Answers In Genesis (believers, Adam, heaven, verse)
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.
You misunderstand the application of observation. (Before I explain, I might ask who has observed special creation?)
Well, from my perspective and belief, the witness of special creation (God) has provided us written documentation of what transpired (the Bible, esp. Genesis)
Quote:
We need not directly observe something to explain, study and test it. No one has seen plates move, but plate tectonics is a valid theory. No one has seen electrons move through conductors, yet here we are communicating over the internet. No one has seen a germ cause illness, but germ theory is alive and well. We can predict the temperature of the surface of the sun even though no one has ever visited the sun.
What has been observed is the diversity of life. The ToE describes how this diversity comes about. As an example, the ToE predicts that human fossils will not be found among trilobite fossils, and this prediction holds true. Creationism, on the other hand, would predict that all fossils be found among all others. This has not been shown to be true.
As far as the diversity of life, the Bible also explains how this came about, but people don't want to listen. They want to believe that diversity came about all by itself. Why? I tell you what I think. I think it's because they don't want to admit God is real, that God created them. And because He created them, He has the right to tell them what is right and what is wrong. If they admit God is real, they'll realize they are beholden to God and should do as He says. They don't want this. They want to do what they want, when they want and not follow God's commands. They worship the creation not the Creator. Even some of those who admit there is a God still feel no reason to believe in Him or follow his instructions. They see sinful humans who call themselves Christians who don't behave as they should or have bad experiences with religion give them an excuse to not believe or not to follow. The Bible says people enjoy living in the dark more than in the light.
I know the above is broad statements and is in no way meant to apply to anyone specifically. It is what I believe in general as to why people have such a hard time believing in God as Creator and an easy time accepting evolution.
It would take a lot more for me to believe that I am a descendent of an ape, than it would for me to believe that there is a God in heaven who made each able to reproduce more of its own kind
Evolution does not equal atheism.
On the contrary. Outside of the US, the majority of theists accept evolution. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that precludes the existence of God. It may contradict certain literal interpretations of scripture, but it does not contradict belief in God.
Well, from my perspective and belief, the witness of special creation (God) has provided us written documentation of what transpired (the Bible, esp. Genesis)
In other words, no one has witnessed special creation.
The Noahic Flood was disproven hundreds of years ago by Christians who were looking to substantiate it.
That aside, if a global flood did occur, we would still expect to find all types of fossils among all others. We do not find this.
Quote:
As far as the diversity of life, the Bible also explains how this came about, but people don't want to listen. They want to believe that diversity came about all by itself. Why? I tell you what I think. I think it's because they don't want to admit God is real, that God created them. And because He created them, He has the right to tell them what is right and what is wrong. If they admit God is real, they'll realize they are beholden to God and should do as He says. They don't want this. They want to do what they want, when they want and not follow God's commands. They worship the creation not the Creator. Even some of those who admit there is a God still feel no reason to believe in Him or follow his instructions. They see sinful humans who call themselves Christians who don't behave as they should or have bad experiences with religion give them an excuse to not believe or not to follow. The Bible says people enjoy living in the dark more than in the light.
I know the above is broad statements and is in no way meant to apply to anyone specifically. It is what I believe in general as to why people have such a hard time believing in God as Creator and an easy time accepting evolution.
Pope John Paul II accepted evolution. I sincerely doubt he denied the existence of God. As I stated in a previous post, the majority of theists worldwide accept evolution. Evolution != atheism.
That aside, if a global flood did occur, we would still expect to find all types of fossils among all others. We do not find this.
Approximately 48,000 bodies are still missing from the tsunami's in the Pacific Rim. Let's load up on a plane and see how many we can find. And we KNOW where to look!
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Clearly talking about 24 hour days....unless we want a 1000 yr Sabbath...which actually sounds pretty good to me!!
