Creation vs. Evolution II

Status
Not open for further replies.

alwight

New member
Nope. Science shows that the Earth is young.
Pull the other one Stripe it's got bells on.
Science is an atheistic conspiracy right?

Sure, it could. If you spent even an iota of effort understanding the claims of a flood model, you would have no trouble devising a test.
Unlike you I follow where evidence leads not an ancient scripture nor any baseless contrived "model" dreamed up.

Nobody thinks scripture is "all literally true."
Aren't we being a just little presumptuous here, there are plenty of nutters out there?
If I said that Genesis at least is supposed by you to be a totally accurate historical narrative, would you quibble?
Surely Noah's supposed flood and his Ark of two by two animals couldn't just be a nice kiddies bed time story, it's solid fact, right? :think:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Science is an atheistic conspiracy right?
No.

Trust you to not know what science is.

Unlike you I follow where evidence leads not a 150-year-old scripture nor any baseless contrived "model" dreamed up.

Aren't we being a just little presumptuous here, there are plenty of nutters out there?
If you find one, you'll probably be able to win a debate with him. Meanwhile in reality, nobody claims that the Bible is "literally all true."

Genesis is historical narrative.

Surely Noah's supposed flood and his Ark of two by two animals couldn't just be a nice kiddies bed time story, it's solid fact, right? :think:
Is this what you call a rational assessment of a flood model?
 

alwight

New member
Certainly it might look that way. For the time being, we are reading 24 hour days as part of the text. Hebrew was a primitive language in the sense that they didn't have a separate word for everything like we do. In addition, we extrapolate, mostly from genealogies, how old the earth is. It assumes we have a complete genealogy record (partly because in several cases a time-table is given). I do know that a complete ecosystem has to function for life. I am trying to make an aquarium with plants reach an equilibrium with the animals. I realized early on that things had to be planted side-by-side for the tank to work right. There was a period between planting water plants and then being able to introduce animals. It is fairly exacting work. Genesis explains an overview, but not in enough detail for me to 'go and do likewise.' Not even science, in this respect, has been perfect. The first set of animals died because the thermostat didn't work right. It boiled my fish and frogs.
Human genealogies hardly compares to the geological strata/ages nor indeed the phylogenetic tree. The creation story in Genesis is not about scientific facts it's just a story to capture the imagination.

I disagree. While other cultures included a bit of wives-tales with their version, they still recorded a global flood. There is every reason to wonder about that flood and not dismiss it at that venture. Something, I think by necessity of multiple recordings had to have happened. I personally don't think it wise to try to dismiss historical record by more than one people group. We can with certainty say that those cultures all thought there was a large deluge with memories associated.
There are many different versions regarding floods and clearly there have been many different periods of flooding. But there have also been many periods of ice ages too that have all gone unmentioned in Genesis. There is no reason to suppose that any previous cultures with flood myths had much of a concept of the entire Earth and wouldn't have known what a global flood was.


A challenge and a declaration. First, there are archeological verifications. For instance, until the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was thought that Daniel was too clear to have been prophetic and must have been back written. The scrolls proved that this 'intellectual logicking conjecture couldn't have been right. So, there are other attacks but I think history necessarily has to be proven right. Lately there is a push to deny the indentured tenure of Israelites in Egypt. Such doesn't make sense, historically because the only thing lacking is an Egyptian mention. A lack of verification could lead to skepticism, but things are always being found. Skeptics didn't believe Solomon's stables existed and insisted it was impossible until they were found. Time proves a thing that actually exists, as true and no one thing challenged has ever been found otherwise. Therefore, a lack in evidence has never meant but that such hasn't been found. Biblical archeology is viable and lucrative business, science, and art.
I don't suppose for a minute that the Bible is a complete fabrication and secular archaeologists and anthropologists may use it as a source of information and an indication of where to look. The authors of the Bible have surely used real places, but none of that means that the Bible scripture is anything but man-made.

