Evolution vs. Creationism

[kingreaper]

So Satan created all the fossils... and inspired people to build all those ancient structures... I suppose Satan also messed with those tricky radioactive isotopes. And he probably fakes all those tree rings, icecores, and lake varves too. Oh and maybe he also messed with all the light coming from stars to make them look distant and old. Perhaps everything that doesn't agree with the YEC interpretation of the Bible was faked by Satan.

Well, you can believe that if you wish. But it certainly isn't scientific. And if believing all that is what it takes to reconcile YEC with all that old-earth evidence, then YEC certainly doesn't have any basis in science.

He said he was a gap theoryist, it's a form of OEC

 

[TheUndeadFish]

well, first, science has no basis in Christianity...

True enough, though I think it's a good thing

and any that try to mix the two pollute The Gospel to their own error.

Tell that to AnswersInGenesis, Kent Hovind, and all the rest of the YEC movement.

humanistic evolution theory that man of his own accord can be made perfect and one day live forever

Except that evolution has nothing to do with reaching a state of perfection or living forever. And if calling it humanistic means that it opposes god then you're incorrect there too.

Evolution has no science, and as a theory it has never never made any profound or irrefutable proof of being exact and true;

Evolution has always been the mirror image of what God has done and what God has promised.

First sentence implies evolution not true, second sentence implies evolution reflects the truth

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Evolution isn't science because its a theory.

As a theory, and a poor at best, it has far less credibility than the Bible offers.

You do know theories are part of science, right?

where in the rules is patronizing and ridicule permissable? Please cease.

Again, where does the bible say satan is a fallen angel?

irrelevent to the discussion; i am aware of the alternative opinions and to attempt to pursue such a rabbit trail is, imo, nothing more than a diversion to the issue at hand. How, why or when Satan fell is immaterial to how the whole of creation was irreparably damaged when he sinned so, please, decease in this and let's stay on track. again, thank you.[\quote]

You know, it is a bit strange that the two, evolution and the Bible, should be so diametrically opposed. Now i can understand the human need for a higher power, like soneone once said, if there had been no god man would have invented one. But we do have the scientific aspect to consider; big old bones and such. Obviously, from a strict literal reading of scripture they could not have been created when God created the other animals and their proposed evolutionary development into other animals has too many issues, the least of which is saying God didn't do it right the first time and that's why there is no mention of them in scripture and why room was not made available for them in the Ark. And if God did make the dinosaurs then they only had about 1600 years before the Flood hit so why were two each not also taken on the Ark? Why were they not mentioned, afterall, Adam named ALL the animals.

It seems pretty plain the evolutiuonists and the Bible followers on this course will never meet anywhere near midway. No doubt about it, the 'saurs were here at one time, but i think it was in the Gap Period, in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2...

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

There's a perfect heaven and a perfect earth...if God is perfect and everything He does is perfect...

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."-Matthew 5:48

But then we have Genesis 1:2...

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

All of a sudden we see the earth is not perfect, it is suddenly without form and void; the Hebrew for this "was without form" is tohu va bohu and "was" properly translated is "became" and "without form" becomes "waste", so a more correct translation is...

"And the earth became waste, and void...". It is in this time frame that i believe the dinosaurs lived. Now I would not think this should not make any real difference to a hard core scientific evolutionist, time is time regardless of whether or not there had been more than one creation on this rock or two or maybe even three because, regardless when or in what eon they lived those bones are nonetheless still here today.

The only real problem is that while it proves what we already know (the bones), it does not establish the evolutionist's stance, that evolution, aside from being a religious philosophy, would claim things are actually getting better, that there is a link between primoridial goo and mankind. Well, I don't know about goo but the Bible does say man came from the dust, so there is a relationship of some kind there.

However, were we to leave philosophy and religion aside for the moment and sought to follow the truth wherever it led, even if that is against where we would want it to go, then this modified view promises to answer more questions than evolution currently offers. If it is, indeed, correct, and at this point it has, at the least (imo, more), as much a chance of being correct as evolution claims. If it is correct, then we have answers to numerous otherwise unanswered archeological (and biblical) questions.

If the evolutionist is truly seeking after evolution for science sake and not as a religious belief then he should have no problem veering off from a strict evolutionsit stance where necessary to follow the truth.

It was EW Bullinger, almost a hundred years ago (lots of things happened in that timeframe!) wrote:

The Introduction to Genesis (and to the whole Bible) Genesis 1:1-2:3, ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true, the other false. All God's works were pronounced "good" seven times, videlicet: Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31. They are "great," Psalm 111:2. Revelation 15:3. They are "wondrous," Job 37:14. They are "perfect," Deuteronomy 32:4.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs : from the hut to the palace ; from the canoe to the ocean liner ; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding, etc. But the birds build their nests to-day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand, all God's works are perfect.

