# Creation or evolution?



## Randy

Maybe this has been discussed here before but I did not see it, so what is your belief Creation or Evolution?

Personally my belief is a mixture of the two.  As I understand my Baptist upbringing, they believe the earth is about 6000 years old.  IMO there is just too much scientific fact that it is much much older.  I believe God did create the Heavens and the Earth including man.  It is just as amazing to me that he did it through evolution than he just picked up some clay and made man.  No dought we all originally came from the earth even the scientific facts back that up.   Boy, if my Mother heard me say this she would beat me but I think this is another "hang up" on the literal interpretation of the Bible for some Christians.  In the end it really does not matter anyway but some would throw me out of the Church for even thinking this.

Anyone care to share your beliefs?


----------



## Arrowslinger

God created everything includeing evolution, How's that? I won't ever believe my ancesters are related to monkeys though. How old things are is a relative thing what nobody can say is that God works under limits and constraints of mans thinking and reasoning.


----------



## PWalls

Oh Randy, you ask some hard questions.

As a new Christian, I personally have a hard time with this one as well. I am an Engineer and really like physical evidence and all of that. I can't discount some of the scientific evidence either.

Here is where I get shot down and have to sit down with my Pastor on.

I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I believe in the Big Bang. However, I don't think that it just happened. God made it happen. I think that evolution is a valid theory when you believe that God made it happen. How could Noah have fit two of every species of life in the Ark that is alive today if you dicount evolution/specialization? Do you ignore the scientific data of carbon-dating and the like?


----------



## Madsnooker

Creation

Life is not evolving, it is dieing out


Evolutionist can not show you a fossill at stage one then stage two and so on and so on. If everything has evolved you would think there would be tons and tons of fossill record to accurately back it up. It just doesn't exist.

You have to remember, most scientist that preach evolution do not believe in God. So when evidence points to some type of creation, than you would have to believe in a higher power that did the creating. This cuases a great dilema for those that think their actions on earth do not matter. Instead, it means they might be accountable for their actions one day and that changes everything.


----------



## QuackAddict

Randy, my beliefs are pretty similar to yours.  I believe in God and in evolution.  There is way too much scientific evidence that shows that there have been a been multiple hominoid species that date back thousands of years.  The further back you go back in time the more these species resemble primates.  But as these species have progressed they became more similar to homo sapiens.  I think that humans evolved but God was there to give us our soul and inltelligence.  I know that there are many people who will disagree with this but how do you explain all of the other hominids that are now extinct and there are fossils that prove their existence?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

I don't see why there should be a problem believing the earth is more than 6000 years old....  *most* Christians I know believe that one day to God is as a thousand years to mankind, so using that formula, the earth would have been 6000 years old before man ever stepped foot on it.  And if man's been around for 6000 years, that would make the earth at least 12,000 years old.

Besides, the first line of Genesis is "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."  It says the earth was dark and without form.  It doesn't say how long the earth was dark before God said "let there be light".  Could have been thousands of (mankind) years.  The earth could have been sitting for ages before God divided  light and the dark, making a 'day'.  The bible doesn't say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day, it only says 'in the beginning'.

Besides, who knows really how long a 'day' is to God? I know *most* Christians give 2 Peter 3:8 as proof that one day is as a thousand years to God... but who says this is meant to be taken literally? Who says Peter wasn't just making an analogy, making a point that 'time' as we know it is of no concern to God? 

Am I making any sense here? lol!  Sometimes what is in my head does not make it to print the same way I think it! 

Kerri


----------



## Hambone

You all should consider reading a book by Dr. Hugh Ross called "The Fingerprint of God".    Dr. Ross is a scientest; not a preacher type.  In the book, he does a rather thorough job of reconciling religion with science.  It's a facinating read if you're "logic minded" and a great book to loan to friends who feel "too smart" to believe in our God.

"The Fingerprint of God"


----------



## Dixie Dawg

*and a side note... lol*

Something else that I've always wondered about... who says we were God's first 'try' at mankind? When I read Genesis 1:28, God says to 'be fruitful and multiply and *replenish* the earth...'  by definition wouldn't that mean that at one time the earth was full?   What if God had created a 'mankind' before us that wasn't in His 'image'?

Just food for thought     Religion is one of my favorite discussion topics! There is so much room for interpretation, and I enjoy hearing different opinions because I am always learning something  new from someone else's point of view!

Kerri


----------



## JBowers

Arrowslinger it seems as though you misunderstand and incorrectly define evolution.  Look back to your own beginnings - in your mother's womb you too evolved from one cell.  As such, you like the rest of us are a product of evolution.

Evolution is an unpredictable and natural process of continuous adaption over time through genetic modification affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.  Nothing in that definition requires one to believe or demand that man evolved from monkeys or amoebas.  One can take it as far they want with respect to their beliefs.  Science can take one pretty far within the realm of that definition too,; however, at some point regardless of their view must rely on faith.

Randy there are essentially three predominant views, you refer to two.  One is the Creationist View, which essentially is that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.  A second is Theistic Evolution, which is essentially that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation through evolution (i.e. evolution is also God's creation and his tool).  You referred to both of these and it seems you follow the basic though of Theistic Evolution.  The third is Naturalistic Evolution, which essentially is that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

Americans are generally split between Creationist Vew and Theisitic Evolution and that split has not statisticaly changed in over 20 years.  Very few (less than 10%) follow the Naturalistic Evolution view.  Those holding to the Creationist view are generally Southern, older, and take the bible literally.  Those holding the Theistic view, are generally younger and Catholic or Protestant.  Further statistical predictions appear to show that becuase Creationist are generally older that support for this view is eroding.  Similar to what is happening with our Hunter population. 

That is all I am saying about this issue, as I have been asked to discuss it more by a Board member at an upcoming private event.  Randy, I believe you will be there as will a few others and we can talk more baout it at that time.

Good Day!


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Study the difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".

Hammy, that is a great book.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

"Darwin's Black Box" is a great must read for anyone who believes that we 'evolved'.    )    

As the Michael Behe states in the book, we are "irreducibly complex" and we have systems in our bodies that could not have evolved.    

The first cell could not have evolved.   Even the most simple cell is too complex to just have happened.   

IMHO, those who say they believe in "God and Evolution' are probably living the 'hope so' life.   "I'll say I believe in God, since this world is just too awesome to be an accident, just in case He is really there."   "Then, maybe I will have lived good enough to get eternal life, irregardless of Jesus"    LOL

Bandy


----------



## Randy

Bandy,
I really don't understand your last sentence?  I do believe in God not just say it "just in case." 

Pwalls,
I struggle with the Noah story too.  My personal belief is that Noah did put 2 of everything in "his world" on the boat.  I believe that world flood was a "local" world as the people in that region knew it.  Heck, nobody from that part of the world knew America was even here.  When I say this to most Christians, they somehow feel that I have belittled God's power, thinking I am saying he could not have flooded the "whole world" as we now know it.  On the contrary he had the power to only flood the part he needed to "clean up."


----------



## Woody's Janitor

I can't recall at this moment the Scientist's name, but after a long research on evolution, he came to the conclusion that there has not been enough time on earth for man to have evloved from anything. Besides, who else or what else could have made all the complex things on earth and we still haven't discovered them all. Think about all the working parts in your body......how they all work together.... Somebody has to be the smartestest person in the universe to make you and me. Look up for the answer.....look straight up!







Just because I look like a monkey don't mean I am a monkey.


----------



## Jeff Phillips

Something that is rarely mentioned by the scientific community is that toward the end of his life Darwin stated that there must be a "Creator" to start life. He believed that evolution was changing and adapting to environment, but somewhere along the line a "higher power" had to be involved to start the process.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

This is what that first 'simple' cell would have looked like.... (it would have needed everything that is pictured)

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/animals/animalmodel.html

Enjoy,

Bandy


----------



## Madsnooker

In my previous reply, I was speaking specifically about evolution as it relates to one form evolving into another form. Fossills would prove this out but they do not. 

