Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stuu

New member
I simply know you are making unwarranted attacks against the credibility of those who believe God created the world/universe.
I demonstrated my points with quotes from the same page; they contradict themselves by alternating paragraphs.

I don't think AiG has any credibility to start with. Do you have any defense of their claims? You don't seem to know enough to make any particular points, you just know www. AIG - Ctrl-C - Ctrl-V.

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
I demonstrated my points with quotes from the same page; they contradict themselves by alternating paragraphs.

I don't think AiG has any credibility to start with. Do you have any defense of their claims? You don't seem to know enough to make any particular points, you just know www. AIG - Ctrl-C - Ctrl-V.

Stuart
If it is difficult to understand that is not a good reason to dismiss it. Maybe try to understand the merits of each point that is made. They address the misconceptions many have. However, if you want something more simple don't try evolution.

I actually don't think I cut and pasted any of their material.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Nope. St. Augustine is a doctor of the Church, and well regarded by almost all branches of Christianity. And he pointed out that Genesis could not be a literal history. And although his views were widely published, no one argued against him.

Augustine accepted Genesis as literal true and correct history. He wrote on the importance of accepting Genesis as history, and the connection to the gospel, and the message of salvation.

Well, let's take a look...

In Augustine's view, the third day is not a chronological day coming after the second day and before the fourth, but has simply the next place in the ordered knowledge of the angels. The seas and the dry land, the grass and the trees are simultaneous with the first primordial matter in the angelic understanding. 96 The reason for which the creation of vegetation is assigned to the third day is because plants are immobile and fixed to the surface of the earth and thus pertain to it more directly. 97 But Augustine does not maintain that the various things described as made by God during the six days of creation appeared full-blown in the first instant of time. Rather, he says, when God made all things together, He made them "hiddenly" and in the secret recesses of nature, 98 that is, potentially and causally, so as to become visible over the due course of time. 99 Augustine is here treating principally but not exclusively of living things, as he describes their existence in the first instant of creation: they were made in seed, 100 not meaning the seed which they themselves produce, but in primordial packages, 101 in the causal order as the seeds of future things. 102 They are causal reasons (causales rationes) instilled by God into the things themselves. 103 Thus was the earth given a certain power to produce (producendi virtus), 104 an invisible inner potency to be unfolded over the ages, 105 not without creative divine interventions and not without the guidance of God's providence. 106

For Augustine, the third day represents as many days as there are natures covered by the angelic knowledge of the seas, the earth, and the vegetation of the earth. Evening is the knowledge of these natures in themselves, and morning is the elevation of that knowledge in praise of God and of the Wisdom of God's plan.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

For example, Augustine would very likely change his mind on the order of creation, if he was alive today, and aware that there aren't really four elements.

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-1791), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

He believed the geneolgies were literal *history.

See above. Surprised? A lot of creationists are, when they discover that their modern doctrine was not held by most ancient Christians.

And Augustine has some advice for you, which you would be wise to consider:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim
 

6days

New member

Great article with links but not convincing to atheists. It would be like them posting an article they are impressed with from Talkorigins. We know its going to have biased 'logic' that has a starting point of 'no God'. We (Biblical creationists) also are biased as we trust the inerrant Word of God, as our starting point.
Evidence always needs to be interpreted. As example, your article mentions comets. We know they don't last millions of years. So evolutionists rescue themselves by saying comets get thrown out of the Kuiper and Oort belts from time to time. Its possible... but has never been observed.
Creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past, and interpreting evidence to fit beliefs.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER


I think Biblical creationism gives you an adrenaline rush. .
Biblical creationism is quite different from ID for many reasons. For one... we don't't want anyone to have to teach it. We do however want teachers to have the intellectual freedom to discuss strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian beliefs. Teachers should have the freedom to discuss, but not promote opposing views.
Students learn better when they are told how to think ( comparing models) ...as opposed to be told what to think.


Dear 6days,

I believe you so far. Don't think you stand alone. Untellectual too. We are not without allies in ourselves. I am tossed up yet in my final conclusions, as to whether there have been more men than just Adam. I will leave that up to God to tell me. I mean, I can imagine Him creating 'one' man and one woman. I have two other instances which I could consider, and yet I do lean towards one Adam and one Eve, and a young Earth. For now, that will have to do.

