# Evolution VS creation



## Huntervationist (Jun 11, 2005)

First let me say to all the Christians who frequent this forum....IM SORRY for posting this here......or for even having started this thread...but this subject has risen its ugly head again....this time over a teacher being reprimanded for allowing students access to the possibility of Divine creation.
Some here agree with this attitude based on the PROGRAMMED idea that evolution is a scientifically proved fact...and that science has as well disproved Divine creation......In response to this.. I have asked them to prove their assertion of these facts.




EVOLUTION -vs- CREATION

It is my opinion that the scientific community has yet to prove its assertion of the THEORY of EVOLUTION. there are still many "holes" in this theory...not one direct link( demonstrable fossil evidence) between chaotic chemical combination, and any single cell organism, nor is there any direct link to any multi celled organism, EVOLVING to an entirely different spiecies...and not one institution of higher learning attempts to assert that it does...instead they counter these "FACTS" with the assertion that such evidence EXISTS, or existed at ONE TIME, but may likely never be found, but that simply because it is not present today does not impune the accuracy of the theory....That logic dictates that this theory must be so!

Thats right.......NORMAL SCIENTIFIC FILTERS ARE THROWN OUT THE WINDOW FOR THIS ONE!  


This THEORY is then used to support an idea that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION disproves Divine creation....

As for my proof that god created everything, thats the easiest thing in the world to do......simply look at a blade of grass, a tree, the sky, the world around you, subtract mans destruction, and the shear wonder of it leaves no doubt that a Divine hand has been at work...........if you need more proof.....
Just spend a few days with the dieing.....watch and feel the departing of the soul......that small funny feeling you will feel...is the beginnings of faith....and with that....understanding the rest becomes simple...........and that simple truth is:In the beginning, GOD created heaven and earth.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 11, 2005)

"in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth"


 i can live with that.



the theory of evolution may never be proven to be fact. 


the theory of evolution doesn't disprove the idea of creation.

but... the discovery of fossils of creatures that lived millions of years ago does.

it is not a theory that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago, as far as i know this is accepted as scientific fact. that alone disproves creation as described in the bible if it is to be taken literally.



to me.... nature, biology, and pysics are "god", wether we truely understand them or not. so yes, in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth. your idea of god is different than mine. i,m not gonna believe, and accept as fact, what some arab wrote 2000 years ago. how can you learn more about our universe if you think you already know it all?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 11, 2005)

Huntervationist, 

I know of no people that "believe" or are "programmed" by some scientific theory that disproves devine creation.The nature of science is exploratory, etc...

Most people would say that bible class is not science class. Isaiah is not the fundamental of biology.  But biology is not a good bases for justice. MC square is not from Paul's letters. But physicists don't routinely write on the concept of love, charity etc... Genesis is not the basis for  the "programmed concept" of ribonucleic acid, etc. etc. Quantum physics does not address what makes us human.

So therefore your assumtions are perhaps erroneous that some would have that science has disproved devine creation. No true scientific mind would entertain that notion, because it is not in science's perview to do so.

O f course the lazy will come up with anything and everthing...just to  
It is my view that Genesis has little or no place in science class and if that class has a theory of "creation" well that is just fine. It is kind of interesting don't you think that all theories and ideas of creation say that human's came out of or from the earth. Science, Genesis, the american indian, etc all account for this....


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Jun 11, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> ... the discovery of fossils of creatures that lived millions of years ago does.
> 
> it is not a theory that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago, as far as i know this is accepted as scientific fact. that alone disproves creation as described in the bible if it is to be taken literally.



There is no PROOF that it was "millions of years ago". Carbon dating is no where near a perfect science when the items are over 1000 years old.

Dinosaurs are discussed in the Bible. Read Job's description of the behemoth.


----------



## Craig Knight (Jun 11, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> "in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth"
> 
> 
> i can live with that.
> I'll go along with that also. Dont seem to be anything wrong with it.


----------



## Hawkeye (Jun 11, 2005)

If we read the bible in English or any other language but the original we then assume such error as to this earth's age and man's time on earth, in fact the way that "Berebig toebig toebig toebig toe"(Genesis) is written ,it hints that the book of genesis is the origin of God's recreating this earth 6,000 years ago, not creating the earth as many have come to believe.
If you notice the Genesis account begins "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That means no time line existed between creating first the heavens and then the earth, it does not imply simultaneous creation, and science agrees by accerting that the heavens we see (space is older than this earth.) Then came the actual creation of time with the first day creating THE Light(This light was not the sun or star But the Light that shines in every man John Chapter 1 meaning Jesus and us our spirits, then came the rest of the creation that belongs to this time and period, but every hint is this earth have being created and destroyed as many as 5 times, according to the Hebrew sages.
So when we look at dinousours and things that are semihuman and other extinct species ,we are looking into a time period which is not of this creation time and period.

Peace.


----------



## Hawkeye (Jun 11, 2005)

The above delition and substituted with with the word berebig is because the computer assumed was a bad word but is not it is the hebrew word for genesis.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 11, 2005)

Hawkeye,

I must applaud. Exelent description of creation. Great!


----------



## sgsjr (Jun 11, 2005)

Its just a book of stories!!!  But, living by it is fine.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 12, 2005)

sgsjr said:
			
		

> Its just a book of stories!!!  But, living by it is fine.



What you live and say today is a story tommorrow.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 12, 2005)

everyone makes a good point. i thought this thread was trouble waiting to happen, but it's nice to see civilized discussion of the subject.


----------



## James Vincent (Jun 12, 2005)

*Believe in it all*

I was created, saved, and appear to have evoluted a lot in 50+ years


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jun 12, 2005)

Hawkeye said:
			
		

> God's recreating this earth 6,000 years ago, not creating the earth as many have come to believe.


There's a concept I've never heard discussed before.  Interesting....

OK, I admitedly have not read the recount of the incident but wasn't the deal with the teacher that it was a ONE of MANY on some sort of extracurricular reading list?  Was there any fiction on that list?  If so, and you don't believe in the bible, then who cares?    

I could understand if it was REQUIRED reading but the short blurb I heard clearly made it sound like that book was NOT required.  

Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 12, 2005)

i think you're in the wrong thread phil, but the teacher was including it in the studies for extra credit.if there were other fictional books they could chose from, i would have no problem with it. i just don't want school teachers  trying to "teach" their religious beliefs to my kids.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jun 12, 2005)

Huntervationist said:
			
		

> ...but this subject has risen its ugly head again....this time over a teacher being reprimanded for allowing students access to the possibility of Divine creation.


I took that to mean that teacher Jay (with the reading list).  Is there another related story out there?      I rarely watch local new anymore...   
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## jason308 (Jun 12, 2005)

As I posted earlier in another thread, I don't believe it is for me to know exactly how old the world is: my finite mind can't understand the Glory of God and how He works, but I know He does. One of the many problems I have with the evolution theory is the way something can be made from nothing. I will try to find the source, but some years back an amazing discovery was made from a tooth some scientist had found and they built a complete organism around it with this "evidence". Once the organism was created and awed over they realized that the tooth was from a pig. Much of the theory of evolution is based on "evidence" like this. Not knocking science (I'm studying to become a wildlife biologist) but I know how the world and the beautiful creatures that inhabit it were made. The Big Bang: God spoke and BANG it happened!


----------



## Huntervationist (Jun 13, 2005)

I have waited awhile to post on this...waiting for some of the more learned Christians than i to speak on it...as i had hoped they covered the issue much better than i could have.
I would like to say that i have no problem with science..nor the scientific facts it promotes..I do have issue with those that use a theory such as evolution(a very unproved theory) in an attempt to disprove god and our creation....unfortunately that is the case, and it is wide spread in our public school system.
And in such a case.....evidence of creation is just as teachable as a theory of evolution in a science class....
Like others have stated...I see the evidence of gods desire for things to adapt and evolve...FREEWILL is a prime example of his wish on this, but adaptation, is a far cry from one species becoming an entirely different species, the alligator is a prime example. science states(and has proved) this is a direct descendant of the dinosour...I can see that...but it has not changed into bird, nor has it become a horse...it is still just a small version of those giant lizards who were its ancestor.
With those that don't want religion taugh to their children..i am with you on this...I don't want religious doctrine taugh to my children as well, unless support that doctrine...but creation, and religious doctrines are a very different. 

All i can say is..if you believe the first sentence in the bible.:"In the beginning God created the heaven and earth." (however  you describe god) then creation is not a theory....its more fact, and carries more weight than any science man can construe.





One last note:
For those that would contend that evolution is not used as evidence against creation. Please note the ones who support the evolutionists theory have used terms like fiction, and impled such when refering to creationist teachings and theories.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 13, 2005)

Huntervationist said:
			
		

> I have waited awhile to post on this...waiting for some of the more learned Christians than i to speak on it...as i had hoped they covered the issue much better than i could have.
> I would like to say that i have no problem with science..nor the scientific facts it promotes..I do have issue with those that use a theory such as evolution(a very unproved theory) in an attempt to disprove god and our creation....unfortunately that is the case, and it is wide spread in our public school system.
> And in such a case.....evidence of creation is just as teachable as a theory of evolution in a science class....
> Like others have stated...I see the evidence of gods desire for things to adapt and evolve...FREEWILL is a prime example of his wish on this, but adaptation, is a far cry from one species becoming an entirely different species, the alligator is a prime example. science states(and has proved) this is a direct descendant of the dinosour...I can see that...but it has not changed into bird, nor has it become a horse...it is still just a small version of those giant lizards who were its ancestor.
> ...






  you directed me to the evolution website, and say that is where you learned about it, but judging from your posts, you skipped over the misconceptions part of it. maybe you and jason 308 sould read some of the material and understand it better before you make uninformed, or misinformed interpretations of it.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 13, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> I took that to mean that teacher Jay (with the reading list).  Is there another related story out there?      I rarely watch local new anymore...
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil





phil!!! this thread is about evolution vs. creation, the other thread is about the teacher!!


