Evolution and Creation

[eternally-gratefull]

The word "day" in Gen 1 is not defined to be a period of 24 hours. The only reference point, and meaning, of the word "day" is a period of God's creating. The days are thus "God days" or heavenly days. These God days later became represented by human days that man knows. Earth is an image of heaven. Man days are an image of God days.

6 literal man-days? Just forget it. This is a bad belief. Evolution? It's been proven to occur with animals, and very likely it's true. So don't attack it. You're there to learn. 6x24 hours creationists belong in a museum, like numerous other heretical sects that have arisen down the centuries, such as "sun goes round the earth" etc.

lol.

typical of those who do not want to seek truth. You left alot out in your scripture.

"and the evening and the morning were the first DAY"

And on the seventh "DAY" the lord rested.

The sabbath (a day of rest) why, Because he "rested on the 7th DAY"

Scripture is clear. the days were 24 hour periods.

Evolution has not been proven at all. True scientists who actually study would agree. Evolution has been proven to be false.

 

[Huckleberry]

Evolution? It's been proven to occur with animals, and very likely it's true.

What's true is that organisms adapt, develop, or become mutated.
"Evolution", in a macro-biological context, demands self-engineering on a molecular level.
Unscientific, not proven to occur, never will be proven to occur.

Is "speciation" is what you are referring to?
That can only happen within a genus.
Please give an example of "genus-ation".
That's where Evolutionists start having faith in "magic".

 

[LatentAuthor]

Evolution has not been proven at all. True scientists who actually study would agree. Evolution has been proven to be false.

First of all, in science nothing is ever "proven" in a technical sense - all conclusions are left open ended. For example, germ theory - that many diseases are caused by micro-organisms - is an incredibly well supported theory, but it is still not "proven".

With that in mind, the theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported theories that we have. It is supported by an incredible amount of evidence, and well over 98% of scientists in relevant fields agree. Claims to the contrary are often simply trying to take advantage of ignorance.

 

[LatentAuthor]

What's true is that organisms adapt, develop, or become mutated.
"Evolution", in a macro-biological context, demands self-engineering on a molecular level.
Unscientific, not proven to occur, never will be proven to occur.

This paragraph is nonsense. Evolution requires descent with modification - that descent with modification occurs is a fact.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

First of all, in science nothing is ever "proven" in a technical sense - all conclusions are left open ended. For example, germ theory - that many diseases are caused by micro-organisms - is an incredibly well supported theory, but it is still not "proven".

With that in mind, the theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported theories that we have. It is supported by an incredible amount of evidence, and well over 98% of scientists in relevant fields agree. Claims to the contrary are often simply trying to take advantage of ignorance.

lol. I take it you ONLY read scientists who agree with you. And do not read or study scientists who would disagree?

There are so many holes in evolution. A true open minded person would not even call it a theory. It would take me MANY posts to show ALL of the contradictions. The missing links. The false hypothesis and many other things concerning evolution which would show you. And I doubt you would listen anyway. So I suggest you pick a few non biased books and study them. Then pick a few from the other side, and study them. You might learn something.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This paragraph is nonsense. Evolution requires descent with modification - that descent with modification occurs is a fact.

No evolution requires a genetic makeup which can create and modify DNA and RNA to make different things, which evolve into greater and more complex things.

The first two laws of science in fact disproves evolution.

 

[Grey]

They do so psuedo and are deceived. Are you accountable to your father, if you have no father then who do you account to, yourself. Evolution calls God a monkey, I will refuse to that. I fear the Lord.

Alrightly then

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

For a university course, I need to discuss worldviews with someone that does not believe what I believe. I believe that God created the world in 6 literal days. Would anyone who believes differently mind telling me what you believe about the creation account and why?

I don't believe the world was created in 6 literal days. By literal I mean 24-hour days. I believe the word day in Genesis was used in an allegorical sense to designate 6 creational epochs, not necessarily of time, but of GOD's creative genius.

