Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, I'd hazard a guess that the first ones are apes and the others are humans.

Do you not see great variety in the shape and location of both chimps and humans even in today's world?

Are you suggesting that because apes resemble humans that they must have the same ancestors?

Uhh, yeah but that's just one aspect of it. Looks only get you but so far. The thing that links us together is genomics.

 

[CG Didymus]

Immortal Flame's response to JayJayDee:

Or an error in the Bible, since "a 24 hour period" is exactly what "a day" is. If it wasn't 24 hours, why would the Bible say "a day". That seems entirely misleading, and any intelligent being that wrote the book of Gensis should have been smart enough to see that.

That what I like about Christians that believe it was a longer period of time. But the "misleading" author was God dictating it to Moses. But God was having all kinds of problems dictating the story to Moses that day. He hadn't made a Sun yet to have a day. And what did the Earth rotate around? It was there in the middle of nowhere all by itself?
But forget that, I was wondering about the design he made. God made it so things replicated and evolved within their own kind? Why? Why did he make it such a random process to make babies? It's like everything was designed for the survival of a few. And, those few would reproduce and make more. There are so many eggs and sperms wasted. And with humans, if Creation is true, then as soon as a sperm and an egg get together, God has to make a soul for that person. So is God still making new souls everyday, or did he make everything in the beginning and is storing the souls in a warehouse somewhere?
But of course, Creationism is totally scientific--isn't it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Another problem with day and night in Genesis is that there's sunrise and sunset, day and night, all the time around the planet. Did God create the world based on Greenwich or Jerusalem timezone?

 

[JayJayDee]

Immortal Flame's response to JayJayDee:
That what I like about Christians that believe it was a longer period of time. But the "misleading" author was God dictating it to Moses. But God was having all kinds of problems dictating the story to Moses that day. He hadn't made a Sun yet to have a day. And what did the Earth rotate around? It was there in the middle of nowhere all by itself?

You know it's these kinds of comments that make me realize how misinformed many people are about what the Bible actually teaches. Do you really want to know or are you happy to be an ignorant ridiculer?

It's not your fault I understand, if people have put these silly notions in your head but surely you must understand that all this wonderful design of the earth and living things did not pop into existence by the blind forces of chance? You'd want a ticket in that lottery surely! :yes:

You paint God as if he is a moron. He knows who the morons are....the ones trying desperately to make him disappear.

If "God created the heavens and the earth" at one time, would it not occur to you that it included the sun? The whole universe....big bang and all that?

The second "day" "light" was visible. Where do you suppose the light came from?

Don't fall over the Bible's simple language. There is much in between the lines if you put down your prejudice.

Vegetation used that light for photosynthesis until a clear view of the sun and moon was made visible on earth. Each was a luminary to dominate it's own place. Even on a cloudy day, there is light.

But forget that, I was wondering about the design he made. God made it so things replicated and evolved within their own kind? Why? Why did he make it such a random process to make babies? It's like everything was designed for the survival of a few. And, those few would reproduce and make more. There are so many eggs and sperms wasted.

Hmmm, wasted sperm and eggs? An egg is not a human and neither is a sperm. Just like an egg is not a chicken. Only when egg and sperm unite is a life conceived. Life is a totally random process. The miracle that resulted in life for each one of us needed just one of hundreds of thousands of eggs produced by our mothers, and one sperm among many millions delivered by our fathers. Do you know what the odds are against any of us being here? Yet I hear so many complain about their lives.....they don't value them one little bit.

Who would like a pregnancy every time sex was enjoyed? Anyone????

Most of us have an option of falling pregnant once per month. It is an option we can choose to take or not. Most choose not.

What if you wanted a baby and you could only conceive once a year? What if you missed it? What of all those who desperately want a child and can't conceive? Do you count their attempts as wasted?

Your thinking is a little stunted or perhaps not too well analyzed.

And with humans, if Creation is true, then as soon as a sperm and an egg get together, God has to make a soul for that person. So is God still making new souls everyday, or did he make everything in the beginning and is storing the souls in a warehouse somewhere?

Where on earth do you get these ridiculous notions?

Humans do not "have" a soul. A human IS a soul. Souls live and feel and know and plan. Souls die. (Ezek 18:4) Body + breath = soul. A body can't exist without breath, a soul cannot exist without a body. Do you understand this concept? This is what the Bible teaches (as opposed to what the churches teach)

The gift of life is the miracle. All living things are endowed with the ability to reproduce themselves. The ability to pass on life is the gift, God has little to do with the way humans or any other living things are individually conceived. Doesn't conception resulting from rape tell you that? You think God was waiting with a spare soul for a rape to take place so he could get rid of it? Seriously....where is you reasoning ability? :sad:

But of course, Creationism is totally scientific--isn't it?

Yes it is if you know what the Bible really teaches. You are so way off base, it's kinda funny reading what you think the Bible says. If the churches promote this nonsense, they ought to be drawn and quartered. I find them as ridiculous as you do.

There is something in the middle, more balanced and in keeping with reality.