In Jesus' Love,

Michael


:rapture:

:shocked:

:think:
 

Stuu

New member
We know its going to have biased 'logic' that has a starting point of 'no God'.
In my experience TalkOrigins is biased towards facts that are based in evidence.

If you can provide unambiguous evidence for your god doing stuff, then TalkOrigins would be compelled to include it.

Do you have unambiguous evidence of your god?

Thought not.

Stuart
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
In my experience TalkOrigins is biased towards facts that are based in evidence.

If you can provide unambiguous evidence for your god doing stuff, then TalkOrigins would be compelled to include it.

Do you have unambiguous evidence of your god?

Thought not.

Stuart


Dear Stu,

Miss You!! You're like a breath of fresh air usually. My words are: what do you say to the fact that man's nervous system is 60,000 miles long?? Twice around the earth's diameter. And man's colon: 5 feet. Don't you think that makes a God? Or that it all just happened? And you actually believe that God didn't create this in mankind?? You think it is just Mama Nature?? I certainly don't get you, neither can I agree with you. Awesomeness exists and it is called the Lord God. Just thought you might like to know.

Love You In Christ, Stuart,

Michael

:rapture:

:wazzup:

:think:

:luigi:
 

Stuu

New member
Dear Stu,

Miss You!! You're like a breath of fresh air usually. My words are: what do you say to the fact that man's nervous system is 60,000 miles long?? Twice around the earth's diameter. And man's colon: 5 feet. Don't you think that makes a God? Or that it all just happened? And you actually believe that God didn't create this in mankind?? You think it is just Mama Nature?? I certainly don't get you, neither can I agree with you. Awesomeness exists and it is called the Lord God. Just thought you might like to know.

Love You In Christ, Stuart,

Michael
The length of my colon tells me there is a god. Good grief.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve of a giraffe can be up to 4.6 metres long. That tells me that if there is a god making giraffes then it is an idiot.

Stuart
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Originally Posted by Untellectual View Post
How about: The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

It's always dangerous to pass on "information" you get from AiG. Here's the "few" Kuiper objects we've been able to detect so far:

300px-Outersolarsystem_objectpositions_labels_comp.png


Known Kuiper objects in green.

And remember, these have to be nearly Pluto-sized to find, although we're getting better and better at finding them. If the size distribution is even remotely like that of the asteroid belt, there are far more than enough objects to account for observed short-period comets.

They just lied to you. And you uncritically accepted it.

Want to see some more? Or is that enough to make you realize how foolish it is to cut and past from AIG?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Well, let's look at the goofs in this one:

A very few scientists, most notably Alan Feduccia, think that dinos and birds are cousins, both having evolved from thecodonts. But because of the evidence, most scientists don't agree with him.

As one expects, this guy retreats into his religious beliefs, claiming that his new doctrine of YE is the Christian view. It's actually a new invention, from the Seventh-Day Adventists, in the early 1900s.

He expresses surprise that one might think reptiles might be warm-blooded. In fact, we see that the theropods were feathered, especially the small ones. Insulation only makes sense for warm-blooded creatures. They have Haversian canals, which indicates a very active, warm-blooded lifestyle. It's difficult to see how a cold-blooded animal could manage a running, predatory lifestyle such as that of velociraptors.

And of course, he's got it completely wrong about lungs:

Bird-like respiratory systems in dinosaurs -- A recent analysis showing the presence of a very bird-like pulmonary, or lung, system in predatory dinosaurs provides more evidence of an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. First proposed in the late 19th century, theories about the animals' relatedness enjoyed brief support but soon fell out of favor. Evidence gathered over the past 30 years has breathed new life into the hypothesis. O'Connor and Claessens (2005) make clear the unique pulmonary system of birds, which has fixed lungs and air sacs that penetrate the skeleton, has an older history than previously realized. It also dispels the theory that predatory dinosaurs had lungs similar to living reptiles, like crocodiles.

The avian pulmonary system uses "flow-through ventilation," relying on a set of nine flexible air sacs that act like bellows to move air through the almost completely rigid lungs. Air sacs do not take part in the actual oxygen exchange, but do greatly enhance its efficiency and allow for the high metabolic rates found in birds. This system also keeps the volume of air in the lung nearly constant. O'Connor says the presence of an extensive pulmonary air sac system with flow-through ventilation of the lung suggests this group of dinosaurs could have maintained a stable and high metabolism, putting them much closer to a warm-blooded existence. "More and more characteristics that once defined birds--feathers, for example--are now known to have been present in dinosaurs, so, many avian features may really be dinosaurian," said O'Connor. A portion of the air sac actually integrates with the skeleton, forming air pockets in otherwise dense bone. The exact function of this skeletal modification is not completely understood, but one explanation theorizes the skeletal air pockets evolved to lighten the bone structure, allowing dinosaurs to walk upright and birds to fly.