OK here is the problem I have with that website. Both myself and many Christians believe that the bible should not be used as a basis of fundamental science. HOWEVER, this web site does exactly that. What this web site is suggesting is that you can use passages in the bible to prove scientifically practically anything in regards to the creation of the universe. I do not understand how a book as vague as the bible could possibly get that across and I think the scientists writing on this site are doing it to protect their own interests. The problem, as I have stated many times before, is that you are still using a non-scientific book to help explain science. That's like me using an Agatha Christie novel to help solve a murder. It's got a pretense but the actual situation is much different. The problem with this fundamentalist thinking is that people like Ted Haggert promote the 6000 year thing.
Now you have a bunch of followers who are in full belief that the earth was created in 6000 years. Most people say that's stupid. So what happens? They find a few scientists who are Christians and ask them to write technical evidence supporting the biblical claims. The difference is that I noticed this guy Ken Ham writes a huge amount of these articles. So I ask: How can one guy be an expert in every single field of science as it pertains to the creation of the universe and the natural world?
As I mentioned in a previous statement, we as atheists/evolutionists/real scientists base our beliefs off of NUMEROUS books providing evidence contrary to the beliefs of the bible. Jacques Cousteau was a great oceanographer but he probably didn't know jack-diddly squat about dinosaur bones. Stephen Hawking is one of the best astrophysicists on the planet but he probably couldn't tell you a thing about geology. Are you seeing what I'm getting at? How can only a handful of people on the answeringenesis.com people be such experts in all of these fields? Almost all of the scientific community agrees with one another when a theory is proven via the scientific method. I would like to ask at what point has the scientific method been done in accordance to this web page? To me, it looks like this is what the scientist "thinks". Not what he has proven. I find a lot of statements in there putting words in the mouths of evolutionists. Here are some examples the author decided to put into the mouths of valid scientists. Keep in mind I have never heard any of these theories in regards to how the dinosaurs perished.
1. The sun became either too hot or too cold for dinosaurs.
2. The world's climate became either too dry or too wet.
3. A supernova exploded nearby, spraying the earth with radiation.
4. Earth 's magnetic field reversed, and incoming radiation killed most life.
5. A passing comet poisoned the earth with chemicals.
6. A giant meteorite crashed into the sea, and a tidal wave then swept the land and drowned life.
There is a lack of supporting evidence for any of these events! Instead, creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died as a result of the great flood described in Genesis 6-8. Dinosaur types which were preserved on the ark probably faced severe climate changes following the flood. Creation research continues to demonstrate the importance of the worldwide flood in explaining earth's history.
That's CRAP! I suppose this is probably the same guy who thinks the Grand Canyon was carved out because of the flood. The problem is that these so-called scientists are using every excuse possible out of the bible to try and explain natural events that happened on earth for millions of years. They do this to draw credit to their 6000 year theory but they get more and more ridiculous with each excuse. I wonder if the tsunami that happened has a biblical explanation on that web site or not. But, I digress, I suppose it's as ridiculous to me as a believer reading an evolution paper even though the evidence has been backed up through hundreds of different scientific theories and tests. That is why I stopped posting on this thread in the first place
OK here is the problem I have with that website. Both myself and many Christians believe that the bible should not be used as a basis of fundamental science. HOWEVER, this web site does exactly that. What this web site is suggesting is that you can use passages in the bible to prove scientifically practically anything in regards to the creation of the universe. I do not understand how a book as vague as the bible could possibly get that across and I think the scientists writing on this site are doing it to protect their own interests. The problem, as I have stated many times before, is that you are still using a non-scientific book to help explain science. That's like me using an Agatha Christie novel to help solve a murder. It's got a pretense but the actual situation is much different. The problem with this fundamentalist thinking is that people like Ted Haggert promote the 6000 year thing.
Now you have a bunch of followers who are in full belief that the earth was created in 6000 years. Most people say that's stupid. So what happens? They find a few scientists who are Christians and ask them to write technical evidence supporting the biblical claims. The difference is that I noticed this guy Ken Ham writes a huge amount of these articles. So I ask: How can one guy be an expert in every single field of science as it pertains to the creation of the universe and the natural world?
