Creation vs Evolution

[fenwar]

As for  fenwar, why do you hide behind the scriptures? If you do not believe we were created by God, come right out and say it. By trying to convince us that evolution is plausible, you are doing the work of the devil. The passage that says "you can not serve two masters" is not just about money. Think about it.

But I do believe we were created by God!

Believing God created and believing he used evolution is no more "serving two masters" than believing in God and believing the laws of gravity.

[Bread_of_Life]

justme7

Hi there. Not seen you around before. Welcome to apologetics!

apes and monkeys are not currently turning into people; land mammals are not currently turning into sea animals...

Actually, firstly, we are unaware of exactly what apes are turning into, if anything, or what land mammals are turning into, if anything. Evolution happens over tens of thousands of generations, we have only witnessed a tiny and insignificant snapshot in our own lives, and since the theory of evolution 150 years ago.

Secondly, evolution is not "goal driven" - our ancestors didn't turn into humans because they wanted to turn into humans, they turned into humans in small discreet stages, each of which was beneficial, and each of which happened to, over time, turn them into humans.

Thirdly, animals do not need to be constantly evolving for evolution to be true - in fact, natural selection can act to conserve an animal's form if it is well adapted. In other words, if an animal is well adapted to its environment, and its environment isn't changing, evolution will act conserve that animal's adaptions rather than change them. This can lead to prolonged periods of stasis in which animals do not change very much.

it doesn't matter who found what fossil, where, and when. the real fact to consider is that men are fallible whereas GOD is not.

Here's the problem Justme7. Even if animals were specially created by God over the last 3.7 billion years - even if they didn't evolve as I claim - the order in which he declared he created them in the bible does not match with the order we find them in the fossil record.

The fact is, avians don't appear until 180Ma - not a single avian for 3.5 billion years of fossil record - and then avians. Yet the bible says they were created at the same time as fish. Whales don't appear until after the K-T boundary 60Ma ago, yet the bible says they appeared near the beginning. Trees and land plants don't appear until after fish and sea life, 440Ma ago - yet the bible claims they appear before marine life. I could go on, but as you quoted I made a whole post about it.

Evolution aside - even if animals didn't evolve - it is clear that the bible is incorrect.

NITE OWL

Type in "Mary Schweitzer". She's the one how made the discovery.

Ahhh, I see, now I recall - I've heard this story before. Yes, they did find a remarkably well intact dinosaur bone, where the fossilisation of the interior of the bone had formed a unique microstructure very much like the cells of the dinosaur. They even found some amino-acids in there, as I recall. Very interesting.

Not sure how this refutes evolution or the fossil record, although it's a remarkable and very unusual find. Usually smaller structures cannot be fossilised - and almost always soft parts arn't. Very rarely they are - for example, we've found fossils of leaves (which are soft, right) - we're found fossils of soft bodied creatures (although they fossilise much less than hard bodied creatures) - we've even found fossils of raindrop craters and pollen - they're just fairly rare compared to hard-part fossils.

So sure, this is an amazing discovery - but it certainly doesn't refute evolutionary theory - in fact, it'll give us an amazing insight into how dinosaurs lived and survived.

artsylady

Nice to see you back - how have you been?

Name a single evolutionary theory (ex dinos to birds) that all evolutionists agree upon.

Common ancestry - the theory that all animals are related through a single distant common ancestor.

[NITE OWL]

As for

[Remnantrob]

Did you guys read the August 15, 2005 article entitled "EVOLUTION WARS". I only read a piece of it but it was pretty interesting. Here's a short excerpt from the first paragraph...

"Sometime in the late fall, unless a federal court intervenes, ninth-graders at the public high school in rural Dover, Pa., will witness an unusual scene in biology class. The superintendent of schools, Richard Nilsen, will enter the classroom to read a three-paragraph statement mandated by the local school board as a cautionary preamble to the study of evolution. It reads, in part: Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ...

Found that pretty interesting, though it's just an exerpt. If i get a hard copy of it and and read the rest I'll let you know what it says.

[artsylady]

Yes, I read it. What disappointed me most about the article is that they give no credit to scientists who believe in creation or ID. Never at any point in the article, do they even mention them as scientists. They will mention 'scientists' when they speak of the opposing view of evolution but that seemed to be it. The writer made it sound like the war was scientists against the public, when the war is really going on among scientists themselves.

[fenwar]

The laws of gravity do not question the existence of a Divine Creator. If you believe that God created man, why do you question His ability to create animals? Or anything else for that matter?

I don't! He created everything. The sun, moon and stars, plants, fish, animals, birds, mankind. Everything.

The theory of evolution does not question the existence of a Divine Creator either. The only thing it suggests is that he didn't create these things "out of thin air" - but it says nothing about whether he designed, began and sustained a process by which these things would all evolve.

To side with those who question the existence of God is your witness.

What we have in common (I think) is a belief that the Bible is not meant to be interpreted in an unthinkingly literal manner, disregarding evidence from nature and history.

For Foglight, ScientificAtheist and others, if every single word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, they have no other choice than to reject it as false. It would be dishonest for them not to do so.

There are many, many Christians who believe in the existence of God, who believe in the inspiration of Genesis, who do not see the need to put such huge stumbling blocks in the path of non-believers.

You might as well insist they be circumcised too.

Fenwar

Edited August 23, 2005 by fenwar