Evolution or Creation

[Matthew]

Creation by means of evolution.

We can't deny Creation if we look into ourselves.
We can't demy Evolutioin if we look around.(And if you have smallest intention to see what really are around us with eyes of truth not decieved by what we have learned to see.)

God's one day can be our 1000 years and the other way around.  God's not human. God is not limited to time.

I do not feel any intimidation from God to make me believe '7 days' as our days.
Why do we have to insist Adam didn't have a childhood?
I believe God could have made this world in 7 seconds.
Do you think God saves only those who believe God's creation and deny the scientific findings?
Then, I say you should stop riding cars, stop using computers and start planting wheats.
Why do you insist Creation and evolution are contradictory?  I only see God's grace and harmony.

I recommend 'Miracles' by C.S. Lewis.  Or maybe 'Chronicles of Narnia' at least.

I recommend The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder and Yada Yahweh by Craig Winn, for people interested in studying the Genesis creation account and matching it to scientific findings.

[samerlias]

I recommend visiting www.drdino.com

Pretty interesting stuff.... has very thorough and scientific answers for all the questions in this topic!

Download the age of the earth seminar, 17 hours of scientific proofs of the creation theory.

[myshkin]

I recommend visiting www.drdino.com

Pretty interesting stuff.... has very thorough and scientific answers for all the questions in this topic!

Download the age of the earth seminar, 17 hours of scientific proofs of the creation theory.

Dr. Dino has been dealt with in this thread, but I don't blame you for not reading it through, it is after all some 50 or so pages long

Welcome to the evolution or creation thread by the way.

[dinodoc]

I recommend visiting www.drdino.com

Pretty interesting stuff.... has very thorough and scientific answers for all the questions in this topic!

Download the age of the earth seminar, 17 hours of scientific proofs of the creation theory.

It isn't science. Dr.Dino just tells you it is. Don't be taken in by him just because he tells you what you want to believe.

[postman]

I watched a debate between Ray Comfort and an atheist and they also talk about speciation, which Comfort doesn't seem to understand. I think Comfort does not look very good in this scene. But anyway, this atheist gives an example of 2 salamanders which go down different paths and interbreed with their own kind but after a while the new salamanders from the 2 different paths could not interbreed anymore because the genes have become too different.

In what way does this explain evolution or cause evolution? As far as I understand it you simply end up with 2 groups of salamanders which have somehow become genetically too different to interbreed anymore. But what's strange is that this can even happen that even though the salamanders interbreed with their own kind that they still become incompatible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKJUn...eature=related

You can watch the scene here it starts at 4:30

I'm interested what you say about this. Personally I wasn't impressed with Comfort at all. He wasn't really able to come up with real answers and seemed to more or less simply repeat all the stuff he always says when he's on the street.

[Vasahond]

Even if the Atheist is right from a scientific standpoint, what he is observing is still micro evolution. Neither salamander turns into a different kind of animal. If it did, then his case would be proven. However, something that the evolutionists have tried (and failed) to do for a few hundred years now is prove macro evolution which entails salamanders turning into frogs, monkeys into humans, etc. There has been no occurrence of such a thing ever happening. That is why evolution, to me, is a leap of faith. Evolutionists take it on faith that organisms began taking on new likenesses (creating new kinds of animals) because there's no evidence. There's not even solid "transition" fossils. Also, might I add, where are the living transitional specimens today?

[dinodoc]

I watched a debate between Ray Comfort and an atheist and they also talk about speciation, which Comfort doesn't seem to understand. I think Comfort does not look very good in this scene. But anyway, this atheist gives an example of 2 salamanders which go down different paths and interbreed with their own kind but after a while the new salamanders from the 2 different paths could not interbreed anymore because the genes have become too different.

In what way does this explain evolution or cause evolution? As far as I understand it you simply end up with 2 groups of salamanders which have somehow become genetically too different to interbreed anymore. But what's strange is that this can even happen that even though the salamanders interbreed with their own kind that they still become incompatible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKJUn...eature=related

You can watch the scene here it starts at 4:30

I'm interested what you say about this. Personally I wasn't impressed with Comfort at all. He wasn't really able to come up with real answers and seemed to more or less simply repeat all the stuff he always says when he's on the street.

Postman, for some reason the link doesn't work. Could you post it again, or put the title of the video so I can find it easily?