----------



## CAL (Jun 13, 2005)

Evolution and Creation are both mighty big words as well as eternity and forever.To me evolution is fine if we are talking about aligators,fish,birds and maybe insects.I have no problem thinking how old they are and where they came from or what they decended from.

Creation other than whats in the Bible does not concern me whatsoever.I believe Gods word to be the only answer to human creation.Having felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in the form of the Comforter and seen a Miracle is more than proof enough to me of God and his influence in our lives!I don't think I am wrong in my belief but if I am I have nothing to lose.If you do not believe and are wrong,you have all eternity to celebrate your mistake.Think about it!!!


----------



## cowboyron (Jun 13, 2005)

Cal, AMEN Brother


----------



## Hawkeye (Jun 13, 2005)

Amen ! to that Gordon2


----------



## Huntervationist (Jun 14, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> you directed me to the evolution website, and say that is where you learned about it, but judging from your posts, you skipped over the misconceptions part of it. maybe you and jason 308 sould read some of the material and understand it better before you make uninformed, or misinformed interpretations of it.



No..i didnt say i subscribe to their theories..its simply the most well layed out description of todays evolving theory of evolution.....if you took the time to examine the FACTS you would realize that even Berkley tells you that many pieces are missing...crucial links they need to link species change from one form to another....adaptations of a species they have in plenty....but the crucial links to species change is not there...they cover this by the excuse that they except that this evidence may well never be found....but that enough evidence exists to postulate their exisitance.....no different than creationist view...thousands of years of answered prayers, and the history of one man changing the face of the planet...the men written about in the bible existed, and even today evidence of a great flood exists when only 10 years ago science stated that such could not be possible. Do you believe that GWB will be heralded 2000 years from now, that any other will? Couple that to the inner knowledge of right and wrong...good and bad...and you have the divine creationists most unerring fact....GODS hand is everywhere we look.
I don't wish to insult you, to call you names or tell your wrong...science( the use of facts to solve a problem..a mystery) has its place in our world, but GODS place is at the beginning of it all, my hope is to maybe open mind to other possibilities, if you believe i would attack you..it will only close your mind....opposite to my intent...so ill leave off now with an apology for being such a poor representative.


----------



## sgsjr (Jun 14, 2005)

If you do postulate a creator, of course, then you have to ask where that creator came from. And no, the answer 'well, He/She has always been there' won't wash.

One of the recent advancements that may offer quite a bit of insight some day is the human genome project. We've finally mapped out the entire source code of one human - but don't expect them to start telling you which lines of source make your fingernails crunchy tomorrow. You see, there's a little problem here. It's not insurmountable, but it's kind of big.

The problem is thus: think of the human genome as a program. Instead of running on a computer, it runs on a human cell - and instead of being stored in magnetic north and south orientations, it's stored in four acids - but none the less, our DNA is a program. The problems is that like any program, it's in machine code. 

That doesn't sound like that big a deal - after all, with enough practice, a really good hacker can read machine code. But it actually is a rather big problem - in that not only is the DNA in machine code, we don't know the _instruction set_. We don't even know how big instructions are, or what arguments they take.

What we need is to brute-force crack the instruction and data sets of the human genome and write a reverse-compiler. It need not go to a high level language - going to something like assembly would probably be good enough. The reason we need to do this is that we could probably learn a _lot_ by reading the human source code. (One religious friend of mine calls it 'the fingerprints of god'. I'm not sure if I agree, but it's certainly going to be interesting).

The biggest question, of course, is what are all the sections of source that we _don't_ use? Do they all even have the same instruction set? It's possible that half the human DNA - or even considerably more - is in older instruction sets for older designs of cells. 

This of course increases the difficulty of cracking the instruction and data sets - one of the first things that might be necessary is to figure out what section of the source is currently 'live' and what sections aren't. This might be sort of tricky, but I'm sure the bright boys that do the research could figure out some way to do this, if they haven't already

Another interesting thing about the DNA is that it must, by definition, contain instructions for building the interpreter - so once we figure out the instruction and data sets, we'll be able to read the source for a human cell - this may also prove to be enlightening.

Certainly all this is worth doing. Certainly it may take many, many years to figure out the instruction set and document it - it doesn't help that each 'bit' can have four states instead of the more usual two - nor does it help that the area we're trying to map is so big. But, once we've done all this, THEN we can start debating what similarities the bacteria from outer space and life on earth have - because once we've done this.. twice, once for earth life and once for the ET life - then we'll be able to search for similar instructions and visually inspect the code that generates each type of cell. Until then, we're just guessing.

And who knows? The human genome might contain a exact copy of ET's cold germ's source embedded somewhere in it. After all, the human source code is _big_ - it may contain many library routines that never get used any more - because hey, the space is free. Or it may not. But either way, it's too early to conclusively argue over where we came from.

It does seem likely to me that the odds of that self-reproducing source we call life occurring two different places are pretty low. And, it is certainly possible that the bacteria that landed here many millions of years ago 'seeded' the planet, thusly starting the life we know today. After all, once you get the self-reproducing self-mutating code executing, time will result in better and better life forms. It's the starting point that's the hard part.

But I also will point out that we don't really have enough information to know. Someone who's really bored might figure out what the absolute shortest set of instructions that would result in self-reproducing self-mutating life would be, and then what the odds of the acids lining up to produce that set of instructions are. I imagine the odds are lower than people tend to guess


----------



## leroy (Jun 14, 2005)

sgsjr said:
			
		

> If you do postulate a creator, of course, then you have to ask where that creator came from. And no, the answer 'well, He/She has always been there' won't wash.
> 
> One of the recent advancements that may offer quite a bit of insight some day is the human genome project. We've finally mapped out the entire source code of one human - but don't expect them to start telling you which lines of source make your fingernails crunchy tomorrow. You see, there's a little problem here. It's not insurmountable, but it's kind of big.
> 
> ...




yeaaaaa right! I'll stick with God and the Bible!! Sorry in advance but I can't see how someone could believe that and not even consider God's creation. You can believe  bacteria from space seeded man but not what the Bible says!


----------



## PWalls (Jun 14, 2005)

sgsjr said:
			
		

> If you do postulate a creator, of course, then you have to ask where that creator came from. And no, the answer 'well, He/She has always been there' won't wash.



Actually, it does wash. That belief washes my sin away and ensures me an eternal place in heaven. God is and always has been.

The rest of your post went right over my uneducated head (well, aside from the ME degree).


----------



## red tail (Jun 14, 2005)

I believe that GOD created everything. No questions asked. Wether he improved his creaters when they moved to new locations to beter fit there needs or not is something that I don't fell obligated to know. But I do not believe that humans evoled from monkeys.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 14, 2005)

red tail said:
			
		

> But I do not believe that humans evoled from monkeys.





 perfect example of on of the most common misconceptions about the theory of change over time. a lot of people only know what their preacher, or some religious propaganda has taught them about evolution.


----------



## leroy (Jun 14, 2005)

the ones that dont believe in creation how do you think mankind started?


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Jun 14, 2005)

I believe God is way beyond our capabilities to understand.  I have tried to grasp the concept of "where did God come from".  In my finite mind, everything has to come from something.  But, my Bible says God always has been and always will be.  I don't have to understand to believe, it takes a little thing called faith.  Too often, people feel like they have wo apply some sort of scientific explanation because the concept of God falls outside of the realm of human understanding.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 14, 2005)

leroy said:
			
		

> the ones that dont believe in creation how do you think mankind started?




 started what?


----------



## red tail (Jun 14, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> perfect example of on of the most common misconceptions about the theory of change over time. a lot of people only know what their preacher, or some religious propaganda has taught them about evolution.




I have you know that I have studied evolution and darwinism and came to the conclusion myself. The major problem with any theory other than a GOD is the beginning. With out a higher power or GOD, There is no possible way that anything could have been made to evolve.

And for the record your sceince propaganda Has not been proven either. So to believe in it must require faith as well.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 14, 2005)

red tail said:
			
		

> The major problem with any theory other than a GOD is the beginning.




 a perfect example of the second most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution. the theory does not speculate as to the very first origins of life, only how it has evolved since origination.




http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Jun 14, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> a perfect example of the second most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution. the theory does not speculate as to the very first origins of life, only how it has evolved since origination.



The website you referenced suggests a deep sea vent as a possible source of the 1st single cell organism.

Talk about your misconceptions


----------



## meriwether john (Jun 14, 2005)

Uh guys, Darwin's book mentions a CREATOR. 
I believe the BIBLE to be completely true(God's inerrant WORD). Not going to preach but what if we Christians are right? What if the BIBLE is truth? Who wants to take that gamble? The first sentence in the BIBLE proves CREATION.


----------



## leroy (Jun 15, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> started what?




where did mankind originate, how did he come to be?


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Jun 15, 2005)

The Bible in my opinion and faith does prove creation.  however in genesis you can read that adam was not the first man. god gave adam the breath of life and man became a living soul.  this was done on the seventh day.  it says that god form man from the dust of the ground.  if you read earlier in genesis god created man and woman on the sixth day, before he created adam and then eve.  " so god created man in his own image, in the image og god created he him; male and female created he them.  
     and god blessed themand god said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth"  that is in genesis 1:27-28


----------



## jason308 (Jun 15, 2005)

*website*



			
				jay sullivent said:
			
		

> you directed me to the evolution website, and say that is where you learned about it, but judging from your posts, you skipped over the misconceptions part of it. maybe you and jason 308 sould read some of the material and understand it better before you make uninformed, or misinformed interpretations of it.


