There are two different versions of the story.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
On Evolution & Creation
- Thread starter READY S W
- Start date
That you don’t understand what constitutes acceptable evidence is why your thinking and beliefs are incorrect.
Do you have any idea about evidence that is admissible in court? If so that will guide your judgment vastly better than the unreliable faith you’re using.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am certainly not saying that.
Audie
Veteran Member
Which being able to tell one from two is like such
a totally fundamental skill, those therein lacking shall dwell-
as we’ve seen- in confusion .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Since it is a science based topic then scientific evidence would be the best.
To have scientific evidence the first thing that you need is a scientific hypothesis.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Something reproducible and verifiable by others not requiring prior belief in the outcome.
icant
Member
I have told everyone here what Evidence I would require to even consider the BBT and Evolution and none has been provided yet.
I will repeat:
# 1 The BBT to be true has to have a beginning to exist. Hawking said the universe has not always existed.
Either the universe has always eternally existed in the past and will always exist in the future in some form, or it had a beginning to exist.
If it had a beginning to exist as the BBT says Something had to exist 1 billionth of a second after T=0 that had to come from somewhere and it had to have enough energy and mass packed into something the size of a pin point to produce all the mass in the universe we live in.
My question is where did that little thingamabob come from and where did it get all that energy from?
# 2 Origin of life on earth.
My question is How did life start when there was no life of any kind on earth
The only answer I have ever gotten from a real scientist is "we don't know" then he/she will add "yet". Which I will accept, as there is no observational or experimental way of obtaining that information.
If you got an answer I would like to hear it.
I am going to make some assumptions here.
You don't believe God exists.
You believe the Bible is a bunch of myths.
There is nothing I can say or do that would make you change your mind.
You believe what you have been taught.
So I am not going to argue with you. But I will see if I can make a case for God existing.
I have a Book called the Bible that most folks even those who profess to be christians don't believe in or practice. There are a few Christians that still believe what is says and practices what it says. You notice a difference in the two words 'Christians' That is because not all who profess are God's Children.
I don't claim to be a Christian because that means I am living a life like Christ did. I am just a sinner saved by God's grace which I really don't deserve but I am His child because I have been born again washed in the Bood that was shed on Calvary's Tree so my sins could be forgiven and I have accepted His full free pardon. I can't earn it, buy it, I can only possess it by believing He will do what He says He will do.
BTW I like the quote of Edward Abbey and I agree that if that was my destiny it would be even more than I deserved. So I thank my God for His Grace which is unmerited favor.
I went to Bible College, and I have a Bible Language Diploma as I majored in Hebrew and Greek as I wanted to be able to study the original language and you can see what Moses wrote with in my Avatar.
I think I am in a very small minority of believers that believe the Bible like I do.
I Believe Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement of fact.
"In the beginning created God the heaven and the earth.
I don't know when the beginning was so I just say: "I believe that the universe and earth and all the things we can see and can not see has existed for eternity past in some form just not in the form we see it today."
The earth was ready to be inhabited. Not as it is found in Genesis 1:2. Isaiah and Jeremiah both tell us God did not create it vain and uninhabitable.
The History of the day God created the heavens, and the earth is found in Genesis 2:4.
Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD".
The Hebrew word translated generation could have and should have been history, which is the same as generations except history would be talking about events that transpired while generations is dealing with mankind.
Genesis 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
There was no life forms on earth yet of any kind.
Genesis 2:6 tells us a mist watered the face of the Ground.
Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
First life form on earth mankind.
Genesis 2:8 "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".
Now we got plant life and the man in the garden.
I don't know why verses 10-14 was placed here before verses15-17 which would continued the narrative of the man.
But this little bit of information about the irrigation system was placed there at some point in time.
Genesis2:15"
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Now man was given a job to do
16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:"
17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The original says die you will surely die, that means he had to die in the same light period because God called the light period, DAY in Genesis 1:5. The darkness He had created that is found at Genesis 1:2 He called night.
Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
20 "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."
Genesis 2:22 "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
God took a bone from the man's side in verse 21 and brought the cloned female to the man and he called her woman. And since then neither God or man has rested. Pun intended.
Now we have animals and fowls formed from the ground This compares with what science says about the origin of life on the planet earth except for man being first. But they all came from the ground. Did you notice no fish were mentioned.
I can't tell you how small that man was or how big he was or what he looked like as the Bible does not say.
It doesn't say how long he lived or when in duration he died but he did die in that same light period as no one existed on earth or lifeform in the ocean at Genesis 1:2.
How long was the period of darkness on the earth, I don't know as the Bible does not say.
How much time existed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, just one light period in the entire universe.
What was the temperature in that eternal light period with no darkness, I don't know the Bible don't say but I would think it was a lot hotter that it is now on earth.
In Genesis chapter three we have the story of how the devil tricked the woman into eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and they were kicked out of the garden.
In Genesis 3: " For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." The devil lied, her eyes were not opened to know good and evil, she still only knew good.
Genesis 3:6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband
The two words that have the strike through are not in the Hebrew text they were simply added by the translators.
Genesis 3:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
After the man ate of the fruit breaking the commandment he was given their eyes were opened . That is the reason I say the woman was not given the commandment not to eat the fruit. The man knew she would die and he was going to be alone with all those animals by himself so he gave up everything for the woman and ate to be able to die with her.
In Genesis 4:1-24 gives us the history of the man formed from the dust of the ground and his and the womans children, at least 7 generations of people, how long did they live, we don't know as the Bible does not say.
So all these things took place in a single light period of existence with no way to measure the durations length.
There are two more specific creation events modern mankind and fish.
In my next post I will start at Genesis 1:2 and go through many of the objections I have seen over the years to the creation story of the Bible. They will all disappear.
The post after that one I will submit evidence to support my position of creation the Biblical way.
Until then Enjoy,
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am only going to answer this one small part of this mountain of wrong. Yes, the universe had a beginning. But it is also eternal. That is because most models have time beginning with the universe. If that is the case there cannot be any "before the Big Bang. They universe has existed for all time.
By the way, none of this nonsense of your is evidence.
Once again you first need a scientific hypothesis to have scientific evidence. And you do not even know what a hypothesis is, much less have one.
Is there a reason why we should care about your non-expert requirements? What experts in science conclude does not go through you. You do realize that we only engage with you for entertainment purposes, yes?
icant
Member
You know we will never know the facts of creation whether God did it or it just happened.
That goes for the creation of the universe and the creation of life.
In my post #1,747 I started a discussion at Genesis 1:1 about creation I hope in the 2nd and third post I can shed a little light on the subject of creation as I see it.
I have to believe my story by FAITH and so do you have to believe your story by faith as neither of us can say how it took place as we were not there. Only the angels and God was there.
This is my last post until I Finish Biblical Creation.
Enjoy,
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Something reproducible and verifiable by others not requiring prior belief in the outcome.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is a question that probably sinks your beliefs:
Is God a liar?
And please do not make false claims about others. We have evidence. You don't. We do not need nor want faith You not only appear to not understand the concept of evidence, so far you have been afraid to learn.
Since none of the thousands of Gods in human lore are known to exist, they really aren't relevant. So we ignore Gods and religious lore when looking for answers about how things are.
Since both can be explained via evidence as natural phenomenin there's no need to assume any God and magic.
The Bible is irrelevant as a basis to explain how anything is in reality.
That is the liability of religious belief, it's unrelaible and appeals to emotions. It doesn't explain anything factually.
Esteban X
Active Member
Credible evidence, just show us your best evidence. If we describe exactly it could easily be faked
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So is it your belief that unless you were personally present to witness an event, it is impossible to tell it happened or how it happened?
If yes, then in your world no murder could ever be solved if there was nobody to witness it.
Off course, over here in the real world, there is no issue with being able to unravel when how and why events occurred.
The reason is rather simple: events of the past leave evidence which can be studied in the present.
To give you a simple example... just by looking at the evidence left in the present, we can tell that a fire raged here:
We can tell this car was in an accident (as opposed to be created looking like that):
A space rock hit the earth here:
Etc
And using all kinds of techniques, measurements, forensics and knowledge of chemical, geological etc processes... we can further determine how these events unfolded, where and how fires started, how fast and in which direction the cars in crashes were driving, how long ago rocks impacted the earth creating craters, etc etc etc etc
Because, again: events of the past leave evidence that can be studied in the present.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Hooded_Crow
Taking flight
All of this is from a single source written over 3,000 years ago by people with no knowledge of genetics, paleontology or biochemistry.
Given that modern science has corroborating evidence for evolution from multiple sources and disciplines, can you see that what you regard as evidence is weak and insubstantial by comparison?
Scientific evidence is based on facts gleaned through observation or testing. The results will be the same regardless of religious belief, colour or creed.
Your evidence appears to be based on a belief system that you adhere to, but what makes it any more credible than the other creation stories that humans have told themselves over the millennia?
16 Incredible Ancient Creation Stories from Around the World - History Collection
To be regarded as evidence, what you present should be testable, verifiable, reproducible and dispassionate. Does it meet any of these criteria?
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No. I do not believe in the entire theory of evolution as it stands. And certainly not the way evolutionists define it. But, because I believe that species can change beak sizes and colors and lung capacity can change due to climate or pressure does not mean I accept the theory as it stands. It means I believe species can change certain aspects by virtue of mating, but yes my friend -- humans remain humans and finches are still classified as finches. Life is a very interesting excursion. And I look forward to learning much, much more about life and living.
Thank you, and have a great day.
Hooded_Crow
Taking flight
You seem to be hung up on speciation, which is only a part of the evolutionary process. Am I right in thinking that you accept isolation, mutation, natural selection and adaptation?No. I do not believe in the entire theory of evolution as it stands. And certainly not the way evolutionists define it. But, because I believe that species can change beak sizes and colors and lung capacity can change due to climate or pressure does not mean I accept the theory as it stands. It means I believe species can change certain aspects by virtue of mating, but yes my friend -- humans remain humans and finches are still classified as finches. Life is a very interesting excursion. And I look forward to learning much, much more about life and living.
If so, is it just your religious belief that is preventing your acceptance of speciation?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I was listening to part of a speech by Robert Kennedy Jr. about how American children are becoming sicker. If Trump wins, due to Kennedy's help, Kennedy will oversee children's health issues; MAHA or Make America Healthy Again. He would have some political leverage to help liaison and legislate change.
His thesis is that American children were healthier 50 years ago and have declined over time. Today it has gotten serious. When I was young, I never even knew anyone allergic to peanut butter. It was not a plague, then. Now many school will not allow it due to to possible allergic reactions. Kennedy tends to blame it on additives to food. But looking back, they had pesticides back then, most of which are outlawed today. It is hard to find DDT anymore. Pesticides were far worse. While the food supply did not have all the health warnings, expiration dating, or ingredient lists like today to help EPA and other Agencies screen for potential harmful ingredients. All should be better, so why are children getting more diabetes, autism, ADHD, etc. One possible additive that has increased is medicine; drugs. There were far fewer prescribed and over the counter medicines back then.
The question is why are children getting sicker? When I was young there was leaded gasoline, which when burnt put lead in the air. We do not have that today, yet the children back then were still healthier in terms of basic health. Does dice and cards medicine; statistical, lead to medicines with dice and card side effects, which then do accumulative harm? Medicine is an additive, prescribed to people, like food additives. The food additives have gotten better, while medicines are more prescribed and are much more diverse. Like the statistical models, medicine have risk and uncertainties. Is this a self fulfilling prophesy due to the statistical method and approach?
Statistics is a tool and not a truth of reality. Black boxes are imaginary visualization; become empty headed and let the tool work. Tools often leave their imprint on the fabricated materials. Would a rational theory have less side effects than a statistical theory?
I like the concept of evolution, but I do not buy the dice, cards and lottery approach to evolution, I believe that tool creates intellectual side effects, like those that appear with medicines. Both evolution and medicine are derived from that same approach. That intellectual medicine tastes funny to me. We may need MASA or Make America Smart Again, but going more rational with fewer side effects.
From a business model POV, statistical modeling by adding wild cards, could be good for business, by increasing the supply of sick people over time. If we had medicines with no side effect; rational medicine, the medical industry would cure and never see the person again. That is would be bad for business and future business growth. Medicine should be designed to promote health and not to just make money.
Say a company built a car and the first year there are a few bugs; recalls. The second year you expect fewer bugs not more. How would you explain it, if each year the same model had more and more time in the garage. It could be due to a less than rational work force that tries to black box it, fixing one thing, but getting new side effects. This even appears in the creation and evolution discussions; hard to explain bottlenecks, that need educational contortions; black box shuffle, that cannot bridge common sense.
His thesis is that American children were healthier 50 years ago and have declined over time. Today it has gotten serious. When I was young, I never even knew anyone allergic to peanut butter. It was not a plague, then. Now many school will not allow it due to to possible allergic reactions. Kennedy tends to blame it on additives to food. But looking back, they had pesticides back then, most of which are outlawed today. It is hard to find DDT anymore. Pesticides were far worse. While the food supply did not have all the health warnings, expiration dating, or ingredient lists like today to help EPA and other Agencies screen for potential harmful ingredients. All should be better, so why are children getting more diabetes, autism, ADHD, etc. One possible additive that has increased is medicine; drugs. There were far fewer prescribed and over the counter medicines back then.
The question is why are children getting sicker? When I was young there was leaded gasoline, which when burnt put lead in the air. We do not have that today, yet the children back then were still healthier in terms of basic health. Does dice and cards medicine; statistical, lead to medicines with dice and card side effects, which then do accumulative harm? Medicine is an additive, prescribed to people, like food additives. The food additives have gotten better, while medicines are more prescribed and are much more diverse. Like the statistical models, medicine have risk and uncertainties. Is this a self fulfilling prophesy due to the statistical method and approach?
Statistics is a tool and not a truth of reality. Black boxes are imaginary visualization; become empty headed and let the tool work. Tools often leave their imprint on the fabricated materials. Would a rational theory have less side effects than a statistical theory?
I like the concept of evolution, but I do not buy the dice, cards and lottery approach to evolution, I believe that tool creates intellectual side effects, like those that appear with medicines. Both evolution and medicine are derived from that same approach. That intellectual medicine tastes funny to me. We may need MASA or Make America Smart Again, but going more rational with fewer side effects.
From a business model POV, statistical modeling by adding wild cards, could be good for business, by increasing the supply of sick people over time. If we had medicines with no side effect; rational medicine, the medical industry would cure and never see the person again. That is would be bad for business and future business growth. Medicine should be designed to promote health and not to just make money.
Say a company built a car and the first year there are a few bugs; recalls. The second year you expect fewer bugs not more. How would you explain it, if each year the same model had more and more time in the garage. It could be due to a less than rational work force that tries to black box it, fixing one thing, but getting new side effects. This even appears in the creation and evolution discussions; hard to explain bottlenecks, that need educational contortions; black box shuffle, that cannot bridge common sense.