I wouldn't like to do Mr. Comfort any injustice by commenting without hearing his words.

Thanks

[redfrozen]

Ray Comfort is a good preacher...however i think he oversteps some of his bounds and pretends to be an expert in fields that are not his, and i think he sometimes ends up looking quite foolish...

There are many good creation/intelligent design experts out there and kent hovind and ray comfort aren't included in that group.

Some of what Kent Hovind says is good, but he usually has so much conspiracy/anti-government/KJV-only stuff thrown in, it really taints him and his message, and i would say just skip him altoghter...I would also say he is not a good ambassador for the Kingdom he claims to represent.  He usually is just spouting off mockery/insults that would never convince someone of a different viewpoint, instead of intelligent debate and meaningful conversation...

[clownpo]

I think the story is about God revealing himself to mankind. I don't think that Adam and Eve represent actual characters, but I think they represent an early, intelligent population residing in the fertile crescent. This is thousands of years before modern society, so codes of conduct will have been very different. The nature of relationships will also have been different. A literal account would have made no sense for the intended audience of the Genesis account, and to be quite honest, I can't discount the possibility that its real meaning will actually become clear in the future. In the light of what is known about human history, I don't think the story makes sense if taken literally.

Anyway, that was really the result of jostling ideas around, and I concede that I could be very wrong. I certainly am very wrong about many or most things I lazily take for granted and leave unchallenged.

but if you will consider adam and eve not as actual characters but rather as some  "population", how will you be interpreting the name accounts (from adam to jacob to david to jesus etc) mentioned in the bible? i still think the bible means actual persons when discussing adam and eve.

i also think it will be hard to both consider evolution and the bible at the same time, given that if you will follow the idea of evolution you will have to shun the idea that the woman was from the rib of the man, adam and eve were the first human beings (since there could have benn multiple ?monkeys/apes? simultaneously evolving into humans), and other accounts of creations in the bible.

[dj91]

i also think it will be hard to both consider evolution and the bible at the same time, given that if you will follow the idea of evolution you will have to shun the idea that the woman was from the rib of the man, adam and eve were the first human beings (since there could have benn multiple ?monkeys/apes? simultaneously evolving into humans), and other accounts of creations in the bible.

I don't know of any studies about this, but you could just say that women evolved from men. Would fit in with the metaphor I would suppose,

[muskratt]

creation      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jkmtwo]

Who cares? Your here, you........ah forget it.....

I don't care what you think about Genesis, I care what you think about Jesus

[myshkin]

You cannot possible compare that which you call the occult (and people are pretty liberal about it here) with the theory of evolution which is a scientific theory and certainly not false.

[WorshipHim]

I was merely using evolution as an example. Sorry if you believe in evolution, no offense intended, but I don't. In fact every Christian that I know doesn't believe in evolution either. We consider it to be a lie from the devil to take credit of creation away from God the Creator. So, in this case they would then both be lies of the enemy to persuade disillusioned people into believing false things rather than truth.

[myshkin]

That's fine if you don't "believe" in evolution, however the example makes no sense. If scientific theories can be compared to that which you consider occult then you've watered down the term 'occult' to mean just about everything you do not "believe in". Occult is used as a sort of pejorative I sense.

[WorshipHim]

That's fine if you don't "believe" in evolution, however the example makes no sense. If scientific theories can be compared to that which you consider occult then you've watered down the term 'occult' to mean just about everything you do not "believe in". Occult is used as a sort of pejorative I sense.

Considering that I was a practicing occultist/pagan/wiccan for more years than I've been a Christian, so far...I'm pretty sure I know what occult means. Regardless of that fact, my point is that they are both lies (sorry if you don't believe it to be so) from the enemy; and therefore, there is nothing wrong with knowing enough about the lies, to bring truth when needed.

[myshkin]

That's fine if you don't "believe" in evolution, however the example makes no sense. If scientific theories can be compared to that which you consider occult then you've watered down the term 'occult' to mean just about everything you do not "believe in". Occult is used as a sort of pejorative I sense.

Considering that I was a practicing occultist/pagan/wiccan for more years than I've been a Christian, so far...I'm pretty sure I know what occult means. Regardless of that fact, my point is that they are both lies (sorry if you don't believe it to be so) from the enemy; and therefore, there is nothing wrong with knowing enough about the lies, to bring truth when needed.

