Creation vs. Evolution

[Pako]

A couple of theological questions, if I may.

If you believe in the Genesis account, do you also believe in the exceptions to our diets made in Leviticus? Specifically, pork (swine) but also camel, coney, hare, "all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters", eagle, ossifrage, ospray (sic), vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckow (sic), hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing, bat, weasel, mouse, tortoise, ferret, chameleon, "lizard", snail, and mole.

Secondly, why, do you think, is there no physical description of Jesus in the Bible?

I do not believe in the exceptions to our diets made in Leviticus, as explained in prior posts.

Not sure why there are no descriptions of what Christ looked like. Never really thought about it as it seems so insignificant as I don't place much thought on what people look like I guess. No descriptions really, huh? Interesting question though.

 

[Pako]

We can accept infinity because there is no end in sight. Literally. With the billions of lightyears out there that the telescopes alone can see, and the rays of light and other cosmic energies received from various.................*snip*

Somehow you missed the point to my entire post, sorry I didn't explain it any better.

 

[Swift]

Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Revelation 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;

Revelation 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

There's a description of Jesus. Now, it may not give his height, skin tone or facial features. But that's Jesus!

 

[Famine]

"Girt about the paps"? You'd get locked up for that.

So all we "know" about Jesus' physical makeup is that he's got white hair, presumably around Judgement Day, given the source? If I were 2,000+ years old, I'd have white hair too...

 

[PS]

Simple, why did the Irish paintings of Jesus have him with red hair and freckles? Because that's what the people that they KNEW looked like. That's all. This was before you could turn on a TV or hop in a plane and just know that other people looked different.

...and how could they KNOW he looks like that? Because they've seen him?

And I've honestly never seen a Jesus with red hair and freckles.

 

[PS]

Somehow you missed the point to my entire post, sorry I didn't explain it any better.

I got the point, but I picked that out because of its' glaring misrepresentation, or at least, poor analogy.

 

[Swift]

...and how could they KNOW he looks like that? Because they've seen him?

And I've honestly never seen a Jesus with red hair and freckles.

I know you're not that slow. People knew of Jesus but didn't know what he looked like. So they painted him to look like THEY look. Makes perfectly logical sense.

 

[Pako]

I got the point, but I picked that out because of its' glaring misrepresentation, or at least, poor analogy.

No, you didn't. You're defining infinity based on what you know.

Before our current technology, the rolling fields were infinite, the rivers were infinite, the seas were infinite, the sky was infinite, the solar system was infinite, the galaxy was infinite, now our universe is infinite. You think you have finally reached a comprehension of infinite? Sorry, we can't comprehend infinity, we only have a idea of what we think it is, we place limitations on it so we can try to understand it.

 

[PS]

No, you didn't. You're defining infinity based on what you know.

Before our current technology, the rolling fields were infinite, the rivers were infinite, the seas were infinite, the sky was infinite, the solar system was infinite, the galaxy was infinite, now our universe is infinite. You think you have finally reached a comprehension of infinite? Sorry, we can't comprehend infinity, we only have a idea of what we think it is, we place limitations on it so we can try to understand it.

But if our universe is constantly expanding, then it is constantly getting bigger. If it is constantly getting bigger, then it is never running out, and is then limitless. If it is limitless, it is infinite.

 

[Swift]

But if our universe is constantly expanding, then it is constantly getting bigger. If it is constantly getting bigger, then it is never running out, and is then limitless. If it is limitless, it is infinite.

What PS is saying that the very concept of infinity is not a concept that humans can comprehend. So we quantify it by relating it to things that we can comprehend.

 

[Pako]

What PS is saying that the very concept of infinity is not a concept that humans can comprehend. So we quantify it by relating it to things that we can comprehend.

If that's so then I guess PS and I don't have an argument, as that is what I was trying to say.

 

[Earth]

I'm really surprised this topic has lasted 90 pages without being closed or turning into a verbal attack contest. I guess this can be attributed to the maturity of most of the people who posted here.

"A creator shouldnt even be thought of as a rational reason for the existance of anything."

Why should the thought that there may be a creator not be pondered? It makes no sense not do so, if you're an openminded individual as many claim to be. But comments such as the above prove otherwise. No, I'm not a hypocrite. I have seen and have a decent understanding of evolution as I am bombarded by it from everywhere. I wouldnt doubt if I have a better understanding of evoluton than most of its supporters.

