Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Michael, I take no issue with your belief in God. What puzzles me is why you are so quick to deny science and an old Earth when neither contradicts your belief in him.


Dear Greg J,

Thanks for being understanding. I'm not denying ALL Science. Or course not. I deny an old Earth because our book, the Bible, or Word of God, says that He created man 6 days after He created the Earth, and the Universe/Host of Heaven/Stars/Galaxies, etc. And He says it took Him 6 days and He rested on the 7th day. I know you don't believe in miracles, but I've come to know better, after receiving a number of miracles myself. I don't have to believe in God. I ALREADY KNOW He exists. Because He visited me and spared me from a Heart Attack. He was the only one I could turn to who could help me. I didn't think to ask Him for help until my 3rd decision. First, I thought of calling a doctor, but figured he would never get to me on time {I was at home}. Then I thought to call in my mother, who was in the Family Room down the hall. I was in the bedroom. Well, I figured what is she going to do to help. Finally, I prayed, "God, please let me live so that I can tell my family and friends about you visiting me. Immediately, a commanding, loud voice boomed out in the room, as if coming from the ceiling on the left front side of me, and said, "Calm yourself, and think of those you love." I knew Who it was and I immediately obeyed so I would live. That's all I will tell you for now. I lived through the heart attack and all I could remember when I woke up the next morning was that the Lord God had visited me. I was full of exceedingly great joy. I've got to go to bed now, so this will have to do. It is already past 2a.m. here and I've got a Dentist appt. and Radiation Therapy both tomorrow. I want to wake up in time. God Bless You, Greg, For Asking!! Let His Love Reign Down On You!!

Michael
 

TheDuke

New member
Clearly creationists are embarrassed by the existence of all apes and by the human connection to them, which is simply ignored.

No, only modern creationists.
Long ago they were much more honest and had naturalistic inclinations towards the gaining of knowledge.

E.g. more than a century before Darwin, there was a very important work by a fellow known under the name: Carolus Linnæus, who instead of becoming a priest, has laid the foundations of taxonomy and essentially figured out the tree of life.

Just read his replies to contemporary critique of his view of humans and monkeys.
 

alwight

New member
No, only modern creationists.
Long ago they were much more honest and had naturalistic inclinations towards the gaining of knowledge.
I did use the present tense and the source material is from CreationWiki who attempt to represent modern creationism, bless 'em.
 

Jose Fly

New member
if so... its yet another example that codes have a creator. Codes require an intellience. Codes always have a creator.

Still repeating this falsehood too, eh? If strings of nucleotides are a code, then the fact that we've seen nucleotides self-assemble into functional sequences means not all codes require creators.

But we've been over this.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Dear Davis,

I just got the scoop on you. God will not let you follow someone around with cameras so you can 'prove' a miracle. He will not confirm Himself to you because He says then you will believe in Him and He would have to take you to Heaven. That's why He does what He does. He doesn't WANT you in Heaven. You are too staunch for your own good. And now I can quit trying to help you. You are the proverbial "out-of-luck." I didn't know this until now. The Lord says that's why Jesus spoke in parables. So that the sinners wouldn't understand Him and have to be saved and taken to Heaven. That is why He revealed Himself to 'babes.' I guess I don't have to keep trying anymore. I did try to go that extra mile for you, but now it is not necessary. Just was a waste of my time, I guess.

Now You Know.

Michael

Uh oh, Davis BJ is out !!
 

Greg Jennings

New member
No, only modern creationists.
Long ago they were much more honest and had naturalistic inclinations towards the gaining of knowledge.

E.g. more than a century before Darwin, there was a very important work by a fellow known under the name: Carolus Linnæus, who instead of becoming a priest, has laid the foundations of taxonomy and essentially figured out the tree of life.

Just read his replies to contemporary critique of his view of humans and monkeys.

And we shouldn't forget Gregor Mendel, the monk who fathered modern genetics, either
 

Greg Jennings

New member
Still repeating this falsehood too, eh? If strings of nucleotides are a code, then the fact that we've seen nucleotides self-assemble into functional sequences means not all codes require creators.

But we've been over this.

Man, that's a pretty good point you have to admit, 6
 

iouae

Well-known member
THE BIBLE TELLS US WHEN THE FIRST CIVILISATION DEVELOPED

Evolution teaches that modern man has been around for 200 000 years. Any time during that period, by pure dumb luck, civilisation could have started.

Dumb luck is, after all, the evolutionist's "god".

The Bible teaches that modern man was placed on earth 6000 years ago, then came Noah’s flood 2400 BC making this the earliest starting date for modern civilisation.

All pre-flood civilisations would have been wiped out leaving only traces of pre-flood humans.

The Bible also teaches that humans were not created primitive, but possibly superior to us today. So there was nothing stopping civilisation from beginning instantly after the flood, from a Biblical perspective. There surely were pre-flood civilisations which now lie buried.

