Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

[Gary51]

Gen 1....... GAP...... Gen 2.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

To define "trusting God" as an intellectual belief that affects basically nothing other than what youtube videos one might choose to watch is utterly lacking.

Lay down your life for the sheep and I'll follow you. Whether it's for 6000 years or 14 billion makes zero difference to me.

If you're referring to my video then i would object to your criticism. This guy is a scientist, this thread is about science.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Darwin himself admits that his theory isn't sound if we dont find evidence in the fossil record. And we have not found any, in all this time we have not found any evidence at all.

Except, of course, the fossil record is absolutely abundant.

We should find "transitional fossils" in the record; of course we do. As a point of fact every fossil is a transitional fossil, because every organism is a transitional organism. If I take Bob, Bob's son Mike, and Bob's grandson Kevin, Mike is "transitional" between Bob and Kevin. Now move that onto a far bigger scale we can talk about a single individual as "transitional" between that individual's ancestors and that individual's descendents.

However, indeed, according to the theory of evolution we should find evidence of organisms that show signs of being somewhere along the gradient from A to B; so when we talk about the transition from fish to amphibians (two incredibly broad categories of organisms, but that is beside the point) we do in fact have in the fossil record what can be described as very "fish-like" amphibians or very "amphibian-like" fish. We can see some fish with powerful, fleshy fins that like today's mudskippers were used to crawl across land; and we have living evidence today of fishes that have lungs--the lungfishes. We have fish-like animals with primitive-looking legs and feet, etc. Those organisms are preserved in the fossil record.

The fossil record is very abundant. So pointing to the fossil record and saying, "Where's the evidence?" is like pointing to the noon-day sun and saying, "Where's the sun?"

We can prove that different species of birds can interbreed and create new kinds of birds, and most animals can do this. However this is not the theory of evolution is it?

Cross-breeding isn't evolution, so I have no idea why this would even be brought up.

The only evolutionary relevant issue is speciation; which is generally defined as when two related populations cease being able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If one took a population of wolves and separated them and if different environmental factors proved favorable to different traits being passed along to succeeding generations, if when these two divergent populations of wolves, if re-introduced were then unable to produce viable offspring together this would be an example of speciation.

And such speciation has, indeed, been observed in living populations.

Evolution isn't still taught as valid science because there is some mass conspiracy, it's because evolution has consistently fit all observations thus far made--it consistently makes the most sense of all possible explanations that account for all the data, for all the observations.

It is a working, viable theory that very accurately accounts for and describes the bio-diversity we see on this planet. And it is in no way contradictory or in conflict with the historic, biblical Christian faith. It never has.

A great many of the most important scientists in the field who have continued to revolutionize the theory of evolution over the last 150 years have, in fact, been faithful, devout, believing Christians. Men and women who take their Bible very seriously.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[seeingeyes]

If you're referring to my video then i would object to your criticism. This guy is a scientist, this thread is about science.

I didn't see your video, I was responding straight to the OP.

At any rate, this thread is not about science. It's about one sheep telling the other sheep that they are not sheepish enough for him. All I have to say about that is: Baaaaaa.

I know my Shepherd's voice. It doesn't sound like this guy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This guy is a reputable creationist and scientist.

Carl Baugh? No he isn't.

Even Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis have rejected Baugh. Baugh has no credentials, he has no credible scientific education--no education whatsoever actually. He's not a reputable scientist, he's not a scientist of any sort.

He has honorary doctorates from unaccredited schools and diploma mills.

If Carl Baugh is a scientist, then I'm the King of Spain.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Except, of course, the fossil record is absolutely abundant.

We should find "transitional fossils" in the record; of course we do. As a point of fact every fossil is a transitional fossil, because every organism is a transitional organism. If I take Bob, Bob's son Mike, and Bob's grandson Kevin, Mike is "transitional" between Bob and Kevin. Now move that onto a far bigger scale we can talk about a single individual as "transitional" between that individual's ancestors and that individual's descendents.

However, indeed, according to the theory of evolution we should find evidence of organisms that show signs of being somewhere along the gradient from A to B; so when we talk about the transition from fish to amphibians (two incredibly broad categories of organisms, but that is beside the point) we do in fact have in the fossil record what can be described as very "fish-like" amphibians or very "amphibian-like" fish. We can see some fish with powerful, fleshy fins that like today's mudskippers were used to crawl across land; and we have living evidence today of fishes that have lungs--the lungfishes. We have fish-like animals with primitive-looking legs and feet, etc. Those organisms are preserved in the fossil record.

The fossil record is very abundant. So pointing to the fossil record and saying, "Where's the evidence?" is like pointing to the noon-day sun and saying, "Where's the sun?"



Cross-breeding isn't evolution, so I have no idea why this would even be brought up.

The only evolutionary relevant issue is speciation; which is generally defined as when two related populations cease being able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If one took a population of wolves and separated them and if different environmental factors proved favorable to different traits being passed along to succeeding generations, if when these two divergent populations of wolves, if re-introduced were then unable to produce viable offspring together this would be an example of speciation.

