Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Blastcat]

You cannot convince me of anything. Furthermore, I don't care if you think you can or not.

Only God is holy and just. Him I will hear and believe every word that proceeds from His mouth. Any and all things contradictory to those words is the work of the devil.

With God all things are possible and nothing shall be impossible. This is not true for you. God is the better guide.

This is how I feel and what I believe.

You are correct. If you don't want to change your mind, nothing anyone says will convince you of anything.
Others who read this exchange aren't necessarily so closed minded.

 

[Shad]

Jesus Christ did not think Genesis to be a "poetical" myth, nor do I. What evidence for creation?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor." (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)
Add to that the impossibility of DNA developing "naturally", IMO, and the last nail is driven into the ToE's coffin. There is much more evidence that in living things features, functions, and abilities were obviously designed and ingeniously formed by a master Builder. But I believe many evolutionists simply blind their minds to what is obvious.

Quote-mining...

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)

You should also read Raup's work. He supported evolution, he was arguing against gradual evolution as a universal.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You cannot convince me of anything.

What a poisonous mindset.

 

[Brian Schuh]

logical certainty; not fact, absolute truth.

Logical certainty is what gets scientists to come up with all of the wrong theories in the first place. You will find no absolute truth in logical certainty. If they are so logically certain, then why do they need to change and modify their theories each decade? Obviously they are not so certain.

As a matter of fact it was proven by Kurt Godel that no formal logical closed system can possibly be consistent. Logical certainty gets people into all kinds of trouble. Good luck with it.

You don't understand what Kurt Godel proved. Godel proved that there is an infinite number of statement whose truth value we can never know, statements that can't be proven true and can't be proven false.

But I appreciate what you are trying to say. I investigated evolution and creation, and I find both theories are about as good as the other. There are problems with both that can't be resolved at the current moment. I personally am a Creationist, but I accept natural selection and speciation from evolutionary theory as they are demonstrated. Anything that can't be demonstrated by scientific method is outside of what science can do. Much of both evolution and creation is not science, but history. So I have looked at some ancient history and found things like, the first settlers of Ireland had to exterminate teradactyls and the t rex which flies in the face of modern science. These history books are complete with drawings of what these reptiles looked like, so you can rule out dragon myths.

There is a lot of evidence for creation that most people don't know about, but like I said, there are some big problems with both theories. I believe in creationism, but I don't know for a fact how we got here.

 

[First Baseman]

What a poisonous mindset.

Well, Jesus and all of His Apostles were put to death for just such a mindset so I expect no quarter.

 

[First Baseman]

You don't understand what Kurt Godel proved. Godel proved that there is an infinite number of statement whose truth value we can never know, statements that can't be proven true and can't be proven false.

But I appreciate what you are trying to say. I investigated evolution and creation, and I find both theories are about as good as the other. There are problems with both that can't be resolved at the current moment. I personally am a Creationist, but I accept natural selection and speciation from evolutionary theory as they are demonstrated. Anything that can't be demonstrated by scientific method is outside of what science can do. Much of both evolution and creation is not science, but history. So I have looked at some ancient history and found things like, the first settlers of Ireland had to exterminate teradactyls and the t rex which flies in the face of modern science. These history books are complete with drawings of what these reptiles looked like, so you can rule out dragon myths.

There is a lot of evidence for creation that most people don't know about, but like I said, there are some big problems with both theories. I believe in creationism, but I don't know for a fact how we got here.

That's a pretty good post. It comes from the heart and is honest and up front.

 

[Etritonakin]

Because it is difficult for some people to believe in both?

Creationism is not open to considering scientific discovery. It is different than simply believing in a creator.

Creationism is built on assumptions made about Genesis.
While Genesis and the rest of scripture actually do allow for the possibility of God causing life by evolution -while also being able to directly create -the assumption that the days of Genesis describe the initial creation of the heavens, Earth, life, humanoids, etc., does not allow for evolution at all.

The first line of Genesis states that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.

The next line states that the Earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin at some point.

There is no mention of how God created the heavens and Earth initially.
There is no mention of how long it took to do so -or how it became waste and ruin.

