I know about alle's, and genetic things because I had biology class in 10th grade im in 11th grade this year. I am sorry but I do not accept any kind of evolution, because GOD created every living creature "after his own kind" not evolution from another creature.
First off sorry for the delay.
Creationists usually differentiate between two types of evolution, micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is what you are thinking of, and has two different meanings. The scientific meaning, which is essentially speciation(which we have observed), and the creationist meaning which is changes between kinds, which we have not observed yet according to creationists. The second kind is micro evolution, which is variation with in species, or kinds as creationists like to define it. Creationists, as a general rule, don't have a problem with micro evolution (variation with in kinds).
I do not care what man says about the genetics of animals or humans, GOD says each animal and creature that is created reproduces "after its own kind" not evolution over millions of years.
Well you should care, a lot of our food comes from the ability for life to adapt, genetic engineering in agriculture is fundamental to us not starving! I think micro evolution is very much embraced by creationists because it does account for what we see, and at the same time puts constraints on evolution so that no kind is able to reproduce anything other than its own kind. My goal is to get you to accept micro evolution! I am trying to be as objective as possible in this conversation, but definately talk about micro evolution to your fellow creationists, especially those that have been around the block.
millions of years is wrong anyway. Here is one link,
I can't show it because I don't have 50 posts in my name yet
and tomorrow, i will post some other links for you to read that shows the earth is young and not old.
I look forward to it. As someone else mentioned, the universe must be millions of years old because of the stars we see. About four months ago we just saw an object known as a quazar 13 billion light years away, that means that it took the light 13 billion years to reach us from its starting point. Unlike you I don't have a link, but look up parallax and Cepheid varriable stars and pay attention to how far away in light years, or parcects (about 3ly is one parcect) we can measure stars we see.
by accepting any kind of evolution to me is like putting your faith in what a "scientist" says because his work is based on assumptions, like the age of rocks, the scientist depends and puts his "faith" in the object that fallible man made in order to produce the correct answer. And accepting what he says, is like putting your faith into what he is saying is true.
There aren't that many assumptions in science, the only two that I'm aware of is that the universe is real, and that the same laws that we observe here on Earth are the same everywhere in the universe. Other than that everything must be scruitinized to the highest degree, they don't believe in the age of rocks, or evolution, or atomic theory, but that is what all the evidence points too.
I only believe the Word of GOD and the word of GOD alone. =] And were not arguing, It's all cool =]
Belief implies accepting without evidence, or contrary to evidence. I believe in God because there is no positive scientificly empiricle evidence supporting God, or disproving God (that's not why I'm a believer but why I must say I believe instead of I accept God based on the evidence). You don't have to have faith in scientists to accept what they say as valid.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
I agree that there is only one truth in how the bible was constructed and how it should be read, yet I believe that no one has the one true way to interpret scripture except God.
That cant be, God is revealed to us through the scripture, and the truth will be revealed to those who seek it earnestly. That is scriptural, but unfortunately I am hopeless at remembering references
Originally Posted by Sophophile
We can also observe the laws of physics were the same when the supernovae exploded (hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago) as they are now, such as nuclear forces and the speed of light. .
I agree that the Universe is 14 Billion years old, but I also beleive the Earth is 6000 years old, and all were created at the same time Genesis 1:1
The speed of light is not a constant that is a fact because we know that Gravity speeds up or slows down time. Now with reason you could come up with an explanation why time on Earth travels slower than at the far edges of the universe. There is some work by some who theorize that space/universe is bent, causing this dilation.
Many will scoff at this idea of 'contriving' to harmonise with young earth creation , but hey, the Big Bang'ers had to conjure up inflation theory to cover their bums with the Horizon problem.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
That cant be, God is revealed to us through the scripture, and the truth will be revealed to those who seek it earnestly. That is scriptural, but unfortunately I am hopeless at remembering references
Are you referring to scripture where it says seek and you will find, ask and it will be given to you, knock and the door will be open? I have no doubt that God will reveal to each one of us the knowledge required to carry out His will through us. Only that we, in our limited minds, cannot hope to fully comprehend God. And without being able to fully comprehend God we cannot hope to understand scripture as He does, therefore none of us have the 100% one truth, only parts.
