Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,275 views
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
danoff
I dont believe that because the Bible doesnt say that. It says the Earth and heaven was created 'in the beginning', than God created plants, fish etc. So the only way the earth could be 6,000 years old is if a genesis day represents 24 hours which I proved wrong.
Genesis days allow for millions or billions of years.
danoff
Moses wrote Genesis, so he had to have seen phases of what happened, in a vision like what John saw in Revelation or some other method. Or you could believe he guessed right on everything he said.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Earth
Yea sorry... I meant to confirm that you thought it was about 6,000 years since man was created.
I did not know Moses wrote Genesis. So God is supposed to have givin Moses a vision of the origins of the Earth and he wrote it down? Man Moses brought us a lot of God's word - like as much as Jesus or something.
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
danoff
Yes, the Bible puts the number around 6,000 years
danoff
I'm trying not to be dogmatic so I'm not sure how God got the information to Moses. He must have used visions like he did for John in Revelation or something. I dont know. Moses did have very close encounters with God, though. Read the middle part of Exodus. Scary at times, like when he saw God's glory his face emitted rays.
, or when Mt. Sinai shook and there was thunder and lightning and everything. Some Israelites feared for their lives. Even if you think this is all made up you must admit if that did indeed happen it must have been real awe inspiringDuke
The Bible isnt a science textbook. But when it does touch on science it gets it right.
Also I've been looking up so more information on Einstein and his belief in a God. It seems that he believed in something that had intelligence and created the universe, or at least put the laws in place that created everything, but he did not accept this God to be involved with human affairs, in other words he may have seen God as some do, as a cold far away being void of emotions etc. Its hard to see what he really thought because we only have a few quotes to go after. But one thing is for certain, he did recognize that the universe and its order was put into place by someone or something.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
edit:
Zardoz
I think this topic would be better off if there werent any one-liners, especially ones that do nothing to advance the discussion.
Thank you
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Earth
Ok. So we're taking the bible literally enough to trace the lineage of man through the generations prior to Jesus up to his presence. So you believe that man is 6,000 years old...
...but we're not taking the bible literally enough to think that the sun was created on the 4th day. There we will just assume that they meant the sun could be "seen" first on the fourth day. Here's the order as laid out by Genesis:
1) Earth
2) Water
3) Light
4) Day & Night, evening & morning
5) Heaven
6) Dry Land
7) Grass, Trees (the first life)
8) Seasons, years
9) Stars
10) Sun and Moon
But you're saying that the order is this?
1) Earth
2) Water
3) Light (Stars, Sun, Moon)
4) Day & Night (which would now be a consequence of 3)
5) Heaven
6) Dry Land
7) Grass, Trees
8) Seasons
9) Light became visibile through the clouds.
Now granted your interpretation makes a lot more sense than the Genesis text on its own, but we still have the issue of water and Earth being created before the Sun was around to heat them. Are we to presume that the water was ice? Or did God heat the water? We know that the Earth is orbiting the sun, so are we to think that God created the Sun and then flung the Earth into orbit around the sun? Or the he created the sun with a relative velocity to the Earth that the Earth began to orbit?
So what I'm trying to get a handle on is how you can take parts of the bible literally and others not-so literally. Are we to avoid eating certain foods as God has decreed? Are we to avoid obtaining the glenings of our harvest? Or do we stick to ALL of the commandments. Oh, and where did Cain's wife come from?
(by the way, how do you reconcile with the fact that you're going to hell since there is some doubt in your mind that God exists at all?)
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
danoff
This explains why Moses says the moon and sun were made on the 4th day.
On the first day the expression light came to be was used. The Hebrew word used their for light was ohr, meaning light in a general sense, but on the fourth day the word changes to ma*ohr, which means the source of light.
On the first day light penetrated the waddling bands, but the sources couldnt be seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers around the entire earth.