I'll get to the point. I believe there is a creator. I have faith there is a God. This faith is backed up by scientific fact as well as other things. I believe scientific fact points more to life being a direct act of creation than the spontaneous life/evolution theory. If I were to say I believe in God without any doubt, I would be lying. Thus the term faith. I can't see God, and I wasnt there when he did it. But I have somewhat of a relationship with him, as I am able to get comfort through prayer etc. I see his handywork etc. I try and read the Bible and get to learn more about him. Why do you hear people say they "strengthened" their faith? Because, believe it or not, both life arising spontaneously and creation need a degree of faith, because no matter how much we want to believe otherwise, that is simply the case and at the moment is true. No, I'm not a wishywashy creation guy who has big doubts or thinks maybe God just put the earth here and let it grow everything by itself. No, I'm quite convinced there is a God and I'm sure he had a hand in making the basic forms of life, man, reptile, mammal, fish etc. But I'm reasonable enough to admit it requires a degree of faith. Can you admit that concerning your beliefs?

 

[Zardoz]

...I believe scientific fact points more to life being a direct act of creation than the spontaneous life/evolution theory...

I searched for some of those scientific facts here:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/

http://www.creationresearch.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.sixdaycreation.com/

http://www.csm.org.uk/index.php

I didn't find any, but I found plenty of outrageous distortions and outright falsehoods. Many of these sites amount to nothing more than an insult to anyone's intelligence. Have I missed the good sites? Are there better ones than these?

Please direct me to a source (of any kind) where I can learn about the scientific facts that indicate that life arose as the result of someone's act of creation.

 

[ledhed]

There are none . I.D. is not science nor is creationism , it tries to be a psuedo science to get around the restrictions of seperation between church and state . Its ironic that a religion will resort to subterfuge and outright lies to futher its evangelic goals . But considering history I guess its better than the inquisition . Now they prefer brain washing . I guess all that torture and burning at the stake was bad for the image .

What should really bother you is they think you are so stupid as to accept I.D. as a science . It says alot as to what they think of their demographic .

 

[Famine]

I do not believe in the exceptions to our diets made in Leviticus, as explained in prior posts.

I'm afraid I must, therefore, ask the glaringly obvious follow-up question.

If you do not believe in the dietary exceptions (and animal sacrificies, I should add) as stated in Leviticus, despite the book coming from the same overall tome and being the only book where the only speaking part goes to God, why the slavish adherence to the "Genesis account" of Creation?

The Bible, it is often said, is the Word of God - the Old Testament much moreso than the new, and Leviticus much moreso than any other book. CAN you choose which parts you believe in and which parts you don't in this manner? Can you be a Christian and eat pork?

 

[Pako]

I'm afraid I must, therefore, ask the glaringly obvious follow-up question.

If you do not believe in the dietary exceptions (and animal sacrifices, I should add) as stated in Leviticus, despite the book coming from the same overall tome and being the only book where the only speaking part goes to God, why the slavish adherence to the "Genesis account" of Creation?

The Bible, it is often said, is the Word of God - the Old Testament much more than the new, and Leviticus much more than any other book. CAN you choose which parts you believe in and which parts you don't in this manner? Can you be a Christian and eat pork?

Do you know what Leviticus is about? Do you know what all those rules were for? Do you know the context in which those laws were laid forth? Like I posted before, these rules were for a specific set of people that were led our of Egypt right? Although some of these rules that God laid out for them through Moses were good, and could be used as examples in some cases, these laws were for those people. Those 613 laws that were made into doctrine were replaced with Christ's one law, a law of love under His grace. This is why the priests in Jesus' time were so furious. Jesus was not viewed as the Messiah that had be prophysised and was called a blasphemer for saying that all those rules were unnecessary as long as you follow one rule. For example one of the 613 rules was to not walk a certain distance or work on the Sabbath, the Priests would have left a wounded man lay in a ditch where Christ said to help that person, to show love and compassion, even on the Sabbath.

Christ was a ransomed sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice for our sins so that mankind would no longer have to have animal/alter sacrifices as atonements for those sins.

 

[Famine]

So, in essence, Jesus - as described in the events of the New Testament - replaced the rules one formerly had to live one's life by with just the one rule.

I find it interesting the the New Testament - or rather Jesus - replaced specific books of the Old Testament, rather than the whole thing en masse. If Leviticus was merely a set of rules by which one should live your life which could be discarded, then why are the earlier Genesis and Exodus not just stories or morality tales which, following Jesus, could similarly be discarded? Why stick, almost hypnotised, to books 1 and 2 as Gospel truth (haha...), yet when it comes to book 3 the rules laid down in it can be thrown away? It seems glaringly inconsistent.

