Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

alwight

New member
Observable science isn't a problem. What is a problem is the psuedoscience beliefs involved with evolutionism.
You are very entitled to hold that opinion of course 6days.
Personally I find science generally, not just Darwinian evolution, compelling, informative and interesting which really doesn't have that much to do with my not believing in gods...
...Otoh if we still all thought that we were living at the centre of the universe and that thunder and lightning were unexplained terrible magical forces, or that diseases were evil spirits, then maybe after all it does and maybe I'd have some daft beliefs too? :think:
 

6days

New member
alwight said:
...Otoh if we still all thought that we were living at the centre of the universe and that thunder and lightning were unexplained terrible magical forces, or that diseases were evil spirits, then maybe after all it does and maybe I'd have some daft beliefs too?*

Hee hee :)
True!
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Yes, I understand the next deceptive tool in your emotional toolbox. It's called plausible deniability.

"I don't know what you are talking about."

Just another convenient attempt at deception.
What is plausible deniability and why are you asking about a deceptive tool in an emotional toolbox?
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
OK, I am back from Japan. I managed to fly standby on the new 600-passenger sub-orbital SST that just started service to the Tokyo Tower. Neat (and really really fast).

Anyway, I have been doing a little reading in the Bible, as you recommended. Found some really neat stuff. I remember in Cecil B. DeMille’s movie of the Ten Commandments that it showed the newly freed Hebrews walking out of Egyptian captivity. That isn't what happened at all. In Exodus God says very clearly that “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.” (Exodus 19:4, KJV). Boy, I’ll bet flying on eagles, just like Frodo did, was neater than my SST flight.

(My housefly is a bit miffed at me, he (yes it’s a he – I won’t tell you how I found that out) didn't want his toenails cut. First Cadry, and now my housefly – I am not doing such a bang-up job of keeping friends lately).
Those who pursued the Israelites drowned in the Red Sea.
 

6days

New member
OK, 6days is a closet non-believer in the Bible, who has just come out. Untellectual?
Do you apply this same goofy standard to all books you read? Is someone in a history book says the sun rose at 7 in the morning. ... do you take think the author was stupid? Or can you understand a figure of speech?
(The sun doesn't rise)
Evolutionists are inconsistent with their 'logic'.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Or as this article from Creation ministries says...the highest allowable evolutionary age 1.3 billion years...which is a huge problem for evolutionists.

"The recession rate dr/dt of the moon is

where r is the semimajor axis of the moon’s orbit about the earth …
http://creation.mobi/the-moons-recession-and-age

6days, do you understand the technical content of this article well enough to be willing to defend what it says?
 

DavisBJ

New member
Do you apply this same goofy standard to all books you read? Is someone in a history book says the sun rose at 7 in the morning. ... do you take think the author was stupid? Or can you understand a figure of speech?
(The sun doesn't rise)
Evolutionists are inconsistent with their 'logic'.
For being part of a group that demands Genesis be an accurate literal account, your response is hypocrisy personified. You’ve got no issue with a bunch of dirt lying on the ground one minute, and a minute later calling it Adam as that animated glob of mud walks around appreciating its new digs.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
6days, do you understand the technical content of this article well enough to be willing to defend what it says?

Because the orbital period of the Moon depends on the semimajor axis, we can, using fossil tidal arrhythmites, know exactly how far the moon was at different periods in the Earth's history.

And from that, we know that the rate of recession varies. Turns out, the major factor in that recession is the energy transferred to the Moon from the Earth by tidal forces on coastlines.

And so, the more coastline, the greater the recession. Which was not so much when there was one continent.

If you take the values that physicists have shown, and the actual orbital period of the moon at different ages, it's well within the limits of geological time.

The numbers are kinda complex, but I think I could do that, if someone wanted to see it.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Because the orbital period of the Moon depends on the semimajor axis, we can, using fossil tidal arrhythmites, know exactly how far the moon was at different periods in the Earth's history.

And from that, we know that the rate of recession varies. Turns out, the major factor in that recession is the energy transferred to the Moon from the Earth by tidal forces on coastlines.

And so, the more coastline, the greater the recession. Which was not so much when there was one continent.

