Creation and evolution both right??

[Carey]

Ok how about this.....??

The big bang happened but not as long ago as science believes.
( God said let there be light and Big Bang there you go )

How about we know evolution happens because we have seen mutations in many species.
( so if you want to call mutation evolution you are right)

Creation is common sense seasons , the solar system etc work to perfectly to be an accident.

Cross species mutation or evolution is rediculous and there will never be proof of it. Man from monkey.
Bah.

Cave men were animals just very smart animals. They like monkeys resembled humans and actually devolved into what we have on the planet today just like reptiles .

Are the reptiles today superior to the prehistoryc ones ??NO

are the monkeys today superior to the prehistoric ones?? NO

Are the humans today superior to the prehostoric one??? There were no Prehistoric ones...

But the humans today are superior to the ancient ones ??
NO not gentically. That is why we dont libe to be several hundred years old now.

so really EVILution seems to me should be called DEVILution a twisted truth or a LIE

Please excuse the play on spelling it just seemed apropo...

 

[pgp_protector]

ah well can't respond fully
http://foru.ms/t6006243-creationism-fsrs.html

 

[Macca]

Ok how about this.....??

The big bang happened but not as long ago as science believes.
( God said let there be light and Big Bang there you go )
Yes, that's reasonable.
How about we know evolution happens because we have seen mutations in many species.
( so if you want to call mutation evolution you are right)
I presume you mean survival of the fittest and loss of information
Creation is common sense seasons , the solar system etc work to perfectly to be an accident.
Yes they are
Cross species mutation or evolution is rediculous and there will never be proof of it. Man from monkey.
Bah.
Exactly
Cave men were animals just very smart animals. They like monkeys resembled humans and actually devolved into what we have on the planet today just like reptiles .
Then they weren't 'cave men'
Are the reptiles today superior to the prehistoryc ones ??NO

are the monkeys today superior to the prehistoric ones?? NO
History began "In the beginning" (Gen. 1: 1) there are no reptiles, etc. before that.

Are the humans today superior to the prehostoric one??? There were no Prehistoric ones...
correct
But the humans today are superior to the ancient ones ??
NO not gentically. That is why we dont libe to be several hundred years old now.

so really EVILution seems to me should be called DEVILution a twisted truth or a LIE
poetic license.
Please excuse the play on spelling it just seemed apropo...

 

[FallingWaters]

Ok how about this.....??

The big bang happened but not as long ago as science believes.
( God said let there be light and Big Bang there you go )...

I used to think that perhaps Creation and Evolution were both right,
but the more I investigated the things Creationists have written,
the more I realized that there is no way to meld the two together.

God created perfectly functioning kinds.
There is no such thing as evolution.
There is such a thing as Natural Selection
which God set in place to preserve creatures from extinction.
They adapt slightly to their environment as need be.

I encourage you to continue your studies into Creation theory.

 

[Carey]

I used to think that perhaps Creation and Evolution were both right,
but the more I investigated the things Creationists have written,
the more I realized that there is no way to meld the two together.

God created perfectly functioning kinds.
There is no such thing as evolution.
There is such a thing as Natural Selection
which God set in place to preserve creatures from extinction.
They adapt slightly to their environment as need be.

I encourage you to continue your studies into Creation theory.

You missed my point.
The point was nothing has evolved it has actuallly done the opposite.

Reptiles are much smaller weaker and assumably less intelligent than the large ancient ones we call dinasaurs.

The same with the larger ancient monkeys we call cave "men".

So if carbon dating is right or wrong it does not matter.
We know Adam and Eve were put here around 10,000 years ago give or take a millenia or 2.

 

[FallingWaters]

I have read that Creationists believe the gene pool has deteriorated dramatically especially after the Flood.

 

[mark kennedy]

I wanna play, let's see...

1) Radiometric dating is inconsistent and without infallible proof.

2) Naturalistic assumptions impose undue generalizations on the particulars.

3) Genetic mutations rarely bring advantages that would be essential to cumulative natural selection.

4) The sudden appearance of fully formed living systems argues strongly against Darwinian evolution.

5) The bias against anything Biblical is categorical and subjective.

6) Mendelian genetics indicates limits beyond which living systems cannot evolve.

7) Real world evidence indicates the New Testament is reliable as history, academics is diametrically opposed to even considering it.

8) Most natural science is neutral with regards to evolution as natural history or the Bible as redemptive history.

9) The Cambrian Explosion is without essential precursors.

10) The genetic basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes simple does not exist and yet is never questioned.

The ongoing propaganda campaign indicates an anti-theistic prejudice. The disingenuous nature of the arguments strongly indicates a social agenda rather then a scientific conclusion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

I wanna play, let's see...

1) Radiometric dating is inconsistent and without infallible proof.

2) Naturalistic assumptions impose undue generalizations on the particulars.

3) Genetic mutations rarely bring advantages that would be essential to cumulative natural selection.

4) The sudden appearance of fully formed living systems argues strongly against Darwinian evolution.

5) The bias against anything Biblical is categorical and subjective.

