Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
iouae

iouae

Well-known member
Notice the completely different biome change from Cretaceous to Tertiary.
PROOF OF A CREATION EVENT between the two.

geologicscale.jpg


Chart taken from... https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/geologicscale.jpg

YECs believe that mankind lived alongside all the animals on the above chart, 95%(??) of which are now extinct.
Imagine how crowded the pre-flood earth must have been.
But then YECs believe palaeontology fits into this category...
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

My belief is that it is not false science we should fear, but false theology.

And Michael, this is an open forum so I am allowed an opinion. Sorry Buddy.
 
Last edited:
MichaelCadry

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
alwight said:
Science doesn't try to usurp God it simply provides explanations based in current knowledge and facts regardless of a literal Genesis. The light from distant galaxies must be presumed by science as having a distant origin and that it must also be many millions of years old. If that light had been created en route so to speak then it never had an origin and we can never trust what we can see with our own eyes.
Click to expand...


Dear alwight,

We did not see the light from distant stars until we were teenagers or so, and we saw it all then. We don't think that we are seeing light from many millions of years ago. What a bummer. What about when a star is eclipsing another star? Then we see that immediately. Things seem rotten in beliefs being believed. Something is fishy here and it isn't the cinnamon candles. I don't believe a word of it.

Michael

Cheerio and Best Wishes, Mate!!

Michael
 
MichaelCadry

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
TheDuke said:
Dear Michael,

I'm glad you know where you stand, now allow me to spell out for you why I am so confident about my position.

We all are subject to our emotions, Michael, many times it may even be a reasonable approach to trust them. But rationality is all about trusting nothing but hard evidence. I'm not relying on faith - you do! That's why people like me are rational and people like you are superstitious.

I don't care how many of "us" are out there, as long as I have no reason to, I can't bring myself to believe in fairies.

Bear in mind, though, that the fastest growing demographic in the industrialized world are atheists, and outside the US we are already a clear majority. Your kind is mostly prevalent where education is nonexistent (I wonder if that also explains the southern states????)

Cheers
Click to expand...


I feel sorry for you The Duke. You don't know how fast your atheistic move is making, and you are in La-La land. You've really got to be a big blank to assume what you have assumed. Yep, the fastest growing group is atheism. Is that what you want me to believe. Okay dude!!

Michael
 
alwight

alwight

New member
MichaelCadry said:
Dear alwight,

I might as well tell you that the first angel that ever visited me said, "Fear God, and give Him glory, for the 'hour' of His judgement is upon all of the Earth, and worship Him Who made the Earth and Heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." I guess I should let you know that was what the first angel said to me. You have no idea what my life has been like. You'd be flabberghasted. I wish we were next-door neighbors so that I could spend more close important time with you and all of the things that have happened to me. Then, I think you'd believe me. Well, will get going for now. Somebody loves you!! Who could it be now? God and Jesus, and me!!

Michael
Click to expand...
I can't really argue against your angels Michael, clearly they are important to you. I wonder why you think you were selected to have first hand experience?

MichaelCadry said:
Dear alwight,

We did not see the light from distant stars until we were teenagers or so, and we saw it all then. We don't think that we are seeing light from many millions of years ago. What a bummer. What about when a star is eclipsing another star? Then we see that immediately. Things seem rotten in beliefs being believed. Something is fishy here and it isn't the cinnamon candles. I don't believe a word of it.

Michael

Cheerio and Best Wishes, Mate!!

Michael
Click to expand...
Michael, I'm rather sure that you haven't actually understood the science involved here. It has nothing to do with human lifetimes or even individual stars. Galaxies are many millions of light-years away so their light is many millions of years old. ;)
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Hedshaker said:
Yeah, that notion was popular with The Barbarian. The trouble I see with it is that it goes against the very idea of Evolutionary Theory where things start off very simple and then Evolve in complexity over deep time. If they said God started of as a spiritual tadpole (or some such) and then emerged into what it is now over vast amounts of time they might have a point of sorts.... maybe... or at least have a tiny bit more merit than it does now. It would at least have a stab at explain where the notion came from in the first place.

But no, their God is a super complex entity capable of poofing universes, answering prayers, creating everything from life to logic simply because it just is and always has been. No rhyme or reason. Just is because it's written in some ancient holy book.

Talk about gullibility, eh?
Click to expand...

That's a bit unfair to the Barbarian I think along with others also. There's nothing inherently gullible about believing there's a creative force behind life itself outside of the blind doctrinal 'thinking' sort so to speak.
 
alwight

alwight

New member
Arthur Brain said:
That's a bit unfair to the Barbarian I think along with others also. There's nothing inherently gullible about believing there's a creative force behind life itself outside of the blind doctrinal 'thinking' sort so to speak.
Click to expand...
I think that any real creator is so unlikely to resemble any human religious doctrine that it can be discounted, but Michael sees angels so maybe ...?
 
Hedshaker

Hedshaker

New member
Arthur Brain said:
That's a bit unfair to the Barbarian I think along with others also. There's nothing inherently gullible about believing there's a creative force behind life itself outside of the blind doctrinal 'thinking' sort so to speak.
Click to expand...

