Why do some Christian's dismiss Creationism?

[shernren]

Anybody want transitional fossils?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

We have a seven day week because of the Babylonians, via the Hebrews. The Hebrew view of the universe was greatly influenced by the Babylonians . The Romans were also greatly influenced by the Persians - who introduced the 7 day week to Rome. Contemporary christian culture can directly trace its roots to the ancient Hebrews as well as the ancient pagan Romans. Much Hebrew and Roman mythology was derived from even more ancient cultures in the middle east.

Pick up a history book some time.

 

[lismore]

Anybody want transitional fossils?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

After 150 years of digging to prove a 'fact' that has left 4,500 million years of proof, what you have is 15 controversial specimens? A bin bag full? Are you trying to be funny, friend?

Half the ones on that list are already dropped.

 

[lismore]

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).


Out of all these 'ancestors' there arent even enough bones extant to fill a sandwich hamper .

Why oh why is this boulderdash funded? Is there nothing practical these people could do

 

[lismore]

http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/Aprecon.htm

You want missing link frauds!

If we believe evolution theory doctrines hard enough, will we eventually find a real one?

 

[lismore]

We have a seven day week because of the Babylonians, via the Hebrews. The Hebrew view of the universe was greatly influenced by the Babylonians
.

No the Hebrew week was given by almighty God, because God rested on the seventh. Read the Ten Commandments.

. The Romans were also greatly influenced by the Persians - who introduced the 7 day week to Rome. Contemporary christian culture can directly trace its roots to the ancient Hebrews as well as the ancient pagan Romans.
.

Contemporary RCC culture you mean. A hodge podge of beliefs and teachings.

Much Hebrew and Roman mythology was derived from even more ancient cultures in the middle east.

Pick up a history book some time.

If by hebrew mythology you mean the hebrew Scriptures then the Lord rebuke you.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I agree the that catholic church has a hodge podge of different beliefs, many of them pagan in origin. Celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25th, and recognizing Sunday as the sabbath are among them. Most protestant churches follow in the steps of this hodge podge.

Does calling the story of Geneis or Noah myths disturb you?
They are myths because they did not literally happen. However, there can be truth in a myth.

Jesus Himself told parables. What are parables but a form of myth? There never really was a good samaritan, Jesus made that story up - at least that's what I believe. He used a samaritan in his story because samaritans were despised. However, the Parable of the Good Samaritan is still true - the message is true - even if it didn't actually happen.

Maybe God will reward me for believing in A, B, and C but punish me for not believing in X, Y and Z?

 

[The Lady Kate]

No the Hebrew week was given by almighty God, because God rested on the seventh. Read the Ten Commandments.

Don't you consider it just the least bit odd that the Babylonian tradition is identical... and came first?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Don't you consider it just the least bit odd that the Babylonian tradition is identical... and came first?

Yeah, just like the story about the guy and a boat and a big flood.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Don't you consider it just the least bit odd that the Babylonian tradition is identical... and came first?

So answer me: Jews' 7 days a week came from pagan babylonians' idea and made a bogus tale in the Bible to support this claim. is it right?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I agree the that catholic church has a hodge podge of different beliefs, many of them pagan in origin. Celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25th, and recognizing Sunday as the sabbath are among them. Most protestant churches follow in the steps of this hodge podge.

Does calling the story of Geneis or Noah myths disturb you?
They are myths because they did not literally happen. However, there can be truth in a myth.

Jesus Himself told parables. What are parables but a form of myth? There never really was a good samaritan, Jesus made that story up - at least that's what I believe. He used a samaritan in his story because samaritans were despised. However, the Parable of the Good Samaritan is still true - the message is true - even if it didn't actually happen.

Maybe God will reward me for believing in A, B, and C but punish me for not believing in X, Y and Z?

1. Don't bare false witness against whole Christian Church. even TEs won't appreciate your first paragraph
2. calling Genesis a myth doesn't disturb me. it disturbs your soul. God is omnipotent. He can make whatever happen to teach us truth. you should answer why God need falsehood to teach us.
3. Jesus explicitly told you that his story are parables. Bible writers didn't tell you Genesis was a fake.
4. God will both reward you for believing in A,B,C and punish your for not believing in X,Y,Z. your afterlife fate is depending on the combination. which is more important is depend on God, not you and me. God repeatly said created the world in six days to assert His authority before giving orders. you can figure out which is more important.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Anybody want transitional fossils?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

I don't even have to ask you to prove they're from the same animal and untampered. I just ask you: how do you know which age they come from?

