Creation vs Evolution

[Joe@actsii]

If the Lord created a forty billion year old earth six thousand years ago. How would you know the difference? 

Nothing is on its own. Everything continues by Gods act of will.

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that is what happened, but in theory it could happen. I mean lets think about Adam. A week after he was created, he was a week old right? But how old did he look? I guessing in his twenties or thirties? I don't know what he looked like, but I know it was not a one week old baby.

[NITE OWL]

The theory of gravity and relativity doesn't question the existance of God. I know if I throw something into the air it's going to come back down. To me that's gravity.

Relativity...I've made it 48 years without knowing what that is and God willing, I'll go 48 more.

I know this sounds really simple to you, but that's who I am. I know if I jump in a car, start it up, put it in gear and hit the gas, it's going to go. How does all that stuff work? I don't care, that's what mechanic's are for. Not everyone who drives a car can fix one.

A theory is still a theory. Until man can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved from lower life forms, it's all guess work. A glass of water that is nearly full isn't full until every space inside that glass contains water.

I'm not questioning your intelligence. By some of your post's I can tell that you are very well educated. I on the other hand am not. I'm ok with that. I lead a very simple life. I eat, sleep, go to work.

Can I prove to you that God really exists? Probably not, because you can't see Him, you can't touch Him. He's not a solid mass entity. He's not visible to the naked eye. He's not someone you can walk up to and shake hands with.

You've spent enough time on this board to know what God is all about. Do you believe? I don't know. Do I care? Maybe. Am I going to lose sleep over it? No.

I didn't come here to fight with you or to try and prove you wrong. I'm just showing you another option. What you do with that is your business.

I guess that's all I have to say.

You have a nice day.

[Trust & Obey]

If the Lord created a forty billion year old earth six thousand years ago. How would you know the difference? 

Nothing is on its own. Everything continues by Gods act of will.

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because that would be a deception and therefore make God deceptive and you don't really want to go there do you?

Can we go back to normal sized font now?

You were heard the first time but ignored due to the sheer ridiculous nature of the statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't call that "a deception."

For example, if we can see the light from a star that is 100 million light years away, but God created the universe 6,000 years... then, isn't that evidence that God created the earth "mature?"

God didn't give baby Adam and baby Eve a bag of seeds and say, "now, go plant vegetation everywhere." God created the trees and life already mature.

I think this is what the other poster was referring to.

[Trust & Obey]

If the Lord created a forty billion year old earth six thousand years ago. How would you know the difference? 

Nothing is on its own. Everything continues by Gods act of will.

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because that would be a deception and therefore make God deceptive and you don't really want to go there do you?

Can we go back to normal sized font now?

You were heard the first time but ignored due to the sheer ridiculous nature of the statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't call that "a deception."

For example, if we can see the light from a star that is 100 million light years away, but God created the universe 6,000 years... then, isn't that evidence that God created the earth "mature?"

God didn't give baby Adam and baby Eve a bag of seeds and say, "now, go plant vegetation everywhere." God created the trees and life already mature.

I think this is what the other poster was referring to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seriously, you can actually justify this as a reasonable position? There is so much wrong with that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely. If God created Adam and Eve as mature adults, and if God created trees that were fully grown, then why couldn't He create the universe fullly mature as well as if it were "in full swing."

Why is the visibility of stars any different than the maturity of the rest of His creation?

[Joe@actsii]

I found another site for you.

http://www.reasons.org/

[Bread_of_Life]

NITE OWL

THEORY...a conjecture or guess.

HYPOTHESIS...an unproved theory.

Well, firstly, these definitions cannot possibly be right, just at first glance. If a hypothesis is an unproved theory - and yet a theory is just a conjecture or guess - then all theories must be hypotheses, because conjectures and guesses are by their very nature unproven. In other words, the definition of hypothesis contradicts the definition of theory, because if theories are conjectures and guesses, then they must be ALL unproved.

Secondly, outside of the obvious surface level flaws in these definitions, I just happen to know they are wrong, because I have been trained in science. These are the real definitions, in science, of hypothesis and theory:

Hypothesis: n. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory: n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

In other words, a hypothesis is an explanation that needs to be tested - a theory is one that has been tested, and makes viable and true predictions. In science, a hypothesis does not become a theory unless it makes testable predictions, at least some of which have been tested and proven right.

By the way NITE OWL, I see you're still bloody-minded about not answering my previous questions and points to you - are you scared of doing so?