As far as adaptation that JB refered to, I do believe that life has adapted to changing circumstances as the earth has aged.

Some of the most noted teachers of creation started out believing and trying to prove evolution but the facts changed their view.


----------



## RThomas

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.   To say one accepts evolution as a valid theory does not necessarily mean that they do not believe in God- and vise versa.  Many Christians believe in both, and many scientists are indeed Christians.  I haven't read all the posts here, but it is encouraging to see that many of you also accept both- at least to some degree.
Sadly, most people who throw out the theory of evolution as nonsense, or as some "conspiracy by athiest scientists" really have no understanding of what evolution actually is.
If anyone is truely interested in learning the facts about evolution, you can find a wealth of information here: http://www.talkorigins.org/

By the way, excellent post, JB.  Your "private event" sounds interesting- have fun.   

RT


----------



## Randy

I have no dought that God created us.  Obviously there is a higher power.  But what if He created us by evolving us over some period of time.  Isn't that just as wonderful and creative.  Look at the way we create things.  They evolve.


----------



## Hunting Teacher

Just because I look like a monkey don't mean I am a monkey. 
 [/QUOTE]
WJ  
I hear ya man. If you look at me you might think I am still a Cromagnun (sp?) Man. But I KNOW that God created me as a homo sapien even if I may not look like one!!!
I'm just asking some of you. Why would the Lord God, if He is who he says he is, need to use evolution or the "Big Baloney" to create man "in His own image?"
Are you saying God couldn't get it right the first time? That He needed to practice? 
If you could make yourself exactly the way you want to be, would you slowly do it over years and years? Or would you get her done as quick as possible. And remember God Knows exactly how He wants us to be even though we don't!
On another issue. If the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, how is it meant. If the story about Noah is just a myth or "lesson", then how do you know the bible's teaching about Jesus isn't just stories to teach a lesson. Either the bible is God's absolute true accurate word or it is an absolute waste of time! 
I'll take choice number one thank you very much!  
Teach


----------



## Deepcreekdawg

*creation*

IMHO the bible is the only truth we have to go on.  Everything else is just speculation.  If one can believe the bible for salvation noah's ark shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## GeauxLSU

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> In my previous reply, I was speaking specifically about evolution as it relates to one form evolving into another form. Fossills would prove this out but they do not.


Snook,
You mean like the fossil record showing 'fish' becoming amphibians (some reptiles) and reptiles (dinosaurs) becoming birds?  
Not sure what fossil record you've been looking at but apparently there's plenty you have not looked at.  
Randy,
I believe you and I are very much on the same page on this one.  No question some people view ANY HINT of an evolutionary belief, regardless of God's role in it, as blashphemy.  
Some would have you believe fossils are simply not 'real'.  Dinosaurs never existed.  Carbon dating is COMPLETELY inaccurate Etc... etc...  (Course EVERYONE believed the earth was flat at one point too.  Not a slam, just a factual statement.)  
I confess I do not understand this panic or the conflict they suggest would exist if you believe God has guided the development of every living creature on this earth (and perhaps other planets...?).  
I think the 'big bang' was simply God clapping his hands (for lack of a better analogy).  I do not think he 'practiced' with evolution.  But using that logic, why did he just not give us the tools, knowledge and intellect to solve all the worlds problems instantly?  We've developed lots of 'things' over the generations (vaccines, electricity, nuclear power, combustion engines for locomation, the WHEEL!  etc...) even that is a process of 'evolution'.  People are TALLER today than they were just 100 years ago!  What is that?  
I do not believe we evolved from 'apes' per se`, but I do believe apes (primates in general) existed long before Homo Sapien and at whatever point God decided to give the creature (made from clay or however he chose to do it) reason and a soul, he just did it.  At that very second, like today, there was 'Man' and there were 'apes'.  The two are spiritually different and biologically very very similar.   So what?  
Isolated pools of organisms HAVE EVOLVED into specialized creatures (AUTSTRALIA anyone)?  etc... etc...
God's hand was in it all.  "No sparrow shall fall...."
To me, the fact that he has guided this process over the millions of years to us (my belief) and seconds to him, is even MORE proof of his amazing power not less!  
to discount historical proof is to suggest God laid evidence of a world that never existed so we'd have a good 'story' to read.  I ain't buying that God was interested in fiction.  
I'll never understand the conflict.   : 
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## cpaboy

*Creation all the way*

This topic came up once before in the middle of another thread.  I believe that God created the earth and that the earth is only around 6000 years old.  One of the fundamental teaching tools of evolutionists for years has been the Darwin embryo chart that shows that all embryos at some point look similar.  The fact that this chart was totally fabricated by Darwin (i.e. it was just his imagination) really undermines evolution.  I want to offer an alternative to those who really want to understand more.  The website mentioned in a previous thread is quite confusing.  Try answersingenesis.org.  Of course if you are a true creationist, the talk must eventually lead to Jesus.


----------



## Randy

He was not practicing he was creating.  He first created the earth and it needed some light adn then it needed soem animals and then those animals need a human to rule over them.  Even as described in the Bible it was an evolution!  Just as our creations start off with an idea and get better as we evolve it.  Practice means to get better at a task.  Creation is a process of causing to exist.  This creation could be the evolement of a thing or idea.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Here's the best evolution facts site I've found...

http://www.trueorigins.org/  


Bandy


----------



## duckbill

I have a tape of Dr Grady S. McMurtry, an atheist/evolutionist/scientist turned Christian/creationist/evangelist.  The tape is called "Creation: Our Foundation".  It is very entertaining, but also very informational.  
Personally, I believe God created us in the image we are today.  Societies evolve.  Lifestyles evolve.  Personalities evolve.  The basic human structure of man, did not.
That's just my opinion.

Here is his website  http://www.creationworldview.org/


----------



## Jeff Phillips

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Some would have you believe fossils are simply not 'real'.  Dinosaurs never existed.



But they are mentioned in the oldest book of the Bible!

Job 40: 15-18
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.

Sure sounds like a dinosaur to me  

There are also several mentions of the leviathan, obviously speaking of large water animals. As usual, it's in the BOOK


----------



## duckbill

Jeff, Job 41:1


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong

Ya'll remember Mt St Helen's eruption?  Afterwards they took one of the trees that survived the initial blast and they carbon dated it.  According to the results, the tree was supposed to be about 20,000 years old.  Guess what, it wasn't 20,000 years old.  Point being, there are many unknowns and variables involved it processes like carbon dating.  Also, the general science community changes their collective minds almost as often as I change my underwear (normally once a day).

God says that one day all these things will be made known to us (the mysteries of God).  Well, I'm just gonna wait to see what He has to say about all this.  Until then, God's Word is God's Word.  If one lays doubt on any part of His Word, the His whole Word is suspect.


----------



## GeauxLSU

David Mills said:
			
		

> Ya'll remember Mt St Helen's eruption?  Afterwards they took one of the trees that survived the initial blast and they carbon dated it.  According to the results, the tree was supposed to be about 20,000 years old.  Guess what, it wasn't 20,000 years old.


David,
Interesting.  Have a link to that finding?  I love science 'stuff'.  
In the end, I guess this like many discussion gets back to literal interpretations of the Bible.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong

Phil,

I would have to find it.  I heard about it on a Christian radio program a few years ago and checked out the website they mentioned which had all sorts of interesting facts concerning  "Creation vs. evolution.


----------



## GeauxLSU

David Mills said:
			
		

> Phil,
> 
> I would have to find it.  I heard about it on a Christian radio program a few years ago and checked out the website they mentioned which had all sorts of interesting facts concerning  "Creation vs. evolution.