Moses didnt see the source of light until the 4th day, where he saw them for the first time.[/quote]
danoff
Alot of what you speak of is from the old testament. Old as its no longer valid because of the sacrifice of Jesus. The old testament said to sacrifice animals etc but Jesus was the ultimate perfect sacrifice so the need for animal sacrifices etc was no longer needed.
danoff
The only reasonable explanation is he took one of his sisters as a wife.
danoff
You're getting pretty deep and I dont feel comfortable discussing this in a evolution vs creation thread. I'll answer this in a pm, or in a different topic if wanted.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
Man: "Well, intelligent design is a dead giveaway, isn't it? We couldn't possibly have evolved by chance, so that proves you exist, therefore, you don't!"
God: "I hadn't thought of that!" *vanishes in a puff of logic*
With apologies to Douglas Adams...
- 87,634
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Earth
Moses was around for Creation?
live4speed
Earth
The Ten Commandments are in Exodus (Old Testament). Are they as valid as Genesis or as invalid as Leviticus?
Earth
Such as the time it describes a very large boat so Noah can fit a load of animals on board, but doesn't take into account the fact that it isn't actually big enough to fit all the animals on board, or the fact that all of the cats would have died well before 40 days and nights were out due to tyrosine deficiency, or the fact that there is simply not enough water - even including the polar ice caps - to swell the surface of the Earth by the 5 kilometres needed to reach to the top of Mount Ararat (about 2.6 BILLION cubic kilometres of water, compared to the ice caps' 33 MILLION cubic kilometres...)?
Make no mistake. The Bible is a book of stories. Not one part of it stands up to any more scientific scrutiny than a multi-million dollar blockbuster film.
I'll also just add that everything you wrote from the bold "left-hand/right-hand" onwards was incorrect. If any of the people quoted in it are currently researching in the field of evolution - be it botany/zoology, paleobotany/paleontology or molecular biology - they should be ashamed of themselves for the statements you attribute to them.
- 2,208
Famine
For the past couple of days I've been trying to motivate myself to sit down and respond to that sad post, and I was considering trying to plow into it this weekend, but I'll let your comment speak for me, Famine. Thanks.
I'll just say this, Earth: There's an old saying that goes "We are known by the company we keep." That list of "Creation Science" sites that I posted here...
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1844922&postcount=1783
...is the "company" you creationists keep. These are your fellow true believers. These are your people. Their pathetic attempts at rationalizing their beliefs, as they desperately try to put some sort of scientific mask on them, states the case for us non-believers far more eloquently than I ever could.
- 1,620
I've already posted a wealth of information (regarding Einstein) somewhere (direct quotes where he is asked directly about his views on God/religion). He gives a strong impression of a man who takes the absolute piss of people who believe in any "God". Einstein absolutely DID NOT believe in "God" or religion. Can you fundies stop pushing the dead horse of a blatant misconception that Einstein was a believer? PUH-LEASE! He was far too rational for that and would be turning in his grave if he could hear Earth misappropriate and misquote him so badly. Luckily he can't hear crap cause he's dead.
Earth, we have all been refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. You sir, are a complete and total twonk. To express zero comprehension of ANYTHING that has been discussed on this thread takes a very 'special' brand of irrationality and mental agility.
Oh. Deary. Me.
Earth, we have all been refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. You sir, are a complete and total twonk. To express zero comprehension of ANYTHING that has been discussed on this thread takes a very 'special' brand of irrationality and mental agility.
Oh. Deary. Me.
- 30,021
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Famine
I'm not sure what the context of Earth's coment there is, but no Noah was not around when the Earth was created.
The ten commandments were part of God's covenant so they were replaced when Jesus was put to death.
The bible explains where the water came from, it also explains that it was drained by a great wind. Back then the mountains wern't as high and the sea's wern't as deap, also there was a lot of water in the atmosphere, some suggest that the whole world was capable of being like a paradise because of a layer of water around the planet (I'm no scientist so I'm probably missing somthing out or putting it a little wrong, when I have the time I'll do the research and get the exacts for you). There were no polar ice caps before the flood, there would have been a large change to the geological makup of the earth after the flood so you have to bear all that in mind, again I have too little time right now so I'll come back with better info later.
