Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
To: PatrickHenry
The man's busy writing his Nobel Prize winning journal article! [Nudge! Nudge!] Better leave him alone so he can finish.
51 posted on 12/02/2004 4:43:31 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"waiting with bated breath" placemarker


52 posted on 12/02/2004 4:51:22 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

That was directed to me?


53 posted on 12/02/2004 5:03:10 PM PST by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

Evolution is as true as any concept of science. It has attained the highest status in science-Theory.

The Big Bang is not a theory, but a hypothesis.

Nothing can be "proved" wrong except a mathematics formula.
So, please falsify the Theory of Evolution for us. No one has been able to do so in over 150 years. But I am sure with the brilliant insights and writings you have done so far, you will be the one to succeed.


54 posted on 12/02/2004 6:02:06 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All
Someone questioned the technical reasons for translating day in Genesis 1 as indefinite period of time. I thought you would be interested in one of the reasons: The key to understanding the series of Yoms in Genesis is in Genesis 2:4 where it says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ge 2:4). Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Yom in the first chapter also means an indefinite period of time, for God did not make everything in ONE day according to Gen 1. He made it in seven "days". Yet in verse four of Gen 2 the Bible contradicts itself if you insist on a one day (24 hr day)translation. I choose not to have the Bible contradict itself, but to be consistent. I choose to believe that my God is smarter than I am and everyone else. I think God would not make such a simple mistake from one moment to the next. So the only translation that can be made, if one believes in God, is to translate each "day" as a period of time. Then when the summary comes in verse Gen2:4 it translates as "in the period God made", referring to the seven periods previously mentioned. If Genesis first seven "days" were really days, then Genesis 2:4 would have had to say days and not day (yomim not yom). This is only one of several reasons the only conclusion that can be drawn without making God inconsistent or a "liar" is that YOM MEANS PERIOD in this context.
55 posted on 12/02/2004 7:05:43 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"Also your statement: "Science never proves anything. The Theory of Evolution explains how life formed after creation of the first life on this planet."

Is in error, evolution, among other things, tries to describe the process whereby inanimate matter became the first living cell. Something that is mathematically impossible by natural forces alone."

The Theory of (Biological) Evolution does not contain and never has contained speculation on original life formation. You, like all creationists, are creating a strawman argument.
You and the others have purposely left off the last word of Darwin's "Origin of Species" and substituted a new title "Origin of Life". Then you have gone on to rewrite the rest of Darwin's book with other twists, distortions, misrepresentations and out and out lies.


56 posted on 12/02/2004 7:28:55 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: shubi
"...if another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well..."
57 posted on 12/03/2004 12:56:29 AM PST by eagle11 (Once a people invents a word for "liberty", they are restless until they win if for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of species in the Families, Orders and Geni established by zoologists decades earlier. It provides evidence for how the process of evolution works, not why. Evolution does not (and cannot) explain how life originated. You're asking more of the theory than it can provide, something an honest scientist, or student of evolution would not do.


58 posted on 12/03/2004 1:06:38 AM PST by eagle11 (Once a people invents a word for "liberty", they are restless until they win if for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Nothing can be "proved" wrong except a mathematics formula.

So, please falsify the Fact of Creation for us. No one has been able to do so in over 5600 years.

So, please falsify the Theory of Evolution for us. No one has been able to do so in over 150 years.

So far you have been batting a .000 on the simple questions concerning your religion of Evolution. It seems that no one has been able to prove the Theory of Evolution (hence it is only a "theory" and generously allowed to be so) in one hundred and fifty years.

59 posted on 12/03/2004 2:50:03 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: eagle11

Right! Creationism and ID are not helpful in explaining the chronological systematic changes in species over millions of years.

The only thing they propose is who created original life, which is not part of the biological Theory of Evolution.

There is a lot of evidence that God exists and could create original life on Earth. It is not scientific evidence. In fact, if creationists got what they wanted, there would be no merit to faith. If God was definitatively shown to exist
who would not believe? OH! I know, the people who despite mountains of evidence don't think evolution happened.

In other words, it is exactly the same ignorant skepticism that keeps a silly Bible interpretation going that would deny God if scientific evidence of His existence were shown.


60 posted on 12/03/2004 3:51:48 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: eagle11

"Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of species in the Families, Orders and Geni established by zoologists decades earlier."

Yeah. So?

" It provides evidence for how the process of evolution works, not why."

Darwin did not know about genetics, but he speculated on it. He was close in some aspects. Darwin predicted the sort of mechanism genetics entails. Now with Mendel and DNA (Watson Crick) the why is pretty well understood.

" Evolution does not (and cannot) explain how life originated."

NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PROPOSES HOW LIFE ORIGINATED!!! WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS? Maybe your thick skulls are a speciation event. ;-)

" You're asking more of the theory than it can provide, something an honest scientist, or student of evolution would not do."

You're putting words in science mouth it did not say. I expect that from creationists. Lying for God won't get you very far with Him. Why can't you just admit that the silly literalist position is wrong? It would seem a lot simpler than taking untenable positions all the time, unless you have some financial incentive for promoting making God look powerless.


61 posted on 12/03/2004 3:58:54 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

the theory of gravity can't be proven either.
No scientific theory can be proven.
Why do you make points that are obvious? Will you tell us next that noone can make a 3 sided square?


62 posted on 12/03/2004 3:59:43 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

"So, please falsify the Fact of Creation for us. No one has been able to do so in over 5600 years."

The fact of creation is not falsifiable, since life exists.
The who of creation is unknown. I personally ascribe to the God did it, here.

However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time.

This falsifies the notion of special creation of each species (or kind). This one fact falsifies creation science and ID insofar as its notions of speciation or macroevolution are stated.





63 posted on 12/03/2004 4:03:54 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

"So far you have been batting a .000 on the simple questions concerning your religion of Evolution. It seems that no one has been able to prove the Theory of Evolution (hence it is only a "theory" and generously allowed to be so) in one hundred and fifty years."

Why do you keep asking the same ignorant questions repeatedly? Are you attempting some sort of "big lie" propaganda technique?

We tell you that science doesn't "prove", yet you insist on proof.
You call it "only a theory", yet biological evolution is a magnificent Theory that explains how life changes over time on Earth, after you have been told time and again that a Theory is the most exalted position in science and tantamount to fact.

AAAArrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!! cough cough


64 posted on 12/03/2004 4:09:41 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: shubi
There is not one piece of evidence that indicates that the theory of evolution is correct. All they find are bones of species that have become extinct and claim they are are of an evolving landscape of creation. There are too many holes in the theory that leave too many unanswered questions. The Creation Theory is just as valid as the Evolution Theory. As a matter of fact any theory you may come up with is just as valid.

The Big Bang Theory is disproved using basic physics.

And try not to attack someone that may have a different point of view, you sound like a liberal. :-)

65 posted on 12/03/2004 4:34:01 AM PST by stockpirate (Check out my bio and learn about sKerry and his Socialist friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I think God would not make such a simple mistake from one moment to the next. So the only translation that can be made, if one believes in God, is to translate each "day" as a period of time.

I am glad to see that you made use of a Bible tool to aid you in your attack on Scripture and the gospel, for now you have no excuse for not doing an Englishman's search on Strong's #3117 and see for yourself the fruits of your attack on the word 'Yowm'. You may want to review that "quaint" grammar rule that you hold in contempt and see how it really works.

If Moses really wanted to express a literal day in the Genesis 1 narrative, how would he do so differently than by enumerating the individual days, making clear demarcations between the creative events and by throwing the phrase "evening and morning the ____ day"? As a bonus question: How do you mangle the phrase "evening and morning" such where in context it is compatible with "billions of years"? Better still, traditional Darwinian evolution, catastrophism and PE (whatever your version of "truth" you choose for the moment) demand evolution in ALL species ALL the time. According to the Genesis narrative, if for some totally idiotic reason one could swallow the lie that "day" means "billions of years", you have all evolution of aquatic and aviary creations finished at the close of Day Five, and you have evolution of the plants completed on Day Three. To extend the formation of new plants and new critters beyond the "Day-Age" that they are assigned would make for a blurring of the demarcations of time to which they were assigned. To blur the distinctions such as your pet theories would demand would make the allegorical, metaphorical or illustrative purpose of Genesis 1 totally pointless. Or is that your intention, to try to deconstruct Scripture such where it is rendered pointless?

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Are you going to continue this parade of foolishness of yours and tell us that 'yowm' means "billions of years" in this passage?

The alleged contradiction is only in your mind. For thousands of years, there was no contradiction, there was no problem with the Jews and the Church regarding this matter. But you come along at this day and age and with a wave of your hand declare all of the People of God for thousands and thousands of years to be all wrong and the modern athiests are all right.

I gave you ample opportunity to square the circle regarding how evolution doesn't attempt to destroy the gospel message (that whole death and sin thing) - and you were silent. I gave you opporunity to explain how plants could live and thrive for billions of years before the sun was created to provide light and warmth, and again you were silent. It is quite obvious to everyone that you prefer real contradictions to reason and logic, that you prefer to see violence to the gospel message because you are too arrogant to recognize that you have absolutely no idea on how to execute proper hermeneutics and language study.

