Evolutionism and Creationism?

[MrWill]

Originally posted by Thiebear


Don't dig too deep into a joke... It may not have been too funny to begin with but discussing it makes it worse...
.

I prefer not to get too deep into these conversations as I have no ammunition. I would like to believe in a higher power as opposed to coming from a protoplasm...

(nothing against protoplasm's if any of your relatives are watching though)...

LOL. Funny. I feel the same way you do. It is healthy for us to believe in a higher power. It is unhealthy to just take the hard copy of what we humans believed a couple thousand years ago, and stand by it until the end of your life out of fear that you won't be 'saved' otherwise. It is important to start with 'there is a higher power'......but not end your search for answers until your dying day.

[Mufumonk]

Originally posted by codeorama


The missing link is alive and well in the pacific northwest....

The REAL missing link lies somewhere in this man:

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by smsmith40
I really wanted to sit out yet another thread on Creationism but I just can't help myself.

Can everybody please be clear. Evolution is a scientific theory based on study and evidence. It takes established facts like fossil finds and observed behaviour and shapes a theory that fits these facts. It allows us to make predictions which can then either disprove the theory or add the the weight of evidence supporting it. It can NEVER be proven

Adam and Eve is one of many creation stories. It is a religious belief. It is based on faith, and a oral/written cutural record, it can make no predictions about the world around us, it can neither be proven or disproven. It has no basis in rational science.

Both should be taught in school One should be taught in a science class the other in cultural studies . Comparison is pointless, its apples and oranges.

I agree with you and disagree with you. From my study of this issue for the last nine years I see evolutionists, not shaping theories to fit the facts, <i>but shaping the facts to fit the theories.</i> There is a BIG difference. They start with the assumption that evolution must be true, therefore any evidence must line up with it. If it doesn't, then they throw out the evidences as not being evidence. That's called bad science. It's biased.

I do agree with you that evolution can never be proven (contrary to what Mr. Code thinks). Evolution has never been observed. Small changes within the same animal (i.e. MICROevoltuion) is not evolution. If two dogs have different traits they are STILL DOGS. MACROevolution, the type of evolution that is required for this theory to be fact, has never, ever been observed (and TIME is NOT the savior). Show me a wolf turning into a whale (fossil evidence, anyone???) and I'll believe it. I'll throw out my Bible and believe it. That's what our children are told in public school, but with ZERO evidence.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-123.htm

I agree with you that creationism should be taught in the public school, but I think it should be taught right along side of evolution in the science class. Creationism, by definition, is a scientific answer for the origin of all things. Just because a Creator is involved in the equation does not make it unscientific. There are many HUNDREDS of creation scientists who have earned degrees and doctorates from some of the top universities across the world. They have the same "Ph D" after their name as some world-renowned evolutionists. Their minds are just as sharp. They are just as analytical. They are scientists in every sense of the word. Is their research to just be disregarded as "religious nonsense" because they believe in a Creator? If so, I find that to be some of the most incredibly poor logic and common sense in existence.

I agree with you that they are apples and oranges. For that reason, the majority of the replies in this post that take the middle ground cannot be correct. Evolution and creation are opposed and cannot be married. The Bible was written at FACE VALUE. There is no reason to think that God meant it otherwise. Someone mentioned the Hebrew word for "day." Well, they should well know that it can mean a 24 hour period. Someone said it could mean thousands of years. There is no reason to believe that God meant anything else in the early chapters of Genesis other than 24 hour days. (That is trying to fit the "facts" [supposed] into the theory, but it doesn't work.) It says, "The EVENING and the MORNING were the first day, "etc., etc. Even today we know that "evening and morning" constitute a full, 24 hour day. For further study on this 24 day issue, click here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-184.htm

I actually counted most of the replies in this post to see who believed what. The vast majority said they didn't know, or they were in the middle, or they believe a combination of both. Those that took a stand on either creation or evolution were about equal. That should tell us something. There is no reason to believe that the replies in this forum are skewed in some way that would make our answers something different than "mainstream." The newspaper report that most Americans believe in the creation account should also tell us something. It shows that the theory of evolution is STILL a theory and it's not as believable as the intellectuals would like us to think it is. (Personally, I think it's a joke and insults my intelligence. My grandad wasn't an ape. ) So, Mr. Evolutionist, don't shake your head and say, "I don't understand these dumb people. What's wrong with THEM?" Say instead, "Hmmm, maybe there is something wrong with MY theory." Then you'd be on the right track.

