Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

it is a good thing that the truth is not democratic for if it was there would be no mention of God anywhere .
In 1 John he speaks of "ye fathers ,ye know Him who is from the beginning"
He who is from the beginning is the Creator .
"Little children know the father and their sins are forgiven them" But they are easily deceived and know not Him who is from the beginning.
You will never know Him who is from the beginning .if you do not believe His Word as to the beginning .
Paul says by faith we KNOW that the worlds were created or formed by God..........
Men without God are as men fumbling in the dark and know not what why they stumble and make theories as to what si what.
Faith sees and under stands things by the Holy Spirit that the natural man in comparison is as blind as a bat.
he can see as far back as the Word of God and as far forwards as the Word of God enlightens.
"So called science " theorises a universe that is man centered and denies God .
But even then by the implacible logic of theor own reasoning they have been forced, compelled , driven and led to oen conclusion . That everything started from one point.
The real question is will you believe man or will you believe God.

in Christ
gerald

Dear geralduk,

Very good post here!! In quality and content! It tells it just as it is, really!! I don't rely on men who are evolutionists to 'teach' me anything. They, in return, do not rely on me to teach them about God. So both of us are stuck in the same position. Except I am in a better position by far, because God warms me, not hell fire. So I am quite content with what I've chosen in my life. I am so happy that I learned about the Lord when I was 12 years old. I asked Jesus to come into my heart and He did. I've never regretted it since, and I'm sure I never will!! Thanks gerald,

Praise God!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

The Bible is the word of man. And no, I don't accept mindless preaching and verse quoting as evidence.

Dear Hedshaker,

You would instead accept your mindless preaching about evolution and your article quoting about Darwin as evidence. It is your choice and your loss. You chose it, so you reap it.

Michael

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

You would instead accept your mindless preaching about evolution and your article quoting about Darwin as evidence. It is your choice and your loss. You chose it, so you reap it.

Michael

The theory of evolution is backed up by scientific evidence. The Bible is not.

How ever, please provide a link to where I have article quoted about Darwin as evidence. You make the claim, now back it up for once, or admit the claim is false and with draw it.

I don't say I wouldn't quote Darwin but don't believe I have.

Thanks.

 

[MichaelCadry]

The theory of evolution is backed up by scientific evidence. The Bible is not.

How ever, please provide a link to where I have article quoted about Darwin as evidence. You make the claim, now back it up for once, or admit the claim is false and with draw it.

I don't say I wouldn't quote Darwin but don't believe I have.

Thanks.

Dear Hedshaker,

The 'theory' of 'evolution' is backed up by science?? How screwed up is science?? That seems unlikely, but I guess that's evolution and science for you. Besides that, there are things in the Bible that are backed up by science, like the location of Sodom and the salt conglomerations on the Dead Sea. I didn't say it as personally 'you,' but instead you 'evolutionists.' So you're saying that no evolutionists or you say things that Darwin said? I find it hard to believe. Surely you have quoted/said stuff that Darwin said, like bears evolved into whales?! Or something like that. You back up Darwin, so you must talk about things you've learned from him. Oh well, whatever. If you think you really never did or do, which I highly doubt, then I am sorry to have made the insinuation. Whatever you think, Hedshaker.

Much Love Coming At You!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Judge Judy does not allow hearsay because the witnesses are still alive, and she wants to cross-examine them in court.

It's not about what she wants or whether someone is still alive, hearsay cannot be considered because it isn't considered to be evidence. A witness in court can only testify about what they did or saw happen. Whatever they think a third party said they saw or did is hearsay and is not acceptable.

The Gospel writers were eye-witnesses, writing what they saw. They may not have seen everything, but when they wrote, there were folks alive to have verified or nullified what they wrote.

You don't know that! How do you know that the original story source wasn't simply used, embellished and dramatized years later by someone who was no more an eye witness than I am?

2000 years later, all history is hearsay - except that ONE OF THE WITNESSES IS ALIVE!!! *

Nonsense, all the hard evidence of Roman life and times hasn't simply evaporated, much of it still remains. But even documentary evidence is cross referenced and verifiable from many independent sources. But even then, although I have no doubts at all that the Romans existed, my whole life isn't built around that belief, I don't need the Romans or anyone else to have existed, I just happen to be reasonably convinced by the preponderance of evidence that they did.

You believe all other secular history out there, but because Christ did miracles, including rising from the dead and being seen by over 500 witnesses - now you refuse to believe it.

Evidence for miracles ever happening must surely be rather special too, but you don't have any, right?
So it can be dismissed just as easily as you assert it.
Telling me about 500 witnesses is not the same as there actually being testimony from 500 witnesses, that would again be hearsay and still be only your solo evidence free assertion.

