Creation or Evolution?

[lucaspa]

where would that be?

Well, you could start with Origin of the Species, which is online at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

However, from there I suggest three books for you:
1. Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller
2. Can a Darwinian be a Christian by Michael Ruse
3. Science Held Hostage by Meninga, Howard Van Till, and Davies

Those will deal with the most important issue for you first: evolution does not threaten Christianity. Once you realize that evolution is not atheism but is compatible with Christianity, then you will be able to listen to the scientific arguments and the data. There are several good textbooks on evolutionary biology.

BTW, TalkOrigins is not composed of atheists. About half the evolutionists there are Christians.

 

[Follower of Christ]

No.

The problem is that you have separate ideas being discusses here. You talk about Creation vs Evolution as tho they are two separate things. They are not.

1. Creation is a theological statement: "God created".
2. Creationism is a scientific theory on how God created.
3. Evolution is also a scientific theory on how God created. For a Christian. See the second quote in my signature.

So, for a Christian the discussion is not whether God created, but how. All the evidence that God left us in His Creation says that He created by evolution, not creationism. In fact, the evidence He left in Creation says that it is impossible that He created by creationism.

FoC knows that creationism has been falsified. That's why he tries to duck into the "interpretation" excuse. True statements cannot have false consequences. The statements that are creationism -- 144 hour creation, kinds appearing in their present form, a global Flood to explain the geological record, etc. -- have false consequences. They cannot be true.

Hey arikay (sorry. its lucaspa, i get you two mixed up)....

Little question

The scientific evidence is AGAINST virgin birth....

What is YOUR stance on Jesus' Birth ?

 

[JohnR7]

I suggest Ernst Mayr's book titled, oddly enough, "What Evolution Is".

I should get a copy of that. Then if I have trouble sleeping I could read it and I am sure it would put me right to sleep.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I should get a copy of that. Then if I have trouble sleeping I could read it and I am sure it would put me right to sleep.

or it would make a nice fictional book to read to the grandkids

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

ACtually, for the grandkids I would recommend Our Family Tree by Lisa Peters.

 

[Phred]

It depends on what day of the week you ask...

Today they believe Evolution.
Tomorrow? WHO knows what they will believe....

and keep in mind they ONLY believe what they do because of the way they interpret the ''evidence''.......

They cant PROVE anything anymore than the creationist....

And dont fall for this ''falsified'' tripe.......its still only boils down to interpretation of the evidence...

william

As opposed to fools who continue to believe what has been falsified. Oh yeah, they're consistent, but is that really better?

 

[Underdog77]

One of my major objections to most posts in this topic is the making of an evolutionary creationist possible. It is not.

I believe you can be a Christian evolutionist because to be a Christian you have to accept the gospel (accept Christ as your Savior). And you can do this while being an evolutionist. But being an evolutionist will destroy your case for Christ (I might comment on that later if anyone questions the statement).

Anyways, it is impossible to be a evolutionist-creationist, a.k.a Old Earth Creationist. A true creationist believes in the literal 7-day creation of the universe. Anything else is Biblically absurd and wrong. The Bible states a without a doubt, no 'interpretation' needed, simple to read account of the Creation. Some people debate the time frame saying "day" can mean the same as era or a large period of time. It can if you use it that way but that's not how the relevant pssage is read. If you just read it as it is written without meditating on how it might mean, you understand it to be the basic 7-day Creation process. Even if you go back to the orginal language and the word used for "day" (which is yom), you see that when yom is used in the context that it is used in Genesis, it means a 24 hour day.

So not only is Old Earth Creationism Biblically INcorrect, but scientifically it seems nearly (I say nearly because I don't like to make all-knowing claims without the evidence) impossible. The key ingrediant to any type of evolution is time. Without a large amount of time, evolution cannot exist. Much scientific data has been gathered that indicates a young earth (young meaning less than millions of years old). I'm just going to list a FEW things and can explain their significance later if desired.
1) the shrinking sun
2) the layer of cosmic dust on the moon
3) Fossil meteorites
4) the receding moon
5) short-lived isotopes (such as U-236 and Th-230)
6) decaying magnetic field of the earth
7) amount of Helium 4
8) the erosion rates of continents
9) the erosion of geological foundations

And there is much much more!

