I agree Stubby.  Because it's faith and we can't

1.test it

2. verify it

3. repeat it.

I'm not marrying the two at all.  I think those that do believe in theistic Evolution and I don't agree with them.  No, all I'm saying is that I believe that the FACTS are consistent with the biblical account of beginnings.  That's all.  I do believe we have to have Faith to believe it.  But I also believe you have to have Faith to believe in what these Evolutionists are saying as well when it comes to THEIR interpretation of the FACTS.  Check out the comments...."Scientists believe......"So and so thinks."   These are not facts, but interpretation

I'll say again, my problem is NOT with the facts.  It's with the interpretation of the facts. 

 

STUBBYFINGER POSTS:

I realize you addressed this to KFC, but I would like to add my 2 cents worth.

Biblical creation is not nor ever was meant as scientific explanation per se.
Sacred Scripture is God's plan of salvation to man. Becasue Sacred Scripture is inspired by God, it's God's Word, it teaches without error the truths God intened to reveal for the sake of our salvation. The truth is expressed in various literary forms such as history, prophecy, poetry, law, proverbs, stories of actual events that explain ultimate reality, legends that convey a moral, fables that teach a lesson, and parablesthat illustrate a moral or religious lesson.


Re: hurting our faith by marrying the two...

I believe there is no inherent conflict between science and the religion of Christianity and specifically Catholicism, the one true Faith of Christianity. Not only does science notcontradict religion, but religion can and has shed new light on our knowledge since the source of all knowledge is God. I think this whole idea of pitting religion against science as mutaually incompatible is pure bunk.

The fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential to the rise of science. Have you ever studied Alfred North Whitehead, a philosopher and mathematician who credited medieval theology for the rise of science? He pointed out the insistence on the "rationality of God" which produced the belief that "the search of nature could only result in the vindication of the Faith." He happens to be 100% correct.

HOW many times do I have to say that we DON'T reject facts?  It's NOT the facts.  It's the interpretation of the facts that we have a problem with.  I'm afraid it's evolutionary Science that is lying to you.  That's why they keep changing things.  Only a liar has to do this.  Facts are facts.  You can't change facts.  But look at the hoaxes that have gone on thru the years, verified by the Evolutionists themselves as frauds to try and point you against Creationism.  Why is that? Also, many of them disagree on many of their own points. 

The bible says......"in the beginning, God created." 

Now, if that is the beginning of history....let me ask you this.  What do Scientists mean when they speak of "pre-historic" anything? 

And since you like Smurf so much....let me ask another question.

What color does a Smurf turn when you choke him?

 

 

 

 

 

If it is as lula pointed out, and science can only vindicate your faith, how weak is your faith that it must be vindicated?

If you start with the answer then the evidence can only be interpreted one way. How can putting blinders on lead you to the truth? And if you already know the answer why would you need to gather evidence? In fact studying the origins of life without the bible is a complete waste of time isn't it? I could think of a dozen other fields we could do away with as well.

As long as science makes no observation that conflicts with scripture no conflict at all. oh wait that's not science.

You gals are like a comedy team. That link KFC left is hilarious, it reads like a children's book.

 

Here's a little something from the University of California Museum of Paleontology.  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html  Quite informative really.

Human skulls are usually very similar.  That's why they're you know, called human skulls...because they're human and they're going to be pretty similar.  We've found bipedal apes...that leads us to theorize that something similar to that preceeded us.

Speech is easy.  Just vocalizations that became more sophisticated.  Vervet monkeys have almost 40 very specific vocalizations. :)  We've just gotten better at it.

As for our mind?  Well that was the only advantage we ever had.  If we were stupid we'd have been long dead by now.  We were selected for our intelligence and ingenuity.  From the basic tools that chimpanzees use, to the very computer you're typing on.

Want to know something fun?  We get can get feather, skin, and hair imprints because they can "fossilize" as well.  Using pieces of bone we can reconstruct the entire creature using proportions and symmetry.  The color is really the only thing we're guessing on.

If we can get a person's skull we can accurately recreate the face with forensic imaging technology these days. :)  it's pretty neat.

 

Hey look, finally a little backup...thanks stubby and Leauki.

