bjaminwood

I believe the Biblical account of creation which states that animals were created and humans were created seperately.

please read this link for one of many examples of a missing link being disproved.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/livoniana.asp

I have read that Wiki-letter and it is a decent piece of work. To a large extent I can agree with it' date=' but for me (as christian) a very big question remains unanswered.

 

As a christian, I stand somewhere in the middle, not accepting the 6000 (or 10000) year young earth view, but I also have some large problems with the theory of evolution (toe, as it is mentioned in the letter).

 

I accept that earth is very old (around 4.3 billion years??) and also that the universe is very large and possibly infinite, and increadibly old. I also agree with the observations of the fossils and the presence of species through time. However, as a christian I also fully believe that at a certain point in time sin came into the world ("the world is fallen in sin", as some church-leaders call it). This is a central theme of christianity. If you do not accept that, then why would you even continue believing? Then Jesus' work was void and without any meaning and He would be a fool. So, I fully accept that the world is fallen in sin.

 

Now the problem with the toe. I see no way, how this falling in sin can be unified with the current toe. If there are any other christian members of SFN over here, who accept evolution, [i']and [/i]who really are christian and accept that the world is fallen in sin, then I would be really eager to read how they think these two things can be unified.

 

So, for me, up to now, the answer simply is open, and I have to leave it open. There are the observations, and there is the dogma of a world, fallen in sin, and both I have to accept, but I see no theory, which fits both of these in an acceptable way.

A very good website that WILL answer SOME of your questions is

http://www.answersingenesis.org

Bjaminwood.

Obviously the key to puncturing your bubble is to disprove your idea that the world is 10' date='000 years old at most. If you are able to think rationally, and cling to real facts (are you?) then we can do that.

 

1. Dendrochronology. The science of tree rings. When a tree grows, it lays down rings, whose width differs according to the season. A good growing season, and all the trees in a particular province lay down a thick ring. Poor growing season sees a thinner ring. Any period of, say, 6 years, leaves a pattern of thicker and thinner rings that is every bit as distinctive as a bar code. These patterns can be followed back in time. Due to these 'bar codes' the same period in time can be identified from tree to tree. Thus, a tree just felled can show a 'bar code' representing a time 3000 years old (many trees survive more than 3000 years). Then a dead tree that fell 2500 years ago can be identified by the same bar code. Another bar code, say 5000 years old, can then be identified. And so on back in time.

 

There is a museum in Europe with slices of trees, beginning with one recently felled, and going back to trunks dug out of wetlands, going back to, at least 20,000 years. A continuous record going back more than 20,000 years.

 

bjaminwood. If you are able to think rationally, this alone bursts your bubble.

 

2. Alpine lakes.

Certain lakes that freeze in winter, and thaw in summer, lay down layers of sediment. The way it works is this. In summer, with no ice layers, the water is turbulent. This keeps fine sediment suspended. Only coarse sediment settles to the bottom of the lake. In winter, with ice cover, the water is still. The fine sediment settles. Over the years, this leaves layers. Coarse/fine, coarse/fine etc. A core sample taken from such a lake allows scientists to count back through the layers, and count years. This has been done. Sorry, your 10,000 years takes a dive. These layers go back many times that.

 

3. Carbon dating. Tree rings and lake sediment dating allows us to check the carbon dating system. 20,000 year old tree rings are dated by the carbon dating method. 30,000 year old shells, found in a lake sediment layer, is dated by the carbon dating system. I both cases, carbon dating is shown to be accurate. And other carbon dating takes us back to 50,000 years. The world is PROVEN to be at least 50,000 years old.

 

4. Glacial layers. Ice is laid down seasonally, leaving annual layers in glaciers. Ice core samples are taken and the layers counted. These have now taken us back a million years. The world is at least a million years old.

 

5. Ocen sediment. The rate of ocean sediment layer deposition has been measured. We know the total depth of these ocean sediments. This takes us back 50 million years. These measurements have been made on numerous sediment types. The results are consistent.

 

6. Sedimentary rocks. Knowing how quickly sediments form allows us to calculate how long sedimentary rocks took to form. This calculation leads us to the inevitable belief that the world is at least hundreds of millions of years old.