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground ; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others."
The Word of God claims to cover all the ground : and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of manuscripts, as Textual Criticism does.


Do you see evolution as a religion? Or, just as an attempt to offer up an alternative to unanswered questions outside the biblical viewpoint?

 

[Jet Black]

Captain Planet, he's our hero Gonna take pollution down to zero

 

[Pilgrim 33]

True enough, though I think it's a good thing


Tell that to AnswersInGenesis, Kent Hovind, and all the rest of the YEC movement.
fooey on all them. i dont have time for their prooftexting.

Except that evolution has nothing to do with reaching a state of perfection or living forever.

ahh, but it does, my friend, it's roots are far too easily traced to Nimrod, the "mighty hunter of mens souls". virtually all other beliefs can be traced to this one initial beginning. Nimrod of Babylon. Divorce and apostasy are closely allied religiously. this is why Rev speaks of the harlot Babylon, for she was the first to go off with her own beliefs, and when scripture says she is the mother of harlots the offspring are the other beliefs that sprang since from there.

And if calling it humanistic means that it opposes god then you're incorrect there too.

It's when mankind puts his will, wishes and desires first, ahead of God, when man's pride takes first place, Look out for Number 1!, all this is in opposition to God. and for mankind to believe he can figure it all out on his own (through whatever means, scienctific or whatever) is in opposition to God. It's the state of the heart that matters ("where the heart is there, too, is your treasure")

First sentence implies evolution not true, second sentence implies evolution reflects the truth

Close, so you can quit scratching your head , Anything God does, Satan mirror images. it is not truth, it is merely a reflection of the truth; it is not real, it has no substance.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

so one millennia an eon or two ago the kids (fallen angels) were playing in the sandbox (gap earth) and started getting into things they shouldn't have and the fabric of the universe that maintained its self-healing self-restoring properties was torn asunder by the introduction of the kids' sins which turned on the atomic clocks and the cosmos started dying and winding down.

 

[Mistermystery]

Your imagination abilities are quite impressive.

 

[Jet Black]

so one millennia an eon or two ago the kids (fallen angels) were playing in the sandbox (gap earth) and started getting into things they shouldn't have and the fabric of the universe that maintained its self-healing self-restoring properties was torn asunder by the introduction of the kids' sins which turned on the atomic clocks and the cosmos started dying and winding down.

did they find a gerbil too?

 

[UniversalAxis]

Let's try a little experiment:

The local YEC advocates have been demanding proof that Evolution is a FACT*; Why don't we try a bit of role reversal:

The YECs have the floor to present physical evidence supporting the YEC. Then, the evolutionists will attempt to refute that evidence.

1. Even if evolution theory is completely wrong, that does not make YEC correct by default. Please try to keep that in mind as you post.
2. Also, evidence which supports YEC is not to be confused with evidence which discredits Evolution. I am looking for the best physical evidence available which makes a young earth undeniable! And I anxiously await the result.


*For Truth as opposed to Fact, please see your local minister/philosopher.

 

[UniversalAxis]

To adress the cosmological dysfunction theory:

Even if Satan fell from heaven and caused all that time-bending mayhem with the speed of light that caused millions of years of time to suddenly pass in the cosmos, relative to God's external position, here, within the cosmos, time would still have been percieved to have passed normally. All I heard from that theory was a very eccentric and supernatural guess as to how an Old Earth could be created in seven 'God-Days'. It gave no explaination for the Adam and Eve phenominon, nor for the great flood, or any other story from the Old Testament. To be quite clear, all I heard was an esoteric theory to support your opponents' argument for an Old Earth...

From what I could tell it just seemed like a theory which was meant to confuse, perplex, and otherwise bewilder anyone who read it to the purpose of seeming too esoteric to be taken for anything but scientific; but, I find if I read slow enough for long enough, I can understand what it is trying to suggest.

To be honest, I think you should read the Book of Enoch. It is an ancient Christian text which is one of a very few books which detail the fall of satan from God's favor and the war in heaven. It was left out of the Bible for unknown reasons, but modern speculation is that it had more to do with the canonic length restrictions which were decided upon at the First Ecumenical Council. This would be wise since it has a direct bearing on your case should you choose to persue this line of reasoning.

Now... Group Hug!!


(Sorry... I couldn't resist using the smileys)

 

[Arikay]

Not irrelevent at all.
You claim that the bible holds all the answers, and supports your theory. Your explanation for the evidence that we see is that the fall of the angel satan started everything going downhill.
So, showing where the bible says satan fell from heaven is a key part of your theory.