If you happen upon it I'd be interested to read it.  I did a search before asking and couldn't find anything.  
No need for a special effort.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## duckbill

Hey Phil,
Thewebsite link I posted earlier has an article on Carbon14 dating.  Here is the link  http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article 21.htm

I thought you might enjoy reading it.


----------



## Deepcreekdawg

*carbon dating*

I also saw some test done with carbon dating.  In this test they had a dog bone from the 1940's and carbon tested it.  The results came back and the scientist estimated that the dog bone was 2000 years old.  I think the guys name was Ken Hamm a Australian.


----------



## PWalls

I'm with Phil on this one. The fact that God made a long process that he has guided is very comforting and is a concept that I can believe in..

Of course, like it has been said, one day we will all know the truth.


----------



## GeauxLSU

I guess when I have a little more time to 'geek out', I'm going to try and read this.    
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 10
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## RThomas

What I find interesting is that those who believe in a literal 7 day creation demand aboslute irrefutable proof for evolution- if they don't see it happen before their eyes, then it didn't happen.  Yet, they do not require the same proof for their own beliefs- the bible says it, so it happened.
Instead of trying to prove creation, the best they can do is attempt to discredit evolution.  And, that if they can somehow disprove evolution, then the default would be that creationism is then true.  That assumption, of course, is incorrect.
As already stated, one's view on evolution depends on whether they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

I'd like to see some hard evidence for creation.


----------



## Madsnooker

Jeff, fossils are very real. That is the problem facing evolutionists. 

Phill, can you please tell me what fossill record you are reffering to. I have researched this for years and enjoy it very much. I never realized there was a documented proven fossill record that dinosuars evolved into birds or fish into amphibians. I am aware of evolutionist still trying to put such connections together. Let me add, they are struggling at best.

example: for years they have hung their hat on the Coelacanth(sp). We were told this was a fish that evolved into a land animal. We were even shown fossills of these fish which evolutionists said showed the evolution taking place.  GUESS WHAT, in recent years the Coelacanth was found swimming of the coast of Madagascar(sp)   Imagine damage control at evolution headquarters.

Again, I have yet to see a fossill record showing step 1 and then any step in between what we have today. It simply does not exist. 

trueorigins.org is a great site that discusses bird fossils etc.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong

*Long but interesting*

Science has developed a method of dating which in many cases can determine how long ago a plant or animal lived. This method is known as carbon-14 dating and is based on the radioactive decay of this isotope.
Carbon is vital to all life on earth. All living systems on earth utilize large amounts of the element carbon in their life processes. Carbon is the element which primarily makes up coal, charcoal, pencil leads, lamp-black, and many other familiar substances. When food is burned in a pot, the hard, black material remaining is primarily the carbon which the food contained.
There are three isotopes or forms of carbon which occur naturally on earth. These are carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14. Carbon-12 and carbon-13 are stable, non-radioactive isotopes, and they do not decay. Carbon-14, however, is radioactive, and over a period of time each carbon-14 atom emits a beta particle (electron) and becomes a stable isotope of nitrogen.
If an amount of carbon-14 were placed in a jar and put on a shelf, 5,730 years later only half of it would remain. This number, 5,730, is termed the half-life in years of carbon-14. If sometime in the past, a jar containing one pound of carbon-14 had been placed on a shelf and had not been bothered since then, knowing that the jar originally contained one pound, we could measure the amount remaining in the jar and determine fairly accurately how long it had been there.
Carbon-14 is produced in the earth’s atmosphere by atomic radiation from the sun. All life forms ingest carbon-14 into their living systems by eating and breathing. Carbon-14, therefore, permeates all living tissue with the same percentage of total carbon that is found in the atmosphere.
Approximately 99% of the carbon in the world today is carbon-12. About one percent is carbon-13, and only traces of carbon-14 exist. Because carbon-14 is radioactive and gives off atomic radiation, the tiny amounts in organic material are sufficient to measure the carbon-14 remaining after a fossilized plant or animal has been dead for many years, thereby allowing a determination of the approximate date of death.
Based on carbon-14 dating, scientists have theorized that the world is billions of years old. When the amount of carbon-14 remaining in dinosaur bones is measured, an extremely tiny amount is found, indicating apparently that these prehistoric animals lived millions of years ago.
These findings, however, do not agree with the Bible, for the Bible indicates that the world is only about 6,000 years old. The technique of using carbon-14 for dating is sound only if the original amount of carbon-14 is known. Thus, in using carbon-14 to date ancient life, scientists assume that the amount of carbon-14 on earth has always been what it is today. The Bible indicates, however, that this assumption is not correct and explains why it is not correct.
Genesis 1:6-8 describes the second day of creation week: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”
Notice that the firmament divided the waters. Some of the water was above the firmament, and some of the water was below the firmament.
The firmament is the atmosphere surrounding the planet earth. Genesis 1:20 shows this by stating that God made the birds to fly in the firmament: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” The New International version has for this verse: “And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” Thus, we see that the firmament is the expanse of the sky, which separates the water from the water. Genesis 1:6-8 says that part of the water was above this firmament and part of the water was below the firmament.
Notice that these verses tell us that the water is above the firmament, and not in the firmament. What water is in the firmament is really particles of water from the earth, from under the firmament, temporarily suspended during the water cycle of evaporation and rain. These particles occur only in the lower part of the firmament, the upper parts being free of water vapor.
Much of the water which flooded the earth during the time of Noah came from that which was above the firmament. The water above the firmament was in orbit around the earth and provided a very effective radioactive shield which enveloped the earth and protected the earth’s atmosphere from the atomic radiation from the sun. Since atomic radiation from the sun was not reaching the earth, carbon-14 was virtually nonexistent in the atmosphere.
Carbon-14 dating, therefore, is an accurate method only for dating material which lived after the flood. This method cannot be used accurately to date organic material before the flood because we do not know how much carbon-14 ancient life contained.
This situation is analogous to the example of our jar containing one pound of carbon-14. If the jar had been put on the shelf containing only a fraction of an ounce of carbon-14 and we were told that it originally contained one pound, our dating method would determine that the jar had been there for millions of years.
As always, the Bible states the situation correctly when it indicates that the earth is about 6,000 years old. No evidence has ever been found which, when correctly interpreted, shows the Bible to be in error.


----------



## GeauxLSU

David,
Just curious if you read the link I posted and your thoughts?
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## mpowell

good site to take a peek at

http://www.creationism.org/


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong

Phil,

The firewall here (at work) will not allow me to open many of the sites posted, I'll have to do it at home


----------



## JBowers

> Based on carbon-14 dating, scientists have theorized that the world is billions of years old. When the amount of carbon-14 remaining in dinosaur bones is measured, an extremely tiny amount is found, indicating apparently that these prehistoric animals lived millions of years ago.


The whole article bases its argument and conclusion on this method and assumes this is/was the only method used to determine the age of the eath and when certain animals lived based on fossils.  That assumption is incorrect.


----------



## GeauxLSU

David,
Same problem here.    

JB,
Exactly. Casting doubt (and I'm using that term liberally), which is far far from DISPROVING, one specific method does not invalidate EVERY method we have which gives, relatively speaking, consistent results.    i.e., when you are comparing billions of years to a few thousand years.  

I think we all know this goes back to those who do not accept anything that, in their interpretation, APPEARS to go counter to a literal reading of the Bible.   Not saying they are wrong, but in the end, that is the issue.  Some see a (big) problem there.  Some do not.  

Again, I personally don't understand the conflict.   : 

Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## Madsnooker

I do not view this as a conflict unless you think animals, fish whatever evoved into something else. This has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I have no idea if God created everthing in 7 days as we no them or not. I do believe that he created everything. I do not believe life just happened and as time went by creatures turned into something else thru evolution. I do believe that creatures died off or adapted to their surroundings.

As far as how God did the creating, I do not know nor does it matter in the grand skeem of things.


----------



## JBowers

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> I do believe that creatures died off or adapted to their surroundings.