Jay- Jason308 has heard just about every possible take on the theory of evolution and has even been tested on it in college. Maybe all the PhD science teachers that profess evolution have "misinformed" me, I don't need to see that stupid website, I have had heard probably more than you have on this issue from the evolutionists and that has been what more than 1/2 of the test material was over in my classes. I JUST DON'T BUY IT BECAUSE IT AINT REAL!


----------



## Huntervationist (Jun 15, 2005)

*here is a bit more info...for comparison*

What the Theory of Evolution Says


In his pioneering work On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin believed that scientists would find fossils showing transitions from one kind of animal to another.  Darwin assumed that strata (layers of sedimentary rock) are thick, continuous, and old with the oldest records in the lowest layers and the youngest in the uppermost layers.  Life forms would be preserved in those layers having the same age as the life forms; hence, similar histories of strata in different locations, species emergence, transition forms, and extinction records could be correlated.
Darwin was influenced by a geologist of his day, Sir Charles Lyell, who argued that the earth was quite old and that geology is explained by uniform gradual, not catastrophic, process currently observed.  That is called uniformitarianism.  However, Darwin argued that some geological changes occurred (in agreement with 20th century geologists) and isolated species environmentally. Darwin believed that this isolation might be important in the production of a new species.  

What Evolutionists Say We Ought to See  
Major geological changes can cause new environmental conditions, including isolated geographic regions, which might stress or favor a shift in surviving plant and animal biological populations.  We ought to observe this shift by seeing fossils of transitional forms of plant and animals.  In the 1850’s, eighty years before geologists accepted the theory of continents splitting and drifting apart, Darwin speculated that this “splitting” had occurred.  He proposed that the earth had a long history of land being “united”, and ”divided again”, with far more change than from erosion, earthquakes and volcanoes.
With so much change, species were geographically isolated in new environments.  Darwin thought these changes could have brought about new kinds of plants and animals by the “natural selection” of those that could survive.  Key animals and plants unable to reproduce in new environments would die out. If this were true, we ought to find remains or traces of the continuously changing life forms, called ”transitional life forms” by Darwin, over time in the fossil record.  

What We Actually Observe in Nature  
Observations made of large, sometimes catastrophic, geological changes have led geologists to rethink the earth’s history.  Asteroid and meteorite impact, volcanoes, floods, atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns and temperatures, glaciations and tectonic plate collisions cause the catastrophic changes usually referred to.  These events have been used to explain observations in geology and paleontology and have been cited as important in both the formation and extinction of species, especially the latter.
Dating of events in earth history is important in geology.  Modern geologists have measured the approximate age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old (much, much older than Lyell and Darwin thought) using radioactive decays of various chemical elements present when the earth’s crust was first formed.  Dating of the inverted “upside down” strata presented some special problems because fossils were used to date strata.  Usually younger layers of the earth’s crust are on the top of the older layers but not always.  For some time now, suspected upside down strata have been dated by the fossils found in the strata.  Some geologists cited by Morris say that circular reasoning may flaw this approach, because evolutionary theory was assumed to date or sequence the fossils from youngest to oldest.  Other geologists say that the process is not flawed.  They claim that occurrence of these upside-down strata is rare, not the rule.  The inverted strata are disclosed by using fossils as time markers whose sequence is already established by many examples of gradual deposited strata, not by any assumption of evolutionary theory.  

What Scientists Say  
Modern geologists have replaced Lyell’s ideas held 150 years, of the earth’s gradual change (uniformatarianism) with belief in dynamic change, incorporating both gradual and catastrophic change.  These geologists say that the deposition of sediments is a dynamic, not a continuous process.  Modern geology predicts that there will be an incomplete fossil record and that the diversity of species may be related to isolation of continents over time.
Darwin became aware that the geological record was insufficient and that its interpretation did not always support his views. As he put it, one problem, “namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being able to blend together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” He wrote, “ But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?   This perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory . . . it cannot be doubted that the geologic record viewed as a whole is very imperfect.”  But Darwin recognized that not all species could be preserved.  “No organism wholly soft can be preserved.  Shells and bones decay and disappear when left on the bottom of the sea, where sediment is not accumulating.”

ON THE FOSSIL RECORD: Professor D. S. Woodruff (University of California-San Diego) writes, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the [fossil] record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition" (Science, Vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)



Explanation Offered by Creationists
  All creationists believe that God was the first cause in the earth’s geological formation and development.  Young-earth creationists challenge the findings and sometimes the methods of geology.  They point out uncertainties in radiometric dating. Some say that the earth was created suddenly and recently with features that may appear to look old.  They indicate that the Hebrew word yom is most often translated as “day”.  They attribute many present-day geological features (such as rapid formation of coal seams) to the flood of Noah in Genesis 6-9.  Dr. Henry and John Morris, foremost advocates of the young-earth position are the founders of the Institute for Creation Research.  They label its beliefs in flood geology and six 24-hour days creation as “creation science” or “scientific creationism” although some creationists did not believe that either evolution or creation was a science that could be proved.
Old-earth or “progressive” creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross accept current scientific dating methods.  Old-earth adherents say that the Hebrew word yom is translated as a long period of time more than 60 times in the Bible.  For example, a “day” of creation might be the Bible’s way of referring to a longer, indefinite period, suggests chemist Robert Fischer in his book, God Did It, But How?


----------



## Huntervationist (Jun 15, 2005)

*a bit more on this subject*

100 years ago this year, Albert Einstein published
three papers that rocked the world. These papers
proved the existence of the atom, introduced the
theory of relativity, and described quantum
mechanics.

Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe
was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was
expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced
a 'fudge factor' that ensured a 'steady state' universe,
one that had no beginning or end.

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest
galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the 
Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced 
what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, 
"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation 
of creation to which I have ever listened." He referred 
to the 'fudge factor' to achieve a steady-state universe 
as the biggest blunder of his career.

As I'll explain during the next couple of days, 
Einstein's theories have been thoroughly proved and 
verified by experiments and measurements. But there's
an even more important implication of Einstein's discovery.
Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time
itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began
with the Big Bang.

That's right -- time itself does not exist before
then. The very line of time begins with that creation
event. Matter, energy, time and space were created
in an instant by an intelligence outside of space
and time.

About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote
in his book "The World As I See It" that the harmony 
of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such 
superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection."

Pretty significant statement, wouldn't you say?


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 15, 2005)

jason308 said:
			
		

> One of the many problems I have with the evolution theory is the way something can be made from nothing.





 i wasn't trying to insult your education or intelligence. the theory of evolution does not speculate on the original origins of life. i know there are a lot of theories about the first origins of life, and some are far fetched. but, they have nothing to do with the theory of change over time.





 to me, the most far fetched ideas on the origin of life are found in the first book of the bible.  just had to throw that in.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 15, 2005)

Huntervationist said:
			
		

> What the Theory of Evolution Says
> 
> 
> In his pioneering work On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin believed that scientists would find fossils showing transitions from one kind of animal to another.  Darwin assumed that strata (layers of sedimentary rock) are thick, continuous, and old with the oldest records in the lowest layers and the youngest in the uppermost layers.  Life forms would be preserved in those layers having the same age as the life forms; hence, similar histories of strata in different locations, species emergence, transition forms, and extinction records could be correlated.
> ...






 wonder why you failed to mention the source of your information.  stinks of religios, or creationist propaganda to me.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 15, 2005)

Huntervationist said:
			
		

> 100 years ago this year, Albert Einstein published
> three papers that rocked the world. These papers
> proved the existence of the atom, introduced the
> theory of relativity, and described quantum
> ...





 i smell it agian!!!


----------



## jason308 (Jun 15, 2005)

Jay- I agree that organisms can adapt over time, however I do not believe one species can totally turn into another over time. Adaptation is one thing, evolution another. I don't understand either how one organism can evolve into SEVERAL different organisms, it seems if the evolution theory was right (and I know its not) then the one  organism should evolve into one other species and one species alone. Not into several as the theory proposes.


----------



## Huntervationist (Jun 16, 2005)

Ill list you the sources when i get back to work...are they from a religious stand point....very much so...and i am proud to admit it.


----------



## SADDADDY (Jun 16, 2005)

*where did GOD come from?*

don't get me wrong, I believe in GOD and a reborn Christian  
but I still ponder over this question, and I will be on top of my list of questions when I finally get meet the Big guy up in the sky, oh what a good day that will be  

I truely believe that God created heaven and Earth, man, plants animals etc...but it does make you wonder why did he wipe out the Dinosaur off the face of the earth? was he bored with them and wanted to create man?   and who is to say that one day we may become extinct  

or could he have one continous universe that starts back at at square one after 100million years or more? kinda like giving the earth a new life? and who is to say that all those other planets could have been or might be the next earth or garden of eden?? 

man My head hurts  , I love reading the bible and trying to figure out what some of it means, and just wondering "WHY" and "HOW" all this came to be

God Bless  

I found this on another site and thought it was pretty interesting  


Where did God come from?