 

7. Radiodating. The same principle used, and proved in carbon dating, can be used with other radio-isotopes. For example Uranium 235, which breaks down over a known period, leaving other known isotopes. This method has ben cross tested against other methods such as 5, and 6 above. It works!

 

All methods have been tested against other methods. Cross testing is meticulous and extraordinarily thorough. There are experts who could detail this process in far greater length than I can, and write entire books on all the dating methods, and how they have been used to cross test each other and demonstrate the essential correctness of our current dating systems.

 

The inevitable and final conclusion is the the world is 4.5 billion years old. Any attempt to deny these very thoroughly tested and proven scientific results, can only be based on an irrational willingness to deny facts.[/quote']

 

please see

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

and

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

I do not object to the beliefs of any of you as of right now. However this is a serious divergence from the point! Please' date=' continue this debate about faith in the Religion section, or the debate section. I have made my comments in regards to faith . . .

 

But please will someone get back to evolution?!

Here let me try.. . .

Imagine this scenario; an insect is moved out of its environment into an alien one and becomes an invasive species. In ten thousand years a descendant of the insect is moved back into it's ancestors original breeding population and native environment. How would it fare?[/quote']

 

The reason that I go on about my faith in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is that it does not allow for the theory of evolution as an explanation for the state of the universe today. So my comments are linked to the topic. In my view the universe has not yet experienced millions of years only thousands. At the very most 10,000 years. If you have not already seen it there is an excellent video which demstrates this point. It has been mentioned in a previous thread. http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

bjaminwood.

I have been strongly criticised in the global warming posts because I am skeptical of conclusions that come purely from computer models' date=' and am looking for strong objective, empirical evidence before accepting their conclusions. I am very skeptical of anything for which there is not good, solid, objective and empirically derived evidence.

 

Obviously, there are things for which I and others like me, have to accept because the source is reputable. If a reputable scientific journal publishes a peer reviewed paper based on good research, we tentatively accept it as 'true' until demonstrated otherwise. This does happen, as witness Korean stem cell research.

 

Once the level of evidence rises above a certain level, then we consider it to be effectively 'proven' and accept it as such. The scientific principle of biological evolution is one such, since the sum total of all evidence for this process would now fill several encyclopaedias. Denial of such is not skepticism. It is insanity.

 

On the other hand, Genesis is mostly myth and legend. The objective evidence suggests that the stories in Genesis were handed down by word of mouth for generations. And we all know what happens to messages like that. They end up grossly distorted.

 

You will undoubtedly argue that it is 'divinely inspired.' However, the bible contains too many contradictions. The Old Testament especially. Indeed, Old Testament teachings are not even compatible with Christ's teachings.[/quote']

 

Firstly, why say that Genesis is "mostly myth and Legend" when you can't prove that. I will continue to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis until it has been proven beyond all doubt to be a myth.

 

Secondly, with all due respect you do not understand the Bible. The Old Testament was all about the Jews not being able to keep the Law of God and constantly needing to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins. The New Testament is all about God sending his son into the world to be the perfect final sacrifice for sin. So that everyone Jew or Gentile (Non Jew), if they put their trust/faith in him they would be seen by God as if they had never sinned. Jesus paid the price of the sins of all those who put their faith in him. That is what a true Christian is. Christianity came out of Judaism - they are the old and New Testaments.

I have no faith in ANYTHING. Something I am very proud of. Instead I follow the rational approach and judge everything on the basis of the objective' date=' empirical evidence that supports it. Faith means simply believing what you are told. People loved by P.T. Barnum, who said : "There's a sucker born every minute."

 

If your belief system is based on faith, instead of evidence, you fit Barnum's ideal.[/quote']

 

So you are telling me that everything that you believe in is based on things that you personally have tested. That every scientific "fact" that you believe in is something that you have actually proved scientifically to yourself. Or is it as I suspect that some of what you believe is based on things that you have read by people that are now dead?

 

My faith and belief system both agree with the scientific facts that have been proven. I have not found 1 piece of evidence that has shaken my faith. Science just helps to prove my faith in the creator GOD.

if god doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?

