Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Opinion on a creation v evolution summary
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Not_By_Chance" data-source="post: 68001138" data-attributes="member: 377096"><p>Just a few initial thoughts on some of what has been said above.</p><p></p><p>Population III stars</p><p>A good article about problems with this can be found here: <a href="http://creation.com/stellar-evolution-and-the-problem-of-the-first-stars" target="_blank">http://creation.com/stellar-evolution-and-the-problem-of-the-first-stars</a></p><p></p><p>Actually there is. It is called "gravity".</p><p>I would recommend watching the second DVD by Spike Psarris for further explanations about the many problems with the naturalistic interpretation for the origin of the universe, including why gravity would not be a valid explanation for the formation of the first stars.</p><p></p><p>The Big Bang Theory doesn't propose everything from nothing. </p><p>Well. I've heard it called a "singularity", but even if that were what really happened, it would have had to have come from somewhere. Whichever way it is presented, it sounds like magic to me and therefore just a faith-based statement as no-one can prove it one way or the other.</p><p></p><p>You do not seem to realize that the actual universe could be much much larger than the observable universe.</p><p>Yes, it could be, but that would still mean that galaxies had formed long before even stars were supposed to have formed. Again, I would recommend Spike Psarris's excellent DVD for more on this.</p><p></p><p>Please explain to us why there should be millions of transitional fossils.</p><p>Even Darwin stated that this should be the case. I don't understand why you would say that there shouldn't be large numbers of intermediate forms in the fossil record if macro evolution had really taken place.</p><p></p><p>Plant and animal cells appear to be the result of symbiosis between two prokaryotic organisms</p><p>I'll need to look that one up, but (and I'm not a scientist myself), I would have thought that these organisms were more complex that the single living cell I referred to in my original text.</p><p></p><p>Actually there could have been something before our current universe existed.</p><p>But that doesn't solve the problem; it just pushes it farther back in time.</p><p></p><p>The fossil record can only be explained by the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation of it at all.</p><p>Yes they do, it's called Noah's flood.</p><p></p><p>Even if life was magically poofed into existence it would still have evolved once it was here</p><p>Not according to the information I have seen. There are many excellent DVDs on this subject, including the latest "Evolution's Achilles Heels", but others such as Dr David Mentons "Evolution - Not a Chance" cover this very well.</p><p></p><p>I am sorry but that is simply a quote mine and quote mining is extremely dishonest.</p><p>This wasn't intended to be a dishonest quote. It's something I found stored on my PC. I cannot remember where I got it, but if that's what the man actually said, in what way was he misrepresented?</p><p></p><p>Also bear in mind that the theory of evolution does not debunk your God.</p><p>I'm afraid that it if evolution could be shown to be true, it would do just that, because Jesus, who claimed to be and is God the Creator, quoted liberally from the book of Genesis. If Genesis weren't a true historical account, it would mean that there were no sin and therefore, no need for a Saviour. In addition, if Jesus were not God, many of his teachings would point to his being insane. As C S Lewis pointed out, you can reject Jesus as being God incarnate or you can accept Him for what He is, but you can't just call him a good teacher - He hasn't left us that option.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Not_By_Chance, post: 68001138, member: 377096"] Just a few initial thoughts on some of what has been said above. Population III stars A good article about problems with this can be found here: [URL]http://creation.com/stellar-evolution-and-the-problem-of-the-first-stars[/URL] Actually there is. It is called "gravity". I would recommend watching the second DVD by Spike Psarris for further explanations about the many problems with the naturalistic interpretation for the origin of the universe, including why gravity would not be a valid explanation for the formation of the first stars. The Big Bang Theory doesn't propose everything from nothing. Well. I've heard it called a "singularity", but even if that were what really happened, it would have had to have come from somewhere. Whichever way it is presented, it sounds like magic to me and therefore just a faith-based statement as no-one can prove it one way or the other. You do not seem to realize that the actual universe could be much much larger than the observable universe. Yes, it could be, but that would still mean that galaxies had formed long before even stars were supposed to have formed. Again, I would recommend Spike Psarris's excellent DVD for more on this. Please explain to us why there should be millions of transitional fossils. Even Darwin stated that this should be the case. I don't understand why you would say that there shouldn't be large numbers of intermediate forms in the fossil record if macro evolution had really taken place. Plant and animal cells appear to be the result of symbiosis between two prokaryotic organisms I'll need to look that one up, but (and I'm not a scientist myself), I would have thought that these organisms were more complex that the single living cell I referred to in my original text. Actually there could have been something before our current universe existed. But that doesn't solve the problem; it just pushes it farther back in time. The fossil record can only be explained by the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation of it at all. Yes they do, it's called Noah's flood. Even if life was magically poofed into existence it would still have evolved once it was here Not according to the information I have seen. There are many excellent DVDs on this subject, including the latest "Evolution's Achilles Heels", but others such as Dr David Mentons "Evolution - Not a Chance" cover this very well. I am sorry but that is simply a quote mine and quote mining is extremely dishonest. This wasn't intended to be a dishonest quote. It's something I found stored on my PC. I cannot remember where I got it, but if that's what the man actually said, in what way was he misrepresented? Also bear in mind that the theory of evolution does not debunk your God. I'm afraid that it if evolution could be shown to be true, it would do just that, because Jesus, who claimed to be and is God the Creator, quoted liberally from the book of Genesis. If Genesis weren't a true historical account, it would mean that there were no sin and therefore, no need for a Saviour. In addition, if Jesus were not God, many of his teachings would point to his being insane. As C S Lewis pointed out, you can reject Jesus as being God incarnate or you can accept Him for what He is, but you can't just call him a good teacher - He hasn't left us that option. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Opinion on a creation v evolution summary
Top
Bottom