Questions about creationism vs. evolution

[Rockchick26]

I've been heavily into the whole creationism vs. evolution arguement lately, and a question just popped into my head right now, so I thought i'd see what all of you think! I'm still on the fence and don't know what to believe anymore.

If creationism is true, why do we have body parts that aren't necessary anymore? (tailbones, appendixes)

And for those who believe in a mixture of both beliefs, why did the whole Jesus/Bible thing happen? If the earth is really billions of years old, why did God wait that long to give us a model for how to live? Wouldn't "he" have given that to us in the very beginning, when we really needed it? Like the people who were born after Jesus' time were simply lucky enough to know this information and the people born before him, oh, too bad, they just had to learn the hard way?

[Aleksander Krstic]

Bible is meant to be absurd.

[Keeper]

I dont think the bible or jesus has anything at all to do with god or the "ultimate truth" anymore than the masters living with us today. Jesus was "just" an enlightened being that were quoted and misunderstood ---> Bible. same goes for muhammed and the other prophets --> The creation of religion.

I belive the rules in religion is the way you will feel and live if you are enlightened. Love your next etc. Us unenlightened humans cannot really grasp the contents of these "rules" when viewed from our unenlightened filter.
Really, the masters of today speaks the same stuff as jesus did dont they?

About the creation vs evolution. I think they both are real. God, or something, created this whole thing ---> big bang. And in this created universe there were rules that applied to keep stuff in order. Natural selection, instincts and evolution are all real... But they are all real inside this "bubble" we call universe.

So. Both sides are correct. The darwin theory is correct. God did not create us 10 years ago and gave us memories etc. I believe all we learned in school is correct, but only inside the bubble =)

/Keep

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Krstic

Bible is meant to be absurd.

I thought it was absurd too until I watched this video:

STARTLING PROOFS - Does God Really Exist? creation vs evolution darwin#

[James81]

First thing to realize when it comes to this debate is that it isn't and either/or. There is no "creation vs. evolution" because that would be impossible. Why? Because they are two completely different subjects talking about two completely different things. Creation is the study of how things BEGAN. Evolution is the study of how things change over time. So you can't pit them against each other because evolution makes no attempt at trying to figure out how things began.

A more realistic comparison would be Big Bang vs. Creation, but even then they aren't mutually exclusive because Big Bang does not attempt to explain where that initial mass came from either.

The second thing to realize is that the definition of "theory" in science is not the same one we use in everyday life. "Theory" in science basically means "fact." Just because it's the theory of evolution does not mean that it's some wacko's thoughts put out for discussion. It just means that there is not enough evidence yet to put together a law. And you'll find that there are a lot of scientific subjects like that that most people believe as fact, not just evolution.

The third thing to realize is that the only basis for the time frame of a young earth in some creationist circles is the lineages that are written in the book of Genesis and throughout the old testament. Someone went through and added up the time based on those lineages and it came to like 4004 years, which is why creationists seem to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Thing is, those lineages are incomplete and there are holes in them. And more importantly, adding up lineages does nothing to prove the age of the earth besides tell us roughly how long civilized people have been here (assuming you could use those lineages as a litmus for how long people have been around, that is).

[MidasGirl]

Why would you seek to compare archeological study with an explanatory tale?

One uses reason, verifiable artifacts and data, the other uses faith and mindless belief. I just don't even see that there is an argument.

[Abitofzen]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

If creationism is true, why do we have body parts that aren't necessary anymore? (tailbones, appendixes)

What we 'need' and don't need is arguable at best. Doctors used to remove the thymus anytime there was heart surgery, because they thought it wasn't 'necessary'. Then they realized that everyone who had it removed had decreased function of the immune system.

In Traditional Chinese Medicine (which has been around several thousand years longer than western medicine), all of our body parts are necessary parts of an integral whole.

It's easy to assume we have figured out everything... it has happened repeatedly through out history. And time after time, man is shown just how limited his knowledge is.

It seems humility is easy to forget

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

And for those who believe in a mixture of both beliefs, why did the whole Jesus/Bible thing happen? If the earth is really billions of years old, why did God wait that long to give us a model for how to live? Wouldn't "he" have given that to us in the very beginning, when we really needed it? Like the people who were born after Jesus' time were simply lucky enough to know this information and the people born before him, oh, too bad, they just had to learn the hard way?

I agree that there are a lot of problems with the way this is typically taught... and let me also add that I'm not a Christian... but I do strongly suspect that Christ was 'enlightened' (for lack of a better word).

There is a saying:

"If God didn't make man in his image... then man has certainly made God in his"

Ultimately, if you think about God as a big, old man in the sky... who is just a little bit smarter, and a lot older than you and me... Oh wait, and he can do magic too...

... then all the problems that we experience can then be attributed to God as well.

Mankind is only ready for so much, so fast.