And such speciation has, indeed, been observed in living populations.

Evolution isn't still taught as valid science because there is some mass conspiracy, it's because evolution has consistently fit all observations thus far made--it consistently makes the most sense of all possible explanations that account for all the data, for all the observations.

It is a working, viable theory that very accurately accounts for and describes the bio-diversity we see on this planet. And it is in no way contradictory or in conflict with the historic, biblical Christian faith. It never has.

A great many of the most important scientists in the field who have continued to revolutionize the theory of evolution over the last 150 years have, in fact, been faithful, devout, believing Christians. Men and women who take their Bible very seriously.

-CryptoLutheran

With all due respect ViaCrucis that is all hogwash. Science disproves the theory of evolution. As i said before, its genetically impossible for things to evolve past their genetic programming. If anything does evolve then its because God allowed it to evolve by writing it in the genetic code. If two people from different races procreate then you end up with a mixture of those genetic codes, but this is not evolution. There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution and the science of genetics disproves the possibility of it.

 

[lost999]

Carl Baugh? No he isn't. Even Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis have rejected Baugh. Baugh has no credentials, he has no credible scientific education--no education whatsoever actually. He's not a reputable scientist, he's not a scientist of any sort. He has honorary doctorates from unaccredited schools and diploma mills. If Carl Baugh is a scientist, then I'm the King of Spain. -CryptoLutheran

Looks like you're the King of Spain

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I didn't see your video, I was responding straight to the OP.

At any rate, this thread is not about science. It's about one sheep telling the other sheep that they are not sheepish enough for him. All I have to say about that is: Baaaaaa.

I know my Shepherd's voice. It doesn't sound like this guy.

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[ViaCrucis]

With all due respect ViaCrucis that is all hogwash. Science disproves the theory of evolution. As i said before, its genetically impossible for things to evolve past their genetic programming. If anything does evolve then its because God allowed it to evolve by writing it in the genetic code. If two people from different races procreate then you end up with a mixture of those genetic codes, but this is not evolution. There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution and the science of genetics disproves the possibility of it.

What on earth do you think the theory of evolution even is?

What on earth do two human beings of differing ethnic backgrounds procreating have to do with anything thus far discussed?

Do you think evolution is about frogs and fish having sex and producing frogfish? Because that is by far probably the most stupid thing I've heard in a very long time.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Restoresmysoul]

What on earth do you think the theory of evolution even is?

What on earth do two human beings of differing ethnic backgrounds procreating have to do with anything thus far discussed?

Do you think evolution is about frogs and fish having sex and producing frogfish? Because that is by far probably the most stupid thing I've heard in a very long time.

-CryptoLutheran

No thats not what i think. Evolution suggests that new animals can be created through a process of evolution. But this is genetically impossible. Please dont try to tell me that evolution is simply the process of two kinds of dogs interbreeding and creating a new breed of Dog, because thats not a theory, its just a fact that man has observed for thousands of years. Evolution suggests that animals themselves evolve into new animals, but this is genetically impossible.

Why is this so hard to believe? This world doesn't believe in God the creator, so why should it shock us if they believe in an impossible theory of evolution?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Mankind also thinks it can bring world peace which is also impossible. If anything history should prove to mankind that it will never have peace. Anyway, i have had enough theories. Have a good day everyone.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I posted this on another site, but thought it would fit here as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like some stuff really needs to be said about this, because we as a church as a whole keep wanting to follow the "well we need to agree to disagree" concept on this issue, and its not some small issue like the color of the carpet that we need to just push to the side.Thats not how the bible tells of to treat false teaching (and the fact is, both sides can't be right, which means at least one is false teaching). This is as big issue, and I'll explain why.

Ultimately, this is NOT an issue on if god created the earth in 7 days vs millions of years. This is not an issue that just has to do with "is science right", its not just an issue of "well, thats just an interpretation of the bible", its an issue of trust.

Do you trust Yahweh?

We have two sides of this. On the on one side, we have the word of God. It says that the earth was created in 6 days by God(on the 7th he rested).

On the other side we have "science". Saying, well frankly science says a whole lot of different stuff, but very few theory's say the earth was created in 6 days by god. A popular theory is Evolution, so thats what I'm going to focus on.

You have to pick a side. But before we get down to it we need to get something straight. Science, is only our attempt at understanding the world around us. Most of what we know, is probably wrong if history shows us anything. I mean, at one point in the last hundred years we were lobotomizing people (destroying part of their brain) to "heal" mental illness, but we could also look at something much more modern. Just in the few years I was in school the model of the atom changed several times. We are always finding out new things, but every time we learn something new we are probably also finding something we thought to be true to actually be false. This is growth, I love science, however personally, I don't believe it should be looked at for the answer to the "big questions" (how did we get here, what is the meaning of life, ect.), but rather the practical uses (the computer I'm typing this on, my phone, tv, the microwave, improvements in medicine and food production, ect.)

