Yesterday at 11:18 PM Nanaki said this in Post #62
It is simply futility to argue two sides of an arguement when both points (God and Creationism) are based on two completely different contexts. They practically do not intertwine or relate to eachother at all. The only similarities they have are the fact that they are two different beliefs in Society.
What? Creationism is the theory that God created by forming each species in its present form in the recent past. Also, as we have seen, creationism depends heavily on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8. So how can you possibly say they are in different contexts?
For example: God is a belief, coming under religion. Whereas Religion is a Theory. Basically you either believe in God or you don't, none or very little evidence can be portrayed for God. You simply open and listen to God, you don't decide to believe in him because of the logics behind God and the religions associated with him.
Would you care to expand on that religion is a theory idea? That looks interesting. However, you contradict yourself when you say "none of very little evidence can be portrayed for God" and then say "you simply open and listen to God". The results of that opening and listening must be pretty powerful evidence
to you. Therefore I wonder at your statement there is little or no evidence.
Yet evolution on the other hand, is a collection of Scientific evidence and collective consciences.
It's bound by Human reconning and understanding...
So is your human interpretation of Genesis bound by human reasoning and understanding. But where does evolution deny the existence of God?
It's amazing how far Evolution itself has come considering Darwin (the first person to state that we had evolved from microorganisms) denied his own theory on his death bed... he labled it 'preposterous'.
I'm afraid that is an urban myth. A falsehood. Darwin never had any such recantation and even one of the premier creationist organizations -- Answers in Genesis -- admits as much.
If you wish to argue the validity of Creationism then the thread should have been titled "For Creationism or Against?" or along those lines.
Like Arikay said, I'm afraid you missed the point. Creationists portray themselves as being on the side of God. Actually, they are not. They are against God and deny God. The thread is here to help point that out.
First Natural Selection - Natural Selection then and there ignores the laws of genetics. Only can two organisms of the same species result in a mixed or combined offspring. For example: Two dogs; labrador and poodle = Labradoodle or even Cats.
I'm afraid you are thinking like a creationist and thinking that new species happen within a generation. Instead, the changes are
minor such that each generation can mate. However, if you look at generation 1 and then at generation 1,000, you find they are different species. However, there is no magic line where you can say "Here at generation 499 we have one species and at generation 500 we have another." Changes are small but
cumulative. Do you understand the significance of cumulative?
Rock Strata - To create a fossil immense pressure is required and an amazingly concealed position and dirt can result in a successful fossil.
Actually, to create a fossil there needs to be a period of
no pressure or minor pressue. Time for the organic components of the bone or shell to be replaced by minerals to make the entire bone be rock, instead of only part rock.
If organisms were to simply die and lie on dirt beds or on the sea floor; scavengers or bacteria would corrode the organism before it had time to form into a fossil.
And this is what happens to most organisms. But sometimes carcasses are protected by sediments or no oxygen (at the bottom of the sea) from scavengers and bacteria so that the hard parts can become fossilized.
So therefor a universal flood would explain fossils much more logically as opposed to Evolutionists view to things. Therefor grasping a point for God as opposed to Creationism (Noah's Ark).
A world-wide flood is an essential part of
creationism. So your statement makes no sense. As it turns out, a flood
cannot explain the
order of fossils or why some fossils are found only in some strata and not in others. One of the major failures of creationism and flood geology is how illogically they deal with fossils.
Transitional Links Evolutionists claim that they have found the needed transitional forms for specific species to help evolution seem more probable.
And they have. Links that can't possibly be there if creationism were indeed true. Making creationism false. I have posted the references to the series of
individuals linking species to species across several dozen species through genera, family, order, and even to class. Would you like for me to post them so you can see them here? Then you can go look at the evidence yourself.
Evolutionists compare a human skull to a alleged transitional link and compare the mere similarities and claim that its a transitional link, where it is clear that they are nothing at all alike.
If that were really how it is done, you would have a point. But it isn't how it is done. Instead exact measurements are made of the skull and all the bones in it (see the thread "New hominen skull") and different species are compared. What is found are some
individual skulls with features so in-between the two species that it is impossible to decide which species it belongs to. Some examples of such in-between skulls are Brunei, Petraloma, Broken Hill, Omo-1 and Omo-2. These are so in-between H. sapiens (us) and H. erectus that we can't assign them to either one. Those skulls simpy can't be there if humans were formed in their present form and did not evolve.
