Umm, how can you have "evening and morning" without the sun?


So are you saying it is a literal account of creation or a symbolic one?

No, Christianity and Catholicism in particular was/is not wrong.

Remember, just like macro-evolution theory today, Galileo could not PROVE the theory by the Aristotleian standards of science of his day.

His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and proclaimed it as truth although there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. If Galileo had stayed within the realm of science and mathematics and out of the realm of theology, he would have been all right. But he insisted on moving the debate into theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this new science was contrary to certain Scriptural passages, namely Joshua 10:13, And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed..." Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiates 1:5 also speak of celestial motiion and terrestial stability. Galileo wanted to change the reading of these passages and insisted on moving the debate into the theological realm. Galileo's talent as an astronomer and mathematician was not ever questioned. His leap from observing the heavenly b odies to divining the intent of the Creator of the heavens was foolish presumption.

It's definitely a literal account of creation; it's just that there is still some differences as to the interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom" or day, the 24 hour period of time.

So until those interpretation issues are resolved, isn't it effectively symbolic anyway.

Woah...fundamental lack of knowledge about a subject you criticize! Not uncommon for Christian fundamentalists, though.

How about you go read up on it...then see if what you said makes any sense whatsoever.

(Hint: I bet it won't. )

~Zoo

Not for those who believe the biblical testimony of Creation in Genesis 1 or in the historical geology sense. The reason for this is Christians know that since Almighty God is the Principal Author of both Sacred Scripture and the Creator of the Universe and all that's in it, including space, time and matter, they can't contradict one another. It concerns faith in the trustworthiness of God as a reliable eye-witness to Creation. With that I can easily begin a particular hypothesis about our Origin with something more than a hunch.

If only you understood basic historical geology...then you wouldn't be arguing.


Our history is right there in the earth for all to see. Pick up a textbook some time...you'd be surprised at how much we do know. Being willfully ignorant of geology and biology and then criticizing them is laughable. You're supposed to learn about your subject before you pick it apart...this isn't amateur Bible discussion or philosophy or literature class- it's hard science and factual data. You must KNOW things...not think you know things in order to discuss or criticize them.

A work of fiction can be interpreted many different ways, religious texts can be interpreted in many different ways, abstract ideas can be interpreted many different ways...science and math are interpreted in only one way. If I say 2+2=5 I'd damn well better have evidence to back it up...I can't just "believe" it to be true.

~Zoo

It requires belief in a book before belief in a creator though.

Fair enough. But if that is true then that must be how God created all planets....we have been able to verify that there are hundreds of extra-solar planets jupiter sized or bigger... earth sized planets in other solar systems are still too small and far away with present methods to accurately locate, but with more telescope arrays in space that may be overcome soon.

Anywho. If we have been able to prove that there are hundreds of big planets in our area of the galactic neighbourhood (this just in the last fifteen years or so, as time goes on we're going to find a LOT more), then it's a pretty safe bet that there are plenty of smaller, earth sized planets we just can't detect yet out there too. I have no problem or issue with the existence of God or a universal creator.... I take issue with the idea that he would essentially break the laws of physics to create a planet from scratch with functioning ecosystem in 6 days. That's like saying that God got bored so he decided to flip the gravity switch to "off" one day to see what would happen.

I do agree with you that Genesis isn't meant to be a technical manual. But if that's the case, then it also can't be taken literally, because when taken literally it means that God broke his own rules to create our solar system. That would then mean that he would have to break his rules to create other sentient species too?

Hmm, actually, would it still be religion? I mean most religions center around supposedly eternal, absolute, "objective", "perfect" truths. Admitting they were wrong would run counter to this.

lET'S BE HONEST, To date, NO MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED AS FACTUAL.

Here, if it's as you say and our history is right out there for all to see, please give the hard science and factual data the explains what we've been talking about ---namely, the origin of the world, the generation of living cells from non-living cells and in particular how man came to be. What was the species man was before he was a man for example and where is the fossil evidence of such a creature? 

Give the hard science and factual data that validates one species changing into a completely different one.  

I have shown our origins on a theological historical premise that involve creative  actions only possible to the Creator.  

How do Evolutionists factually show how the laws of nature come into operation?