 

[Split Rock]

I should get a copy of that. Then if I have trouble sleeping I could read it and I am sure it would put me right to sleep.

"Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?"
-Proverbs (ch. I, v. 20-22)

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
-Proverbs (ch. IV, v. 7)

For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared with it.
-Proverbs (ch. VIII, v. 11)

 

[Ishmael Borg]

I'm just going to list a FEW things and can explain their significance later if desired.
1) the shrinking sun
2) the layer of cosmic dust on the moon
3) Fossil meteorites
4) the receding moon
5) short-lived isotopes (such as U-236 and Th-230)
6) decaying magnetic field of the earth
7) amount of Helium 4
8) the erosion rates of continents
9) the erosion of geological foundations

And there is much much more!

Yeah, much much more PRATT nonesense. There isn't an item on your list that I haven't seen completely refuted here at least a half dozen times in the past six months alone. You should look into these on your own; don't take Dr. Dino's word that these are problems for evolutionary theory (actually, not an item on your list has anything to do with evolution).

 

[Split Rock]

Yeah, much much more PRATT nonesense. There isn't an item on your list that I haven't seen completely refuted here at least a half dozen times in the past six months alone. You should look into these on your own; don't take Dr. Dino's word that these are problems for evolutionary theory (actually, not an item on your list has anything to do with evolution).

True, but I believe the PRATT list in question was to show the earth is young, and thereby disprove evolution.

Briefly: the sun is not shrinking, the amount of dust on the moon is not smaller than expected, there are meteorites in the geologic column (not to mention impact craters), the moon was closer to earth in the past, short-lived isotopes are created by longer-lived isotopes, the magnetic field of the earth has changed direction many times in the past, helium in the atmosphere is in equilibrium, different geological features show different levels of erosion.

 

[Follower of Christ]

One of my major objections to most posts in this topic is the making of an evolutionary creationist possible. It is not.

I believe you can be a Christian evolutionist because to be a Christian you have to accept the gospel (accept Christ as your Savior). And you can do this while being an evolutionist. But being an evolutionist will destroy your case for Christ (I might comment on that later if anyone questions the statement).

Anyways, it is impossible to be a evolutionist-creationist, a.k.a Old Earth Creationist. A true creationist believes in the literal 7-day creation of the universe. Anything else is Biblically absurd and wrong. The Bible states a without a doubt, no 'interpretation' needed, simple to read account of the Creation. Some people debate the time frame saying "day" can mean the same as era or a large period of time. It can if you use it that way but that's not how the relevant pssage is read. If you just read it as it is written without meditating on how it might mean, you understand it to be the basic 7-day Creation process. Even if you go back to the orginal language and the word used for "day" (which is yom), you see that when yom is used in the context that it is used in Genesis, it means a 24 hour day.

So not only is Old Earth Creationism Biblically INcorrect, but scientifically it seems nearly (I say nearly because I don't like to make all-knowing claims without the evidence) impossible. The key ingrediant to any type of evolution is time. Without a large amount of time, evolution cannot exist. Much scientific data has been gathered that indicates a young earth (young meaning less than millions of years old). I'm just going to list a FEW things and can explain their significance later if desired.
1) the shrinking sun
2) the layer of cosmic dust on the moon
3) Fossil meteorites
4) the receding moon
5) short-lived isotopes (such as U-236 and Th-230)
6) decaying magnetic field of the earth
7) amount of Helium 4
8) the erosion rates of continents
9) the erosion of geological foundations

And there is much much more!

Thanks for the PM
Ill shall consider it

Just a bit of advice, EVEN if you were to present something they dont already consider ''refuted'' because of the way they interpret evidence, Im sure it would be buried in a pile of insults and rhetoric.....

I admire your fire for Gods word, but youre going to find very quickly that the FACTS arent on our side here....... not because they truely are not, but because the evolutionist only considers THEIR ''scientist'' able to properly interpret the data....

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Just a bit of advice, EVEN if you were to present something they dont already consider ''refuted'' because of the way they interpret evidence, Im sure it would be buried in a pile of insults and rhetoric.....

I admire your fire for Gods word, but youre going to find very quickly that the FACTS arent on our side here....... not because they truely are not, but because the evolutionist only considers THEIR ''scientist'' able to properly interpret the data....

They're not OUR scientists. They're just scientists.