As for the animals, theres not much info on what every animal means, to literally get evry animal Noah would have needed to travel very far and very wide, so you can presume that he'd be getting all the animals in his area of the land. And the different kinds of Elephant and so on may have come about after the flood or were preserved by god in some other way. The flood actually give a reason as to why sea fossils have been found high up on mountains from time to time.
the bible said the earth wasn't flat long before the majority of people found out, it also describes the water cycle. Even Adam living over 900 years can't be disproven by science. The top scientists will NOT say that it is impossible for a human to live 900+ years. They alread believe it's possible for man to live for ever with minor changes to our genetic makeup. I'm dissapearing again for a bit.
The bottom line with evolution v creatin is that neither can be proven 100%, evolution is not a fact, it's a theory, beliefe in God is based on faith as is beliefe in the creation theory. You can try to explain why tyou choose to believe what you do, but you can't categorically say the other person is wrong, even though you believe he/she is.
- 1,620
Of course, I said what I wanted to say. You should've seen what I was going to submit! (don't worry there is an element of self censorship going on...)Swift
Saying someone is a 'twonk' and of 'special' mental agility is arguably not name calling in any 100% determinable way (hahaha), I thought those terms were perhaps endearing.
I stand by my remarks as they are completely correct. However, I will water down my expression of them to a boring politically correct level if I must.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
James2097Of course, I said what I wanted to say. You should've seen what I was going to submit! (don't worry there is an element of self censorship going on...)
Saying someone is a 'twonk' and of 'special' mental agility is arguably not name calling in any 100% determinable way (hahaha), I thought those terms were perhaps endearing.
I stand by my remarks as they are completely correct. However, I will water down my expression of them to a boring politically correct level if I must.
You know what the funny part is. You didn't even respond to what I quoted. Did you read it?
- 87,634
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
live4speed
So it's now okay to take the Lord's name in vain? Thank God for that.
live4speed
One or the other is true. They contradict each other.
live4speed
Did you see that I crunched the numbers? There is simply not enough water on Earth in any form. You can do it too.
Volume of a sphere = 4/3 pi r^3
Earth = 12,756.3km diameter/6378.2km radius
Volume of Earth = 1,086,857,972,236.1 cukm
Volume of Earth's crust = 5,104,088,942.1 cukm (volume of Earth - volume of Earth which isn't crust. The crust is roughly 20km thick, on average)
You should note that this is rather generous. Of that 20km of crust, a great deal of it is already water - a maximum of 11km, but an average of about 3.5km. Nevertheless, we'll crack on.
The entire amount of available water on Earth is currently in the seas already, along with what is locked up in the ice caps and floats around in clouds. The ice caps contain 33,000,000 cukm of water. The clouds contain considerably less as there aren't that many of them, comparatively, and water vapour occupies 24,000 times the volume that liquid water does, for the same amount of water. But, continuing a theme, let's be generous and say that there's 40 million cubic kilometres of available water for us to dump onto Earth.
NEW Volume of Earth's crust = 5,144,088,942.1 cukm
NEW Volume of Earth = 1,086,897,972,236.1 cukm
NEW Radius of Earth = 6378.23km radius
Increase in sea levels = 800 metres.
That's a MAXIMUM available rise in sea levels of just 800 metres.
Of course, the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, so the volume will be a little less than that (about 3 billion cubic kilometres smaller in total - which is less than 1% difference).
Encyclopedia Britannica defines a mountain as a topographical feature with a peak elevation above sea level of 610m or more, so 800 metres of sea level rise would be adequate to cover some mountains. However, as stated, Mount Ararat is over 5 kilometres above sea level. Given that this event occurred somewhere in the repeatedly alleged 6,000 years since Adam was cast out of Eden, either there isn't enough water on Earth to swell the Earth's oceans up the top of Mount Ararat, or Mount Ararat has grown (or is growing) at an average of at least 72cm per year. That's awesomely fast from a geological perspective.
