User Tag List

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 284

Thread: creation vs evolution

  1. #46
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,563
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 232 Times in 165 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115777
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    In evolution you essentially have a math formula that says rate x time = product. But they have loaded the time with tons of 0s instead of the rate. That is total assumption.
    What is the assumption? Time? Is that the only assumption?

  2. #47
    Old Timer SonOfCaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 106 Times in 90 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    12842
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    do you have any evidence that the universe is not expanding?
    Why would i...The Universe after all IS expanding...
    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence".

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SonOfCaleb For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 20th, 2017),MichaelCadry (May 1st, 2017)

  4. #48
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    10,137
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 495 Times in 443 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    143829
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    What is the assumption? Time? Is that the only assumption?

    Yes a kabillion years and the absence of an infinite power designing and producing things by speaking them into existence, as the record and the Psalms say.

    Ie, I'm not talking about extremely rapid natural processes. I'm talking about a Person producing the "starts" and forms of our world.

    There is a way I can grant you some time from the Biblical record, but it is not in the week of creating the local universe and earth.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Interplanner For Your Post:

    MichaelCadry (May 1st, 2017)

  6. #49
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,563
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 232 Times in 165 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115777
    So your assumption is the accuracy of the record and your deity "speaking". got it.

    And kabillion is not a real number

    But wait, what do you mean by "local universe"?

  7. #50
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    10,137
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 495 Times in 443 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    143829
    On the assumption of the accuracy of the record:
    I don't find any fault with it mentioned in that tribe's documents. It was oral transmission at first, but then Moses wrote it down. When he wrote some of the pages of the Law, he referred back to it, to details about marriage or about the 6 days (leading into laws about the Jewish sabbath). It was taken to be accurate. Several Psalms vouch for it, including the 'speaking-into-existence.' They make no mistakes about other events, so we may assume them to be solid on early Genesis. Then you have Christ a couple millenia later, validating a number of things inside the early (oral) chapters of Genesis, including creation. Finally, you have Paul validating it (this same person who wanted to stop the Christian movement, but who was Jewish) quoting them (early chapters).

    So we must at least ask, what are we going to find, now 4 millenia removed?

    Now, on a certain detail, I can walk through some points about why I said 'our local galaxy'. In Genesis, Moses had a stylistic structure, something like this:

    1, section title
    2, existing background
    3, new action
    4, restatement or summary

    There are probably 10 of these in Genesis, which is partly why the most familiar scholars have little doubt of its integrity.

    Gen 1:1 Title: In the beginning (God created) the heavens and the earth
    1:2 existing condition: the earth was formless and void
    1:3+ new action: God creates forms for 3 days (to solve the formlessness: land, sea, atmosphere and nearby objects in space) He then creates 'things' to go in each form: animals/plants, marine life, birds. It is now formed and filled.
    1:31 restatement or summary: it was all done (all systems working); it was very good

    The reason for allowing for some time is that 'formless and void' is a mysterious condition. The expression appears in a prophet's description of Jerusalem ruined later on. The ruined city is said to be that way. We really don't know what happened in early Genesis, but it is possible that other things were going on, and not good, and stopped before the week we know as creation. We don't know how long either, which speaks to your point.

    This is not a fluke of the Hebrew scripture. It compares with many other origin-accounts (cosmologies) from the Ancient Near East: Persian, Hindi, etc. As if to say, yes, there was that other primal world, but the Lord God dealt with it and created this one quickly and wanted man to represent him on this earth. The world as created was not a duality between a dark force and a good one from the beginning. There was a paradise. But things changed later.

    My reason for mentioning the local galaxy is the issue of the light on day 1 before the sun on day 3. The tendency in modern times is to try to naturalize all processes, even what happened in the Biblical creation passage, but this clearly does not do. It keeps forcing itself to be treated as a permanent miracle.