Perhaps when you get out of grade school you will recognize that you have much to learn i.e reading crap and garbage on a web site that caters to the Christophobic Cabal proves the GIGO theory.

66 posted on 12/03/2004 4:39:50 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: shubi

PS

Evolution is as true as any concept of science. It has attained the highest status in science-Theory.


Clinton attained the highest office in US politics....That didn't make him a good President.


67 posted on 12/03/2004 4:43:01 AM PST by stockpirate (Check out my bio and learn about sKerry and his Socialist friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

"There is not one piece of evidence that indicates that the theory of evolution is correct. All they find are bones of species that have become extinct and claim they are are of an evolving landscape of creation."

There is not one piece of evidence for the roman empire. All they find is ruined buildings and pots that used to once exist and claim they are part of some "roman empire".

"There are too many holes in the theory that leave too many unanswered questions."

There are too many holes in the theory of roman empire that leave too many unanswered questions. Sure, this is a totally subjective assertion without back up and I have no authority and am ignorant of the subject. But I am gambling that noone will actually find that out before I run off.

"The Creation Theory is just as valid as the Evolution Theory. As a matter of fact any theory you may come up with is just as valid."

Any theory is valid. Scott Peterson should have been let off because another theory, that his wife was actually killed by aliens visiting earth is just as valid. Noone was there to observe the murder so noone can know!

"The Big Bang Theory is disproved using basic physics."
Gravity is disproved using basic maths


68 posted on 12/03/2004 4:55:47 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
The Big Bang Theory is disproved using basic physics.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate on this please?

69 posted on 12/03/2004 4:56:23 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: eagle11
Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of species in the Families, Orders and Geni established by zoologists decades earlier.

Interesting that taxonomy was introduced to the scientifc world by a Creationist, Carolus Linnaeus... Charles Darwin, hated Christianity and sought ways to destroy it - science via an agenda of hate is sure to lead to bad science. That is why "evolution" is not science nor does it adhere to scientific priciples

Evolution does not (and cannot) explain how life originated.

I see this claim all of the time, yet we all know that this is weasel language. Any discussion of evolution presumes a foundational background of cosmogony. Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive. Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. If Evolution was only one attempt of many plausible attempts to "explain the diversity of species" then it would be treated that way. But take a look at the person like the one who started this thread - they treat it as a religion, a whole world view. Evolution willfully cripples itself by categorically denying Intelligent Design, never allowing anything that might point to a Creator. I would say that Evolution denies miracles, but it demands compound miracles: matter ex nihilo, order from chaos, information from no information, and a legal pad full of other necessary miracles. Why I say that your argument is weasel language is that in order to even take evolution as a possible explanation seriously, one has to fundamentally agree to a whole world view that is antagonistic to God, and given the history and the list of adherents to evolution, it is undeniable that those who find evolution plausible have a common contempt for God.

I understand many Christians who get sucked into the State sponsored lie of evolution, but that can be cured by simply exposing the fraud that it is. Fortunately, due to the many spokespeople of evolution, the job is quite simple.

70 posted on 12/03/2004 5:06:18 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

"I understand many Christians who get sucked into the State sponsored lie of evolution",

What about getting sucked into the creationist cult and losing your Soul?


71 posted on 12/03/2004 5:16:25 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
The Big Bang Theory is disproved using basic physics.

Avoiding the obvious question of where did all that matter come from, and how did it get all compressed into a dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence, the looming problem is how does order come from chaos or does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics no longer apply?

Of course along the Midway we have other sideshows, like retrograde spin of planets, the problems associated with laws of presevation of momentum and Jupiter, why galaxies aren't showing their age when they should be less organized.

Heck, I still have so much sun-light that I would like to do something with it other than watch it raise my air-conditioning costs. I would like to convert all of that energy into matter - like bars of gold. Scientists claim that they can figure out energy into Hydrogen, but how does energy make itself into heavy metals? The explanation sounds like a description of how to stand a puddle on its end.

I try to avoid stepping into the arena defined by the evolutionist/Big Bang theorists because they are so given over to serial lies and gratuitous insults. People who have sold their soul to evolution seem to be attracted to the bark of trees when their whole forest is a mirage. Its difficult to reason with folks like that. Evidence of the original poster of this thread - totally unwilling and totally unable to deal with the large trees that defy evolutionary cosmogony.

72 posted on 12/03/2004 5:17:51 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

"PS

Evolution is as true as any concept of science. It has attained the highest status in science-Theory.


Clinton attained the highest office in US politics....That didn't make him a good President."