So, again, where in the bible does it say satan is a fallen angel?

irrelevent to the discussion; i am aware of the alternative opinions and to attempt to pursue such a rabbit trail is, imo, nothing more than a diversion to the issue at hand. How, why or when Satan fell is immaterial to how the whole of creation was irreparably damaged when he sinned so, please, decease in this and let's stay on track. again, thank you.[\quote]

 

[william jay schroeder]

Here are some thing that support YEC 1. The amount of mud at the bottom of the ocean is not deep enough for a million year old planet, and supports a global flood. 2. Helium is not very abundant in the atmosphere. this suggest a young earth. 3. the use of radioactive data research for the date of rocks or other things because radio-decay rates are not constant or immune to environment influences 3. Strata are too tightly bent. Had to of been soft at time of bending or it would have cracked. over millions of years it would have dried out and than cracked under the pressures.

 

[Arikay]

You just wont stop with the PRATT lists will you.

Can you explain any of what you said or is this another case where you don't understand what you are talking about but feel it's right anyways?

How deep is the mud on the ocean floor?
How deep should we expect the mud to be if the earth was old?
How did you arrive at these calculations?
How does that support a global flood?

(do you not understand that unsupported statements are meaningless?)

 

[william jay schroeder]

You just wont stop with the PRATT lists will you.

Can you explain any of what you said or is this another case where you don't understand what you are talking about but feel it's right anyways?

How deep is the mud on the ocean floor?
How deep should we expect the mud to be if the earth was old?
How did you arrive at these calculations?
How does that support a global flood?

(do you not understand that unsupported statements are meaningless?)

mud comes from rivers that feed the ocean. Mud is washed into the oceans from the rivers which can be found in the ocean if this has been happening for a billion years there would be alot more mud at the bottom. it doesnt just disappear. so what of the other ones. if you have ways two disprove them show them. these are the basics for YEC so i figured you would have heard them and shown there errors before.

 

[Ron21647]

so one millennia an eon or two ago the kids (fallen angels) were playing in the sandbox (gap earth) and started getting into things they shouldn't have and the fabric of the universe that maintained its self-healing self-restoring properties was torn asunder by the introduction of the kids' sins which turned on the atomic clocks and the cosmos started dying and winding down.

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com

 

[Arikay]

Yes it does disapear. The mid ocean ridge spreads the ocean floor outward. When the floor runs into the lighter continental plates, it bends under the plates and back into the earth, this is called subduction. The ocean floor is only around 150 million years old at the edges because it is constantly recycling itself.
The sediment on the ocean floor is what is expected if it is millions of years old at the edges and less than a day old at the ridge.

mud comes from rivers that feed the ocean. Mud is washed into the oceans from the rivers which can be found in the ocean if this has been happening for a billion years there would be alot more mud at the bottom. it doesnt just disappear. so what of the other ones. if you have ways two disprove them show them. these are the basics for YEC so i figured you would have heard them and shown there errors before.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Does your math take into account a global Ice Age which would have severely disrupted the flows of almost all rivers in the Temperate regions of the Northern Hemishpere? How about the Spreading of Continental plates, the same mud cannot fill an expanding vessel? What do you think?

 

[kingreaper]

Here are some thing that support YEC 1. The amount of mud at the bottom of the ocean is not deep enough for a million year old planet, and supports a global flood.

How deep is the mud?
What is the total infux rate for mud?
What is the total rate of removal of mud, or changing of mud into something other than mud?
How did you arrive at these figures? (include all the factors responsible for influx and outflux)
How deep should the mud be?
How did you arrive at that figure (just in case you did it a really dumb way (anyone who hasn't notied will see why I suspect that soon))?

2. Helium is not very abundant in the atmosphere. this suggest a young earth.

How much Helium is there?
At what rate does it enter the atmosphere?
At what rate does it leave the atmosphere
How did you arrive at those figures? (include all factors)
How much should there be in the atmosphere?
How did you arrive at that figure?

3. the use of radioactive data research for the date of rocks or other things because radio-decay rates are not constant or immune to environment influences

Evidence for this assertion being?

3. Strata are too tightly bent. Had to of been soft at time of bending or it would have cracked. over millions of years it would have dried out and than cracked under the pressures.

When you bend something extremely slowly it won't crack, how slowly you must bend it dependas on the material, millions of years supply enough time for the strata to bend slowly


Note the two numer 3's

told you I had a reason

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Hello, My apologies but I'm not sure to whom you are addressing your comments though some of it infers it may have been in response to what i have written so i will address a few...

