Creation vs Evolution

Started by fini221 pages

argh , it happened again, lol whats the use of putting someone on ignore, if i'm just gonna have to read it again

Hey Jaden Great Point. Excellent work hehe.

Hey , anything from the bible cannot be considered as the absolute truth. They didn't know any better when it was written. Science wasn't embraced in the bible, and it looks like they are using science in their own opinion to get some "answers". The rock was in liquid form when the cores were formed. There are molcules in liquids, and these haloes are the size of molecules. So being in a liquid means nothing to the formation of the cores.
The people in those sites, feed OF YOU IGNORANCE, to give you skewed results.

OMG and god invented radioactivity when man was created?? LOL THANKS, thats my joke for the day!!!!! 😂

GO LEARN some physics about the halos. While the rock was forming the halos formed. And with the very very short half life, they quickly "died" out. That has nothing to do with the rock that it is embedded in

Originally posted by fini
The people in those sites, feed OF YOU IGNORANCE, to give you skewed results.

As is pointed ou the in the General Discussio Forum, the internet is a great place for zealots to recruit.

Originally posted by Mithlond
[QUOTE=7267398

[b]The Male - Female Problem

The simplest and most compelling argument for Creation is the male/female pairing issue.

Abstract: If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.

The Details: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females. And any deviations from a normal union and offspring is sterile (not capable of reproduction). Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?" [/B]

...Because Evolution doesn't happen over a matter of a few generations. It occurs over millions of years. The evolution is too gradual to be considered mutation. An ape didn't have a baby ape that could suddenly walk - over thousands of generations, the ape went gradually from being a quadruped to biped. This enabled the ape's front legs to be used for other things than walking, so they became hands. Having hands enabled the ape to begin to make tools, to think about things like problem solving. Again this happened over thousands of generations. As the brain developed, so we thought about other things. Like having a debate.

Evidence of recent physical changes to humans is very easy to see. If any of you live in Britain, or have visited Britain, you no doubt would have visited Tudor or earlier houses, built 500 years ago, or about 20 generations (roughly). You may, like me, have to stoop through the doorways in these houses, as humans 500 years ago were several inches shorter than today. We are always changing physically, always 'evolving'. That in itself doesn't prove or disprove evolution, but it does disprove your argument above. [/B][/QUOTE]

http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

I got to commend you for at least attempting to respond even if your response was tenuous. Anyhoo more evidence for the Bible's explanation about the origin of the universe.

The Bible explanation goes against the very bases of physics. We can therefore assume that it is incorrect.

Not quite true Mithlord.

WHile your general interpretatio nsi correct. Remember that science accepted Darwin's theory....not Lamarcks.

Things evolve and then find uses...things don't evolve to fulfil a use.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
...Because Evolution doesn't happen over a matter of a few generations. It occurs over millions of years. The evolution is too gradual to be considered mutation. An ape didn't have a baby ape that could suddenly walk - over thousands of generations, the ape went gradually from being a quadruped to biped. This enabled the ape's front legs to be used for other things than walking, so they became hands. Having hands enabled the ape to begin to make tools, to think about things like problem solving. Again this happened over thousands of generations. As the brain developed, so we thought about other things. Like having a debate.

Evidence of recent physical changes to humans is very easy to see. If any of you live in Britain, or have visited Britain, you no doubt would have visited Tudor or earlier houses, built 500 years ago, or about 20 generations (roughly). You may, like me, have to stoop through the doorways in these houses, as humans 500 years ago were several inches shorter than today. We are always changing physically, always 'evolving'. That in itself doesn't prove or disprove evolution, but it does disprove your argument above.

http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

I got to commend you for at least attempting to respond even if your response was tenuous. Anyhoo more evidence for the Bible's explanation about the origin of the universe.

Tenuous? I thought Mithlond gave a good response. I think you simple reject anything that does not fit your narrow way of thinking. If I remember right, that is the definition of fool.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The Bible explanation goes against the very bases of physics. We can therefore assume that it is incorrect.