These facts I do know:
1. Evolution is not a fact and is not without serious holes. Especially Darwinian evolution.
2. For the Bible to be true evolution cannot be true. Theistic evolution (the idea that God created evolution and let it take over) also cannot be true. It doesn't fit with the foundational doctrines of the Bible (i.e. Adam's original sin and Christ's sacrifice for it). If you are a Christian you cannot take this stance and remain true to God's Word. If you say you believe it, then BELIEVE it. There is no need to try to force the Bible into what science seems to be saying today. Plenty of what they say is totally wrong, and may times, unfortunately, purposely deceptive. The Bible can defend itself, and God didn't NEED evolution to make the universe or mankind, etc. He did it in seven, 24 hour days.

Here is a source for further study: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-081.htm

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456


You are.

The answer I expected. Short, sweet, and evidence-challenged.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456


They in no way invalidate the SPECIFIC similarities that exist between ALL living things.

Yeah, it's called COMMON DESIGN. What's so hard about that? The first DESIGN of the bicycle didn't look a whole lot different than the DESIGN of the bicycle today. Does that mean they evolved? No, they were DESINGED WITH A COMMON DESIGN BY A DESIGNER. It works, so they've always looked similar.

I know and would consider myself an "acquaintance" of Dr. Duane Gish, Ph D in microbiology at The Institute for Creation Research. I suspect that he spent more than four years studying biology, and I can tell you that he in the most humblest way would totally and scientifically destroy your theory in a debate. I know for a fact, because I witnessed it first hand in 1996. It was embarrassing for the evolutionist (a Ph D in paleontology). 400 saw it first hand. Evolutionists still don't like to debate lest the public actually starts thinking that evolution might be wrong. The evidence is clear.

[Mufumonk]

Originally posted by gbear
We haven't had a good religion thread lately.

So I'm reading the Nytimes editorial page today. According to them a recent gallup poll showed that only 28% of people in the US believe in Evolutionism. IS that true? Crazy...maybe us East Coast people are a bit different from the rest of America.

I remember sitting through my third grade class where only creationism was taught (Episcopal school). That night my parents deciding we were taking a family trip to Calvert Clyffs on Sat. On Monday they sent me back to school to ask "If the world is only 10,000 years old, how can this fossil be hundreds of thousands of years old?" (this was before you were forbidden to take the fossils)

Over the years, I've come a little more into the middle ground as I believe something had to start everything. However, I tend to believe evolution took over from there. Heck, I see it. I need only look at average heights among people and various other traits among people and animals to see we change over generations. I can't believe only 28% of people in the US believe in evolution.

I guess I'm stuck with the old "IN the absence of contrary evidence, the symplist explanation is usally the correct one." IF science says the fossil is 10K years old, I'll probably believe that over somebody saying God created everything exactly as it exists 10K years ago. I guess personally I'm okay with faith to explain things I otherwise can't explain, but I just can't use it to explain what is already explainable with science. That goes double when faith's explanation differs from science.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised though. There's a survey course at the University of MD that tracks people's scientific literacy in the US. According to my friend taking the course now, the past few years have had an even split between people who think the earth revolves around the sun and people who think the sun revolves around the earth.

I'll say Not Sure, because there's no "Other" option and I don't want to taint this poll. I believe that a higher power created this wacky universe. Taking into consideration how harsh the world was so very long ago, it's hard not to believe that Divine Intervention took place long enough for us to evolve into what we are today. I remember reading something in college that traces the first human beings back to an area near Tibet that was basically sheltered from the rest of the world. It was the closest thing to a real life Eden I've ever heard of. So, I have a very hard time buying into the idea that we evolved from apes considering all that we know about the human genome, which is still only a fraction. So, I believe in some sort of happy medium to an extent.

