please help me understand debate creation vs evolution

[Smidlee]

That is the usual creationist claim. However, creationist conclusions can only be reached by interpreting with that conclusion in mind from the beginning - i.e. "I know the conclusion - how can I make this piece of evidence fit it?"




This should tell you something. Why would God create a universe one way and make it look like He did it another way?


.

First I find it odd that you haven't heard evolutionists admitted they also make the facts fit their theory so it's not something only the creationists do. By the way there is usually more than one theory on any evidence even among evolutionists.

the way the Earth looks is man's interpretion since we are only here in a very small time span. exactly how old did the earth appear to Adam? Also the creation itself is a witness of the invisible God/creator. Maybe the stars and earth wasn't meant to be explained away by human reasoning.

Also I find it interesting the scriptures themselves doesn't claim the planet Earth is 6,000 years old. "In the beginning (why didn't Moses write a date since he was closer to the creation than we are?)God created the heaven and the earth." I also find it very interesting that in KJV which was written in 1611 ( AFAIK when there wasn't no debate evolution vs creation or how old the planet was?) that in Genesis 1:1 the word "heaven" isn't plural while in Genesis 2:1 it is. I also notice while studing verse Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth." so that while I sure there is places where the word "earth" applies to the planet I believe in most places it is referring to land itself (continent).

P.S. Isn't it amazing that man waste a lot of time on evolution and creation while God only wrote one (at best two) chapters on creation while in His word there are 9 whole chapters of nothing but very boring genealogies (1 Choroncles). It like God hints He loves writing people names in his book ( the Lamb's book of life) more than waste time explain how He spoke this world into existance. God ways are surely not our ways nor are God thoughts as our thoughts.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

First I find it odd that you haven't heard evolutionists admitted they also make the facts fit their theory so it's not something only the creationists do.

This is because they do not. Do you have evidence that they do? Hint: modifying a theory to accommodate new facts is not the same thing.

By the way there is usually more than one theory on any evidence even among evolutionists.

Of course. Evolution contains any number of sub-theories of varying acceptance and with varying strengths of evidence.

the way the Earth looks is man's interpretion since we are only here in a very small time span. exactly how old did the earth appear to Adam?

In the matters I described, especially ones like presence or absence of isotopes, brand new, I'd expect. There's a difference between Adam observing a tree and seeing it 30' high even though it was made yesterday, and chopping it down and finding not only 200 growth rings but also a history of the previous 200 years' climates.

Also the creation itself is a witness of the invisible God/creator. Maybe the stars and earth wasn't meant to be explained away by human reasoning.

Christians have always held (and this is the basis on which the entire scientific method was based - by scientists who were virtually all Christians) that the universe is rational and can be understood.

Also I find it interesting the scriptures themselves doesn't claim the planet Earth is 6,000 years old. "In the beginning (why didn't Moses write a date since he was closer to the creation than we are?)God created the heaven and the earth." I also find it very interesting that in KJV which was written in 1611 ( AFAIK when there wasn't no debate evolution vs creation or how old the planet was?) that in Genesis 1:1 the word "heaven" isn't plural while in Genesis 2:1 it is. I also notice while studing verse Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth." so that while I sure there is places where the word "earth" applies to the planet I believe in most places it is referring to land itself (continent).

You say you find it interesting, but could you develop a bit on why? What significance do you attach to this observation?

P.S. Isn't it amazing that man waste a lot of time on evolution and creation while God only wrote one (at best two) chapters on creation while in His word there are 9 whole chapters of nothing but very boring genealogies (1 Choroncles). It like God hints He loves writing people names in his book ( the Lamb's book of life) more than waste time explain how He spoke this world into existance. God ways are surely not our ways nor are God thoughts as our thoughts.

Indeed, but science is science, not theology. The Bible (which was not written by God; you seem to be confusing Christian belief in inspiration with the Islamic model of the Koran) doesn't mention electronic semiconductors at all, so presumably computers are a waste of time.

