Evolution and Creation

[LatentAuthor]

Yet the transitional fossils don't exist. Darwin himself stated that was devastating to his theory.

Except that they do, in the link I provided you earlier there were multiple examples of transitional fossils, and more still pack museums around the world. Literally hundreds of examples are available to you at home - simply look up "transitional fossils" on Google and you can start finding them yourself.

 

[RuthHannah]

Except that they do, in the link I provided you earlier there were multiple examples of transitional fossils, and more still pack museums around the world. Literally hundreds of examples are available to you at home - simply look up "transitional fossils" on Google and you can start finding them yourself.

How many years would you say that the earth has been in existance ?

 

[megaman125]

Once again, after reading some of the posts in this topic, it just leaves me thinking this: I can't wait until they throw out the theory of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis. It's time to get this garbage out of the classroom, and stop claiming these supposed events from "billions of years ago" are absolute fact.

I beleieve that the Big bang theory is true what sayesth thou

I didn't even believe the big bang theory back when I was an atheist, so what sayesth thou now?

 

[tcorn]

I believe it does not matter if He did it in 6 literal days or some other measurement.

What matters to me is that He is creating the world in 7 steps, and this is the near end of #6, when man is a finished and successful work.

The creation account, and many other parts of the old testament are written in a special verb tense that we do not use or think about much. It is a tense that is ongoing, past present and future.

Was, is, is to come.

Young's literal translation is the only one I've found that makes some effort at maintaining this special tense in places.

I think it matters a lot that He did it in 6 literal days... Not that he could not have chosen a different time frame or even without a specific time frame(since He is God and is not bound by time). In the creation account, one day is described as an "evening and morning." If we can't take that literally, our interpretation of the whole Bible will be hinged on our own beliefs and biases rather than on what the Bible is actually saying and teaching.

 

[megaman125]

Except that they do, in the link I provided you earlier there were multiple examples of transitional fossils, and more still pack museums around the world. Literally hundreds of examples are available to you at home - simply look up "transitional fossils" on Google and you can start finding them yourself.

Funny how evolutionists always say there's loads and loads of transitional fossils. Just watch, when you start probing for details, a couple pages later the evolutionists will be saying the fossils are scarce. They contradict themselves in so many ways. It's amazing people still buy into this.

Then again, when you look at the root issue, it starts to make more sense why people buy into and cling to doctrines like evolution. They simply do not want to be held accoutable by God for their own lives and sins, and they would rather scrimp and scrounge for feable attampts to deny God, thinking it'll somehow release them from their accountability. But that's why they end up hating Christians so much, because they know in their heart there is truth with the Bible and that they are accoutable to God.

 

[LatentAuthor]

I am afraid not. Your science is based on theories, because we were not there when these so called fossils were formed.

Catastrophism (the global flood) just as easily, if not more completely explains the same thing.. So you can not state fact!

Please explain how the global flood explains the Law of Fossil Succession:

I never denied this.

Again, Science has proved this happens within a species. But the species is still the same. There is no scientific evidence this has happened where a new species was formed

Again, I'm afraid that's wrong. In fact we have observed new species being formed in which populations of the same species undergo evolution and are no longer able to interbreed. I expect at this point that you're going to start re-defining what "species" means. Have fun!

And here you go again. I just went back to the post and clicked the youtube link. Who is being dishonest here but you??

Lets try this again.

Richard Dawkins and Aliens

Yes, you posted a cut up interview and then asserted that Richard Dawkins said that something had to have designed this system. That is dishonest as Dawkins said no such thing.

 

[Angela53510]

For the OP. I believe there is a huge thread on this topic in this forum. Do a search. Lots of atheists participated. It might be good for your research, if you are still reading this thread.

6 day creation for me, by the way, stopped believing in evolution in first year university when I saw the conflicts between biology and geology, as a science major. Not sure if I believed it before that. I have some memories of being very upset at what was being taught in grade 8 biology and what lies evolution was!

 

[LatentAuthor]

How many years would you say that the earth has been in existance ?

4.54 Billion years.

 

[RuthHannah]

Once again, after reading some of the posts in this topic, it just leaves me thinking this: I can't wait until they throw out the theory of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis. It's time to get this garbage out of the classroom, and stop claiming these supposed events from "billions of years ago" are absolute fact.




I didn't even believe the big bang theory back when I was an atheist, so what sayesth thou now?

God created the Big Bang and that is what i believe okaayyyy Bang there was light Bang there were animals etc bang bang

 

[RuthHannah]

4.54 Billion years.

Actually the earth is only 6000 + years in the which Jesus returns on the 7000 year

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Please explain how the global flood explains the Law of Fossil Succession:

What succession? It has been proven in a flood that the lighter weaker animals would fall first. Followed by the more advanced forms etc etc.

The law you state actually would agree 100 % with how fossils would form in a catastrophic flood. In fact, it is the only thing which does. Why are fossils not being created today? Why is it when a man dies in the wilderness. there would be no fossil of his body 1000 years later? or do you even know how fossils must be formed?