 We can only partially comprehend the notion of God's existence.  To do so, we must use human concepts to speak of God:  "without beginning or end"; "eternal"; "infinite", etc.   The Bible says that He has always existed:  " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2).  And, "Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2).  Quite simply, God has no beginning and no end.  So, where did God come from?  He didn't.  He always was.
     To us, the notion of time is linear.  One second follows the next, one minute is after another.  We get older, not younger and we cannot repeat the minutes that have passed us by.  We have all seen the time lines on charts:   early time is on the left and later time is on the right.  We see nations, people's lives, and plans mapped out on straight lines from left to right.  We see a beginning and an end.  But God is "beyond the chart."  He has no beginning or end.  He simply has always been.
     Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter.  Time exists when matter exists.  Time has even been called the fourth dimension.  But God is not matter.  In fact, God created matter.  He created the universe.  So, time began when God created the universe.  Before that, God was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him.  Therefore, to ask where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place.  Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God.  God is even beyond eternity.  
     Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end -- and/or no beginning.  Since God has no beginning or end, He has no beginning.  This is because He is outside of time.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 16, 2005)

jason308 said:
			
		

> Jay- I agree that organisms can adapt over time, however I do not believe one species can totally turn into another over time. Adaptation is one thing, evolution another. I don't understand either how one organism can evolve into SEVERAL different organisms, it seems if the evolution theory was right (and I know its not) then the one  organism should evolve into one other species and one species alone. Not into several as the theory proposes.


 


if you take one species of animal, and put one pair of that species in 10 different places on the earth, all with different environments, food, predators, climate, ect.  and let the different animals adapt in their environments in different ways for a couple millions years, i think it is very possible for that creature to become 10 different creatures. species is a catagorization given by man. the catagorizations often change in these modern times. especially when talking about birds. they sometimes come up with "subspecies", or discovering that birds thought to be one species, may be 2 different species that look very similar. don't get me wrong THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION AT ALL!!! i'm just making my point that assigning species is a product of man. anyway  if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old (which is rediculous),  why even entertain the notion of what happens to an animal over the period of milloins, or billions of years.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 16, 2005)

a demestic hog starts to redevelop the traits of his wild ancestors after one generation or so. i've heard from some that it's quicker than that. animals can and do change over time.


----------



## sgsjr (Jun 17, 2005)

More people have died in wars in this world lead by leaders who gain their "strength" to fight from their gods than by any other way.  Every leader who goes to battle prays to god for the strength to win, etc.  So this god give one person the strength to plan to kill others????


----------



## jason308 (Jun 18, 2005)

Jay- As I posted earlier in several threads, I don't have a clue how old the Earth is and am content with not knowing the answer. My finite mind couldn't understand any of that, so I just take it for what it is and one day when I meet the Lord face to face if He feels like telling me then fine. I just know He made it and the wonderful creatures in it and will do my best to understand them and how they work together.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 21, 2005)

No information has ever been witnessed being added to the genetic code(DNA) of any organism except in a lab by a scientist. This is undebated fact and is one of many delimas facing evolutionists.


----------



## DurtyDawgs47 (Jun 21, 2005)

I believe God created EVERYTHING.... and i am sticking to it, yesterday, today, and forever!


----------



## Throwback (Jun 21, 2005)

If evolution is true, why do so many evolutionists also worry about endangered species? After all, won't they just reinvent themselves whenever they are needed?


T


----------



## RThomas (Jun 22, 2005)

My advise would be to not obtain all your information about evolution from creationist websites.  They simply reinforce your preconceived beliefs.  To get the truth, you must obtain your information from various sources and research all possible aspects of any given subject.

This is an excerpt from the teacher/evolution thread that I posted on.  Rather than type the whole thing again, I'm just going to quote it:



			
				RThomas said:
			
		

> We know that evolution happens. That is not the theory.  The theory is the processes of evolution.  Same as the theory of black holes, gravity, ect.
> 
> This whole argument once again boils down to a group of people who have a biased view and general lack of understanding of evolution.  What little understanding one has of evolution comes from what they hear in church and pick up from creationist propaganda.
> 
> ...



For accurate and scientific info on evolution, visit the best info site on the net:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html

I linked the search page so you can search any topic you have questions about.  Transitional fossils, what the theory of evolution really says, ect, ect.

And here is the FAQ page: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html


----------



## RThomas (Jun 22, 2005)

> After all, won't they just reinvent themselves whenever they are needed?



Where does the theory of evolution state this?


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Jun 22, 2005)

SADDADDY said:
			
		

> don't get me wrong, I believe in GOD and a reborn Christian
> but I still ponder over this question, and I will be on top of my list of questions when I finally get meet the Big guy up in the sky, oh what a good day that will be
> 
> I truely believe that God created heaven and Earth, man, plants animals etc...but it does make you wonder why did he wipe out the Dinosaur off the face of the earth? was he bored with them and wanted to create man?   and who is to say that one day we may become extinct
> ...



im just stating this for the sake of saying my piece.  the bible says that God is Alpha and Omega the Beggining and the end.  later on in a book called revelations it shows that this earth will be destroyed and we will all be judged.  the bible says nothing about life existing after that day in another world or with other beings.  we will be judged and the children of God, all of the people who have been saved will go to heaven and everyone else will go to H###.  icant actually sa the whole word because it edited my word.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 22, 2005)

A great site to visit for scientific evidence/facts in support of creation, go to http://www.trueorigins.org     This site offers some great info that debunks evolutionary theory.    

As one scientist stated, for evolution to be true it would require the "purposeful alignment of millions of nucleotides" in the genetic code, something that organisms can not do.  

Bandy


----------



## RThomas (Jun 22, 2005)

Bandy,  could you direct me to the page on the web-site you posted that presents evidences for creationism?
The only article I found was "A Theory of Creation".   Supposedly this article was to present a "Creation Theory", but instead attempted to redefine scientific terms, discredit evolution, and appeal to the bible for support for their "theory".
I'd be interested to read about the evidence supporting the Creation Theory.  If this evidence was published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals, that would be great too. 
Thanks.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Jun 22, 2005)

RThomas said:
			
		

> Bandy,  could you direct me to the page on the web-site you posted that presents evidences for creationism?
> The only article I found was "A Theory of Creation".   Supposedly this article was to present a "Creation Theory", but instead attempted to redefine scientific terms, discredit evolution, and appeal to the bible for support for their "theory".
> I'd be interested to read about the evidence supporting the Creation Theory.  If this evidence was published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals, that would be great too.
> Thanks.


the only article of proof of the creation theory that is of any importance can be found in the book of genesis in the Holy Bible.


----------



## RThomas (Jun 22, 2005)

> the only article of proof of the creation theory that is of any importance can be found in the book of genesis in the Holy Bible.



I wont argue that.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 22, 2005)

This is a great read. A little long but well worth it.

RT, a must read for you.  


http://www.trueorigins.org/to_deception.asp


----------



## JBowers (Jun 22, 2005)

FESTUSHAGGIN said:
			
		

> ...be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth" that is in genesis 1:27-28


replenish?


----------



## RThomas (Jun 22, 2005)

> This is a great read. A little long but well worth it.
> RT, a must read for you.



See post # 58. Read www.talkorigins.org for yourself.  Surely it doesn't surprise you that a website such as trueorigins would attempt to discredit another source with which it disagrees.  Afterall, trueorigins soul purpose is to attempt to discredit evolution.  How better to do so than to try and discredit the # one evolution website on the net. 



> The bottom line to all this is that the fundamental concept of evolution is clearly a manifestation of a metaphysical—not a scientific—worldview and, just as with any other religion, the facts must continually be interpreted and adjusted to fit with this belief.



Is the author speaking about evolution or creationism?  I believe he may have just discredited creationism in one simple sentence.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 22, 2005)

RThomas said:
			
		

> See post # 58. Read www.talkorigins.org for yourself.  Surely it doesn't surprise you that a website such as trueorigins would attempt to discredit another source with which it disagrees.  Afterall, trueorigins soul purpose is to attempt to discredit evolution.  How better to do so than to try and discredit the # one evolution website on the net.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have visited that site and read alot of the links and it mirrors exactly the points of the article. Alot of speculation givin as facts. Example: transitional fossills of whales. The examples they used where actually whale fossills but they tried to convince the reader that they were some type of primitive whale that was still evolving. Absolutely no evidence that the fossill was anything other than a WHALE. To think this proves DNA was added to the previous animal and that is why the fossill was in transition is rediculous.

I don't think he tried to discredit, he actually did. I hope you read the whole article with an unbiased attitude. If you noticed he actually agreed on some points but acurately showed how they leave the WHOLE truth out. And that is to be the WHOLE premiss of evolution(life came from a single simple cell and evolved into what we have today) I'm sure you are aware that in the last few years scientists have discovered who complex even the first cell was and alot of evolutionists are finally admitting there must have been some inteligent designer or some outside source of some kind. I wonder why that is?   


 Also, I'm not aware of creationists adjusting facts. Creationists believe God created everything period.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 22, 2005)

FESTUSHAGGIN said:
			
		

> im just stating this for the sake of saying my piece.  the bible says that God is Alpha and Omega the Beggining and the end.  later on in a book called revelations it shows that this earth will be destroyed and we will all be judged.  the bible says nothing about life existing after that day in another world or with other beings.  we will be judged and the children of God, all of the people who have been saved will go to heaven and everyone else will go to H###.  icant actually sa the whole word because it edited my word.


 


you believe this cause some arab says so 2000 years ago?

don't you see how crazy most arabs are with their religious beliefs? that's the whole problem with the arabs, religion!


----------



## RThomas (Jun 22, 2005)

> I'm sure you are aware that in the last few years scientists have discovered who complex even the first cell was and alot of *evolutionists are finally admitting there must have been some inteligent designer or some outside source of some kind*.



Please prove this statement.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 23, 2005)

I'm sure you are aware of Antony Flew's switch from being an ardent atheist to theist?    This Professor of Philosophy and lifelong atheist could no longer ignore the evidence for creation.    In his own words, "I had to go where the evidence led".     This guy was no dummy, and got tired of fighting the obvious.

As to the 'peer reviewed' magazines, here is an interesting link describing the hurdles the well-known scientist face when submitting rebuttals/articles to these 'peer reviewed' magazines...   an interesting read and I'm sure it's indicative of what most creationist scientist face. 