~Zoo

no, you can interpret it different ways.  I remember hearing about how dinosaur bones have been dug up with flesh still attached, even in some cases red blood vessels.  One lady who was involved in the find made mention that this made more sense now with a young earth belief because how could they find bones with flesh on them 65 million years later?  Bones cannot last 65 million years and not rot.  How does flesh not rot or blood vessels not rot?

The answer she got back went something like this..."there most likely is some unknown process involved that doesn't break down." 

See that's the interpretation.  I would say, it was God who created this dinosaur only about 10,000 years or so ago and died out a few thousand years later.  DNA is self destructing and can only survive at the most 100,000 years. 

We have the facts.  We both have the dino bones with flesh  and blood vessels still attached on it.  Yet one interpretation says it's indicative of a young earth and another is indicative of being old but for some reason just not breaking down like it should.  Who's got the blinders on?

Another example might be seeing T-Rex on Jurassic Park.  We see there this dino is a meat eater but yet scripture is quite clear that the animals were plant eaters.  Interpretation or fact? 

See Stubby you shouldn't say this because it creates a double sided argument.  I can say the same about you.  From my POV I could say you can't see because you have Evolutionary Blinders on.  You're putting your trust in men instead of God.

A couple things came to mind when I read this.  First of all, you could not have had time to read these links to any depth or thought because of the timing involved.  Second of all, I'm glad you could laugh (in some regards) as a cheerful heart is like good medicine.

Another thing.........they laughed at Noah just as well when he said on a dry and dusty day....."get in the boat, judgment is coming.  For 120 years he said....."get in the boat, judgment is coming."  "GET IN THE BOAT, JUDGMENT IS COMING! 

They laughed and laughed................... until it rained. 

 

 

...still it took 120 years. You can see how one begins to doubt the crazy old man wanting you to get into his boat.

You're not supposed to get into strange boats with strange men...or so I was told. Maybe that was a car...either way.

~Zoo

Ok, read the article.  Long on opinion, not alot of facts here except took a look at the 1860 fossil they claim.  I also see some of this pointing to a same designer.  Of course, not inconsistent to what I believe. 

If there was a real conclusive transitional fossil, then there would be no creation/evolution debate because creationism would be dead.    I don't know what transitional fossil from 1860 they're  talking about- although a fossil from 1860 sounds sketchy since thats from the time of Darwin, and he never concluded that any transitional fossil had been found (thats what made him doubt his own theory).  He even said himself, that in order for him to be right a transitional fossil had to be found.  All of a sudden a year after the book they find this fossil? Don't you think this would have been all over the news with him jumping up and down?  Up until his death none had been found so not sure what they're talking about here. 

It's funny how nobody ever found a transitional fossil before Darwin's publication, but after that time people find all kinds of "evidences." its like UFO sightings, you'll see it if you really believe it's there, and like I've said,  they've all been proven to be hoaxes by their own side. 

BTW  Zoo...have you ever heard of a Prof Phillip Johnson coming out of Berkley (secular school) as a Creationist?  He's written quite a few books.  I've got  "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds."  Pretty catchy title huh? 

No feedback on the National Geographic Hoax?  Did you know about it?   There are a tons of these -rush to publish a new finding story- out there only to find out they are frauds. 

well we're supposed to be listening to God, not man.  Can you imagine how embarrasing it would have been for someone to get into Noah's boat?  Nobody wants to be laughed at or scorned so we'd rather fear men than fear God.  Do you suppose that's what God meant in Rev 21 when he said the "fearful" will not enter heaven? 

 

You don't look for things you already have KFC, if we can can't agree on this basic fact then 1+1=3 in your reality and we have no common ground on which to base a discussion.

Nobodies ever found any dinosaur flesh KFC. The did find a fossil with the impression of skin around the bone, giving them a 3D image of how much flesh was around the bones. That allowed them to get a better picture of what the dinosaur looked like rather that just guessing based on the anatomy of current reptiles.

Have you ever interpreted a scientific finding in a way that conflicts with scripture? I'll answer that for you, no of course you haven't. You leave no possibility for the words of man to conflict with what you believe to be the perfect word of God. That is the very meaning of "having blinders on". I on the other hand pray all the time to be proven wrong.

I have actually spent a lot of time on that site. I am still looking for answers after all.

:LOL: No it would just be another hoax. 