Do you have any idea how unrelated those two statements are?
I cannot even begin to explain the multiple flaws in logic and common sense you have created with this post.


73 posted on 12/03/2004 5:18:59 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
No scientific theory can be proven. Why do you make points that are obvious?

Why do evolutionists continue to attack and bludgeon Creationists if neither "side" can prove their world views? The answer is simply this: Evolution is allegedly the antidote to Christianity, and the secularists, in their never ending quest to purge morality from society must first kill the originator of Morality.

It is so much more easier to slaughter children in the womb if the biomass inside a woman is not human life. It becomes much more easier to exterminate people groups from the earth (ie, Jews, the unborn, old people, the terminally ill and deformed) if we are all animals of the same level as beasts and bugs. It is much easier to enslave people to a State government if mankind is not a special image of his Creator, but is simply an accident of Chance.

Evolutionists are on a desperate quest to dehumanize mankind. Environmentalists will say that mankind is simply a destructive animal, and thus will reverse God's command for man to dominate the earth by claiming that man is subservant to the earth because man is nothing more than a temporary accident of Chance.

Feminists will come forth and reverse the hierarchal order because both females and males are accidents of Chance not special creation from the hand of a personal God.

Because mankind is an accident of Chance, some species of man are more human than others, which makes it perfectly fine to incarcerate aboriginals in zoos and make lampshades out of others.

Does this make sense to you?

74 posted on 12/03/2004 5:29:46 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
Interesting that taxonomy was introduced to the scientifc world by a Creationist, Carolus Linnaeus

It doesn't matter who introduced it. It is necessary to be able to classify animals into groups. In reality however, life often defies being put into distinct compartments.

Charles Darwin, hated Christianity and sought ways to destroy it

This only deserves mockery.

"Diary - hmm will go round world tommorow in boat and see if it will inspire me with an idea to finally destroy christianity"

Any discussion of evolution presumes a foundational background of cosmogony. Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive

No. Did darwin have a foundational background of cosmology? Oh wait no, The Big Bang theory didn't even exist in darwins day.

But take a look at the person like the one who started this thread - they treat it as a religion, a whole world view

I think they just enjoy mocking people who attempt to refute science they haven't even bothered to understand. Like the guy who posted just above this post about how the Big Bang isn't a valid theory, not realising that some of his sentences show he has basic lack of understanding with BB theory.

75 posted on 12/03/2004 5:36:02 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: shubi; Reuben Hick; PatrickHenry
What about getting sucked into the creationist cult and losing your Soul?

Excuse me? There is zero evidence for this statement.

I hate to say this, but spamming the threads (and yes, I think you are spamming the threads) with lots of loud rhetoric that is not thoughtfully organized into a reasonable argument (and I use that term in its literal sense) does not serve you well here.

Just my two cents.

76 posted on 12/03/2004 5:41:15 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
"Why do evolutionists continue to attack and bludgeon Creationists if neither "side" can prove their world views?"
Because it is all about being able to test and falsify. You cannot falsify creationism and therefore you can't test it. So it is not science. We are talking about science classes, not Actual Truth classes. Even if evolution is ultimately wrong it is still a scientific theory and those should definitely be taught in a science class.

"The answer is simply this: Evolution is allegedly the antidote to Christianity, and the secularists, in their never ending quest to purge morality from society must first kill the originator of Morality."

Kids that want to do biology at college level will need to be given some head start from high school. If they don't even know what evolution is then they are going to find it harder than the kid in the next state who at least has an idea of what it is.

"It is so much more easier to slaughter children in the womb if the biomass inside a woman is not human life. It becomes much more easier to exterminate people groups from the earth (ie, Jews, the unborn, old people, the terminally ill and deformed) if we are all animals of the same level as beasts and bugs."
Okay this is just weird I have no idea why you have suddenly changed topic, especially as you are now promoting killing children and Jews. You know you should read about ww2 and what happened.

"Because mankind is an accident of Chance, some species of man are more human than others, which makes it perfectly fine to incarcerate aboriginals in zoos and make lampshades out of others."
I don't know what stuff you are into but all people are equal regardless of race.
77 posted on 12/03/2004 5:44:56 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

I can take the time to answer some of your arguments this evening. I apologize in advance for not taking the time now, however, I must be in the lab shortly.

Sincerely,

RA


78 posted on 12/03/2004 5:46:05 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: shubi
What about getting sucked into the creationist cult and losing your Soul?

I thank you shubi for finally revealing yourself. I figured that if I picked the scab long enough the puss of Christophobia would manifest itself.