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp

As to evidence of creation, there is no evidence for creation that naturalists would accept.   	

   "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
	    	  	Dr Scott C. Todd,
Immunologist at Kansas State University: Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

If evolutionists are ignoring the already overwhelming evidence for creation (the impossibility of that first cell, no information added to code of any organism, butterfly metamorphosis, etc) then they will never accept anything as evidence of creation.    They will spend their lives hoping to find a naturalistic explanation.    So sad....


Bandy


----------



## RThomas (Jun 23, 2005)

> I'm sure you are aware of Antony Flew's switch from being an ardent atheist to theist? This Professor of Philosophy and lifelong atheist could no longer ignore the evidence for creation. In his own words, "I had to go where the evidence led". This guy was no dummy, and got tired of fighting the obvious.



So, these are the evolutionist who are finally admitting an intelligent designer?  Ever heard of Dan Barker?  Same story you just told, only from preacher to atheist.  What does this prove?



> As to the 'peer reviewed' magazines, here is an interesting link describing the hurdles the well-known scientist face when submitting rebuttals/articles to these 'peer reviewed' magazines... an interesting read and I'm sure it's indicative of what most creationist scientist face.



So, scientific journals aren't fair and discreminate because they won't allow non-scientific articles into their magazines? Interesting.  And yet the author's experiences with philosophy journals has been different.  Wonder why?
And, the author gives one series of correspondence to prove his arguement (whatever that may be).  He also purposely leaves out the name of the journal, yet calls it a "journal in the field of evolution".  How do we know? He won't provide the name of the journal nor the editor!
Many articles submitted to scientific journals don't get accepted.



> As to evidence of creation, there is no evidence for creation that naturalists would accept.



I'm asking for any evidence- whether you think I will accept it or not.  Besides, the same could be said for creationist not accepting evidence of evolution.



> "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."



Again, creationists attempting to redefine science and scientific terms.  Since when did science deal with the supernatural?  And, where is all this "data".



> If evolutionists are ignoring the already overwhelming evidence for creation (the impossibility of that first cell, no information added to code of any organism, butterfly metamorphosis, etc) then they will never accept anything as evidence of creation. They will spend their lives hoping to find a naturalistic explanation. So sad....



Where is the evidence for creation?? Your examples are attempts to discredit evolution, not prove creation.  
What's really sad is the fact that creationist continue to misinform and mislead the public with these types of claims.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Jun 23, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> you believe this cause some arab says so 2000 years ago?
> 
> don't you see how crazy most arabs are with their religious beliefs? that's the whole problem with the arabs, religion!



If you are speaking of jesus he was not an arab.  Jesus was  a Jew.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 23, 2005)

Behe is no creationist, but even he fights a losing battle when going 'against the grain' of popular thought among the scientific community.   As he stated in his reply to the journal, "Apparently, however, my skepticism about Darwinism overshadowed all other points."   

As for evidence for creation, here's an example.    Several scientist got together to figure out what the minimum number of genes that that first self-replicating cell would have to have.     Any less and the cell would not be able to reproduce or survive.   Care to guess how many?      

256!!!!     But even they admitted that this cell would have a very hard time surviving.   It would not be able to digest complex compounds, or fine tune other genes..etc.     255 would not work.    200 would not work.   Even if the cell was lucky enough to have 100 genes it would be an absolute waste of time since it would vanish.     The simplest cell we know of is a bacterium called Mycoplasma and it has 482 genes in its genome.   This is the smallest known genome of any free-living organism.       For evolution to be true, then that first cell would have had to have been lucky enough to have all those genes all at once.       


This is one of the things Flew couldn't ignore, but many out there will live their lives with faith in a greater god than mine.....the god of infinite chance.

Bandy


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 23, 2005)

FESTUSHAGGIN said:
			
		

> If you are speaking of jesus he was not an arab.  Jesus was  a Jew.





i was not talking about jesus. jesus did not write the bible. when i say arabs i mean all the people in the middle east.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 23, 2005)

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> They will spend their lives hoping to find a naturalistic explanation.    So sad....
> 
> 
> Bandy






 i don't think so. what's really sad is thinking you already know how all life came about, because some arab wrote a vague oversimplified explantion of it 2000 years ago.  also, thinking this world and life is unimportant because when you die you are going to some fantasy land where everything is perfect and everyone is happy,  with jesus , and all their dead loved ones for eternity, when they are really just going in the ground to decompose. of course you will never know the real truth cause you'll be dead.


----------



## CAL (Jun 23, 2005)

What is the most sad of all is people who donot believe in God and Jesus and the blessings they provide for each of us each day of our lives.I can't imagine how anyone can see the sun come up and witness the beginning of a new day,listen to the birds and other critters wake and not know that a superior being has made all this happen.Even the native Americans spoke of "The Great Spirit",in their own uneducated way.These people recognized the presence of a superior power.

I wish there were some way you that donot believe could see the things I have seen and experienced the things I have experienced.You would know without a doubt that there is a God and he is in control of all things.

I am not going in the ground to decompose,only my old body is.I am not going to die either,only my old body is.As a believer,I believe what the Bible says.I will transcend in the blink of an eye.To be abscent of the body is to be in the presence of God.

Three years ago,my sister had the third open heart surgery that could only be done in one of two places.Birmingham,Ala. was one of the places and where she chose.Things didn't go as was planned and she stayed in CCU for 30 days.During this time she went in and out of conscienceness many times.At the last while hooked to a breathing machine and other life support she wrote or scribbled a note to the family.She wrote these words,"I have seen them,beautiful Angels,Moma,Daddy,Ma,and Pa,Lord,bright light".A few days later she went to be with the Lord and the Angels.

You that donot believe,I can only pray that the Lord will lay heavy on your hearts and just maybe you can see the things others have seen and maybe you too will believe.I say again,if we believers are wrong we have lost nothing,if you nonbelievers are wrong you have made a terrible mistake!

Peace be to you!


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

> 256!!!! But even they admitted that this cell would have a very hard time surviving. It would not be able to digest complex compounds, or fine tune other genes..etc. 255 would not work. 200 would not work. Even if the cell was lucky enough to have 100 genes it would be an absolute waste of time since it would vanish. The simplest cell we know of is a bacterium called Mycoplasma and it has 482 genes in its genome. This is the smallest known genome of any free-living organism. For evolution to be true, then that first cell would have had to have been lucky enough to have all those genes all at once.



Could you please post a link to this article? Again, how is the evidence of creationism?  Rather, an attempt to discredit abiogenesis.  How does discrediting evolution or abiogenesis prove creation?  You can not prove creation to be true by attempting to disprove something else.  Can creation not be proven on its own merits?



>



I agree.  I think its funny too.



> Three years ago,my sister had the third open heart surgery that could only be done in one of two places.Birmingham,Ala. was one of the places and where she chose.Things didn't go as was planned and she stayed in CCU for 30 days.During this time she went in and out of conscienceness many times.At the last while hooked to a breathing machine and other life support she wrote or scribbled a note to the family.She wrote these words,"I have seen them,beautiful Angels,Moma,Daddy,Ma,and Pa,Lord,bright light".A few days later she went to be with the Lord and the Angels.



CAL, I am sorry for your loss.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 24, 2005)

obviously I'm making some headway here if you are impressed with the 'minimal 256 genes' example.  That is awesome, huh?  (If you agree that it is astounding then I'll provide the link LOL)  So, you agree that common sense would tell anyone that if that first cell had to have that many genes to reproduce that it would be nothing short of an infinitely-unprobable miracle???     To me, and I'm sure I speak for many, that is as fine an example of evidence for creation as you could ask for.     Scientists come up with theories like "extra-terrestrial seeding" since the origins problem is so insurmountable.    Let's move the problem to space!!!!    

The Mycoplasma bacteria I mentioned.... it has 480+ genes, but even it can't survive without parasitizing other organisms for nutrients that it can't produce itself.    So, scientist have to postulate a more complex first cell....more complex that Mycoplasma....

Bandy


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

> obviously I'm making some headway here if you are impressed with the 'minimal 256 genes' example.



I never said I was impressed.  I'm not. I've heard the arguement before.  You won't tell me anything I haven't heard before.  I asked for the link as it is customary to provide links to your sources.  It usually implies that someone has something to hide when they don't provide their sources.  You  still haven't provided the link.



> If you agree that it is astounding then I'll provide the link LOL



So, you'll only provide the link on the grounds that I'm astounded by your info?  Guess I'll never get that link


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 24, 2005)

I'd be interested in knowing how you could ignore such an incredible orginal  minimal gene set?    To believe that that organism could come from dead material is to believe in something more improbable than the Genesis story!!!  

Common sense.....that's all I'm asking.

http://www.sizes.com/natural/genome.htm   Apparently there is a new smallest genome....amazing what God can pack into something that small!!

Bandy


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

"_The myth of the "life sequence"
Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.

This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism [20]. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins [20]. Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still [4], and preceded by even simpler chemical systems [3, 10, 11, 15].

As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

The "life sequence" is a myth_."

The numbers in brackets are links to the references at the bottom of the page.

For further reading regarding the minimum number of genomes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Which (the above article)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/19/10268
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854

Your conclusions are based on incorrect assumptions.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 24, 2005)

_ However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins [20]. Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still [4], and preceded by even simpler chemical systems _


Amazing....they state that the minimal set is 256, but somehow even these were preceded by simpler chemical systems!!!!     They say they "would have been smaller still..."    These simpler chemical systems, without intelligence or purpose, would continue to improve on themselves!!!   They state that they would  have been smaller because THAT IS THEIR ONLY CHOICE IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!!!!    Can't you see what they are doing?    They know that no organism could have just lucked into 256 genes, so IT HAD TO HAVE HAD SIMPLER SYSTEMS ALONG THE WAY!!!

