Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

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.

Dear Arthur Brain,

You are a voice crying in the wilderness. There are many who would like it if you'd shut up, but don't. This thread is a hard one, but it's honest, at least!! I miss The Barbarian! Don't know what he's been up to, except he's gone. Bummer!!

God Be With You Always,

Michael
​

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Well if there's a rag of truth in any of that you should have no problem explaining where he came from, where his energy comes from, how he uses it and how its distributed.

Just making bald claims is no more than mindless preaching, which is fine if that's all you want to do, but it proves nothing.

Ah ha! Science says that energy can not be created or destroyed. With the aspect of the power and energy source pondered. Logically the mind goes to either the power or energy either always existed or it didn't. We all know it exists.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Some of us also know the power and energy source is also love. We have experienced Him, His power, His love.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

I'm not going to spend my entire life helping you to believe me. Why should I? Would it change any one of you?? I am spent for the night. I've given you enough to go on. I'm tired of trying to help you. Will it matter if I lose your soul. 'yes, it would. But I'm tired for the night and so I do what I have to do.

God Be With You Always!!

Michael,

 

[alwight]

Who is to say that these galaxies are 'millions' of miles away? Some new measuring device? A light spectrum? I don't believe a word of it. We will never see outside of this Universe because God doesn't want us to see the end of it. It's the same thing as the inaccuracy of Carbon-14 dating? Or Piltdown man, and Lucy? I could go on. Haekel's fraud? Man's ancestry, etc. You're WRONG!!

Michael this was nothing to do with outside this universe, all galaxies are part of this universe. It was nothing to do with any of those other random YEC phoney whinges you threw in for good measure.
I rather think I can assume that astrophysics is not exactly your field of excellence? That if you don't believe the distances between galaxies it's because you don't want to believe it, not because the science can be shown to be wrong.
Galaxies are known to be moving generally apart by the red shift of light. Specific star types have a known brightness so just as a car headlight is not so bright when far away as it is when close up, the distance a car or a star is away can be worked out.
I myself only understand some of the basics but I accept that astrophysicists are not all in a conspiracy to feed us lies and that they know considerably more than I do, which includes the distances and motions of objects in the universe.

 

[iouae]

God is a Creator.
Creators make new things.
God created the heavenly host first.
There are a great variety of them such as cherubim, seraphs, the "4 beasts" at the corner of His throne, the 7 spirits, the 24 elders, the angels of various ranks.

Scientists say that 99% of all animals which have ever lived are extinct.
So what we see around us on earth today represents 1% of all things God ever created.
The fossil record is a record of things God has created over time.
It is a testimony to the greatness and creativity of God.
Most Christians are as afraid of fossils and palaeontology as a vampire is afraid of light.

I say that the fossil record, when correctly understood, is the Creationists friend, and the evolutionists enemy.
I am daring Christians to be a Daniel and to stare the lion down. Confront your fear of the fossil record.

John 1:3 All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Thus T. rex and all ancient creatures were made by Jesus, not evolution.

The fossil record tells of multiple CREATION events and extinctions. 99% of past created species are now extinct.
These extinct creatures too, were created by Jesus.

The Geologic Time Scale is the Christians friend, as I will point out in the next paragraph.

Life on earth is divided into 3 Eras separated by two mass extinctions.
95% of species on earth were destroyed at the end of the Palaeozoic Era (Permian period). This left earth without form and void in what was called "The Great Dying". So God replenished the earth (with dinosaurs), at the start of the Mesozoic Era (Triassic Period). Please refer to the Geologic Time Scale diagram.

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

At the end of the Mesozoic Era (Cretaceous Period) there was another mass extinction. The earth again was without form and void. And God replenished the earth with mammals, some of which are extinct today.

Mammals and birds have been present anciently and recently.
Mammals were small and insignificant during the Era of the Dinosaurs.
Some "dinosaurs" such as crocodiles still live today.

Each of the little Periods is followed by a mini mass extinction.
Thus each horizontal line on the chart represents an extinction event followed by a creation event by God, where new species replace old.

At the end of the Tertiary Period (Pliocene Epoch) there was a mini extinction/creation event again.

It is in the Quaternary Period, after the Pleistocene Epoch that the Genesis 1 story begins.
This is the beginning of Human History.
So in 6 literal days, 6000 years ago, God [re]creates the heaven [sky], the earth and the sea, creating some new life forms such as man. This is what palaeontology refers to as the Quaternary Period - Holocene Epoch (Recent).

Even this is not the last mini mass extinction event, because 4400 years ago there was a Deluge, or Noah's flood. This is the Younger Dryas event in Palaeontology, when Clovis culture in North America was destroyed by Noah's Flood.

And today we sit at a point just before another mass extinction known as the 2nd Coming of Christ.

