Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gravity is real--evolution is a theory. Have you not read this thread? We may share things in common with apes but that doesn't make us of the same family. Cats have a very similar nervous system to humans (thats why scientists like to experiment on them) but no one would claim that we are descended from them. Saber toothed cats, scientists say, aren't related to todays cats--even though they look similar.
Why did we evolve? Why aren't we still? If we were "mated out", whom did we mate with? Sure, our ancestors may have looked more "grungy" but I dont believe God made us as Apes (in HIS image after all).
Obviously you do not understand the scientific definition of the word theory. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions.
In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.
Thank you for your informative posts. I dont believe in evolution--never have. A character in the series "Weeds" pointed out that its called "The THEORY of Evolution" and not "The FACT of Evolution". Yet its taught as fact in school and people look at you like you're a moron if you speak against it. If we were created in Gods image, does that mean that the Evolutionists think God looked (in my opinion from the depictions I've seen ) "ape-like" ?? That we became more evolved (or less if you prefer) from Gods image to our varied ethnicities of today?
My point here is that what is brought out to us from science does not disagree with the biblical account. Rather than put down the Evolutionists, just understand why they've come to the conclusions they have as to whether there really is a God or not. Ask yourself, "What has religion really done for mankind! ???? "Is there really anything in the Lifestyles of your average Born-Again Chriatian that really recommends Christianity as the way to live" ????? Do you think they might have come to the conclusions they have by looking at the hypocracy of so-called peaceful Religion when it comes to times of War" ????? "When you have the goofball philosphical ideas and expressions floating around out there of Gurus, Mystics, Christendom's Religious Hierachy , do any of these things turn off the modern thinking man" ????
You need to understand that there is more to it than they just hate God. Perhaps what they are really turned off to is the hypocracy of most religion around the world. I'm not just picking on so-called christianity, it's ALL religion on this planet. In their view, "What's the difference between the radical extremism of Islam and the extreme facism that Evangelicals & Catholics who supported Nazi Germany during World War II" ???? They need to be shown that the bible at least has throughout time condemned most of their unrighteous conduct, and not made once saved always saved excuses for it!!!
Personally I was raised in the United States and grew up with the Nationalistic dogma of "God is on Our side". I never believed that. I can also see what a failure the Evangelical movement has in their constant interference of politics in that country. To say that God is the guiding light and influence of America , is to say in effect that God is an absolute failure! I mean look at it. There are less and less people , not so much less interested in God as they are discusted with most of the Churches in that country. Anyway, try and see that many have been forced towards no other alternative but to lean towards the side of evolution because of the absurdity of today's religious explanations of things. Sadly, the Churches have always had the answers in their posession, but have failed miserably to use it.
The supporters of "Creationism" wrote a definition that was incorporated into the Arkansas state Law and inserted into the judicial opinion. It included scientific evidence that there are limits to the changes within the kinds of living things that were originally created, and that mutations or natural selection do not suffice to change one species into another. It also asserted that the earth and eveything on it are the result of a recent act of creation, and that all geologic strata with their fossils resulted from a single worldwide Flood. Now here's where they thought they were clever. The framers of the law were careful to omit any reference to God or the Bible, in order to avoid any constitutional bars against teaching religion in school. Where they blew it was at the trial, their writings and their testimony that the Creation and the Flood refered to are in the Bible's book of Genesis. Another flaw in their argument was that, the time of creation was not spelled out in the law, they acknowledged that "recent" means perhaps 6000 years and not more than 10,000 years.
They blew a chance for exposing Evolutions Faults
Unfortunately for the "Creationists", the did'nt expose any of evolutions weak points. The evidence from experiments on mutations was never emphasized in the trial. Overwhelmingly, the results of such research are that mutations lead only to the degeneration of the genetic pattern, producing defective specimens. They do not create new organs or new functions and it never leads to new species. The facts are actually contrary to the evolutionary theory and support the corollary principal of creation, found in Genesis, that every "kind" of plant or animal can produce ONLY it's own "kind". But here again is where the "Creationists" neglected to argue any of this. Then there is the point about the Geological record which once again they failed to bring out some good arguments and expose the evolutionary flaws. The geological record does NOT a continuous graduationof fossils from one species to another. whicch Darwin's theory would require. Rather it shows us that new species appear suddenly, in the sedimentary columns, and without any connection to older lifeforms. Even evolutionists are currently embroiled in arguments with each other in the theory of Punctuated Equalibrium, in which it is aditted that the long search for missing links has failed. The sudden appearance of new species is really a strong evidence for creation and against evolution. But here again, this was not even considered or even a factor at the trial. So why did the "Creationists" not take full advantage of this ?????? They could'nt because they do NOT associate different geologic strata with different epochs od creation, but profess that they were all formed at the same time, when Noah's Flood subsided. Being chained up by this non-Biblical doctrine, the "Creationists" could only use the fossil record to tear down evolution. Their biggest problem was that they did'nt realize it was them "Creationism" that was on trial and not "Evolution". Hence they blew it.
Here's some of "Creationism's" faults.