I've noticed that there are many viewers of this thread out there that have refrained from commenting.    I'd be interested in knowing if there are viewers out there that think that that first cell just came along from "simpler chemical systems", or was it created?      

Bandy


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

Bandy, read the links I posted at the bottom of the page- that's why I put them there.  The excerpt above  simply made a statement about the minimum # of genes, then provided links below to expound on those statements.  Your misunderstanding is based on the fact that the minimum # of needed genes is based on a "modern organism".   And, considerations for RNA/DNA are ignored.
Read the links. Its all there if you take the time to read AND understand it.



> THAT IS THEIR ONLY CHOICE IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!!!!



Wrong yet again.  You are speaking about abiogenesis.  How life began has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not.  As creationist do, you are mixing and redefining scientific terms in order to support your arguments.


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

> >>>that first cell just came along from "simpler chemical systems", or was it created?



Could you please post your theory on creation and any supporting evidence?
You continue to try and disprove evolution as if doing so would some how prove creation.   Disproving evolution does not default to proving creation.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 24, 2005)

I've noticed that there are many viewers of this thread out there that have refrained from commenting.    I'd be interested in knowing if there are viewers out there that think that that first cell just came along from "simpler chemical systems", or was it created?      

Bandy[/QUOTE]

I believe the first cell was far to complicated to have just happened. 

If evolution is true, micro or macro, than it should not be hard for scientist to show info being added to the dna code in (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) at least a few animals alive today. The fact of the matter is no info has ever been witnessed being added except in a controled lab by scientist. THAT IS A FACT YOU CAN"T EXPLAIN AWAY. 

I have been to all the evolutionists sites and read all the material and it is so full of holes it's not even funny. I can type the name of any named fossil that evolutionists try to pass off as a transitional fossil in any search engine and find just as many scientists that give reasons it's not a transitional fossil. In other words, there is not one single fossil that is undebated as a transitional fossil by all scientist. That seems totally unbelievable giving the amount of evidence evolutionists try to say we have.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 24, 2005)

Madsnooker,

I can't believe that you've been to ALL of the evolutionists sites!!!    

RT,

I agree with you on the one point; the origin of that first cell and evolution are two different things, but evolution starts with a cell miraculously forming.   Much easier to have man evolve from a bacteria than for life to come from death.

Bandy


----------



## Randy (Jun 24, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in knowing if there are viewers out there that think that that first cell just came along from "simpler chemical systems", or was it created?


That is where I agree with the "typical christians."  God created that one cell in the begining.  Heck he started the BIG BANG!


----------



## JBowers (Jun 24, 2005)

How the first cell came about or what someone may believe about how that first cell came about is irrelevant to evolution.  Nor does it disprove evolution or prove creation.

The obvious alludes most.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 24, 2005)

JB, 

Just curious about your thoughts on the fact that no info has ever been proven to have been added to the DNA code of any living creature except in a controled environment with lab coats(scientists).

Yes, I agree that just by proving evolution false doesn't prove creation, but,  since there is a bible that appears to be inspired and it says God created us and after realizing that evolution is practically impossible than I reside on the side of creation. And no, not creation thru evolution. Becuase to believe that than you can't believe the Bible. Why, becuase evolution, if true, comes thru death, but the bible says there was no death until after the fall of Man in the garden. If that is true than Man could not have evolved from a single cell pure and simple.  



Rarity of Transitional Forms       
   "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.… 
     Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." 

 Professor Stephen Jay Gould,
The Panda's Thumb 

Just thought I would add a great quote from a staunch evolutionists just for free.


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
> Professor Stephen Jay Gould



Well, its obvious your getting your information from creationist websites.  One of their favorite tactics is to use out of context quotes in order to change their meaning.  May be you should take the time to read Gould's works to know what he really believes.  I assure you it isn't what you are trying to project here.

This all boils down to what your religious beliefs are- as admitted by madsnooker.  As a fundamentalist christian, you believe the bible is to be taken literally.  Thus, you have a vested interest to believe in a literal creation as outlined in Genesis.  To not believe so would mean you question God's word, which means you lack faith, which means possible ****ation.
So, regardless of what evidence is presented to you, you will continue to hang on to your belief in the genesis creation- your belief system demands it.


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

> That is where I agree with the "typical christians." God created that one cell in the begining. Heck he started the BIG BANG!



Possible.


----------



## RThomas (Jun 24, 2005)

> I can't believe that you've been to ALL of the evolutionists sites!!!



I think we've finally found something we can agree on!


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 24, 2005)

RThomas said:
			
		

> Well, its obvious your getting your information from creationist websites.  One of their favorite tactics is to use out of context quotes in order to change their meaning.  Sad really.  May be you should take the time to read Gould's works to know what he really believes.  I assure you it isn't what you are trying to project here.
> 
> This all boils down to what your religious beliefs are- as admitted by madsnooker.  As a fundamentalist christian, you believe the bible is to be taken literally.  Thus, you have a vested interest to believe in a literal creation as outlined in Genesis.  To not believe so would mean you question God's word, which means you lack faith, which means possible ****ation.
> So, regardless of what evidence is presented to you, you will continue to hang on to your belief in the genesis creation- your belief system demands it.



So he didn't mean what he said. If not please fill me in on what he meant. 

Also, it was written that death came AFTER Mans fall in the garden. You can take that litteral or not. That won't change the meaning. If death came the minute after or 1 million years after it was still AFTER. If that is true than you can't believe creation thru evolution. It's up to you to believe it or not.


----------



## PWalls (Jun 24, 2005)

Randy said:
			
		

> That is where I agree with the "typical christians."  God created that one cell in the begining.  Heck he started the BIG BANG!



Actually, the "typical" Christians still believe in a literal translation of the Bible. Big bang and such denies a literal translation and has only become prevelant in the last 100 years or so.

I have in the past believed in a God inspired/created "Big Bang". However, my studies and prayer lately have made me realize that if I trust his Word in one part of the Bible that I should trust it in other parts of the Bible as well.

I don't believe either of those positions (old earth or new earth) will keep a Christian out of Heaven. The truth will be made known at that time. I can wait until then.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 24, 2005)

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> _
> 
> 
> Amazing....they state that the minimal set is 256, but somehow even these were preceded by simpler chemical systems!!!!     They say they "would have been smaller still..."    These simpler chemical systems, without intelligence or purpose, would continue to improve on themselves!!!   They state that they would  have been smaller because THAT IS THEIR ONLY CHOICE IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!!!!    Can't you see what they are doing?    They know that no organism could have just lucked into 256 genes, so IT HAD TO HAVE HAD SIMPLER SYSTEMS ALONG THE WAY!!!
> ...


_



 do you guys think scientist are just out to prove creationism wrong?? there are no alterior motives to scientific research!!  science is about learning more about our universe, not trying to disprove religious beliefs. it's the christians that are desperate to disprove scientific ideas that go against their religious beliefs. i don't believe in creation for the same reasons i don't believe in santa clause and the tooth fairy._


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 27, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> do you guys think scientist are just out to prove creationism wrong?? there are no alterior motives to scientific research!!  science is about learning more about our universe, not trying to disprove religious beliefs. it's the christians that are desperate to disprove scientific ideas that go against their religious beliefs. i don't believe in creation for the same reasons i don't believe in santa clause and the tooth fairy.



No, I don't think most try to prove creationism wrong but the more they learn the more they realize something other than random blind luck would be needed for evolution (simple cell created and then evolving into man) but they will still refuse to even consider creation as this is not an option in their mind.


----------



## JBowers (Jun 27, 2005)

> JB,
> 
> Just curious about your thoughts on the fact that no info has ever been proven to have been added to the DNA code of any living creature except in a controled environment with lab coats(scientists).


Not sure exactly what you mean, but I believe an additional chromosome would be an addition. This occurs in humans, outside the lab. Anyway, not sure this matters relative to this discussion.



> Yes, I agree that just by proving evolution false doesn't prove creation, but, since there is a bible that appears to be inspired and it says God created us and after realizing that evolution is practically impossible than I reside on the side of creation. And no, not creation thru evolution. Becuase to believe that than you can't believe the Bible. Why, becuase evolution, if true, comes thru death, but the bible says there was no death until after the fall of Man in the garden. If that is true than Man could not have evolved from a single cell pure and simple.


So, I assume that you believe that YOU, unlike the rest of humans, were not biologically created from the union of one egg and one sperm into a SINGLE cell, which then EVOLVED into many cells, which thereby stratified themsleves into the multi-cellular systems required to sustain life, etc., etc. All of this dictated by chromosomes and the genetic code within. Of course, additions to the chromosomes results in "abnormalities" as do deletions (although usually these generally result in lethality).

On the other hand, I could reject it all and confine my mind to nothing more than what Man's written Bible tells me (i.e. the same mankind who is inflicted with and affected by the sin that his predecessors introduced to our earthly realm, but for some reason(s) those few men seem to be immune to the same inherent flaws that the rest of us are infected with), but from religious beliefs this would be denying the gift that God has bestowed in me.

My thoughts and views on this have previously been divulged. Those that are interested can find them.



> Becuase to believe that than you can't believe the Bible.


That says it all! And reiterates why sharing my thoughts on this are pointless.



> Why, becuase evolution, if true, comes thru death, but the bible says there was no death until after the fall of Man in the garden. If that is true than Man could not have evolved from a single cell pure and simple.


Of course, thus there would be no need for Man to "replenish" the Earth as stated BY GOD in Genesis.


----------



## RThomas (Jun 27, 2005)

> So he didn't mean what he said. If not please fill me in on what he meant.