But we can choose to believe whatever we wish. God grants us all that freedom. Just analyze all the options...OK?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not your fault I understand, if people have put these silly notions in your head but surely you must understand that all this wonderful design of the earth and living things did not pop into existence by the blind forces of chance? You'd want a ticket in that lottery surely! :yes:

I love how you accuse us of being uninformed, then say something that shows that you clearly have absolutely no understanding of what we claim either. "Chance" had nothing to do with the formation of the earth, and anybody with a rudimentary understanding of the laws of nature would see why.

You paint God as if he is a moron.

No. We're painting the Bible as a poor source of information as it is clearly misleading in it's language based on your interpretation of it.

If "God created the heavens and the earth" at one time, would it not occur to you that it included the sun? The whole universe....big bang and all that?

The second "day" "light" was visible. Where do you suppose the light came from?

Don't fall over the Bible's simple language. There is much in between the lines if you put down your prejudice.

Vegetation used that light for photosynthesis until a clear view of the sun and moon was made visible on earth. Each was a luminary to dominate it's own place. Even on a cloudy day, there is light.

You do realize that you haven't even remotely responded to the point, right? It's quite simple, if the period of time required for God to create the Universe was not a literal seven-day period, why does Genesis specify "days"? Why didn't it use the actual time frame? You can argue that it's poetical language all you like, but you must admit that it's clearly misleading - and since there are millions of people on the planet right now who believe in a literal seven day creation as a result of that terminology, you can hardly argue it's not had any effect on how the Bible is interpreted. Do you not think that any intelligent God would realize this and ensured that his supposed word was far less ambiguous or misleading?

 

[JayJayDee]

I love how you accuse us of being uninformed, then say something that shows that you clearly have absolutely no understanding of what we claim either. "Chance" had nothing to do with the formation of the earth, and anybody with a rudimentary understanding of the laws of nature would see why.

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that evolutionists can argue all they like about how life changed...but if they cannot ascertain how it got here in the first place, what is the point?

The focus is in the wrong area. The Bible describes "even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created". "Nature" gets the credit for what God does. Who or what is nature? Something substituted for God.

No. We're painting the Bible as a poor source of information as it is clearly misleading in it's language based on your interpretation of it.

Do we not use such language in our own everyday speech?
"In my grandfather's "day" things were a little different." or "It was the dawn of a new era" or "the good old days".
Are we talking about literal 24 hour periods? Have we got no common sense?

Do you not think that any intelligent God would realize this and ensured that his supposed word was far less ambiguous or misleading?

This is what the scriptures say to indicate that a day may well be more than a 24 rotation of our planet....
"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Pet 3:8) God encourages us to read his word for ourselves. Those who do, know what it says so there is no ambiguity. Don't assume that church teaching is Bible teaching....that is what is misleading.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that evolutionists can argue all they like about how life changed...but if they cannot ascertain how it got here in the first place, what is the point?

Like I said...

The origins of "life", or abiogenesis, does not change the study of the origins of species, other than life had to exist first. Just as the cosmic origins of the elements does not change the study of geology, other than the elements had to exist first.

 

[JayJayDee]

Like I said...

TW, Abiogenesis and Geology are fascinating areas of study no doubt, but they answer no questions about origins. If you have no need to know, that is your choice. I have a need to know and the answers that evolution provides do not satisfy me at all. There is more stretching of the imagination with evolution and its missing intermediary species, than there being a supernatural originator of superb design.

Things that exhibit design need a designer. How can anyone with half an ounce of intelligence not acknowledge that?

How do evolutionists just ignore the possibility of this intelligent designer? Don't you see, if he exists, it changes everything. Or is that the problem? :sad:

 

[johnhanks]

TW, Abiogenesis and Geology are fascinating areas of study no doubt, but they answer no questions about origins. If you have no need to know, that is your choice. I have a need to know...

No, you seem to have a need to make the questions go away; that isn't the same thing.

... and the answers that evolution provides do not satisfy me at all. There is more stretching of the imagination with evolution and its missing intermediary species, than there being a supernatural originator of superb design.

There is also infinitely more explanatory power. To say "God did it; all questions solved" is to summon up a magic force and claim it explains everything, while needing no explanation itself.

Things that exhibit design need a designer. How can anyone with half an ounce of intelligence not acknowledge that?

Can you please list the criteria by which we decide whether or not something "exhibits design"?

How do evolutionists just ignore the possibility of this intelligent designer?

Quite a lot of "evolutionists" have religious beliefs; but if they are scientists they know that those beliefs, being exempt from empirical observation and repeatability, can form no part of their scientific understanding of the world.

Don't you see, if he exists, it changes everything. Or is that the problem? :sad:

If this intelligent designer could be reliably and repeatably observed and measured, it could be assimilated into scientific theories. Until then, it cannot.

 

[camanintx]

TW, Abiogenesis and Geology are fascinating areas of study no doubt, but they answer no questions about origins.

Actually, abiogenesis answers many questions about origins. Could you possibly have been thinking of evolution? People who don't understand them have a tendency to make this mistake.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

TW, Abiogenesis and Geology are fascinating areas of study no doubt, but they answer no questions about origins.

