Evolution or Creation

Bane, Math is the science and religion of the universe...simply because it is pure. It is the purest form of expression that there is. There is no other answer for..2+2 besides 4!

 

I see any human thing as fallible. Our calculations are included, as is our Literature (ie, The Bible). The hand of man corrupts unintentionally.

 

here's a question:
how would the discovery of extra terrestrial life affect this discussion?

 

Bane, that is the reason that Creationism holds water for me. If there was a God who created mathematics, and mathematics is not something invented by man, but inherently true throughout nature and the rest of the universe, it can be pure and incorrupt. The same applies to the Bible. I believe that God inspired the Bible to human authors, therefore it can be incorrupt as well. Men can twist it and corrupt it in their interpretations of it, but the text as it originally is, as I believe, infallible. I believe there are certain laws, such as mathematics, physics, and the moral Law of the Bible which trancend mankind and manmade laws, and are universal.

 

"If the second law of thermodynamics is correct, everything in the univers as a whole had to have been more complex at the beginning then it is now. I don't see how a "big bang" fits this requirement."

*sigh*

Please DO NOT bring the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic argument up again. It has been proven that you are wrong, and it isn't furthering your cause by dredging up the same wrong argument time and time again.

Go here and don't bring it up again!

 

Galadriel has said watch your tone and now I am saying it. Someone new to a conversation may not know what has been discussed.

There is no reason to post as though highly annoyed by a simple mistake.

 

I have read that already, and I do not see how that contradicts what I said. I said as a WHOLE it must have been more complex in the beginning. How is this wrong?

 

Lets put it this way, Elfstar, if your arguments were correct, that evolution does indeed violate the second law, then so would life itself. So would, for that matter, star formation. All are systems that, with the input of energy, move from a disordered to a more orderly state. Obviously, life exists. Obviously stars exist. The argument is invalid.

 

1.) People that don't believe in science are NOT naive. Science has been wrong as much as religion. Especially since science was made by PEOPLE. Just look at the genome fiasco to see my point.
2.) The earth is older than 6000 years. Hell, we have records of people from older than that.
3.) I suggest you all look up the 5 Proofs of God. Even if you don't agree with them, some of us do.
4.) Stop clumping crackpots with the rest of us primitive religious savages.
5.) All the reasons I've heard for Creationism are faulty.
6.) Calling Science your god is REALLY bad. REALLY. Get help. Now.
7.) Do admins have nothing better to do than get us going at eachothers throats?

 

No we don't. Now dance for me.

Continuing though, I must point out that young earth creationists are not wrong or naive; what if the first few days of those years were millions of years long to us, but a day to God and since he dictated the Bible, he would say day, we think 24 hrs, yadda yadda yadda, we have some confusion.

 

Well, by definition, a young earth creationist believes that God's days are the same length as human days. Old earth creationists are the ones who argue that a day lasts millions of years for God.

 

"Calling Science your god is REALLY bad. REALLY. Get help. Now. "

Please show where someone has stated that science is their god.

 

I never said it was someone here.
Just figured it was really bad. I like to call it an 'intervention'

 

Elfstar is completely right. Evolution is a improveable theory. The Bible has been accused of being inaccurate because it was passed through the hands of so many people. If you look at the surviving texts of the Bible you will find that there are several thousand copys preserved from ancient times. These texts do not contradict each other in any way. If you look at the Iliad yous find that there are less than 30 surviving copys from ancient times. The fact that so many copys survived and that they don't contradict each other is incredible. This proves that the Jewish people held the Bible in high esteem while the Greeks cared greatly for their classics. The Greeks evidently held their classic myths in high esteem but their cares where nothing compared to the Jewish care for the Bible. Thousands of Jewish peoples sole purpose in life was to keep the Bible in its purest form. They spent days copying it letter by letter to achieve this goal. The way in which Genisis 1 is written is incredible for the time period in which it was written. It carefuly connects every action and word in ways which prove the its purity. The sophistication of the Bibles writing is such that it could not have been written by a mindless ape. The Bible unlike other holy books was not written by learned men alone. Its authors include fishermen, storytellers, bankers, priests, scholars, doctors, warriors, sheepherders, prophets, as well as God himself. Many other religions where only written by learned men who eventually won a following of common people. Other holy books such as the Koran, etc... where written after the Bible. SOme parts of the Bible must be taken figuratively. Genisis 1 is NOT one of those scriptures. I think I've covered why the Bible is true and if your interested further read The Genisis Record, The Case for Christ, and Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

 

Genesis also talks about giants on earth. Explain that

 

Okay, I don't want to get personal here, because everyone has the right to their beliefs... it's just trying to convert others that is wrong. In that vein, and the fact that free speech is a very important right, I feel like should share some of my thoughts on this subject. I'm not saying that I am absolutely right, or those that disagree with me are wrong. There is no one right way to live.

everything in the univers as a whole had to have been more complex at the beginning then it is now. I don't see how a "big bang" fits this requirement

Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal does not require a Big Bang... it was in 1981 that he first entertained "the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation". The theory predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth.

