Creation vs. Evolution

[patrick jane]

is that like the apocrypha ? hello =M=. is that right ?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

I will write you a Book List from my Copy;

=M=

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Yes, Like the Apocrypha these were removed.
I will write you a Book List from my Copy;

=M=

I actually have three books Named Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, but they honestly contain fully different books; well some are the same and overlap when comparing, but for the most part, you can tell something is missing.

The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second book of Adam and Eve
The Third book of Adam and Eve
The First Book of Enoch
The Book of Jubilees
The Book of Jasher (Which is Rare)
The Story of Ahikar
The Apocalypse of Abraham
The Apocalypse of Thomas
4 Ezra
2 Baruch
The War Scroll: The Sons of Dark Against the Sons of Light (Also Rare)
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene
The Apocryphon of John (The Secret Book of John)
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Judas
Acts 29

Which is this Book.

The First Three Books of Adam and Eve are false For Certain; Given they Directly Disagree with the Biblical Account in Genesis.

Jasher is interesting.
The Book of Enoch is interesting; Enoch 2 and 3 were most likely written by Kabahlists well after the Turn of the Century.
They are not Certain when Enoch I was written, and I personally like that book; Not saying it's God Breathed, but there is some interesting information and thoughts.

What else I find interesting, is the Bible Quotes the Book of Enoch.

I honestly have not read most of my Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Books.

I have a Second one, I can give you a book list for, as Well.

The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon (Which I personally thought was interesting)
Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Sirach
The Book of Baruch
The Story of Susanna
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasseh
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second book of Maccabees

Most of these books, I had most of these books in a Catholic Bible; which I traded for a Jewish Study Bible.

That Book can be found Here;

This Catholic Bible Contains the Majority of these Books, if not All, and it's Cheaper to Buy than the Previous.

Oh, Better Still; Get this King James with Apocrypha; I still have this one, and it contains more of the Apocrypha Books, than that Silly Catholic Bible.

I don't know what that painting of Michelangelo is doing on the Cover of a King James Bible; But you can always Rip that cover off, and Keep the Good Parts for Later.

 

[Hedshaker]

i agree. i spent a while believing carbon dating and archaelogists' ways of dating fossils and rocks or any form of matter. then i saw video discussing the inaccuracy. have you kent hovind ? i think i spelled it right, he is a creationist pastor in florida. very interesting video series on creation in The Bible.

Hello PJ and welcome to TOL :up:

Kent Hovind is considered to be a crank and a wacko among real scientists. He is currently serving a 10 year stretch in prison for tax evasion. A dishonest wacko!

Despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers. During his presentations, he sounds like an auctioneer or a used car salesman when he is attempting to make a point by getting his audience to buy a video or book from him. Many of his slideshows read like a top 10 list of commonly seen (and refuted) "evidences" for creationism that contain little to no actual data or proof. These arguments are interjected with unfunny "jokes" and anecdotes, which are topped off with a healthy serving of mined quotes. And like any good creationist, he is not above and in fact seems to enjoy spreading the false claim that Darwin caused the Holocaust.

Many of Hovind's claims can be easily refuted by merely reading Hovind's alleged references or doing basic math. For example, in Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series, Hovind is quoted saying:
“One drop of water will cover the world if you spread it real thin."

Sourse

All the best.

 

[6days]

Random variation? Do you mean variation made possible because of how God programmed the genome?

That's contrary to God's word. He says He created the Earth and the Earth brought forth life, as He intended. No programming necessary. He created a universe with rules that produced all the things He wanted in creation.

Why not just accept it His way?

Yes Barbarian. We need to accept what God says. How can you possibly believe that God created all life without creating the genome?
Genesis 1
20 Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”

23 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.”

27 So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”

29 Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” And that is what happened.

31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!

And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day

Genesis2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs[d] and closed up the opening. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man.