There is general consensus by historians that the “cradle of civilisation” was Sumeria. This is exactly where the Bible says civilisation began.

Gen 11:1-2 "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.” Shinar = Sumer.

Here is one of many internet sites stating when human civilisation began.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab25

"Our knowledge of prehistory derives from surviving objects - the evidence of archaeology. History, by contrast, is based on documents. These various interconnections mean that history, civilization and writing all begin at the same time. That time is about 3100 BC.

Mesopotamia and Egypt: 3100 BC
In about 3200 BC the two earliest civilizations develop in the region where southwest Asia joins northeast Africa. Great rivers are a crucial part of the story. The Sumerians settle in what is now southern Iraq, between the mouths of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Egypt develops in the long narrow strip of the Nile valley.

Rivers offer two main advantages to a developing civilization. They provide water to irrigate the fields, and they offer the easiest method of transport for a society without paved roads. Rivers will play an equally important role in two other early civilizations - those of the Indus and of northern China.

The Indus: 2500 BC

It is not known whether contact with Mesopotamia inspires the first civilization of India or whether it is a spontaneous local development, but by about 2500 BC the neolithic villages along the banks of the Indus are on the verge of combining into a unified and sophisticated culture….


When one tries to look up how accurate their dating methods are, we see there is lots of room for error. So the above dates are close enough to the Biblical date.

Evolution gave us 200 000 years in which civilisation could have developed. The Bible told us it developed right after the flood, even telling us where it developed. Why is it that in 200 000 possible years of supposed human evolution there is no sign of civilisation, till it bursts on the scene at more-or-less the date stated in the Bible? What are the chances that humans were retarded for 195 600 years or 97.8% of their history, and then suddenly became super-smart? And, "coincidently", this date just happened to be the Biblical date.

Was it because Moses lived in one of the most ancient civilisations that he knew when civilisation started?

There were plenty of other places such as in the Americas that Moses knew nothing of. Was Moses just a lucky guesser?

Either way, it adds great credibility to the Biblical record.

And when on reads how advanced and modern Sumerian civilisation was, one realises that these were NOT PRIMITIVE people, which is also what the Bible says. I will try to list all the mod-cons their civilisation had, in a later post.
 

alwight

New member
Evolution gave us 200 000 years in which civilisation could have developed. The Bible told us it developed right after the flood, even telling us where it developed. Why is it that in 200 000 possible years of supposed human evolution there is no sign of civilisation, till it bursts on the scene at more-or-less the date stated in the Bible? What are the chances that humans were retarded for 195 600 years or 97.8% of their history, and then suddenly became super-smart? And, "coincidently", this date just happened to be the Biblical date.

Was it because Moses lived in one of the most ancient civilisations that he knew when civilisation started?

There were plenty of other places such as in the Americas that Moses knew nothing of. Was Moses just a lucky guesser?

Either way, it adds great credibility to the Biblical record.

And when on reads how advanced and modern Sumerian civilisation was, one realises that these were NOT PRIMITIVE people, which is also what the Bible says. I will try to list all the mod-cons their civilisation had, in a later post.
Evidence of a global flood would give considerably more credibility to the Bible account. :plain:
 

6days

New member
No, it only shows that codes can be produced by evolved instinctive behaviour .....
Tjat is your belief... your attempt at denying the evidence. Codes always require intelligence. DNA is evidence of a supreme intelligence... our Creator.
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
No, “expecting” (or any of its variants) is a property only possessed by things with the ability to “expect” – in other words, at least a limited degree of intelligence.*But that means you have implicitly built a requirement for intelligence to be involved right in the definition.

Codes by virtually any definition imply intelligence. We have never seen a code self assemble itself. (Chicken and egg problem for you... codes always require a sender and reciever).*


DavisBJ said:
That shows absolutely nothing about whether codes can be created and used sans intelligent input, since they do not satisfy the ability to be expecting anything.
Correct...sort of. A sugar molecule is inanimate and expects nothing. However if Someone creates a code with sugar molecules, the creator of the code expects it to be read, understood and acted upon.

DavisBJ said:
For example, in humans a chemical called TSH is created in the pituitary gland. It is carried by the blood to the thyroid, and stimulates the thyroid to produce a chemical called thyroxine, which is used in metabolism. When viewed at a purely biochemical level, every stage of this process ultimately is just ordinary chemical reactions. If by some unspecified natural process this same production of TSH occurred and was delivered to the thyroid, then the thyroid would be none the wiser. In that case, there would be no “expectation” involved, there would be just chemistry. And since the TSH was produced by the natural process, there was no “intelligent input” guiding that process. Yet the information encoded in the TSH that stimulated the thyroid to produce thyroxine was received loud and clear.
Amazing design!

Psalm 139:13 "You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top