Evolution vs. Creation- serious discussion only please

Post Reply New Topic

Tony: So you want to counter argue intelligent design.
Well you can't. You see, you are living in an artificial reality.

Physics says: Solid matter is an illusion, and so then would food, waste, "living flesh/Matter", taste, smells, etc.
Review atomic theory: Matter is the electro-magnetic field cloud of the electron spinning in the atom. Different atomic numbers and you get different elements (atoms).

Life is an illusion too. Running on DNA programming and molecular machinery - you are more machine then "living".

There are hundreds of examples of these illusions in the so-called "natural world". All are examples of artificial designs - crafted to pass as if natural.


Anything artificial - is basically said to be un-producible by "nature". Examples are houses, cars, tools, machines, etc.
(1) Is "Life" really "living, or is it just technological bio-engineering on a level that man is fooled into thinking he is still truly "a living creature".

(2) If all the birds and trees, every "living thing" are just "artificial life forms" masquerading as if living, as if naturally occurring.
Then where does this leave Blind Evolution and lucky selects?
Where does creationism go from here?

(3) If there are no truly "living creatures called man" - just bio-technology theme parks illustrating the best of what intelligent design could do. Where does this leave us little people at?

the veterinarian that takes care of my companion animals just returned from the creation museum near cincinnati. one of the attractions(?) shows adult humans hanging around with dinosaurs and i believe she said one dino was shown with a human child on it's back. the sedimentary rocks in the grand canyon---well, that happened almost overnight. j. f. c. w. t. f. and a lot more. yes. yes they do. i. d. people really believe this stuff

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(No time frame here- age not known, did not said, not even guessing. God did not say so we have no idea)

Teach them what the bible really does say. Not all preaches are man of God - more like salesman skinning the sheep.

Skinning them or merely pulling the wool over their eyes?

I don't mind admitting that my creationist views are religious views, not scientific. That's not to say that certain things regarding the Bible cannot be scientifically or archeologically established, but it IS to say that they aren't my chief concern.

My main argument in favor of creationism is a 6-day creation period is not beyond the capabilities of an all-powerful God. The Bible is a religious text, not a biology textbook, so we shouldn't read more into the Bible than what's there. For me personally, finding some cool-looking bones only means that there are some things that aren't easily explainable and certainly not explainable within Biblical context. I'm sure if God had deemed such things important, He'd have had Biblical authors tell a different story.

It could be something like: "In the beginning, God struck a mudhole with lightening. Little wormies crawled out of that mudhole, and God crafted these wormies into all the living things that you see. One little wormy he called Adam..."

But that's not what was written (although there IS a later Biblical reference to Israel being a "worm," in Isaiah if I'm not mistaken). Rather the portrayal of our beginnings is a work of miraculous undertaking. Jesus said it's easier for a camel to go through the idea of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. If you really think about what that means, because a camel going through the eye of a needle is really impossible, then it is impossible for ANYONE to reach heaven. Jesus went on to say that these things are impossible the way we mere mortals perceive them. God, being the Creator of all things, doesn't see anything as being impossible. God can make anything possible.

It appears that purely scientific evidence does not favor special creation. It appears that a 6-day creation is impossible. But since nothing is impossible for God, a 6-day creation is not unbelievable.

Further, one should not confuse the purpose of Biblical explanations in relation to the purpose of scientific explanation. Science is hard and cold. If we cannot observe it with the classical senses, we should not assign any existence to it or consider it relevant. This is a GOOD thing for reliable data-gathering and learning about how our physical world works. The conflict happens because of this confusion between what science is and what science is not. Because science is concerned about the natural world, it does not affirm or deny the supernatural. That isn't science's purpose. Now, science CAN detect the workings of the supernatural even if it can't explain them. Immaculate conception, for instance. We are aware of exactly how sexual reproduction works because we have the means to observe the union of gametes in such a way as we could not thousands of years ago. As I recall, it MAY be possible for an egg to spontaneously undergo division. But the lack of a Y chromosome makes the conception of a male child impossible--only a female child. Because of this impossibility, we necessarily must conclude that a conception of the Holy Spirit is an extraordinary event.

The reason I'm quoting Punkycat is that there ARE other possible explanations of the 6-day creation. Creationists and certain literalists sometimes make a reading of Genesis 1 too inflexible. The Bible is not concerned with the passage of time, so I think we fail to account for these things. For example: "In the beginning God created the universe" (paraphrase mine). The next verse states "Now the earth was void." My question is "now, when?" God created the universe, and suddenly we are thrust into darkness. Why? When? What happened between the time of the creation and the time of the earth void? War in heaven? Who knows? How long did the earth exist prior to the void? How long did the void last? I mean, these are questions we don't really have answers for. I'm not saying that the Bible SAYS that, because it doesn't, but why would the first two sentences in Genesis leave even the possibility for a time gap? That's one thing you have to think about.