[panel]

I don't consider evolution a theory, I conciderite observed fact.

Look at corn, today corn grow TWICE the size than it was only 30 years ago, and around 10 times larger that a centurey ago. And if you farther bac, you realize that early corn/maize looked like this;



today, corn looks like this, because the corn that feed us the least was never given a chance to survive, they were destoryed, while the biggest stocks are saved for growing more and bigger plants, and then have the process repeated all over again.



We already KNOW that life can be changed and munipulated over time, if corn can have changes so much from just 30 years ago, imagin the changes posiable to ALL life in millions of years.


I'll ask this question again, what happens when a dumb guys dies because of his stupidity, and a smart guys thrives because of his brain, the smart guy has more kids, and the dumb one has none, humanity as a whole just got smarter, and the process repeats for the next generation. If that isn't evolution, what is it?

Multiply that process millions of years, and your telling me there is no differeance in the human speices???

[MrWill]

Originally posted by skinsfan51


Yeah, it's called COMMON DESIGN. What's so hard about that? The first DESIGN of the bicycle didn't look a whole lot different than the DESIGN of the bicycle today. Does that mean they evolved? No, they were DESINGED WITH A COMMON DESIGN BY A DESIGNER. It works, so they've always looked similar.

I know and would consider myself an "acquaintance" of Dr. Duane Gish, Ph D in microbiology at The Institute for Creation Research. I suspect that he spent more than four years studying biology, and I can tell you that he in the most humblest way would totally and scientifically destroy your theory in a debate. I know for a fact, because I witnessed it first hand in 1996. It was embarrassing for the evolutionist (a Ph D in paleontology). 400 saw it first hand. Evolutionists still don't like to debate lest the public actually starts thinking that evolution might be wrong. The evidence is clear.

Where is the evidence for your design theory? B/C you can go to the museum of natural history for a handful of evidence on the other side. It is easy to say life has similarities because some faceless being created it. But, bear in mind, you are supporting some TALL tales from that bible of yours. It might be easier for you to just believe what you have been tainted with since birth, and, hell, most importantly, it probably assuages your fear of death somewhat. However, it is unlikely that gods master plan has humans gathering up against each other because we all feel that our 'big fish' of a story is the correct version. Seek your own answers.....it is the reason we are here. Even babies have to remove the pacifier at some point.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456


OK....I'll bite, tell me the objective, but feasible side of creationism. I don't know about you folks.....but, I think panspermia is a more likely scenario than creationism. For those who have not heard of this, it is the idea that life on this planet was seeded 3.5 billion years ago with genetic material from another world. Now, that is far fetched.....but if you want to wax philosophical without the backbone of evidence, there is my two cents.

Of all the things posted on this thread, this makes the most sense to me.

Its evolution (or devolution, lol) with a twist.

[Om]

That's natural selection, panel. Different symposium.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73


Adam and Eve continue to have children. Perhaps Cain sleeps with his sister, not him mom, and bears more children? This could be considered okay IN THAT TIME because the Law (10 Commandments along with some 600+ other laws in the Old Testament) has not been given yet. They lived under a different dispensation.

This is correct, but not only for the 10 Commandments reason.

If you read the biblical account you will notice that the people lived to be as old at 969 years (Gen. 5:27). Why? The gene pool had not been corrupted yet. God told Adam and Eve that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die. Well, they didn't die on the spot when they ate it. So is God a liar? No, He was right. <i>The death process was begun.</i> Just like when you break a branch from a tree. It doesn't look dead, but it is in the process of dying. It's as good as dead. In God's original plan for creation, there would be no death. When Adam and Eve sinned and the death process began, it took hundreds of years for them to die (Adam died at 930 years old). The origianl gene pool was perfect, so having a child with your sister would not cause genetic problems as it might today. While it's taboo in our society today, and for good reason, there was no other option back then and it was perfectly safe and accepted.