 

Not really. Belief in the Creator God came by way of oral traditions passed down by Jewish people that would date back to Abraham and Moses.  I think starting around 900 BC. and extending over a long period of time these traditions were put into writings which would form the first five books of the Old Testament. The Church which was formed in 33AD and belief in the Creator God came by way of oral teaching up until the time of the printing press by Gutenberg, a Catholic I might add.  

And if the fossil was found, would you accept it as such or claim it "was not human" or just a "short hunched over human"? What kind of fossil would be evidence to you?


You do realize these have little to nothing to do with evolutionary theory, don't you? I am sure it has been pointed out more than once to you by now.


They don't, physicists might hypothesize but AFAIK the origins of the "laws of nature" are not clear at this time and no one is saying they are, at best they are stating likely hypothesis. Biologists and geologists don't generally occupy their time and resources on advanced theoretical physics topics.

Fair enough, but it still requires belief in, not objectively verifiable, information one was told. I myself don't base my life on "word of mouth".

It happens that all the fossils that have been found so far are either 100% human DNA or 100% ape DNA. there are no in-betweens progressive forms that have been found...which is kinda strange as it has taken millions of years and you'd think the earth would be littered with in-between forms say from fishes to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. So, if macro-evolution occurred then a fossil that confirms postulated evolutionary sequences would have molecular genetics from both forms...say part human and part ape DNA.

the closer one looks at the evidence of macro=Evolution the less one finds of substance. Evolution theory just keeps postulating evidence and failing to find it, and moves on to other postulates....such as fossil missing links, natural selection of improved new forms, postiive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences are not true science but pseudo science that's getting bandied about particularly in school textbooks as true science.

What do you mean these have nothing to do with evolutionary theory? Of course ET has given us their version of the origin of the universe, the world, and how living cells came about.

Evolution theory essentially is a set of ideas promoting the Godless view that all present species upon earth have emerged from a very simple common ancestor. There are many conflicting stories of ET out there. As older theories run into conceptual problems, newer versions emerge their proponents hoping to find the elusive mechanism for macro-evolution. It started with spontaneous generation that life arose from non-life and went on for a couple hundred years until Pasteur showed beyond a doubt that only life begets life.

The universe is thought to have begun by some big explosion somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago and according to this theory, some molecular soup chemicals somehow came together by chance and the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. Evolutionists somehow believe living cells began to emerge and then life began slowly to diversify.

According to Time-Life textbooks, with this one has to believe not only did chemical evolution give rise to biological evolution, but also random disorder gave rise to order of higher complexity.

Really? So, if your neighbor's house down the street was burning and someone came to your door for help and told you of the incident, you wouldn't believe it on "word of mouth"?

that's what oral tradition is you know, word of mouth...

or how about your great grandparents telling a tale that has come down through the family...is that not word of mouth?

*sigh* It has by me. I wrote an article on it, actually.


As for the hard science behind evolutionary theory? I've given you tons over the last few months...even several examples of transitional organisms and yet you still profess that there are none. I don't know exactly what I have to produce that I haven't already.

As for DNA evidence between ape and man...there's an extra chromosome in apes, we have one less. If you take a look at one of our chromosomes (the second, I believe) you'll see that it's actually 2 fused together(there's an end piece code in the middle). Logic would dictate that somewhere along the line a pair of chromosomes joined and we sprung forth from that.

But you go ahead and shoot down science which you don't understand in favor of a book that cannot be tested...that's a rational decision. Belief in God is one thing, but willful ignorance and rejection of the way the world works is quite another. I'd be ashamed to meet God and have to tell Him I doubted His power. You think evolution is too complicated for God to set up? That He didn't hang out in the universe for awhile before whipping up earth? He is eternal, I don't see why an old earth is such a stretch...but whatever.

I'm going to go back to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage. That and He's a pretty reasonable god.





~Zoo

ZOO POSTS:


[quote]As for DNA evidence between ape and man...there's an extra chromosome in apes, we have one less. If you take a look at one of our chromosomes (the second, I believe) you'll see that it's actually 2 fused together(there's an end piece code in the middle). Logic would dictate that somewhere along the line a pair of chromosomes joined and we sprung forth from that.[/quote]

First of all, Zoo, have you noticed that you have gone from saying evolution history is right there in the earth for all to see and it's hard science and factual data and here you saying that "logic would dictate" that similiarities in chromosomes shows we evolved from apes? What can I say? If you think this proves you evolved from apes, then have at it. I know differently.

