Evolution or Creationism?

Loudmouth said:

As you defined it, rocks date to millions and billions of years old because age was embedded into them. You also claimed this embedded age was limited to the rocks created during the initial creation week.

Right so far?

Click to expand...

That is correct.

AV1611VET said:

That is correct.

Click to expand...

This means that embedded age requires God to plant fake fossils in the ground. Here is why . . .

1. When you find igneous rocks, like lava flows, above a fossil, it means the fossil is older than the lava flow. Dinosaurs don't die and then burrow through feet of volcanic ash and basalt before they die.

2. If we find lava rock that is hundreds of millions of years old, then those rocks were actually created 6,000 years ago with embedded age in them.

3. Any fossils we find BELOW the lava rock had to be part of the created rock as it was directly produced by God during the creation week.

Loudmouth said:

This means that embedded age requires God to plant fake fossils in the ground. Here is why . . .

1. When you find igneous rocks, like lava flows, above a fossil, it means the fossil is older than the lava flow. Dinosaurs don't die and then burrow through feet of volcanic ash and basalt before they die.

2. If we find lava rock that is hundreds of millions of years old, then those rocks were actually created 6,000 years ago with embedded age in them.

3. Any fossils we find BELOW the lava rock had to be part of the created rock as it was directly produced by God during the creation week.

Click to expand...

That is assuming we accept an incorrect translation of the Hebrew "hayah".


In the oldest manuscripts there is a mark of a pause between the first and second verse. It may be as science tells us, that this globe existed millions of years ago; that it has been the habitation of numerous and varied races of animated beings; and that it has undergone many great destructions and creations before it was brought into its present state: none of these views are in the least discordant with the statement of the inspired historian, that “in beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

In twenty places in this chapter the verb “was” is used as the equivalent to “became”. The true meaning of the Hebrew word "hayah".

The Earth "became" desolate and waste, (tohu wa bohu - used nowhere else together in the Bible except this verse and two other places, and always when used elsewhere point to a once flourishing condition that was then laid waste - Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23) and darkness overspread the Earth. At this time (man) did not exist prior, nor any of the current animals found with skeletons of modern man, except in a few rare cases as in one or two classes of reptiles and fish that survived this worldwide cataclysm, and the untold number before, told of before science had ever thought of such a thing as possible.

Comet, meteor? Who knows? It is quite accurate when interpreted properly. After unknown periods of time another act of creation occurred, this time with a notable exception, one worth bothering to describe in more detail, unlike any others that may have occurred previously. But then a new creation happened, the waters were separated from the waters (evaporation). "Let there be light...divided the light from the darkness". In Hebrew literally: " divided between the light and between darkness." Where all had previously been darkness due to the destruction, the addition of heat began separating the clouds. The events in the entire chapter are described as if one's viewpoint is from the earth.

It must be noted that the word 'ohr is not the same word used in verse 14 signifying "lights," or "luminaries," ma-'ohr; rather, it signifies "heat." the effect, which immediately followed is described in the name Day, which in Hebrew signifies "warmth."

So heat began penetrating into the depths after God acted, separating the clouds, letting light into the depths, the clouds had been so low as to contact the Earth itself. But heat allowed evaporation and the waters above were separated from the waters below and dry land appeared.

The next is just a twisted version by evolutionists. The creatures in the waters formed first, in Hebrew discourses this includes all microbial and plant life in the seas. Then reptiles and crawling things and finally birds of the air. Then mammals and man. This is where evolution theory got their idea of the order from, the Bible told them long ago. They knew the truth and so modeled their theory upon this same basis. But again, the lack of transitory species makes their interpretation of the events in the Bible suspect. If evolution is indeed correct, where are the transitory species today? Did it only occur in the past? Instead all we see is "Kind after Kind" and different "breeds" or "strains" or "species" within those Kinds. Lines which are "never" crossed. Lines which never become so different we can't recognize they are all of the same Kind. All Felidae are Felidae. All Canidae are Canidae. All Caprinae are Caprinae.

We know of no other thing, even down to the genetic level, which thanks to technological advancements, is showing that tree is nothing but individual distinct bushes, with sideways variation. I.e., different "breeds, or strains, or species, or subspecies, etc.", within that kind - or bush. Never once indicating a transitional form to another "kind". Even after billions of generations and billions of mutations, all E. coli are still E. coli, and always will be. All Felidae, no matter how many times we breed them or even mutate them in the lab, will always be Felidae.