Scientific data was addressed above. I think it can steer science well. The Genesis account gives an sustaining ecosystem. I know I need a sustainable eco-system based at least in part, as a Christian reading Genesis. Science, as I also said, has not guaranteed a viable ecosystem, but because of both science and Genesis, I know what one is supposed to look like. I finally have that system up and running. In fact, it is my love for creation that has me setting up a tank in the first place. -Lon
I won't argue about keeping fish, it requires a good practical knowledge of their life cycle. If you get it wrong it will likely fail. :)
 

dodge

New member
Welcome creationist. :)


Alwight I have a question. How could a man 2000 years ago ( the Apostle John ) make the statement that NO MAN COULD BUY OR sell unless he has the mark of the beast ? Remember when John wrote that scripture there was no electricity nor any means to keep up with the whole world.

Have you ever heard of the computer in Brussels Belgium named the beast ? That one computer can keep up with the data of every person on our planet. Now how did John know that the technology would one day be available to do such a feat if not for God telling him ?

When I was a kid there was no scanners at every store where you buy everything....The technology we have today John talked about 2000 years ago now HOW did he know or write that ?

There are many more prophecies that PROVE that God wrote the bible.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Human genealogies hardly compares to the geological strata/ages nor indeed the phylogenetic tree. The creation story in Genesis is not about scientific facts it's just a story to capture the imagination.
Needs a rephrase. I'm fairly sure it is your opinion, but opinions are just that and not much else.

There are many different versions regarding floods and clearly there have been many different periods of flooding. But there have also been many periods of ice ages too that have all gone unmentioned in Genesis. There is no reason to suppose that any previous cultures with flood myths had much of a concept of the entire Earth and wouldn't have known what a global flood was.
A scientist may not pay much attention, certainly a historian will.

I don't suppose for a minute that the Bible is a complete fabrication and secular archaeologists and anthropologists may use it as a source of information and an indication of where to look. The authors of the Bible have surely used real places, but none of that means that the Bible scripture is anything but man-made.
It certainly doesn't negate them.

I won't argue about keeping fish, it requires a good practical knowledge of their life cycle. If you get it wrong it will likely fail. :)
It was important to establish what we may rightly assume regarding a scientific need for life on the planet. Knowing how hard it is to keep an ecosystem, and the imperative need of my hand involved with their balance and survival, it is less tenable we are all here by accident without purpose and design. A simple thermometer malfunction that was designed not to fail, failed. That's with intelligence 'trying' to ensure an ecosystem is firmly established.

It is a point to ponder.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You All Should Really Take Some Time To Read This Offering:

The Big Bang Blows Atheism Sky High: Even Science May Eventually Catch Up to God’s Word

By J. Matt Barber | April 26, 2016 | 2:30 PM EDT


They say there are no atheists in the foxhole. Even fewer when death is certain. None once the final curtain falls. God’s Word declares, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘there is no God'” (Psalm 14). For three decades, until his death in 1953, Josef Stalin was the mass-murdering atheist dictator of Soviet Russia. He was also a fool. In his 1994 book, “Can Man Live Without God,” famed Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias recounts a story he heard firsthand from British Journalist Malcomb Muggeridge “that stirred [him] then and still does even yet.” Muggeridge had collaborated with Svetlana Stalin, Josef Stalin’s daughter, on a BBC documentary about her God-hating father. She recounted his last act of defiant rebellion against the Creator: “[A]s Stalin lay dying, plagued with terrifying hallucinations, he suddenly sat halfway up in bed, clenched his fist toward the heavens once more, fell back upon his pillow, and was dead.”

“[H]is one last gesture,” observed Zacharias, “was a clenched fist toward God, his heart as cold and hard as steel.”

In my experience it is something common among atheists: an inexplicable, incongruent and visceral hatred for the very God they imagine does not exist.

Indeed, Romans 1:20 notes, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Yet excuses they make.