 

[iamsoandso]

scientist i think should examine their own thinking,that is as they are taught that life has evolved by eating the same food supply for millions of years(they believe); and evolved into complex beings they must agree in the fact that they realize the food supply was always and still is key to the survival of life on earth.

now these same scientist who say they believe this manipulate the dna of the seed of the food we eat and feed it to the animals we also consume. now they say of themselves that they are highly intelligent beings and many agree. but if they know there are 7.129 billion people on earth today and as they believe they have evolved to this stage of life by eating the food supply given by nature,then if they manipulate it how is it that they do not understand that they (a small percentage of scientist) are taking a huge gamble with life on earth's future existence?

that is they say by eating this food supply life was secure and prove by their own science that it was the key to survival but do not have the wisdom to see that if they leave it alone they will ensure millions of more years of "so called evolution",,,now again if they change the food supply then should they not understand that the creature they believe they have evolved into may be jeopardized and they themselves will be seen as those who cast stones under the wheels of evolution?

but there is no end to evolution and only in arrogance would one who believes in evolution think they even are the final evolved product.,,,again their is no reason that they whom believe in evolution should think that the thing they have come to understand is even truth. many years from now man may evolve into such a wise creature that they look back at today's scientist and say,,,"they believed in evolution but the whole time the creationist,being further evolved were trying to tell them the whole time,but the scientist of 2013 were not yet as evolved in thinking as the creationist,that is all might not evolve at the same rate",,,,but we are stuck in 2013 and at present all the evolutionist can prove is,,,"they might not know",,,

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

With that in mind, the theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported theories that we have. It is supported by an incredible amount of evidence, and well over 98% of scientists in relevant fields agree. Claims to the contrary are often simply trying to take advantage of ignorance.

This is such an extraordinarily ignorant statement. Most scientists agree because that's what it takes for them to keep their paychecks coming. If Darwin lived today, at a minimum he would by virtue of his own writings have to doubt his own theory.

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

Darwin recognized that if no transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion were found, his theory was severely undermined. He rationalized the discrepancy by inferring that the geologic record was yet incomplete. Yet 150 years later no transitional fossils have been found, even though remarkable fossil discoveries have been made, and even though soft-bodied sponge fossils have been found in pre-Cambrian strata undermining the claim that the transitional fossils don't exist because they were soft-bodied.

 

[tripsin]

For a university course, I need to discuss worldviews with someone that does not believe what I believe. I believe that God created the world in 6 literal days. Would anyone who believes differently mind telling me what you believe about the creation account and why?

One view that many miss today is the idea of the "Gap." A good book is G. H. Pember's Earth's Earliest Ages. However, just as in many cases, the Gap Theory, and when it came into existence and exactly what the theory is, has become mixed and controversial.

I, for one, have leanings toward it. However I do not believe that mankind evolved from apes or anything else. The "Gap" accounts for geology, dinosaurs and Satan's rebellion. One interesting thing you can look for right in Genesis 1 is the words, "made" and "created." And God didn't always make or create - He merely commanded. Think about it.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

This is such an extraordinarily ignorant statement. Most scientists agree because that's what it takes for them to keep their paychecks coming. If Darwin lived today, at a minimum he would by virtue of his own writings have to doubt his own theory.

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

Darwin recognized that if no transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion were found, his theory was severely undermined. He rationalized the discrepancy by inferring that the geologic record was yet incomplete. Yet 150 years later no transitional fossils have been found, even though remarkable fossil discoveries have been made, and even though soft-bodied sponge fossils have been found in pre-Cambrian strata undermining the claim that the transitional fossils don't exist because they were soft-bodied.

I forgot to add this quote from Darwin:

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.

 

[LatentAuthor]

lol. I take it you ONLY read scientists who agree with you. And do not read or study scientists who would disagree?