[NITE OWL]

NITE OWL

THEORY...a conjecture or guess.

HYPOTHESIS...an unproved theory.

Well, firstly, these definitions cannot possibly be right, just at first glance. If a hypothesis is an unproved theory - and yet a theory is just a conjecture or guess - then all theories must be hypotheses, because conjectures and guesses are by their very nature unproven. In other words, the definition of hypothesis contradicts the definition of theory, because if theories are conjectures and guesses, then they must be ALL unproved.

Secondly, outside of the obvious surface level flaws in these definitions, I just happen to know they are wrong, because I have been trained in science. These are the real definitions, in science, of hypothesis and theory:

Hypothesis: n. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory: n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

In other words, a hypothesis is an explanation that needs to be tested - a theory is one that has been tested, and makes viable and true predictions. In science, a hypothesis does not become a theory unless it makes testable predictions, at least some of which have been tested and proven right.

By the way NITE OWL, I see you're still bloody-minded about not answering my previous questions and points to you - are you scared of doing so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hypothesis...A tentative explanation...

Isn't tentative another word for uncertainty? I believe it is.

Theory...A set of statements or principles devised to explain...

Doesn't devise mean "to create"?

What? You can't prove it so you just make it up?

Prediction...I didn't know you guys could see into the future. I never should have quit school. I could have been a fortune teller.

Why are your theories only widely accepted? Seems to me that if your made up statements and principles were fact, the entire science world would jumping on the band wagon.

Somebody should get a hold of Webster and tell him the definitions in his dictionary are wrong.

"...at least some of which have been tested and proven right".

Why have you only tested some and not all?

You were trained in science.....I was trained in kung fu, doesn't mean I can speak chinese.

I went to that link you posted. Thank you for the ammo. Greatly appreciated.

As for the questions...I'll have to go back through this thread to find them. Once I do that, I will get back to you.

Bloody-minded...that's funny

I gotta go now.......Bloody-minded

[fenwar]

Fenwar...you are in gravely dangerous territory...so far as your "Christian" faith is concerned. I can somewhat respect a man like Scientific Athiest. I can somewhat respect a Muslim being Muslim. I can somewhat respect a Humanist being a Humanist. But a "Christian" being...whatever you are??? I cannot and do not respect, accept, condone, nor understand what you are trying to prove?

If I'm trying to prove anything, I'm trying to prove that you are not required to suspend logic in order to accept the Bible as trustworthy or authoritative. I'd also like people to be able to recognise that evolution is not intrinsically atheist and Christianity is not intrinsically "creationist" (in the Young Earthism sense).

If you do not believe in Genesis as being a genuine, literal account in all its endeavors...then what do you make of your "Saviour" Jesus upholding Moses' words. What do you make of original sin, adam and eve, and the whole basis for the Christian faith??? Like David said, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Absolutely Jesus upheld Moses and the Law. I haven't said he didn't, nor have I questioned or undermined Moses' authority myself. I'm simply saying that Moses' words don't imply what you think they imply in terms of how God created the world.

None of what I said has contradicted any key doctrine of Christianity, from original sin (Adam and Eve do not have to be actual historical figures in order to establish that doctrine!) to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

If the foundation of your faith is Biblical literalism, you are clinging onto something that was destroyed a long time ago. I'm not saying I have all the answers but my foundation is the fact of Christ's death and resurrection, as proclaimed by the community of believers for the last 2,000 years. As Paul said, if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain.

He said no such thing about "if God did not create the world in six days" and I think you are attaching far too much importance to that teaching. Why does it matter?

(Response to T&O in my next post - breaking it up because of the quote restriction)

Fenwar

[fenwar]

Sorry, fenwar, but evolution has not been "scientifically tested." This is one of the problems with calling evolution "science." Evolution is not observable, nor are we able to reproduce it in a lab. Evolution is merely an interpretation of certain facts.

It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. The odds of non-living matter "coming to life" are so remote an unlikely that it requires an enormous amount of faith. The difference is that the proponents of evolution wear white coats so they get to call it "science."

Hey, what about that UFO cult? You know, Heaven's Gate? The one that all committed suicide. Let's say that 2 of the leaders were Astronomers. Does that make their cultism science by association? Hardly.

The mechanism by which evolution happens today is observable (micro-evolution). Macro-evolution cannot be observed because it is, quite simply, micro-evolution repeating and branching over billions of years. However we have evidence in the fossil record that suggests that it did take place.

