Question about evolution
- Thread starter GraftMeIn
- Start date
I'm still looking for a reference to these random facts you're throwing at us. Where did you get that information about DNA and dust? I hope you didn't make that up. If not, please show me the reference.
To answer your question, no, I can't. However, I find that to be more evidence for evolution than against. If the Earth startted out with a lot of water, then it stands to reason that life evolved to make use of water. That's how evolution works.
I don't know why I'm continuing this discussion, since it appears you have decided not to address most of my points and instead to ignore them.
Why discount so quickly what the lick the moon myths say about water being created first, knowing that water is an essential ingredient to life on earth? =)
As far as I'm concerned, the ones who licked the moon and the god of the Bible are pretty similar. They all offer a convenient, simple, explanation for things that require much more detailed analysis.
Upvote
0
No I didn't make anything up, I have no reason to do that. I read it on a news site, I'll see if I can dig through some archives and find it for you.
To use that as evidence for evolution is saying that the Bible is correct in stating that water was the first creation.
And what points would those be? evidence of evolution? I haven't seen any evidence for it.
I do see how things in the world work around me, and the order that things were created in, and why they would have had to be created in that order, in order to sustain life.
Can you give some references where these lick the moon myths etc.. tell how the world, and life was created, and the order they were created in?
Upvote
0
If God created plants before light, then why does the bible say this....
Genesis 1:1-5
1-2 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3-5 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
things needed to be created in a certain order for life to be supported, the Bible shows the order these things were created in, it shows how things were planned, and created in order that life may be formed.
the Bible shows water, and light on the first day, two very essential ingredients for supporting life. It doesn't say anything about plants yet.
Upvote
0
Who ever denied that? Explain why it matters.
You still need to explain why your religious non-answer is any better that that of other religions.
Shai-Hulud
Upvote
0
I didn't say anyone denied it, I was asking a question. the reason it matters is in the order things were created.
In what order do these other religions say things were created? I can't give you an answer untill you provide me with something that shows me how they say things were created, and in what order they were created in, and where it is written.
Upvote
0
They why do you keep asking? It's been answered several times.
You know the order well enough unless you're totally ignorant of current science. And I object to the word created. You're formulating your conclusion with your question.
You can find almost any order you want.
And yet you managed to decide that your creation myth is true, and all those of other religions are false.
Shai-Hulud
Upvote
0
Water was present on Earth before life evolved. The Earth was present for a log time before life started to evolve, though, and water wasn't present on Earth from teh beginning.
Upvote
0
From what you told me, (I assume you got your answers from science) It was a lucky chance of a combinition of two substances that contained no life, that formed life.
How can that be? It's like saying I can stick two different types of rocks in a jar and expect to get life.
any order we want means nothing if it can't support life. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out.
I don't consider it a myth, and as far I can tell, science will support the fact that in order for life to exist water and light are needed.
The Bible also can support the fact that science is correct if science agrees that those are the two first essential things needed to support life.
They can be used to compliment each other, but there are those who will continue to refuse that the bible can ever be correct, even if science does support what it says is the correct order things would have to be created in.
Upvote
0
Good idea. Set up a straw man and shoot it down...
I didn't say anything about rocks. Learn some chemistry please. Life is nothing more than chemicals. That was illustrated beyond doubt recentrly when scientists created the polio virus from scratch. Chemicals interact. All chemicals. It is possible that they form a combination that is able to replicate itself. Then you have life.
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Explain please.
Life does not need light. Do some research on chemosythesis and life around deep sea thermal vents. You may not consider it a myth, but any honest person with the slightest bit of scientific knowledge know that it is. Just like all other creation stories.
Do you consider plants before the sun to be the correct order?
You still need to explain why your religious non-answer is any better that that of other religions. (second time.)
Shai-Hulud
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes, science will support the fact that water and light are needed to sustain life - at least, the sort of life that exists on Earth. Having said that, what's the problem? Science isn't trying to disprove the Bible.
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Taken from
Robert von Ranke-Graves: Greek Mythology
(my translation)
The pelasgian creatian myth
"In the beginning there was Eurynome, the goddess of all things. Naked she rose from the chaos. But there was nothing firm for her to set her feet on. So she diveded the sea from the sky, and danced upon the waves."
So, here we have another creation myth that tells of a early creation of water. In fact, just as the Biblical creation myth, it tells of the DIVISION of water from the rest.
Can we now conclude from this that this myth is true?
Robert von Ranke-Graves: Greek Mythology
(my translation)
The pelasgian creatian myth
"In the beginning there was Eurynome, the goddess of all things. Naked she rose from the chaos. But there was nothing firm for her to set her feet on. So she diveded the sea from the sky, and danced upon the waves."
So, here we have another creation myth that tells of a early creation of water. In fact, just as the Biblical creation myth, it tells of the DIVISION of water from the rest.
Can we now conclude from this that this myth is true?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
No you didn't say anything about rocks, but it's the same theory two things with no life equaling life. zero life plus zero life equals zero life.
I'm talking about why things need to be formed in a certain order in order to get life. Like I said the order things were created according to myths is meaningless if they aren't in an order that can support life.
Plant life above ground needs light in order to grow. therefore it was needed before plants could grow on land.
As long as there was light no sun would be needed for plants to grow, I can grow a plant under artificial light without the sun, some plants need full shade to grow in, so they don't need sunlight they just need some form of light.
again I would need refrences to what other religions say the way things were created are, something written before the Bible, or in the same era.
Upvote
0
the problem with this is it was written in 1947. Is there anything written dating back to biblical times, that can be used as a reference?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I agree science isn't trying to disprove the Bible. The problem is that some people say God could not have created the world, or life. and therefore they think the bible is incorrect.
Upvote
0
So who wrote the first version? what were the manuscripts that it was translated from?
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You'd have to go back a long ways, but creation myths predate written language in most cultures. My understanding is that, as Creation myths go, the one in Genesis is a fairly late model, and shows a lot of signs of the kinds of changes that happen when new beliefs encounter an existing creation myth; for instance, the apparently different chronologies of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Right. And as long as the defense is "but we don't know for sure that every single field of science is supporting the same basic conclusions", we'll be turning people away in droves... Or perhaps we should just kill them for pursuing knowledge we don't approve of, since that worked so well with heliocentrism.
On the other hand, if we admit that the Bible is, as always, a moral and spiritual text, and not a scientific text, we preserve God's Word, and we take away a major source of shaken faith.
Young-earth creationism creates a fragile belief system that can fall all to pieces if any tiny part of modern science turns out to be true. It is the cause of millions of deconversions.
Perhaps, as Christians, we should be seeking to spread the awareness that Christ's sacrifice for us doesn't go away just because the world is older than some pre-agricultural people once thought.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