 

[Pako]

I think the key difference is that you are viewing the events of Genesis as rules. These accounts in Genesis were events not rules as described in the Bible, written by man, inspired by God. IF (and that's an awfully big IF) Jesus the Son of the almighty God said, "yeah...that whole Genesis story....well...that was the best interpretation that the writer could handle. Dad tried, but a cataclysmic event as big as the creation of the universe is pretty tough to put into words..., it really happened like this ____________________.", I would have to go with what Jesus said, but I'm not about to get into a "what if" scenario as we all know where that leads.

 

[Dave A]

So, in essence, Jesus - as described in the events of the New Testament - replaced the rules one formerly had to live one's life by with just the one rule.

I find it interesting the the New Testament - or rather Jesus - replaced specific books of the Old Testament, rather than the whole thing en masse. If Leviticus was merely a set of rules by which one should live your life which could be discarded, then why are the earlier Genesis and Exodus not just stories or morality tales which, following Jesus, could similarly be discarded? Why stick, almost hypnotised, to books 1 and 2 as Gospel truth (haha...), yet when it comes to book 3 the rules laid down in it can be thrown away? It seems glaringly inconsistent.

I'm not going to go into too much detail here but Jesus didn't just suddenly change the rules. What happened was when Jesus was put to death that ended the covenant between the Jews and God. The Laws set in the old testiment were the laws set in that covenant. Jesus death also signified the end of Gods direct involment with man, Jesus laid downa enw set of rules for followers to abide by after his death, otherwise the old covenant would have ended and they would have had no rules to stick to. If I've not fully answered it's because I'm short on time. I'm dissapearing again now for however long and probably won't read your reply let alone answer it since I so very infrequently visit this thread but I'm sure any points you get from it can come up again later or get answered by somone else.

 

[Famine]

I'm merely curious, is all. And, let's face it, with several branches of the Judeo-Christian belief system divided up by what part of the Old and New Testaments they believe, I'm not the only one.

 

[Danoff]

Earth,

I'm going to respond to your post even though you won't be reading this. I know that you won't be reading this because if you had read my earlier posts you would not have posted most of these questions. It's too bad that you're unwilling to accept any kind of feedback on your posts - and soon (if it hasn't happened already) you'll be on everyone's ignore list and will simply be talking to yourself.

But here you go:

"A creator shouldnt even be thought of as a rational reason for the existance of anything."

Why should the thought that there may be a creator not be pondered? It makes no sense not do so, if you're an openminded individual as many claim to be. But comments such as the above prove otherwise.

Did someone post the above quote? Who are you talking to? Please be sure to clarify. If you don't, it might look to the rest of us like you're arguing with yourself.

I'll get to the point. I believe there is a creator. I have faith there is a God. This faith is backed up by scientific fact as well as other things. I believe scientific fact points more to life being a direct act of creation than the spontaneous life/evolution theory.

What scientific facts are those? That we're complex? If you take that one and put it up against the moutains of fossil records and evidence suggesting that creatures on this planet have gradually gotten more and more complex over time - then I think you're outnumbered by evidence pointing to evolution.

But this has already been explained by several on this thread. Which is why you need to READ other people's posts. If you ARE reading them, then you're doing even worse - you're choosing to restate your argument rather than responding to those who have already refuted it (which is possibly the definition of closed minded).

If I were to say I believe in God without any doubt, I would be lying. Thus the term faith.

Faith means you believe in God without any doubt. Faith means that even though you're not justified in accepting something as truth, you DO. Meaning you have NO doubt - because you have faith. If you don't believe in God without doubt then you're going to hell.

I can't see God, and I wasnt there when he did it. But I have somewhat of a relationship with him, as I am able to get comfort through prayer etc.

Let's be a little more scientific about this. You have a relationship with SOMETHING but you don't know what. You THINK it's him but you can't be sure.

I see his handywork etc.

The human mind has been engineered by natural selection to search for cause and effect. You see an effect and you look for a cause. This doesn't work well for predicting chaotic events like the weather or baseball games or casino games - but people still cling to their lucky hats.

I try and read the Bible and get to learn more about him. Why do you hear people say they "strengthened" their faith? Because, believe it or not, both life arising spontaneously and creation need a degree of faith,

I have explained at least three times in this thread and several times in another thread why scientific explanation does not require faith. I'll summarize (not that you're paying any attention), we don't BELIEVE it. We think it's probable but we're not sure... thus the lack of need for faith.

