Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[OnlyAmbrose]

Romans 5:9-31.

So far as I can tell, Romans 5 only goes to verse 20, so I'm going off of just Romans 5 in general here.

I don't see how this passage really contradicts my belief.

Firstly, Paul was alive well before empirical evidence in favor of evolution was revealed. That being said, Paul probably accepted it as absolute truth, because there was no better scientific explanation at the time.

At the same time, we see the subtle workings of the Holy Spirit in scripture as the symbolic meaning of Genesis is beautifully intertwined with the real nature of Jesus' death. Here I refer specifically to verses 12 - 15, so that, through out 21st century perspective, the figurative truth is revealed at the same time as the more solid, historical truth of Christ's death.

[WidowMakers]

OK. There has been quite a few posts since I went to work I will try my best to look over everyone and work it into the topics.

But first I would like to clarify my initial purpose of this thread. If I have mislead people or made mistakes I am sorry it was not my intent. This thread grew much faster than I had thought it would and the variety of responses does not allow me to get to them all right away. As I tried to do that I lost track of my original goal for this topic.

THE ACTUAL INTENTION OF THIS THREAD
==========================================
I wanted to make a thread discussing the topic of evolution verses creation.
The purpose was not to PROVE either. Since no one was actually there when God made the universe or when the BIG BANG happened humans are left with the recorded past and the present.

-I wanted to look at the creation/evolution issues one by one. They are so intermingled that you must look at each one individually then look at how that might affect other issues closely related. (I.E. Fossils and rock strata)

-For each topic, analyze the actual facts (things we can touch, sample, see, or measure today)and how each side uses that data to come to conclusions.

-Then compare each side of the story. In a particular case does evolution make more sense? Does creation make more sense? Or do both side make compelling arguments that neither side is more convincing than the other.

This way we are looking at many topics. The side that seems to have the most compelling argument for the most topics would seem to be the most reliable.

I will requote myself from the first post to clarify how each side has the same FACTS. It is the interpretation, assumptions, and use of these facts/assumptions that give the different points of view.

1) We all have the same facts or discoveries.
We are all on the same earth. Meaning both parties can look at rock formations, fossils, the universe, cell development, genetic code, etc.

Neither group has special info the other group does not have.

2) No one today was alive at the formation of the earth, universe, etc.
So any opinion on this point is just an assumption. That brings me to point three.

3) Both sides (evolution and creation) have assumptions that are used to support their views of the physical world.
Ex. Earth has fossils (FACT).

Does anyone disagree with these three statements?
I want to get this straight before we go into topics. It will allow for a orderly and consistent method from which we can debate.

I will wait for some responses. After there is discussion and agreement to the post above (with agreed upon adjustments as necessary), we can start picking topics (fossil, DNA, rock strata, Carbon dating, Nylon bacteria, etc) and look at them one at a time.
================================================
Again I hope everyone is enjoying this discussion. It is a lot of work to take the time and write out thoughts and opinions on such an important and controversial topic. I appreciate the time everyone spends on it.

My hope is that a slower, more centered topical debate will help keep the thread in order and allow for a more structured discussion.

Well I have a couple more maps to edit. Talk to everyone later.

[Iliad]

You still haven't replied about the bacteria which eat nylon

[Backglass]

[WidowMakers]

You still haven't replied about the bacteria which eat nylon

If you will read the post above

It is a topic we will cover. I do have some thoughts on it but I want to make sure that we can get agreement on the way we will debate.

Just throwing around opinions, facts or whatever will never get anyone anywhere. We need a more structured thread. If there is agreement, we will definitely discuss the bacterial and other related topics to that.

WM

[Neutrino]

But what’s beyond it – does space go on for eternity?

I'm pretty sure I heard that the theory states that if you keep going straight up from the earth, you'll either end up back where you started, or you'll crash into the other side of the earth.

Something about twisting through other dimensions (basic string theory stuff, but this was aaaaagggeeesss ago)

I think Hawking came up with this idea. A finite universe without limits.

[Titanic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7039478.stm

Dusn provide any proof, but 80 million years old...

[Neutrino]

I will requote myself from the first post to clarify how each side has the same FACTS. It is the interpretation, assumptions, and use of these facts/assumptions that give the different points of view.