Science is about observation and testing. If these "Heaven's Gate astronomers" had any kind of evidence that their beliefs were true, and published their findings so that others could recreate their experiments and reach the same results, then yes, it would be scientific. Of course you and I both know that they did not do such a thing.

Where do you come up with that? Exodus 20:11 demonstrates that they are "literal days," which you have recognized. Yet, you say it wasn't in "the history of the earth." What does that mean.

If I told a story - "One day, I went in a hot air balloon. The next day, I rode a horse. The day after that, I travelled by hovercraft." Obviously the "days" I am talking about are normal, literal "days" with mornings and evenings - but that doesn't mean they are actual days in history, because the events I'm describing in the story didn't actually happen like that.

Hope that clears up the difference between literal days and historical days.

God does not need to use something so evil and destructive like evolution which is rife with misfits and genetic errors. God does not use genetic errors to create what He wants. He doesn't need to.

Why is evolution "evil"?

Salvation history is rife with misfits too - sinners who made moral errors. Jacob the deceiver, Moses the murderer, David the adulterer. God has chosen to work with us in spite of our faults. This says to me that for God to create using evolution would not at all be out of character; if anything it makes me appreciate his character more. We simply have another angle on God choosing the imperfect and making it perfect.

As a matter of fact, if evolution is true, then you and I are transitional forms. Why would evolution all of a sudden have stopped after all of these years? Surely you and I are on to "bigger and better things?"

There is certainly a great degree of variation within the human race. I wouldn't say that the natural process of evolution has stopped - but I believe that God chose humanity and will remain faithful to it. By becoming human himself, God gave humanity a significance that no other species will ever have. I don't know whether this rules out a future process of speciation within the human race but it seems unlikely (if anything the most likely cause - geographic segregation - is becoming less and less of a factor every day); without wanting to head off down an eschatological tangent we know for sure that God loves us and he loves our children; he will love their children and their children's children, and so on for as long as our descendants walk this earth.

You know what, this is exactly what the New Agers are teaching. They are teaching that humans are on the verge of a new horizon and that we will evolve into a higher and deeper consciousness. They are teaching that we are going to become Gods. Now, where have you heard that before?

The New Agers are completely unjustified in extrapolating a future "higher consciousness" from our evolutionary past; evolution does not make such a prediction.

But they are actually stepping into a void that Christianity should never have left. We are supposed to be demonstrating to people how to become more Christ-like, how to reflect "God's image" better every day. Instead we simply strap the rules and doctrines of literalism onto our backs and become like the Pharisees.

If evolution is true then humans and all animals alive today should be transitional forms. How convenient that evolution has gone on for hundreds of millions of years, but it just so happens that in our lifetime everything has stopped evolving like it did in times past.

Our time frame is but a flicker on the timeline of evolution. Of course we can't "see" major transitions. They don't happen every day or even every year. But we regularly observe variations within a population. The mechanism is still there. The glacier is moving even though you can't see any change; come back in a million years and that landscape will look very different.

You're confusing micro-evolution, which is really just variation within a kind, with macro-evolution. And, nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Hence, nobody has every observed they type of "evolution" that the science books promote.

As I have stated on another thread, "dog producing a non-dog" is a straw man and shows ignorance of actual theories of speciation.

The carbon dating method is rife with error and even evolutionists will readily admit that it is problematic.

Again, "carbon dating" is not the method that has been used to estimate the age of the earth; this has been discussed in ludicrous detail on the "6,000" thread.

Regarding "similar DNA patterns" throughout all creation... that is evidence of a common designer," not evolution.

Why not both? I don't see why these must be mutually exclusive categories.

Evolution does not rule out design, any more than the fact that the apostles cast lots could rule out the fact that it was God's will Matthias be added to the twelve.

Fenwar

[NITE OWL]

Mr science man

I went back through this thread and found no questions directed toward myself. I even checked your profile....nothing.

If you have a question for me, ask it. Don't assume I'm going to answer questions directed toward another person.

The only thing you directed toward me were insults regarding my education. That's ok. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to science.

Mudslinging is a tactic that people use in order to try and make themselves appear superior to the ones they are attacking. Children use it all the time.

But if it makes you happy, by all means sling away. I have no problem with it. At least then I know you're thinking of me, and I can't ask for anymore than that.

Anyway, that's all I have for now. I wish you luck in your search for the nonexistent.

You have a good one...and don't work too hard.