Again, I'm afraid that's wrong. In fact we have observed new species being formed in which populations of the same species undergo evolution and are no longer able to interbreed. I expect at this point that you're going to start re-defining what "species" means. Have fun!

lol. Yeah, How bout some proof.

Yes, you posted a cut up interview and then asserted that Richard Dawkins said that something had to have designed this system. That is dishonest as Dawkins said no such thing.

lol.. It was not cut up. I have seen the whole interview. If you look for it you will see it.

Nice try though. Any more excuses?

 

[alexis]

There is no theory in science that has ever been "proved", because in science theories are not "proven". They are supported by evidence. Take the Germ Theory of Disease, this states that many diseases are, in fact, caused by germs. This is supported by an enormous amount of evidence, so much so that it would be absurd to say that it's "just a theory", yet it remains so because in science a theory is the top of the food chain; it's the best; there is nothing "higher".



Do you drive? Take medicine? Use any form of technology? If so you are also trusting theories derived by human beings by the interrogation of nature. If you look back in history no doubt you will find many societies that spurned theories derived by men using observation and evidence in favor of religious teachings. I daresay you will find none of them very appealing.



This reminds me of a quote from the physicist, Richard Feynman, talking about how he sees flowers: Ode to a Flower.

You are wrong a scientific fact is above a theory.
When a theory is tested and proven to be true it becomes fact

Cars are not built by theory they are built by facts. Once it was a theory that bleeding a person could cure a fever. Now medical science has proved this theory wrong! Bleeding in fact is dangerous because our blood carries antibodies which help us be healthy- fact

So to put faith in a theory is just that faith.

Observation and evidence can form a theory but if tested theory can be proven to be fact. Fact trumps theory in science. If you don't believe me use the science of google and read for yourself.

I do not despute scientific fact! So please don't came back with I use technology. Once something is built it is not theory it is fact. It is not a theory that a radio wave can transmit information. It happens thus it's a fact.

So theory is simply someone's observation and opinion

I know you are older but in this case saying theory is tops in science you're absolutely in every way wrong I know there is no theory in science that has ever been proven, once proven it would be fact... That's my point.

I place faith in God only not in theories or man

 

[megaman125]

God created the Big Bang and that is what i believe okaayyyy Bang there was light Bang there were animals etc bang bang

Ok, that I can buy in to. But when people say the big bang theory, it's really the theory talked about in science class, where they proclaim their godless doctrine of naturalism that brought everything into existence. That's the big bang theory I reject.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I'm afraid that's simply wrong. In science you win Nobel Prizes for disproving theories. . .as long as you have evidence to support your claims.



I'm afraid that is also simply wrong,

"Measured by virtually any criterion one might propose (Fig. 5), studies of Precambrian life have burst forth since the mid-1960s to culminate in recent years in discovery of the oldest fossils known, petrified cellular microbes nearly 3,500 million years old, more than three-quarters the age of the Earth (36). Precambrian paleobiology is thriving—the vast majority of all scientists who have ever investigated the early fossil record are alive and working today; new discoveries are being made at an ever quickening clip—progress set in motion by the few bold scientists who blazed this trail in the 1950s and 1960s, just as their course was charted by the Dawsons, Walcotts, and Sewards, the pioneering pathfinders of the field. And the collective legacy of all who have played a role dates to Darwin and the dilemma of the missing Precambrian fossil record he first posed. After more than a century of trial and error, of search and final discovery, those of us who wonder about life's early history can be thankful that what was once “inexplicable” to Darwin is no longer so to us." (Solution to Darwin's Dilemma)​

Just because someone publishes a paper doesn't mean it's true. I can link to numerous online refutations of this paper, but I'm really not interested in playing your game. Like I said, this rubbish exists because the money is behind it.

 

[alexis]

Just because someone publishes a paper doesn't mean it's true. I can link to numerous online refutations of this paper, but I'm really not interested in playing your game. Like I said, this rubbish exists because the money is behind it.

Completely true you and I could publish a paper doesn't mean anything

 

[tcorn]

I believe in creation account differently ( no evolution though) But, I'm more detailed with what I believe.( considering more scripture )

Gen 1:1 says the heaven and earth was created in the beginning. ( but dose not when the beaning was )

For that reason, I believe the earth is billions of years old.


In verse 2 reading the surface the English , it appears that it just "was", that way void and without form.

But we can read Isaiah 45:18, God says, He did Not create the world void or without form.



When verse 2 is looked at from the Hebrew it was taken: it reads there was a literal destruction to the surface of the earth, that it ' became ', void and without form, sometime after verse one.

There is a destruction recorded in Jeremiah 4:22-28. Here we can read there was a destruction to the earth, but that there was No man left; not even aboard and ark. And there were no cities.


From Genesis 1 starting at the end of verse two ( And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. ) and to verse 8.
We see waters receding, and dry land appearing.


Peter has some valuabel insight into Genesis . In 2nd Peter chapter 3. Peter says, the world age ( greek ) was destoryed, by water.