Exodus 20: 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Psa 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Colo 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

 

[TracerBullet]

i agree. i spent a while believing carbon dating and archaelogists' ways of dating fossils and rocks or any form of matter. then i saw video discussing the inaccuracy. have you kent hovind ? i think i spelled it right, he is a creationist pastor in florida. very interesting video series on creation in The Bible.

Then that creationist lied. Carbon dating doesn't work on fossils or on any other rock for that matter

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sorry, you're wrong. Natural selection is directly observed. And random variation plus natural selection produces order. Would you like to test that fact?

BTW, you were going to tell me about the two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional. When do you think you'll be answering that?

What you call a transitional is simply the diversity that already exists in the gene pool.

If my child has blue eyes instead of grey like mine or brown like my wife that is not evolution. The gene for blue eyes was already there in my or her genetic make up, etc.

Evolutionists have diversity upside down in their confused anti theist, anti Biblical minds. Adam and Eve had all the DNA that would make up all the rest of humanity. All genetic characteristics for all kinds, species or families, were put into their DNA by the Creator.

Through time, a dispersion of those characteristics (speciation) takes place as well as a break down as mutations into the diversity we see today and in the fossil record.

Gould summarized the fossil record in these two ways;

Stasis "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."

Sudden appearance "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

Evolutionists don't what to acknowledge that the Biblical account that God created all the types with limited diversity is consistent with all that is observed.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

[alwight]

What you call a transitional is simply the diversity that already exists in the gene pool.

If my child has blue eyes instead of grey like mine or brown like my wife that is not evolution. The gene for blue eyes was already there in my or her genetic make up, etc.

Evolutionists have diversity upside down in their confused anti theist, anti Biblical minds. Adam and Eve had all the DNA that would make up all the rest of humanity. All genetic characteristics for all kinds, species or families, were put into their DNA by the Creator.

Through time, a dispersion of those characteristics (speciation) takes place as well as a break down as mutations into the diversity we see today and in the fossil record.

Gould summarized the fossil record in these two ways;

Stasis "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."

Sudden appearance "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

Evolutionists don't what to acknowledge that the Biblical account that God created all the types with limited diversity is consistent with all that is observed.

--Dave

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Snipped in the ellipsis is:
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

The Quote Mine Project


"Sudden appearance" in geological terms does not mean instantaneously or miraculously, it simply refers to a relatively rapid response to an environmental requirement or change. By human life spans it still happens imperceptibly slowly and gradually, even if it's not actually "gradualism". A well adapted organism to an environment has no need to adapt unless the environment changes.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Quote Mine Project

"Sudden appearance" in geological terms does not mean instantaneously or miraculously, it simply refers to a relatively rapid response to an environmental requirement or change. By human life spans it still happens imperceptibly slowly and gradually, even if it's not actually "gradualism". A well adapted organism to an environment has no need to adapt unless the environment changes.

Any quote from evolutionists that undermines evolution is the "sin of quote mining" according to evolutionists.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism, I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks." --Gould​

The needed gradualism has to be taken by "faith" in contradiction to what we do see, that would make it an "irrational faith".

"The way in which it (speciation) occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." --Gould​

And that method occurs to fast to be seen in the fossil record and to slow to be observed by any one during recorded human history. What a joke!

--Dave :darwinsm:

 

[gcthomas]

Dave, the evidence of gradual evolution is and always has been more than just the incomplete fossil record. But to accept that would be to falsify all your best accusations, wouldn't it?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, the evidence of gradual evolution is and always has been more than just the incomplete fossil record. But to accept that would be to falsify all your best accusations, wouldn't it?

We see diversity of species and diversity within species in the fossil record, we do not see gradual evolution.

Today we see diversity of species and diversity within species, we do not see gradual evolution.

Belief in evolution is clearly not science.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

We see diversity of species and diversity within species in the fossil record, we do not see gradual evolution.

Today we see diversity of species and diversity within species, we do not see gradual evolution.

Belief in evolution is clearly not science.

--Dave

Tell that to the scientists. You have it wrong. You are welcome to disbelieve the science, but you seem to value the persuasive power of science and so need to pretend it is different from the reality.

