Jump to content

Question regarding evolution and creation?


Recommended Posts

!

Moderator Note

A creationist hijack of the discussion has been split off to the trash. The validity of evolution is not the topic in this thread, and warmed over, long-debunked ICR arguments are not suitable for discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No one was present to see the original nor has anyone observed evolution and with so much design designed into Creation I don't see how the theory of evolution is anything one can swallow without much

Of course not. Mountains upon mountains of observational, empirical evidence strongly support it being so. Btw's: 1) New genetic information can and is created de novo through evolutionary processes

"In the beginning, God created the heaven (atmosphere) and the earth."   When the earth cooled down enough so water could stand on it, the circus began.   Under certain conditions, amino acids for

Let me elaborate. The claim is that the virgin birth is not contradicted by observable evidence. So what I ask is, the idea of the story of adam contradicted by observational evidence?

 

 

Yes. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life has been around for a good portion of that. Human life has been around for between 100,000 and 200,000 years (depending on how you define Human). There are substantial numbers of fossils which indicate that Homo Sapiens evolved from a series of parent species. There is absolutely no reasonable explanation which would allow for the creation of a human prior to the commonly accepted time frame, which would be necessary for the Bible story to be possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Creation can be on any table it likes. But science is evidence based.

That's why creation is ignored in science.

The evidence is not there.

Science needs more than old scribblings from the bronze age.

 

There is plenty of evidence for science to study. And it all points to evolution, not creation.

 

So unless god has a funny sense of humour, and planted all the evidence for evolution, then science has the right answer,

and creation is just ridiculous. But, maybe god WANTS it to look ridiculous? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE ABTN: "...leave evolutionists silenced every time their paths cross.."

 

Nonsense. Maybe they are speechless at the inconceivable naivety of the opposing arguments?

 

Bless you.x

 

 

PS - Also - it is complicated.. not every guy on the street understands the full complexity of how evolution works... Dawkins explains it well, for example... but it is his life's work. Not everyone is equipped or prepared to counter and debuff a torrent of dubious claims. Talk to the people that know what they are talking about and they will destroy all of your arguments with clear reason and facts based on observable evidence. I know this - I've tried it. If you then ignore what they say and continue with circular argument, then they might well go quite for the reason I stated above or just that they can't be bothered to go round in circles with you because they do not really care that you can't grasp plain reality. . Don't go silent on me - I'd like to know what you think. ;-)

Edited by DrP
Link to post
Share on other sites

not every guy on the street understands the full complexity of how evolution works

I'm sure that's right, but maybe it's not wanting to accept, rather than not understanding.

I got evolution the second I heard it, at the age of about 13 or so.

My mother, a lifelong Catholic, was plenty intelligent, but didn't really want to know, and who can stand up to a lifelong stream of indoctrination? Of course, all that was long before the Pope and his minions decided that evolution could no longer be denied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Creation was us by the OP 4x's plus an ex-nihilo tossed in for good measure, how is it creation is not on the table for discussion or the people from ICR who leave evolutionists silenced every time their paths cross when it comes to logic & not faith about something that mankind was not was present to study at the time?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

The relevant question in the OP was "does current scientific evidence contradict the creation story, unlike the virgin birth as stated here?"

 

IOW, the OP is not asking for a discussion of creationism, it was asking about scientific evidence in light of the creation story. This is not the place to argue for the creation story, or against evolution. Either of those tangents are hijacking the thread. And so it will stop.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

The relevant question in the OP was "does current scientific evidence contradict the creation story, unlike the virgin birth as stated here?"

 

 

Well, that's an easy and obvious answer. Yes it contradicts the creation story. If you take the view that both can't be right.

Contradict doesn't mean disprove. But contradict? Yes of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think about it at all in the reason for it all in the 1st place, God was sending Himself as The Perfect Sacrifice for the payment of mans sin debt. God had to be the "Y" Himself in order to bring Perfection back as Godman for His Revelation of Himself to the needy world of fallen mankind.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Preaching is another thing that has to stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not preaching but explaining the basis of the story so we can all have a better understand of where, why & how it all came about, this helps to fill in the gaps as to where the "Y" came from & why it had to come the way it came. That's not anymore preaching than explaining how fossil fields came about by one creature dying at a time after another over great lengths of time as their bodies accumulated to form great piles of rock filled with bones & that through various dating practices we can set their original formation in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...yet there is much that is a faith in holding onto a particular hope that science is heading towards or originating from a particular direction that faith is very much in play here & not unquestionable fact, much of science requires faith in it to the religious extent no different that a faith in religion of supernatural forces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, scientists believe certain things and religious people certain things. With a little sophistry you can call both of these types of faith. Your mistake is to think that all beliefs are equal: they are not. Belief in scientific terms comes from evidence, whereas beliefs in religious terms are usually despite evidence.