You can read more here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...cains_wife.asp

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by panel
I don't consider evolution a theory, I conciderite observed fact.

Look at corn, today corn grow TWICE the size than it was only 30 years ago, and around 10 times larger that a centurey ago. And if you farther bac, you realize that early corn/maize looked like this;


today, corn looks like this, because the corn that feed us the least was never given a chance to survive, they were destoryed, while the biggest stocks are saved for growing more and bigger plants, and then have the process repeated all over again.



We already KNOW that life can be changed and munipulated over time, if corn can have changes so much from just 30 years ago, imagin the changes posiable to ALL life in millions of years.


I'll ask this question again, what happens when a dumb guys dies because of his stupidity, and a smart guys thrives because of his brain, the smart guy has more kids, and the dumb one has none, humanity as a whole just got smarter, and the process repeats for the next generation. If that isn't evolution, what is it?

Multiply that process millions of years, and your telling me there is no differeance in the human speices???

Now all you need to do is show me where corn turned into a atlantic salmon and I'll believe you. It doesn't matter that corn is larger today than it was 30 years ago. There are a LOT of external factors that make that so (like advancements in farming technology). BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IT'S STILL CORN.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456


Where is the evidence for your design theory? B/C you can go to the museum of natural history for a handful of evidence on the other side. It is easy to say life has similarities because some faceless being created it. But, bear in mind, you are supporting some TALL tales from that bible of yours. It might be easier for you to just believe what you have been tainted with since birth, and, hell, most importantly, it probably assuages your fear of death somewhat. However, it is unlikely that gods master plan has humans gathering up against each other because we all feel that our 'big fish' of a story is the correct version. Seek your own answers.....it is the reason we are here. Even babies have to remove the pacifier at some point.

The evidence for the design theory is all around you. Even Darwin said that it was crazy to think that the human eye evolved because of its amazing design. All of creation is FILLED with such examples. To think otherwise borders on lunacy, to be quite honest.

Answer this. The eye hasn't always been around. But according to you it "evolved." Why? Nothing had ever seen anything and lived quite happily without an eye. So why did the eye just "evolve." (Be careful how you choose your words your you'll hang yourself )

[panel]

Originally posted by Om
That's natural selection, panel. Different symposium.

Natural selection IS EVOLUTION, that is how th changes are made.

[MrWill]

Originally posted by skinsfan51


This is correct, but not only for the 10 Commandments reason.

If you read the biblical account you will notice that the people lived to be as old at 969 years (Gen. 5:27). Why? The gene pool had not been corrupted yet. God told Adam and Eve that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die. Well, they didn't die on the spot when they ate it. So is God a liar? No, He was right. <i>The death process was begun.</i> Just like when you break a branch from a tree. It doesn't look dead, but it is in the process of dying. It's as good as dead. In God's original plan for creation, there would be no death. When Adam and Eve sinned and the death process began, it took hundreds of years for them to die (Adam died at 930 years old). The origianl gene pool was perfect, so having a child with your sister would not cause genetic problems as it might today. While it's taboo in our society today, and for good reason, there was no other option back then and it was perfectly safe and accepted.

You can read more here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...cains_wife.asp

Yup....you are definitely in the category I was thinking of. You are telling tall tales now. Is this the argument you were referring to? If so, I am unimpressed. Where is the EVIDENCE?!? 'God doesn't lie'? Is that your evidence? Have you spoken with God lately? Also, when you break a branch off of a tree it is not 'as good as dead'. Maybe if you took a saw, and cut all the way around the tree, severing its vascular tissue, it would be as good as dead. What surprises me the most is that you presented this passage like it was fact.....and I see nothing but philosophy and poor scientific references. Guess I had to be there, huh? Anyway.....you need to at least be able to think scientifically to be a positive contributor to this conversation. Are you going to deny that what you said was PURE speculation, as opposed to the mountains of observations that suggest there is a good chance that all life came from a one celled organism 3.5 billion years ago?