And 1000+ years from now God promises to create new heavens and earth (2 Pet 3:10-13), which means another mass extinction of all the wicked humans left on earth together with plants and animals.

This "melting of the elements" is followed by another [re]creation of new plants and animals such as herbivorous lions, and snakes which eat humus like earthworms do (Is 65:25).

And God will go on creating forever, because that is what He does.

 

[iouae]

Image taken from http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/eutheria/images/cenozoic_mammals.jpg

These spindle diagrams are incredibly interesting. Please do not be scared of them. Creationists should rejoice at these, and evolutionists should tremble.

These scientific charts, drawn up by evolutionary scientists, testify to Creation rather than evolution. Let me explain the chart and you will see why.

Notice how the Modern Era is divided into 6 Epochs.
After the huge mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (KT) boundary, earth was left without form and void, and devoid of dinosaurs. So God created the mammals. Before this there were a few small mammals living alongside dinosaurs as well as birds.

Look at this spindle diagram which shows how God created mammals.
The dashed lines show no mammals, just presumed ones. The thick solid lines of the spindle show how many and the type of mammal. The mammal pictures on top tell us the type of mammal. The past is at the bottom of the diagram, the present is at the top of the spindle.

Speaking generally, do you see how almost all mammals appear in the Eocene epoch, and then continue on to the present?

This means that the vast majority of mammal fossils appear out of nowhere, for the very first time in Eocene Epoch strata. In strata above this, the same old mammals reoccur till the present. Some die out.

The very name "Eocene" means "dawn of the recent". Evolutionists admit this was where the vast majority of mammal fossils first appear, all of a sudden. They do not keep "dawning" at an even rate through the other 6 epochs. No, they more or less appear, all at once, together, in those strata of rock.

Reading the tale of the rocks, this speaks of Creationism, not evolution. Read Genesis 1 where all modern life is [re]created all of a sudden in 6 literal days. It was this type of creation which occurred in the Eocene. And the evolutionists spindle charts unwittingly testify loud and clear to this fact.

The time scale of millions of years is fairly irrelevant. Even scientists admit that the dating is iffy. I will wait for scientists to get more accurate in their dating methods.

Either way, their numbers of millions of years are irrelevant to me, since I can agree with whatever figure they give.

The one thing they cannot explain by evolution is how the majority of mammals suddenly originate together, appearing in Eocene strata, all fossilised together. Evolutionists are welcome to believe this is a result of evolution. To me it points far more to Creation.

Either way it boils down to a belief since there were no CCTV cameras or National Geographic to film the origins of the mammals. But to me, the weight of evidence is on the side of sudden Creation rather than slow and continuous evolution.

 

[dialm]

Not really, perhaps if you explained your reasoning rather than only asserting it, that might help.

Ok. How does an atheist derive human value?

The junkie atheist says there is no human value. And he lives accordingly.

The average street atheist wants to be valued. But he has no reason to give us for valuing him/her. This type of atheist is a hypocrit every time he complains.

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

I'm sorry you need such criteria to believe in a Creator.

What I mean is if a creator god existed those questions would be perfectly valid, not that you're the least bit interested in what I obviously implied.

I doubt you will get it.

Of course I won't, durr! That's the point, because there's nothing actually there. The fact that you can so glibly ignore such questions speaks volumes. Imagine if science worked like that.......? There's a universe. What's that all about then? Who cares. Electricity, gravity, disease, speed of light, anatomy, nature, etc etc etc....... meh! Don't know, don't care. Magic must have done it. How do you think your own present medical treatment would have come about if today's medical scientists didn't stand on the shoulders of giants? That's the trouble with faith based beliefs and blind acceptance, it stifles growth and the accumulation of new knowledge from old knowledge.

And of course religionists, theologians and creationists have the perfect answer. They wait for science to make all the breakthroughs and then say, ah! there you are, isn't God awesome. They usurp all the good stuff to their gods, but the bad stuff they put down to....well, God just works in mysterious ways

I'll leave it there. The rest of your post is just the usual bald claims and empty assertions. The occasional nugget of evidence would be nice. Pity you have none. :think:

 

[6days]

ou know, I don't know if you do this to bolster your own beliefs or whether you are genuinely clueless:

See*Hypothesis

It seems we both understand what a hypothesis is.*

But again you are contradicting what you earlier said. You claimed that science doesn't concern itself with unfalsifiable things. If your statement is correct then multiverse, common ancestry, common designer, Big bang etc could all be called an hypothesis... but never called science. How can multiverse be falsified? How can flying spagetti monster be falsified?*

 

[gcthomas]

It seems we both understand what a hypothesis is.*

But again you are contradicting what you earlier said. You claimed that science doesn't concern itself with unfalsifiable things. If your statement is correct then multiverse, common ancestry, common designer, Big bang etc could all be called an hypothesis... but never called science. How can multiverse be falsified? How can flying spagetti monster be falsified?*

Common ancestry can be falsified by finding an organism with something other than DNA, with incomparable biochemistry for example. The cosmological multiverse by finding observations incompatible with its predictions, such as ruling out the B-mode polarisation of the CBR that it predicts.