2 Peter 3:
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: ( the first. )


The second which we are currently still in, would be what followed, and is the time Noah's flood took place.

So we have two floods recorded in the Bible. And first world wide flood of the first world ( age ) Recorded here, and in Gen 1:2 , and Jeremiah 4 etc). And a second flood, of the second earth ( age ) of Genesis 6.


When we read of each day in Genesis 1 is speaking of a rejuvenating of the surface of the earth, where by, it can be habitable again. Peter also gave farther teachings about Genesis . He says that each day to God is a thousand years to man, and vice versa:
2Peter3:
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And I certainly don't want to be ignorant of that.

So each day God was rejuvenating the earth, and creating life upon it: took about 6,000 years. ( when we tack on time that has passed since then, I think we get over 10,000 years ago.

So we can say, that man in flesh, has lived on earth for over 6,000 years. But the earth its' self is billions of years in age.


He created man in the sixth day in v 26. In the Hebrew it reads Elohim ( not God ), man without a article = mankind. He has hunters of fish, and animals etc. But there is no mention of a tiller of soil here.


Then in verse 27,God says In his own image, in the Hebrew accent ( Pasek ), places the emphasis on God. ''man'' in verse 27 has a article and a demonstrative Hebrew 'eth, to indicate that "the man Adam" created in 2:7; is here ( 1:27 ) a statement of what He purposed to do , later ( 2:7 ).

When you read the Hebrew for man in 2:7 it reads 'eth-' Ha'adham ( with article particle = "this same man Adam " ) Through who Christ would come. There would be a man, made in the image of God, and that is realized through Christ ( John 1:14 ).

It's written here now, we have a tiller of the soil in Genesis 2:7 But it was not the case as it says in Genesis 2:5 .


That's the creation best I can understand it at this point. I didn't get into all the details but this covers the basics a little. It offers a good foundation .

Thanks! You've raised a few questions... First of all, what is your basis for believing the earth is billions of years old? Why not trillions, millions, or thousands?

Secondly, how do you connect 2 Peter 3:8 with the Genesis account of creation? 2 Peter 3:8 is not defining God's definition of a day. What is being communicated in that passage is that God's timing is not our timing, or rather God is not tied to time like we are tied to time... And it is directly referring to the time period of waiting for the second coming of Christ(nothing to do with the creation account in Genesis). I think Genesis does a great job at defining itself when it refers to one day as being an "evening and morning".
What's your take on that?

 

[LatentAuthor]

What succession? It has been proven in a flood that the lighter weaker animals would fall first. Followed by the more advanced forms etc etc.

The law you state actually would agree 100 % with how fossils would form in a catastrophic flood. In fact, it is the only thing which does. Why are fossils not being created today? Why is it when a man dies in the wilderness. there would be no fossil of his body 1000 years later? or do you even know how fossils must be formed?

You really should have taken a bit more time to look at the information I provided. So lighter animals would fall first? Splendid! You just invalidated your position seeing as small modern mammals are never found in the Cambrian. Also, you apparently missed the right side of the graphic I provided. Here it is again:



Notice how flowering plants don't show up until the Jurassic? Would you care to explain how all flowering plants managed to outrun all the other plants and animals to higher ground taking every single grain of pollen with them?

lol. Yeah, How bout some proof.

Sure, as long as you understand that species refers to populations that can interbreed.

lol.. It was not cut up. I have seen the whole interview. If you look for it you will see it.

Nice try though. Any more excuses?

Only that he doesn't say what you claim he does - even in the edited version you posted.

 

[LatentAuthor]

Just because someone publishes a paper doesn't mean it's true. I can link to numerous online refutations of this paper, but I'm really not interested in playing your game. Like I said, this rubbish exists because the money is behind it.

Then you clearly did not read it because it wasn't a single paper but a survey of multiple papers and findings over the last few decades. If you think you can refute this paper then kindly do so, otherwise your claim has clearly been invalidated.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Then you clearly did not read it because it wasn't a single paper but a survey of multiple papers and findings over the last few decades. If you think you can refute this paper then kindly do so, otherwise your claim has clearly been invalidated.

Hello ItinerantLurker, welcome back.

 

[alexis]

Then you clearly did not read it because it wasn't a single paper but a survey of multiple papers and findings over the last few decades. If you think you can refute this paper then kindly do so, otherwise your claim has clearly been invalidated.

Do you believe in God? Do you believe Christ is your savior?

I ask these questions because I am trying to see if you believe in God and science theories that disagree with His word.
While we disagree about validaty of theory. I would like to understand without judgement or trying to prove you wrong what you actually believe. I am aware I debate validaty of science theory. Thus you know my stand. While you have not agreed, I feel you have been genuine and respectful in hearing me out.

So what I am asking is simply.. Your view on God and your view on evolution and creation. Also it's okay to simplify cause if you go to deep on the science side I may get confused.

Also sorry if at any point I have been disrespectful

God bless and all my love,
lexi