 

[Follower of Christ]

They're not OUR scientists. They're just scientists.

so they DO beleive in a 6 day creation then.......whew....

 

[Ishmael Borg]

so they DO beleive in a 6 day creation then.......whew....

How you got that out of what I posted is beyond me. Care to explain?

 

[Split Rock]

Just a bit of advice, EVEN if you were to present something they dont already consider ''refuted'' because of the way they interpret evidence, Im sure it would be buried in a pile of insults and rhetoric.....

I admire your fire for Gods word, but youre going to find very quickly that the FACTS arent on our side here....... not because they truely are not, but because the evolutionist only considers THEIR ''scientist'' able to properly interpret the data....

I am waiting to see how the "FACTS" should be interpreted by "your" scientists. For example, the moon dust argument is actually based on an outdated estimate (from one of "THEIR" scientists) that was intended as an UPPER limit on the possible rate of dust accumulation on the moon. Even before the first moon landing, this estimate had been abandoned. The fact that this is still used as an argument against an old earth by creationists says something about the state of creationism today.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I am waiting to see how the "FACTS" should be interpreted by "your" scientists. For example, the moon dust argument is actually based on an outdated estimate (from one of "THEIR" scientists) that was intended as an UPPER limit on the possible rate of dust accumulation on the moon. Even before the first moon landing, this estimate had been abandoned. The fact that this is still used as an argument against an old earth by creationists says something about the state of creationism today.

Im sorry, youre mistaken me for Kent Hovind again, arent you

 

[Arikay]

Thats only because creationist groups have shown time and time again that they are willing to make false claims for creationism. How can we trust them if they are perfectly willing to lie and when caught, they just repeat the lie and pretend it is truth?

Lets take something like the short lived isotopes "evidence."
Explain to us how the answer "these isotopes are daughter elements to very long lived isotopes and thus are constantly being created." can be interpreted another way?

Everyone says, "creationists just interpret the evidence different" yet everytime I ask a creationist to interpret the evidence different I am left with silence.

Thanks for the PM
Ill shall consider it

Just a bit of advice, EVEN if you were to present something they dont already consider ''refuted'' because of the way they interpret evidence, Im sure it would be buried in a pile of insults and rhetoric.....

I admire your fire for Gods word, but youre going to find very quickly that the FACTS arent on our side here....... not because they truely are not, but because the evolutionist only considers THEIR ''scientist'' able to properly interpret the data....

 

[Follower of Christ]

Thats only because creationist groups have shown time and time again that they are willing to make false claims for creationism. How can we trust them if they are perfectly willing to lie and when caught, they just repeat the lie and pretend it is truth?

Lets take something like the short lived isotopes "evidence."
Explain to us how the answer "these isotopes are daughter elements to very long lived isotopes and thus are constantly being created." can be interpreted another way?

Everyone says, "creationists just interpret the evidence different" yet everytime I ask a creationist to interpret the evidence different I am left with silence.

False claims..... thats rich.....
I wonder what could be dug up in the way of ''false claims'' pertaining to evolution
Oh thats right...... those have all be expos.......er........corrected


And youre left with silence cause folks know youre not listening anyway

 

[Split Rock]

Im sorry, youre mistaken me for Kent Hovind again, arent you

I never said you were Kent Hovind. I was refering to the following quote of yours:

EVEN if you were to present something they dont already consider ''refuted'' because of the way they interpret evidence, Im sure it would be buried in a pile of insults and rhetoric....

I must admit to being puzzled by your response. Are you now saying that the arguments provided by Underdog are wrong, and are not simply based on facts interpreted differently by creationists?

 

[Arikay]

Yep, they have been corrected. If creationist groups did that, I would be happy. But so far they haven't.

Actually I am listening, and would love to hear how you reinterpret the evidence. I noticed you never answered my question and instead changed the subject to pretend that it was my fault that you didn't answer the question, so that is a good point, I don't always hear silence, sometimes I hear them quickly try to change the subject. Or a common response is, "well you wouldn't understand so I wont tell."
Yet my question remains unanswered.

False claims..... thats rich.....
I wonder what could be dug up in the way of ''false claims'' pertaining to evolution
Oh thats right...... those have all be expos.......er........corrected


And youre left with silence cause folks know youre not listening anyway