grayhaze grayhaze

Creation vs. Evolution

Creation vs. Evolution

I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?

To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
209,046 views 1,102 replies
Reply #826 Top
As to the topic of 'regurgitating the bible when questioned', isn't that what Jesus did when questioned by the devil in the wilderness? Jesus quoted parts of the Bible as answers to his questions.

The Bible (a humorous but quite accurate description I once heard is B.I.B.L.E Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) is there to teach us what we need to know about the God who loves us and wants to save us from being eternally separated from him. It is there to provide answers to the most important question in our lives. 'Why am I here and what am I supposed to be doing?' It answers that question succintly and precisely.

We're here because God made us in His own image to love Him as He loves us. Why are we on earth? To learn of that love and prepare ourselves for the 'new earth' which will have no sin. We are also required to tell others about it so they may prepare themselves also if they wish to.

Personally I believe that an all powerful God can make sure that the words which are written about him stay true to the facts and don't get corrupted into something which means something totally different.
Reply #827 Top
God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”


SAY IT RIGHT:

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son, ho so ever believes in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life.

I still fail to see how quoteing a bunch of well known bible verses is talking about evolution. Like others have said, same old stuff, just 30 posts later.

By the way if I want bible verses told to me I would just read the bible.
Reply #828 Top
yikes! I cannot read all that! hehebut I spotted the "he" thing, what is so hard about this? God is called a "he" cause of his "strength & power" = "masculine qualities" prob not cause of his sex, sheesh such stuff read into words when it all means nothing really... hehe


Doreen: it is believed by some that God is neither male or female. Being the end all powerful being he has no need for sex and such.

I believe however that God is a guy because in Genesis it says God created man in his image.
Reply #829 Top
hehe I know that Kona...
seems ppl get even hung up on the sex of God, we could talk about this subject for years and still end up in a circle. hehe

you cannot draw a direct line of explanation to God cuz our human minds/words vary and change constantly trying to explain something that is "Spiritual" and impossible to put into perfect words.
Reply #830 Top
yes I know.

Still wish we could get off the bible verses and back to the evolution thing!
Reply #833 Top
#828 by Kona0197 - 10/28/2003 8:37:16 PM I believe however that God is a guy because in Genesis it says God created man in his image.


'Man' (taken literally as in having a particular sex) implies 'Woman' (why shouldn't it be so) - so where is "Mrs God"?

Why is it necessary for God to be male - it implies He's 'designed' for procreation. It begs the eternal question: who 'designed' God? And around we go again...
Reply #834 Top
I forgot what was the original topic? the big bang? hehe
nevermind me will check back in 30 more hits and see how far we've come on this discussion
Reply #835 Top
'Man' (taken literally as in having a particular sex) implies 'Woman' (why shouldn't it be so) - so where is "Mrs God"?


Ah yes but I must say this:
Woman came from man literally it says in the bible woman was created from one of a mans rib. All because man needed a companion (or a housekeeper)

Anyways - God is a Guy but i am sure he has no need foe primitive sex.

As far as who created God? No one. he has always been here.
Reply #836 Top

All because man needed a companion (or a housekeeper)

Half the world's population remain unimpressed....

Reply #837 Top
@ Jafo

I almost read all of that and probably will later r3fr.

But even as I read I still see the possibility of evolution being in there.


And to say that God would not allow anyone to change the translations of the Bible?So if I was to re-write the Bible and say forget a chapter and go to South America the chapter would re-appear? What if it is His plan to not have specific thing revealed before its time? How would we know that?

I have faith that the Bible is real, but I think you have to go beyond the text with spirit. If I went to South America with that missing chapter it would/should not make a difference to them at all from those who have all the chapters. It would be as if they still can read the words (in my theory)


I am willing to go out on a limb and say this. If you can look at a rock and see God's word in it (all of it) then your headed in the right direction. If I am not mistaken I believe it says and make clear in other parts of the Bible so much so that to say all of creation is made up of God's word.