6) Mendelian genetics indicates limits beyond which living systems cannot evolve.

7) Real world evidence indicates the New Testament is reliable as history, academics is diametrically opposed to even considering it.

8) Most natural science is neutral with regards to evolution as natural history or the Bible as redemptive history.

9) The Cambrian Explosion is without essential precursors.

10) The genetic basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes simple does not exist and yet is never questioned.

The ongoing propaganda campaign indicates an anti-theistic prejudice. The disingenuous nature of the arguments strongly indicates a social agenda rather then a scientific conclusion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Good list.

But, you need to include your theological point about death.

 

[Carey]

I have read that Creationists believe the gene pool has deteriorated dramatically especially after the Flood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Throughout human history most increases in life expectancy arose from preventing early deaths. However, some people believe this trend will not continue, as medical advancements aimed at better monitoring day to day, medically significant test values, and simple intervention such as blood pressure and clotting level control, will prevent many sudden deaths or strokes. Some people[weasel words] predict that half of the North American and Japanese babies born since 2000 will live to 90, and 10% to 100.

I think it started before the flood.

Lets see what do you think.

Genesis 6 :
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Genesis 5 : 1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] "

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [b] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died. 32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

 

[FallingWaters]

Here's another one:

http://www.worldwideflood.com/general/noahs_age.htm

 

[flaja]

The big bang happened but not as long ago as science believes.
( God said let there be light and Big Bang there you go )

The Bible doesn’t expressly tell us when God created anything. The term translated as “day” in Genesis chapter 1 has variant meanings in variant contexts. But at the same time science cannot effectively tell us how old the earth/universe is because we cannot use any of the so-called scientific dating methods without relying on the truthfulness of many assumptions.

How about we know evolution happens because we have seen mutations in many species.
( so if you want to call mutation evolution you are right)

Some Creationists believe that evolution by Darwinian mechanisms is possible within the narrow genetic limitations inherent in the kinds of organisms that God created. Some speculate that a “kind” is a level of classification that is higher than the species or even the genus.

Creation is common sense seasons , the solar system etc work to perfectly to be an accident.

I wouldn’t go this far. We have some documentary and archaeological evidence to indicate that the earth has not always had it present orientation in space. Its orbit around the sun and rotation on its axis may have changed several times throughout human history. These changes made life difficult on earth, but not absolutely impossible.

Cave men were animals just very smart animals.

I don’t know of any Young Earth Creationists that do not believe that cave men were full humans. If you ignore the dispute over age, the way I see it after the fall of Adam and Eve humans had domestic agriculture (Genesis strongly implies that the first animals were tame because both man and animals had a vegetarian diet). They then quickly achieved a highly technical and urbanized civilization- something akin to the Atlantis of myth and legend. But Noah’s Flood destroyed that civilization and once the ark was opened the animals were wild because, as God told Noah, they now feared man. Thus humans had to rely on a hunter-gatherer, i.e. cave man, existence until animals could be tamed again for agricultural purposes. And then agriculture allowed civilization to emerge again in Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus River Valley.

Are the reptiles today superior to the prehistoryc ones ??NO

are the monkeys today superior to the prehistoric ones?? NO

Supposedly Darwinism doesn’t care about superiority/inferiority. Darwinism’s only purpose is to insure that the organisms that survive and reproduce are the ones that are best adapted to their environment.

But in practical terms you cannot have Darwinism without superiority. Darwinists have an inherent need to see man as more highly evolved than apes.

But the humans today are superior to the ancient ones ??
NO not gentically. That is why we dont libe to be several hundred years old now.

Take God out of the equation and lifespan has as much to do with environment and lifestyle as it does genetics.

Also, there is some evidence to indicate that the earth has not always had a 24 hour solar day or 365.25 solar day years. What the antediluvians counted as a year was likely a span of time that was much less than our 365.25 days.

 

[flaja]

I have read that Creationists believe the gene pool has deteriorated dramatically especially after the Flood.

If you count total loss of genetic material as deterioration you may be right in that when something goes extinct its genetic material is no longer available to future generations.

However, I wouldn’t count mutations as deterioration. Mutations simply alter the gene pool they don’t always drain it. Even if a mutation is lethal to an organism that has it, the organism may not always die before producing offspring and thereby preserving the mutation.

 

[imind]

greetings,

just popping in to obtain some info and to run a few ideas across you.

God created perfectly functioning kinds.

what is a 'kind'?

You missed my point.
The point was nothing has evolved it has actuallly done the opposite.

Reptiles are much smaller weaker and assumably less intelligent than the large ancient ones we call dinasaurs.

is it possible that this difference in size is more beneficial to modern creatures? that huge size, needing so much food to keep it alive, could be detrimental, no?

But in practical terms you cannot have Darwinism without superiority. Darwinists have an inherent need to see man as more highly evolved than apes.

could you elaborate on this? why do 'darwinists' have this inherent need to see man as more highly evolved?

thanks for your time...

 

[horuhe00]

How about this:

God created the universe and all that's in it.
God used evolution as His means of creation.