Yes but I think alot of stuff is not supposed to be intepreted literaly. I think there is actually some scientific stuff in there that is correct, but yes there is alot of crap as well.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

^^^ I love these sites. They always provide SOOOO much entertainment. THANKS JIA!

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes but I think alot of stuff is not supposed to be intepreted literaly. I think there is actually some scientific stuff in there that is correct, but yes there is alot of crap as well.

Of course. I don't think ANY religious book should be taken literaly. It is the message that is important.

If the message is hatefull or bad, it doesn't matter how realistic the claims are, it is invalid and unworthy a read, imho.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The Bible explanation goes against the very bases of physics. We can therefore assume that it is incorrect.

For instance? Try being a little more specific in your allegations about the Bible because I sure don't know what you are referring to with respect to the Bible going against physics.

"hate" and "bad" don't make it an unworthy read....or practice. The book should just not be prone to mass-application.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
For instance? Try being a little more specific in your allegations about the Bible because I sure don't know what you are referring to with respect to the Bible going against physics.

For instance - how did 'god' came to be.

He couldn't have come from nothing, because everything has to come from something else.
Making a claim that something came from nothing, goes against the very bases of pshysics.

Do scientist know how the Universe came to be? No, not for sure, I'll give you that.

But if you use the metaphore of God is Universe, then technically the Bible/Torah/Qur'an are right. The God did create us...

But since your interpretation is more literal, its not very convincing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
For instance - how did 'god' came to be.

He couldn't have come from nothing, because everything has to come from something else.
Making a claim that something came from nothing, goes against the very bases of pshysics.

Do scientist know how the Universe came to be? No, not for sure, I'll give you that.

But if you use the metaphore of God is Universe, then technically the Bible/Torah/Qur'an are right. The God did create us...

But since your interpretation is more literal, its not very convincing.

But lil...you are trying to understand God with your finite mind. How can you--with a finite, limited mind--explain God's existence? Can't you see that you are grasping for the wind? It would be like an ant trying to understand calculous with its tiny brain (I think ants have brains). It would be like a flea trying to understand rocket science and then write a treatise on the subject and then submit it to humanity for study. It does not compute.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But lil...you are trying to understand God with your finite mind. How can you--with a finite, limited mind--explain God's existence? Can't you see that you are grasping for the wind? It would be like an ant trying to understand calculous with its tiny brain (I think ants have brains). It would be like a flea trying to understand rocket science and then write a treatise on the subject and then submit it to humanity for study. It does not compute.

If that is true, and it is, the bible cannot contain any understanding of God also.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If that is true, and it is, the bible cannot contain any understanding of God also.

Absolutely false. The Bible is God's Word and the only place where God provides us insight into His nature, character, and thoughts. The Bible is the only acceptable source to learn about God.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Absolutely.false. The Bible is God's Word and the only place where God provides us insight into His nature, character, and thoughts. The Bible is the only acceptable source to learn about God.

How would you know? Remember, you and I are just ants.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would you know? Remember, you and I are just ants.

No we are not, we are humans. I used an analogy.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No we are not, we are humans. I used an analogy.

But our understanding is like onto an ant. You can't have it both ways. Either we can understand God or we cannot.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But lil...you are trying to understand God with your finite mind. How can you--with a finite, limited mind--explain God's existence? Can't you see that you are grasping for the wind? It would be like an ant trying to understand calculous with its tiny brain (I think ants have brains). It would be like a flea trying to understand rocket science and then write a treatise on the subject and then submit it to humanity for study. It does not compute.

Ok, considering such is a good conotation for our coprehantion of the Universe, how can you offer any reasoning, or explanation on Universe or the God.

If such is true, how can all the knowledge and wisdom fit in one book? That is truly impossible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But our understanding is like onto an ant. You can't have it both ways. Either we can understand God or we cannot.

No, our understanding is way more developed than an ant. I simply used the ant as an illustration. What God has permitted us to know about Him is revealed in His holy Word. You must be able to at least read (proof that we are more intellectually advanced and more intelligent than ants) in order to understand the Bible. So, no, our intelligence exceeds that of any insect.