You know how the index fossil method came into being:
Rocks' age is determined by the fossils found in it
Fossils' age is determined by the rocks contain them.

simple circular reasoning.

How accurate is radiometric dating?
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/dating3.html

 

[The Lady Kate]

So answer me: Jews' 7 days a week came from pagan babylonians' idea and made a bogus tale in the Bible to support this claim. is it right?

You're half right... the 7 day week belonged to the Babylonians long before the Jews came up with the idea.

You don't actually believe that the pupose of Genesis was to invent the 7-day week, is it?

As for "bogus" story... who, besides yourself, ever imlied it was "bogus?

Consider this:
The Jews, in their efforts to record God's inspired message into limited human writing, lifted ideas from every source of mythology that they were familiar with... Including the Babylonians.

Babylonian beliefs and mythology were certainly well-known enough to the Jews... and well respected (getting conquered on more than one occasion is a great lesson in respect). So, the Hebrew record of God's word could've easily been influenced along the lines of:
"Well, the Babylonains almost had it ... they had the right story, but with the wrong God!"
And so Genesis could be the Jews' way of letting the Babylonians know that "our God is still better than yours! Nyah nyah nyah!"

Of course, you're free to believe this, or not. But the fact is that the Babylonians had a 7-day week centuries before the Hebrews did. On top of that, Late_Cretaceous was correct to bring up the Flood: The Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story almost identical to Noah, and it's a Sumerian myth... pre-dating the Bible by over a millenium!

I'm afraid you just can't close your eyes and make these historical facts go away. The best we can do is reconcile it with our faith.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Haha, seeing people evolving into something else would be silly, especially since our lifetimes severely limit what we are capable of observing in the moment. However, we can very easily watch a bacterial culture replicate, adapt, die and procreate in response to the environment it resides in. This is how viruses evolve, and why many months of each year are spent by scientists devising new vaccines to the recently-mutated flu virus.

However, if evolution were confined to viruses it would be one thing. It is, of course, used by all living creatures. Did you know that you are actually living testimony to one of the two parts of evolutionary theory? When you were born, and as your DNA was formed from the recombination of your parents' genetic structures, mutations occured. You are not simply the average of your parents' DNA, but are in fact a completely new sort of creature, with traits of both parents as well as a smattering of random mutations that make you wholly unique as well. Mutations happen every time a new DNA sequence is formed.

I mentioned that mutation is one of two parts, the other being natural selection, of course. Natural selection states that those organisms best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive, and thus pass along their adaptations. What this means is that when a mutation occurs, it is either neutral (most of the time), detrimental (rarely) or beneficial (rarely). Organisms with detrimental mutations don't do as well as those with neutral or beneficial mutations, so their detrimental genes tend not to get passed along (they often die before they reproduce). Those with beneficial mutations, on the other hand, tend to do better than other organisms, and have a higher likelihood of surviving to pass along their beneficial genes. The end result, of course, is that populations of organisms tend to adapt better and better to the environment they live in through a continued process of mutation and natural selection.

A few things to note about mutation and natural selection: mutation, as far as we can tell, is basically random. Most mutations are neutral, but there's no way to predict whether an organism will be created with beneficial or detrimental mutations. Natural selection is not random. It has a direction - that of increasingly more well-adapted and able organisms. This means that evolution as a whole is also not random. The end result of the process of evolution is the production of better-adapted organisms.

Did you get a chance to read the link on what scientific theories are? They also mentioned a few notes on what facts are. Natural selection and mutation are both facts. They are observations we have made. We have observed that mutations occur in DNA recombination, and we have observed that creatures better adapted to their environment tend to pass along their genes more reliably. Evolution is both theory and fact. As mutation and natural selection are both facts, so is evolution as it is simply a combination of the two. It is also a theory, as there exists a set of explanations as to why evolution occurs. These explanations do a good job of making predictions and have not yet been falsified, which means as of this moment, evolutionary theory is a good theory.

If you have any questions about this topic, feel free to ask!