    The Oxford literary chair C S Lewis did an essay on this fact in GOD IN THE DOCK. "Religion and Science" has the analogy of the regular daily coin being placed in the office drawer. Uniformitarianism can only do mathematics and say that 23 days from now there will be 23 coins more than today. If there is a theft, or a deranged person glued them to the face of the desk shelf or a surplus pile was suddenly found there, we would have no use to speak to the mathematicians anymore; we would need to speak to a detective or a psychiatrist etc. Yet the uniformitarian world expects us to ask it how this world took shape.

    Myself, knowing the Grand Canyon, the central Australian theory, and the fossil explosion, I have almost no use for uniformitarianism, compared to catastrophism. However, that takes on events mentioned later in early Genesis, the world deluge, and the dividing of the earth in a tectonic sense. There are many good articles on these things on creationwiki.com.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  8. #51
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,563
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 232 Times in 165 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115777
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Myself, knowing the fossil explosion,
    What is the fossil explosion?

  9. #52
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    10,137
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 495 Times in 443 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    143829
    The Cambrian. Maybe look up that topic on creationwiki and you will find something that rarely gets discussed: that the diversity of fossils happened quickly, relative to total supposed evolutionary time.

    This makes 'naturalized' (de-miraclized) thinkers like Hugh Ross (now U Toronto) say that the creation of life on earth took place in a naturalized way about 50-75K ago. Likewise, he says, man (homo sapiens) abruptly shows himself busy with worship, engineering, history. That's a bold step in a sense, but the 'naturalizing' of the miracle of creation is more of a problem, than a help. Nor does it explain many, many anomalies in the fossil record with newer life on top of older. Nor the several findings of soft tissue in dinosaur remains.

    The DVD version of GENESIS AS HISTORY is now available, and I defer to that. My book DELUGE OF SUSPICIONS covers a few of these things but was really meant to re-introduce the global deluge to those unfamiliar with support for that, and it is expressed in the structure of a fiction crime story genre. Amazon.com.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  10. #53
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,563
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 232 Times in 165 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115777
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The Cambrian. Maybe look up that topic on creationwiki and you will find something that rarely gets discussed: that the diversity of fossils happened quickly, relative to total supposed evolutionary time.
    Ah, the Cambrian Explosion.
    1. When did it occur---how long ago?
    2. Over what time period?
    3. What type of fossils are found there? Any vertebrates?
    Last edited by Jonahdog; May 3rd, 2017 at 06:21 AM.

  11. #54
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,563
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 232 Times in 165 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115777
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Ah, the Cambrian Explosion.
    1. When did it occur---how long ago?
    2. Over what time period?
    3. What type of fossils are found there? Any vertebrates?
    Interplanner, no response?

  12. #55
    Old Timer SonOfCaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 106 Times in 90 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    12842
    Quote Originally Posted by jason69 View Post
    Does believing in evolution mean that you cant believe in creation?
    Yes. They're completely incompatible. Like water and oil.

    Evolution posits that Man came from Apes and presumably a slew of other species prior to the Ape which all trace their roots back to 'nothing' with chance as the driving force behind life on Earth and indeed the Universe and everything in it.
    Creation posits that God ergo an intelligient designer 'created' everything including life which is not attributable to a random process that also happened to produce conciousness as well. Therefore they are polar opposites.
    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence".

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to SonOfCaleb For Your Post:

    MichaelCadry (May 3rd, 2017)

  14. #56
    Old Timer SonOfCaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 106 Times in 90 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    12842
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    No one is sure how the universe came about 13+ billion years ago, but there is no need for a god.
    I've always found this viewpoint an intriguing one from Atheists. Every cognitive sentient human being knows that a house has a maker. And yet the Atheist would have us believe a 'house' in fact doesnt have a maker. Its somehow capable of producing itself out of nothing, a bit like fiat currency if you will.....How can nothing produce something? The Atheist scoffs and has no problem 'believing' this.

    The religious conversely believe a God or at least an intelligient designer did it. In view of the house illustration which seems the more logical position? That's a rhetorical position btw. I get your position on the matter. But i fail to believe how you can consider that Scientific when A) It cant be demonstrated, B) It defys all known laws of physics, C) There is ZERO empircal evidence proving the existence of some random singularity that's apparently responsible for the Universe and life. Basically using any of the scientific conventions that can be used to prove this theory of the Big Bang its decidely UNscientific by sciences OWN criteria. And yet Atheists and believers in the Big Bang believe it?!!? Sounds like religion and science are more similar than science is willing to acknowledge. Science/Church hiearchy and laity included.
    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence".