You do not address my point. It doesn't matter if you have been a Wiccan or a Muslim or Hindu for X number of years. And it doesn't matter if you personally do not believe in the theory of evolution (which is a scientific theory!). It matters that what you see as 1) lie and what you 2) do not believe in, is labeled "occult". It doesn't add up, because the term gets watered down. This is occult, that is occult, etc..

As for evolution being a lie, since evolution has not yet been falsified, it seems you are believing a lie about evolution being a lie.

[jkmtwo]

As for evolution being a lie, since evolution has not yet been falsified, it seems you are believing a lie about evolution being a lie.

Since it is still classified as a theory,I would be remiss if I did not point out that it has not been proven either.

Nobody speaks of the theory of gravity, I'm just saying.

[myshkin]

As for evolution being a lie, since evolution has not yet been falsified, it seems you are believing a lie about evolution being a lie.

Since it is still classified as a theory,I would be remiss if I did not point out that it has not been proven either.

Nobody speaks of the theory of gravity, I'm just saying.

I said it had not yet been falsified. All scientific theories are falsifiable (which is why creationism or intelligent design can never be a scientific theory). It is a theory in the scientific sense of the word, which means it is supported by plenty of evidence. Else the classification 'scientific theory' would not be justified.

[jkmtwo]

I said it had not yet been falsified. All scientific theories are falsifiable

Like parallel universes? Or alien seeding of planet earth? Or the "soup" that life supposedly sprung forth from? If your response is yes to all of these and many others, then you should agree with the next statement I make.

(which is why creationism or intelligent design can never be a scientific theory)

The ultimate test of falsifiability is the test of a truth claim, I can not test certain truth claims, short of a time machine, but I can test some, and the question ID or creationism depends solely on the truth claim that there is a God, if there is no God, then both are false, but if there is, one, or both is true, and I believe that it is possible to verify the existence of a transcendent being who governs the universe, and from who, all things come.

As for the truth claims that many evolutionists make, the primordial soup, for instance, that life sprung from, is not verifiable, short of a time machine, and thus not falsifiable.

It is a theory in the scientific sense of the word, which means it is supported by plenty of evidence. Else the classification 'scientific theory' would not be justified.

Yes and there is also evidence that the moon landing was faked, doesn't make that true. The fact is, at the end of the day, the question is not so much the point, nor is the answer, but how you choose to interpret the answer, or who's interpretation you choose to accept. That is ultimately where the rubber meets the road. Dawkins makes the bold claim that "the debate is over" and that "evolution is no longer a theory", yet there are an increasing number of scientists who would beg to differ.

[myshkin]

jkmtwo:

Hey, jkmtwo, our posts have been moved to this topic; I asked if they could, so I hope it is okay if I make my responds here. Hopefully you are aware.

Like parallel universes? Or alien seeding of planet earth? Or the "soup" that life supposedly sprung forth from? If your response is yes to all of these and many others, then you should agree with the next statement I make.

* parallel universes
* alien seeding of planet Earth
* primordial soup

My answer is no, because they are not scientific theories; at best they are scientific hypotheses. This classification is very important if one wants to understand the difference between what a theory and what a hypothesis is in the scientific sense. You cannot therefore compare the theory of evolution with say the idea that there might exist multiple universes (multiverse). The former has lots and lots of data to back it up, the latter does not (and is rather science-fiction too).

The ultimate test of falsifiability is the test of a truth claim, I can not test certain truth claims, short of a time machine, but I can test some, and the question ID or creationism depends solely on the truth claim that there is a God, if there is no God, then both are false, but if there is, one, or both is true, and I believe that it is possible to verify the existence of a transcendent being who governs the universe, and from who, all things come.

In order to have a scientific theory it must be falsifiable. That's it. Creationism or intelligent design is not falsifiable. We cannot prove or disprove your god's existence. Hey, I believe in God too, but if I would make the claim that intelligent design is scientifically substantial (substantial enough to become a scientific theory and move beyond the "hypothesis level") then I would have great difficulty explaining which designer it was (Odin, Allah, Yahweh, ...), even that the designer is divine (it might as well be aliens from space who designed us). We can't really falsify the claim of the designer in intelligent design (and that is not the only criticism), so we can't really use it in the scientific sense either.