In respect for true believers, please refrain from identifying yourself as one who believes in God. Its embarrassing for us, and it shameful for you.

Thanks in advance. Maybe someday you will have the courage and integrity to actually defend your faith in evolution rather than deploy a volley of lies and insults against the Word of God.

79 posted on 12/03/2004 6:02:28 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
Kids that want to do biology at college level will need to be given some head start from high school. If they don't even know what evolution is then they are going to find it harder than the kid in the next state who at least has an idea of what it is.

And exactly what advance in technology has come about because of an evolutionary world view? I dare say that because evolutionary thinking has corrupted the prejudices of scientific investigators, true advances have been brought to a halt.

For instance, evolutionary thinking tells us that things improve with age, that information is added to biological systems through beneficial mutation. Creationism tells us that over time, biological systems degrade and lose information. Which worldview do you think gives us better pesticides? Creationism. How? Because the advances in pesticides have banked on the fact that resilient strains of critters come about because of a loss of genetic information rather than the organism mutating beneficially to resist the chemicals.

A critter used to die because the chemical effected a particular enzyme within the organism. When strains of critters resisted the chemical and populated without competition with their enzyme equipped counterparts, it required researchers to find another enzyme to exploit. The bottom line is, the resisting critter has less genetic information than the nonresisting critter.

This is why we have more resistant foods that have significantly lower nutritional value. As science is forced to deal with making resistant strains of crops, the resulting products continue to lose genetic information. This is why you can't let your hogs loose in the corn fields after the harvest like grand-daddy did, they will end up malnurished.

80 posted on 12/03/2004 6:14:59 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

No Scott had something working against him, can you figure that out?


81 posted on 12/03/2004 6:26:30 AM PST by stockpirate (Check out my bio and learn about sKerry and his Socialist friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: shubi

No they are not, so than at one time the big science theory was the earth was flat, didn't make it so.

I haven't yhe time to disprove the Big Bang, but I am sure if you think outside the box you can come up with the answer.

Clue, reactions of objects in an explosion.


82 posted on 12/03/2004 6:28:44 AM PST by stockpirate (Check out my bio and learn about sKerry and his Socialist friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: shubi
You wrote: "However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time." This is the sort of blind and stupid thinking believers in evolution fall into. First it is man that observes the rock strata with certain fossils in them. Because we know rocks were laid down over time we can say bones in lower courses are older...so what? It just means life at that time died at that time and was fossilized. But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species. Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches). It is only because you wear evolutionists glasses that you LABEL a previous era of life as more primitive than a later era. That something appeared earlier in the fossil record in no way means it is MORE PRIMITVE than later life of similar morphology, it is simply the labeling game of evolutionists. I can just as well say that different life was created in successive ages and the fossil record bears witness to my interpretation far better than yours, as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know? It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right! This theory falls in on itself by the weight of its own illogic and contradictory causes and effects. Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink). All the while it is subject to the same ruthless competion that started the process, but it is no longer an efficient fish, and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass? And they do this for the required million years or so? Freaking ridiculous crap parading as science. Only those that want to find anything, believe anything, but in the immediate creative power of God would buy into this junk.
83 posted on 12/03/2004 6:40:54 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

"I haven't yhe time to disprove the Big Bang, but I am sure if you think outside the box you can come up with the answer.
Clue, reactions of objects in an explosion."

This is great evidence that many people here are claiming to disprove science they don't even understand.
General Misconception: The Big Bang was an explosion.
Cosmology 101: The Big Bang was NOT an explosion.


84 posted on 12/03/2004 6:48:48 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

What than was it if not a big bang?