That is evolution


----------



## Madsnooker

JB, I do agree.

But when most pose the question of evolution, they mean something evolving into something else. At least that is what I have always thought.


I would like to say that this thread has shown what a great site this is. I have been on other forums where this type of topic would turn ugly fast. I can't think of a better site to discuss such topics as this one.


----------



## hntrchk29

I Beleive In The Big Bang Theory

           God Spoke It And  ----bang----- It Happened!!!!
Jessie


----------



## Etter1

The concept of evolution isn't that a single animal faces an environmental stress and simply changes to suit its environment but that animals with genetic mutations find themselves better suited to their environment and therefore pass on their genetics more succesfully than those un-mutated organisms.  Over hundreds of millions of years, you get something very different from the original organism.  UGA's upper level biology class is entirely based on evolution (including human) and this is what the scientific community agrees is correct.  Everyone has their own opinion but this is what is being taught.  Now, I figure this will start a real storm but don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Etter1

By the way, the earth is said to be about 4.5 billion years old.


----------



## Throwback

If evolution is true, why do so many scientists that believe in it concern themselves with "endangered species". Won't the ones here eventually morph into something better anyway.   

HHHHHMMMMM, makes you think!


T


----------



## GeauxLSU

Throwback said:
			
		

> If evolution is true, why do so many scientists that believe in it concern themselves with "endangered species". Won't the ones here eventually morph into something better anyway.
> 
> HHHHHMMMMM, makes you think!
> 
> 
> T


T,
I think they are mainly concerned with the ones MAN endangers.  I personally have no issue with an animal going extinct due to it's own obselesence.  However, every animal I can think of in recent memory that has gone extinct has been because MAN has directly caused it.  THAT, IMHO, is NOT being "good stewards" as we are commanded to be.  
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## Throwback

So man is not part of the evolutionary process, even though he supposedly "evolved" like everything else? What about the dinosaurs? We surely didn't kill them out by hunting. Why has something not "morphed" into a tyranosaurus rex? What's the fuss about? Everything, according to this silly train of thought, comes from something else, so everything is therefore doomed to become extinct, but not really because everything will change into something else. "A dog is a pig is a goat  is a boy" as Ingrid Newkirk of PETA said--or something like that, I don't have the time (or stomach) to look up the exact quote. 


T


----------



## Etter1

We're destroying this planet too quickly for most species to evolve in time.  The extinction rate has gone up by about 100x since the 1800's


----------



## Madsnooker

ETTER,

can you tell me what species is evolving at this time that may not complete the process becuase they could become extinct. I'm sure UGA will have many examples.

Let me guess, the reason they can't provide that info is becuase the process is so slow it can't be detected.


----------



## Randy

I can give you one good one.  Humans.


----------



## Etter1

Evolution has no end result.  It keeps going.  Humans are a great example.  The bubonic plague killed about 1/3 of europe during the middle ages.  Your and my ancestors survived because they have some kind of tolerance to the virus.  Now, we don't get the plague anymore because we are tolerant of it.  The best suited individuals pass on their genetics.  We may not look any different but that was evolution....and if you want proof of evolution, I could go on for days.  whales have finger bones, humans have wisdom teeth and appendix, anacondas have remnants of legs, humans are genetically closer related to chimpanzees than dolphins are to porpoises.  If we didn't evolve from a common ancestor, then god sure made us both with the same mold huh?  I don't know where god fits into all of this but there is tons of scientific proof.


----------



## Tom Borck

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> Evolutionist can not show you a fossill at stage one then stage two and so on and so on. If everything has evolved you would think there would be tons and tons of fossill record to accurately back it up. It just doesn't exist.
> 
> .



We are burning them up in our industries, cars and homes......they are called fossil fuels.  Can you image the massive amounts of fossile fules under the ground and how many living organisms it took to make this?  Hard for me to understand.

I believe in BOTH creation and evolution.  Don't ask me to explain...because I can't


----------



## Boyd Green

*Wheww!!!*

Once again,   I thank God I don't have to have all of the answers!!


----------



## Madsnooker

ETTER,

Before Darwin died he said if evolution were true (as far as creatures evolving into something else) there would be millions of transitional fossils. There is not ONE. You cannot just discount this fact.

As far as every example you gave. There is no proof of any kind that those items you mentioned are a result of evolution. How does the plague that hit people that looked exacly as we look like today have anything to do with us evolving from a monkey. By the way, did the monkeys,chimps, whatever, that are here today forget to evolve or are they evolving into humans as we speak? Not trying to be smart, I really want to know your opinion on this.

Just like the fact the coelacanth(sp) that is alive today (just recently discovered of the coast of Madagascar) is a perfect match to fossils from millions of years ago (if the carbon dating is accurate, HEHEHE). There are so many fossils from as far back as you want to see that have perfect matches with living animals today. Alligators, roaches, birds, Coelacanth etc. but no transitional fossils to give merritt to evolution.(again, where a creature evolves into something else). This is a HUGE problem that even some of the most respected evolutionist agree with.

Also, I have read books and listened to many tapes over the years and watched debates on tv concerning creation/evolution and something I've noticed is, there are many, that after years of trying to prove evolution, are now writing books on creation. I have never heard the opposite. If someone has studied such a person I would like to know. I feel this speaks volumes on this issue. But that is just my little opinion.


----------



## sr.corndog

*creation*

My vote creation why do you ask? Simple question read your bible!


----------



## Throwback

> I don't know where god fits into all of this but there is tons of scientific proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain't worth nothin' compared to the 2 pounds of Bible in my hand.
> 
> 
> T
Click to expand...


----------



## Throwback

> I don't know where god fits into all of this but there is *tons of scientific proof*.



That ain't worth nothin' compared to the 2 pounds of Bible in my hand. THat's man's worldly knowledge invented by himself to make himself like a god. 


T


----------



## Etter1

I don't know where you are hearing that there are no transitional fossils.  In fact, there are even transitional human fossils.


----------



## Goose

*Transitional fossils exist?*

Colin Patterson, the senoir paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (which, by the way, houses the largest fossil collection in the world - over 60 million specimens), stated in his book, Evolution (pg. 133), "If I knew of any evolutionary transitions, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them."  That's quite a remarkable statement from a guy that qualified who is a self-proclaimed evolutionist.

David Raup, a curator at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, makes a similar statement in a book, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them (pg. 163), by stating, "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.  We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much . . . we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

The glaring embarrassment with evolution (when I say evolution, I mean specifically macroevolution - the transition from one speicies to another over time, as opposed microevoltion - changes within a species over time) is the absence of transitional species living or in the fossil record.

A lesson in history also shows us the problems evolution leads us to: abortion, racism, and genocide.  One of the winning arguments in Roe v. Wade was the belief that a human fetus goes through recapitulation (the belief that  during the course of embryonic development, the human embryo repeats the evolutionary history of its species; at various points during its growth, the emerging human is a fish (justified by the presence of "gill slits"), a frog, and finally a fetus.  Therefore, terminating a pregnancy carries no moral dilema since you're only killing a fish or a frog.  WOW!

Evolution promotes racism?  The doctor who first identified Down's syndrome called labeled it the "Mongoloid idiocy" because he thought the condition was simply a throwback to the "Mongoloid stage" of evolutionary human development.  In other words, folks with Down's syndrome are who we evolved from at the Mongoloid stage in the evolutionary process.  WOW!

Evolution promotes genocide?  Ever heard of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory?  So did Hitler.  His terrible genocide was justified partly by the belief that the Aryan super-race should be protected and promoted by obliterating other races.  He believed the caucasian human infant had to develop through the stages of the 'lower' human races before becoming a full-fledged member of the 'master' race.  Other races of humans represented more ancient evolutionary stages of the human race and to him, should be terminated to protect the super-race.