Now,so what we have, is science and God. You can only put your trust in one. You can't say "well, I'm going to believe that science is ok on this one and god is wrong". No. You are putting your trust in humans, over GOD the creator of the universe.

When you say your are a christian and you tell me you believe in evolution, it tells me something immediately, you do not trust god. You can argue with me all you want but the fact is the bible says everything was made in 6, not through millions of years. Seriously, take a look at your life. Do you read your bible every day? Do you spend time in prayer (and actual prayer, not just a quick little one minute diddy before you go to bed or something, but do you actually set time aside every day for prayer). I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is no, because if you did you would grow closer to god and you would trust him, rather than man.

The choice is yours, you can trust in the creator of the universe, a god perfectly just and full of love, for you, so much that he DIED for you, a god who is perfect. OR you can trust in mans attempt to understand the world around us. However you can't put your trust in both.

Genesis 2:4

> This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Of course I trust God. I trust him when he says that humans are rational beings with the ability to understand their world. I trust him that he gave us the Scriptures so that we might have life, and life eternal. I just don't believe that Gen 1-3 are literal descriptions of the creation of the world, and more address the significance of creation and universal human experience.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

With all due respect ViaCrucis that is all hogwash. Science disproves the theory of evolution. As i said before, its genetically impossible for things to evolve past their genetic programming. If anything does evolve then its because God allowed it to evolve by writing it in the genetic code. If two people from different races procreate then you end up with a mixture of those genetic codes, but this is not evolution. There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution and the science of genetics disproves the possibility of it.

Wow. You know nothing about the theory you're emphatically denying.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Gen 1....... GAP...... Gen 2.

L'sigh. That's not how contemporary biblical scholarship understands the Genesis narrative at all.

 

[Jig]

Somewhere along the way. Genesis, like many ancient documents, blends seamlessly from what we today would consider legend to what we today would consider history. For example, the Primary Chronicle, a medieval document of the Rus, includes what are pretty obviously legends in the exact same style as what is more clearly history. They just didnt make that distinction until the modern era. So I cant give you a chapter and verse (which are arbitrary distinctions not original to the text anyway) because the whole book is a mismash of legend and history.

Note that I am nowhere saying that just because something is legend that it is untrue or uninspired.

So, basically you do not know where literal history begins in Genesis - the transition is just too seamless and smooth. If this is true, how can you say with certainty what is literal history and what is legend?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

This guy is a reputable creationist and scientist.

Also a convicted tax cheat. Along with Hovind.

 

[Targaryen]

Also a convicted tax cheat. Along with Hovind.

Shhh....let the revisionists have their fantasy world.

 

[miamited]

Hi RMS,

Ahh, my Father is regularly finding ways to teach me patience and wisdom.

My apologies for the post I directed to you. I honestly haven't read all that lead up to that post and so, once again, jumped into the middle of something without a clear understanding of what was being discussed. I see now, that you do know that it is just a drawing.

When my son was about 12 years old we visited Washington DC for a few days and I took the opportunity to take him to the Smithsonian Museum of natural science. One of the first things you run into there is the display of the evolutionary theory of man. This very depiction is what is used there to explain the theory to the general public. Needless to say, I took the opportunity to explain again, the truth to him and to show how 'science' can be used to mislead people. Because it is touted as nothing more than the search for truth, people believe pretty much everything that comes from it as the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Also a convicted tax cheat. Along with Hovind.

Hi MK,

That is the quintessential example of an 'ad hominem' argument fallacy.

Can you show a correlation between someone not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes, if that itself is the reason he was convicted,k to one's ability to know and understand the truth?

It would seem to me that there are a lot of people with weak moral fiber, who may well know the truth about something. Gosh, we even voted one of them to be the president of the US back about 20 years ago. It would seem to me that if weak moral fiber determined one's ability to know the truth, then we were all mislead when we voted William Clinton into the office of the presidency.

I do understand that it is the nature of man to defend himself at pretty much any cost, but 'ad hominem' argument fallacies are just such cheap shots that I can't imagine a born again believer thinking that it would stand up in a refutation statement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Hi MK,

That is the quintessential example of an 'ad hominem' argument fallacy.

Can you show a correlation between someone not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes, if that itself is the reason he was convicted,k to one's ability to know and understand the truth?

It would seem to me that there are a lot of people with weak moral fiber, who may well know the truth about something. Gosh, we even voted one of them to be the president of the US back about 20 years ago. It would seem to me that if weak moral fiber determined one's ability to know the truth, then we were all mislead when we voted William Clinton into the office of the presidency.

I do understand that it is the nature of man to defend himself at pretty much any cost, but 'ad hominem' argument fallacies are just such cheap shots that I can't imagine a born again believer thinking that it would stand up in a refutation statement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Sorry. The word was reputable. Cheating on one's taxes is lying. Not reputable.