In point of fact, I started debating the subject originally to defend Intelligent Design, so I actually read both sides. That, it turns out, was the problem - once I came to understand the topics involved I realized that those who oppose evolution were lying to me.

There are so many holes in evolution. A true open minded person would not even call it a theory. It would take me MANY posts to show ALL of the contradictions. The missing links. The false hypothesis and many other things concerning evolution which would show you. And I doubt you would listen anyway. So I suggest you pick a few non biased books and study them. Then pick a few from the other side, and study them. You might learn something.

Why don't you pick your best argument against it and let's see if it stands up?

 

[LatentAuthor]

No evolution requires a genetic makeup which can create and modify DNA and RNA to make different things, which evolve into greater and more complex things.

This is some nice word salad that uses some big words - but it doesn't actually mean anything. Evolution requires descent with modification. Descent with modification is a fact.

 

[alexis]

Evelution is a Theory for something to be fact it must be able to be recreated and shown to be true. That's paraphrased but basic facts of science..

This is simple put your faith in a non proven theory of science...

Or put your faith in God...

As for me I know why evolution will always be a theory... It can never be come a fact because:

God would have to create it all over again

No group of men theororizing no matter how sound it seems makes me question God. Remember absolute truth is real. At one time scientist said Pluto was a planet... So grab an old encyclopedia and scientific "fact" says Pluto is a planet... Now Pluto is not a planet... My point is what appears to be truth isn't always so, it's all about faith.

My faith is in Christ my savior! not the ramblings of scientist trying to understand and explain that which God already has, with theories.

God bless and love you all,
lexi

 

[LatentAuthor]

This is such an extraordinarily ignorant statement. Most scientists agree because that's what it takes for them to keep their paychecks coming.

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.

Darwin recognized that if no transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion were found, his theory was severely undermined. He rationalized the discrepancy by inferring that the geologic record was yet incomplete. Yet 150 years later no transitional fossils have been found, even though remarkable fossil discoveries have been made, and even though soft-bodied sponge fossils have been found in pre-Cambrian strata undermining the claim that the transitional fossils don't exist because they were soft-bodied.

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)​

 

[alexis]

Darwin once found a frog in a sand covered area and drowned it because he believed that since it was a frog it would prefer to live in water... Yep I'd follow that cats theories and advice. Sounds like a sound wise guy..

Christ once healed the lame and gave sight to the blind.. And freed me of sin.

No theory can change salvation

Eternal life is in Christ alone

 

[LatentAuthor]

I forgot to add this quote from Darwin:

Yes well, I've actually read the book you're quote mining, which means I know that Darwin's writing style was to pose a question and then go about answering it. Most of the chapter this quote is from (chapter 9) explains why this isn't the case.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is some nice word salad that uses some big words - but it doesn't actually mean anything. Evolution requires descent with modification. Descent with modification is a fact.

Negative.

Evolution requires life with a basic DNA design evolving into life with more complex DNA design, Which evolves to even more complex.

It is like life first came to being with the MS DOS operating system. Then with no help. Advanced to the Windows 3 operating system, to the windows 95. to windows XP to windows 8

First you have to explain how MS dos (which is a basic design, and which in reality even the most complex of life micro-organisms has a DNA profile far advanced than MS Dos) came into existance. Then how it advanced to the DNA sequence of the most advanced life form.

Even one of the most prolific evolution apologists admits that something had to have designed this system. That the chances it came to be out of the blue would be astronomical.

Richard Dawkins and Aliens

Again, This is just one argument

 

[LatentAuthor]

Evolution requires life with a basic DNA design evolving into life with more complex DNA design, Which evolves to even more complex.

The theory of evolution doesn't explain that life always moves from less complex to more complex - simply that descent with modification causes populations to diversity.

If all you're saying is that the theory of evolution requires dna to change over time, then I'm afraid all you're actually saying is that the theory demands dna do exactly what we observe that it does - change over time. If that was your best argument, I shudder to imagine what your other ones were.