No, I'm not a wishywashy creation guy who has big doubts or thinks maybe God just put the earth here and let it grow everything by itself. No, I'm quite convinced there is a God and I'm sure he had a hand in making the basic forms of life, man, reptile, mammal, fish etc. But I'm reasonable enough to admit it requires a degree of faith. Can you admit that concerning your beliefs?

I would if I had beliefs.


What a waste of time. You didn't read this, you won't respond, and you're going to copy your original post and repeat yourself again later. If you do, though, you're going on my ignore list.

 

[Earth]

Before beginning I would like to talk about what I mean when I say unproved science is being sent out to the layman as fact. Example from 'Universe':

"The Hubble Ultra Deep Field cuts across 13 billion light years to capture some of the most distant galaxies known, formed when the universe was under 800 million years old...Their often unusual and irregular forms chronicle an era when order was just beginning to emerge from chaos... having closed to with a mere 379,000 years of the Big Bang...[at 13.4 billion light years] a wall of microwave radiation marks the end of our journey, for beyond this horizon an ocean of superheated plasma impedes light's progress.......we do live in a flat universe."

I'm sure Famine has more updated scientific theories on the age of the universe etc and they do not agree with this. Yet this book makes no mention that they arent completley sure of what they say. It is written as though it were tested fact. There is no maybes or could haves. So when the average Joe reads this he knows for a fact the universe is 13.4 billion years old and outside of it is superheated plasma. Such information written as though it were fact is misleading.

Modern science has put God on trial. They say He is not responsible for the creation of life, as has been thought the case since man has walked this earth. The prosecution says evolution and spontaneous eruption of life is responsible for what we see today.

As in most cases, the murder or crime, or in this isntance the moment of creation, wasnt seen. So all we are left to do is prove that God did or didnt do it beyond reasonable doubt.

]Please direct me to a source (of any kind) where I can learn about the scientific facts that indicate that life arose as the result of someone's act of creation.

There are none .

Left hand / right hand
There are 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in 2 shapes. Some are left handed, some are right handed.

If they were formed at random in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be left handed and half right handed. There is no know reason as to why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins All are left handed.

“It must be admitted that the explanation [left hand right hand]…still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded “We may never be able to explain it.” -Physicist J.D. Bernal

Current theories have life coming from outerspace to get around this.

What has been found in the fossils?

The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution can not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agree with Genesis. In the oldest rocks we do not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures do developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete abscence of intermediate fossils." -biochemist D.B. Gower

Does this scientific fact point to a slow gradual change of evolution or does it point to creatures being created within a short period of time by someone?

"If simple progressive evolution from simple to comlex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were extabilished fits best." -zoologist Harold Coffin

What did Darwin have to say about the fossil record?

"The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists...as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species...There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views [evolution] here entertained." -Darwin

Dinosaurs and other fully developed creatures suddenly appeared, fully developed, and then suddenly dissapeared. Have any long knecked dinosaurs been found with short knecks? Have any giraffes with short knecks been found? In order for a giraffe to even have a long kneck it must have a super complex heart system that prevents it from killing itself when it bends over to drink. Is it reasonable to believe this heart system came into existance on its own so the Giraffe could have a long kneck? Do random mutations, which are more harmful than helpful, account for the design of a heart? Does 1 good mutation for every 100,000 bad mutations create better life?

Of course there is more but Im too tired

 

[Swift]

I'm merely curious, is all. And, let's face it, with several branches of the Judeo-Christian belief system divided up by what part of the Old and New Testaments they believe, I'm not the only one.

Jesus has actually broke one of the "rules" that the pharasies had gleaned from leviticus. No working on the sabbath. So they did NOTHING. Not even help, heal or pray for someone. Jesus healed the mand that had a crippled hand on the sabbath. This was "technically" breaking one of their rules. Also when the diciples went to pick ears of corn on the sabbath when Jesus was right there. Basically, Jesus is the sabbath hence we no longer have a need for it.

But you see, if you only look at scripture in an isolated view, as Famine is doing with Leviticus, then that won't make sense. We are to interpret scripture with scripture.
If you look through the rules of leviticus many of them deal with sacrifice for sin. Jesus died for all sins, so half of those rules go out the door right there.

 

[Earth]

Do you want me to go over all your post and reply to everything you have/had said?

I dont expect you to reply to everything I said

But since you are quite sure I'm ignoring people for whatever reason I'll reply to everything you said.

Give me time

 

[Danoff]

Earth, I'm not reading any more of your posts until you actually respond to one.