Every past form of life sprang from nowhere, lived for a time, different breeds of that kind prospering, then went extinct due to cataclysmic actions. In its place all new life once again sprang up, to again repeat the cycle. The Bible just affirms this, when it told you of the earth becoming desolate and waste, and the darkness that became upon it, encompassing it around. Hence the dinosaurs died out. It then described the "sixth" such event, when man himself was created.

There have been 5 - count them, 5 major extinction events. Mankind and the animals with him were created "after" this 5th extinction event, the 6th creative act.

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

Transitory species nothing more than an incorrect classification of the fossil record. As science is beginning to understand from actual study of their bones.


2 of every three classified incorrectly just in the 12 major dinosaurs of North America. And this does not even include the multitude of minor Kinds. the gaps grow larger as real science comes on the scene to do away with the past myths of evolutionists.

Oncedeceived said:

TOE is the natural materialistic explanation for the diversity of life. God is the supernatural explanation of life. The universe's existence is more cohesive with a Creator than a natural cause. TOE could be proven wrong and people would still look for a natural cause for the universe and life itself.

Click to expand...

There will always be people who are prepared (and able) to believe in magic.

Tree of Life said:

Does the falsification of ToE imply a creator? Why not?

Click to expand...

Nothing in this world implies a creator, for that you need an imagination.

JasonClark said:

Nothing in this world implies a creator,

Click to expand...

Actually the fossil record does.

And while God did not create the fossil record during the creation week, the record points back to animals suddenly appearing on the face of the earth.

AV1611VET said:

Actually the fossil record does.

And while God did not create the fossil record during the creation week, the record points back to animals suddenly appearing on the face of the earth.

Click to expand...

Far from it. You might as well try to claim that all of the pictures in a family album were shot in one day. Creationists have only ad hoc, self contradicting explanations for the fossil record. This is only one of the many reasons why there is no "theory of creationism".

Subduction Zone said:

Far from it.

Click to expand...

Au contraire.

You might as well try to claim that all of the pictures in a family album were shot in one day.

Click to expand...

My family album is an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, where the game of connect-the-dots applies.

Creationists have only ad hoc, self contradicting explanations for the fossil record.

Click to expand...

So do evolutionists -- only they "readjust" to compensate for said contradictions, under the guise of "further discoveries."

This is only one of the many reasons why there is no "theory of creationism".

Click to expand...

There is no theory of creationism because there is no evidence to support it; and there is no evidence to support it because no evidence was generated; and no evidence was generated because creatio ex nihilo doesn't generate any.

Subduction Zone said:

Far from it. You might as well try to claim that all of the pictures in a family album were shot in one day. Creationists have only ad hoc, self contradicting explanations for the fossil record. This is only one of the many reasons why there is no "theory of creationism".

Click to expand...

Evolutionists can only pretend the fossil record supports them. Show me a T-Rex in the fossil record that is not a T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest? Show me any of the species in the fossil record that are not the same from the first to the last fossil found for that species?

Where is your evidence of ToE in the fossil record?????? Gonna show me the bones of a completely different species now and ask us all to use our imaginations and pretend it became something else???

Which one could accept as theoretically viable if you observed anything other than Kind after Kind in the here and now. But sadly we all understand how reproduction works - and all that is ever produced is different breeds of that same exact species. So that you confuse different "breeds" of some animals in the fossil record as being different species is understandable, but still confusion on your part.

JasonClark said:

There will always be people who are prepared (and able) to believe in magic.

Click to expand...

You don't even realize that your position is just that, you believe that life just magically arose from non-life and magically enabled itself to reproduce. You believe that your mind magically arose from a mindless process with no reason, purpose or goal. It takes more magic in your worldview than ours.

Oncedeceived said:

You don't even realize that your position is just that, you believe that life just magically arose from non-life and magically enabled itself to reproduce. You believe that your mind magically arose from a mindless process with no reason, purpose or goal. It takes more magic in your worldview than ours.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, because there is a theory with massive supporting evidence behind it that has just become more rock-solid and accepted over the 150 years since Darwin first published his book about it. If you think you and a few websites full of religious extremists have somehow got the inside dope on something that has mysteriously completely evaded every biological scientist that has ever studied it then you really are on a par with the 9/11 conspiracy woowoos.

double post. Haven't got the hang of the new website set-up yet.