Some enlighting thoughts on evolution.  Thanks for reading, 

Goose


----------



## Etter1

Well, if anyone can use the evolutionary theory to promote something as horrible as genocide, then they have much greater problems than their scientific beliefs.  And if you are saying that evolution causes all these horrible tragedies, then let's talk about what religion has done.  Arabs are constantly murdering themselves and others based on their religious beliefs, thousands of innocent people were murdered during the crusades in the name of God, Many religious doctrines allow men to beat their wives.  Should we denounce all religions because of these problems?


----------



## Goose

Those are just some social ills that have been attached to evolution.  The real problem is the theory can't be supported based on the fossil record or current living species.


----------



## meriwether john

Seems NASA was concerned that with the "millions of years since time began" that all the space dust out there and the moon having little gravity that through scientific data there would be an enormous amount of dust on the moon. they made huge pads on the lunar module and just knew that it would be a blind landing kicking up all that dust. they were shocked when upon landing they found less than an inch of dust. about what would be there in a period of about 6,000 years. If they would have read GOD'S WORD they could have saved a lot of money and time.


----------



## Etter1

Are you implying that you believe the earth is less than 6000 years old?  If so, then the dinosaurs were here only a few thousands years before humans.


----------



## JBowers

> What about the dinosaurs? We surely didn't kill them out by hunting. Why has something not "morphed" into a tyranosaurus rex?



Pre-historic dinosaurs and man never co-existed.

Madsnooker,

There are several examples of man benefitting from evolution.  One must remember that not all genetic benefits or deficits are phenotypic. Anyone of us can be carrying one or more lethal genes.  However, without the right environmental stimuli, it is not expressed.  

In our modern era, we may not see or experience some of them thanks to medical technology and its advances.

Why do some people rarely get sick and other get sick on the flick of a switch?  W/O medical intervention the latter would have been selected against.

Evolution doesn't have to be found in the largest, earthshattering events, such as many creationists desire.  It is little events over long periods of time.  Like water dripping on a rock.  It will eventually split the rock, but you and I will never see it happen.  That doesn;t mean it won't happen.


----------



## Goose

I wouldn't disagree that changes take place through evolution.  I'm living proof.  I've had 4 wisdom teeth removed and my appendix taken out.  I'm sure at some point those things were necessary to my ancestors due to their diet and digestive requirements.  Over time, our diets have changed and so have our bodies.

The breakdown in the evolutionary theory comes, for me, when it's used as the reason for new speices.  I have yet to see convincing proof that any species evolved into a different, sexually exclusive species.

I can't prove creation is true because I obviously can't go back in time.  But I can prove that evolution has some big holes in it.  Therefore, I believe the creation theory.

Goose


----------



## Madsnooker

JB, again, I agree in that sense of evolution.

My argument during this thread is only Macro evolution in which a creature evolves into another type of creature. Like dinosaurs into birds and land mammals into whales and monkeys into humans etc.

Usually in most debates about creation/evolution, evolution is thought of as "BANG" life started from nothing and then evolved from a single cell into what is here today.


----------



## JBowers

> My argument during this thread is only Macro evolution in which a creature evolves into another type of creature. Like dinosaurs into birds and land mammals into whales and monkeys into humans etc.


I understand your point and one must realize that this is theory.  There is varying degrees of substantiative and suggestive evidence for the open minded, inquistive person.  Cyanobacteria, Mitochondria and cholorphyll would be a good starting point for those interested.

One simplistic explanation, not necessarily proof but it is fact, is in the fossil record.  The sorting of fossils is complete.  Fossils are sorted by geological age. The deepest layers (oldest) generally contain the remains of simple creatures; the upper layers (most recent) provide evidence of more complex animals. By studying the entire fossil record, one can determine the order species first appeared and when they became extinct. 
In this fossil record, dinosaurs have never been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have never been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains have not been found with human remains; etc. etc. for numerous other combinations. Many, many pairs of species have never been found together in the same rock layer. Thousands of species whose are *only* found lower in the fossil record; thousands of species are only found higher.

Why is this and how did this happen (life forms got more and more complex)?  Macro-evolution is a theory of how this might have happen (which doesn't preclude God's involvement, that is a personal choice) and obviously some pieces of the puzzle are currently not available and some pieces are.



			
				Madsnooker said:
			
		

> ..."BANG" life started from nothing and then evolved from a single cell into what is here today.


BANG, a sperm enters an egg and we have a single cell.  That single cell evolves into 4, 8, 16, 32, etc and etc.  After some time the cells migrate and coalesce into cell groups that will specifically form into different organs that perform unique functions.  Eventually, this group of billions of cells that all evolved from one single cell that was created from two different partial strands of DNA that all peform unique and highly specialized functions or some, as a group, became a unique organ, and finally evolved into a human that is here today.  That human over time will evolve into a unique individual, i.e. person, developed from the physical and genetic interaction with its environment.  We do not know exactly what all that genetic code calls for.  Place that human in a different environment and they likely will become a different person.



> The breakdown in the evolutionary theory comes, for me, when it's used as the reason for new speices. I have yet to see convincing proof that any species evolved into a different, sexually exclusive species.


Read up on it and then think about it for awhile.  It should be questioned, but you should never leave those questions unanswered as a statement that something can't be.  Sexual exclusivity doesn't have to be genetic in nature.  Are humans sexually exclusive? What about deer? What does the fossil record show of deer?  How many species of deer are there and how many species does the fossil record show there were? Why don't moose and white-tails breed, or moose and elk? What other species are sexually exclusive, yet very likely originated from the same root?  Is sexual exclusivity just one environmental requirement away?


----------



## Madsnooker

> BANG, a sperm enters an egg and we have a single cell. That single cell evolves into 4, 8, 16, 32, etc and etc. After some time the cells migrate and coalesce into cell groups that will specifically form into different organs that perform unique functions. Eventually, this group of billions of cells that all evolved from one single cell that was created from two different partial strands of DNA that all peform unique and highly specialized functions or some, as a group, became a unique organ, and finally evolved into a human that is here today. That human over time will evolve into a unique individual, i.e. person, developed from the physical and genetic interaction with its environment. We do not know exactly what all that genetic code calls for. Place that human in a different environment and they likely will become a different person.



JB, so are you saying man came from a single cell after it evolved into some sort of simple creature, and then a monkey or whatever, and on and on, and not from creation, as it is written in the Bible? Basically that God created man and then took a rib bone and created woman.


----------



## Randy

Snooker,
It does not say that GOd did not create man over a period of time.  In fact it says he came from the dirt as in "possibly some small cell in the ground."

Reading responses from this thread has been enlightening and fun.  Thanks for all your responses.

Obviously none of us have the answer and we'll never know.  What I hope we can learn from this thread though, is we all have beliefs.  Some similar and some from the other end of the spectrum.  However, while this is a spiritual issue, I do not think it has anything to do with getting to Heaven.  There are some that disagree with that also but I don't think a person that sees the evidence of evolution and believes in it will be left out of Heaven unless he believes that God had no hand in this evolution.  From the "Front porch" I sit on, there obviously has to be a creator even if He did it over a long period of time.


----------



## JBowers

> JB, so are you saying man came from a single cell after it evolved into some sort of simple creature, and then a monkey or whatever, and on and on, and not from creation, as it is written in the Bible? Basically that God created man and then took a rib bone and created woman.



I think my quote that you quoted is pretty straightforward in describing how each and everyone of us on this Board was created and how we evolved from the unity of two structures into a single-cell evolving further into a multi-cellular human being in the womb of our mothers and eventually into the unique persons we currently are and who will continue to evolve further into even more unique persons.

I don't recall mentioning a monkey or a whatever.  Where that first human came from, I am not sure.  For me, in some form or fashion evolution plays a significant role.  Does that deny God's role?  No.  If it does then that is an individual's choice.