Psalm 19:1 likewise observes: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

The manifest intentionality and fine-tuning of all creation reveals design of breathtaking complexity. The Creator is of incalculable intelligence and infinite splendor. As I see it, atheism provides a case study in willful suspension of disbelief – all to escape, as the God-denier imagines it, accountability for massaging the libertine impulse.

“Wouldn’t the atheist ‘suspend belief’?” you might ask.

No, the phrase is properly “suspension of disbelief.” It is defined as “a willingness to suspend one’s critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment.”

In the case of the atheist, or the “freethinker,” as they paradoxically prefer, that which is unbelievable is that somehow everything came from nothing – that there is no uncaused first cause; that God does not exist, even as knowledge of His being is indelibly written on every human heart and proved by all He has made.

Be they theist, atheist or anti-theist, on this nearly all scientists agree: In the beginning there was nothing. There was no time, space or matter. There wasn’t even emptiness, only nothingness. Well, nothing natural anyway.

Then: bang! Everything. Nonexistence became existence. Nothing became, in less than an instant, our inconceivably vast and finely tuned universe governed by what mankind would later call – after we, too, popped into existence from nowhere, fully armed with conscious awareness and the ability to think, communicate and observe – “natural law” or “physics.”

Time, space, earth, life and, finally, human life were not.

And then they were.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Christian author Eric Metaxas notes, “The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ nuclear forces – were determined less than one-millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction – by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 – then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp. … It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?”

Secular materialists claim it can’t be – that such explanation is a “God of the gaps” explanation and, therefore, must be banished from the realm of scientific inquiry. They demand that anything beyond the known natural is off-limits. Atheists attribute all of existence to, well, nothing. It just kind of happened. Genesis 1:1 of the materialist bible might read: “In the beginning nothing created the heavens and the earth.” Even in the material world that’s just plain silly. Nothing plus nothing equals something? Zero times zero equals everything?

And so, they have “reasoned” themselves into a corner. These same materialists acknowledge that, prior to the moment of singularity – the Big Bang – there was no “natural.” They admit that there was an unnatural time and place before natural time and space – that something, sometime, somewhere preceded the material universe. That which preceded the natural was, necessarily, “beyond the natural” and, therefore, was, is and forever shall be “supernatural.”

Reader, meet God.

In short: the Big Bang blows atheism sky high.

Fred Hoyle is the atheist astronomer who coined the term “Big Bang.” He once confessed that his disbelief was “greatly shaken” by the undisputed science, writing that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

Albert Einstein, who is often dishonestly characterized as having been an atheist, agreed that God-denial is foolishness. He once said of non-believers: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist,” added Einstein. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Illustrious NASA scientist (and agnostic) Dr. Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) put it this way: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Yes, with time and chance, even science may eventually catch up to God’s Word.


Matt Barber is founder and editor-in-chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).
 
Last edited:

alwight

New member
Alwight I have a question. How could a man 2000 years ago ( the Apostle John ) make the statement that NO MAN COULD BUY OR sell unless he has the mark of the beast ? Remember when John wrote that scripture there was no electricity nor any means to keep up with the whole world.
Revelation 13:17 ?
You seem to be coming to a strange unwarranted conclusion from some pretty nutty scripture if I may say so.

Have you ever heard of the computer in Brussels Belgium named the beast ? That one computer can keep up with the data of every person on our planet. Now how did John know that the technology would one day be available to do such a feat if not for God telling him ?
Clearly "John" didn't and never did know anything about computers, you are seeing connections that simply aren't there. "John" of Patmos also apparently saw strange blaspheming beasts, so a large pinch of salt seems to be in order imo. Maybe if the number of the beast had been written in binary I might have been more impressed. ;)

When I was a kid there was no scanners at every store where you buy everything....The technology we have today John talked about 2000 years ago now HOW did he know or write that ?

There are many more prophecies that PROVE that God wrote the bible.
No there aren't, "John" talked about scanners? Really? Your God-goggles seem to be of the ultra-strong variety perhaps but I've never seen a supposed Christian "prophecy" that wasn't either rubbish, self-fulfilling, coincidence or otherwise quite rationally explainable.
 