Edit:

Do you want me to go over all your post and reply to everything you have/had said?

I dont expect you to reply to everything I said

But since you are quite sure I'm ignoring people for whatever reason I'll reply to everything you said.

Give me time

Ok. You don't have to respond to every statement, but try to answer all of my questions and respond to arguments.

 

[Earth]

Did someone post the above quote? Who are you talking to? Please be sure to clarify. If you don't, it might look to the rest of us like you're arguing with yourself.

PS and someone else said something to the like a few pages back.

What scientific facts are those? That we're complex? If you take that one and put it up against the moutains of fossil records and evidence suggesting that creatures on this planet have gradually gotten more and more complex over time - then I think you're outnumbered by evidence pointing to evolution.

you seem quite sure the fossil record points to a slow transition. Are you sure this is the case? From all the skeletons I've seen, they look pretty complete.

Faith means you believe in God without any doubt. Faith means that even though you're not justified in accepting something as truth, you DO. Meaning you have NO doubt - because you have faith. If you don't believe in God without doubt then you're going to hell.

I've already told you there is no way to believe in something that you haven't seen without 'doubt' as you call it. As in a trial, if you're the jury you werent there when it happened. So you look at the evidence and come to the best possible conclusion. How am I not justified to believe life was a direct act of creation? Faith can mean trust, in a way. If somebody said they would do something for you and you had faith in them to do so because of past experience with him, would you have 0 doubt they would do it? This doubt may be near 0 but it will always be there. That is why both creation and evolution guys are constantly looking for more answers. Both want more proof to back up their beliefs. If they truly had 0 doubt they wouldnt read up on the Bible to see if it agrees with modern science etc and evolutionists wouldnt be digging for the missing links.. Almost too hard to explain non face to face and I dont think I did a good job here so there it is.

Let's be a little more scientific about this. You have a relationship with SOMETHING but you don't know what. You THINK it's him but you can't be sure.

I'm 99.99% sure its him. I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt it is him.

The human mind has been engineered by natural selection to search for cause and effect. You see an effect and you look for a cause. This doesn't work well for predicting chaotic events like the weather or baseball games or casino games - but people still cling to their lucky hats.

Did you see the human mind get engineered by natural selection? I'm not sure what you mean here but you seem to say that as if you are 100% sure it happened that way

I have explained at least three times in this thread and several times in another thread why scientific explanation does not require faith. I'll summarize (not that you're paying any attention), we don't BELIEVE it. We think it's probable but we're not sure... thus the lack of need for faith.

If evolution and spontaneous life is probable, but not fact, then shouldnt there be other theories? Or is this the only one that can explain life?

I would if I had beliefs.

Why does one theory of how life got started require faith but the other does not?

 

[Earth]

So we're sticking with the idea that god supplied light and heat for the grass and trees he created so they could hang in there until he made the sun later (for some reason). Ok.

On the first 'day' God said "Let light come to be." Obviously this is when the sun was made.

The fourth day says the luminaries came to be in the expanse. Genesis says the early earth was completley covered by water and under thick cloud cover. By the time of the 3rd day the thick cloud cover must have dissapated enough to where the Sun's energy and heat could get to the earth.

On the fourth day the sun must have been visible and thus it was 'created' so to speak but Moses didnt see it nor the stars visibly until the fourth 'day'

Aside from the idea that plants were created before the sun... the order kinda makes sense.... but not in a direct fashion. In a God-made-it-directly sort of way, it doesn't gel with fossil records.

The Bible doesnt say how long it took for God to make these things. It simply represents these time periods as days. We are still living in the 7th 'day', and it has been 6-7k years since the end of the 6th 'day'

This scripture pretty much does away with any thoughts that a Genesis day is 24 hours:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 2:4 King James Version

All the 6 creative days are summed up as a 'day' or a period of time that could be millions of years in length.

Ok A) brain size means nothing. B) The ability to use tools conferred a survival advantage. We're still working with that basic reasoning. People with the ability to learn and communicate survived much better than those who didn't learn these things. With learning and communication comes the rest of man's knowledge given a few thousand years.

So our brains got smaller? What good would that do? Apes can use tools. But I dont see them getting any smarter or advancing. The fact is monkeys and apes are smart enough as it is to survive. They dont need more evolving.

 

[Danoff]

First of all, thank you for responding to my post. It allows us to have a discussion and I think we'll get much farther toward understanding each other if we can keep this up.

you seem quite sure the fossil record points to a slow transition. Are you sure this is the case? From all the skeletons I've seen, they look pretty complete.