 

[Smidlee]

This is because they do not. Do you have evidence that they do? Hint: modifying a theory to accommodate new facts is not the same thing.

.

I have personally myself read and heard evolutionists honest admit they have done it.( I notice usually those outside of USA will more likely to admit this than those who in the USA where the battle between creation vs evolution is the hottest) I not referring to modifying their thoeries since they many time continue to back their own theories but drop some of the evidence they tried to use to back their ideas.

 

[Smidlee]

Indeed, but science is science, not theology. The Bible (which was not written by God; you seem to be confusing Christian belief in inspiration with the Islamic model of the Koran) doesn't mention electronic semiconductors at all, so presumably computers are a waste of time.

Is computers a waste of time? probably or atleast that what my wife used to preached to me when she was still around.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I have personally myself read and heard evolutionists honest admit they have done it.( I notice usually those outside of USA will more likely to admit this than those who in the USA where the battle between creation vs evolution is the hottest) I not referring to modifying their thoeries since they many time continue to back their own theories but drop some of the evidence they tried to use to back their ideas.

Do you really equate stopping the use of a particular line of evidence with "making the facts suit the theory"?

I am outside the USA, and I've never heard any scientist "admit" that he makes the facts suit the theory. That is a perfect definition of creationism, given the statements of faith one must sign to be a member of say ICR, and indeed their entire raison d'etre - to support the foregone conclusion that Genesis 1-11 is scientifically and historically accurate in a literal sense.

Again, examples?

 

[Treasure the Questions]

My take on the evolution vs creation debate is that the Bible does not claim to be a science book. The Bible is a book about God's dealings with man and man's dealing's with God, so if you read it from a postion of faith you are likely to feel that the one certain thing about the creation of this world and the universe is that God is behind it.

The description of creation found in Genesis was one that people could understand before science had made the great strides it has today and, as it is written as a poem, it was probably never intended to be accurate in every detail, but rather general information about God being the One who created the world and that he made everything, including human beings, good.

More recently (in the last few hundred years) scientific discoveries have given us reason to question the details of the creation account in Genesis, but not the basic principle that God was the mastermind behind it all. Science also has its faults but some of the evidence is pretty conclusive.

Besides, sometimes its more important to love you, than to always have it right. (as a certain Welsh songwriter wrote )

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

That Welsh songwriter wouldn't have anything to do with my screen name or sig, would he?

Or your screen name for that matter

Saw him at Sheffield Boardwalk a year or so ago. Superb.

Strange way to hang around for hours

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Whatever makes you think that, Karl?

 

[major_minor]

1) Is evolution fact or theory?

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?

4) There have been no transitional bones found?

A little about myself. I am an electrical engineer from schooling and have only looked at this debate in my spare time for about 6 months now. And these two questions I cannot seem to see in the debates. My personal take on it all is we all have the same facts and all ignore ones that do not quit fit. Creationist ignore more facts than evolutionist from what I notice.

Personally because of my belief I am a Creationist, though I admit more facts point to evolution than to creationism. Personally I would prefer yes/no answers and websites I should read.

Thank you for your time in helping me understand all of this stuff!!!!

1) Theory. Evolutionist can not give proof to evolution. Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate, and well, evolution take MORE faith to believe than a Creator. Besides, from my study, the evolutionsist first started their work to disprove God. Yet science is proving things today, that the Bible has stated for thousands of years.
2)no. Evolutionist use science, which in and of itself is a science-webster def.

Science /Sci´ence/ (?), n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.] 1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
If we conceive God's sight or science, before the creation, to be extended to all and every part of the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity on anything to come to pass. Hammond.
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

3)Evouution? Yes, it does take place, but Macro, as in grand scale. Not to my knowledge.
4)What do YOU mean by transitional?

What facts do you refer to?