Its initial completion caused the angels spoken of in Job to shout for joy.
When Satan staged his coup, it is written that he did so from beneath the clouds.
When Satan was in Eden, he had already staged his coup -which was put down.
It is written elsewhere that the sinning angels kept not their former estate.
That can be taken to mean they neglected the upkeep of Earth -or even caused destruction.
Wars usually cause destruction.
While not directly stated, it is suggested that angelic rebellion had a negative effect on Earth -but it is certainly indicated elsewhere that angels inhabited Earth long before man.

Regardless, it is not correct to simply assume that what follows the first line of Genesis is the very beginning of anything.
It is clearly stated that what followed was a reversal of the state of being waste and ruin at some point after the heaven and Earth were in existence.

Before there was any widely-available evidence of evolution, the Big Bang, an earth older than 6,000 years, etc., it was easy to skim over Genesis -especially in its translations -and assume it said that everything was initially created when Adam was created. Those assumptions then came to be viewed as biblical truth -so denial of those assumptions were equated with denial of the existence of God.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Creationism is not open to considering scientific discovery. It is different than simply believing in a creator.

Creationism is built on assumptions made about Genesis.
While Genesis and the rest of scripture actually do allow for the possibility of God causing life by evolution -while also being able to directly create -the assumption that the days of Genesis describe the initial creation of the heavens, Earth, life, humanoids, etc., does not allow for evolution at all.

The first line of Genesis states that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.

The next line states that the Earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin at some point.

There is no mention of how God created the heavens and Earth initially.
There is no mention of how long it took to do so -or how it became waste and ruin.

Its initial completion caused the angels spoken of in Job to shout for joy.
When Satan staged his coup, it is written that he did so from beneath the clouds.
When Satan was in Eden, he had already staged his coup -which was put down.
It is written elsewhere that the sinning angels kept not their former estate.
That can be taken to mean they neglected the upkeep of Earth -or even caused destruction.
Wars usually cause destruction.
While not directly stated, it is suggested that angelic rebellion had a negative effect on Earth -but it is certainly indicated elsewhere that angels inhabited Earth long before man.

Regardless, it is not correct to simply assume that what follows the first line of Genesis is the very beginning of anything.
It is clearly stated that what followed was a reversal of the state of being waste and ruin at some point after the heaven and Earth were in existence.

Before there was any widely-available evidence of evolution, the Big Bang, an earth older than 6,000 years, etc., it was easy to skim over Genesis -especially in its translations -and assume it said that everything was initially created when Adam was created. Those assumptions then came to be viewed as biblical truth -so denial of those assumptions were equated with denial of the existence of God.

An ancient legend says that God created the universe, but failed to create any kind of mercy in it. This universe destroyed itself. Then God created the current universe, with justice and mercy and it endured for a time until this world also became hopeless, but instead of destroying it, God simply changed the laws of nature and started over with only Noah and his family. Yeah, it wasn't just a flood, God had to change the fundamental laws of nature. Then God promised us he got it right this time and gave us the rainbow.

Some of this can be deduced from Genesis 1:1. The previous earth that destroyed itself from lack of mercy was in existence even before God said "Let there be light." What this previous earth was like, we will never know. I don't know how you can claim to know.

The great commentater Rashi shows from the Hebrew text that God created Adam and Eve on Friday around noon. It was very soon that they had sex and Eve got pregnant. Eve gave birth to Cain well before sundown that same day. Now a pregnancy lasts on average 9 months, how did they have sex in the afternoon and she give birth before dark? Now it's obvious that the writers of the Bible had no regard for anything to be in chronological order, but in the Creation account, even time itself was like in fast motion. A cluster of grapes grew on a vine, fell on the ground and then fermented all within maybe a few minutes. This shows me that the Creation account can't possibly be taken as literally as some would like. (The reference to the cluster of grapes is to the opinion that the grape was the forbidden fruit and that Adam and Eve got drunk.)

 

[Blastcat]

Well, Jesus and all of His Apostles were put to death for just such a mindset so I expect no quarter.

The same can be said for every person who is completely closed minded and stubborn.
You'd rather be "put to death" than admit that you might be wrong.

You expect other people to change their mind, but you won't do it yourself.
You total inability to acquire new information isn't convincing anyone.

 

[viole]

You don't understand what Kurt Godel proved. Godel proved that there is an infinite number of statement whose truth value we can never know, statements that can't be proven true and can't be proven false.

Within a formal system, not in general.