Remember, it was this aspect of the "Creationist's" thesis, tied to thier doctrine of recent creation, that actually got the biggest spotlight in the trial and the news media. Their teaching that the earth and even the Universe are less than 10,000 years old contradicts all of the findings of modern science. They are so far out of step and out of touch with reality, that they actually invite criticism and ridicule from the scientific community. For example, geologists can point to their measurements of geologic processes that extend far beyond that narrow time frame. Ocean sediments themselves have accumulated over far more than 10,000 years. The time to building mountains and wear them down can be measured in millions of years. For continents to drift apart and form oceans also takes hundreds of millions of years. To say that ALL of this goes back to ONLY 10,000 years is simply absurd in the eyes of Geologists. Astronomers were equally outraged. They are accustomed to think not only of planetary cycles that take days or years but also of long eons of time for stars and galaxies to form. They deal with such vast differences that even light, traveling at 186,000 miles (300,000 KM) per second, takes billions of years to reach their telescopes. They have estimated the distance to the Magellanic Clouds in the southern skies, our nearest nieghboring galaxy, to be over 100,000 light years. If this were created ONLY 10,000 years ago, as the "Creationists" insist, we would still be waiting 90,000 years for the first glimmer of light from it to reach us. Light from the Andromeda Nebula in the northern henisphere would be taking 1,500,000 years to reach us and yet we can see it right now on a clear night. Pysicists also protested in saying it was absolutely impossible to squeeze that amount of time into only 10,000 years. They point to radioactive elements like uranium and thorium that have lives measured in billions of years. The accumulations of distictive isotopes of lead, which are the end products of radioactive decay, shows that some of the oldest rocks in the earth's crust must have lain undisturbed for 3 or 4 Billion years. And their interpretation of red-shifted light from the distant galaxies, out at the edge of the visible Universe, sets it's beginning at 10 to 20 billion years ago.
So if the "Creationist's" views are to be considered true in the face of this evidence and we are to believe in the narrow 10,000 years, then this must be how it worked. When God created the rocks with uranium in them, then he also must have put in the right amount of isotopes of lead in them to give the appearance of them looking to be a billion years old????????? When he made the Andrameda Galaxy, did he also fill a path (or StartTecky type of Wormhole) to the earth with light waves, all along it's 10 thousand billion miles, so that we would not have to wait to see the lights in the sky????????? Would Almighty God have to use a lie of illusions in his creation just to decieve us ??????????
How about Dinosaurs, where do they fit into the "Creationist's" scheme of things ???????? I know you all have been debating this and it looked tiring to even comment before, but the problem here again is the "Creationist's" view that Humans and Dinosaurs and every kind of animal, extinct and present, lived on earth at the same time before the Flood. They were all swept away together in a grand melange of Floodwaters. How then do they account for the orderly sequence of fossils in sedimentary rocks, starting with simple life forms in the lower strata, followed by increasingly more diverse and complex creatures in the higher strata ??????? I'll come back later with my take on what I read the creation account of Genesis to actually be talking about.
There's actually some good info out there if you wish to Google the Little Rock, Arkansas court case & "Creationism" vrs "Evolution"
"Flame On" !!!!!
There are two different Creation accounts in Genesis, which biblical account slams Creationism. Also, a 'missing link' in evolution refers to gaps in the knowledge base of the sequence of what ancestor existed between one species and the species before it. For example, homo sapiens and then the presumed species which we evolved. The reason there is still a missing link is because as evidence is unearthed further back in time, then scientists can start looking even farther back in time. Also, the gaps in the record get smaller with new finds. Like much of science, there is always something unknown, but hypothetically knowable. The unknown in evolution is called the missing link.
The fact that the geological record isn't a continous graduation of fossils from one species to another isn't an argument against evolution. Evolution doesn't look like a straight line, which is what most Creationists see it as. It looks like a tree with branches so the geological record isn't going to have a nice graveyard where every fossil is buried.
There are two different Creation accounts in Genesis, which biblical account slams Creationism. Also, a 'missing link' in evolution refers to gaps in the knowledge base of the sequence of what ancestor existed between one species and the species before it. For example, homo sapiens and then the presumed species which we evolved. The reason there is still a missing link is because as evidence is unearthed further back in time, then scientists can start looking even farther back in time. Also, the gaps in the record get smaller with new finds. Like much of science, there is always something unknown, but hypothetically knowable. The unknown in evolution is called the missing link.
The fact that the geological record isn't a continous graduation of fossils from one species to another isn't an argument against evolution. Evolution doesn't look like a straight line, which is what most Creationists see it as. It looks like a tree with branches so the geological record isn't going to have a nice graveyard where every fossil is buried.
Well, just keep in mind I'm not going to argue mechanics here, only observation of what is found by Scientists and archiologist and what the bible itself actually says. Again I don't believe in Creationism.
Call me goofy but isn't a year a measurement of time?