According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal.

Also of interest is the universe hasn't proceeded the way a Big Bang would suggest... expansion has actually accelerated as the cosmos has gotten older. Try and wrap your mind around the implications of that...


Someone earlier in the thread wanted evidence that it was impossible for the earth to be 6000 years old, so I compiled some observations that are quite fascinating:


* The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 millennia.

* Some bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 2000 BCE. One, labeled "Methuselah" germinated in 2726 BCE, centuries before the date that conservative Christians assign to the Noahic flood. But their tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees; this shows that the latter germinated about 6000 BCE, which predates the year 4004 BCE by 2 millennia.

* In the Green River there are varves (millions of annual layers of sediment) laid down over the past 20 million years.

* During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 millennia made by many creation scientists.

* Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice.

* The Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a method of me

 

Unfortuantely Bithysith, your "proofs" are baseless. Science isn't made to go beyond its boundaries. Earth is all that we have experienced. We don't even know half about where we live. So we take laws that "work' on Earth and try and classify things that we don't know of with that theory. We base our conclusions on telescopes and intruments that enable us to see something outside of Earth. We watch. We draw conclusions from our observations. Unfortunately, everytime we try and put our observations into a theory that coincides with our experiences on Earth, we later find that it was utterly wrong. We haven't experienced any other place besides Earth and since Earth is only one of many, many other planets we cannot take our scientific theorys seriously. We have lived on Earth for thousands of years and we still don't know all there is to know about it. And we have no idea what truly lies beyond our own solar system. Your conclusions are based on faulty observations which are foolish. We will never completely understand the universe. Our knowledge is incredibly limited. And personally I don't know what sustains evolutionists. According to their scientific conclusions we will all perish from existence once the Earth decays. What is the point of our existence? Its a pointless existence. Many will say that we need to work to better life for our fellow man. But humanity is naturally evil and will eventually kill itself. Weapons of mass destruction develope faster than defense does. So you may say that our religious beliefs are foolish but at least we have hope for tomorrow. And since it has not been proven, I'm sticking with the beliefs that give me hope. And if your correct that we're an accident then I don't see any harm in us believing what we want to believe. At least we will find some joy in life. But of course thats assuming that your correct. Which obviously your not.

 

Well put Master Ben.

 

bithysith, you rule!

 

I was diplomatic in my last post... I never claimed what I shared to be "proof", but rather "observations".

It's interesting how all of these rigorously tested conceptions just happen to point to an ancient cosmos... kind of a coincidence, don't you think? (How can your faith in a higher being be shaken by this idea? It strengthens my hope and awe for something greater than myself.)
As I said, believe whatever you want... it's not my place to judge. But don't go making sweeping statements or insult other's ideas.

 

Locking up. Can't say there was no warning, guys.

 

I'm re-opening because it's a good conversation, and two days is enough of a lock.

 

Let's put it this way:

There IS proof that humans evolved from primitive beings.

There is NO proof that men were made of dirt and women were made from ribs. It makes NO SENSE!

 

That is extremely hypocritical, Han. Being descended from a ape is not better than our theorys. In fact if our corpses eventually BECOME earth then its not stupid to think that we were made from earth. Archeology has uncovered more proof for the Bible's truth than evolution or any other religion. Here are a few holes within the evolutionary process:

1. If we descended from apes then why haven't other apes become humans?

2. If apes were evolving at an extremely slow rate, then how did they live long enough to evolve succesfully.

3. All evolutionary artifacts have either been proven to be a stupid mistake or a unproveable finding. How then can we trust the processes that scientists use to "prove" theorys?

4. If we came from some cells in the ocean, then do we not find some of these cells today? If they've all evolved then why haven't apes?

5. Take the mammoth for example: We know that it existed. Elephants supposedly evolved from them. Why haven't the elephants grown as intelligent as ourselves? Why do they not build buildings and create computers? Their race has probably "evolved" as much as we've supposed to. Why not?

 

oh boy. I won't even bother.

BTW elephants were around when the mammoths were and yes there still are cells in the ocean.