I believe in an almighty creator God as described in the Bible who created the universe and I guess you can continue to believe whatever it is that you believe. We both have faith in something but I'm not quite sure what it is that you have faith in.

I know christians have an urge to use the "where did it come from" paradox to prove god. Answer me this' date=' where did your god come from?

 

Advice:

Pick the lesser of two ignorances[/quote']

 

God always existed as the Bible clearly states God is the great "I am" suggesting that God always existed.

Is this supposed to be an argument against creationism, or an argument against a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

What is the difference?

bjaminwood.

You say evolution has only been observed within species?

You clearly did not read my post. There have now been many examples of changes observed that lead to new species. My African cichlid example is one of the best.

 

You claim no intermediate fossils.

Sorry' date=' there are literally thousands of examples of intermediate fossils. For example, we now know that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The first intermediate fossil was Archaeopteryx. This was clearly a dinosaur, but had feathers, including flight feathers very similar to those found on today's birds. Until recently, there was a big gap in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx. However, the opening up of China to the world led to studies of fossil beds there, and the discovery of a wealth of intermediate fossils, such as Confuciousornis, which had lost more dinosaur features and gained more bird. There are now at least 10 intermediate fossils between dinosaurs and birds, which show a clear path of evolution. This was all written up in a very nice Scientific American article a couple of years ago.

 

The dinosaur to bird pathway is just one example. Intermediate fossils have been found for whales, horses, apes etc.[/quote']

 

As you have never seen one of these intermediate creatures alive you can not prove without doubt that what you see in the fossil records is not one of the creatures either side of an intermediate creature. E.g. dinosaur to bird. The fossil in my view is either likely to be one or the other and not an intermediate state. I would have more chance believing that a fossil was an intermediate creature if I had once seen a live version. As science is mainly based on things that can be tested in the here and now, I am happy to believe that birds existed years ago at the same time as other animals that exist today like monkeys and elephants.

 

Can you please explain to me why we as humans do not evolve into something else and why don't monkeys evolve into humans today?

This is such a tired old argument.

We have religious types trying to support outmoded means of thinking' date=' versus science.

 

Evolution is NOT a theory. It is a mainstream principle of modern science. It is as much a theory as the idea of atoms is a theory (people have photographed atoms with scanning tunnelling microscopes). It is as much a theory as the idea of germs as causes of infectious illness (and they have been seen in normal microscopes).

 

Yes, evolution has been witnessed happening. In Africa, cichlid fishes, over a period of 100 years have been seen, and reported by teams of biologists, to evolve into different species. Fruit flies, in the laboratory, have been seen to evolve into different species. Bacteria, in the laboratory, have been seen to so evolve.

 

Come on guys. If I hit you fair square in the eye, you end up with a black eye. Are you going to pretend it is mascara!!!! If we see evolution happening, are we going to call it accident? Get real!!!

 

You wanna quote the bible? Let me quote : New English Bible. OEP 1961.

Matthew : 27, 3 - 8

"When Judas the traitor saw that Jesus has been condemned, he was seized with remorse, and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, "I have sinned" he said; "I have brought an innocent man to his death."

But they said, " What is that to us? See that to yourself." So he threw the money down in the temple and left them, and went and hanged himself.

Taking up the money, the chief priests argued : This cannot be put into the temple fund, it is blood money. So, after conferring, they used it to buy the Potters Field, as a burial place for foreigners. This explains the name 'Blood Acre' by which that field has been known ever since."

 

Compare this to : Acts 1, Verse 18 to 20.

"This Judas, be it noted, after buying a plot of land with the price of his villainy, fell forward on the ground, and burst open, so that his entrails poured out. this became known to everyone in Jerusalem, and they named the property in their own language Akeldama, which means Blood Acre."

 

Now either Judas hanged himself, or fell and burst out his entrails. Not both!!!

Clearly, the bible contrdicts itself.

 

This is typical of the religious view. You can tell the same story several ways. No problem. The same 'double-think' works for opposing evolution.

 

Face it. The bible is a load of $%#@!!![/quote']

 

Evolution IS a theory because as has been stated a number of times the only evolution that takes place that can be observed is within species and not from one species to another. How come, for instance an intermediate state creature has NEVER been found in the fossil records?