DavisBJ

New member
6days, of the gabby snake cult

6days, of the gabby snake cult

We put our faith in the inerrant Word of God, supported by history and science.
Let’s see, 6days again says the Word of God is supported by science. That must mean to 6days that science supports rivers that transform into blood, and smelly dead human bodies getting up and strolling around, and the cellular structure of wood suddenly turning into reptile DNA, and human DNA has transformed into sodium chloride crystals, and …

Every one of those ideas is blithering silliness to the real world of science. No wonder creationism has been so scientifically impotent.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Pull the other one Stripe it's got bells on.
Science is an atheistic conspiracy right?

Unlike you I follow where evidence leads not an ancient scripture nor any baseless contrived "model" dreamed up.

Aren't we being a just little presumptuous here, there are plenty of nutters out there?
If I said that Genesis at least is supposed by you to be a totally accurate historical narrative, would you quibble?
Surely Noah's supposed flood and his Ark of two by two animals couldn't just be a nice kiddies bed time story, it's solid fact, right? :think:


Dear alwight,

Yes, the Lord God put it into the brains of these certain animals to go to where Noah was. God can surely control His animals, and God can control His man, namely Noah building the boat. He gave to Noah all of the building requirements and size of the boat, etc. The animals would have been too hard to round up otherwise. You don't know the whole story and that is a drawback, but it doesn't have to be a final separation. Live and Learn.

Your Good Friend, Michael
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Let’s see, 6days again says the Word of God is supported by science. That must mean to 6days that science supports rivers that transform into blood, and smelly dead human bodies getting up and strolling around, and the cellular structure of wood suddenly turning into reptile DNA, and human DNA has transformed into sodium chloride crystals, and …Every one of those ideas is blithering silliness to the real world of science. No wonder creationism has been so scientifically impotent.

Meanwhile, Darwinists think everything came from nothing, life emerged from non-life, dinosaurs turned into birds and personhood is added to embryos.

One of these days, you'll learn to assume equality of beliefs when it comes to science; it doesn't matter what your idea is — as long as you're willing to put it to the test, then you can practice science.

Evolutionists like to pretend their ideas are sacrosanct and all opposition is non-scientific.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Stripe Strupping

Stripe Strupping

Meanwhile, Darwinists think everything came from nothing, life emerged from non-life, dinosaurs turned into birds and personhood is added to embryos.

One of these days, you'll learn to assume equality of beliefs when it comes to science; it doesn't matter what your idea is — as long as you're willing to put it to the test, then you can practice science.
Though you sound like you disagree with me, I think on this we are pretty much on the same page. There are a huge number of scientific articles dealing with investigations into evolution. Our understanding of the details is being refined (but the core concept of diversity resulting from natural selection acting on variation is pretty much a staple of science).

Since the ideas put forth in the “Word of God” that 6days says are scientifically supported far predates the formal studies into Darwinian evolution, then there should be a similar wealth of scientific studies on the Biblical silliness I mentioned. I am having a bit of trouble finding any studies at all on how wooden staffs turn into snakes. Can you help?

And, if you want to show that you are interested in being accurate in your comments, how about attributing to evolution those things that it actually studies? Not “something from nothing” (big bang?) – hardly something that falls within the purview of evolution.

I don’t know what it means in a scientific sense to speak of personhood. Is that something we can quantify or measure?
Evolutionists like to pretend their ideas are sacrosanct and all opposition is non-scientific.
If the opposition is scientific, then show where the supporting studies are – repeatable lab results, calculations, that kind of “real science stuff”.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Though you sound like you disagree with me, I think on this we are pretty much on the same page.
Nope.

You will do anything to avoid a rational discussion over our differences with regards to science.

I don’t know what it means in a scientific sense to speak of personhood. Is that something we can quantify or measure?
So you think personhood doesn't exist?