As human beings we are trapped in a limited understanding of what is going on around us. If the Bible is your shield of choice then so be it. It is a guide and I reject any ideas that it is a rule book. Even if it is, apparently as human beings, we can't seem to get it right for Christianity seems to change as time moves on.


Anyway, I just see that evolution can easily fit into the Bible. Creation and evolution seems to go hand in hand.
Reply #838 Top
When Adam and Eve (yes I do believe in the creation story) sinned and basically chose the devil over God they handed the earth over to the devil to do with as he wished.


so the devil is to blame ... else we would still frolic around naked in paradise (not sure if Christians would really enjoy that )
now if only God would have been smart and would have written the Bible in English the ones that could have read the real thing have chosen to remain Jews anyways.
Reply #839 Top
I just don't see any point in posts like that Moshi. Granted, no one knows how to enjoy making someone violently angry more than me, but in this case I don't think anyone here really deserves it.

I would like to point out, with all due respect to r3fr, that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a reasonably small subsect of Christianity and in no way demonstrative of the whole. I have no problem with them, but I think it would be responsible to specify what particular flavor of doctrine is being expounded upon so exhaustively by our friend r3fr. There are radical differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and most mainstream Christian denominations. Those differences, like a lot of what is being posted, is off topic, fortunately.

P.S. Sorry, dunno if that made sense. I don't mean to differ with r3fr, but I would prefer for people to understand that when one of us comes in and talks about our 9 Christian ) religious beliefs in general terms, we aren't necessarily talking about anything remotely resembling the lengthy, ongoing description of doctrine. There is a bad enough tendency to lump us all together as it is.
[Message Edited]
Reply #840 Top
Your God is all powerful correct?Then where was he when the child was abused and

raped or murdered?You God can see and knows all, correct?Did your God not know this was

taking place?If your God knew this.Knowing it was taking place why did your God not stop

it?


In those questions, you're not the only one asking them. Millions of people ask the same

questions each day.

"GOD does permit wickedness, and millions on earth willfully make a practice of it. For instance,

they declare wars, drop bombs on children, scorch the earth, and cause famines. Millions smoke

and get lung cancer, practice adultery and get sexually transmitted diseases, use alcohol to excess

and get cirrhosis of the liver, and so on. Such people do not truly want all wickedness stopped.

They only want the penalties for it eliminated. When they reap what they have sown, they cry

out, “Why me?” And they blame God, as Proverbs 19:3 says: “A man’s own folly wrecks his life,

and then he bears a grudge against the LORD.” (The New English Bible) And if God stopped

their evildoing, they would protest their loss of freedom to do it!

Jehovah’s main reason for permitting evil is to answer Satan’s challenge. Satan the Devil said that

God could not put men on earth who would be true to Him under test. (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-10) Jehovah

allows Satan to remain to have opportunity to prove his challenge. (Exodus 9:16) Satan continues

to bring woes now, to turn men against God, as he tries to prove his challenge. (Revelation 12:12)

However, Job kept integrity. So did Jesus. True Christians do now.—Job 27:5; 31:6; Matthew

4:1-11; 1 Peter 1:6, 7."

God can see and know all, but if he did know all.. knew our futures, would it be fair? Say, for

example, God looked into the futures of Adam and Eve. He, knowing they would sin, created

them. Its like a father giving his children a task that he knew they would fail at. Its senseless.

SAY IT RIGHT:

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son, ho so ever believes in him shall not

perish but have ever lasting life.

I still fail to see how quoteing a bunch of well known bible verses is talking about evolution. Like

others have said, same old stuff, just 30 posts later.

By the way if I want bible verses told to me I would just read the bible.


Like i've said before, there, for some words, are no direct translations so we must take other

similar words to capture the same idea or thought. It also, says the same thing. I'm sorry that you

fail to see what i'm saying. For some people its easy to grasp, for others its not. I'm not saying

you're not intelligent... I don't even know you. If you've got some questions, please ask and i'll

do my best to answer them. I'm not simply quoting Bible verses... I'm backing up my claims.

