The Creation Debate: What have you read?

**crossroad** · 06-20-2006, 06:13

Read/studied the Bible, have never read The Origin of Species. But you can't live in America without gaining a fair knowledge about evolution - school, Media, the Discovery Channel - evolution is pervasive.

As the creator of the Creation vs. Evolutions thread, I think I'm glad it was locked. Strange now to say, but I really never intended to get so wrapped up in that debate. Sure I was curious to see how people would react, but I never thought that my comment about the Big Bang would cause me to spend the rest of the thread defending Creation, the Bible, and a number of other issues that have nothing to do with science.

Oh well, had fun, hope those that were involved in the "controversy" that shut down the thread are ok, and hope the friendly debaters keep on posting.

Zain, thanks for the help. I pitty those who are your age who dare to debate against you!

**Tribesman** · 06-20-2006, 08:32

I have read several versions of the Bible in their entirety , plus numerous texts that are no longer in the Bible , as well as texts from other religeons The reason I do not support creationism as it is put forward ...ie
AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

is that the Bible is not a reliable eye witness account and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on because it is contradictory , heavily altered and mis translated many times over .

**Cronos Impera** · 06-20-2006, 11:18

I've read the Bible and it seems to me like a hybrid between the Mesopotamian mythology ( Enki, Gilgamesh,etc......),christian propaganda and hypocricy.For reference check ( the Ten Commandments/ Deuteronom 13:6,7,8,9,10). It is nothing than a well-built monotheistic fantasy novel, with a few historical figures ( Ramses the Great, Nero) but also a couple of turns from the real events.
The Origin of Species however it's a more practical work, focusing on the natural world as something special, not as gifts for the human race.
The Bible is wrong because it encourages sacrifices ( lambs) and views the natural world as an accesory for humanity. The Origin of Species however makes us respect the natural world and the marvel of evolution which increases enviromental awareness.

**crossroad** · 06-21-2006, 00:34

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I have read several versions of the Bible in their entirety , plus numerous texts that are no longer in the Bible , as well as texts from other religeons The reason I do not support creationism as it is put forward ...ie
AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

is that the Bible is not a reliable eye witness account and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on because it is contradictory , heavily altered and mis translated many times over .

I have read several versions of evolution in their entirety , plus numerous texts that are no longer in the theory, as well as texts from other religeons The reason I do not support evolution as it is put forward ...ie
Some scientists teach that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. Origin of the Species—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms evolution through natural selection.

is that the Origin of the Species is not a reliable eye witness account and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on because the theory is contradictory , heavily altered and mis translated many times over

..........I know, I know, don't go pointing out the discrepancies. Just pointing out that the theory of evolution has changed "many times over"..........

If you are still aiming to reply, notice it is an exact copy of the quote.... now do you get it?

**Tribesman** · 06-21-2006, 00:54

If you are still aiming to reply, notice it is an exact copy of the quote.... now do you get it?
Right , find any evolutionist text that claims it is an eye witness account , like the quote I took from one of your favourite sites .
Then you might tell me how the bible could possibly , especially regarding creation , be even vaugely described as an eye witness account .
Also since darwins work , and that of many other scientists is available in their own handwriting in archives then how could it be mis-translated ?

A very poor attempt young person .

Creation, the Bible, and a number of other issues that have nothing to do with science.

Therein lies the problem , creationists who wish to push their point of view, especially in education , cannot see that distinction , as is suitably demonstrated in the sites you linked to and whose "information" you repeated in the closed topic .

**crossroad** · 06-21-2006, 02:04

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If you are still aiming to reply, notice it is an exact copy of the quote.... now do you get it?
Right , find any evolutionist text that claims it is an eye witness account , like the quote I took from one of your favourite sites .
Then you might tell me how the bible could possibly , especially regarding creation , be even vaugely described as an eye witness account .
Also since darwins work , and that of many other scientists is available in their own handwriting in archives then how could it be mis-translated ?

I knew someone would miss the point.

My post said nothing about the Bible--WAIT!!! Are you reading my mind?

.....

**Banquo's Ghost** · 06-21-2006, 06:58

OK, I knew this would finally fall off the wall.

Thanks everyone for your answers to the poll. It's very interesting to me to have an overview of what texts people have been exposed to. Darwin has been read much less than I expected, and Dawkins hasn't been mentioned at all.

Fascinating. Thanks again.

**Tribesman** · 06-21-2006, 18:01

My post said nothing about the Bible--
Oh I see , then what exactly are you basing your position upon ?
I know you don't know Judean/Christian scripture very well as you and your friend have amply demonstrated , so are you basing it on South American , Middle Eastern , Far Eastern ,Australian , European folk tales ?
Now that would be strange , since the sources that you get your information from , while deciding to take information from global folk tales to support their position , then go on to destroy the credibility of those folk tales , because of course , they ain't Christian .

Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .

Sorry Banquo , butfaris sin(above) what can you say to leanbai in the fasachtalking fastaimwhile struggling through the fasra that they cannot fea yet try tofeac.

ni fheadar , an bhfeadrais ?
Amaideach

**Papewaio** · 06-21-2006, 01:06

Originally Posted by crossroad

..........I know, I know, don't go pointing out the discrepancies. Just pointing out that the theory of evolution has changed "many times over"..........

Science theories change, if they could not change they would not be scientific theories. The most interesting areas to be in science are at these cutting edges of change. Science theories you could say conform very well to the idea of a replicator that has copying errors.

Essentially by definition science theories have to be able to change, it they were absolutes then they would not be science theories.