That notwithstanding, several other facts just do not tally with reality. On an Earth with the total cloud cover required for 40 days and nights of rain over the whole planet, the albedo would increase phenomenally. This means that the amount of sunlight actually reaching the surface would drop off sharply, along with temperatures. You'd be looking at a decrease of around 20-30 degrees Celsius - we call that an Ice Age.
On an Earth with the 0% cloud cover required for all of the water to be disgorged onto the surface, the albedo would increase phenomenally (water is more reflective than land). See above.
If Mount Ararat were the only thing above water, what about the 192 other taller mountains on Earth? Were they not "as high" in those days? Mount Everest would require an average growth rate of at least 1.4 metres a year - 14,000% more than actually occurs.
As for animals...
live4speed
Genesis 6:20
live4speed
Along with the cats which would have died from tyrosine deficiency?
Would God have preserved them by some other means too, after announcing his intention to:
Genesis 6:7
If he was simply going to preserve things he liked, like tyrosine-deficient cats and things which were inconveniently large or numerous, why bother getting a 500 year old man to make a boat out of gopher wood? For a laugh?
live4speed
Since of course orogeny and subduction don't.
live4speed
I'll say that too. What isn't going to happen, though, is 182 year old men having children (Noah's father).
As for the Bible saying the Earth isn't flat, that depends directly on a translation of an Hebrew word. Given that the scholars who translated the Bible into English have decided on the context already, it seems a little foolhardy to suddenly decide that they were wrong and, because this word can have three meanings, depending on context, in Hebrew, it actually means something else more convenient to a cause.
live4speed
The bottom line with evolution vs Creation is that every piece of information which is uncovered points towards evolutionary theory being correct and Creation being a mere flight of fancy. The notion of Creation as written in Genesis can NEVER be validated.
- 2,208
tabs
It is human nature to want to live forever. We can't stand the idea of our existence actually ending. We want to believe that we'll somehow attain immortality. Here's a good quote by George Carl Mynchenberg, from his book "And Man Created God", on the strength of the Christian faith:
Very few people wish to die and here is a way not only to live again but to do so forever in eternal bliss. A powerful and wondrous wish.
This is why somewhere between 95% and 83% (depending on whose survey is correct) of the American people believe that they are immortal. This is why so many kinds of faith have come about, and why such fantastically elaborate systems of belief have been developed.
When you question someone's belief in their immortality you shake them to the core. They can't allow you to do that. They must believe they'll exist forever, in "eternal bliss", or, in the case of the Islamic suicide mission boys, in the company of 72 compliant young ladies.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
Actually, a priest came up with that estimate in the 1600's. He must know, right? Because he was a leading authority? Because he knew all about geological formations, correct?
And just so we're clear, if you ignore this post, I'll take it that yoy agree with my sarcasm and admit that he was a crackpot with no idea what he was talking about.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
Famine
I just love it when you do that, Famine. How you go and prove just about EVERYTHING he listed wrong, or explain how it all works. What I also love doing is replying to your posts, to put it out there a second time in case they happened to scroll past the half-page of blue letters jumping out. So here it is, take it in, and think really hard about how credible the bible really is.
- 2,421
- Southern California
Zardoz
Wow, thats ridiculous. Where did you read this? Makes you wonder what kinds of people are taking these surveys.
PS
Are you talking about Bishop Ussher?
"Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC on a Wednesday."
Wow.
- 2,208
It gets even better:
The above excerpt makes no mention of the time of day at which creation occurred. In popular references one often finds it given as 9 A.M., and this is wrongly attributed to Ussher. The following excerpt from Andrew D. White's book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (D. Appleton and Co., 1897, p. 9) identifies the culprit as Sir John Lightfoot:
...the general conclusion arrived at by an overwhelming majority of the most competent students of the biblical accounts was that the date of creation was, in round numbers, four thousand years before our era; and in the seventeenth century, in his great work, Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."