85 posted on 12/03/2004 6:56:42 AM PST by stockpirate (Check out my bio and learn about sKerry and his Socialist friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
I would seriously divorce discussion of the Big Bang with a discussion of Evolution. The science behind the Big Bang is very good science. There is no contradiction to the Biblical account that the material universe came into existence in a moment of time, as the Big Bang evidence indicates. Look at Genesis 1:1 It is not hard to see that verse AS the Big Bang event. The Bible then skips 12 billion years of development through physical laws and jumps to the re-population/renewal of the earth. As formless and void (tofu/bofu) in the Hebrew indicates that the earth already existed but under a roiling chaotic condition after some Divine Judgment in a bygone era. The Bible leaves many things out and that is for man and his science to explore. But evolutionary theory is another matter. Probably the weakest scientific theory of all time, yet the most widely hyped and believed. Only because it offers an alternative to believing in God. And cloaks itself as part of the new religion of "science." I mean, who is going to suspect a priest wearing a labcoat? That is why it is so emotionally held and fought for. Yet nobody gets emotional over REAL science, imagine emotional arguments about chemistry, or physics?
86 posted on 12/03/2004 7:03:12 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
I would seriously divorce discussion of the Big Bang with a discussion of Evolution. The science behind the Big Bang is very good science. There is no contradiction to the Biblical account that the material universe came into existence in a moment of time, as the Big Bang evidence indicates. Look at Genesis 1:1 It is not hard to see that verse AS the Big Bang event. The Bible then skips 12 billion years of development through physical laws and jumps to the re-population/renewal of the earth. As formless and void (tofu/bofu) in the Hebrew indicates that the earth already existed but under a roiling chaotic condition after some Divine Judgment in a bygone era. The Bible leaves many things out and that is for man and his science to explore. But evolutionary theory is another matter. Probably the weakest scientific theory of all time, yet the most widely hyped and believed. Only because it offers an alternative to believing in God. And cloaks itself as part of the new religion of "science." I mean, who is going to suspect a priest wearing a labcoat? That is why it is so emotionally held and fought for. Yet nobody gets emotional over REAL science, imagine emotional arguments about chemistry, or physics?
87 posted on 12/03/2004 7:03:57 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species. Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches)."

There is clear indication. First life does not continue on the same. Any ancient fossil equivelants to modern mammals (horses, human, elephant, etc) are very different to the modern versions.
Secondly species appear throughout the fossil record, not in distinct creation events.
Thirdly there is a pattern of change of life over time - ie evolution.
Intermediate fossil forms found between ages of two other fossils are plenty indication of evolution. As demanded and predicted by evolution. Antievolutionists charge evolutionists with worshiping probability and chance but here they are doing the same thing. Think of the small odds that the fossils unearthed continually fill gaps between two already found fossils and further develop an evolutionary tree if evolution has not actually occured.

"as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know?"
Noone has witnessed the life cycle of a star directly, but from the sequences of all other stars we see in the universe there is a pattern and we can derive a theory of the life cycle. I imagine you deny our sun is a transitional star because you claim HOW DO WE KNOW?

"It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right!"
Sure, but finding several species of such lizard birds in the area of the fossil record that evolution demands such things to exist is just too coincidental. Juries have convicted people to death based on less evidence.

"Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink)."
Actually fish didn't need to grow legs, they just ADAPTED (microevolved) their fins which already had the same bone structure anyway.
Also "survival of the fittest" is a popular phrase, it has no meaning in evolutionary theory. Perhaps you meant to say Natural Selection? Your argument is a joke because it isn't even a big change for fins to turn into legs, considering that muscular fins would do the job of a transitional.

"and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.

I would love to hear your theory on how the earliest fossil land animals are ampibeans and not say mammals,birds or reptiles. Seems to me that life from the sea is a far better explaination for the observed facts.


88 posted on 12/03/2004 7:13:32 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.

No it does not. Even if it is the first amphibian to emerge from the sea, it had to have been a crippled fish for some time. Why was it, and all its progeny not eaten by the other REAL fish?

Your Natural Selection is just the Politically Correct name evolutionists (who love labels instead of real science) gave to the old adage "Nature red in tooth and claw). The driving force behind Natural Selection is still the competition for resources between species, no matter how you play the evolutionist's word games.

There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right. All else is just the evolutionist's viewpoint. A dedicated viewpoint that evolution MUST have happened, the alternative (Special Creation) is simply anathema to the evolutionist's mind. If you have a preconceived viewpoint then you will simply interpret any data you find to fit that viewpoint...an action of faith, not science!

The evolutionist fills in the very apparent gaps between species by his imagination, not by any physical evidence, nor by any formal mathematical treatment. If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so! On a micro level there is no traceable evolutionary path. It is all made up by the mind of man, just because animals have a similar morphology does not mean they evolved from one to the other.
89 posted on 12/03/2004 8:54:49 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
There is no contradiction to the Biblical account that the material universe came into existence in a moment of time, as the Big Bang evidence indicates.

Two Questions:

According to the Scriptures, which came first, Earth or the stars and planets?

According to BBT, which came first the stars and planets or Earth?

90 posted on 12/03/2004 9:56:07 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
As formless and void (tofu/bofu) in the Hebrew indicates that the earth already existed but under a roiling chaotic condition after some Divine Judgment in a bygone era.

Where do you see "Divine Judgement" and "bygone era" in tofu/bofu? A considerable amount of eisegesis?

Why do you reject the gospel where death came to the Creation via Adam's sin?

The Gap Theory has more and bigger gaps in it than Plain Ol' Atheistic Evolution

91 posted on 12/03/2004 9:59:19 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

Gap Theory is in the reference section of the old Chain-Link-Reference. Some people still haven't discovered that the footnotes aren't in the original.