To adress the cosmological dysfunction theory:

Even if Satan fell

Though your wording suggests your belief in the existence of Satan you, nonetheless, appear to question his fall.

from heaven and caused all that time-bending mayhem with the speed of light that caused millions of years of time to suddenly pass in the cosmos, relative to God's external position, here, within the cosmos, time would still have been percieved to have passed normally.

the scientific community is coming to believe that a drop in lightspeed has occurred over the lifetime of the cosmos from some initial value near 1060 times its current speed. The cDK research has indicated that lightspeed has been dropping over the life of the universe from a maximum value around 1011 times now. This is a more conservative estimate than others are proposing. The actual cause of the change in lightspeed is suspected as being related to changes in the structure of the vacuum by both secular scientists and those involved in the cDK research. Finally, Einstein's equations have been called into question. However, they can be shown to be basically correct provided that energy is conserved in the process of c variation, but some other atomic constants will vary synchronously in this case.-Barry Setterfield, Physicist, 10th August 2002

All I heard from that theory was a very eccentric and supernatural guess as to how an Old Earth could be created in seven 'God-Days'.

Could have been 24 hour days, could have been 1000 year periods hence referred to as "days"; actually, it is secondary to the fact that God created the heavens and the earth; still, I tend to go with the 24 hour scenario with an admission that the truth is there we just haven't learned it all yet.

It gave no explaination for the Adam and Eve phenominon, nor for the great flood,

Forty[-five] years ago sonar studies through the Mediterranean Sea and into the sea floor below revealed a strange reflecting layer 100-200 meters below the bottom and unexpected stratification of the sediments. Buried sub-bottom salt domes were also detected. The seismic data were tantalizing enough to merit a Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) by the Glomar Challenger beginning in 1970. (1, 2) This amazing ship was equipped with side thrusters for accurate position control, and a drilling rig capable of core sampling the sea floor even through water several miles deep. The first core samples off the coast of Barcelona, Spain did not yield sands, gravels and muds as expected, but gypsum, oceanic basalt, small fossil shells and hardened ocean oozes. The fossils were those one would expect from a shallow salty lagoon, or a surface evaporation pond, yet the water depth at the drilling site was 2000 meters deep.

Subsequent drilling revealed that the floor of the Mediterranean most everywhere was underlain with layers of evaporites, and more fossils such as blue green algae that can live only in sunlit waters. The fossils dated from the end of the Miocene Epoch and were all 5 to 6 million years old on the atomic time scale.

The researchers were reluctantly, but excitedly, driven to the conclusion that the Mediterranean Sea had dried up and refilled a dozen times in a million years. Since the Mediterranean basin is as much as 16,000 feet deep, the dry sea floor must have been an incredible hot desert for long periods of time. The lowest place on earth nowadays is the Dead Sea which is only 1300 feet below sea level. Further studies confirmed that deep gorges in solid rock (now filled with ocean sediments and then river muds) lay under the Nile River and the Rhone River, suggesting that these rivers were once great torrents steeply dropping water into the empty Mediterranean basin. (However, other filled in gorges are also found around the world and are not unique to the Mediterranean). Best of all, the researchers imagined a prehistoric waterfall at the Straits of Gibraltar bringing in Atlantic ocean water with the volume of a hundred Victoria Falls or a thousand Niagaras at intervals lasting a hundred years or more.-Lambert Dolphin, Physicist

or any other story from the Old Testament. To be quite clear, all I heard was an esoteric theory to support your opponents' argument for an Old Earth...

From what I could tell it just seemed like a theory which was meant to confuse, perplex, and otherwise bewilder anyone who read it to the purpose of seeming too esoteric to be taken for anything but scientific; but, I find if I read slow enough for long enough, I can understand what it is trying to suggest.

Thank you for listening, I'm not a scientist, nor do I profess to be; just a bible student not afraid to question traditionally accepted thought on matters outside the Gospel message of salvation.

To be honest, I think you should read the Book of Enoch. It is an ancient Christian text which is one of a very few books which detail the fall of satan from God's favor and the war in heaven. It was left out of the Bible for unknown reasons, but modern speculation is that it had more to do with the canonic length restrictions which were decided upon at the First Ecumenical Council.

Again, thank you, i have and a copy in my library and though it is supportive it should, nevertheless, be regarded as just that, supportive and secondary.

This would be wise since it has a direct bearing on your case should you choose to persue this line of reasoning.

Understood and agreed, though, at this time,it would probably be more of a foundational impediment replete with far too many rabbit trails.



Now... Group Hug!!


(Sorry... I couldn't resist using the smileys)

Again, thank you, your comments are appreciated.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

where in the bible does it say satan is a fallen angel?

Your rabbit trail your lead.