If you take the values that physicists have shown, and the actual orbital period of the moon at different ages, it's well within the limits of geological time.

The numbers are kinda complex, but I think I could do that, if someone wanted to see it.
The (sadly) humorous part of the article is when they admit what the answer is that allows an old moon, but then they dismiss it by saying “From a creationist perspective, doubts exist about whether plate tectonics has occurred in the conventional sense.” I will give them credit for admitting their rationale has no more substance than it doesn’t give the answer they want.
 

6days

New member
For being part of a group that demands Genesis be an accurate literal account, your response is hypocrisy personified. You’ve got no issue with a bunch of dirt lying on the ground one minute, and a minute later calling it Adam as that animated glob of mud walks around appreciating its new digs.
Thanks for you kind words BJ :banana:.
But your argument is silliness. Grade school kids can read a literally true story that uses a phrase such as "raining cats and dogs". They have no trouble differentiating between the true story and literary devices.

Genesis is very easy to understand... It is written as literal history. Other Bible authors refer to it as history. Jesus referred to it as history. Most of 'the church' down through the ages have accepted Genesis as history. Modern Hebrew scholars say the text is clearly written as literal history. It seems even atheists believe the style of writing is literal history.

Examples....
Interesting thing about this Hebrew professor, is that he does not believe Genesis, but says the text is written as literal history
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

Dr Benno Zuiddam (historian) this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."
 

DavisBJ

New member
Thanks for you kind words BJ :banana:.
But your argument is silliness. Grade school kids can read a literally true story that uses a phrase such as "raining cats and dogs". They have no trouble differentiating between the true story and literary devices.

Genesis is very easy to understand... It is written as literal history. Other Bible authors refer to it as history. Jesus referred to it as history. Most of 'the church' down through the ages have accepted Genesis as history. Modern Hebrew scholars say the text is clearly written as literal history. It seems even atheists believe the style of writing is literal history.

Examples....
Interesting thing about this Hebrew professor, is that he does not believe Genesis, but says the text is written as literal history
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

Dr Benno Zuiddam (historian) this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."
Yup, a walking, talking pile of mud is literal history. Sho nuff.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Yup, a walking, talking pile of mud is literal history. Sho nuff.


Dear Davis,

Not a walking, talking pile of mud. God extracted minerals and atoms, and whatever else, to change the dirt of the ground into a man. Then with Adam's rib, He also made Eve from the ground just like Adam. Our God is a Great Chemist and is quite able to make man out of stones, as it is written. I don't doubt Him, or Jesus, for Jesus testified that He could do this.

Also, I do believe that God created everything in six days. God is Quite Able to do such. You just have not fathomed Him yet. It is possible to me that God created one Adam and Eve, and the Lord God formed man, our Adam and Eve. I mean, who was Cain married to? His sister?? Did he wait for his sister to grow up before having a wife? I don't think so. I know that the Lord God planted a garden of Eden. Cain got his wife on the outskirts of Eden, called Nod. I believe Adam and Eve were banished from Eden also. They must have gone to Nod also, or else some other 'town.' There's just a lot of questions I have when I meet God. But I don't need to know the answers right now in order to Love Him Dearly and try to live my life as He'd have me do. I love Him like a Father. My Dad was difficult to communicate when we were younger, but in his old age, he changed and became more of a father. Still, I had already accepted God as my Father, and my earthly father was Dad, not father.

More later.

Michael

:doh: :carryon:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I am not freaking, but I thought, incorrectly, that you had more respect for your sister than you do.

In the multitude of posts where you have traded information with others, it has been clear that you almost desperately want to be friends. Recently you and I negotiated a better relationship, but we have not exchanged the extensive banter that you have with alwight and some of the other posters. Nor will we.

I value friendships too, but I expect my friends to share some of the core values I have. Included in those is a deep and fundamental respect for women. Your dismissively laughing off the use of your sister’s name as a term of derision is even more surprising in light of the fact that you took umbrage when I joked about your imaginary disembodied companions. You defend your ghosts, but you are not bothered by giving your sister’s name to be crudely used by a sexist joker in return for his continued friendship. Our values, yours and mine, as regards how we think about women are much too divergent for me to want you as a friend in any meaningful way.