If Christ did not do one miracle, He still has the greatest message on earth. Why not compare His message with Mohamed's, or Buddha's, or Socrates' or Confucius' to see the utter superiority of the lifestyle which Christ taught.

* "He's Alive" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyPBVwOCYmM

I won't object to that too much, it's claims of the miraculous that don't get a free pass from me.

 

[geralduk]

Either evolution happened or God is a malicious liar. I prefer to believe God is good and beneficient, so I accept the truth of evolution.

Then you call God still a liar .for the Word of God says quite different and the exact opposite.

in Christ
gerald

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

The 'theory' of 'evolution' is backed up by science?? How screwed up is science??

Well you don't mind using a computer and the internet provided for you by "screwed up science??" And I think we all benefit from the huge advances in medicine through science. Science is a method designed to painstakingly look at the evidence, experiment and develop models. Nothing is taken on faith, unlike religion. Regardless of anything 6 days or anyone else on this board asserts, evolution is a scientific endeavour.

That seems unlikely, but I guess that's evolution and science for you. Besides that, there are things in the Bible that are backed up by science, like the location of Sodom and the salt conglomerations on the Dead Sea.

Have you ever read a Steven King book? Many of his stories are based in Maine, where he lives, and I have it on good authority the references to places etc are very accurate. The stories however are pure fiction, just like the Bible

I didn't say it as personally 'you,' but instead you 'evolutionists.' So you're saying that no evolutionists or you say things that Darwin said?

You actually did. Go back and read what you said. I would have no qualms about quoting Darwin but I'm quite sure I haven't done so here. And many of these people you call 'evolutionists' are genuine scientists, some of them Christians, who have spent years pursuing their goals. There is no conspiracy Michael. Every paper published is subject to peer review and if they are shown wrong then they are just wrong, no ifs no buts, as it should be. Just imagine if religion worked like that?

When there have been frauds in science, who do you think exposed those frauds? Religious leaders? Theologians? Evangelicals? Fundamentalists?? No Michael. That would be the scientific community themselves that did that.

I find it hard to believe. Surely you have quoted/said stuff that Darwin said, like bears evolved into whales?! Or something like that. You back up Darwin, so you must talk about things you've learned from him. Oh well, whatever. If you think you really never did or do, which I highly doubt, then I am sorry to have made the insinuation. Whatever you think, Hedshaker.

See Michael? There are people here far more knowledgeable that I who have spent their time explaining things to you and you just don't listen. If you simply spout creationist canards instead you learn nothing.

 

[Caino]

Dear Hedshaker,

The 'theory' of 'evolution' is backed up by science?? How screwed up is science?? That seems unlikely, but I guess that's evolution and science for you. Besides that, there are things in the Bible that are backed up by science, like the location of Sodom and the salt conglomerations on the Dead Sea. I didn't say it as personally 'you,' but instead you 'evolutionists.' So you're saying that no evolutionists or you say things that Darwin said? I find it hard to believe. Surely you have quoted/said stuff that Darwin said, like bears evolved into whales?! Or something like that. You back up Darwin, so you must talk about things you've learned from him. Oh well, whatever. If you think you really never did or do, which I highly doubt, then I am sorry to have made the insinuation. Whatever you think, Hedshaker.

Much Love Coming At You!!

Michael

Sodom was destroyed by a shattered meteorite not God. But back in those days they saw God in EVERYTHING that happened.


Either life evolved or God had a bunch of Genesis's over millions of years that can be found in the archeological record.

Better to put our faith in God than in the Bible books of men.

 

[Yorzhik]

FYI, consensus is a fundamental part of science. It is how the scientific enterprise moves on and has done for centuries. What would you have in its place, minority rule?

Consensus must always take a back seat to evidence.

But you MUST reject either the overwhelming scientific consensus or your randomly selected mythology (unless you selected Christianity independently of the social environment).

In this case I'll stick with science and you can stick with consensus. We'll see who's right in the end.

 

[Jose Fly]

We'll see who's right in the end.

What exactly is "the end"? Given that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century, while at the same time evolution has been and continues to be the foundational framework for the life sciences....one has to wonder just what you're waiting for.

 

[alwight]

Consensus must always take a back seat to evidence.

Consensus emerges dependant on evidence, they aren't two separate issues.
How else is the value of the evidence determined if not by consensus?

In this case I'll stick with science and you can stick with consensus. We'll see who's right in the end.