 

Consider: if i hold up my pen and release it i believe it will fall the the ground. I also believe that the potatoes in my kitchen come to life at night and consider me their king. Last night they held a festival in my name, which is why there was less juice in the fridge than i remember there being.

 

Are these beliefs equal?

 

According to your arguments thus far, they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, scientists believe certain things and religious people certain things. With a little sophistry you can call both of these types of faith. Your mistake is to think that all beliefs are equal: they are not. Belief in scientific terms comes from evidence, whereas beliefs in religious terms are usually despite evidence.

 

Consider: if i hold up my pen and release it i believe it will fall the the ground. I also believe that the potatoes in my kitchen come to life at night and consider me their king. Last night they held a festival in my name, which is why there was less juice in the fridge than i remember there being.

 

Are these beliefs equal?

 

According to your arguments thus far, they are.

Phew... I'm glad I'm not the only one inundated by juice hungry potatoes who hold festivals in my name see me as their king. My pens don't hit the ground when I drop them, though. That's just crazy talk.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I wonder, how is evolution a reason to doubt creationism.

 

For those who were nurtured by their parent(s) and/or guardian(s)…….. to absolutely, positively believe that the Biblical story of Creation is 100% literal truth and should never be questioned …… is reason enough for them to deny the actual factual scientific evidence that proves …… evolution of all animal and plant species……. and other forms of biological life that have existed on planet earth.

 

Note that the virgin birth of Jesus does not directly contradict any observations we make.

 

 

Would not a “virgin birth” of a human …… be an exact copy of the female that birthed the child?

 

Iffen the termination of Mary’s pregnancy was in fact a “virgin birth” ….. then me thinks that “Jesus” musta been in fact a transvestite “Jessie” who preferred dressing in clothes primarily associated with the opposite sex.

 

Then of course, maybe one of the 1st Century Roman Doctors had figured out how to perform “in vitro fertilization” to get Mary pregnant.

 

Roman surgeons were capable of performing major surgeries, brain operations and cataract removal from a person's eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She was visited by an 'angel' in the night before she got pregnant according to the gospel. This kind of tells me what I need to know. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly a bit of both... or indeed neither.. I depends on if he even existed. I used to think so, but there are 4 or 5 other ancient myths involving virgin births and resurections from different cultures that predate Christianity. They all say the same thing, so it could have been made up to encompass several other religions to try to forge them into the 'One God' story... trying to sweep the older myths under the carpet. (Oris, Horus, Mithril etc.. not sure exactly what they are called or how they are spelt but I think there are 4 or 5 other near identical stories?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...yet there is much that is a faith in holding onto a particular hope that science is heading towards or originating from a particular direction that faith is very much in play here & not unquestionable fact, much of science requires faith in it to the religious extent no different that a faith in religion of supernatural forces.

We have all observed the influence of gravity, radition from a fire, clotting of blood, and etc, etc, etc. What exactly is science taking purely on faith? I know what temperature water freezes at because I have made ice cubes before. I know 10 times out of 10 times if I jump into the air I will fall back to the ground because I have jumped into the air and fell back down countless times. Science is testable and delivers without fail. Don't believe me, rub your hands back and forth against each other vigorously for 30 seconds and I observe friction heat up your skin. It works 100 times out of 100 times, no faith required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly a bit of both... or indeed neither.. I depends on if he even existed. I used to think so, but there are 4 or 5 other ancient myths involving virgin births and resurections from different cultures that predate Christianity. They all say the same thing, so it could have been made up to encompass several other religions to try to forge them into the 'One God' story... trying to sweep the older myths under the carpet. (Oris, Horus, Mithril etc.. not sure exactly what they are called or how they are spelt but I think there are 4 or 5 other near identical stories?)

Mithras. Mithril is a magical metal usually made into chain shirts by Elves, and given to Hobbits. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.