The days of the "week" raise other questions. The Bible doesn't say "on Sunday, God created a; on Monday, God created b; on Tuesday, God created c," and so on. The Bible says "God created a, and the light and the darkness made the first day." There was a period of light and dark--followed by what? So God created certain things on a certain day. Those things might have existed for any number of "days," maybe even years or even millennia--maybe even billions of years. The Bible doesn't say because it's obviously not really that important. So there COULD have been any number of 24-hour periods of light and darkness from that first day to the next day. So on the second day, God created certain OTHER things. More periods of light and dark pass, and on the third day, God caused certain other things to be. Genesis does not give a strict indication that the days are successive, only that certain things were created in a certain order and that they came to be on a certain special day. There's no reason at all to place such a restrictive reading on Genesis 1.

Such a reading indicates that the every day was "a day," not necessarily "THE first day" or "THE third day," and so on. God continued His work until He was satisfied with it, so He eventually came to a point at which He took "a day" off. I would suggest this was what Jesus meant when He told His detractors that God never takes a day off--He provides for us at all times, not just 6 days out of a week.

And finally, that IS a possible literalist interpretation of Genesis 1, and it's an interpretation that does not diminish the influence of God's power in creation. It can also explain such things as dinosaurs and rock layers. Now, I don't know about children riding on the backs of dinosaurs. But what IS interesting is that tales of humans and great lizards are ubiquitous seemingly in all parts of the world, we just call them dragons. So is it possible that they didn't COMPLETELY die out as early as we think they did? Or is there another possibility? Is it possible that many of our ancient myths and legends are based upon human coexistence with SOMETHING pre-flood, even if we aren't sure what that "something" was?

No, It's not possible.

Conversely, I look at the complexity modern science reveals, what was done over billions of years, and I don't think it's beyond an omnipotent God to have guided it.

As far as I am concerned, those who had the vision of creation given to them had to do their best to figure out how to interpret it and write it down, and while they got the main points right, there's no reason to expect them to understand the actual imagery in any way that is scientifically accurate.

That speaks about your worldview. You may well say that you believe the Earth is 5 mins old for religious reason. You just want to use science as a rubber stamp to justify your belief - you want to admit science works in 'our world', but when science does not find the result you want, you would ditch science and claim that science does not work for 'supernatural'.

Of course, you may believe whatever you like. Just don't pretend your belief corresponds to reality.

Large saurians died out 65 million years ago and we have a pretty good idea why and how it happened. Dinosaurs still live! They are the birds.

ruveyn

Which I STILL find the most amusing thing in the world (it particularly cracks me up to watch birds grab things with their little bitty dinosaur feet...I am easily entertained). Especially a couple of weeks ago, when I got to feed these TINY cute little sparrows, and hearing them make their adorable little "cheep" noises when I threw a piece of my cookie out for them to have...to think that's descended from a dinosaur! And to think that we've run the gamut on this planet all the way from T-Rex to a sparrow, with there being some kind of connection between them...it really is mindblowing and inspiring to me. (Yeah, I am fully aware that there is no direct lineage between those two particular creatures, but I'm going for the general concept here.)

For me, this kind of stuff just reinforces my faith and my wonder at what God has created, rather than destroying it. There's a real joy and sense of humor in those sorts of things I just can't miss.

(Yeah, I know that's not a concrete, logical reason for anything, but as I've said before, what I observe from learning about science simply has no impact on my faith, nor does my faith threaten my ability to learn the truth about the world as science describes it.)

As has been pointed out. religion closes minds.

Interesting--apparently ANY firm stance on an issue does. Fancy that.

The only one that could not be accused of "closed-mindedness" according that standard (by which any firm decision constitutes having a "closed mind" whereas indecision constitutes an "open mind") would be agnosticism.

Nothing I said was at all closed-minded...I give matters of science their due. Faith does not inhibit me from doing so in the slightest.

What is true closed-mindedness is not the fact that one has made a decision, though. It is far more than that: it is to refuse to even HEAR an opposing argument. I will pay attention to an opposing argument...I may reject it after thinking it over, but that's a very different matter from simply rejecting it for no good reason other than the fact that it isn't mine. Now THAT would be closed-mindedness.

Faith indicates believing something without evidence. That cannot be accommodated in a rational mind.

Finally admitting you are irrational, Sand?

What? Is Sand admitting he is christian? Oh no, I hope he isn't.