Mr Strawberry said:

No, it doesn't, because there is a theory with massive supporting evidence behind it that has just become more rock-solid and accepted over the 150 years since Darwin first published his book about it. If you think you and a few websites full of a few religious extremists have somehow got the inside dope something that has mysteriously completely evaded every biological scientist that has ever studied it then you really are on a par with the 9/11 conspiracy woowoos.

Click to expand...

There is no massive supporting evidence of abiogenesis which as stated repeatedly is not part of the TOE. There is no massive supporting evidence that once life existed that it self-enabled itself to reproduce. There is no massive evidence that mind arose from a mindless process that had no reason, purpose or goals.

Oncedeceived said:

There is no massive supporting evidence of abiogenesis which as stated repeatedly is not part of the TOE. There is no massive supporting evidence that once life existed that it self-enabled itself to reproduce. There is no massive evidence that mind arose from a mindless process that had no reason, purpose or goals.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is a separate issue, which you state, so is not relevant. But if you think there is "no supporting evidence that once life existed that it self-enabled itself to reproduce" one can't help wondering why you think there is still life here. And that the human mind is the product of evolution has a whole field devoted to it. It's called evolutionary psychology and explains why we think the way we do. Not that creationists ever demonstrate much awareness of how their minds work.

Justatruthseeker said:

Evolutionists can only pretend the fossil record supports them. Show me a T-Rex in the fossil record that is not a T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest? Show me any of the species in the fossil record that are not the same from the first to the last fossil found for that species?

Where is your evidence of ToE in the fossil record?????? Gonna show me the bones of a completely different species now and ask us all to use our imaginations and pretend it became something else???

Click to expand...

This is something that puzzles me; biologists and palaeontologists have often had quite violent arguments about whether different fossils are members of a single species or genus (perhaps a very variable species), or whether they represent two or more distinct species or genera. Even creationists differ over whether certain fossils are humans or apes. If species and genera were perfectly well defined, there could not be these differences of opinion. The fact that there are these differences suggests to me that the boundary lines between species and genera are blurred rather than being sharply defined, and that, in turn, suggests that species are not immutable, that one species can evolve into another.

I could also ask where the oldest fossil T-Rex came from. Did it have parents, and, if so, did they also belong to the species T-Rex?

Mr Strawberry said:

Abiogenesis is a separate issue, which you state, so is not relevant. But if you think there is "no supporting evidence that once life existed that it self-enabled itself to reproduce" one can't help wondering why you think there is still life here. And that the human mind is the product of evolution has a whole field devoted to it. It's called evolutionary psychology and explains why we think the way we do. Not that creationists ever demonstrate much awareness of how their minds work.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence let alone massive evidence of how life first was able to reproduce. There is no evidence let alone massive evidence of the human mind being a product of evolution. Evolutionary psychology is a "whole field" with no evidence for it.

Oncedeceived said:

There is no evidence let alone massive evidence of how life first was able to reproduce. There is no evidence let alone massive evidence of the human mind being a product of evolution. Evolutionary psychology is a "whole field" with no evidence for it.

Click to expand...

If there is no "massive evidence of how life first was able to reproduce" then that life should have died out in one generation. Clearly it didn't. And as the human mind, or consciousness as I suspect you specifically mean, is the product the human brain then you must be claiming that there is no evidence for the human brain having evolved, which is rather like claiming that there is no evidence for anything to do with human anatomy having evolved ever. Which brings us back to the theory of evolution and the fact that it's not going away just because it doesn't fit in with views of people who like to think they are separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Mr Strawberry said:

If there is no "massive evidence of how life first was able to reproduce" then that life should have died out in one generation. Clearly it didn't.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence of how life was able to FIRST reproduce. You are shifting it down the line a step by claiming there is evidence of life reproducing.

And as the human mind, or consciousness as I suspect you specifically mean, is the product the human brain then you must be claiming that there is no evidence for the human brain having evolved, which is rather like claiming that there is no evidence that anything to do with human anatomy evolved ever.

Click to expand...

Provide the evidence that mind and brain are the same. You would need evidence as well to show that the complex brain evolved and we find the first in the Cambrian Era with no precursor in the fossil evidence. Our brains are not so different from those of animals that have no consciousness nor the level of intelligence that we have. Where is the evidence that evolution alone provided our abilities when our brain is not that much different than that of others in the ape family?

Which brings us back to the theory of evolution and the fact that it's not going away just because it doesn't fit in with views of people who like to think they are separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Click to expand...

Evolution is not the issue, most Christians have no problem with evolution it is when evolution is claimed to have attributes that it doesn't that the problems arise.