As I mentioned in a previous statement, we as atheists/evolutionists/real scientists base our beliefs off of NUMEROUS books providing evidence contrary to the beliefs of the bible. Jacques Cousteau was a great oceanographer but he probably didn't know jack-diddly squat about dinosaur bones. Stephen Hawking is one of the best astrophysicists on the planet but he probably couldn't tell you a thing about geology. Are you seeing what I'm getting at? How can only a handful of people on the answeringenesis.com people be such experts in all of these fields? Almost all of the scientific community agrees with one another when a theory is proven via the scientific method. I would like to ask at what point has the scientific method been done in accordance to this web page? To me, it looks like this is what the scientist "thinks". Not what he has proven. I find a lot of statements in there putting words in the mouths of evolutionists. Here are some examples the author decided to put into the mouths of valid scientists. Keep in mind I have never heard any of these theories in regards to how the dinosaurs perished.
1. The sun became either too hot or too cold for dinosaurs.
2. The world's climate became either too dry or too wet.
3. A supernova exploded nearby, spraying the earth with radiation.
4. Earth 's magnetic field reversed, and incoming radiation killed most life.
5. A passing comet poisoned the earth with chemicals.
6. A giant meteorite crashed into the sea, and a tidal wave then swept the land and drowned life.
There is a lack of supporting evidence for any of these events! Instead, creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died as a result of the great flood described in Genesis 6-8. Dinosaur types which were preserved on the ark probably faced severe climate changes following the flood. Creation research continues to demonstrate the importance of the worldwide flood in explaining earth's history.
That's CRAP! I suppose this is probably the same guy who thinks the Grand Canyon was carved out because of the flood. The problem is that these so-called scientists are using every excuse possible out of the bible to try and explain natural events that happened on earth for millions of years. They do this to draw credit to their 6000 year theory but they get more and more ridiculous with each excuse. I wonder if the tsunami that happened has a biblical explanation on that web site or not. But, I digress, I suppose it's as ridiculous to me as a believer reading an evolution paper even though the evidence has been backed up through hundreds of different scientific theories and tests. That is why I stopped posting on this thread in the first place
That's not Crap, GCSTroop. If it is then what you and the others here have been doing for the past two weeks is crap.
All Ken Ham and his folks do is interpret data. The same way you and Montanaguy, stretch, me, and mams, HopOnPop etc have been doing. So it puts you in a very tough spot.
Yesterday you guys were talking about disproving the issues raised by Answers In Genesis. You just spent an entire post totally ignoring the matters brought up on the website by using the argument that it shouldn't exist in the first place.
Nice try, but I know side-stepping when I see it. I mean no disrespect, but to sit here and have these discussions and your final rebut is "Well, I shouldn't have to comment 'cause he isn't qualified to speak n the first place'...honestly, that's borderline insulting.
We've all spent numerous hours here interpreting someone else's data. You don't wanna touch it, fine, that's your right. But until you can find actual fault with the claims, the rest of your post looks like a temper tantrum.
EDIT: Also, this statement "To me, it looks like this is what the scientist "thinks". Not what he has proven." is true of all of us on both sides of this issue. Saying otherwise puts one is a serious state of denial.
I was just skimming through some of the stuff in the answers in genesis site and there's really some little gems in there. I just had it explained to me that Adam, who lived to be 930 years old, had a whole lot of kids and since they were the only humans his kids just married each other! That answers the age old question about where Cain's wife came from. Adam didn't have a childhood but he made up for it by living a really really long time (I wonder if he had baby teeth or if his adult teeth really lasted all those years). Anyway, incest was ok back then according to the good folks at answers in genesis, it's just bad now because our genes have changed.
You guys, I don't even know what to say when I read this stuff! This has nothing to do with science in any way and it's so far fetched it's actually comical. No offense is intended to anyone but how can you read this and really take it seriously?
The fossil record can be interpreted differently. There is not one conclusive transition fossil. The handfull (out of milliions of fossils available) are very much debatable as to whether they are transition fossils or not.
You obviously do not know what a transitional fossil is. Achaeopterix and Tiktaalik are both transitional fossils. What is not conclusive about them? There are many, many transitional hominid fossils. What is not conclusive about them?
Maybe you can tell us what you would find conclusive?
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.
