, an invisible, all-powerful being is far, far more logical than an organic bone sitting in the ground perfectly preserved for 100,000 millennia.

That shouldn't be at all. The former can't be disproven, so there is no logical reason to believe in it.

I'd rather spend my time focusing on the more important parts of the Bible. I really don't think my opinion on the Earth's age will affect my salvation.

If you really think your soul is at risk and the only thing that can save you is the truth, this should be extremely important to you. If the Bible is wrong about the universe, what does that say about the god described within?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Personally I don't have an opinion on dinosaurs; I neither believe they existed

Irony: Not believing in something existing when we have literal tonnes of proof, but believing in an all-powerful being where the proof level hovers around zero.

my unbiased opinion leads me to believe that it is foolish to come up with such a conclusion for the age of a bone based only on carbon dating.

Damn, I misplaced that Princess Bride jpg again...

Whenever I see this thread heating up again, I go and re-read an article on the Duba lions.

 

[JMoney]

By it's nature science goes beyond common sense guessing and tries to find the actual answer.

Common sense is what I perceive. Science is what other people figure out and then tell me to believe.

If you really think your soul is at risk and the only thing that can save you is the truth, this should be extremely important to you. If the Bible is wrong about the universe, what does that say about the god described within?

That's not what Christians believe at all- we believe the only path to salvation is through Christ; believing he is the son of God who died for our sins. It is good to have the lesser details, such as the details of creation, accurate, but in the end all humans sin and can still be saved. The truth is good, but the only truth we really need is Christ.

Irony: Not believing in something existing when we have literal tonnes of proof, but believing in an all-powerful being where the proof level hovers around zero.

I'm going to ignore this until you learn the difference between excessively condescending statements that have nothing to do with what I actually posted and sensible debating. Exorcet seems to know the difference, which is why I replied to him. It's clear to me you want me off this site, but banning me would first require me to snap and insult you. I'm smarter than that. Try again.

 

[Com Fox]

Believing can only go so far, without evidence or actual proof... I can't just Believe that Pokemon really exists (though I wished they did ), since there is no such evidence or proof that they really exist. All I could do to say Pokemon exist, is by looking through the games, manga and anime but no matter how they're written they show nothing that relates to their existence, even if there was common sense behind it.