The speed of light is not a constant that is a fact because we know that Gravity speeds up or slows down time.
The speed of light is a constant: C or 3*10^8 m/s as represented in Einstein's equation E=MC^2. It is further shown as a constant in one of Einstein's papers where he shows how the speed of light is the same for all observers, contrary to what Newtonian mechanics would have us believe.
When you are close to a strong gravitational force time does slow down but it does not affect the speed of light, only the light's wavelength/frequency. And of course there is the story of watching yourself or someone else get eaten by a black hole feet first. And while the gravity would be so strong the person's body would elongate and time would be different from the person's head to their feet, it does nothing to the speed of light.
If there is no constant to the speed of light than we have gotten very lucky in our miscalculations of atomic fission and fusion.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
"After his own kind" sounds kind of vague. The theory of evolution also holds that all species reproduce only their own kind, so the Bible and evolution agree on this point.
The only point of contention seems to be the millions (actually billions) of years required for creatures reproducing their own kind to change and diverge, because evolution is such a slow process.
The universe is at least millions of years old based on direct observations of supernova. We can measure how far away they are using trigonometry e.g. supernova 1987A is 160,000 light years away. We can also observe the laws of physics were the same when the supernovae exploded (hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago) as they are now, such as nuclear forces and the speed of light. Thus, we can prove, using direct observations, that the universe it at least millions of years old.
Cheers
S.
The first statement you made is wrong. 1. The Earth is not millions of years old. 2. This occurs by mutations and mutations cannot add information to the genome.
Whenever you say "we" what do you mean? "we" is the actual scientists that do the work, and How do you know they are telling the truth? By putting "faith" into their "assumptions" that were made by people who were not there in the past to determine how old the earth is.
Evolution also stated that dinosaurs are billions of years old. Recently they found DNA in the dinosaur bones proving that this assumption was wrong, leaving evolution at an inconsistent state. If they were wrong in one area where is the justification of truth in other areas?
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
Creationists usually differentiate between two types of evolution, micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is what you are thinking of, and has two different meanings. The scientific meaning, which is essentially speciation(which we have observed), and the creationist meaning which is changes between kinds, which we have not observed yet according to creationists. The second kind is micro evolution, which is variation with in species, or kinds as creationists like to define it. Creationists, as a general rule, don't have a problem with micro evolution (variation with in kinds).
Well you should care, a lot of our food comes from the ability for life to adapt, genetic engineering in agriculture is fundamental to us not starving! I think micro evolution is very much embraced by creationists because it does account for what we see, and at the same time puts constraints on evolution so that no kind is able to reproduce anything other than its own kind. My goal is to get you to accept micro evolution! I am trying to be as objective as possible in this conversation, but definately talk about micro evolution to your fellow creationists, especially those that have been around the block.
I look forward to it. As someone else mentioned, the universe must be millions of years old because of the stars we see. About four months ago we just saw an object known as a quazar 13 billion light years away, that means that it took the light 13 billion years to reach us from its starting point. Unlike you I don't have a link, but look up parallax and Cepheid varriable stars and pay attention to how far away in light years, or parcects (about 3ly is one parcect) we can measure stars we see.
There aren't that many assumptions in science, the only two that I'm aware of is that the universe is real, and that the same laws that we observe here on Earth are the same everywhere in the universe. Other than that everything must be scruitinized to the highest degree, they don't believe in the age of rocks, or evolution, or atomic theory, but that is what all the evidence points too.
Belief implies accepting without evidence, or contrary to evidence. I believe in God because there is no positive scientificly empiricle evidence supporting God, or disproving God (that's not why I'm a believer but why I must say I believe instead of I accept God based on the evidence). You don't have to have faith in scientists to accept what they say as valid.