 

Also with regard to your "Clearly the bible contradicts itself." comments about Judas you should look at

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2846

If you read this you will see that just as you can accuse a creationist of using arguments without having solid facts the same could be said of certian people who hold the evolutionist view.

btw, i was a creationist for a long time

Plenty of people start off as Atheists and later become Creationists

I am a Christian' date=' but I also believe in proven scientific evidence. I have nothing against scientific research into Christian beliefs. If my beliefs are true, science will never be able to prove they are false. If my beliefs are false, I would like to know it and see the proof. I have yet to find scientific evidence against the existence of God. However, if such evidence does happen to exist, why would Christians be against it? Why would anyone want to practice a religion that is known to be false? It would make no sense.

 

It would be like someone telling me that there is an explosive device in my house. Yes, I'm going to get out of my house as quickly as I can. However, I will also want the police or some other experts to come and investigate. If they can prove to me that there is no explosive device, I would go back inside. Why would I waste me time standing outside for no reason? I think the same is true for religion.

 

If I used the example above, some scientists would be like the police if they never went inside to investigate, but they just came and said, "It could just be a prank. You can go back inside." Just because science can provide an alternative theory to creationism doesn't mean that creationism is false. I have been taught the Christian religion, and I will continue to practice it unless scientific proof shows that I am wasting my time. I don't want to die and wake up to see the Devil, and then hear Charles Darwin say, "Oops. Sorry everyone."[/quote']

 

A very good point well made

That is for faith to decide, not science.

Creationism and Evolution both require faith as both sets of people were not there in the beginning.

If you add up the views from the people that answer this question then you will not get a scientific answer as the majority of people on this site already believe in evolution. So I suggest that the overall answer that you get from this site will be YES. But I believe that there will always be Creationists like myself that believe that God created the Universe.

When they say, "all intermediate forms would be fatal. What good is half a wing..." I don't think they actually mean any type of animal suddenly being born with half a wing. I think they are referring to the development of a wing over many generations. Why would natural selection cause a wing to develop? It wouldn't give an organism any advantage until the wing is developed enough to fly. Therefore, why would it continue to develop when it isn't giving any advantage to the animal? I think that might be what they were asking in the video, but that is just my interpretation.

That is exactly what they are saying

"God did it" is a neat and tidy explanation. Very simple' date=' no thinking required. You can indoctrinate the kids, and as long as you take a few steps to quash their inquisitiveness and skepticism, they won't question it. And there will always be some subset of the population that wants a simple explanation, even if it is wrong.

 

Science, OTOH, does require thinking, and it can be complicated, because often enough what we can't see behaves differently than what we can, so it can run afoul of "common sense." And emotion can confound the scientific thought process.[/quote']

 

If you can't prove that God didn't do it, then why say that it is wrong.

Dawkins seem to want to speak for the whole scientific community regarding religion. With his documentary "The Root of All Evil?"' date=' well there he makes a complete fool of himself with his childish explanations of a such complicated system as the human mind.

 

We like to see science as unbiased but for what I can see its just people with different agendas.[/quote']

 

Amen

Are there any ideas why it would sequence the "evening" and the the "morning"' date=' not the other way round?

aguy2[/quote']

 

Jewish writings put things in this order.

A particle collider in another universe created our "little" universe.

That does not explain how the other universe came into being.

I have a theory which most people are not going to like but I have been acused of dismissing the theory of evolution without even considering the possibility that it might have some truth in it. So before you rubbish it consider it as an alternative to what you have already considered.

I am going to quote from the Bible in Genesis Ch 1 v14 - 19

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

Bear in mind that the writing of this can be traced back several thousand years BC.

I think that evolution is a threat to my religion in terms of what it makes people believe are facts when in fact they are not, but I also think that Science proves my belief in God and therefore is no threat but a help.

right' date=' because so many snakes eat dust

 

([i']ignoring the fact that there are plenty of other belly crawlers who don't seem to have earned the "curse," a punishment that is a large part of what makes snakes so succesful I might add[/i] )

Are you a snake expert?

Are you a snake expert?

How many explosions do you know that create order?