 

[FallingWaters]

How about this:

God created the universe and all that's in it.
God used evolution as His means of creation.

I used to believe that too, but then I heard Ken Ham speak about the many points where evolution and creation just don't jive.
Check into it for yourself.

 

[Carey]

How about this:

God created the universe and all that's in it.
God used evolution as His means of creation.

Well again U say if the mutations we see in animals over the millenia such as we have seen with mammoths and elephants is what you call evolution. Yes God is using evolution as part of his plan.



BUt if you want to see how silly science is on evolution.

There has never veen cross species mutation. And that is why the platypus is so fun.
Sceince has decided it "evilved" from reptiles....LOL

h

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/platypus.html
Eminent 19th-century scientists like Richard Owen and Geoffroy St-Hilaire tried to shoehorn the platypus into their grand theories, but with mixed success. Even Charles Darwin was fascinated by the little animal, which seemed to support his findings on evolutionary fitness and speciation. But researchers conducting extensive fieldwork in Australia would eventually come up with the real goods, uncovering the reproductive mysteries of this reclusive creature.
Though a living link to the reptilian ancestry of modern mammals, the platypus is no anachronism, concludes Moyal. Rather, it is a branch of the evolutionary tree that grew marvelously on its own, most interestingly, through the use of sensitive electro-receptors on its bill to find food in murky river waters.


Echidnas and platypuses are unique in their biology, lifestyle, and habitat compared with other mammals, reptiles, and birds. They are nothing like one another, yet evolutionists believe they must have evolved from a common ancestor. We believe that the alleged evolutionary ancestry of echidnas and platypuses is unexplainable because they did not evolve, but were created by God looking essentially similar to what they are today.

If you walk through the Australian countryside and see what looks like a wire brush stuck in an ants' nest, it may be an echidna having a snack. And if the echidna (pronounced ik-KID-na) regards you as a danger, it will probably abandon its meal of ants or termites, roll into a spiky ball, wedge itself into a crack, or rapidly burrow straight into the soil until only its sharp spines are exposed. This gives it excellent protection from almost anyone who doesn't have a shovel to dig it out.
The hedge-hog-like echidna is also known as the spiny anteater. It looks nothing like the water-loving platypus (which has a bill like a duck, a tail like a beaver, webbed feet, and soft velvety fur), yet they share one unique feature: they are the only mammals in the world that lay eggs!
All other mammals known give birth to live young. This has led to the classification of the echidna and platypus in a distinct scientific category known as the monotremes. Monotremes have a single opening for their digestive and genital organs.


Scientifhttp://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/platypus.htmlic puzzle

Monotremes are a scientific puzzle for evolution. They are clearly mammals because they have milk glands, hair, a large brain, and a complete diaphragm. Yet they also resemble reptiles and birds in that they lay eggs, their blood temperature is influenced to some extent by their surroundings (as is reptiles'), and the platypus's bill is like a duck's.
What on earth could such different animals as the echidna and platypus have evolved from?
The answer is that no one has any idea. The oldest monotreme fossils show little difference from today's animals, so there is no fossil record to indicate they have evolved from any other type of creature


Coelacanth: world's oldest fish?
(Embarrassing evolutionary assumption falls flat!)
Evolutionary scientists used to think that amphibians evolved from a group of fishes that included the coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. But they dropped this idea when living coelacanths were found from 1938 showing no evidence of evolution from the oldest fossil coelacanths to the living examples.The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/CrabMystery.html

Evolutionists have no idea how crustaceans such as crabs could have evolved. Hypothetical ancestors don't seem to exist, and there is not even agreement on how the different crustaceans are interrelated. We believe this is because God created crustaceans as crustaceans in the beginning — they did not evolve.

Helpful animals explode “survival of the fittest” idea.
(Why do some animals help others without seeking rewards, if evolution's idea of survival of the fittest is true?)

There are many examples of animals helping other animals, which shows that the evolutionary idea of “survival of the fittest” is flawed. We believe that the explanation for helpful animals cannot be found in a purposeless theory like evolution, but rather in understanding that God the Creator has placed the world's array of animals on earth for His glory as they fill particular roles in the planet's ecology.


Komodo dragons: Why do these killer lizards leave some evolutionists speechless?
Komodo dragons are the largest lizards on earth today. There is evidence from fossils that lizards in the group to which komodos belong were even larger in the past. But there is no evidence that they ever evolved from non-reptiles.

 

[imind]

platypus
coelacanth

the rest seems to be an arguement from ignorance, no? just becuase we cannot currently explain how something evolved doesn't mean it didn't.

and 'helpful' animals as evidence against survival of the fittest? goodness! could you elaborate as to how this is against evolution?

 

[busterdog]

wow. thats great science, carey.

platypus
coelacanth

the rest seems to be an arguement from ignorance, no? just becuase we cannot currently explain how something evolved doesn't mean it didn't.

and 'helpful' animals as evidence against survival of the fittest? goodness!

We'll just wait until the mods pull this down.

 

[horuhe00]

My God can create life through evolution.