It's just that you don't like the answers they provide.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that evolutionists can argue all they like about how life changed...but if they cannot ascertain how it got here in the first place, what is the point?

What do you mean "what is the point"? We don't have to know the origin of all life in under to understand and observe how life changes over time. The study and understanding of evolution has lead to huge leaps forward in medicine, anthropology and genetics. How could you possibly argue that there's no point to studying it? You might as well be arguing that there's no point to studying gravity until we know exactly how matter first came to exist.

The focus is in the wrong area. The Bible describes "even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created". "Nature" gets the credit for what God does. Who or what is nature? Something substituted for God.

Well, believe it or not, not everybody on the planet believes in God. Also, believe it or not, science is about the study of the natural world and the facts that surround us. So far, not a single fact has ever lead science in the direction of God, and that is to be expected when science is a strictly naturalistic methodology. There are millions of religious scientists, and somehow they don't think that understanding the natural origin of things detracts in any way from their beliefs.

Do we not use such language in our own everyday speech?
"In my grandfather's "day" things were a little different." or "It was the dawn of a new era" or "the good old days".

That's completely different than specifying "first day, second day, third day". If I tell you what I did "one day" and then "the next day", that means I'm telling you what happened in specific 24-hour periods. The thing with language is that it's all about context, and the context in Genesis is quite ambiguous.

Are we talking about literal 24 hour periods? Have we got no common sense?
This is what the scriptures say to indicate that a day may well be more than a 24 rotation of our planet....
"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Pet 3:8)

So, instead of six literal days, what it means is six thousand years? 1- Why didn't it say that in the first place? 2- That's still off by several million years.

God encourages us to read his word for ourselves.

But, apparently, the only correct interpretation is the one that you prefer.

Those who do, know what it says so there is no ambiguity. Don't assume that church teaching is Bible teaching....that is what is misleading.

Nope, clearly the Bible itself is.

 

[McBell]

Don't you see, if he exists, it changes everything. Or is that the problem? :sad:

No it doesn't.

Evolution is true regardless of god(s) existence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Things that exhibit design need a designer.

Question: How do you quantify "design"? If I showed you two objects that you have never seen before and tell you that one is designed and the other is not, what would you look at in the objects that would tell you which is which?

How can anyone with half an ounce of intelligence not acknowledge that?

Thank you very much for calling myself and all other atheists on the planet stupid.

How do evolutionists just ignore the possibility of this intelligent designer?

They don't. There are millions of theistic people who accept evolution. I, myself, am an atheist and I accept evolution, but I still don't ignore the possibility of God. Don't put words in our mouths.

Don't you see, if he exists, it changes everything.

Then demonstrate that God exists and there won't be an issue. If you cannot, then stop making the claim.

 

[rusra02]

No it doesn't.

Evolution is true regardless of god(s) existence.

"The more I examined evolution, the more I became convinced that the theory is more bluster than fact." - Professor Massimo Tistarelli (g2/13 p.11)

 

[mycorrhiza]

"The more I examined evolution, the more I became convinced that the theory is more bluster than fact." - Professor Massimo Tistarelli (g2/13 p.11)

Why should we trust a computer scientist on the subject of evolution instead of a biologist?

 

[McBell]

"The more I examined evolution, the more I became convinced that the theory is more bluster than fact." - Professor Massimo Tistarelli (g2/13 p.11)

Your ratification skills are exemplary.
to bad they are irrelevant.

How about you try quoting from someone who actually works in the biology field?
merely slapping a quote you like with someone with the word professor in front of the name does not actually help your argument.

Hells bells, most of my family can legally put professor in from of their names, myself included, does not mean they know anything outside their their specific field of study and in some cases, mine included, it is nothing more than an "Honorary" title.

 

[McBell]

Why should we trust a computer scientist on the subject of evolution instead of a biologist?

because that particular "Professor" agrees with him?

 

[Ouroboros]

"The more I examined evolution, the more I became convinced that the theory is more bluster than fact." - Professor Massimo Tistarelli (g2/13 p.11)

Then he's missing something. I studied math and evolution too. And I'm computer guy, been doing it for 35 years. The more I study evolution, the more convinced I get how true it is and full of facts. How he can't see the facts in the research, proves to me that he's the one blustering unsupported opinions.

It makes me so sad and upset when professional people speak out like that with opinions that anyone with some study behind them know is wrong.

I touched, held, and measured facts when I was taking my classes. I don't know what he studied.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Then he's missing something. I studied math and evolution too. And I'm computer guy, been doing it for 35 years. The more I study evolution, the more convinced I get how true it is and full of facts. How he can't see the facts in the research, proves to me that he's the one blustering unsupported opinions.

It makes me so sad and upset when professional people speak out like that with opinions that anyone with some study behind them know is wrong.

I touched, held, and measured facts when I was taking my classes. I don't know what he studied.

All hail the computer guys....I've been doing this for 20 years....

I think that "Professor" has been studying the art of 'guessary'....then aga..he is a computer scientist and not a biologist..