You are being economical with the actualitè. You are welcome to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. Say the science is wrong, but don't lie about the nature of science. You are a theologian with the habit of telling others they are not qualified to have an opinion on theological matters. Try your own medicine.

 

[alwight]

Any quote from evolutionists that undermines evolution is the "sin of quote mining" according to evolutionists.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism, I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks." --Gould​

The needed gradualism has to be taken by "faith" in contradiction to what we do see, that would make it an "irrational faith".

"The way in which it (speciation) occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." --Gould​

And that method occurs to fast to be seen in the fossil record and to slow to be observed by any one during recorded human history. What a joke!

--Dave :darwinsm:

Neither Gould nor Eldredge had any doubts about Darwinian evolution in general.
That evolution typically is rather quicker than most geological changes is one hardly surprising fact, while that it is also another step change to human life spans would be another.

 

[6days]

Neither Gould nor Eldredge had any doubts about Darwinian evolution in general.
That evolution typically is rather quicker than most geological changes is one hardly surprising fact, while that it is also another step change to human life spans would be another.

They continued to believe in ToE even though the evidence was often contradictory to the evolutionary consensus.

 

[6days]

"Sudden appearan ce" in geological terms does not mean instantaneously or miraculously, it simply refers to a relatively rapid response to an environmental requirement or change. By human life spans it still happens imperceptibly slowly and gradually, even if it's not actually "gradualism". A well adapted organism to an environment has no need to adapt unless the environment changes.

Sudden appearance means no evidence of evolution but maintaining beliefs in it anyway

 

[6days]

Tell that to the scientists. You have it wrong. You are welcome to disbelieve the science, but you seem to value the persuasive power of science and so need to pretend it is different from the reality.

You are confusing science with evolutionism.
Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past.

 

[Daniel1611]

I want to see a transitional fossil. Not a dinosaur fossil with a feather. I want to see a fossil of an animal that is halfway between one animal and another. We see a bird with teeth and say its a dinosaur evolving into a bird. No. It's a bird with teeth. Show me something that is hallway between two species. When I used to believe evolution, the best thing I ever saw in the books I read was archeoptryx or however it's spelled and it's not transitional. It's a weird bird with teeth.

 

[alwight]

Sudden appearance means no evidence of evolution but maintaining beliefs in it anyway

The "sudden" appearance in many different layers of geology is evidence that evolution has occurred over billions of years and that even a "sudden" appearance in geology is still gradual in human terms.
The ToE is what falsifiably best describes facts and hard evidence as supported by peer reviewed science from may fields.
Creationism is blind faith in a literal Genesis.

 

[DFT_Dave]

When it became clear there was no such thing as a transitional form the theory of evolution was falsified.

Instead of admitting defeat, evolutionists decided that species evolved as a whole more quickly in small isolated groups instead of very slowly, in geologic time, individual by individual in the larger groups.

Punctuated equilibrium is purely an explanation as to why the fossil record does not show gradualism. It's an explanation of what cannot be seen and why.

Speciation is nothing more than how the gene pool of a group is dispersed over time from species to sub species within families. As time goes by the gene pool of characteristics become smaller and less diverse.

Evolution is a synthesis an antitheses.

Thesis: DNA is dispersed over time.

Antithesis: DNA is accumulated over time.

The synthesis is that DNA is both accumulated and dispersed over time. We have proof and observation for the one but not the other. Speciation is about the dispersion of existing DNA where as evolution is about the creation of DNA that has not existed before.

Both speciation and evolution are about change, but they are about change in opposite directions. Speciation is the dispersion of information that also leads to a decrease of information, a smaller gene pool. Evolution is the opposite of a decrease of information, it's an increase of information.

Mutations are not an increase in information, they're an alteration of existing information, errors during replication. Mutations within a species account for diversity within a species that is a breakdown, not a building up that is required for evolution to occur.

Proving evolution occurs because mutations occur is like saying cities are built by nature because we can see that buildings naturally fall apart.

--Dave