But I appreciate what you are trying to say. I investigated evolution and creation, and I find both theories are about as good as the other. There are problems with both that can't be resolved at the current moment. I personally am a Creationist, but I accept natural selection and speciation from evolutionary theory as they are demonstrated. Anything that can't be demonstrated by scientific method is outside of what science can do. Much of both evolution and creation is not science, but history. So I have looked at some ancient history and found things like, the first settlers of Ireland had to exterminate teradactyls and the t rex which flies in the face of modern science. These history books are complete with drawings of what these reptiles looked like, so you can rule out dragon myths.

I think that only creationists believe both theory are as good as the other. Only when you have complete knowledge of both, you cannot be a creationist.

There is a lot of evidence for creation that most people don't know about, but like I said, there are some big problems with both theories. I believe in creationism, but I don't know for a fact how we got here.

There is zero evidence for creation, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian Schuh]

Within a formal system, not in general.



I think that only creationists believe both theory are as good as the other. Only when you have complete knowledge of both, you cannot be a creationist.



There is zero evidence for creation, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

Scientists measured the rate at which the ocean becomes salty and also how salty it currently is, and saw that the ocean cannot possibly be older than 10,000 years old.

A scientist created a rock in a laboratory and took it to an evolutionist and asked him to date how old the rock was. The evolutionist carbon tested it, and said it was so many millions of years old, not knowing it had been created a day prior.

A scientist took the time to examine the bones found of so-called prehistoric man. He found one that was alleged to be a prehistoric man but was nothing more than the skull of an ape. And many scientists have coming to believe that we have no bones of any prehistoric men.

History speaks of dinosaurs coexisting with humans. Traditionally believed to be dragon myths, historians have found sketches of what these "dragons" looked like. Surprisingly they look like dinosaurs such as the T Rex. Considering that these ancient historians would not know what a T Rex looks like, as we hadn't dug them up yet, some historians are concluding that the dragon myths point to actual animals.

A scientist filmed a canyon created by natural water pressure within minutes. Evolutionists claim these canyons were created over millions of years by erosion caused by rivers. And there is a film of one created in minutes.

I could go on and on.

 

[metis]

Carbon testing cannot be used on any object that's a million years old or older-- notr even close to that actually. Also, it was an anthropologist who discovered that Piltdown was a hoax, and new rules were put into place to make sure this could never happen again. Finally, dinosaurs died out way before humans ever set food on Earth, and we know this through various testing techniques and also the different layers these fossils are found in.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Carbon testing cannot be used on any object that's a million years old or older-- notr even close to that actually. Also, it was an anthropologist who discovered that Piltdown was a hoax, and new rules were put into place to make sure this could never happen again. Finally, dinosaurs died out way before humans ever set food on Earth, and we know this through various testing techniques and also the different layers these fossils are found in.

Ireland. The first Irish settlers had to exterminate large reptiles and flying reptiles before they could settle the island. This is history. All you evolutionists can push this as a dragon myth all you want, but you can't explain how the dragon myth is found in many parts of the world and was recorded all through history. The fossils of dinosaurs that have been found might be old. The fact is that most animals that have died don't fossilize at all. Fossilization occurs only under certain conditions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But I appreciate what you are trying to say. I investigated evolution and creation, and I find both theories are about as good as the other.

You are welcome to your opinion no matter how vapid.

There is a lot of evidence for creation that most people don't know about, but like I said, there are some big problems with both theories.

For example?

 

[Brian Schuh]

You are welcome to your opinion no matter how vapid.


For example?

Natural selection is a fact. But it has never been demonstrated that a mutation to an animal's genetic code increased its chances of survival. There has never been one reported case of a mutation creating a "better" animal. In fact, the opposite is true. For example, the mutation causing Down Syndrome, do you believe a person with Down Syndrome is more able to survive because of this condition? Every generation there are more and more mutations causing a genetic burden. Ignorant evolutionists question how Adam and Eve and the earliest people could commit incest without having defective children. The answer is so obvious, you wonder how they graduated high school. Adam and Eve had no genetic mutations. So every generation adds more mutations to the genetic burden. Now you call that evolution? So the first problem with evolution would be that it has never been empirically demonstrated. If a scientist could just show one example of a mutated animal where the mutation obviously makes the animal stronger, smarter, faster, whatever, then I would reconsider my position.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Natural selection is a fact. But it has never been demonstrated that a mutation to an animal's genetic code increased its chances of survival. There has never been one reported case of a mutation creating a "better" animal. In fact, the opposite is true. For example, the mutation causing Down Syndrome, do you believe a person with Down Syndrome is more able to survive because of this condition? Every generation there are more and more mutations causing a genetic burden. Ignorant evolutionists question how Adam and Eve and the earliest people could commit incest without having defective children. The answer is so obvious, you wonder how they graduated high school. Adam and Eve had no genetic mutations. So every generation adds more mutations to the genetic burden. Now you call that evolution? So the first problem with evolution would be that it has never been empirically demonstrated. If a scientist could just show one example of a mutated animal where the mutation obviously makes the animal stronger, smarter, faster, whatever, then I would reconsider my position.