92 posted on 12/03/2004 10:04:09 AM PST by derheimwill (Tagline, Schmagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Why can't all of Gen 2 be one day?


93 posted on 12/03/2004 10:13:04 AM PST by derheimwill (Tagline, Schmagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
Any ancient fossil equivelants to modern mammals (horses, human, elephant, etc) are very different to the modern versions.

Just like a poodle is a "intermediate" to a Great Dane.

Secondly species appear throughout the fossil record, not in distinct creation events.

Creationists believe in a Global Flood which goes much further in explaining the instant appearance of fossils over the wacked out "theories" of evolution. When I go SCUBA diving, I don't see the bottom of the ocean littered with the fully intact bones of fish. Does this mean that fish never die? No, it means that evolutionists have never been outside and observed the fact that when fish die, they are consumed by other aquatic critters, not left to lie on the ocean floor undisturbed for thousands of years while waiting to get buried in sediment.

Thirdly there is a pattern of change of life over time - ie evolution

This is called "hurling elephants" when you take a complex issue and assume as fact that which needs to be proved.

94 posted on 12/03/2004 10:15:59 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
I take the GAP theory as credible and it matches the meaning of the Hebrew Words for formless and void. Tofu/Bofu are used rarely in the Old Testament, there are other words that could of been used.

They always imply the devastation AFTER a Divine judgment. I think Genesis 1:1 is the physical creation of the universe by the Word of God..."In the beginning (of time) God created the Heavens and the Earth (Big Bang) All energy and matter were created.

God was interested in the story of man and his redemption in the Bible. Unlike man, God gets right to the point. In verse two we skip billions of years to about 6 thousand years ago. The earth is roiling through its orbit...destroyed, shrouded in clouds (interstellar?) Now God says "let there be light" And the rest of the account does not use the Hebrew word for a new creation...but recreation, or restoration.

God spends one verse on the creation of the universe, and the rest of the Bible on the creation of man, his fall, the search for the seed, and his redemption. We can find out about the physical laws of the universe on our own...he gave us intellects for that.

All science, so far as I am concerned, is simply the discovery, by man, of EXISTING law. Science never developed in China, or India. It could only flourish in a culture that had accepted the fact of a creator God. (Christianized Europe) And still could not really flourish under spiritual darkness, (The Roman Apostasy) but scientific truth was realized after the release of spiritual truth in the reformation. Truth is unified across spiritual and physical boundaries. Ignore spiritual truth? Watch the world plunge into superstition and darkness. As it did when it rejected the truth of Christ.

If God created the universe and its laws, then it could be discerned by man. Most, if not all, of the early great scientists were believers! Something idiot evolutionists conveniently forget. Darwin could not have shined the shoes of Newton, and Newton was almost fanatical in his belief in God.

Subconsciously evolutionists know this, that is why they buried Darwin next to Newton's tomb...as if to confer upon this faker, the glory and intellect of a Newton. According to BBT The stars are first, then planets condense from clouds around their stars. This is not in conflict with scripture if you take the meaning of formless and void...just exactly as the Hebrew intends. For a better treatment go to www.custance.org, or find an old book by G.H. Pimber "Earth's Earliest Ages." I would not just dismiss the GAP theory out of hand, nor would I dismiss the BBT. The cosmic background radiation, and physical laws that we can observe are very strong in support of that theory. Not to mention the expansion of the universe etc...
95 posted on 12/03/2004 10:32:31 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
I don't have a copy of Pimber's "Earth's Earliest Ages" anymore so I cannot quote verbatim. But he was an extraordinary Hebrew and Biblical Scholar of the 19th century. His study of the Hebrew in the first chapters of Genisis is unequaled from an age of real scholarship.

I do not reject the truth of original sin through Adam. It did destroy THIS creation, of which you and I are a part. But how would you know if God has not tried to bring about a creation on this planet more than once? And if the earth was reeling under Divine Judgment, we know Divine Judgment only comes for one thing...Sin!
You have no way of knowing, except by Revelation, if God has tried to bring about something on this earth before Adam, and Satan perverted those creations. The fossil record certainly shows there have been major huge extinctions in the past.
The most famous is the Dinosaur extinction about 70 million years ago, probably by a comet, or asteroid near the Yucatan Peninsula. And the great cataclysmic event that actually froze Mastadons while in a running pose in Siberia. Even as late as 1890's natives were digging ivory out of cliffs along a northern Siberian river and selling them on the open market. As if millions of animals had been picked up by a great wave and crashed into these cliffs.
That was probably the event on the earth that preceded the creation of Adam. And of course there was the flood of Noah, in a near extinction event for mankind. Once again because of sin. Don't be so closed-minded, that is the job of evolutionists. :-)
96 posted on 12/03/2004 10:51:32 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: shubi

OF COURSE EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN TO ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!! That comment was a reminder for Reubin Hick. I can assure you I'm not a party to their nonsense. Any explanation of science only invites more ridicule from them, creationists are alot like liberals, they feel threatened by any rational challenge to their views. Okay, end of rant.