  15. #57
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    477
    Thanks
    244
    Thanked 84 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    17269
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    No one is sure how the universe came about 13+ billion years ago, but there is no need for a god.
    Hello friend,

    I am about to unload several questions, which the theories one must ascribe to if one rejects the idea of "God," that arise with theories including evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang. Each of these theories inevitably leads to the next, with the assertion that there is no God.

    Evolution: Where and why did life begin?
    What cause was there to first evolve? (in reference to all organisms being single celled, there was no need for competition)
    How long would it take to evolve?
    How does trial and error methods result in complex, yet simple biological functions, such as metabolism or thrombosis?
    How do dead/failed organisms communicate to their peers?
    How do cells communicate which specific "test" or alteration the are about to perform, or performed?

    Abiogenesis: Why did life start?
    What caused abiogenesis?
    Is it not a "miracle" of improbability?
    What is the data that proves this"

    Big Bang: What caused the explosion?
    Where does life come from?
    What holds the sun stationary? (per laws of physics, particularly laws of space, all motion is constant)
    Why does current data show recession, not expansion? (red lines)

    The Big Bang also must answer "what is nothing?" Since it claims that "something came from nothing." Either the cosmos had a beginning, or it has always been, which leads to questions of origin. The Big Bang also goes against Laws of Thermodynamics. Mainly the 2nd Law, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. With all three theories, how can life be more prevalent now, than in origin?

    Note all three theories beg the question of life's origins and purpose?

    I have a plethora of scientific information which would dispute all three theories, as well as direct quotes from various scientists, both pro and anti, each theory. Those scientists who ascribe to these theories always contradict logic and scientific principles. Those who oppose these theories present naturally occurring evidence to the contrary of each theory. I can provide all this, if you please.

  16. #58
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,563
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 232 Times in 165 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115777
    jsanford108: Quite a Gish Gallop there. But before I attempt to answer, and since you have a "plethora of scientific information", perhaps you can answer the specific questions I raised earlier to Interplanner which no one has addressed
    "Ah, the Cambrian Explosion.
    1. When did it occur---how long ago?
    2. Over what time period?
    3. What type of fossils are found there? Any vertebrates?"

  17. #59
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    477
    Thanks
    244
    Thanked 84 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    17269
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    jsanford108: Quite a Gish Gallop there. But before I attempt to answer, and since you have a "plethora of scientific information", perhaps you can answer the specific questions I raised earlier to Interplanner which no one has addressed
    "Ah, the Cambrian Explosion.
    1. When did it occur---how long ago?
    2. Over what time period?
    3. What type of fossils are found there? Any vertebrates?"
    Sure, I will answer these questions.

    1) The Cambrian Explosion occurred approximately 541 million years ago.

    2) The CE would have occurred in Cambrian Period, hence the name, "Cambrian Explosion."

    3) the fossils found, if memory serves correctly, were a range of early trilobites and few eukaryotic cells to early crustaceans. Evidence (possibly) was also supportive of predator species, however, no fossils of these species were found. As for vertebrates, I do not recall any being discovered.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  18. #60
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    477
    Thanks
    244
    Thanked 84 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    17269
    For the record, classifying my response as a "Gish Gallop" is actually inaccurate. For one, I do not ascribe to normal creationist theories, as they choose ignorance and dismissing of evidence in favor of personal bias. And second, all the questions I posed are not small or weak in effect. They aim at the heart of the theories.

    The issue with scientific theory is when one makes theological and supernatural conclusions based on nonsupernatual and nontheological evidence. Science by definition is limited to proving natural and physical phenomena; not supernatural or theological.

    One can develop theologies based on scientific evidence, however, such conclusions are apart from the science and ethically should not be included therein.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us