"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, *it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know* -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups." 
From S.J. Gould, "Evolution as fact and theory", in Science And Creationism, Ed.: A. Montagu, 1984.

And, also from http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq/_sjg.html :
The two sentences given in the SciCre quote stem from sentences in the opposite order in the essay.  The first in the essay is:

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Note that the SciCre quote omitted without ellipses the clause beginning with "have data" and ending at "; the rest is", along the way substituting a bridge that was never penned by Gould.  This distorted the entire meaning of Gould's sentence, giving the impression that no part of the
evolutionary trees was based on actual data, which is unequivocally a lie.

For the second sentence, the mechanics of quotation are almost accurate, but the context has been neatly excised:

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess
to study."

So what was Darwin's argument referred to in the slightly restored context?  Merely that natural selection had to progress by extremely small differences spread over long periods of time.  While Gould avers that this is not seen in the fossil record, it is probably more accurate to say that the recording of Darwinian gradual change is rare in the fossil record (Cuffey 1973).  Gould, of course, is promoting
the theory of evolutionary change which Niles Eldredge and he forwarded in the early 1970's, that of punctuated equilibria.  Later in the essay he makes clear that punctuated equilibria is supported by the pattern of change that is recorded, by and large, in the fossil record.  Thus, the characterization that our SciCre quoter wished to foster was based upon a critical act of editing, and is definitely not supported by reading Gould for content.

So what is the score on our SciCre quoter?  In two "quoted" sentences, he managed to 1) lose critical context setting up a propensity of the remainder to mislead; 2) transposed the two sentences so as to 
further the propensity to mislead; 3) dropped text from the second sentence without ellipses; and 4) added text without comment to the second sentence in what can only be seen as a deliberate lie (at least, I don't see any other way of looking at it).


----------



## RThomas (Jun 27, 2005)

And, Gould's own take on the subject:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 27, 2005)

the only way they can try to disprove the truth is to twist facts.


----------



## dutchman (Jun 27, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> the only way they can try to disprove the truth is to twist facts.



Jay, to find The Truth, I would direct you to the Holy Bible. Good luck and may God bless you.


----------



## sgsjr (Jun 28, 2005)

Oh well, this solved a lot!

Blindly follow, dont question. Nothing got lost in translation.  In my life, the people who have deceived me most, hid behind the bible.  My guard goes to the max when someone fits this realm.  And lets not start a discussion on the "god bless you" phrase.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 28, 2005)

[/QUOTE] 


> So, I assume that you believe that YOU, unlike the rest of humans, were not biologically created from the union of one egg and one sperm into a SINGLE cell, which then EVOLVED into many cells, which thereby stratified themsleves into the multi-cellular systems required to sustain life, etc., etc. All of this dictated by chromosomes and the genetic code within. Of course, additions to the chromosomes results in "abnormalities" as do deletions (although usually these generally result in lethality).


 
Your assumption is wrong as I believe I was created just as you. You also hit the nail on the head when you correctly stated "All of this dictated by chromosomes and the genetic code within."

I guess I was also wrong in assuming that you would know what I meant when I said "If that is true than Man could not have evolved from a single cell pure and simple." And since you didn't I will help you. I was refering to the First cell that supposedly came from the big bang or whatever your hypothesis is and then evolved into man. This is much different than the single cell that started in my Mothers womb which, as you stated, had the complete genetic code for my survival. I'm going to step out on a brittle limb and assume you did actually know this originally.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jun 28, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> the only way they can try to disprove the truth is to twist facts.



And what FACTS are being twisted? 

And who is "they"?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jun 28, 2005)

"Punctuated equilibrium".        I wonder why they come up with a theory like that?    (lack of transitional fossils maybe?)     There should be millions of transitional fossils, not just a questionable few.    

Name modern species that are transitional?

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

Bandy


----------



## dutchman (Jun 28, 2005)

sgsjr said:
			
		

> Oh well, this solved a lot!
> 
> Blindly follow, dont question. Nothing got lost in translation.  In my life, the people who have deceived me most, hid behind the bible.  My guard goes to the max when someone fits this realm.  And lets not start a discussion on the "god bless you" phrase.



Who's hiding?


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 28, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> And what FACTS are being twisted?
> 
> And who is "they"?





 i think rthomas layed it out pretty thoroughly.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 28, 2005)

dutchman said:
			
		

> Jay, to find The Truth, I would direct you to the Holy Bible. Good luck and may God bless you.




that's funny! a needed a good laugh.


----------



## Throwback (Jun 28, 2005)

God said it. 
I believe it. 
That settles it. 



Next thread. 


T


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jun 28, 2005)

I unsubscribed to this thread pages ago but it was all too familiar but I just noticed the amount of responses!    
Can I ask a question?  For those that believe in Creationism due to biblical convictions, I understand your 'need' to convince others you are correct.  I assume you feel you are doing them a service and potentially showing them the light.  Fair enough.  But for those of you who don't believe in Creationism, what is your motivation to try and convince Creationist they are wrong?  Why does this topic get you (collectively) so exasperated?  
For the record, I believe in Evolution.  I could care less how literal a Creationist belief someone has.  For all I know, they might be 100% correct and I might be wrong.  I can understand they might feel a need to 'correct' me, but I sure don't feel a need to 'correct' them.  
Very odd emotions around this topic...
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## dutchman (Jun 28, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> that's funny! a needed a good laugh.



Sorry you feel that way.


----------



## dutchman (Jun 28, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> I unsubscribed to this thread pages ago but it was all too familiar but I just noticed the amount of responses!
> Can I ask a question?  For those that believe in Creationism due to biblical convictions, I understand your 'need' to convince others you are correct.  I assume you feel you are doing them a service and potentially showing them the light.  Fair enough.  But for those of you who don't believe in Creationism, what is your motivation to try and convince Creationist they are wrong?  Why does this topic get you (collectively) so exasperated?
> For the record, I believe in Evolution.  I could care less how literal a Creationist belief someone has.  For all I know, they might be 100% correct and I might be wrong.  I can understand they might feel a need to 'correct' me, but I sure don't feel a need to 'correct' them.
> Very odd emotions around this topic...
> ...



I feel no need to correct you or anyone else. I wouldn't be able to convince you (or them) if I tried. I lack the ability and quite probably the desire. But God doesn't...


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 28, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> I unsubscribed to this thread pages ago but it was all too familiar but I just noticed the amount of responses!
> Can I ask a question?  For those that believe in Creationism due to biblical convictions, I understand your 'need' to convince others you are correct.  I assume you feel you are doing them a service and potentially showing them the light.  Fair enough.  But for those of you who don't believe in Creationism, what is your motivation to try and convince Creationist they are wrong?  Why does this topic get you (collectively) so exasperated?
> For the record, I believe in Evolution.  I could care less how literal a Creationist belief someone has.  For all I know, they might be 100% correct and I might be wrong.  I can understand they might feel a need to 'correct' me, but I sure don't feel a need to 'correct' them.
> Very odd emotions around this topic...
> ...



 you make a good point phil. i hate to admit. that's a hard question to answer.


----------



## leroy (Jun 28, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> you make a good point phil. i hate to admit. that's a hard question to answer. it's like telling a lie. i just get mad when people spread lies.




How arogant can one man be how do you know its lies can you give one shread of evidence that totally disproves creationism. As I said before it takes as much faith to believe evolution as it does to believe creationism!!!!!!!!


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jun 28, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> you make a good point phil. i hate to admit. that's a hard question to answer. it's like telling a lie. i just get mad when people spread lies.


Jay,
I hope the implication is not that everyone who believes in Creationism is lying?  I seriously doubt anyone (though I admitedly made no attempt to read every single post) here, hopefully on either side, is lying.  One side by most people's definition is incorrect, but that doesn't make them liars.  With all do respect, and remember, I believe in evolution, let it go.   You are trying to convince someone to NOT belief in a core religious belief.  If it was possible (which I seriously doubt) WHY would you want to do it anyway?  I think Creationist try and convince others of their belief out of genuine concern for their fellow man.  For that, I'm actually appreciative, regardless of our differences of opinion.  I think (at least some) Evolutionist try and convince others of their belief to help bolster their own.  I have no need to do that.  My belief in the origins of man and the development of speicies have absolutely ZERO effect on anyone but me.  We are were we are today REGARDLESS of how we got here.  It's what we do today and where we go tomorrow that have some relevance in this world (even if that's all you believe in) and the next (if you believe in that).   
This thread (just like all the exact same ones that preceeded it) has over 100 replies and if ANYONE has changed their minds, please let us know so the recruiting can continue.  Perhaps some have strengthened their own positions and maybe that alone makes it worth while.  I don't know, but the 'debate' does not seem to be a 'debate'.  It's simply an endless statement of beliefs by both sides.  
Sorry but if something constructive is happening (and again maybe it has been) good.  I just see a lot of DEstructive conversation.   Just trying to figure out the point....
Sorry if I got anyone's nose out of joint.  I guess I should have stayed unsubscribed.  But the joint appeared to be jumpin'....    
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 28, 2005)

you're right phil. LIE is a strong word. i've deleated that part of my post. i just know it's not true. all this talk about religion just gets me really worked up. i'm almost ready to just quit comin to this forum all together. i'm spending way to much time on here anyway. i just don't see how people can believe that stuff.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 28, 2005)

leroy said:
			
		

> How arogant can one man be how do you know its lies can you give one shread of evidence that totally disproves creationism. As I said before it takes as much faith to believe evolution as it does to believe creationism!!!!!!!!




 it takes a lot more faith to believe in creation. it's like believing in fairytales, or ghosts, or santa clause, it's very far fetched. i think it's arogant of christians to believe the earth is made just for us humans, and we are the only creatures on earth that are going to this perfect make believe place when we die. that seams arogant to me. i'm done with this place. see ya'll in fairy tale land!!