 

[artybloke]

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate,

Let's make a few things clear, before we get the usual creationist lies trotted out.

a) Carbon dating is not used to date fossils. It can only be used to date things that had once been alive (bones, in other words: there is no bone in a fossil, because it has been replaced by non-organic material.)

b) Carbon dating is perfectly fine within its own parameters. That is, it is accurate up to a date of about 40,000 years. Large enough to blow a hole in any 6,000 year old date of the earth (heck, there are ice-cores older than the 6,000 year-old earth.)

c) Fossils are dated using a variety of other forms of radiometric dating with much longer half-lives such as Potassium-Argon, as well as methods such as thermoluminessence. Scientists are fully aware of the limitations of each of these methods, factors these limitations into their calculations, and use more than one method to establish a date. Everytime they do this, they get an agreement of the date, so it is generally thought that they are accurate to within a few thousand years or so.

I suggest you stop reading that creationist nonsense and go and read something that's got some science in it.

evolution take MORE faith to believe than a Creator.

Another lie we should stem from the beginning is that evolution = atheism. It doesn't. I believe that God created the world. The facts show me that he did this through evolution.

Besides, from my study, the evolutionsist first started their work to disprove God.

I suggest you go back and do some more study; that's not even true of Darwin.

 

[tryptophan]

1) Is evolution fact or theory?

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?

4) There have been no transitional bones found?

A little about myself. I am an electrical engineer from schooling and have only looked at this debate in my spare time for about 6 months now. And these two questions I cannot seem to see in the debates. My personal take on it all is we all have the same facts and all ignore ones that do not quit fit. Creationist ignore more facts than evolutionist from what I notice.

Personally because of my belief I am a Creationist, though I admit more facts point to evolution than to creationism. Personally I would prefer yes/no answers and websites I should read.

Thank you for your time in helping me understand all of this stuff!!!!

1. Evolution is a theory. Facts are things that are not always as easy to identify in science as one would think. Theories are more than just educated guesses that scientists have come up with. They are things that people have thought about for years, have compiled extensive evidence, and have a reasonable sense that they are true. However, there is always the chance of further evidence showing up that could modify or even disprove a theory. In the case of evolution, little real evidence has been acquired to disprove it, so the theory still stands.

2. I'm not sure, I'll think of that some more.

3. Not really, but that's because it would take so long for a given species to come about. Human populations have been isolated for 10s of 1000s of years, yet we still haven't gone through macroevolution. We are still one species. The rate of speciation takes too long. And there's no cut off point for when you have a new species. You don't go to the forest, and then suddenly see two new species of deer. It happens gradually.

4. There have been transitional forms found. Archaeopteryx to name one. However, one needs to remember that transition forms aren't going to be found easily. Transitions are species in their own right, and are not just averages of what came before, and what came after, so they may not be seen themselves as transitions. Also, living transitions probably would not be seen because natural selection encourages movement towards the extremes (whether it be to one side, two sides, or the middle) rather than intermediates. For fossilized transitions, fossilization is a very complex process, and fossils can become rare.

I hope that that helped. Do you have any more questions?

 

[1GODALONE]

ha... i know evolutionists hate this one. where did the dust come from?

 

[pressingon]

ha... i know evolutionists hate this one. where did the dust come from?

You might want to clarify your question, either by quoting an original post or simply expounding on what you want to know about the Theistic Evolutionist position.

Just a bit of advice from my limited time here (certainly not intended to offend)... Unless your posts clearly communicate what you want to know, you either will not be taken seriously by those to whom you pose your questions or simply will not receive answers that are at all topical to what you really want to know.

God bless...

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

ha... i know evolutionists hate this one. where did the dust come from?

God. Actually, it is much more comlicated than that, but ultimately it boils down to God.

Why would I hate the question?

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic, either, 1Godalone. If I believe, as a Christian, that God created the universe and our world, and I also believe that modern science, including the ideas embodied in the theory of evolution, go a long way to explaining how God did it, why should the origin of dust cause me any problem?Karin