Backing up what i'm saying.

Doreen: it is believed by some that God is neither male or female. Being the end all

powerful being he has no need for sex and such.

I believe however that God is a guy because in Genesis it says God created man in his

image.


Though i'm not Doreen, I just wanted to comment. True, we don't know what God is... male or

female... He is called 'he' in the Bible, like Doreen pointed out, because of the masculine

qualities given to him. Such as strength, allmighty, powerful and so on.

Man created in Gods image -
"In disclosing to his “master worker” the divine purpose to create mankind, God said: “Let us

make man [´a·dham´] in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26, 27; Pr 8:30, 31; compare

Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:15-17.) Note that the Scriptures do not say that God created man in the image of a

wild beast or of a domestic animal or of a fish. Man was made “in God’s image”; he was a “son of

God.” (Lu 3:38) As to the form or shape of God’s body, “at no time has anyone beheld God.” (1Jo

4:12) No one on earth knows what God’s glorious, heavenly, spiritual body looks like, so we

cannot liken man’s body to God’s body. “God is a Spirit.”—Joh 4:24.

Nevertheless, man is “in God’s image” in that he was created with moral qualities like those of

God, namely, love and justice. (Compare Col 3:10.) He also has powers and wisdom above those

of animals, so that he can appreciate the things that God enjoys and appreciates, such as beauty

and the arts, speaking, reasoning, and similar processes of the mind and heart of which the

animals are not capable. Moreover, man is capable of spirituality, of knowing and having

communication with God. (1Co 2:11-16; Heb 12:9) For such reasons man was qualified to be God’s

representative and to have in subjection the forms of creature life in the skies, on the earth, and

in the sea.

Being a creation of God, man was originally perfect. (De 32:4) Accordingly, Adam could have

bequeathed to his posterity human perfection and opportunity for eternal life on earth. (Isa 45:18)

He and Eve were commanded: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it.” As

their family increased, they would have cultivated and beautified the earth according to the

design of their Creator.—Ge 1:28.

The apostle Paul, in discussing the relative positions of man and woman in God’s arrangement,

says: “I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is

the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.” He then points out that a woman who prays or

prophesies in the congregation with her head uncovered shames the one who is her head. To

enforce his argument he then states: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is

God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory.” Man was created first and for some time

was alone, being in God’s image by himself. The woman was made from the man and was to be

subject to the man, a situation unlike that of God, who is subject to no one. Man’s headship,

nevertheless, comes under the headship of God and Christ.—1Co 11:3-7."

And to say that God would not allow anyone to change the translations of the Bible?So if

I was to re-write the Bible and say forget a chapter and go to South America the chapter would

re-appear? What if it is His plan to not have specific thing revealed before its time? How would

we know that?


No, most likely if you did that, it would not reappear, just as Gods name hasn't reappeared in

many of todays translations. But as for taking every Bible around the entire world and destroying

them... it can't be done. Actually, it is his plan to have specific things revealed at specific times.

Such as the 'disgusting thing,' and Christs presence, 1914.

As human beings we are trapped in a limited understanding of what is going on around

us. If the Bible is your shield of choice then so be it. It is a guide and I reject any ideas that it is a

rule book. Even if it is, apparently as human beings, we can't seem to get it right for Christianity

seems to change as time moves on.


Anyway, I just see that evolution can easily fit into the Bible. Creation and evolution seems to go

hand in hand.


Yeah, it seems as traditions change, so does religion. But my religion doesn't have traditions

because many traditions come from false religions.

Thats your opinion and I respect your choice, but I believe creation and evolution are the

complete opposite and I believe that evolution has no place in the Bible.

so the devil is to blame ... else we would still frolic around naked in paradise (not sure if

Christians would really enjoy that )
now if only God would have been smart and would have written the Bible in English the ones that

could have read the real thing have chosen to remain Jews anyways.