Do I believe the creation as put forth in Genesis?  No, I beleive it is a condensed metaphorical version that suffices the simplicity of mankind at that time in history.

Nor am I one who believes the Bible to be inerrant.  Does this impact my ability to be a Christian?  No, although I am sure some here will scream and holler foul, loudly or silently.  Does it impact my ability to live a Christian life?  Not in the least, although... ibid.  Does it impact my ability to achieve eternal life?  Not in the least...ibid.

I have one question that I asked over 20 years ago to my Baptist preacher at the time.  He didn't satisfactorily answer the question.  I have my own answer, but would like to hear the POV of others.

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;...' "

Who is "us" and "our"?


----------



## CRANEMAN

TOO BAD WE CAN'T ASK DARWIN--HE KNOWS THE ANSWER NOW


----------



## Throwback

> Who is "us" and "our"?



Father, Son, Holy Ghost. 


T


----------



## duckbill

JBowers said:
			
		

> "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;...' "
> 
> Who is "us" and "our"?




Good question!  I wonder if the angels(like Michael) were present with God at the time of creation.


----------



## Madsnooker

I agree, I do not believe your salvation has anything to do with creation/evolution. As I already stated, in the grand skeem of things, this is not that important.

I still do not believe God used Macro evolution to create us as we are today or that animals have been evolving into other type of animals. The facts just don't back it up.

I will find the quote and post it but basically the key note speaker at one of the last world evolution summits (were all the top evolutionists get together to discuss all the years findings and latest info) said, the more we try and prove evolution the more the facts support creation. As science has improved, this has actually cuased us to take steps back concerning evolution.    

The bottom line is one day when we are all in heaven, at least those that have confessed Jesus Christ as lord and savior, can sit around the campfire with Jesus and discuss these things and we can laugh at each other when we know the truth. I will probably get laughed at the most.


----------



## JBowers

Throwback said:
			
		

> Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
> 
> 
> T


That one will not work for me and that is the same thing the Pastor told me.  He was speechless when I pointed out the contradictions of that answer with my interpretations of Bible and Biblical history.  For one, the Son (Jesus) was not yet created, especially if one takes the Bible as inerrant.


----------



## RThomas

No transitional fossils?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Goose, those are bogus arguments against evolution.  Those same arguments could be used against the bible. Racism, genocide, ect.  The bible has been used to justify a host of attrocities.  Does that then mean the bible is false??

Again, at best, creationists can only attempt to discredit evolution.  I'm still waiting for solid evidence of creationism.


----------



## Goose

*Jesus is not a created Being*

I think the answer of the trinity satisfies your question.  My understanding of scripture shows that Jesus was not created, but is eternal.  Jesus was present at the beginning with the Father:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." - John 1:1-3 (NKJ)

To correctly identify "the Word" look to verse 14 - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 (NKJ)  This identifies "the Word" as Jesus Christ.

So, not only was Jesus present at creation, but everything that was created was done so "through Him, and without Him nothing was made . . ."

Goose


----------



## Madsnooker

Goose


----------



## RThomas

> Who is "us" and "our"?



JB,
As you've seen, the most common answer you will receive from fundamentalists Christians is "the father, son, and holy ghost."  But, the actual answer is that the early writers of the bible were not monotheistic.  Yahweh was only one of many gods.  So, the "us" and "we" refer to gods.
Also notice how there are actually two different creation accounts.  The second starts at Genesis 2:4.  They are different in several aspects, namely in the order of creation and how one refers to God as "God" and the second as "Lord God".  (not related to your question, I've just always been interested in the creation accounts).


----------



## Goose

The Hebraic word used in the Gen. 2 creation account is "hwhy" - or "Jehovah" - a singular noun identifying the God of the Jews in the Old Testament.

The writer of Genesis wrote that one god, namely Jehovah, created the world.

Most Jewish and Christian scholars agree that Moses authored Genesis, as well as the entire pentatuech.

He also uses this term during identifying Jehovah as the One who sent the plagues against the Egyptians, as the One who initiated the exodus, and as the One who gave the Law to the Jews.  There's no interaction between Moses and any other god but Jehovah in scripture.  So, I would argue the the early Bible writer (singular) was monotheistic.

Goose


----------



## HuntinTom

*Your Guys are Doing a Very Commendable Job in Your Diologue...*

Good thread Randy, and good replies all...


----------



## RThomas

> Most Jewish and Christian scholars agree that Moses authored Genesis, as well as the entire pentatuech.



I know of no reliable biblical scholars who posit that Moses was the sole author of Genesis.  There is no credible evidence to support this view.  The fact is is that Genesis, as well as the entire bible, had multiple authors. And, even those stories were passed down through verbal tradition before finally being written down by various authors (and then copied and recopied).
Sorry to get off subject (as tends to happen with religious debate).


----------



## RThomas

Oh, I also meant to piont out, Goose, that you failed to mention Elohim- the plural form for god/gods, which contradicts the singular form you used in your post. Anyway, anyone who is really interested in learning more about the new testament authors should check out "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman" (I have copy if you need to borrow one    ).

ok, ok, back to evolution now...


----------



## JBowers

Goose said:
			
		

> I think the answer of the trinity satisfies your question. My understanding of scripture shows that Jesus was not created, but is eternal. Jesus was present at the beginning with the Father:
> 
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." - John 1:1-3 (NKJ)
> 
> To correctly identify "the Word" look to verse 14 - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 (NKJ) This identifies "the Word" as Jesus Christ.
> 
> So, not only was Jesus present at creation, but everything that was created was done so "through Him, and without Him nothing was made . . ."
> 
> Goose


As I previously stated, the Trinity is not satisfactory for me.

Jesus was not a created being? This contradicts the written accounts of the Bible: Jesus was conceived and created by God, grew in Mary's womb, Mary gave birth to him, he was flesh and he died like all created beings. He lived of the flesh and was tempted by the materialistic desires of the flesh. He was a created being or do you not believe that part of the Bible.

So, by one interpretation, there were two Gods at the beginning: God and Jesus?

And the last sentence of your quote: if so, then that would include by whatever process He would have used to make such possibly including and not limited to evolution?

I applaud Throwback for providing an answer without quoting the Bible out of context. I understand the need to do so; however, I also recognize that anyone can do so to support almost any position (e.g. life begins at conception, life begins at birth, stoning our children, support for the death penalty, opposition to the death penalty, etc, etc, etc.). I have already expressed that I am not one who considers the Bible to be inerrant.


----------



## JBowers

HuntinTom said:
			
		

> Good thread Randy, and good replies all...


Amen.  I am really enjoying the exercise in thinking this thread is requiring.  I am understanding more becuase of it.  Thus far, I am suprised by the civility of the thread - not what I expected.


----------



## GeauxLSU

*Whoa!  God evolved?*



			
				JBowers said:
			
		

> Jesus was not a created being? This contradicts the written accounts of the Bible: Jesus was conceived and created by God, grew in Mary's womb, Mary gave birth to him, he was flesh and he died like all created beings. He lived of the flesh and was tempted by the materialistic desires of the flesh. He was a created being or do you not believe that part of the Bible.


JB,
You are obviously talking about Jesus the MAN.  Of course he was created MAN, but Jesus DIVINE has always existed just as he does now.  Jesus the MAN does not exist now but that of course does not mean Jesus DIVINE does not now exist.  The spiritual Jesus existed prior to becoming man and just as has always the Holy Spirit.  The brief human incarnation of Jesus, though obviously central and critical to our Christian belief, has nothing to do with his existence in spiritual form prior or since that incarnation.  The trinity has always existed.  The Trinity (God), has not 'evolved' just the earth's lifeforms.    
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## GeauxLSU

JBowers said:
			
		

> Thus far, I am suprised by the civility of the thread - not what I expected.


Could somebody please roughen this up a little for John.    
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## Madsnooker

JB, I think you have lost it man. Your nuts.  