Your basic message permeating this whole thread has been that you are a divine messenger, carrying a warning that the end is nigh. Over and over you have asked us to heed your message, or soon it will be too late. In evaluating your credibility, I listen to not only your message, but I observe your demeanor. The list is substantial of the specific things I have seen on your part that convince me that you are at a minimum, someone who has mentally constructed a hopefully benign but still pervasive world of make-believe. If your message was simply that Christ’s return was imminent, then you would be the latest in a very long list of people with the same failed prophetic message over the last 2 millennia. But you take the extra step of imagining yourself as one of the lead players wearing a white hat riding in on a white charger in the upcoming scenes. But alas, Tom Cruise you are not. You might pass as one of the Keystone Cops, though.

You obviously may continue to append “I love you” to posts you send to me, but coming from you there is a strong possibility that is code for “I am a homo looking for a date tonight.” No, let’s keep a pretty substantial distance between us. Your passing out rep points to curry favor seemed just a little bit superficial, but I suppose I won’t need to expect that any more.

You have your sister that you barter for friendship, and I am uncompromising about defending the honor of my sisters. Had I come into this conversation with a neutral view on Christianity, you would have very effectively convinced me of just how vacuous it is.

How is your prostate cancer doing? I think you view that as the fuse that is burning toward your death, after which you make your dramatic entrance on the great stage. How short is the fuse?


Dear BJ,

You are a nutcake ready to be eaten. All you do is try to pick out everything I say, and try to start a war about it. That's exactly what you do. Do you think I would care if I'd cringe because someone called me Michael, Michael, motorcycle? I'll know about the cancer in a couple weeks. I've got a Dr's. Appointment to get a PSA done. Hey, if Susan cared so much about me using her name, I think you are treading water only. She could give a hoot. It's been a few months since I've been checked to see a new PSA bloodwork. Hey, you might wise I am interested in you that way, but don't even entertain the idea. I could not feel less interested. You come up with all of negative things about situations. You're a Debbie Downer. I thought you wanted to be friends. I love people partly by what comes out of their heart, and mouth ... that's how I decide.

Of course, I respect all three of my sisters, and I've had friends that call me something other than Michael. It doesn't faze me, it's all no big deal. I'm hearing talking about the end of the world as we know it, and you are asking me to worry about whether my sister Susan, could care less. I know she doesn't care. So whatever. You're just bummed at Mark S. I would soon steer clear of you. You are a jekyll and hyde. You call me great a few posts ago, and now this. I don't think you even realize what you're doing. And you making cracks about me wanting to date you are out of your mind. That's how your mind works, then I don't want to hear anymore. There's not a chance in hell that I feel like that in the slightest. Don't you realize all of the persons I gave good rep pts. to yesterday?? I gave three others the same tonight. How else will they get their stars??

Well Davis, you sure know how to destroy a better relationship. Whatever. Shows me where your head and heart are at.

Michael
 
Last edited:

DavisBJ

New member
Dear Davis,

Not a walking, talking pile of mud. God extracted minerals and atoms, and whatever else, to change the dirt of the ground into a man. Then with Adam's rib, He also made Eve from the ground just like Adam. Our God is a Great Chemist and is quite able to make man out of stones, as it is written. I don't doubt Him, or Jesus, for Jesus testified that He could do this.

Also, I do believe that God created everything in six days. God is Quite Able to do such. You just have not fathomed Him yet. It is possible to me that God created one Adam and Eve, and the Lord God formed man, our Adam and Eve. I mean, who was Cain married to? His sister?? Did he wait for his sister to grow up before having a wife? I don't think so. I know that the Lord God planted a garden of Eden. Cain got his wife on the outskirts of Eden, called Nod. I believe Adam and Eve were banished from Eden also. They must have gone to Nod also, or else some other 'town.' There's just a lot of questions I have when I meet God. But I don't need to know the answers right now in order to Love Him Dearly and try to live my life as He'd have me do. I love Him like a Father. My Dad was difficult to communicate when we were younger, but in his old age, he changed and became more of a father. Still, I had already accepted God as my Father, and my earthly father was Dad, not father.

More later.

Michael

:doh: :carryon:
ignore bin #29
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top