Well, it wouldn't end there for me. That would only be the beginning. I'd want to know what this creative force is, exactly? Where did it come from? How does it function? From where does it's energy come from. And yes, I've heard all the apologetics but they're just not sceptic proof. The most powerful entity in existence, cannot just exist simply because it just does, or has always existed.... same thing really. No amount of faith could make me believe in magic.

I used to enjoy The Barbarian's posts for the most part, his knowledge of Evolutionary theory and science was tops. But then he'd pick creationists up on lacking evidence and in the next breath start bantering on about "God's word" (presumably the Bible?) as though it was fact.

I struggled with his compartmentalising but loved his science prowess.
 
6days

6days

New member
iouae said:
think Christians have missed a great opportunity, confusing evolution as being the same as an old earth....

.... But we entrenched ourselves in the young earth 6000 years only idea and missed a huge opportunity to PROVE the existence of God to palaeontologists...
Click to expand...
PALEONTOLOGIST, Kurt Wise says,

Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis...Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Hedshaker said:
Well, it wouldn't end there for me. That would only be the beginning. I'd want to know what this creative force is, exactly? Where did it come from? How does it function? From where does it's energy come from. And yes, I've heard all the apologetics but they're just not sceptic proof. The most powerful entity in existence, cannot just exist simply because it just does, or has always existed.... same thing really. No amount of faith could make me believe in magic.

I used to enjoy The Barbarian's posts for the most part, his knowledge of Evolutionary theory and science was tops. But then he'd pick creationists up on lacking evidence and in the next breath start bantering on about "God's word" (presumably the Bible?) as though it was fact.

I struggled with his compartmentalising but loved his science prowess.
Click to expand...

You won't get the answers in science alone either.
 
alwight

alwight

New member
Hedshaker said:
I used to enjoy The Barbarian's posts for the most part, his knowledge of Evolutionary theory and science was tops. But then he'd pick creationists up on lacking evidence and in the next breath start bantering on about "God's word" (presumably the Bible?) as though it was fact.

I struggled with his compartmentalising but loved his science prowess.
Click to expand...
The thing about The Barbarian was that he never denied physical reality and knew his stuff. Having an overlay of evidence free faith in a separate mental compartment isn't something I can understand either, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying a good fantasy yarn from time to time but the real world rather suggests otherwise. Maybe some humans are hardwired to have a religious belief however smart they are otherwise? :think:

Personally I would need to be visited by Michael's angels, but then that wouldn't require any faith although I still might suspect I was deluded.
Then again having been in hospital recently for surgery where I was given a drug after the op that showed me that even I can be convincingly deluded to see weird things that just weren't there.
I've had vivid dreams before, where you eventually realise that you are only dreaming and just go with the flow, but I never experienced anything like it before.
The human mind is very capable of incredibly complex and vivid delusions, perhaps some people tend to see or imagine fantastic things simply just because they do naturally.

I suspect Michael has had to take a variety of drugs in his time for his medical condition. In hospital under the drug I saw a number of imaginary nurses (angels of a sort ;)) who would suddenly disappear in a cloud of dots right in front of me as if they'd been "beamed up", but I eventually came to realise that it was a delusion but I had been totally deceived. :think:
 
alwight

alwight

New member
6days said:
PALEONTOLOGIST, Kurt Wise says,

Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis...Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture.
Click to expand...

The Honest Creationist
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate"

"...that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture. On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true"


Kurt Wise is a YEC first and foremost who will not be convinced even though he understands the science and the evidence.


"It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument

Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/honest-creation.html

Because Wise is honest and intelligent he accepts that the evidence for intermediates exists, as he says above. However he remains dogmatically attached to his YEC beliefs come hell or high water.
 
iouae

iouae

Well-known member
alwight said:
The thing about The Barbarian was that he never denied physical reality and knew his stuff. Having an overlay of evidence free faith in a separate mental compartment isn't something I can understand either, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying a good fantasy yarn from time to time but the real world rather suggests otherwise. Maybe some humans are hardwired to have a religious belief however smart they are otherwise? :think:
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

"Between 1982 and 2014, successive surveys have found that between 40% and 47% of adults in the United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.[13] A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally.[14] These beliefs are often contradictory. A 2009 poll by Harris Interactive found that 39% of Americans agreed with the statement that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years", yet only 18% of the Americans polled agreed with the statement "The earth is less than 10 000 years old".[15]
 
iouae

iouae

Well-known member
6days said:
PALEONTOLOGIST, Kurt Wise says,

Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis...Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture.
Click to expand...

You do realise that at a paleontological gathering, Kurt Wise would be a very lonely man. Thus you do not help your cause to list YEC scientists or palaeontologists, because for every one you find, I could find 100 opposed to this. So let's call this argument (4) YEC-numbers-game and never use it again.

And saying that religious scientists believe no matter what the facts, let's call this argument (5) religious-closed-mindedness. This argument is totally off-putting to people of a scientific disposition. So this too never furthers your cause. So I would never use (5) again if I were you.
 
D

dialm

BANNED
Banned
Atheists can't hold their position. The only atheists that can hold are drug addicts. Those are the only atheists I respect as atheists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top