^ utter garbage -- all while avoiding the question. How predictable.

Let's try this again:

There is a lot of evidence for creation that most people don't know about, ...

For example?​

 

[metis]

Ireland. The first Irish settlers had to exterminate large reptiles and flying reptiles before they could settle the island. This is history. All you evolutionists can push this as a dragon myth all you want, but you can't explain how the dragon myth is found in many parts of the world and was recorded all through history. The fossils of dinosaurs that have been found might be old. The fact is that most animals that have died don't fossilize at all. Fossilization occurs only under certain conditions.

Could you please provide a link to this supposed Ireland situation? You might also provide a link to the "dragons" which you refer to.

BTW, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught about how "evilution" was anti-Bible, did the studying over years and found that I was simply not being told the truth. I left that church for one that wasn't anti-science and didn't teach such nonsensical "theology", and then went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology whereas I taught it for roughly 30 years.

No religious institution that teaches falsehood can be valid, so let me recommend that you find a church that actually teaches the truth.

 

[Brian Schuh]

^ utter garbage -- all while avoiding the question. How predictable.

Let's try this again:

For example?​

After demonstrating a serious problem with evolution, you call it utter garbage? Some facts supporting creationism are a few posts up on this link. The problem here is that people are trained to believe that anyone who doubts evolutionary theory must be uneducated or unintelligent, so people become afraid to question it for fear of being considered ignorant or stupid.

Remember that when a priest performed last rites for Charles Darwin, in Darwin's final confession he said he made it all up. If you want to read a good book showing a bunch of evidence for creation, just read "Not by Accident." You can even buy it from off the internet. If I as a creationist can take the time to read your utter garbage like "The Origin of Species" than why can't you take the time to read a book by a scientist who also believes in creationism?

Most creationists take the time to learn evolutionary theory, but evolutionists don't bother with learning creationism. In fact it is so ignored, that many people are ignorant that the evidence is there, and you are one of them.

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance like contempt prior to investigation." And that is what you are doing, you are showing contempt for something you know nothing about.

 

[Sapiens]

Scientists measured the rate at which the ocean becomes salty and also how salty it currently is, and saw that the ocean cannot possibly be older than 10,000 years old.

As an oceanographer let me assure you that you are quite wrong. This old, crusty and well-falsified piece of creationist clap trap continues to raise it's mouldy head and serves as an object lesson in how gullible, illogical and science-ignorant creationists are.

Claim CD221.1:
Known processes to remove sodium from the oceans account for only 27 percent of the sodium that is added. Given the accumulation of sodium this implies, the oceans could not be more than 62 million years old.
Source:
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, 1990. The sea's missing salt: A dilemma for evolutionists. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, 2: 17-33. http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html
Response:

1. Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.
   
   A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.

References:

1. Morton, Glenn R., 1996. Salt in the sea. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

Further Reading:
Burton, J. D. and D. Wright, 1981. Sea water and its evolution. In: The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. Cocks. London: British Museum, 89-101.

A scientist created a rock in a laboratory and took it to an evolutionist and asked him to date how old the rock was. The evolutionist carbon tested it, and said it was so many millions of years old, not knowing it had been created a day prior.

How does one "create" a rock in the laboratory? I'd need to know more about this, but I suspect that the "testing" revealed the age of the material the rock creator used.

A scientist took the time to examine the bones found of so-called prehistoric man. He found one that was alleged to be a prehistoric man but was nothing more than the skull of an ape. And many scientists have coming to believe that we have no bones of any prehistoric men.

This is an idiotic claim, there is no groundswell toward this denier view of human ancestry, quite the opposite. In any case, it is quite impossible to translate such a vacuous claim "a scientist" (who?), "so-called prehistoric man" (Homo erectus?), "skull of an ape" (all humans are, in fact apes), etc.