Yes, I'm certain that the fossil record points to a slow transition in most cases. Evolution doesn't have to happen slowly and there are other factors (like asteroids wiping things out) but the overall progress is gradual in the fossil record.

I've already told you there is no way to believe in something that you haven't seen without 'doubt' as you call it.

That's faith. You have to take a "leap of faith" and believe something that you have not seen for yourself... without dobut. Doubt in God's existance will put you in a lake of fire to burn for all eternity.

As in a trial, if you're the jury you werent there when it happened. So you look at the evidence and come to the best possible conclusion. How am I not justified to believe life was a direct act of creation?

Have approached the problem as a jury would? Have you looked at the problem from both sides and weighed the evidence? You're not justified in believing much of ANYTHING, including evolution, to be 100% fact. But if you're saying that you think creation was simply more probable than evolution, then I think you're breaking your religion (but being much more reasonable).

Faith can mean trust, in a way. If somebody said they would do something for you and you had faith in them to do so because of past experience with him, would you have 0 doubt they would do it? This doubt may be near 0 but it will always be there.

You're confusing a coloquial definitino of faith with the religious one. Religious faith means no doubt. You must believe 100% in Christ as your savior or you will burn in hell.

That is why both creation and evolution guys are constantly looking for more answers and evolutionists wouldnt be digging for the missing links. Both want more proof to back up their beliefs. If they truly had 0 doubt they wouldnt read up on the Bible to see if it agrees with modern science etc. Almost too hard to explain non face to face and I dont think I did a good job here so there it is.

In many cases (on both sides) it isn't for people to strengthen their own resolve, it's to try to make a persuasive case to get others on board.

I'm 99.99% sure its him. I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt it is him.

I don't remember reading about how salvation required a belief in Christ that is "beyond a resonable doubt", that sounds a little more secular and a little more damned.

Did you see the human mind get engineered by natural selection? I'm not sure what you mean here but you seem to say that as if you are 100% sure it happened that way

I am not 100% sure of anything but that I exist, let's get that out of the way. What is most probable in my mind (and fits the facts) is that when faced with chaos people search for reason . This would give us a natural advantage in the wild. This is the only reason I can figure for why my buddy has a lucky hat that he thinks helps his team win baseball games.

If evolution and spontaneous life is probable, but not fact, then shouldnt there be other theories? Or is this the only one that can explain life?

There is one theory that fits the facts best. There are others, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail the Noodled One).

Why does one theory of how life got started require faith but the other does not?

Because your religion states that you MUST believe without doubt in Christ as your savior or you will be eternally damned. You have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior and have FAITH (even though you will not be presented with sufficient evidence to believe). This is done by God as a test of your belief.

Science has no such stipulation. Science does not say I'm a bad scientist or will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity if I don't accept evolution without doubt. Science encourages doubt, rewards doubt. As a scientist one of the best things you can do with your career is to upend some long held theory with a better one that fits the facts better. That's how you get your name on the equation/process/disease/procedure.

 

[Danoff]

On the first 'day' God said "Let light come to be." Obviously this is when the sun was made.

Except that it says that the sun was made later.

The fourth day says the luminaries came to be in the expanse. Genesis says the early earth was completley covered by water and under thick cloud cover. By the time of the 3rd day the thick cloud cover must have dissapated enough to where the Sun's energy and heat could get to the earth.

On the fourth day the sun must have been visible and thus it was 'created' so to speak but Moses didnt see it nor the stars visibly until the fourth 'day'

A bit of slight of hand there. The bible says the sun was created on the fourth day - not that it was created on the first and then visible on the fourth. If we're taking it literally enough to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old (you do believe that right?) then we're taking it literally enough to believe that the sun was in fact created on the fourth day.

...and what the hell does moses have to do with anything? Was he there or something?

So our brains got smaller? What good would that do? Apes can use tools. But I dont see them getting any smarter or advancing.

Bigger isn't necessarily better. And natural selection no longer acts on humanity (since everyone procreates these days), so we're not advancing.

The fact is monkeys and apes are smart enough as it is to survive. They dont need more evolving.

They could always do better.

 

[PS]

Did someone post the above quote? Who are you talking to? Please be sure to clarify. If you don't, it might look to the rest of us like you're arguing with yourself.

I think I posted something along the lines of that, after some *fundie said it was illogical to think a god had a creator.


*Not talking about anyone from this website. It was a guy claiming to be a scientist.