Yeah, the Devil is to blame for the most part. The Bible was written in Hebrew and in Greek and

not English, because the writers wrote in those languages... I don't think English was even a

language at the time of the writing.

I would like to point out, with all due respect to r3fr, that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a

reasonably small subsect of Christianity and in no way demonstrative of the whole. I have no

problem with them, but I think it would be responsible to specify what particular flavor of doctrine

is being expounded upon so exhaustively by our friend r3fr. There are radical differences

between Jehovah's Witnesses and most mainstream Christian denominations. Those differences,

like a lot of what is being posted, is off topic, fortunately.


True, we are small (roughly 6,000,000 currently) 'subsect' as you put it, of Christianity and we

don't represent all of Christianity. Though, we've been around for quite some time, not always

know as Jehovahs Witnesses or 'Russelites' (which we NEVER called ourselfs). Spanning back to

Abel.
Yes, i'm sorry, but, not to be rude, I didn't want my religion to be associated with the other

religions that claim to be Christian. I'll try my best to stay on the topic of Creation and Evolution.
Reply #841 Top
OK, For creation we have an all powerful God. He creates us. We live. What we supposedily need to evolve is matter. Matter cannot come from nothing and cannot change to be living. We.. live? The dinosaurs, mammels and reptiles died off, but humans survived? We're very weak compared to most dinosaurs. Most were far faster and far better hunters than we are, but yet they died.

"Evolutions Foundation Missing?

WHAT is the essence of Darwin’s theory of evolution? “In its full-throated, biological sense, . . . evolution means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” Darwinian evolution postulates that “virtually all of life, or at least all of its most interesting features, resulted from natural selection working on random variation.”—Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Irreducible Complexity—Evolution’s Stumbling Block?

When Darwin developed his theory, scientists had little or no knowledge of the amazing complexity of the living cell. Modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, has revealed some of that intricacy. It has also raised serious questions and doubts about Darwin’s theory.

The components of cells are made up of molecules. Cells are the building blocks of all living creatures. Professor Behe is Roman Catholic and believes in evolution to explain the later development of animals. However, he raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that “haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along ‘highways’ made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.”

Now, all of this activity is taking place on what scale? A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. (See diagram, pages 8-9.) Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.”

Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms “irreducible complexity.”

This presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics. Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

The irreducibly complex cell is a major stumbling block to belief in Darwin’s theory. In the first place, evolution cannot explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter. Then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit. In other words, the cell (or, the mousetrap) must appear out of nowhere, assembled and functioning!"
Reply #842 Top
Hands up, all those who have run screaming from the excessively long posts?....
Reply #843 Top
Long posts don't bother me....I just pass'em by
Reply #844 Top
uhh unless they are interesting Purrrr...
Reply #845 Top
Hands up, all those who have run screaming from the excessively long posts?....


I second that.

Feels like I am in church from his posts.
Reply #846 Top
Well, do a little reading up on Genetic Anthropology and Human Evolution which fly's in the face of question of if evolution is real or not, including Human evolution.

Human kind is supposed to be what, 5,000 years old or some such? Yet Humans can be traced back at least 40,000 years geneticaly... As they discover better preserved tissue samples they gain more detailed information supporting the whole thing...

anyway...

Reply #847 Top
IPlural: I agree with you wholeheartedly, but 'the powers that be' who fuel a lot of the posted material above have spent good money trying to discredit carbon dating. You might find human DNA in a bone that tests out at 40k years, but to them it is always gonna be a bone of uncertain age and provenance. Like my old History professor used to say, "If it wasn't reasoned into them, you won't reason it out of them..."
Reply #848 Top
Ami....the wallpaper image was superfluous at best.
Reply #849 Top
Hands up, all those who have run screaming from the excessively long posts?....


