Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Poor Calvin, he's trying so hard. He's just arguing blindly. I feel sorry for him.

I believe in creation, but i didn't always. I used to be an evolutionist all the way (I know I'm still young). There just seems to be too many holes in evolution. Creationism fills them for me. Of course I have to fill many of the holes with Noah's flood and the like.

Things such as sea fossils on mountains, different periods of fossels being found in the same rock layers, cave drawings or tomb inscriptions dipicting what looks like dinosaurs, dragon legends (dinosaurs?), the extremely slim chance of the evolution of one species into another (fish to birds?), etc., all look to me like creation is the more likely choice. Full evolution (everything evolving from one-celled organisms) may be scientifically possible, but I have a much easier time accepting that an intelligent being had a hand in everything.

Unfortunately, even if today's top scientists believed in creation (which some might, who are we to know), their job as a scientist is to be as objective as possible and to find scientific explainations in nature....without God.

Evolution is science, not a world-view. Creation is not science, however.

Well we don't exactly choose what the data indicates, though, do we? Some people choose to ignore it but that doesn't make it go away. Most scientists are "atomists" as well by default, not by choice. The evidence indicates the existence of atoms.

So why do you think that is? Why is only atomic and quantum theory taught at universities? Why is only cell theory taught at universities? Et cetera.

Science does not indicate any alternative to the theory of evolution that is substantiated by the data and not falsified by it. There is no reason then that "only evolution" is presented in university science classes.

Plate tectonics. Marine fossils aren't simply "on" mountains; they are inside the rocks that comprise the mountains. They also appear deformed as a result of strain. The rocks form first in a marine environment and are essentially "crunched up" when continental landmasses converge. To argue that a global flood did it is to imply that mountains are depositional features which makes little sense.

That sounds extremely suspicious.

Why are human and dinosaur fossils not found together?

[Mike Flynn]You are assuming that God has included Genesis as a complete account of creation. Surely even the literalists can see that this is not the case.

Not to mention the idea that God may never intended that passage to be taken literally.[/quote]

Yes, I do believe the the creation account is complete. Why do you think that God did not intend for the passage to be taken literally.

[Mike Flynn]Now you are straying from the literal interpretation, since this theology is certainly not explicit in the text. My interpretation is equally valid.[/qoute]

Subjuect: Sin passed down to descendents.

Certainly this in not explicit from the text given, but it is explicit from other scripture.

Mark's verse concerning making them male in female is not contridictory at all. The dust was not male/female but what he created from the dust was.

[Mike Flynn]The scriptures say that God formed the man from the dust. Was this process instant, or did it require a period of time? To me, the use of the word 'formed' implies a process.[/quote]

Yes, I believe it was instant. What leads you to belive it was not? I do not see anything in the text that would indicate it would not be instant.

[Mike Flynn]Did they know about General Relativity? Quantum Physics? Solar systems and galaxies? Cosmic background radiation? Biochemistry? Cells? Viruses?.....[/quote]

General Relativity has problems. Look on the internet about anomalies that do not fit into general relativity. Even secular scientists are beginning to refute the idea that the speed of light is constant and unchanging. There are different ideas about all the other things you listed that can be explained from a creation standpoint, and not an evolutionary one. There are many scientist now that believe in an "ether", that space is not empty, although the call it something different (string theory). At the least I would like to hear our "scientific" community out there say we just aren't sure. But they don't. They present things as fact when in fact their ideas are only theories.

[Mike Flynn]Are you saying I don't believe Moses writings? I do. I am saying that God may have intended elements in those writings to be metaphorical. How is it not believing it by simply accepting it as such. If elements were intended to be taken metaphorically (as God's creation suggests), then I could argue that it is you who has not 'believed' those writings. IOW, 'believing' in the writings of Moses does not mean taking every word literally, correct? You should not imply otherwise.[/quote]

I am not saying that at all. What is your basis for believing they should be taken metaphorically? Is it man's scientific evidence that leads you to believe this? Even taken metaphoically, one concept we get from the Bible is that man rejects God. Even we Christians reject God most of the time, leading Paul to write Romans 7

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow F26 not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body F27 of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Our carnal man is always at war with what is spiritual.

Romans 1

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

I don't think I will change anyone's mind on this forum. And it was not really my intention. My chief concern is that in today's world Science has become our substitue for God. We rely more and more on ourselves and out science and technology and less and less on God. I am sure that many will disagree, but that is the way I see it. I believe in a 'literal' being by the name of Satan. I believe that he desires men to reject God. I believe he uses any and all of our shortcoming to futher that goal. And I believe that evolution has been one of his lies. I suspect anything that the world percieves as being true. Creation can explain all of what we see, where as I do not believe we can say the same about evolution.

It also should be said that many of the dinosaur drawings have turned out to be fakes, like the Ica stones.

And speciation (the evolution from one species to another) has been observed.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

zeljeznj,

Add quote= just between the [ and Mike Flynn and you'll have the quotes down.