Truth is the proof that evolutionists need is REAL evidence of species change not similiarity of chromosomal structure or function. Lacking that evidence the attempt to prove the point is shallow at best. the problem is that macro evolution is not occurring now and the fossil record reveals it has not occurred in the past.

In spite of efforts to see similiarities in structures of various animals, the DNA problem continues to defy the evolutionists. It's important to understand that the genes themselves are very different in mankind from those found in apes. While the genetic instructions can be almost identical, it's the order in which they are expressed that makes all the difference in the world.

Let's be clear. The only science I've shot down as a lie is pseudo science that says life came from non-life and over billions of years the earth was formed and after millions of years afterward humans evolved from apes. You can believe it, I don't for it's totally unrational to me.

I'm fully aware of the way the world works...and unless and until you fully appreciate faith in Almighty God over faith of those in the world, you'll not. Same for everyone else.


What is true whether you'll admit it or not is that no evolutionary hypothesis on our origins of the world or of mankind has been conclusively demonstrated as factual...and it never will. Far from it...scientific theory about origins tends to favor the Creationist version than the Evolutionist one. Will you agree that a scientific hypothesis incapable of scientific demonstration of being verified as true or false is not, strictly speaking, a scientific hypothesis? It may be true, but the truth of falsity of the theory must be decided on grounds and with methods of reflection proper to other branches of learning. those dealing with the theological if the hypothesis is primarily theological..and that's what the question of our origins of the world and of man is....not a question of science, but of theology including sound metaphysics.

Whenever there is a question of the supernatural or of the miraculous, it's beyond the limits of empirical science to tell us about the material reality and what are the principals of its operations. the origin of the universe, of Adam and Eve, and the origin of every human person at conception is a miraculous historic event carefully planned and executed by our Creator and in the case of all of Adam's children, with the pro-creator parents. The simple explanaton is all life comes from God.

You guys have certainly been busy, there's a lot to go through here, i think it'd be interesting to put some of the counters across here into a seperate article, as i know a lot of people fail in reading comments (such as me).

Well at least i've got a good read awaiting me (i hope) during my lunch hour. Will post shortly afterwards. :CONGRAT:

 

Okay, I have no problem with that statement. It can be neither proved nor disproved. I do have a problem with the fact that you state a literal interpretation of the bible in that the earth and humanity was created in 6 days. If we were created by God (or flying spaghetti monster, oh whom I am a huge fan), then he would have to play by the rules he set down at the beginning of the universe. This would essentially mean that after the big bang he would be an observer to see everything unfold. Think of it as God playing a game of pool, and he's set up the ultimate trick shot. He's not going to reach out onto the table with his hands and throw the balls around. Instead he has to play by the rules. Translated into reality, that means that the creation of planets and stars and the evolution of life on those planets takes place on a scale of hundreds of millions to billions of years.

For example, our distant predecessors were once aquatic. The bible doesn't talk about that, but the evidence is right here in our bodies. We have webbed fingers and toes, our bodies are actually still somewhat streamlined to be hydrodynamic and we have the mamalian dive reflex- when we get submerged under water our metabolism slows down to prolong the length of time we can go without taking in air. Now since we've been land-lubbers for so damned long, most of these features are largely vestigial, but you can damn well be sure our (very) distant ancestors once had more in common with dolphins than apes.

My problem is that certain elements of the church absolutely, steadfastly refuse to even consider the fact that as a species we haven't always been this way. As if the fact that we were once different, or even non-sentient somehow makes us unclean or is heresy. It isn't- it is the truth, and the sooner we accept it and move on to bigger and better things we'll all be better off!

One small clue in a pile of evidence.  Let's not forget the fossil record, DNA similarity in 90th percentile between other apes, and yadda yadda yadda...I've said this all before.

If facts and logic based on those facts make no sense to you then there's no hope.

Good day!

~Zoo

So, in other words, there is no potential fossil evidence that you would consider proof. I'll ask again, what would constitute evidence of species change to you?


Bzzt, sorry but even if the fossil record did not reveal macro evolution occurring as you vehemently believe, it would not mean it "revealed" that it didn't occur.