RT, what have you been smokin. : 

How was that GeauxLSU.

OK just kiddin. I agree with HuntinTom, this has been a great discussion, debate, whatever.


----------



## GeauxLSU

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> How was that GeauxLSU.


That's fine.  Now quite acting like a Neanderthal.  We've evolved beyond that.       
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## PWalls

Great discussion.

I still hold firm that one day we will all know the truth.

Talked to my pastor and he says that you can't believe or take literal some parts of the bible and not all of it. Now, having said that, I have some serious research (thanks for all the links by the way) and some soul searching and praying to do.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

man, have I been missin' out!!!!   Been unable to log in for over a week, and I see that there's been some great discussion on here and in other threads.

I'll read through some of the last pages and see what each of you have posted...

Bandy


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

I'd like to ask a question....

What is the 'simplest' cell that we know of?    Or, better yet, what would be the minimum parts required in that first self-replicating cell?    

Bandy


----------



## Etter1

The first replicating cell theoretically used rna as it's genetic code.  It was a very simple chemoautotrophic cell.  Meaning it makes it's own food by breaking down chemicals like those bacteria found at hydrothermal vents.  Scientists have created something similar to this in labs using only the chemicals found on early earth before it was oxygenated by cyanobacteria.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

This is 'theoretical' and assumed.    Are we calling the bacteria near these Hydrothermal vents 'simple'?     If so, then surely they couldn't have more than a few parts....right?  

Bandy


----------



## Etter1

No, the first beginnings of a cell were incredibly simple while those on hydrothermal vents are complex.  I was simply referring to their mode of nutrition.  The very first thing scientists believe led to living cells were tiny groups of amino acids called microspheres.  These can be easily created in a lab.  They can sometimes replicate themselves and use enzymes to break down protenoids.  They often form long chains or circular clumps.  They were not alive but due to the fact that they resemble bacterial cells so much, scientists believe that they could have been the very first step towards life.


----------



## JBowers

> JB,
> You are obviously talking about Jesus the MAN.  Of course he was created MAN, but Jesus DIVINE has always existed just as he does now.  Jesus the MAN does not exist now but that of course does not mean Jesus DIVINE does not now exist.  The spiritual Jesus existed prior to becoming man and just as has always the Holy Spirit.  The brief human incarnation of Jesus, though obviously central and critical to our Christian belief, has nothing to do with his existence in spiritual form prior or since that incarnation.  The trinity has always existed.  The Trinity (God), has not 'evolved' just the earth's lifeforms



As usual Phil, I disagree.  The Trinity is not once mentioned in the Bible.  One would definitely think that such a revered doctrine of such announced importance to Christianity would appear and be explained without doubt in the Bible.  Yet, it isn't.  What about Jesus' teachings?  Surely he could have made its understanding clear and pronounced, but again not.  No clear and forthright teaching or definitve description of the Trinity in the Bible, again not.  For something so core a belief, yet no substance from the Bible or Jesus' teachings.  On the other hand, history doesn't leave one thristing for explanations of the Trinity and not in what I could call a negative light.

Then there is the analagous and uncanny resemblances to the many varied Trinity of paganistic religions.  That begs thought!  Why?  Well, history pretty well documents the Trinity Doctrine's development and its violent and controversial past.  Pretty much seems through consensus to have occured around the time of Constantine.  The associated and varied history comes baltantly across to me as a political matter and a foxy, ingenious one at that.  It seems to me that it was forced among Christianity (If I remember correctly if you rejected the Trinity then you were put to death).  Why would definitely be a matter of debate.  However, since paganistic religions were still quite popular, but due to Constantine's thrusting of Christianity to the forefront, no doubt used a vehicle for war and success at war, the development of the Trinity Doctrine would provide a commonality for paganist to accept Christianity, among other uses.  Then there is satisfying the base.  For them, while it looks like three Gods, it is really only one (just keep repeating it).

For me, there is God, the only one God, and his son Jesus (who came much later); separate entities.  The Holy Spirit is not an entity, you recognize the Holy Spirit when you sincerely do good deeds.

Thanks for the other POV.


----------



## duckbill

Etter1,  Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?


----------



## RThomas

JB,  I think you and I have similar views on religion (scarey, really).  It is unfortunate that so many who hold strong religious beliefs have no idea how those doctrines came into existence- such core fundamental beliefs as the trinity go unexamined.  Most people have no idea of how the bible came into existence.  The process from oral tradition to the book we have today is amazing!
Anyway...going off topic again...   
(by the way, I'm not suggesting anyone here has a lack of christian history, though it does seem prevelant in the general public)


----------



## GeauxLSU

JBowers said:
			
		

> As usual Phil, I disagree.


John,
What are the odds of that?!?!   
Though the trinity combined may not be mentioned by name, obviously God the father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all three mentioned.  
Though now we've REALLY strayed from the evolution/creation discussion, I was merely conveying what I believe (faith), that the three 'persons' of God have always existed.   Though they may only be different manifestations to some, they are not manifesting a 'new' god, they are manifestations of THE ONE God.  He, by definition, has always existed (must have) and therefore so has the Trinity (defined however you choose).  
Theoretically, there could be other yet to be (and perhaps never to be) seen manifestations of God which we do not  know about.  Doesn't mean they don't exist.  
In the end, this is irrelevant to evolution/creation but just wanted to make another attempt to explain my belief.  
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

I agree Phil.   The word 'trinity' may not be in the bible, but neither is 'rapture'.   These words give title to something that is taught in the Word.    We know that Jesus was with God in the beginning, and that He created everything.    

Etter,

This is the first I've ever heard of an organism reproducing itself with RNA alone.   Can you give me a link to this statement or give an example of an organism that can duplicate without RNA and DNA?   (I'm learning here like the rest of you)   I know viruses don't have DNA, and can only replicate if they invade another host.     

I know of statements from respected biologists that say that it is 'unimaginable' how the RNA / DNA loop came into  being.    

The first cell would have had to have had thousands of parts....(irreducibly complex) and would not have been 'half complete' and meandering around waiting on the other molecular components.

Bandy


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Etter,

The first "very simple chemoautotrophic cell".....  how many systems do you think it would have had to possess?    transport?   semi-permiable cell membrane?      Is there an 'artist conception' of this supposed first cell?   I'd love to see it.

Bandy


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

RThomas,

In your opinion, how long was the orthodox christian beliefs (that Jesus was God's son, that He was born of a virgin, and that he was raised from the dead, etc) only "oral tradition' before they were written down for all to read?

Bandy


----------



## RThomas

I don't know what you're talking about.  I never stated a specific belief, doctrine, or event started out only as oral tradition.  I'm talking about the bible as a whole- especially the old testament- which started out as oral tradition.  Those oral traditions were the beginings of the bible. The creation of the new testament was somewhat different.  The new testament books were written sometime after Jesus's death. Conerning the gospels,the earliest, Mark, was written at around 70 AD.   I'm sure there were "oral stories" concerning those events prior to the new testament writers putting them to paper, but that is not what I mean by "oral tradition".  Oral tradition refers to the stories passed down thru generations as a way for the Jews to remember their history- that's why it is referred to as "tradition".  Again, these "oral traditions" were the very first steps (unknowingly at the time) in the creation of the bible (or its various forms) that we know today.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

We do know that the period between the events portrayed in the Gospels and the first of Paul's epistles is very short.   Most date I Corinthians (the earliest epistle) at around 40-50AD.    Too short of a time to be only a myth...as it was still well within the lifetime of the witnesses.    I Corinthians 15 lays out the main tenants of the Christian faith as early as 40AD... 

RThomas, my bad.    I thought you were saying something other than what you stated.   My apologies.

Bandy


----------



## Etter1

I'll search around a bit.  I know there was a data description in my bio 1108 book but I didn't get it from a website.  I'll see what I can come up with.  He also talked about how rna and dna might have come into being but I can't now recall exactly how that worked.  JB might be able to help out.  He seems quite schooled on the subject and being a scientist, I'm sure he is.