__________________
Your life is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift to God.
The goodness in each individual's soul enlarges the heart of the world.

Feh. I'm basically a biological layman with some undergraduate training. I don't know the precise evolutionary pathway of sexual reproduction and I'm not likely to learn it any time soon. All I know is I've never met a biology professor who considers sexual reproduction an explanatory problem for evolution as a whole. You want details? Ask someone who does this for a living. Indicting the knowledge of random message board posters is not impressive.

It is not complete because is does not mention any part of creation that was not known to the writers of the scriptures but is known to us today. It was not meant to be taken literally, IMO, because God has left us with obvious evidence in creation that tells us otherwise. Not to mention that in order to achieve consistent theology, the literal interpretation is awkward at best.

Go back and read our previous discussion. You said that 'in the beginning' meant at the first moment. At the first moment we were dust. So in the beginning he made them male and female cannot refer to the first moment. I'm not saying Mark is contradictory...I am saying your interpretation of 'in the beginning' is contradictory.


And nothing to say that is was instant. Are we at an impass, then? No, since there are obvious clues in creation that tell us that the process was not instant. IOW, neither position is contradicted by scripture...but yours is contradicted by creation itself.


Not at all. And you should post that evidence here if it exists. As a physicist, I would be very interested to hear it. No one is questionning the basic principles of relativity, they have all been experimentally verified. There are some unanswered questions...but none of them would lead to agreement with a literal interpretation of Genesis zeljeznj.

Thats just plain wrong. String theory (or M-theory as it is called today) does not say that space is permeated with ether. You should check your sources. And there are no creation science arguments about the age of the universe that have not already been falsified.

This is what bothers me about creationists: spreading misinformation. It is not God's work.

Wrong. Everyone knows about questions we have not been able to answer. For example, no one knows if string theory is right for now. Creationists are the ones who claim to already know the history of the universe, and they selectively discard whatever does not agree with their beliefs. They have stated that these are unequivocal facts, and that when we get the science right it will agree with them. Do you really think thats how science works? It is certainly not how God works.



No it is the data that God has left in His creation that is plain for everyone to see that has led me to believe this. Are you saying that Biblical interpretations are any less fallible than our interpretations of the data we find in creation? Are creationists infallible when they read the scriptures while scientists are fallible when they interpret the data? Sauce for the Goose...

I'm glad that you see that these verses do not disqualify science, they disqualify everyone because of sin. You and I have accepted the same creator, the same God and Christ was His only begotten Son.

We need to be careful not to spread stumbling blocks to people who have differing opinions on the details of creation. They have nothing to do with salvation.



Science does not have the monopoly on sin. It is sin that has the monopoly on all of us. Check your history, did the Jews need science in order to stray from God over and over again in the OT? You can study God's creation and be blessed by it. And God has gifted some to study it. I would thank you not to curse God's gifts with your generalizations.

This attitude does not bear good fruit. And for proof I will ask you this: what good will come from this pronouncement? If evolution is how God created, then where will that leave you and anyone else who believes this? Deceived. And since we do not know that it is not true then you are stacking the deck against God: you are saying that whatever happens, He must not have used evolution without being in league with the Devil.

Creation is all that we see. And evolution came from taking an honest look at it. Young earth creationism does not explain what we have seen at all. It has blinded itself to the evidence that God has made plain. And Satan is thrilled to see them stumble over it, and cause others to stumble with their arguments.

Um, no. Have you ever stopped to consider that it's not all just one big conspiracy (perpetuated by... educated liberal atheists, there are lots of those guys in government huh? No.) to dethrone organized religion? Perhaps it's that modern science does not support creationism.

Geology - An igneous rock is determined to be 4.0 million years old. That pre-dates god's creation of the Earth. You won't find any geologists who will deny that there are rocks older than 5000 years. They'd laugh in your face, and I'm sure not all geologists are these shady liberal atheist conspirators in which you speak.

Fossil records - Dinosaur skeletons (something that doesn't need to be dated or inspected to arrive at the simple conclusion that these creatures did indeed once exist) are found in practically all regions of the earth. Adam and Eve reported no dinosaur sightings unfortunately.

Genetic simularities - How human beings share 99.3% genetic patterns with chimpanzees. How every living mammal shares the same fundemental characteristics with human beings - internal organs, reproductive methods, instinctive behavior (fight or flight, mate selection, aggression when threatened, etc.)

Don't take everything entailed with your beliefs so literally, and don't be such a victim of your own misaligned cynicism.

Well, I guess that you either believe the impossible (only possible with God) or the, at best (IMO), nearly impossible (evolution). If you don't believe in God, then there is only one choice, evolution. Personally, I find it easier to believe in a God. If not a literal Genesis creation (I understand why that is hard to believe), then at least a God who is the ultimate cause. One who would've set evolution in it's cycle.

Mr_Coffee, you yourself are guilty of taking "everything entailed with your beliefs so literally". You are just as much as a "victim of your own misaligned cynicism" as the rest of us.