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jun 28, 2005)

*Deep breath brother....*



			
				jay sullivent said:
			
		

> you're right phil. LIE is a strong word. i've deleated that part of my post. i just know it's not true. all this talk about religion just gets me really worked up. i'm almost ready to just quit comin to this forum all together. i'm spending way to much time on here anyway. i just don't see how people can believe that stuff.


Jay,
If it really bothers you so that it becomes not fun, remember this IS the spiritual forum.  It was started SPECIFICALLY to avoid this kind of confrontation for those that JUST want to discuss hunting.  Matter of fact, I was one of the guys who requested it becaue I had LOTS I wanted to discuss and felt there was no need to have such a specific and sensitive topic in the general forum.  Same reasoning I'm sure with the political forum (though I think that pre-existed my membership).  Though I wish everyone would visit here, regardless of their beliefs, because I genuinely would hope it would do everyone some good, perhaps it is not for some people.  There are TONS of boards on this forum.  Take a break from this one board for a while.  There's lots of fish to be caught in the fishing forum.  Maybe you're just not ready to be caught here yet.  You know, some fish never get caught.  Doesn't mean the fishermen stop fishing for him does it?   
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## leroy (Jun 29, 2005)

ASheperd said:
			
		

> How old are you?  What year did he say it? What language was it spoken in?
> 
> Objection, hearsay!  Questions withdrawn.





??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 29, 2005)

leroy said:
			
		

> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????





 well? where's your answer?? i don't believe god was ever quoted in the bible.


----------



## dutchman (Jun 30, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> i don't believe god was ever quoted in the bible.



Sure He was. The Old Testament is filled with references of God's speaking with people. And the Gospels are likewise filled with the words of Jesus, who is believed by Christian people to be God incarnate. But I'm sure you are aware of all of this.


----------



## leroy (Jun 30, 2005)

The Bible IS Gods words!!!!!!


----------



## leroy (Jun 30, 2005)

Some on here talk about how ignorant creationist are to evolution theories I think it swings both ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 30, 2005)

dutchman said:
			
		

> Sure He was. The Old Testament is filled with references of God's speaking with people. And the Gospels are likewise filled with the words of Jesus, who is believed by Christian people to be God incarnate. But I'm sure you are aware of all of this.




i did not know he was qoted, actually speaking words. could you give me an example? i am just curious.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 30, 2005)

you're saying every word in the bible are words that god actually spoke?? the gospel according to john was written by god? or did god speak it and john just wrote it down? i know religious folk say the bible is the word of god but they don't mean this literally do they? (these are rhetorical questions by the way). i have a basic knowledge of the bible. i would not choose not to believe something that i know nothing about. i went to church and sunday school most of my childhood and lived at a christian group home for two years during my teenage years where we studied and learned about god jesus and the bible seven days a week. it's been a long time but i still remember a lot.


----------



## dutchman (Jun 30, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> i did not know he was qoted, actually speaking words. could you give me an example? i am just curious.



Just open The Bible up and begin reading anywhere. You'll run up on something the God said pretty quick. Just start anywhere.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 30, 2005)

i don't even own a bible. scared to touch one cause i might burst into flames.  





 just kidding.


 actually i wanted you to give me an example so i could rebut, dispute or debate it. not sure which word is the one i'm looking for but it's got to be one of the three.


----------



## dutchman (Jun 30, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> i don't even own a bible. scared to touch one cause i might burst into flames.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jay, I personally believe that every word in the Bible is "God breathed." I'm sure that since you spent you youth in Sunday School and church, you already know about this concept. I'm not trying to give you a short, smart answer. But that's what I believe. 

Also, I believe that whenever we read about God speaking to someone, like one of the prophets for example, that God actually spoke to them. When He spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai is another good example. I believe that Moses heard an audible voice. That's why I say that you can pick up the Bible and start reading virtually anywhere and you can see what I feel are quotes, even though they may not have "" around the words.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 30, 2005)

if one says that god spoke to them today they would be called insane by most. when people say god spoke to them these days they are referring to guidence given to them during prayer or meditation.  but who is to say that god gave it to them or they just came up with it on their own subconsciensely? it's funny that god spoke to people with actual words back then but not now. it's things like that (claims that god spoke with actual words) that makes the bible hard to swallow for me. i just don't buy it.  it's just a little far fetched.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jun 30, 2005)

Jay,
There are several examples of people actually hearing an audible voice of God.  Some times they even comment on the 'tone' etc... "It sounded like thunder..." etc....
"God said, 'Let there be light'."  Yes there are the "God spoke to so and so in a dream" references as well but I'm sure that is not what you are talking about.  Many folks here are much better at quoting chapter and verse but if you really want examples I suppose I can go hunt some up for you.  Do you really not own a bible?  I know you don't believe it's contents but if nothing else, it is the world's best selling book and might be of some historical interest.  
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 30, 2005)

i'm sure people believed things like that back 2000 years ago, but no one would believe that god literally spoke to them in these modern times. i don't believe it ever truely happened. if it did back then, then why doesn't it happen today??


----------



## dutchman (Jun 30, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> if one says that god spoke to them today they would be called insane by most. when people say god spoke to them these days they are referring to guidence given to them during prayer or meditation.  but who is to say that god gave it to them or they just came up with it on their own subconsciensely? it's funny that god spoke to people with actual words back then but not now. it's things like that (claims that god spoke with actual words) that makes the bible hard to swallow for me. i just don't buy it.  it's just a little far fetched.



I don't believe things just happen by random chance. When a person believes that God has spoken to them during prayer, meditation, or while reading the Bible, I choose to think that God has actually spoken to them in a way that we do may not fully understand. But He has spoken, none the less.

I do believe that many of the people that we read about in the Bible did hear the audible voice of God.

I also think that if God wanted to, He would speak to people in an audible voice today. Of course, most people who had such an experience would very likely pass it off as their own imagination. God knows that. So He chooses to speak to most of us in more subtle ways. The still, small voice.

To have it make a little more sense, Jay, how would you like for your significant other to speak to you? In a shout (like thunder) or a whisper? Me, I'll take her whisper every time. It's those whispers that I'll remember. The shouting passes out as quickly as it came in.

Maybe that's how God works, too.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jun 30, 2005)

i understand that and have heard that before. i just don't believe it. my god doesn't speak. he's not a ghost has no language and is not even a he or she for that matter. to me god is nature , the forces of nature, and our universe, of which we are a very tiny part of. god is infinty according to your beliefs and mine, but you believe the us and the eath are only 6000 years old or so. so what was going on all that time before the earth was created? there were no heavens or earth so there was just god and a huge void? it doesn't make since. we're just specs of dust in a much more vast universe than we can ever imagine. i don't understand why others can't see this.


----------



## leroy (Jun 30, 2005)

[ i don't understand why others can't see this.[/QUOTE]


We say the same about you Jay!!


----------



## leroy (Jul 1, 2005)

ASheperd said:
			
		

> written by less than perfect men.



Yor exactly right I want argue that one!!! But none the less they are Gods words


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jul 1, 2005)

How do you guys feel when animal rights folks come to a hunting website to 'prove you wrong' about hunting?  How do you feel if they come and ask questions and appear to be genuienly wanting to understand (granted, rare)? Just curious...    

Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## dutchman (Jul 1, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> How do you guys feel when animal rights folks come to a hunting website to 'prove you wrong' about hunting?  How do you feel if they come and ask questions and appear to be genuienly wanting to understand (granted, rare)? Just curious...
> 
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



It is not my intent to prove anyone wrong or myself right, especially in theological discussions. My intent in this particular discussion has been to make an attempt to explain the basis for my belief. 

But, to answer your question, I am amused when the PETA crowd rolls in from time to time. But I don't get angry, unless people resort to name calling, which would never happen here, right?


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jul 1, 2005)

dutchman said:
			
		

> It is not my intent to prove anyone wrong or myself right in theological discussions. My intent in this particular discussion has been to make an attempt to explain the basis for my belief.
> 
> But, to answer your question, I am amused when the PETA crowd rolls in from time to time. But I don't get angry, unless people resort to name calling, which would never happen here, right?


You are a hunter in my analogy.  
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## dutchman (Jul 1, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> You are a hunter in my analogy.
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



Yeah, and?


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jul 1, 2005)

dutchman said:
			
		

> Yeah, and?


It was NOT directed at you.  
As I said in an earlier post, and was just trying to draw maybe a relevant analogy, I don't understand why non-religious people go to a religious site to try and convince the faithful they are wrong.  
Maybe I'm reading too much into a few Evolutionist's (of which I'm one) posts.  
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## dutchman (Jul 1, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> It was NOT directed at you.
> As I said in an earlier post, and was just trying to draw maybe a relevant analogy, I don't understand why non-religious people go to a religious site to try and convince the faithful they are wrong.
> Maybe I'm reading too much into a few Evolutionist's (of which I'm one) posts.
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



10-4. I see whatcha mean.


----------



## jay sullivent (Jul 1, 2005)

ASheperd said:
			
		

> We all hear adubile voices, particularly when contemplating right and wrong.





 i hope you are kidding. there is a word for that, it's called schytsophrenia (excuse my bad spelling). i wouldn't tell many people that you hear voices.


----------



## leroy (Jul 1, 2005)

jay sullivent said:
			
		

> i hope you are kidding. there is a word for that, it's called schytsophrenia (excuse my bad spelling). i wouldn't tell many people that you hear voices.




I call it the Holy Spirit!! And I'm proud to hear it!!


----------