In the end will there then be a consensus? lain:

 

[6days]

Given that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century

Evolutionism meanwhile has hindered the progress of science with false beliefs that science eventually proved wrong.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Like I said, if all you have are memorized old talking points like that.....

 

[gcthomas]

Consensus must always take a back seat to evidence.


In this case I'll stick with science and you can stick with consensus. We'll see who's right in the end.

You seem quite confused about the nature of science. It isn't science if you try to exploit the wriggle room you think you see in the scientific process, but only really claiming the evidence just happens to match what you desperately need to be true.

But your objection to consensus is shallow. The consensus on this case is about the meaning of the evidence. It cannot take a back seat to the evidence! It IS a consensus ABOUT the evidence, of the people who actually understand the evidence in all its beauty and complexity.

An anonymous YEC presenting a faith position and a wild claim that only the YEC position is real science is, frankly, hugely amusing to see. So carry on!

 

[6days]

Consensus must always take a back seat to evidence.

In this case I'll stick with science and you can stick with consensus. We'll see who's right in the end.

Hey Yorzhik....
I was reading comments in this thread and was surprised by what you said. The reason I was surprised as I did not realize it was you at first. I thought it was one of the evolutionists, and thought this was a brave position that they were taking.
Anyways... i thought this was good...it was spoken by Michael Chricton in a speech...
" “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” (from Creation.com)

 

[Lon]

Given that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century, while at the same time evolution has been and continues to be the foundational framework for the life sciences....one has to wonder just what you're waiting for.

:doh: Is it hopeless to hope you will actually learn something from an exchange on TOL?

 

[Jose Fly]

:doh: Is it hopeless to hope you will actually learn something from an exchange on TOL?

Apparently you still can't comprehend the difference between "creationism hasn't contributed" and "Christians haven't contributed". The former is 100% accurate, whereas the latter is a straw man of your own making.

So much for that wonderful intelligence you're always claiming to have.

 

[patrick jane]

Among the endless number of things that just happened perfectly for life to exist is the earth's magnetic field, water and breathable air. Courtesy of a big bang ? I think not :think:

 

[6days]

Like I said, if all you have are memorized old talking points like that.....

Oh dear... You give me too much credit. I could never memorize all the examples of how common ancestry beliefs have hindered science. You see..... Evolutionism is a faith based system, as is Biblical creation.

I found this little re-do of Hebrews 11 fitting for evolutionism. (stellar, chemical and biological).

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed in a Big Bang, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible; by faith we realise that the universe made itself from nothing.

By faith we know that stars were formed out of gas clouds. By faith we acknowledge that heavy elements were formed from stars that exploded; we proudly affirm that we are all ‘star dust’, ‘sons of stars’.

By faith we claim that first life appeared in a ‘chemical soup’—although there is no geological evidence that this soup ever existed.

By faith we accept that the genetic code appeared through a mindless and unguided process of chemical activity, that the coded information got corrupted by many copying errors, and that this led to the production of new and better adapted types of organisms.

And without faith and imagination it is impossible to understand evolution, because anyone who studies evolution must believe that it really happened, since no real scientist doubts it.

By faith we affirm that the ‘present is the key to the past’. We don’t really know what the past was like, but this faith helps us ignore all the evidence for Noah and the Flood—such a preposterous idea would mean that God has judged the world and He may do it again.

By faith we boldly affirm that death is the hero of the plot and that less adapted organisms have to be sacrificed on the altar of progress. The less fit need to die in order to make space for the more fit—there’s no mercy and no care for the weak. Struggle for existence and death have always been around—this is how it was, how it should be, and how it will always be.

By faith we accept that we are nothing but animals. It’s only random mutations and natural selection that brought us here some 100,000 years ago and made us able to study our evolutionary past. We are here for a while, we suffer, and then we die.

And what more shall I say? I do not need to say many words about those who have already died: they are dead and buried and the chemicals that once formed their bodies have already entered nature’s cycle. As for their deeds—whether they did right or wrong, whether they brought justice or injustice, whether they were brave or cowards, whether they raped women or were faithful husbands, whether they properly raised their children or rather abused them, whether they helped others or tortured them, whether they invented new drugs to heal people or rather committed genocide—these are all irrelevant since there is no resurrection of the dead and no final judgement.

These are all dead, and very soon we will be too. There is no meaning in universe, and no purpose in life. "

 

[Caino]

Among the endless number of things that just happened perfectly for life to exist is the earth's magnetic field, water and breathable air. Courtesy of a big bang ? I think not :think:

Evolution is a fact. Young earth creationism is a belief. Better to ponder Gods cosmic evolution technique for creation.