Have anyone else seen human come from apes or a pig bears a non-pig?
evolution contains several meanings:
universe evolution: big bang etc
origin of life: a rock came to life
macroevolution: ape became human etc
microevolution: variation white man, black man etc
What people have observed so far is microevolution which is a fact. but evolutionist try to deceive us into believing the whole evolution is a packaged deal. don't fall for it. no one has seen the rest 4.
bugs get adapted to pesticides is a minor change, a variation not a macroevolution. they can never resist hammers. there's a limit of how far mutation can go.
also mutations don't add new genes. mutation only shift the proportion of chromosomes. a human simply doesn't have the gene to dictate how a wing should grow. so through mutations your skin can be darker, lighter, you can have 3 hands 1 hand or no hand. you can't develope organs your body doesn't know how to develop.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

You're half right... the 7 day week belonged to the Babylonians long before the Jews came up with the idea.

You don't actually believe that the pupose of Genesis was to invent the 7-day week, is it?

As for "bogus" story... who, besides yourself, ever imlied it was "bogus?

Consider this:
The Jews, in their efforts to record God's inspired message into limited human writing, lifted ideas from every source of mythology that they were familiar with... Including the Babylonians.

Babylonian beliefs and mythology were certainly well-known enough to the Jews... and well respected (getting conquered on more than one occasion is a great lesson in respect). So, the Hebrew record of God's word could've easily been influenced along the lines of:
"Well, the Babylonains almost had it ... they had the right story, but with the wrong God!"
And so Genesis could be the Jews' way of letting the Babylonians know that "our God is still better than yours! Nyah nyah nyah!"

Of course, you're free to believe this, or not. But the fact is that the Babylonians had a 7-day week centuries before the Hebrews did. On top of that, Late_Cretaceous was correct to bring up the Flood: The Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story almost identical to Noah, and it's a Sumerian myth... pre-dating the Bible by over a millenium!

I'm afraid you just can't close your eyes and make these historical facts go away. The best we can do is reconcile it with our faith.

Let me ask you: Did God created the world first or pagans develop their 7 days a week first? did Jews' 7 days a week came from pagans?
Genesis doesn't invent 7 days a week. God invents 7 days a week. in Genesis God tells you why it should be 7 days a week.
You said Genesis is of pagan origin. this is offensive. God doesn't need pagan gods to teach anything. It is the Judeo-Christian God that spoke to Moses and gave 10 commandments.

If God hadn't directly spoke to the Israelis about the creations, you should explain why Jews put this in the Bible? Just to show God is on their side? that's human reasoning. not God's. God did it and told it to Israelis.

Not only Sumerians have a flood story, Hawaiians have one, Chinese have one and many other cultures. and they have no contact with Sumerians, Hebrews according to evolution. why? the flood is historic truth. Noah's offsprings recorded this historic fact and went to these countries.
Thanks for arguing for me.

 

[Dannager]

Lets put this in the context of Christianity.

The awesome power of the Lord God and the truth of his word are both observations we have made, proved and demonstrated to be true. Therefore when the irrefutable fact of creation as upheld by HIM meets something else?

I'd like to address this part first. Let's not put this in the context of Christianity. God's power is not proven to be true, it has not been demonstrated to be true, and the act of creation is not irrefutable, but it is unfalsifiable (which makes it fail as a scientific theory).

Let's stick to science for the time being.

Thanks very much

You're welcome.

That was my point friend, its claimed its so slow we will never see any evidences of it. To me this is like the fastest gun in the west routine.

This is false. The speed of speciation is dependant upon the speed of reproduction (because that's where evolution takes place). We will never actually observe speciation in humans directly, because we reproduce very slowly. Bacteria and viruses reproduce very quickly. Because of this, we have been able to observe viral and bacterial cultures evolve.

However one would expect literally millions of transitional forms to be in existence in fossils or in bones. These would point, but not prove. However after so much digging there is a few boxes of controversial and many hoaxed and ambiguous bones .

One would not expect "literally millions" of transitional fossils. One would expect some fossils, as fossilization itself happens fairly infrequently. However, we have seen transitional fossils, in substantial quantity. The part about controversial and hoaxes bones tells me that someone has been lying to you. Yes, there have been hoaxes (perpetuated by both sides) and controversies, but the vast majority of transitional fossils are not in any way disputed by the scientific community.

I dont think this is evolution friend. Evolution is bacteria evolving into another species?

Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. Put simply, evolution occurs every time any act of reproduction involving genetic mutation occurs. Evolution happens when bacteria adapt to their environment through reproduction. Changing species (called speciation) happens when enough genetic changes occur within a given population to make it genetically distinct (and in many cases, genetically incompatible with the previous population). So yes, this is evolution.

So what am I evolving into then?

You aren't evolving into anything. It is important to understand that individuals do not evolve. You will never, genetically, be anything other than what you are right now. You are not evolving. However, it can be said that humanity is evolving. Populations evolve, not individuals. This isn't X-Men or Pokemon.

Unfortnately mutant is also an insulting term......mutants are not steps forward.

This tells me that you have an incorrect definition of what a mutation is. Allow me to provide you with an accurate one. A mutation is any change in genetic structure from one generation to the next that is not the direct result of genetic recombination. The word "mutant", when used in a scientific context, is not insulting. Everyone can be said to be a mutant, since they contain multiple mutations from the previous generation. The claim "mutants are not steps forward" is inaccurate as well. Mutants are not necessarily steps forward, nor are they necessarily steps backward. Like I explained, some mutations are beneficial, some mutations are detrimental, and most mutations are neutral. Again, feel free to ask more questions about this if you are still finding it difficult to understand.

But, this is not evidence of evolution. Evolution is when these species change into another species. Having a variety of fast horses is differnt from horses sprouting wings!

Evolution doesn't require a change in species. That's speciation, not evolution. Evolution causes speciation, eventually. However, speciation has also been observed.

As a side note, a horse sprouting wings is not evolution, and would in fact disprove evolution because none of the predictions modern evolutionary theory makes includes "horses will eventually sprout wings".

Do you know of any good mutations that lead to another species?

Sure! Are you familiar with the polymer nylon? It's a synthetic polymer, and is not naturally occuring. It was first synthesized in the 1930s. Because prior to this it did not exist, no bacteria up to this point had developed enzymes capable of breaking down nylon. However, in 1975 a new species of bacteria was discovered in locations where nylon was manufactured and dumped. This new species contained a completely new enzyme, never before observed: nylonase. It was breaking down and metabolizing nylon! The only way this could have occured is through the process of evolution. Mutations within bacterial cultures eventually formed the beginnings of an enzyme capable of breaking down nylon. Through natural selection, the enzyme was refined until the bacterial culture had formed a new population and species. For more information on this topic, visit http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html.

Well, they perhaps are both steps backwards...........I still do not see how evolution is proved friend.

Didn't I just tell you in my previous post that science never seeks to prove anything, ever? You did read that post, right?

 

[Dannager]

1. Don't bare false witness against whole Christian Church. even TEs won't appreciate your first paragraph

Actually, I'm a Theistic Evolutionist and I have to agree with everything he said in the first paragraph. It's accurate. The Church has a long history of adopting portions of pagan mythology into its own traditions in an effort to make it more appealing to pagan populations. The Christmas tree, for instance, was originally a pagan icon. This is covered in the most basic of world history courses.

 

[gluadys]

4. God will both reward you for believing in A,B,C and punish your for not believing in X,Y,Z. your afterlife fate is depending on the combination. which is more important is depend on God, not you and me. God repeatly said created the world in six days to assert His authority before giving orders. you can figure out which is more important.

And here I was thinking scripture taught us that salvation is not a matter of reward or punishment, but a gift from God that cannot be earned.

I wonder how someone who thinks salvation depends on the correct mix of beliefs can ever have a sense of security in their salvation.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Actually, I'm a Theistic Evolutionist and I have to agree with everything he said in the first paragraph. It's accurate. The Church has a long history of adopting portions of pagan mythology into its own traditions in an effort to make it more appealing to pagan populations. The Christmas tree, for instance, was originally a pagan icon. This is covered in the most basic of world history courses.

Can you swear "I'm a good Christian/Catholic, I believe in everything God told me" with your hand on Bible?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

And here I was thinking scripture taught us that salvation is not a matter of reward or punishment, but a gift from God that cannot be earned.

I wonder how someone who thinks salvation depends on the correct mix of beliefs can ever have a sense of security in their salvation.

Catholics don't think John Kerry or Paul Martin will make it to heaven if unrepentant.
Any Catholic disagree with me?

They have the correct belief of Jesus is God and the wrong belief of abortion/homosexuality etc are OK.