The Big Bang theory has made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed.

Go figure, 6D, I think you need to educate yourself instead of just replaying creationism advocacy sites.

 

[6days]

Image taken from*http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/euthe...ic_mammals.jpg

These spindle diagrams are incredibly interesting. Please do not be scared of them. Creationists should rejoice at these, and evolutionists should tremble.

Your drawing is as scientific as Haeckels drawings. Your tree of life drawing is not only psuedoscience but also anti-Biblical. You would do well to stop trying to mesh evolutionary ideas of nillions if years into God's Word.

I posted this previous...Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities

Iouae...you might also check literature on the topic from Christian genetists, biologists, geologists etc.

Or..... start with this article by Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life

 

[Hedshaker]

It seems we both understand what a hypothesis is.*

But again you are contradicting what you earlier said. You claimed that science doesn't concern itself with unfalsifiable things. If your statement is correct then multiverse, common ancestry, common designer, Big bang etc could all be called an hypothesis... but never called science. How can multiverse be falsified? How can flying spagetti monster be falsified?*

I've explained it to you twice already so I'm guessing a third time would be pointless.

 

[6days]

Common ancestry can be falsified by finding an organism with something other than DNA, with incomparable biochemistry for example.

That would also falsify Biblical creation which says a single Creator used a single blueprint plan to create life.

The Big Bang theory has made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed.

haaaaa
As you know a prediction can hekp verify a hypothesis...it certainly does not make it falsifiable. Both evolutionists and Biblical creationists make succesful predictions.

 

[6days]

I've explained it to you twice already so I'm guessing a third time would be pointless.

You avoided your own statement going in circles twice so I imagine going in a circle third time would be pointless

 

[Interplanner]

Perhaps Darwin knew what a hypothesis was when he said he didn't know what to do with the Cambrian explosion and knew there were several systems that were 'too wondrous' to have come about intact immediately by mutation or adaptation.

 

[6days]

Perhaps Darwin knew what a hypothesis was when he said he didn't know what to do with the Cambrian explosion and knew there were several systems that were 'too wondrous' to have come about intact immediately by mutation or adaptation.

All can be explained away though with the non falsifiable belief system. Things "too wondrous" pop into existence in the "geological blink of an eye" because of the imperfect record.

 

[alwight]

Ok. How does an atheist derive human value?

The junkie atheist says there is no human value. And he lives accordingly.

The average street atheist wants to be valued. But he has no reason to give us for valuing him/her. This type of atheist is a hypocrit every time he complains.

Let's leave aside junkies which is a rather big fat red herring. There are clearly more theistic junkies around than atheistic ones, but nice try at poisoning the well.
The usual argument here from some Christians is that without their particular God there are no moral values, that without that invisible Godly leash humans are no better than amoral animals, rabid dogs perhaps.
Hogwash!
We are evolved creatures who mostly have had to evolve empathy for others and to value ourselves so that we can cooperate and coexist with each other, which is far more effective and efficient than trying to kill each other for no particular reason.
Most of us realise that we need to treat others like we want them to treat us, altruism.
Moral values are human evolved constructs not godly diktats, which existed long before the Christian religion and btw in remote tribes that never heard of Jesus.

 

[iouae]

Your drawing is as scientific as Haeckels drawings. Your tree of life drawing is not only psuedoscience but also anti-Biblical. You would do well to stop trying to mesh evolutionary ideas of nillions if years into God's Word.

I posted this previous...Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities

Iouae...you might also check literature on the topic from Christian genetists, biologists, geologists etc.

Or..... start with this article by Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life

I guess it must be my bad writing that you missed the point.
These are not my trees.
I agree with you that they are wrong. Even their dashed lines admits that their connections are only a guess.
Their dashed lines imply that one thing evolves from another.
I believe every species past and present was created individually by God. My tree would have no dashed lines.
But the solid parts of THEIR tree are factually correct, derived from the fossil record.
Science in this case was honest enough to use dashed and solid lines.

But THEIR tree illustrated an important point, namely that the majority of mammals arose suddenly in the Eocene.

Now that is cleared up, I think its time for you to accept that fossils are found in strata. In this case, THEIR tree and real rocks show that there was an explosion of new mammal fossils which we find today in Eocene strata.

De-Nile is not just a river in Egypt

 

[Interplanner]

All can be explained away though with the non falsifiable belief system. Things "too wondrous" pop into existence in the "geological blink of an eye" because of the imperfect record.

You're referring to the uniformitarian's non-falsifiable belief system, right?