Fact is, evolution is a theory, subject to peer review and cross examination by scientists who have essentially dedicated their entire professional careers to this topic. At present, evolution is the best theory out there. With time, it may indeed be proven false, or more likely certain aspects of it refined. However it does not contradict the existence of God, nor does it try to explain whether or not there was a creator (as other fine users here have already stated)

What it does do is make an attempt at explaining how part of our complicated universe works. At present, hundreds of years of research conducted by tens of thousands of scientists across the planet consistently point to the fact that the earth is indeed billions of years old. As to how old exactly it is, is still open to debate and trying to be determined. But the research and findings of scientists into the subject is consistently open to cross-examination and peer review.

That is the key- peer-review. Folks with credentials constantly reviewing and cross examining the work of their peers. That is how scientific consensus is reached. It is how we split the atom, landed on the moon, and eliminated entire diseases that in past ages were seen as God's punishment instead of the micro-organisms they really were!

There are always hoaxes...it's bound to happen. Luckily we've figured that out. Teaches people to stop jumping to conclusions.

There have been religious hoaxes too, but that doesn't mean you should automatically discredit the entire institution, does it?




If you didn't like that one link...try this one. It addresses the transitional fossil issue very well. In fact, probably the best setup I've seen so far online. WWW Link


Hope that clears it up.

~Zoo

Until you stop saying things like that you reject millions of years earth history. It's a fact that you reject. Hence you reject facts.

You do reject facts. And you can get as angry about it as you like, but you do reject facts.

 

Yes, but the problem is they keep doing it...like pasting feathers on dinos and trying to create a link.....:P

It's not a fact.  That's why Scientists CAN'T agree on the age of the earth.  It's a belief.  Can you verify it?  Test it? Repeat it?  No to all three.  It HAS to be belief then.  You cannot show me one FACT that says the earth is 65 million years.  It's a belief.

Evolutionary Scientists will agree they can't go back that far in dating the earth.  It's an educated guess therefore it's a belief. 

I can say the same to the Christians when they say:  "God created man"  or "God created Dinosaurs"   For us, this is also a belief.  We cannot verify, test or repeat it.  So for us, it's a belief, not a fact....even tho in our minds (as in the Evolutionists, I'm sure) looking at the scriptures it's as good as facts to us.

One day, I'm most certain, this will all be cleared up.  But for now the debate rages on.  From a Christian POV I believe it's much more than a debate about Evolution vs Creation. That's a smokescreen.  I believe it's a war for men's souls and we're just getting caught up in what we see.  The real worki is being done out of our sight.  Sort of like looking at the beautiful tomatoes on the vine.  The real work was done underneath the soil.  We need to look at the root.  When in doubt always go to the source. 

That's why Christ kept saying, don't walk by sight, rather walk by faith.  He didn't teach many heavenly things because we have a hard enough time with the earthly things that were taught all thru scripture. 

 

 

Stubby:

I don't see it that way.  We both see it's 2 right?  We agree.  We see the answer is two but we both arrive at different interpretations on how we got to two.  You may believe that it was the evolutionary process that brought us to this conclusion, and I believe it was the hand of God that brought us to two.   But we are in agreement with the fact that the end result is two.

The words of man do definitely conflict with God, so when it does conflict, I side with God's word always.  If that's your definition of having blinders on......so be it.  I do, at tmes, walk by faith, instead of sight....but that does not mean, I believe in "blind faith." 

My faith is based on the evidence I see all around me.  I didn't see God's hand on the day of creation putting everything in its place but I believe he did much the same as Evolutionists believe in their Evolutionary theory.  They, too, did NOT see the origin of man therefore they too have to go out on faith based on the words of men. 

ok, fair enough. I didn't know that.  I was only going on listing the site and you coming on fairly quickly saying the site was laughable so I thought how could you say this?  There is so much information on there, I have yet to really make a dent there.  I really don't visit there that much but do on occasion for research.  I do know they get 50,000 hits a day.  So there are many people looking into AIG especially since the new Museum was built last Spring. 

We should never be done learning.  I love to learn and I look for something everyday to learn new.  I've learned alot from talking on this forum over the last two years.  That's why I enjoy discussing such things. 

 

 

 

 

 

Even without the feathers the bone structure is eerily similar.(hollow bones are of particular note)

Check out that link, by the way...it's got loads of info. Including the theropod to bird crossover.