I do believe in variation in kinds, but not any evolution.
There are many different ways for light to reach earth. Faster than normally expected to.
There are a lot of assumptions in "evolution". The Big Bang = assumption ; The Primeval Soup = assumption ; We came from previous life forms = assumption ; Earth being million(s)/billion(s) of years = assumption. And many more. Why is this? Because no one was there in the past to show that was true. For scientists to come up with this stuff they have to assume this is what happened based on their "belief/interpretation" of the evidence given. Therefore it takes "faith" to believe in.
Their form of science is inconsistent within itself. Because in order to do science we have to have the preconditions of intelligibility in which this only makes sense in the Biblical Creation worldview. Without these preconditions we could know nothing about anything. Evolutionists have to assume these things in which they have no logical rational or scientific reason as to why they use these preconditions. Therefore makes them inconsistent. Also within the evolutionary worldview since they make "assumptions" this also means this is there "opinion" which makes them arbitrary to their worldview.
Yes you have to have faith in scientists to believe what they say is true because if you do not how do you that they are right or wrong? You must believe what they are saying. Also, you Empiricle evidence. empiricle - all knowledge is gained through observation. There is evidence for GOD, In his CREATION and more than enough. Read Romans 1:18-20 - it talks about how people will suppress truth in unrighteousness. And by creation there is more than enough evidence for GOD. go read it. =]
I totally forgot to post those links and i am sorry, I will post them tomorrow, okay. =]
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
Don't you mean some soft tissue in a T-Rex? Thats was a real big spanner in the works for the Millions of years arguments.
(well i suppose DNA may still have been in it, but thats not the part that i remember)
Actually, no that is not what I mean. I am talking of DNA from a bone extract of a dinosaur. DNA cannot last millions of years.
Inside of evolution there is one contradiction or inconsistency I know of that I just now thought of while typing.
The evolution of the "eye" ... Well, we "supposedly" came from this primeval soup (Abiogenesis).
Eye evolution is caused by a light-sensitive spot on the skin. Then had a depression and caused it to deepen until the eye came about.
If we all came from this "soup" then what part of us evolved first? Evolution requires millions of years to evolve. But which evolved first? Brain? Eyes? Body? How did this organism survive those millions of years? If it was the eyes, how did the organism survive without a brain to perceive the image it see's? If it was the brain, how did the organism see in order to survive? If the evolutionist says all of them together evolved. Then how come when you look up eye evolution they do not have a specified date as to when this occurred? What is odd to me, is that evolution caused all organisms to have different types of eyes that have different capabilities and they all by chance occurred on the skull of every being. How logical would be to say this soup produced the "body, eyes, and brain" all very complex structures all evolved at the same time by a "miracle of chance" ?? This does not add up.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
Anybody that tells you they know all there is to know about the Bible or has the "perfect" interpretation.......run from them as fast as you can.
Man can do nothing perfectly including having the correct interpretation of every verse of God's Word.
__________________ Dr. Vernon McGee:
I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe.
St. Augustine:
“Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?”
St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Any error about creation also leads to an error about God.”
Elizabeth Barrett Browning:
“Earth is crammed with heaven
And every bush aflame with God
But only those who see take off their shoes.”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If you really want to dig deeper into this argument and become more educated in both sides, start here.
Actually, no that is not what I mean. I am talking of DNA from a bone extract of a dinosaur. DNA cannot last millions of years.
Neither can soft tissue, so cool there is now two significant recent discoveries that are causing the evolutionists some headaches.
What is odd to me, is that evolution caused all organisms to have different types of eyes that have different capabilities and they all by chance occurred on the skull of every being.
I beleive that is what they call convergent evolution. My understanding is that implies say a dog in africa evolved from a worm in africa, and a dog in america evolved from a worm in america.
If they dont have that, then as far as humans go, a hellavu lot of incest!
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
Linear Mode