----------



## Throwback

http://www.icr.org

icr stands for "Institute for Creation Research."


T


----------



## RThomas

No problem, Bandy.  It can be difficult to convey thoughts and ideas through these forums.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

If JB is 'quite schooled', he'll know that the smallest known genome of any living organism (bacteria) has over 450+ genes.... quite complex.    But even this organism can't survive unless it scavanges from more complex organisms.    So, we are left with the first cell having to be even more complex.

Bandy


----------



## 6wheeler

*I know I'm slow*

but it takes a while for me to get my thoughts together; my wife claims I'm scatterbrained, but she also claims alot of other things about me.  

I have no problem with the whole creation/evolution concept. You see I wasn't there so I have no idea if evolution was GOD's way of doing things or not. HE could have done it that way.

Consider, if GOD did use evolution and had given the first authors of the Bible the indepth details of how he created the Universe and ultimately humans, how far would his religion have gotten with talk of DNA, RNA, Amino Acids, Peptides, etc.. Not very far I assure you. So HE would be forced to give the simplistic version. You have to consider the vast difference in knowledge today as compared to knowledge back then.

Genetic manipulation has resulted in disease resistance, frost resistance, and other "improvements" in today's crops. Ranchers selectively breed animals for a superior strain of milk cow, beef cattle, throughbred horses, etc.. This "change" in those crops and animals came about through a superior being's (man) intervention. Nature in all her many hundreds of millions of years did not achieve these changes or improvements. How then can it be explained that genetic mutations on the scale required to take a single organism to a complex being (humans) occur without the intervention of a superior, or in my opinion, a supreme being?

For me "GOD created the heavens and the earth" says it all for me. If you believe that then all the rest is just distractions.

Fantastic thread by the way. I have enjoyed every post here.

Finally, if a supreme being (GOD) desired that a lesser being (man) to come to him of his own accord (free will) would GOD not "muddy the waters" by giving man options? Man has the free will to decide if he/she chooses to love and obey GOD or accept the science of man as showing the nonexistence of GOD. HE has to give equal weight to the competition to insure we come to him through faith and not fear. It is a delicate balancing act that insures the continuation of free will.


----------



## GeauxLSU

6wheeler said:
			
		

> Finally, if a supreme being (GOD) desired that a lesser being (man) to come to him of his own accord (free will) would GOD not "muddy the waters" by giving man options? Man has the free will to decide if he/she chooses to love and obey GOD or accept the science of man as showing the nonexistence of GOD. HE has to give equal weight to the competition to insure we come to him through faith and not fear. It is a delicate balancing act that insures the continuation of free will.


Very interesting take....
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

_"How then can it be explained that genetic mutations on the scale required to take a single organism to a complex being (humans) occur without the intervention of a superior, or in my opinion, a supreme being?"_

6Wheeler, like you I don't believe that it could happen, especially since there has NEVER BEEN WITNESSED ONE EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION BEING ADDED TO THE DNA CODE OF ANY ORGANISM.    Genetic information is a major problem, better yet, 'riddle' for evolutionists.    It's easy to say "add a vertebrae", but it's another thing to code in all the changes that would be required into the DNA.  (extra nerves....extra muscles attached at the right places....extra blood vessels....extra blah blah blah)    

NO CELL IS SIMPLE.       

Bandy


----------



## JBowers

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> But even this organism can't survive unless it scavanges from more complex organisms.
> Bandy


Are you proof positive about this statement?


----------



## HT2

*Don't ya'll realize......*

This thread could go on forever!!!!!!!!!!  

My opinion is simply put.....

God Created man in "HIS" own image.......

I didn't "evolve" from a "monkey".......

I, like "all men" are "created" by "GOD".............

That's all I got to say on this.......


----------



## JBowers

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> If JB is 'quite schooled', he'll know that the smallest known genome of any living organism (bacteria) has over 450+ genes.... quite complex. But even this organism can't survive unless it scavanges from more complex organisms. So, we are left with the first cell having to be even more complex.
> 
> Bandy


"Quite schooled" is subjective and irrelevant and not a claim that I accept or would place on myself. I am no less ignorant than the next guy.

Complexity is relative.

Look at the development of yourself for some insight about simple to complexity. The biological development of a human is well undertsood and documented from the union of a sperm and egg resulting in one "simple" cell. That "simple" cell divides creating identical simple cells that perform the exact same function. A few days later, there are many more identical "simple cells" performing the same function - following the same map toward the destination of a human being. However, a some point later those single indentical simple cells group together forming multi-cellular groups, which will become the skin, internal organs and nervous system. Now there are three groups (more complex) of identical simple cells that have the same destination, but are now following different directions. And so it goes on and on and on. In the end, a human is complex form of identical simple cells, some working more specifically together and all communicating with each other, that follow different instructions.

Those instructions are the genes. Definitely there are many different instructions and the possibility for 10's of thousands of genes. Every cell in every organsim has the same genes for that organsim, but they don't follow every instruction or gene. It depends on the environment (physical, chemical, etc). The number of genes could be a measure of complexity. If so, then a bacteria with 450 genes is simple compared to a human with 24,000 to 100,000+ genes. Or one could measure complexity based on how those genes are used or how they function. A bacterium may have 450 genes, but only 5 are used to make that bacteria function; thereby it is simple. On the other hand, a human may use 21,000 of its 24,000 genes or 90,000 of its 110,000 genes; thereby it is complex. Finally, if there was nothing to compare it to, then I am not sure how the first cell could be called complex and especially when moving forward, complexity increases.



> ...like you I don't believe that it could happen


This implies that this and any other effort or attempt to explain and offer information is pointless.



> ..., especially since there has NEVER BEEN WITNESSED ONE EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION BEING ADDED TO THE DNA CODE OF ANY ORGANISM.


And this somehow makes the theory of evolution less plausible than creation, which by the way has never been witnessed. But, that's OK, the double standard is a flaw we all carry including myself - its human.

I don't believe that any of us said that any information was added to the genetic code of any species, nor am I aware of any mention of this at all. The DNA contains all the information necessary and more than we probably know. However, it is not all used or expressed. We probably all have the genetic information to become cancerous; however, unless we are exposed to the environment, which also may be different among individuals, then that information is not used or expressed. Any one of us may have a lethal gene. That lethal information is just sitting there going unused adn it may never be expressed. However; other genes in your body at age 53 signal a chemical change in your body (an environment change), which turns on that lethal gene and one year later you die. We all have genes in our cells that are unexpressed until we die. Once we die, the chemical environment in our body changes and these genes are turned on. Their function is to activate cells called lysosomes (I may have forgotten the correct name). These lysosomes are what start the decay process in an organism. I would also imagine that for some individuals the decay process varies because some of us have more lysosomes than others or some folks have more efficient lysosomes than others.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

I agree, creation has not been witnessed either, so each of us have to base our beliefs about creation/evolution on where the best evidence lies.   If you want to believe that a cell is 'simple' with 100's of thousands of pieices then go right ahead.    If someone wants to believe that a cell just sprang up that had thousands of pieces in place then have at it!    (Since the only other alternative to life being an accident is 'intelligent design', and that has a whole heap of implications:   morality for example)

A group of scientists got together to figure out the bare minimum number of genes that a cell would need to survive.    Anyone want to take a guess at the minimum that they came up with????    (Nope, not 5   LOL)    

It was 256!  (Which comprised 100's of thousands of base pairs in their DNA)   Awesome don't you think?     But they said that even this organism would have much difficulty in life, seeing as it could not repair DNA damage, nor could it digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic material to survive.   

256????    by chance???     If I've got to accept that on faith then I know which faith is easier to believe!!    )


Bandy


----------



## humdandy

I was told I was hatched.........


----------