I always thought of a "Lightyear" as being the speed of light and at the conclusion of that travel , the distance it covered in miles or whatever. The best example I can think of is that some scientist have estimate that some stars have burnt out a long time ago and their light is just now getting to us. Point would be, things have been around a heck of a lot longer than 6000 to 10,000 years. Personally I have no problem if it were 10 Godzillion years. Who cares anyway. If their almighty God is All Eternal and has always been with no beginning, then why would he have been in a hurry. What's a Zillion years anyway. Nothing!!!
Call me goofy but isn't a year a measurement of time?
No Nikk is right about this one particular detail, a light year is the distance that light has traveled after one year.
The distance is easy enough to calculate, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second so a light year is just the speed of light times the number of seconds in a year:
Days in a year:365
Hours in a day:24
Minutes in an hour:60
seconds in a minute:60
299792458x60x60x24x365=9.45x10^15 meters
Edit: You can see why we use terms like light years as opposed to meters when dealing with astronomical distances, the universe is just that mind bogglingly huge. Worse still, because there is a limit between the speed of light and the age of the universe we can only see part of the universe, as far as we know the universe might be trillions of light years across and we might never know, it makes our combined existence seem like a pathetic blimp in a sea of nothingness.
In cosmology we use light years for humongous distances like far away galaxies, parsecs for very very far away stars and astronomical units(the average distance between the earth and the sun) for things close by.
Last edited by coosjoaquin; 08-12-2008 at 08:02 AM..
No Nikk is right about this one particular detail, a light year is the distance that light has traveled after one year.
I knew that's what it was but he was sounding like this had nothing to do with time and a year is definitely a measurement of time. It's like you start a stopwatch and after a year is up that's the distance that the light has traveled but the term lightyear wouldn't mean anything without a starting point and a stopping point which is clearly a measurement of time.
True, In fact the definition of the meter itself has changed often and now it is defined as the distance light moves in 1/299792458 th of a second so distances don't really make sense at all without a concept of time.
I just wanted to get this back on track again. Let me start by defining again the what I consider the differences between "Creation" - "Creationism" - "Evolution" .
When Is A Fact Not A Fact
A "Fact" is something that exists beyond question, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence. In this case, I believe that the Biblical account of "Creation" is indeed a fact of observation and agrees with scientific findings much to the dislike of both "Creationists" and "Evolutionists".
A "Theory" is something unproved but sometimes assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory. Again the theory of "Creationism" and of "Organic Evolution" both fall into this theory category.
Anyway, let's get back to what the biblical account actually says. When I left off , I had already discussed the first two verses of Genesis and what it allows for and that it does'nt disagree with science as far as time is concerned. Also the different ways the word "day" is used throughout the bible could and do allow it to have different meanings. The question about how long each day is could be any length of time. In this case the simple term would have been satisfactory given the fact the account was originally written to a group of people with little or no education. Most of the account is ONLY written from the stand point of if a human observer had been present and all of the creative periods were fast forwarded in order of actuall apearance. The account never gets into the mechanics of how "creation" was accomplished, it simply was'nt necessary. The people back then could possibly have understood such things as we all do today. Most all of the vocabulary used in science today to technically describe things was'nt even around for centuries to come.
First Day
Genesis 1:3,4,5 (New International Version) - [I'm only using this mordern version to make it simple for everyone. Die hard "creationists" can flame me later]
[3] And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. [4] God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. [5] God called the light "day", and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening and there was morning - the first day.
So we have to remember that the sun, moon, solar system and the rest of outer space already existed before this first day described here. The light mentioned no doubt had'nt reached the earth's surface at this time from the stand point of an actual human observer. Remember, things here are described only from the stand point of , if there were someone who saw things from a human perspective and that is the way this Genesis account is written. The earth no doubt was once like the make up of what we know Venus to be. But who knows, we can have fun here and speculate all we want. But there is an indication that this light came gradually and not like turning a light switch on and off. On that point you can even google a work called, ("A Distinctive Translation of Genesis" , bt J W Watt) In this rendering of verse 3, he puts it this way. "Let there be light", and gradually light came into existance". There is also a footnote on verse 3 in the Rotherham's Emphasized Bible using the term for the light that did reach the earth as being "diffused" light. The light onviously came from the sun, but it was a sort of overcast light.
Second Day
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) [6] 'And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate water from water". [7] So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. [8] God called the expanse "sky". And there was evening, and there was morning - a second day'.
Some Bible translations use the word "firmament" instead of "expanse" , but this has been borrowed from creation myths which say the the earth was surrounded by a 'metal dome'. Even the (AKJV) has a footnote in the margin that says, "expanse". This also agrees with Genesis 1:20 that speaks of birds flying in "the expanse of the heavens". So quite simply the beginnings of the atmosphere happened on this day, the the account does not tell us how God did it, only that this is what happened during the second stage of the creative periods.
I've got to take a break here , as I've got some obligations, but I'll be back later.
cheers,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We may share things in common with apes but that doesn't make us of the same family. Cats have a very similar nervous system to humans (thats why scientists like to experiment on them) but no one would claim that we are descended from them. Saber toothed cats, scientists say, aren't related to todays cats--even though they look similar. 
Back On Track