You mention then that you believe it is possible to verify the existence of a transcendent being; I do not see how that is true, at least not objectively it is. I hold subjectively to the idea that God is real in my life and this world, but I cannot from there prove my faith to my neighbor. It is simply not scientific.

As for the truth claims that many evolutionists make, the primordial soup, for instance, that life sprung from, is not verifiable, short of a time machine, and thus not falsifiable.

The theory of evolution is about the "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". Species, not the primordial soup for example, that's abiogenesis.

Yes and there is also evidence that the moon landing was faked, doesn't make that true.

If there is evidence for the moon landing being fake it has not been shown to the public. The "moon landing" and theory of evolution are not comparable. The data for far outweighs the data against that is in the possession of academic community when it comes to the theory of evolution. Here the "moon landing" and someone saying it is fake, because the flag didn't quite move the way it was supposed to, or whatever, well, that just doesn't constitute scientific evidence (for or against) - especially not when it can be explained.

The fact is, at the end of the day, the question is not so much the point, nor is the answer, but how you choose to interpret the answer, or who's interpretation you choose to accept. That is ultimately where the rubber meets the road.

I usually make an effort in these debates to point out a similar point; that there is the scientific theory (the theory of evolution), as it stands on paper, and the interpretation of that scientific theory, which we all make. Dawkins is no exception and it is a shame he is not really able to set aside "Dawkins the ontological materialist", from Dawkins the university professor when teaching about evolution. The former constitute the interpreting Dawkins, the latter never asks 'why'. I've often come across creationists who cannot either differantiate between what is interpretation and what is the actual scientific theory. Probably thanks to people like Dawkins they claim for example that the theory of evolution is atheist. It depends on the mind that is reading from the paper; therefore you have everything from ontological materialists, everything comes from matter, to theistic evolutionists.

Dawkins makes the bold claim that "the debate is over" and that "evolution is no longer a theory", yet there are an increasing number of scientists who would beg to differ.

Dawkins is purposefully polemical, because he has to be, because an overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe in the theory of evolution. He is also, I am guessing, trying to squash the creationist idea that the theory in theory of evolution might as well mean guess. It doesn't in science. Dawkins is right about evolution being true, because the evidence for is so strong in comparison with the evidence against, that one would, if investigating the evidence for, be convinced of the truth of the claim of evolution. How Dawkins tries to convince Americans is problematic. He ends up speaking only to atheists or spreading the misconception that he is making no interpretation of a scientific theory.

http://www.justcharlie.com/images/evo_rank.jpg

[LoveSinners_HateSin]

I believe in 6 literal days creation all ordinary days. The sun wasn't created until day 4 but evening and morning came before that. God is light he do not depend on secondary source. If 24 hours began on day 4 then u got a problem because vegetarian was made on day 3. They can survive 24 hr but not million of years.

[myshkin]

 

[dinodoc]

As for evolution being a lie, since evolution has not yet been falsified, it seems you are believing a lie about evolution being a lie.

I would love to know why people believe evolution is a lie. The cynic in me says it is just because they don't like it, and it is pretty clear from reading this thread that some people have literally no idea what it is that they are so scared to accept.

Since it is still classified as a theory,I would be remiss if I did not point out that it has not been proven either.

A theory is an explanation of evidence. Evolution is the theory that explains the evidence that allele frequencies change in populations over time. This is a fact. Amazingly a theory can also be a fact.

There is no evidence that disproves the theory of evolution, and there is a lot of evidence that supports it. Have a look at it. Don't be scared, it is beautiful.

Nobody speaks of the theory of gravity, I'm just saying.

Newton?

[lolzlandmang]

The more I study Genesis, the more I see it as a metaphorical account of the creation of things.  That doesn't mean it can't be literal, but I don't know, it could easily be just a metaphor about the human condition. 

I no longer believe that the Bible rules out evolution.  However, I firmly believe that humanity needed some kind of divine intervention to get to their present state.  Our powerful sense of consciousness, morality, and most of all, inherent spirituality are all things that have not had plausible evolution explanations... at least, not yet.  But the very nature of something like inherent spirituality is something that is out of the reach of material science, so I would probably say that these things will NEVER be explained by naturalistic explanations.