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdrespiration.html
all vertebrate resp system equivalent
fingers in embryology not clear as he claims.

And he's got it very wrong about feathers and scales. In fact, one can change scutes (scales found on dinosaurs, crocodiles, and birds) into feathers.

From an Old Earth Creationist website:
Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot. Smaller scales on the back of the foot are called scutellae, and scales on the bottom of the digits are called reticulae. Analysis of these shows that scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes, and scales around the eye are of the same chemical composition as feathers, and are controlled by the same genes!4
So, scale to feathers is very much possible, from a genetic standpoint! We may never know the final answer on this, but it is clear that from a genetic standpoint, scales to feathers is very possible.

http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/other/sdc/sdc_scales_feathers.htm

Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosis and scale formation.
Zou H1, Niswander L.
Author information
Abstract

Interdigital cell death leads to regression of soft tissue between embryonic digits in many vertebrates. Although the signals that regulate interdigital apoptosis are not known, BMPs--signaling molecules of the transforming growth factor-beta superfamily--are expressed interdigitally. A dominant negative type I BMP receptor (dnBMPR-IB) was used here to block BMP signaling. Expression of dnBMPR in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced interdigital apoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition, scales were transformed into feathers. The similarity of the webbing to webbed duck feet led to studies that indicate that BMPs are not expressed in the duck interdigit. These results indicate BMP signaling actively mediates cell death in the embryonic limb.

Science. 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41.

Not knowing what one's self is talking about can be a big problem.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Oh, and the finger problem?

The newly discovered dinosaur's hand is unusual and provides surprising new insights into a long-standing controversy over which fingers are present in living birds, which are theropod dinosaur descendants. The hands of theropod dinosaurs suggest that the outer two fingers were lost during the course of evolution and the inner three remained.

Conversely, embryos of living birds suggest that birds have lost one finger from the outside and one from the inside of the hand. Unlike all other theropods, the hand of Limusaurus strongly reduced the first finger and increased the size of the second. Clark and Xu argue that Limusaurus' hand represents a transitional condition in which the inner finger was lost and the other fingers took on the shape of the fingers next to them.

The three fingers of most advanced theropods are the second, third and fourth fingers-the same ones indicated by bird embryos-contrary to the traditional interpretation that they were the first, second and third.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114988

Hiding creationism in what we don't yet know, that's a dangerous game.
 

6days

New member
They just lied to you. And you uncritically accepted it.
Don't be so silly.....
Couple things... untellectual posted a link. You called that cut and paste? ;--)
And your comment about him uncritically accepting the info is a bit funny as that is what you often do...as with the article from Biologos you linked.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Don't be so silly.....
Couple things... untellectual posted a link. You called that cut and paste? ;--)
And your comment about him uncritically accepting the info is a bit funny as that is what you often do...as with the article from Biologos you linked.

Many here have demonstrated how you, untellectual, markishigh, MichaelCadry...do not critically analyse the YEC model (if you can even call it that, because it is really just trying to find fault in the natural explanation). All you do is try and turn that around without any substantive reasoning for this and claim this same thing about others. Do not be alarmed however, reasonable people will see what is and is not reasonable.

:)
 
Last edited:

noguru

Well-known member
Dear noguru,

If you feel that I have to explain such a phenomena to you, (best book ever written: The Bible), then I don't understand it, coming from you, a Christian. I know people that are dying to get a hold of a copy of our Bible and they don't have a chance yet. You have no idea of the power of God's written Word.

Michael

Michael this has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. I think you need to check yourself, and actually try and understand the points I make, rather than assume you already know.

I am not asking you to explain the OT/NT to me. I think you should go back and reread my post and actually try to absorb what I posted.
 

6days

New member
The recurrent laryngeal nerve of a giraffe can be up to 4.6 metres long. That tells me that if there is a god making giraffes then it is an idiot.
Stuart
Or...another possibility is that you don't understand the design?
Evolutionists have often used used your argument of poor design....only later to be proven wrong by science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top