I've just got a lot of evidence to back up my claims.
You don't have to read them if you don't want to, but if you feel you'd like to comment on what I say, then you might want to read them.

I second that.

Feels like I am in church from his posts.


Is it a good thing, or bad, that my posts make you feel you're in church?

Well, do a little reading up on Genetic Anthropology and Human Evolution which fly's in the face of question of if evolution is real or not, including Human evolution.

Human kind is supposed to be what, 5,000 years old or some such? Yet Humans can be traced back at least 40,000 years geneticaly... As they discover better preserved tissue samples they gain more detailed information supporting the whole thing...

anyway...


Carbon dating isn't correct. Something that is 2,000 years + old (this is just a random number) releases such a small... ity-bity amount of carbon thats its extremely difficult to date it properly. What scientists say is just a guess, for the most part.

IPlural: I agree with you wholeheartedly, but 'the powers that be' who fuel a lot of the posted material above have spent good money trying to discredit carbon dating. You might find human DNA in a bone that tests out at 40k years, but to them it is always gonna be a bone of uncertain age and provenance. Like my old History professor used to say, "If it wasn't reasoned into them, you won't reason it out of them..."


Not to be insulting, but your quote can be applied to evolutionists as well.

For evolution, which i'll say again for those who might have missed it, a piece of non-living matter cannot just go from non-living to living. And matter cannot just jump to be here, or slowly form to be here either. It defies all logic. Energy cannot just be here from nothing. Think of 'the beginning' when there was absolutely nothing (in evolution).. Can something spawn from nothing? No, it can't. We ALL know this as fact whether we admit it or not. No matter how large or small of a piece of matter or energy, it CANNOT spawn from nothing. This alone disproves evolution.
Reply #850 Top
Carbon dating isn't correct. Something that is 2,000 years + old (this is just a random number) releases such a small... ity-bity amount of carbon thats its extremely difficult to date it properly. What scientists say is just a guess, for the most part.


Really?

The absolute dating methods most widely used and accepted are based on the natural radioactivity of certain minerals found in rocks. Since the rate of radioactive decay of any particular isotope is known, the age of a specimen can be computed from the relative proportions of the remaining radioactive material and its decay products. By this method the age of the earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old. Some of the radioactive elements used in dating and their decay products (their stable daughter isotopes) are uranium-238 to lead-206, uranium-235 to lead-207, thorium-232 to lead-208, samarium-147 to neodymium-143, rubidium-87 to strontium-87, and potassium-40 to argon-40. Each radioactive member of these series has a known, constant decay rate, measured by its half-life, that is unaffected by any physical or chemical changes. Each decay element has an effective age range, including uranium-238 (100 million to 4.5 billion years) and potassium-40 (100,000 to 4.5 billion years)


Yeah there are not any FACTS backing that up either I am sure

The radioactive carbon-14 method of dating is used to determine the age of organic matter that is several hundred years to approximately 50,000 years old. Carbon dating is possible because all organic matter, including bones and other hard parts, contains carbon and thus contains a scalable proportion of carbon-14 to its decay product, nitrogen-14. The carbon-14, along with nonradioactive carbon-13 and carbon-12, is converted to carbon dioxide and assimilated by plants and organisms; when the plant or animal dies, it no longer acquires carbon, and the carbon-14 begins to decay. The conventional method of measuring the amount of radioactive carbon-14 in a sample involved the detection of individual carbon-14 decay events. In the 1980s a new procedure became available. This technique involves the direct counting of carbon-14 atoms through the use of the accelerator mass spectrometer and has the advantage of being able to use sample sizes up to 1,000 times smaller than those used by conventional radiocarbon dating. The accelerator mass spectrometer technique reduces the amount of statistical error involved in the process of counting carbon-14 ions and therefore produces dates that have smaller standard errors than the conventional method.


Your just oh, 48,000 years off target with your claim that it is a failure

Your cracking me up...