John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University was a contemporary of Ussher. Lightfoot published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher's were completed.
Takes your breath away, doesn't it?
The above excerpt makes no mention of the time of day at which creation occurred. In popular references one often finds it given as 9 A.M., and this is wrongly attributed to Ussher. The following excerpt from Andrew D. White's book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (D. Appleton and Co., 1897, p. 9) identifies the culprit as Sir John Lightfoot:
...the general conclusion arrived at by an overwhelming majority of the most competent students of the biblical accounts was that the date of creation was, in round numbers, four thousand years before our era; and in the seventeenth century, in his great work, Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."
John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University was a contemporary of Ussher. Lightfoot published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher's were completed.
Takes your breath away, doesn't it?
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
Now this has shifted from evolution vs creation to atheists vs the bible. I'm guessing enough evidence couldnt be brought forward to dismiss God, so the attacks have turned on the Bible.
Thats fine, I enjoy defending my beliefs. Too bad you dont have any beliefs to defend, because your not sure of anything anyway. Your beliefs are constantly being molded and will never be set in stone, so therefore they cannot be questioned because evolution is a theory filled with many holes covered by the infamous it took millions of years or natural selection gave it to us for survival.
I never said Moses was there when the earth was created, but like how John saw the future in a vision (Revelation), Moses may have seen parts of creation in a vision.
There is only needed a limited number of mammals, repitles, birds etc needed to produce all the life we see today, so there was plenty of room on the ark.
Animals surviving for a long period of time onboard the vessel was a miracle of God.
Believe it or not. I could care less
The mountains preflood were much shorter than they are now. Most probably were created after the enormous force of the waters caused geological changes. Cold air? Yes. Tons of older animals have been found frozen to death with grass in their mouths; they were froze so quickly they still were still chewing when it happened. And if a flood was so outrageous, why do I see modern science magazines speaking of a Global flood they may have caused massive extinctions? I think it was from Discover Magazine.
Take all the above sealevel earth and throw it into the sea evenly, melt the ice caps etc and the water will cover the entire earth over 2 miles high.
Where did all the rain come from? Genesis said it never rained before the flood, and that most of the water was in heaven, most likely stored as vapor somewhere high. All of this fell during the flood.
I have more detailed scientific information to back this up, but this is all I can remember at the moment.
Thats fine, I enjoy defending my beliefs. Too bad you dont have any beliefs to defend, because your not sure of anything anyway. Your beliefs are constantly being molded and will never be set in stone, so therefore they cannot be questioned because evolution is a theory filled with many holes covered by the infamous it took millions of years or natural selection gave it to us for survival.
I never said Moses was there when the earth was created, but like how John saw the future in a vision (Revelation), Moses may have seen parts of creation in a vision.
There is only needed a limited number of mammals, repitles, birds etc needed to produce all the life we see today, so there was plenty of room on the ark.
Animals surviving for a long period of time onboard the vessel was a miracle of God.
Believe it or not. I could care less
The mountains preflood were much shorter than they are now. Most probably were created after the enormous force of the waters caused geological changes. Cold air? Yes. Tons of older animals have been found frozen to death with grass in their mouths; they were froze so quickly they still were still chewing when it happened. And if a flood was so outrageous, why do I see modern science magazines speaking of a Global flood they may have caused massive extinctions? I think it was from Discover Magazine.
Take all the above sealevel earth and throw it into the sea evenly, melt the ice caps etc and the water will cover the entire earth over 2 miles high.
Where did all the rain come from? Genesis said it never rained before the flood, and that most of the water was in heaven, most likely stored as vapor somewhere high. All of this fell during the flood.
I have more detailed scientific information to back this up, but this is all I can remember at the moment.