~Zoo

Thanks for the link Zoo. I'm very familiar with Talk Origins.

Now what you said here goes back to my original article regarding Homology.  Remember?  You, as an Evolutionist, look at this as proof of a common ancestor and I, as a Christian look at this as proof of a common designer. 

This is why I gave you those lists of what creationists accept vs what creationists reject. You're talking about homology even though I'm not sure you  understand this concept.  An
evolutionist sees homology and says "ah ha! common ancestor!"   But a creationist sees homology and says "ah ha! common designer!"   How do you scientifically prove which is true if all you do is look at how "eerily similar" they are?

Talk origins is an activist site for evolutionists. they exist for the sole purpose of casting doubt on creationism.  It's not a reliable scientific source.  It's good for ideas but you better be prepared to back it up with facts if you cite it. 

My son said to tell you this:

If he doubts the fact that evolution supports racism, then he disagrees with some prominent evolutionists. Evolution says that we came from monkeys. Black people are closer to monkeys than white people in color and even facial structure. This makes them more closely related to monkeys than white people. That would mean that whites are more evolved than blacks, and blacks are more inferior than whites. It doesn't take a genius to understand that concept. There is no basis for any type of morality, self worth, or concept of truth in the evolutionary paradigm.

The list a good many sources and go over a lot of facts.  It is a counter argument to creationism.  Not only does it refute creationist claims, it supports evolution with a good many pieces of evidence.  It does what anyone would do, makes a point and lays out the supporting evidence. 

Did you check out the reference page for that essay?  It's right here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs  It contains around 90 sources...I think that would be sufficient for a well reasoned argument, don't you agree?

(That's exactly the argument a racist would use.)

Hey, here's something interesting.  Did you know that in evolution there is no superiority?  Nothing is "better" than something else.  Everything evolves according to it's environment and the stresses exacted unto it.

A dog is no "better" than a worm, for instance.  The dog is indeed more advanced than the worm, but saying it is a "higher" lifeform is misleading.  In the dark ground, that worm is a perfect creature.  Up here on the surface in the dog's habitat(usually with people) it is the perfect creature.  In our offices and houses and cities we are the perfect creature.  Up in the air and trees, the birds are perfect.  It's all relative to environment.  Place a human at the South Pole with nothing but the clothes on their back and they'll be dead within the hour...however, the penguins down there will be just fine.  Penguins are better than humans?  Well, in that environment they are. ;)  All organisms evolve according to their environmental pressures and in doing so fill a particular place that allows them to survive and thrive.  This specialization can also be carried out to such an extent as to show animals that are highly specialized for a certain lifestyle...pollinators such as bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds are great examples.

 

People didn't come from monkeys, we came from a common ancestor of apes. :)  That common ancestor was located in Africa...when people journeyed out of Africa and into Europe and Asia, the sun was less intense and the skin color lightened because the dark pigment wasn't needed.  People in Africa evolved according to the requirements of their normally hot and arid environment.  Dark skin=no sunburn.  Europe and Asia have less sunlight intensity and had no need for the elevated melanin levels, although melanin is activated and makes you turn a nice bronze color when in the sunlight regularly.

Blacks are no closer to apes than whites are or Asians or hispanics for that matter.  We all have the same compatible DNA....scientifically speaking of course.

 

Racism already existed long before the "monkey to man" idea(as it is so grossly misrepresented).  Of course racists may use evolution in some weird way to assert their right as a "superior" race.  However, as the above quote says, "There is no basis for any type of morality, self worth, or concept of truth in the evolutionary paradigm."  If there is no basis for morality, self worth, or concept of truth in the evolutionary theory...then there's no possible way it could be racist.  It is neutral. 

Evolution does not support anything besides evolution.  Scientific theory does not have an agenda, it is completely objective.

Saying evolution supports racism is like saying atomic theory supports murder. (Hydrogen bomb anyone?)

~Zoo

Lula posts:

Here's why Christians know the Holy Bible cannot contradict with science.

God is the principal Author of Scripture, is omniscient, Truth Itslef and free from all error. God is also the Creator of the universe and all that is in it including nature time, space and matter. We have faith in the trustworthiness of God as a reliable witness to Creation!

Artisym posts #61

Assuming it's macro-evolution that you are talking about....