My strong suspicion is that problems that are created at a certain level of consciousness... usually can't be solved at that same level of consciousness where they were created.

Obviously, war has been attempted as a method to resolve problems throughout history... (some say that we have been at war for 93% or recorded history)... but it doesn't look like a lot of positive change has come from war.

But we still try, don't we?

I personally like to bring it back to humility. No matter how much we think we know... we are primarily learning more about how our own perception works.

Some say that: All knowledge is ultimately self knowledge!

Above the entrance to the Oracle at Delphi was written: Know Thyself!

All that mankind can ever learn, will be limited by the nature of human perception. This isn't a reason not to seek knowledge... but it is a good reason to remain humble on your journey.

keep smiling,

Ben

[Liminal Chris]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

And for those who believe in a mixture of both beliefs, why did the whole Jesus/Bible thing happen? If the earth is really billions of years old, why did God wait that long to give us a model for how to live? Wouldn't "he" have given that to us in the very beginning, when we really needed it? Like the people who were born after Jesus' time were simply lucky enough to know this information and the people born before him, oh, too bad, they just had to learn the hard way?

I personally find the two views wholly incompatible. The Hybrid view is nothing more than Religious concession in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

It's like trying to fit a square block into a circle whole, and it creates the problems that you mentioned.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by James81

First thing to realize when it comes to this debate is that it isn't and either/or. There is no "creation vs. evolution" because that would be impossible. Why? Because they are two completely different subjects talking about two completely different things. Creation is the study of how things BEGAN. Evolution is the study of how things change over time. So you can't pit them against each other because evolution makes no attempt at trying to figure out how things began.

A more realistic comparison would be Big Bang vs. Creation, but even then they aren't mutually exclusive because Big Bang does not attempt to explain where that initial mass came from either.

Well what i've been finding in my research (countless hours over the last 4 days alone) is that evolutionists believe the big bang was, summed up, "nothing exploding into something". This is even taught in schools, I saw a few different videos of lectures where the speaker showed excerpts from science books and it literally said that. Some of them say "hydrogen', but either way, that is not how creationists say it started, so, that's a pretty valid debate to me.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

Why would you seek to compare archeological study with an explanatory tale?

One uses reason, verifiable artifacts and data, the other uses faith and mindless belief. I just don't even see that there is an argument.

I didn't think there was an argument either, up until 4 days ago I believed 100% in evolution. Until I saw countless videos and websites that proved creationism is true and evolution isn't. I still don't want to believe it, because I'm not even Christian or religious anymore, so i'm pretty upset about what I'm finding.

Carbon dating is not 100% fact, the results come out different all the time and they change their facts about how old something really is. And there is evidence in science proving the information in the bible really happened (the flood for example).

I'm still not 100% sure what I believe, I'm just learning about both of them, trying to keep an open mind, that's all.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

I personally find the two views wholly incompatible. The Hybrid view is nothing more than Religious concession in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

It's like trying to fit a square block into a circle whole, and it creates the problems that you mentioned.

Lots of people do believe in both, though, including me (or I should say I believed in both until 4 days ago but I'm still unsure)...but i'm not religious in any way, I just can't deny all the proof. Here's another video that is pretty good, this guy used to teach evolution but now he teaches creationism:

STARTLING PROOFS - Does God Really Exist? creation vs evolution darwin

This is not the same video I posted up there, I dont know why the words are the same but they are different videos!

[Mato Kinze]

If you were to "Create" a carving of a lion, you would start with a block of wood. You would whittle and carve that piece of wood, removing bits here and bits there until you had made what you wanted.

If someone looked at that block of wood ten minutes after you'd started, they probably wouldn't have much of a clue as to what the end product was going to be.

But at some point, the raw block of wood would begin to resemble something familiar. As you progessed, it would become clearer and clearer as to what it was you were "creating".

This "creation" is nothing more than Intentful and directed change over time.

But, if a creator is omnipotent and create something at any stage of it's being, why not just go for the final product?

Well, where's the fun in that?

Any craftsman will tell you that the final product is far less rewarding than the journey it took to make it. And what if the final product requires some level of self-actualization for it to be complete?

I don't claim to know the answers to these questions, just providing my $.02 worth in terms of how Creationism and Evolutionary Theory are not mutually exclusive.

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

I didn't think there was an argument either, up until 4 days ago I believed 100% in evolution. Until I saw countless videos and websites that proved creationism is true and evolution isn't. I still don't want to believe it, because I'm not even Christian or religious anymore, so i'm pretty upset about what I'm finding.

Carbon dating is not 100% fact, the results come out different all the time and they change their facts about how old something really is. And there is evidence in science proving the information in the bible really happened (the flood for example).

I'm still not 100% sure what I believe, I'm just learning about both of them, trying to keep an open mind, that's all.

Well, I've never viewed evolution as fully able to explain origin of life, but the fact that it doesn't do that wouldn't automatically mean that now I'm stuck with the 7-day explanatory tale that religion offers. My personal belief is that there is (more than likely) an intelligent power behind this existence. I will admit I haven't paid much attention to creationism, but I assume it has much to do with the 7 day cute story in the bible. That's a nice story for little children though.

Are creationists seeking to prove that because evolution is flawed, then that means creationism must be "it"?

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Mato Kinze

If you were to "Create" a carving of a lion, you would start with a block of wood. You would whittle and carve that piece of wood, removing bits here and bits there until you had made what you wanted.

If someone looked at that block of wood ten minutes after you'd started, they probably wouldn't have much of a clue as to what the end product was going to be.

But at some point, the raw block of wood would begin to resemble something familiar. As you progessed, it would become clearer and clearer as to what it was you were "creating".

This "creation" is nothing more than Intentful and directed change over time.

But, if a creator is omnipotent and create something at any stage of it's being, why not just go for the final product?

Well, where's the fun in that?

Any craftsman will tell you that the final product is far less rewarding than the journey it took to make it. And what if the final product requires some level of self-actualization for it to be complete?

I don't claim to know the answers to these questions, just providing my $.02 worth in terms of how Creationism and Evolutionary Theory are not mutually exclusive.

That is an interesting view! I just don't want to assume God would do anything for any particular reasons, because we can't know for certain. Then it becomes a debate of God's personality or if he would even have one, since he wasn't a human.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

Well, I've never viewed evolution as fully able to explain human origin, but the fact that it doesn't do that wouldn't automatically mean that now I'm stuck with the 7-day explanatory tale that religion offers. My personal belief is that there is (more than likely) an intelligent power behind this existence. I will admit I haven't paid much attention to creationism, but I assume it has much to do with the 7 day cute story in the bible. That's a nice story for little children though.

Are creationists seeking to prove that because evolution is flawed, then that means creationism must be "it"?

Yeah creationists truly believe God made everything in 7 days. Their biggest arguements for this are 1) we've never seen anything create itself but we've seen everything decay, and 2) after all the people who have tried to find flaws in the Bible, it all still is proven 100% factual every time and remains the most read book on Earth, with even earlier written documentation agreeing with it (Dead Sea Scrolls) and all the prophecies have came true so far (the number is in the 300's, so they say).

The only problem I have with creationism is I don't want to believe God would judge his own creations and if they don't obey, they'd be sent to hell. But, the Bible explains that too when it says he gave us free will and then Adam sinned, dooming us all! It just sounds so messed up so that's why I'm trying to come up with arguments against it but I can't! They even explain that if evolution were true, nothing would have evolved because in order to reproduce, the first living things would have had to be perfect the first time or they would have been extinct right away.

[MidasGirl]

Well, I don't know what to say Rockchick. Just the fact that grown men and women actually spend energy and time trying to prove this.....I don't even know what to make of it. Maybe they just need to see a shrink, or their pastor.

This is one of those circular arguments you can never get anywhere with. I'v no idea what is meant by "the bible is 100% correct". Sure, it IS correct. The events recorded could be (and likely are) correct because it came from a real group of people. The fictitious part are the tall tales that this group believed at the time........... (and may I also say they aren't the only ones who believed in such stories, just the only ones who were intelligent enough at the time to record it and preserve it). And somehow through politically harnessed power it became "the tool" for getting the masses in line.

But I suppose somebody is going to come here and tell us, "the bible is correct because the bible says so". Or "the bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible". Or "the world was created in 6 days, and God spent the 7th day praising himself because the bible says so".

Oh well, humans -- maybe we're all here to overcome insanity.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

Yeah creationists truly believe God made everything in 7 days. Their biggest arguements for this are 1) we've never seen anything create itself but we've seen everything decay, and 2) after all the people who have tried to find flaws in the Bible, it all still is proven 100% factual every time and remains the most read book on Earth, with even earlier written documentation agreeing with it (Dead Sea Scrolls) and all the prophecies have came true so far (the number is in the 300's, so they say).

How does the video change anything for you? There are some interesting arguments that suggest the Universe may be a "created" structure but that's different from deciding to take one religion/mythology as literal truth.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

after all the people who have tried to find flaws in the Bible, it all still is proven 100% factual every time

None of that text is "proven fact". The crux of that religion is not historical accuracy and a consistent writing style but FAITH. The Dead Sea scrolls don't deal with Christianity directly they just show the old testament was definitely around 1000 years earlier than we could previously prove.

In nature we do see things being created out of nothing. In fact there is a theory in physics that the universe is in fact one of these virtual quantum creations that popped out of the vaccum and became non-virtual because there is a small but possible probability that it can happen.

I agree that the universe appearing to be a intentional creation theory is very compelling, especially considering the cosmological constants.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by joelr

How does the video change anything for you? There are some interesting arguments that suggest the Universe may be a "created" structure but that's different from deciding to take one religion/mythology as literal truth.

I guess for me, if something seems true then I would want to believe in all of it, not just parts. So, if somebody can convince me God, Jesus and the Bible are all real and true then it seems wrong to only believe parts of that. For example, if I believe Jesus was real then I have to believe the whole Bible is real, it kind of comes as a package deal LOL

None of that text is "proven fact". The crux of that religion is not historical accuracy and a consistent writing style but FAITH. The Dead Sea scrolls don't deal with Christianity directly they just show the old testament was definitely around 1000 years earlier than we could previously prove.

One person says it's proven fact, another person doesn't. This is why I'm so confused! If I take your word for it, that's no different than taking their word for it, because I've seen evidence of both. So I'm still as confused as I was before!

In nature we do see things being created out of nothing.

Are you counting reproduction and things being born? Because that isn't what I was referring to. I meant something on it's own coming into being with no help from anything.

In fact there is a theory in physics that the universe is in fact one of these virtual quantum creations that popped out of the vaccum and became non-virtual because there is a small but possible probability that it can happen.

So out of nothing came something? All those pro-creationism websites and videos made that sound like a joke. It does sound rather like a fairy tale, but so does the first lines of the Bible. So, again, I'm still confused as ever!

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

So out of nothing came something? All those pro-creationism websites and videos made that sound like a joke. It does sound rather like a fairy tale, but so does the first lines of the Bible. So, again, I'm still confused as ever!

Why would they laugh? Even if we took the creation story to be it, God would have created everything from what? Are they implying he was walking around carrying "creation material" before he went about it? He'd have to have created it from nothing right?

[ttt]

I have read about the tales in the Bible originally having a metaphorical meaning. It's possible the seven days were a metaphore for something.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

For example, if I believe Jesus was real then I have to believe the whole Bible is real, it kind of comes as a package deal LOL

Really?

So if I say, "Blue is orange. Oranges are orange," then you have to believe blue is orange if you believe oranges are orange, right? It's a package deal. And if you don't believe blue is orange, then you can't believe oranges are orange. Because that's the way it is.

---

The debate isn't productive. It's an excuse for people to be haughty and piss on each other. Imagine, if there was a sudden and conclusive end to the debate. Now what?

The actual question you should be asking is, "Why do I want to know?"

What good is knowing the answer to this question? What will you do with the answer? Why are you asking?

Why does anyone need to answer this question?

[ar81]

Creationism is right. Evolution is right.
What is wrong is the interpretation of people that makes those to oppose.
Bible is symbolic, not carved on stone.
Symbols mean different things depending on interpretations. There is no absolute way to make interpretations.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

I guess for me, if something seems true then I would want to believe in all of it, not just parts. So, if somebody can convince me God, Jesus and the Bible are all real and true then it seems wrong to only believe parts of that. For example, if I believe Jesus was real then I have to believe the whole Bible is real, it kind of comes as a package deal LOL

I don't think you have to but I guess you can if you choose. If we proved a creator entity existed then every religion/cult can claim to be true. Members of Heavens gate can also say the same thing. It still doesn't lend any actual credibility to any particular religion. There may be billions of planets with hundreds of mythologies about the creator, each thinking their own version is exactly true.
If for you a creator HAS to be the Christian mythology version then so be it.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

One person says it's proven fact, another person doesn't. This is why I'm so confused! If I take your word for it, that's no different than taking their word for it, because I've seen evidence of both. So I'm still as confused as I was before!

Well if you're really interested you can study the history from a Christian perspective then from a Jewish perspective. You'll be surprised at the differences. Then approach it from a purely archaeological perspective where it's generally believed the stories are somewhat mythological.
I've seen many educated debates over the years, I can tell you it definitely comes down to faith! Not facts.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

Are you counting reproduction and things being born? Because that isn't what I was referring to. I meant something on it's own coming into being with no help from anything.

No I know reproduction is hardly something from nothing LOL! In many ways

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

So out of nothing came something? All those pro-creationism websites and videos made that sound like a joke. It does sound rather like a fairy tale, but so does the first lines of the Bible. So, again, I'm still confused as ever!

Yes our current laws of physics allow things to exist as long as there is a "potential" to exist. The potential is "something" but it's not anything real in the physical universe. Within each cubic inch of our space is 10^94 gr of potential energy. There is actually a probability that a big bang could emerge from any point in space. The universe may have to sit around for trillions^trillions of years to see that happen. It could also create a universe of negative (not negative charge) energy to balance the cosmic checkbook.

There are actually trillions of pieces of energy/matter being created out of "nothing" all the time, everywhere.
This whole energy/potential system may involve endless universes and could have developed without a literal conscious entity shaping it.

I think if anything it tends to point to a more Brahman type impersonal God or a pantheistic everything is God type system.

I do see that the Universe looks very ordered, in an amazing way. The fact that there are laws to allow atoms to form which also manifest solar systems and turn on fusion which allows for life and on and on the connections go. Also in a way that Eastern philosophy describes well if you want to include consciousness in the picture.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Ha! this cartoon is hilarious.

[ethereal]

About Adam and Eve and original sin...it's better to see it as a metaphor for how our individual souls chose to enter into Duality from Nonduality (eating of the tree of good and evil)...it wasn't because of Adam and Eve that everybody else is doomed (or else how would that be fair or just?)...it was our own soul that chose to "eat" of the fruit of duality, out of curiosity and innocence (just to see what it is like!).

About creationism and evolution...isn't everything being "created" at every single point of time? In fact, creation is Eternally happening, Now. Evolution is just how creation appears as. So in reality, both sides are correct...evolution is true...but creation is what allows for evolution to occur in the first place.

I don't believe you have to believe everything in the bible if you believe in Jesus...Jesus can be real, but the bible is scribed by men other than Jesus. The Old Testament is full of contradictions and anthropomorphic projections of God having psychological disorders, I don't see how anybody can believe in it, and believe that God is love at the same time! The New Testament is a lot better and beneficial for us to learn from. I personally love the new testament and the four gospels and I sincerely accept Jesus as my Saviour and Lord, but I don't believe in much of the Old Testament.

[Betrade]

I don't believe that evolution is THE answer, or the complete answer as to where we came from or where life came from.

I base this on many years of pondering, reading/digesting vast amounts of information on both sides of the issue, etc.

I do not believe in 7 literal 24 hour days of creation.

Genesis says "1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years".

The speed of light alone negates that fact because when we look up and see the stars, we're looking WAY back in time; and the light reaching our eyes has traveled for millions and billions of light years to reach our planet. Many of those stars we're seeing don't even exist anymore but we won't know it until the light from their demise gets here and we can observe it. Thos starts couldn't have been visible for navigation, to determine time, seasons, etc., because it would have taken eons before them to become visible from our perspective here on earth. case closed on that one.

Of course, creationist literalists could easily say; or assume that God just made it so that the light was here immediately, but that's an assumption, a rationalization, or to put in simpler terms; an excuse/explanation based on something NOT in the creation account. It doesn't say that God speedced up the speed of light so that the stars would be immediately visible. That's one of many reasons why I don't take the story literally, nor do I believe that it was ever meant to be taken literally. Someone famou;( it may have been Augustine said the geneis doesn't try to explain HOW God created the universe, but just explains that Giiod dID create it. I can accept that, but I can't get into rationalizations and assumptions.

The same applies to the flood account. A worldwide flood would take so much water that any human living would drown simply by breathing, the weight of the atmosphere with that much water vapor would crush the lungs of any human, and all ofg that watewr vapor in the air would have been so thick thatr huamn lungs wouldn't be qable to exttarct enough oxygen and esxpepl the water vapor before drwoning by simply breathing.

There is evidence of a localized flood in Mesopotamia, and that even the Black seas was once a large lake that was flooded when the sea water entered that basin where it is today; filling it and turning it into a sea, where there was once a large fresh water lake. ANcient shorelines and artifacts have been discovered below the existing Balck sea to verify this.


The ancients may have very well believed that the whole world was flooded, but they weren't aware of the immense size of the planet they iunhabited. The KNOWN world may have been flooded from their perspective, but we now know that there just isn't enough water on ther planet to cover the whole world to the top of the highest mountains and there's no evidence to support that this worldwide deluge ever happened. there would be a worldwide flood layer, but there isn't. Case closed on that oen too.

Again, the writer of the flood account was almost certainly familiar with earlier flood accounts that were well known in that part of the world and had been passed down form generations, and we can assume that at the very least, some sort of local massive flood almost certainly occurred.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, which when discovered in what is now Iraq on ancient clay tablets is filled with almost identical accounts of the story of Noah's flood; and it's apparent that the Jewish writer borrowed from that existing account and made a Jewish story based on that story. It wasn't meant to prove a worldwide flood, but to teach deeper truths, as many of Jesus's parables did. Writers commonly wrote allegorically or in parables in those days to explain things in ways that common people could relate to; and understand the deeper meanings based on what they were commonly familiar with.


Now, it seems like I'm discounting creation altogether, but I do believe in a first cause of the existence of our universe and i do believe that there is some sort of intelligent design behind it all; an intelligence that we can't even begin to comprehend with out limited human senses. We can only perceive what our senses will allow us to, which is why we know with certainty that there is an entire invisible world filled with all sorts of things that we can only perceive using the right equipment that translates those things into something that our human senses can perceive. We do this every time we watch TV or listen to a radio and don't even think about it for the most part. We translate those invisible waves of energy; which travel at light speed into something we can see and hear with the equipment we have because we've created devices that allow us to do this.

There was one super nova observed back in the 80's that actually happened about 160,000 years ago, thus, it occurred 160,000 light years from Earth and it took that long for the light from that event to reach our telescopes and our eyes and brains before we could observe it and calculate the distance and the time that had elapsed since the actual,incident took place.

In Genesis, there are statements like "God created the first day", or "God separated the light from the dark", yet obviously at that time, the writer was clueless that the Earth spins on it's axis and orbits the Sun. The light from the sun never changes it's position relative to the earth. It just appears to do so because we're on a rotating planet. Plus, when the moon was closer to the earth, which it once was (MUCH closer), our days were much shorter, as low as 4-6 hours from what we can tell, but the gravitational drag of the moon slowed the spinning of the earth dramatically, which caused our days to lengthen accordingly. In fact, the Moon is still moving away from us at a rate of around 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch per year, and our days are still getting longer, if only by a few milliseconds per year. Life as we know it could never exist on this planet without our moon, and without our moon being so large in relation to our planet.

[Betrade]

I hate to make these posts so long, but this one is, so I'll put my disclaimer up before my continuation of the last post.


No other planet in our solar system has a moon so close and so large as to effect it's host planet in any way even close to how our moon does. We owe our very lives to the moon, the stability of our climate, our predictable ocean tides, our weather patterns, etc. We even know when to catch crabs based on the cycles of the moon, when they sluff off their shells so we can catch soft crabs, and lots of other things based on the activity of the moon and it's relationship and effect on the Earth. The moon is a wonderful thing and we're very fortunate it's out there; at just the right distance to enable us to enjoy a stable and predictable environment. It creates and maintains the perfect balance to sustain life and it's just at the right distance to provide the stability that we enjoy here.

But, the stars that we see when we look up at night had to have existed long before any living beings on earth could see them. Even the nearest stars, which start at around 4 light years away would only have been visible 4 years after their birth, and the Bible doesn't say anything about only a handful of starts being visible in the beginning, and then more and more gradually coming into view as the light from those stars arrived to a pointy where we could observe them. In fact, the constellations have been around for as long as recorded history, so that fact blows the theory of the starts being created a few days before humans were.

With all that being said, I don't discount creationism at all, or should I say, some sort of intelligent design at the very least. I base that conclusion on many things, not the least being accounts of those who have had NDE's and come back to tell what they learned while out of the body and in the presence of what we would call divine beings and deceased loved ones. Some of these beings have been described as being so awesome, so intelligent, and more importantly, so full of unconditional, infinite LOVE that it's beyond description in ways that we can truly grasp.

Why do we call living, sentient beings "creatures" anyway?? That word automatically denotes a creator does it not??


Why would evolution produce love; especially unconditional love; which does exist?? Ask any parent if you don't believe me. One answer from evolutionists would be that it's been highly beneficial to survival, but it's certainly not necessary for it.

Animals like sea turtles don't "love" their offspring. They lay their eggs and leave them to hatch and fend for themselves, and if they die, the mothers don't grieve about it. The overwhelming majority never survive for more than a few minutes, hours or days because they're eaten by birds and other creatures. Many don't even make it out of their eggs. Plenty of creatures fall into this category, yet they still have managed to survive for very long periods of time, and love wasn't necessary ingredient in that survival. Mathematical odds have ensured their survival due to the fact that they produce so many offspring, that even if most die early on, the species still manges to survive.



No, love is an incredibly powerful force, and IMO based on the things I have learned; as well as what i would call several paranormal/supernatural experiences; it's THE driving force behind all life and all of creation, as well as what lies beyond when we sluff off these bodies we inhabit and enter into eternity. There are just so many examples of the power of love ;and I'm talking about universal, unconditional agape love, not erotic "love" or familial love; even though those types of love are also very powerful and very important.

There's also consciousness and sentience itself if you want to go to the very basics of life as we know it. What caused random microbial life to become aware of itself and why?? If natural selection is a fact, then why did life even choose survival or why did these organic materials choose life to begin with?? How did they arrive at a point where choice became a choice, or an option. What caused anything to make the leap from inanimate to being animate, conscious and self aware and how could such a thing possibly happen; especially by random chance?? If all of this is random, then survival itself wasn't ever necessary because whether or not life either existed or it didn't exist would be of no consequence whatsoever as far as the universe goes. It could function just fine without being observed by or inhabited by sentient beings; even if we're talking about single celled organisms.

The stars, planets and galaxies could exist without self consciousness and self aware life forms and it wouldn't matter, nor would it even be necessary in any way whatsoever a chaotic, random universe, and neither would survival. IMO, there must be a reason behind consciousness, life itself and the universal impulse toward survival of life. All living things have a natural instinct to survive and reproduce. Why?? Why is it so important that life be passed on and sustained despite the great risks often necessary to do so??

If things like DNA, single celled life forms (which are anything BUT simple BTW; but VERY, VERY complex) randomly formed (HIGHLY unlikely based on simple mathematical improbability a fact; which can also be proven mathematically) and adapted to their environment, how did these chemicals "Know" what they had to do to adapt?? How do microbes "know" what mutations are good to pass along; especially when the vast majority of mutations don't improve life forms at all, but actually make them worse?? Mutated life forms typically die off and many are unable to reproduce. Mules are simple and obvious example of that fact. They can survive for one generation, but no more. they have to continually be recreated through human intervention.

Darwin showed how the beaks of finches adapted to eat different types of foods (among many other things), but he never explained where beaks ultimately originated. We all know that micro evolution exists and no ones questioning that, but macro evolution is another story and remains a theory, even if it's an accepted theory. We're so good at creating hybrid life forms that we've created thousands upon thousands of different breeds of all kinds of animals by selective breeding, but regardless of how different these breeds appear, they're still the same basic kind, which the Bible claims is how life works in a nut shell; that each animal comes from; and follows it's kind. That applies to all life; plants, animals, fish, etc.

Plus, and very importantly in this discussion; rather than life on Earth gradually appearing over long periods as orthodox evolution claims, even the fossil record shows that life appeared suddenly, massive extinctions happened suddenly, and that life appeared suddenly after mass extinctions; time and time again, and that over 99% of every species that has ever inhabited this world is now extinct.

Why is that, and more importantly, if science truly believes that life was created by chemicals plus time equaling life, why is that equation not easily and regularly reproduced and demonstrated in a lab to p[rove this theory once and for all; now that we (supposedly) have all of the information necessary to make it happen??

It should be relatively easy now that we supposedly "know" how it all happened and how it all works; to at least create some sort of living microbes in a lab. Why hasn't a single scientist been able to produce even a single strand of one "simple" protein under controlled laboratory conditions and then reproduce the same demonstrations again and again. Why hasn't it even been done a single time by now if we're so sure of how this all works?? Probably because the odds of organic materials organizing themselves into a complex series required to form a single protein are slim to none; and Slim just left town.

A DNA matrix is like a complex computer code containing INFORMATION. Wher and how does information spontaneously appear through random chance. How could it randomly happen again and again to result in the millions of different life forms; which would have to have happened to produce the wide variety of life on Earth.

There's also the idea that if random evolution is fact, then ALL life has a common ancestor. Where is the evidence of this long lost set of great, great grandparents?? It's not in the fossil record, at least, if it is, no one's found it despite years of searching.

Why aren't we observing the emergence of new life from chemicals + time?? We should be able to see this happening at many levels, yet we're not. Why not?? If it happened throughout all of history, it should be happening as we speak no??

The "missing link" is still missing. Sure, every so often something is discovered that's claimed to be the elusive missing link, but not a single one has actually been proven to be the missing link beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, they haven't even gotten close.

[Betrade]

PART III; and hopefully the last part; even though I could get into this for days:





I watched a documentary recently about a fossilized Lemur someone discovered that's supposed to be the latest missing link; but I'm not convinced at all that this is the case at all. There are WAY too many unanswered questions regarding that little critter.

It does have pelvic bones that appear to have enabled it to walk upright as well as an opposable thumb, but raccoons and other animals have opposable thumbs too; and I don't know anyone claiming that we're descended from raccoons.

The pelvic bones and opposable thumbs are a huge difference between humans and other primates and great apes. Not one other primate has the right equipment to be bipedal; (even though some are capable of walking upright for short distances when necessary) and that equipment lies in the pelvic area and the way the bones are shaped. Only humans have that equipment. Why?? No ape has the equipment for intelligent speech as we do, even though some have been taught sign language, use tools, etc.

Lots of animals use tools. Otters use rocks to break shellfish while floating on their backsl. Termites and ants (and lots of other insects and other bugs such as spiders, etc.) are fantastic building engineers, but they don't reason in any way remotely close to the way we humans do. We're uniquely different than any other creature on this planet by virtue of our minds.

Our bodies aren't very well adapted to this world either. Without our brains and capacity to reason and make choices to our benefit, we would burn up in the heat, freeze to death in the cold, drown in the water, etc. We're very vulnerable physically. Why is that?? Why are we the only furless mammals for the most part. We can't last any time at all without clothing if the temperature gets down to the freezing point, or even higher. Hypothermia can set in from a cool day and a little rain, and we end up dead within hours if left untreated. If we go to altitudes that are too high, we can't even extract enough oxygen from the atmosphere to breathe properly. Why did we "evolve" such ill suited bodies for our environment??

This is already way too long and I've asked many questions. I guess I'll stop now and let anyone who feels like it tackle these issues.