If the opposition is scientific, then show where the supporting studies are – repeatable lab results, calculations, that kind of “real science stuff”.
What subject? Be specific. :up:
 

DavisBJ

New member
Stripe lost his snake

Stripe lost his snake

You will do anything to avoid a rational discussion over our differences with regards to science.
I am well aware that you like to impugn the integrity or intelligence of those you engage. If you can step out of character for a bit and restrict your commentary to things other than personal insults, then there might be some benefit in our exchange. I am not interested in providing a forum for you to engage in your infantile behavior.
So you think personhood doesn't exist?
I am interested in science. I very specifically asked what personhood means in a scientific sense.
What subject? Be specific. :up:
Whatever subject you were thinking of what you referred to when you said we think “all opposition is non-scientific”. A specific example might be the Biblical claim that sticks can transform into snakes. How about that one – are you guys scientific in maintaining that that really happens?
 

alwight

New member
Dear alwight,

Yes, the Lord God put it into the brains of these certain animals to go to where Noah was. God can surely control His animals, and God can control His man, namely Noah building the boat. He gave to Noah all of the building requirements and size of the boat, etc. The animals would have been too hard to round up otherwise. You don't know the whole story and that is a drawback, but it doesn't have to be a final separation. Live and Learn.

Your Good Friend, Michael
Surely Michael God wouldn't need to bother with going through such a protracted performance. If He can do so many wondrous things He only has to magic things how He wants them to be without the need for this rather obvious kiddies' just-so story? :)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am well aware that you like to impugn the integrity or intelligence of those you engage. If you can step out of character for a bit and restrict your commentary to things other than personal insults, then there might be some benefit in our exchange. I am not interested in providing a forum for you to engage in your infantile behavior.
Wake us up when you're finished wailing like a little girl.

I am interested in science. I very specifically asked what personhood means in a scientific sense.
Nothing. It's a metaphysical term.

So you think personhood doesn't exist, right?

Whatever subject you were thinking of what you referred to when you said we think “all opposition is non-scientific”. A specific example might be the Biblical claim that sticks can transform into snakes. How about that one – are you guys scientific in maintaining that that really happens?
There isn't a Biblical claim that sticks can turn into snakes.

I love the easy ones; keep 'em coming. :thumb:
 

DavisBJ

New member
Stripe hasn't actually read the Bible.

Stripe hasn't actually read the Bible.

I asked Stripe:
I very specifically asked what personhood means in a scientific sense.
Stripe's reply:
Nothing. It's a metaphysical term.
Then since The Theory of Evolution deals with science, adding “personhood” to an embryo is not scientifically meaningful.
So you think personhood doesn't exist, right?
Not a scientific question, so not something I am interested in.
There isn't a Biblical claim that sticks can turn into snakes.
Sorry, my mistake. I assumed you had actually read the Bible.

Then how about this – do you think it is good science to claim that a person can turn into a pillar of salt?
 

dodge

New member
alwight;4686891]Revelation 13:17 ?
You seem to be coming to a strange unwarranted conclusion from some pretty nutty scripture if I may say so.

The Apostle John was told what was going to happen in the future and it is happening NOW.
Clearly "John" didn't and never did know anything about computers, you are seeing connections that simply aren't there. "John" of Patmos also apparently saw strange blaspheming beasts, so a large pinch of salt seems to be in order imo. Maybe if the number of the beast had been written in binary I might have been more impressed. ;)

You need to pay better attention when you read ! I never said John knew anything about computers. I was trying to get you to understand that when John wrote Revelation the capability was not available to do as he wrote about in Revelation in being ale to keep up with all humanity.
No there aren't, "John" talked about scanners? Really? Your God-goggles seem to be of the ultra-strong variety perhaps but I've never seen a supposed Christian "prophecy" that wasn't either rubbish, self-fulfilling, coincidence or otherwise quite rationally explainable.

Again you are ADDING to what I wrote ! I never said John knew or said anything about scanners. What I said was when John wrote Revelation 2000 years ago scanners nor the capability to keep up with everyone on the planet EXISTED it does NOW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top