There is nothing about Macro-Evolution that is an established fact...There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Evolution is an unproven theory that is all too often taught as a fact of science in schools and is assumed to be fact ofscience by most uninformed people.




Since we can't prove Macro-Evolutiion, it is intellectual presumption to talk of the evolution of the universe and of the earth in terms of billions of years old.
There simply is no sufficient evidence to prove the earth is billions of years old. The problem is when a scientist raises such doubts he's denunciated from the Evolution camp.

Artisym posts #61

Assuming it's macro-evolution that you are talking about....

There is nothing about Macro-Evolution that is an established fact...There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Evolution is an unproven theory that is all too often taught as a fact of science in schools and is assumed to be fact ofscience by most uninformed people.




Since we can't prove Macro-Evolutiion, it is intellectual presumption to talk of the evolution of the universe and of the earth in terms of billions of years old.
There simply is no sufficient evidence to prove the earth is billions of years old. The problem is when a scientist raises such doubts he's denunciated from the Evolution camp.

There is...you just cover your ears and hum to yourself when it's being explained or else try everything in your power to poke holes in it and cast doubt about it.  That seems to be the creationist way...try to discredit something and people will have to believe God took time out of his busy schedule and created every single tiny thing the way it is today.  Nevermind that fossils exist in the first place showing that there are a lot of things that are already dead...dead and gone long, long, long, long before humans walked this earth.

~Zoo

No Zoo,   What you just described is what shows like "The Simpsons" are telling you.  This is how the media portrays Christians.  I saw a  TV clip of the Christian depicted on this Show putting his hands over the eyes of his young children's eyes so they won't read the labels (opinions) of the Evolutionists.  This is a false depiction, btw. 

Just GIVE ME ONE FACT that says the world is billions of years old.  ONE.  That's all I ask.  Don't give me what Scientists THINK or BELIEVE.  I want nothing but FACTS. 

Can you do that?  If not, you have to admit you have faith in this the same way that I have faith in Creationism.

 You cannot back this  ALL up with FACT.  Fossils exist.  Yes, fact.  They were alive, and now dead.  Yes, fact.   Long, long, long, before humans walked the earth?  NO, belief.

 

Except in your religion huh?  You believe truth without evidence.

We have evidence with our truth...data indicates that the earth is much older than a few thousand years.  Good ol' geology has done quite well with that. 

Well, KFC...when you find fossilized humans in the same level as fossilized dinosaurs then you win.

However, there are several strata in the earth's crust that ONLY CONTAIN specific time related organisms.  From giant dragonflies, to towering dinosaurs, to freaky plants...these things did not coexist alongside people because fossils don't occur at the same time in the same layer of rock.

If you think people could conceivably live alongside dinosaurs then I give up...because it's obvious that no reason will permeate the barrier you have constructed around yourself.

~Zoo

LOL. Good episode.

KFC, as a passionate and nearing on rabid supporter of The Simpsons, I must defend the shows honor by pointing out that The Simpsons portrays Christians in many different ways, including some that are very flattering. The entire show is over-the-top by nature, but it's not anti-Christian or anti-religion by any stretch of the imagination.

no.  First of all we're talking Science.  So don't go down that bunny trail Zoo.  But since you did.......I've already told you that if we can't test, verify it or re-create it then it's belief....whether it be Science or Religion.  So that's the line drawn for both.

Our truth?  What is that?  Is that a FACT or OPINION? 

It's not about winning Zoo.  It's about being true to the facts and not getting caught up in opinion.  It's all about being critical thinkers.  There's alot written about this from both sides but both sides have to go on belief (as far as I know). 

From a parental POV I was always asking, are my kids being taught the truth or is it opinion or even lies?  I believe they are teaching lies.  I believe that this movie Expelled is going to show how the other side "surpresses" the truth.   Darwin was accused  of that by his own wife. 

Why? 

So I better be careful what I say here huh TW....lol. 

I'm not going after the Simpson's per se since I've not really watched it.  I'm familiar with it but barely.   When Zoo made the comment (see above) it reminded me of that one clip (that you're familiar with) and while I would have to admit probably to some degree that Christians can be like that it's not fair to those of us who really are able to debate the other side intelligently (well at least I like to think so...lol). 

I'll take your word for the rest since I'm not an authority on the Simpsons at all.  I'm glad to see it's not anti-Christian or religion then.