[Barcs]

Funny thing about this is that I've been seeing the whole "Creationism" vs. evolution thing to the extreme lately. Rockchick, please be wary and do some research yourself before believing anything you see on a creationist youtube video. More often than not, their claims are not scientific at all, and most are actually already proven wrong. I'm not against the idea of faith or belief in god/universal creator, but to claim that the earth is 6000 years old or that man walked with dinosaurs is beyond absurd, and modern day science can prove it.

Most people that believe the 6 day literal creation and great flood story literally are fundamentalists, and more often than not, they believe everyone who doesn't have the same exact faith as them is doomed to burn for eternity. Their main goal in life is to "save" as many people as they can, and this is often done through deception. Evolution is pretty much proven, and although it can't really be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, the evidence HIGHLY supports it... whereas the evidence for creationism is non existant. What many creationists attempt to do is claim that evolution is a faith based belief system, just like religion. They are completely wrong. Evolution is a science based on evidence. It's not just a random guess.

evolutionists believe the big bang was, summed up, "nothing exploding into something". This is even taught in schools, I saw a few different videos of lectures where the speaker showed excerpts from science books and it literally said that

This isn't true. They believe that there was a highly condensed singularity that exploded and dispersed everything. The only text books that say that are basic grammar school books, many of which are outdated. Evolution only talks about the diversity of life, not necessarily the origin. Many people claim evolution is something from nothing, but it's really not. Creation is something from nothing.

Carbon dating is not 100% fact, the results come out different all the time and they change their facts about how old something really is. And there is evidence in science proving the information in the bible really happened (the flood for example).

You should read about radiometric dating. That is the method they use to date fossils, and it's based on the breaking down of certain isotopes. There are several different ways to do it and they all produce relatively the same dates. Creationist videos will tell you otherwise, but they are flat out lying.

Their biggest arguements for this are 1) we've never seen anything create itself but we've seen everything decay, and 2) after all the people who have tried to find flaws in the Bible, it all still is proven 100% factual every time and remains the most read book on Earth, with even earlier written documentation agreeing with it (Dead Sea Scrolls) and all the prophecies have came true so far (the number is in the 300's, so they say).

1. Humans create themselves everyday. It's called reproduction. That argument really bares no significance in the evolution argument anyways. We haven't ever seen god create anything either, right? Circular reasoning is often used, because they will tell you that the earth is a creation and every creation needs a creator. But how do we know earth is creation? because it has a creator? It's not logical at all. It's a guess based on an ancient text and nothing more.

2. The bible is far from proven. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that book came from a divine origin. It was written by humans... Several different people in fact. The texts themselves are very simple, and many of the stories are obviously parables to teach people lessons on morality. The prophecies are metaphorical, so you cannot say for certain that one is definitely coming true or not. Creationists believe it because it fits their perception of the world. Being the most read book on earth proves nothing. That is a fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". By that logic, Britney Spears has made some of the best music of all time.

If you have any questions on evolution or debunking creationism, please feel free to ask, as my studied have been dedicated to this for the past few months. Many people who try to discredit it, do not have a full understanding of evolution and get all of their info from conmen like Kent Hovind.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Betrade

The pelvic bones and opposable thumbs are a huge difference between humans and other primates and great apes. Not one other primate has the right equipment to be bipedal; (even though some are capable of walking upright for short distances when necessary) and that equipment lies in the pelvic area and the way the bones are shaped. Only humans have that equipment. Why?? No ape has the equipment for intelligent speech as we do, even though some have been taught sign language, use tools, etc.

Lots of animals use tools. Otters use rocks to break shellfish while floating on their backsl. Termites and ants (and lots of other insects and other bugs such as spiders, etc.) are fantastic building engineers, but they don't reason in any way remotely close to the way we humans do. We're uniquely different than any other creature on this planet by virtue of our minds.

Our bodies aren't very well adapted to this world either. Without our brains and capacity to reason and make choices to our benefit, we would burn up in the heat, freeze to death in the cold, drown in the water, etc. We're very vulnerable physically. Why is that?? Why are we the only furless mammals for the most part. We can't last any time at all without clothing if the temperature gets down to the freezing point, or even higher. Hypothermia can set in from a cool day and a little rain, and we end up dead within hours if left untreated. If we go to altitudes that are too high, we can't even extract enough oxygen from the atmosphere to breathe properly. Why did we "evolve" such ill suited bodies for our environment??

All these changes happened slowly over millions of years with each hominid species. Speech, tools, lessening of hair and increase of intelligence developed slowly. A big jump happened when hominids went from herbivores to omnivores, the extra protein increased brain size.

Homo habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis etc....

All the middle men are simply extinct so humans seem far removed from animals. We can't look at a fish and wonder how it evolved from little single celled things. There are many creatures in between.


Evolution doesn't "know" what to choose. It tries many variations, when one is successful it just appears to have known in hindsight. That's a common evolution mistake.