97 posted on 12/03/2004 11:24:29 AM PST by eagle11 (Once a people invents a word for "liberty", they are restless until they win if for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"No it does not. Even if it is the first amphibian to emerge from the sea, it had to have been a crippled fish for some time. Why was it, and all its progeny not eaten by the other REAL fish?"
Well fish like that used to exist as shown by fossil evidence. Besides fish that move along the bottom of shallows exist to this day and they have not been all eaten by the real fish that are better adapted to swimming.

"The driving force behind Natural Selection is still the competition for resources between species, no matter how you play the evolutionist's word games."
It is more the competition for survival to reproduce. I only raised issue with the phrase "survival of the fittest" because when people use it they imply that fitness is determined by strength.

"There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right."
Your opinion. The vast majority of paleontologists and biologists do not share it.

"The evolutionist fills in the very apparent gaps between species by his imagination, not by any physical evidence, nor by any formal mathematical treatment."
Gaps between species are filled by....fossil transitional forms! That is all you can demand to be found.

"If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so!"
Thats rubbish where did you get that from? Human hemoglobin is closer to primate hemoglobin than any other order of animal.

"On a micro level there is no traceable evolutionary path. It is all made up by the mind of man, just because animals have a similar morphology does not mean they evolved from one to the other."
It's all about burden of evidence. And when similar animals are laid out in a chain of development in the fossil record, rather than being randomly sorted, then it implies change over time. The fact that phylogenetic trees drawn up using genetic data generally match the fossil trees drawn up using fossil data is far too much of a coincidence.


98 posted on 12/03/2004 12:20:11 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

"Creationists believe in a Global Flood which goes much further in explaining the instant appearance of fossils over the wacked out "theories" of evolution."

I am not debating creationists. I am debating anti-evolutionists. If you want to propose your own potential theory other then please detail the predictions that it makes in terms of the properties of future fossil finds. What sort of forms should be discovered where in the fossil record according to your theory. If it cannot predict then its useless.

"No, it means that evolutionists have never been outside and observed the fact that when fish die, they are consumed by other aquatic critters, not left to lie on the ocean floor undisturbed for thousands of years while waiting to get buried in sediment."
It only requires 1 in a million fish to be buried you know. Probably even less than that.


99 posted on 12/03/2004 12:25:08 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
The fish that are not good swimmers now have defense mechanisms, did your proto-amphib have defense mechanisms? If so what? How would you know from fossil evidence? What a wonderful theory that provides all answers before they are asked!

And when a creationists asks for detailed evidence of preposterous claims made by evolutionists we are told such things were NOT preserved by the fossil record...how convenient.

"There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right."

Your opinion. The vast majority of paleontologists and biologists do not share it.

Gee I wonder if they have a vested interest?

Gaps between species are filled by....fossil transitional forms! That is all you can demand to be found.

Name one! Give me an identified transitional species between two known and distinct species!

"If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so!"
Thats rubbish where did you get that from? Human hemoglobin is closer to primate hemoglobin than any other order of animal.

WRONG! Not only is it closer to some turtles, think of this, they are not even mammals. For reference the book is called "Darwin was Wrong" Put out by some biologists probably 30 years ago, I forget the authors names. Funny thing is that this book kept disappearing from the library stacks at the University I attended. The University would keep buying it, but some (fair-minded) evolutionists must not have liked its utterly damning evidence that micro-evolution does not follow any Darwinian model.

"And when similar animals are laid out in a chain of development in the fossil record, rather than being randomly sorted, then it implies change over time. The fact that phylogenetic trees drawn up using genetic data generally match the fossil trees drawn up using fossil data is far too much of a coincidence."

So what? Mankind sorts and categorizes, that we would based on morphology should surprise nobody. Just because we sort animals into forms and types does not mean they descended from one to the other. You have no idea what so ever if paleo-horses are related in anyway to modern horses. Just the imagination of evolutionary artists.

Tell me if horses got longer and longer legs cause sabertooth was chasing them...how come the tigers didn't get longer legs to catch them?
100 posted on 12/03/2004 12:53:29 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson