Creation vs Evolution

[crossroad]

The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one
Don'tya jusrt love confronting some feckwit who claims shite from the bible , yet who has probably not read or understoodfeical from the bible .
So come on crossroads , you want to talk biblical shite ,lets get real old testament , as in answering genesis and book of Genesis , throw in book of Enoch and any other faith based thoughts you might have, been through it all before and it don't amount to a pile of beans .

Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ? or are we talking King Panzer vs Type XXII

Ahh, there is no book of Enoch.

[crossroad]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature.
Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , crossroads understands evolution

Yes, that is why I am a creationist.

[crossroad]

crossroad, take the Leprechaun Test:

Do Leprechauns exist? (how did you know?)

Does God exist? (how did you know?)

What's the difference between God and Leprechauns? :)

So, if I can't see God, or touch God, or hear God, does that mean He does not exist?

Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?

BTW, I think Leprechauns went extinct.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?

Unless you use a CT scan of course...or crack his skull open.

If you were being serious, that was an absolutely dreadful analogy.

[Tribesman]

Ahh, there is no book of Enoch
Typical , someone who claims to follow scriptures teachings but doesn't know scripture . tyical creationist
You really are stuck at a crossroads aren't you crossroads .

Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ?
Hmmmmm....is the reply the sound of silence from someone who is pushing scripture but doesn't know scripture ?????
Hey Bubba , its your topic , you bought it up , just like it is bought up every couple of weeks .
So have you any idea what you are on about , or is it just links to numerous sites that have already been shown to be bullshit ?

[InsaneApache]

Genesis 5:18-24 [18] Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. [19] After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. [20] So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died. [21] Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. [22] After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. [23] So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. [24] And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

Bloody hell, So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, some health system they had in the early bronze age. That's it, I'm gonna sign up to this.

If I lived that long I'd bankrupt uncle Tonys utopia. Now there's a reason to lose my rationale.

[Papewaio]

Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You do realise that using that definition so broadly to imply that evolution is a religion... it would also mean that every 15 year old boy is a zealot of masturbation and that the worlds largest institution of worship would be the surfing of porn...

[Papewaio]

The two basic thoughts here are, either, everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. (I know some are going to go crazy with that one) But, if you narrow it down, that is what you have. It is cause and effect at the core, as evolution is built on, but evolution does not have a cause for its origin. But the Big Bang is the cause, right? No, the Big Bang is the effect of something. I choose to believe that everything came from Something.

Evolution is a theory in Biology.

The Big Bang is a snappy name made for media to descride the starting few seconds of our universe... it is part of a theory in Cosmology (Physics).

Gravity is a theory in Physics.

They are all separate theories.

Gravity has a cause for it: Classical version is the mass of objects attract each other. Relativity basically explains it as a warping of space... much like putting a bowling ball onto a trampoline will warp it, if you then place a tennis ball on the trampoline it will follow the warped fabric down to the bowling ball, if you gave the tennis ball a push it could circle the bowling ball... each circle would be an orbit.

Evolution: Is caused by things reproducing imperfectly. Overtime these errors will either kill the mutant (more likely) or give it a subtle advantage. No where in the theory of evolution is the Big Bang the cause of it. Evolution will work regardless of how the universe was started, if it has lasted for infinity or it had different laws of gravity.

In fact evolution may be the only theory that would consistently work across multiverses that have different laws of physics (it may be the only Meta-law so to speak).

Evolution and Gravity are separate theories, just as the Big Bang is too.

If everything came from something you have two sets of problems to solve... where did the something come from,
Quantum Physics:
random nature therefore untraceable cause and effect,
singularities
vacuum created particles (how we see black holes for instance).

[Tribesman]

But I don't understand , which is better Igloo or Tapir?

[Quietus]

So, if I can't see God, or touch God, or hear God, does that mean He does not exist?

If you have no proof, how can you say/claim God exists?

Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?

I have 100% proof that my brain exists and yet you're skeptical. You have 0% proof of God and you're not skeptical!

BTW, I think Leprechauns went extinct.

Really? Then you must have a lot of proof (such as, oh let's say, Leprechaun fossils).


Lastly check this out: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleA...awkingpope.php

"Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By MIN LEE Associated Press Writer
2006-06-15

HONG KONG (AP) - Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.

The British author _ who wrote the best-seller "A Brief History of Time" _ said that the pope made the comments at a cosmology conference at the Vatican.

Hawking, who didn't say when the meeting was held, quoted the pope as saying, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not enquire into the beginning itelf because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."

The scientist then joked during a lecture in Hong Kong, "I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo."

The church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

But in 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying that the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

Hawking is one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe. He proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end.

His hourlong lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was highly theoretical and technical. During the question-and-answer session, Hawking was asked where constants like gravity come from and whether gravity can distort light.

But there were several light, humorous moments.

Hawking _ who must communicate with an electronic speech synthesizer _ said he once considered using a machine that gave him a French accent but he couldn't use it because his wife would divorce him.

The astrophysicist is wheelchair-bound and uses an electronic voice because he has the neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

Hawking was asked why his computerized voice has an American accent.

"The voice I use is a very old hardware speech synthesizer made in 1986," he said. "I keep it because I have not heard a voice I like better and because I have identified with it."

But Hawking said he's shopping for a new system because the hardware he uses is large and fragile. He also said it uses components that are no longer made.

"I have been trying to get a software version, but it seems very difficult," he said.

He urged people with physical disabilities not to give up on their ambitions.

"You can't afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically," he said. "People won't have time for you."

The moderator at the lecture told the audience that at a recent dinner, she asked Hawking what his ambitions were. He said he wanted to know how the universe began, what happens inside black holes and how can humans survive the next 100 years, she said.

But she added he had one more great ambition: "I would also like to understand women."

Hawking ended his lecture saying, "We are getting closer to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?"

Sounds like the late Pope was afraid what Hawking will discover.

[Quietus]

Leprechauns have red beards and green clothes, whilst God has a white beard and white clothes. They have a lot in common though, I mean for a start, they're both Irish...

And Santa has white beard and red/white clothes (they are all related).

[crossroad]

Unless you use a CT scan of course...or crack his skull open.

If you were being serious, that was an absolutely dreadful analogy.

I know, I couldn't help but use it. Sorry Quietus.

[crossroad]

Ahh, there is no book of Enoch
Typical , someone who claims to follow scriptures teachings but doesn't know scripture . tyical creationist
You really are stuck at a crossroads aren't you crossroads

There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.

Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ?
Hmmmmm....is the reply the sound of silence from someone who is pushing scripture but doesn't know scripture ?????
Hey Bubba , its your topic , you bought it up , just like it is bought up every couple of weeks .
So have you any idea what you are on about , or is it just links to numerous sites that have already been shown to be bullshit ?

The silence comes as a result of loaded questions. If you knew anything about being a Christian, you would know the answers you are seeking.

[Divinus Arma]

Well, I am entering this thread quite late. And since I am doing so, I will not read anybody elses comments before I share my own opinion first.

I cannot see how the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Evidence supports evolution more than creationism. That much is pure and simple science. So let's start from the acceptance of creationism/adaptation and assume it as fact.

Now consider this: Long before Darwin and evolution was the bible, which states that adam and eve were created from dust. They ate the apple and became aware of the difference between good and evil.

Does this not fully embrace evolution? First, Adam in the original hebrew Torah (the REAL bible), means mankind. Not a guy named Adam. Secondly: Formed from dust. I doubt the ancients would differentiate between dust and single celled organisms.

As a final point: The "apple" represents the crucial moment in human history when we became aware of good and evil and truly seprated from our animal roots. It was at that moment that the Lord empowered Humans to freely choose to do good or evil. One cannot engage in evil if one is not aware that it is evil (the basis for insanity pleas in court, btw). My point is this: That event, be it an apple or otherwise, should be CELBRATED! We should not be ashamed of the moment that God made us free-willed beings, capable of doing his works by our choice.

Thus the two are not mutually exclusive, but supportive.

Finally, let us make an inclusion from a second and third existential perspectives. Budhism teaches that everything is impermanent and that all matter will return to its original form. In Hindusim, the highest relationship between humanity and divinity is unity with Brahman, the one God. These perspectives meld with Christianity and science where the body returns to the earth and the soul returns to God.


Lest we forget my friends: Solidity is an illusion. It does not exist as we perceive it. Neither does the relationship between time/distance, since that is merely a perspective of interacting energy.

Eclectism answers all.

[crossroad]

Bloody hell, So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, some health system they had in the early bronze age. That's it, I'm gonna sign up to this.

If I lived that long I'd bankrupt uncle Tonys utopia. Now there's a reason to lose my rationale.

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0/i4/years.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...n=view&page=54

[Ser Clegane]

He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

Actually you are already "putting Him in a box" by saying that he certainly didn't use "macro-evolution".
Interestingly you dismiss evolution (for which you say no evidence exists) but apparently accept any other way of "creation" that God might have chosen, although you have not evidence for that either.

The improbiblity of a human eye evolving...

So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

[Avicenna]

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0/i4/years.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...n=view&page=54

So why on earth would Mister Noah live for quite a bit longer than any of us live.. after the flood? Also, UV radiation causes skin cancer. Not every old person dies from skin cancer, or, as you imply from the claim of abundant oxygen and carbon dioxide, from suffocation or cold. The cells begin to stop dividing after a certain point, and the human gets older and eventually stops functioning and so dies.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

Very true. Creationist also tend to be biblical fundamentalists so see evolution as a threat to scripture. They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [B]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

[Divinus Arma]

So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...

Exactly. Crap-appears-out-of-nothing method. Like a damn magician. I think science and evolutiuon would be MORE bad ass for the Lord! Any second rate God can pull a rabbit out his hat. This one happens to take a billion years and 40 versions to do it! lolol! (What would we do without proof of the saber tooth jackrabbit?)

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

ya.what he said. cause the earth was born yesterday from a divine fart.

[crossroad]

I point you towards the Vostok or EPICA ice cores which can be dated to 420,000 and 720,000 years respectively. These cores are many km long, having been drilled vertically downward into the ice caps. When the cores are examined, the snowfall of each year can be chemically and otherwise examined, and then by adding up the number of anual layers, we get the age of the oldest layer. How do you explain this? Snow that fell 620,000 years before the earth was formed?

Or, they happened in a very short period of time. Such as the sedimentary layers that were layed in one day when Mount St. Helens erupted. Approx. 400 feet of stratum was formed where evolutionists insists it takes millions of years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...6st_helens.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...=view&page=261

Also, explain sedamentary rock, the existence of fossils in general, fossil fuels which came from once living organisms, pretty much the entire area of radiometric dating (explain Pb/Pb isochron age of the earth as about 4.55 (+- 1%) billion years for instance...), the common age of the rest of the solar system, I could go on and on...

I read once that scientist in Australia have discovered a way of making sedimentary rock using natural processes. (sorry I don't have that link at the moment.)
Fossils exist because of the world wide flood.
This is an interesting article of fossil fules - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/coal.asp
Radioactive decay - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...=view&page=207
Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...n=view&page=42
I could go on and on...

[Ser Clegane]

They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [b]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

Good point - dogmatic thinking (regardless of its nature) rarely leads to enlightenment.

[naut]

There's no paradox in being a theist who believes in evolution. I'm also in that boat, and as a Christian, I find the majority of the arguments put forward by creationists downright offensive.

Why these people believe that God must operate using any mechanism they can understand is beyond me. God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. If you can't handle that, and you need to boil the Almighty down into something simple you can understand, you're missing the essence and the substance of faith.

Here Here!!!

EDIT: Also if people(creationists in particular) can't understand that genisis is an interpretation of what happened, NOT a factual account of happenings well then they are .....

[Duke of Gloucester]

"Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe"


Sounds like the late Pope was afraid what Hawking will discover.

I think that Stephen Hawking was not remembering properly. He has made this claim before:

Hawking and the Pope

This is what the Pope actually said:

Message ON EVOLUTION to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Of course, this is not nearly so good a story.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.

This kind of rampant nonsense should convince everyone arguing with crossroad to drop the bone. He is unable to understand your arguments because his personal paradigm is utterly different from yours. He lives in a world of utter certainty and mediaeval fantasy, where thought is heretical.

And in a last post (as pointless as a broken pencil) I give you the most recent transitional fossil. Not billions of examples, I'm afraid, just the one. Enjoy and dismiss as appropriate.

(Oh, and DA, nice try but the bible is a story - a bunch of myths collected in the middle east. Why on God's Green Earth do it's pretty tales have more relevance to reality than the Dreamtime of the Australian aborigines - stories that are at least 30,000 years older? Or any other myth? Why do you accept biblical pre-eminence just because it's familiar to you?)

[rory_20_uk]

And for God's sake: which Bible? The Catholic one, King James or New international? That's three.

Then if you consider who make the bible (a man) isn't there a good chance that the other books are just as holy? When the central plank of religious fevor es examined even for a moment it is clearly rotten to the core.

[InsaneApache]

And for God's sake: which Bible? The Catholic one, King James or New international? That's three.

Then if you consider who make the bible (a man) isn't there a god chance that the other books are just as holy? When the bentral plank of religious fevour es examined even for a moment it is clearly wrotten to the core.

Have a late night rory?

[Tribesman]

There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.

Oh , I see
So this book that gives you all the answers has had bits taken away from it , whodathunkit .
So your arguement for creation is based on a heavily altered , heavily edited multiply mistranslated document .

The silence comes as a result of loaded questions.
perhaps you should have remained silent

[rory_20_uk]

Either way, it's still all gold... words from above I tells ya...

[Ironside]

Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".

If 6 billion humans died tomorrow and some archeologists would find 60.000 of them in a million year it would be a fantastic find. That's 0,001% of all humans living at the time. The reason why it's plenty of fossiles isn't that the dead specimens commonly forms fossiles, but because it has lived a lot of them during a very long period. How many 500 year old skeletons of elephants exist?

I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.

The dogs evolved from wolves and a chihuahua and a grand danois can hardly mate with eachother naturally. Now in nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.
Now I've been mention human involvment in many cases, but what exactly makes it impossible for God to use the same methods (AKA divine controlled evolution) as Pape pointed out?

Science and God isn't mutually exclusive, but as long as you cannot scientifically prove the existance of God, they aren't in the same field.

Ahh, prokaryote to eukaryote. Another example of evolutionist trying to cram something into an evolution box that does not belong. The following a quick reads if you would like to know why.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...dosymbiont.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/eukaryote.asp

The interesting thing about Ignicoccus is that it's periplasm is so large that it looks like it has a nucleous, like the eucaryotes. What's making it even more interesting is that some specimen have "parasites" (non-symbiotic, but the Ignicoccus doesn't seem to be hurt by it) on the outside that cannot live except on it's host. If this develops into a symbiotic relationship, then mitocondrical structures isn't far away.
So is it transitional?

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.

You're aware that increased levels on carbondioxide and more importantly oxygen would decrease the life span? Oxygen is cancerogenic and choking kills you by carbondioxide poisoning, not oxygen shortage.
This lush world would probably make human bigger too (better abillities to sustain a larger biomass often leades to larger creatures), but that's another issue.
And the suggestion about a bottleneck of long living people creating short living people feels a bit odd.

[naut]

n nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.

Such as mules, a sterile hybrid.