History speaks of dinosaurs coexisting with humans. Traditionally believed to be dragon myths, historians have found sketches of what these "dragons" looked like. Surprisingly they look like dinosaurs such as the T Rex. Considering that these ancient historians would not know what a T Rex looks like, as we hadn't dug them up yet, some historians are concluding that the dragon myths point to actual animals.

II hate to even respond to such claims. First of all, no one would confuse a Tyrannosaur and a dragon. Dragons are not represented with stubby reduced forelimbs, though they often represented as breathing fire and having wings 9making them six-limbed (and the impossibility of dragon flight is another issue), attributes that Tyrannosaurs lacked. If you need a for dragon legends, try this: The record marine crocodile was 30 feet long, 13.5 feet in girth and stood the height of a draft horse at the shoulder. This animal was collected in the Bay of Bengal in 1851 and the skeleton is in the British Museum.

A scientist filmed a canyon created by natural water pressure within minutes. Evolutionists claim these canyons were created over millions of years by erosion caused by rivers. And there is a film of one created in minutes.

Again, a bizarre, ill-defined and undocumented claim. Who is the "scientist," where is the film, does it show what Brian purports that it does.

I could go on and on.

Please do, only in the future please use names, places, citations, links, etc. , so that your claims can be properly laid to rest.

After demonstrating a serious problem with evolution, you call it utter garbage?

Yes, you have done no such thing, complete and utter garbage.

Some facts supporting creationism are a few posts up on this link.

Where? I fail to find them.

The problem here is that people are trained to believe that anyone who doubts evolutionary theory must be uneducated or unintelligent, so people become afraid to question it for fear of being considered ignorant or stupid.

You have demonstrated (if just in your salinity of the oceans claim that you are ignorant of basic science and logic.

Remember that when a priest performed last rites for Charles Darwin, in Darwin's final confession he said he made it all up.

That is false.

The story has circulated for decades that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. The story was invented a "Lady Hope," and relates how she visited him near the end and received his testimony. Lady Hope was a real person, the wife of Lord Hope. She was a rabid Christian and friend of Darwin's wife. Many have researched the story, and all have concluded it is a lie.

Darwin's son Francis directly accused Lady Hope of lying: "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply." Henrietta, Darwin's daughter, also called the story a lie: "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief.

If you want to read a good book showing a bunch of evidence for creation, just read "Not by Accident." You can even buy it from off the internet. If I as a creationist can take the time to read your utter garbage like "The Origin of Species" than why can't you take the time to read a book by a scientist who also believes in creationism?

You need to provide a link, the only book with that title that I find is something else entirely.

Most creationists take the time to learn evolutionary theory, but evolutionists don't bother with learning creationism. In fact it is so ignored, that many people are ignorant that the evidence is there, and you are one of them.

There is not evidence, that is the point. Thread after thread after thread and no evidence what-so-ever that has not already been falsified (am I rubbing salt into you wounds? Sort.).

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance like contempt prior to investigation." And that is what you are doing, you are showing contempt for something you know nothing about.

Interesting, a quote that google only references to you, and a false one at that. My contempt comes not from the ease with which your view are falsified. My contempt comes from how badly afflicted with "Black Knight Syndrome" you are. You need to man up with respect to the falsifications of the baseless claims that you swallow off the internet and stop yelling, "but it's only a flesh-wound!"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

After demonstrating a serious problem with evolution, you call it utter garbage? Some facts supporting creationism are a few posts up on this link. The problem here is that people are trained to believe that anyone who doubts evolutionary theory must be uneducated or unintelligent, so people become afraid to question it for fear of being considered ignorant or stupid.

Remember that when a priest performed last rites for Charles Darwin, in Darwin's final confession he said he made it all up. If you want to read a good book showing a bunch of evidence for creation, just read "Not by Accident." You can even buy it from off the internet. If I as a creationist can take the time to read your utter garbage like "The Origin of Species" than why can't you take the time to read a book by a scientist who also believes in creationism?

Most creationists take the time to learn evolutionary theory, but evolutionists don't bother with learning creationism. In fact it is so ignored, that many people are ignorant that the evidence is there, and you are one of them.

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance like contempt prior to investigation." And that is what you are doing, you are showing contempt for something you know nothing about.

Still spewing nonsense while avoiding the question ...