1) We all have the same facts or discoveries.
We are all on the same earth. Meaning both parties can look at rock formations, fossils, the universe, cell development, genetic code, etc.

Neither group has special info the other group does not have.

2) No one today was alive at the formation of the earth, universe, etc.
So any opinion on this point is just an assumption. That brings me to point three.

3) Both sides (evolution and creation) have assumptions that are used to support their views of the physical world.
Ex. Earth has fossils (FACT).

While these are generally accurate, declaring that all differences of opinion are based on interpretation of fact is a bit of a stretch. How can it be interpretation when these "facts" are rejected out of hand because they don't support your worldview?

Facts only work in one direction. You can warp them a few degrees via bias and opinion, but there is no way you can use a fact to support an argument it rejects. All that leaves is trying to disprove the "fact". If you can disprove a "fact", then the "fact" was never a "fact" at all. Merely a set of data.

What was the point of this? I don't know. Probably a complaint about your use of the word "fact".


P.S. If god wants us to believe the universe is billions of years old (you have to admit, there is a lot more credible data supporting an old universe than a very young one) then who are we to disprove him?
- Plagarised from someone

[Minister Masket]

I would like to take this time to introduce my concept of "Christiovolution" - the combination of Christianity and Evolution.
Just like Judaism combined with Jesus to become Christianity, and Cathlicism combined with Martin-Luthur to become Protestantism.
Who's to say God did not set the Big Bang in motion? And evolution?
I believe in God, not the Bible. Too many people look to the Bible instead of God nowadays. Unfortuantly, the book has been changed and corrupted beyond regognition in history. For example: King James changed it so that most parts said good things about him! Lousy git.
Remember: Christiovolution!

WARNING: the spellings of certain religions in this post are of my own creation. Purely for my own amusment.

[Backglass]

I believe in God, not the Bible.

Then you are not a christian.

[MeDeFe]

I believe in God, not the Bible.

Then you are not a christian.

Is that a bad thing?

[Backglass]

I believe in God, not the Bible.

Then you are not a christian.

Is that a bad thing?

Just pointing out that if one is trying to introduce a new concept regarding christianity, one should probably BE a christian...don't you think?

[jay_a2j]

Q:What happens when secular views infiltrate Christianity?




A:You get Christian Evolutionists.


Evolution is not scriptural and to accept it as "truth" is compromising your faith. (IMO)


btw backglass, dinosaurs were extinct long before the flood.

[MeDeFe]

I believe in God, not the Bible.

Then you are not a christian.

Is that a bad thing?

Just pointing out that if one is trying to introduce a new concept regarding christianity, one should probably BE a christian...don't you think?

Not necessarily, as an outsider he might have a different perspective on many topics and be able to introduce new ideas to a system that would otherwise remain static.

[Backglass]

Not necessarily, as an outsider he might have a different perspective on many topics and be able to introduce new ideas to a system that would otherwise remain static.

Well as long as you don't care if you actually GET any supporters of you new theory, I suppose you are correct. Believing in fairy tales does not necessarily make one a fairy tale expert.

[Backglass]

Not necessarily, as an outsider he might have a different perspective on many topics and be able to introduce new ideas to a system that would otherwise remain static.

Well as long as you don't care if you actually GET any supporters of you new theory, I suppose you are correct. Believing in fairy tales does not necessarily make one a fairy tale expert.

btw backglass, dinosaurs were extinct long before the flood.

Not if you attend school in Kansas!

[unriggable]

Genesis is FIGURATIVELY true.

This is an opinion which not all Christians agree.

God created Adam and Eve and created the beasts of the land. Not that He created something, which became these things. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible. IMO

Since when is christianity more than believing that christ is your savior? It's a thing radicals can't get across their heads...'you aren't a real christian if you aren't just like me'.

[unriggable]

So jay, you think that cambodian stegosaurus is just pure bullshit, like the rest of us?

[WidowMakers]

Can we please stay on topic people. These last 10 post are what I am trying to avoid.

While these are generally accurate, declaring that all differences of opinion are based on interpretation of fact is a bit of a stretch. How can it be interpretation when these "facts" are rejected out of hand because they don't support your worldview?

Facts only work in one direction. You can warp them a few degrees via bias and opinion, but there is no way you can use a fact to support an argument it rejects. All that leaves is trying to disprove the "fact". If you can disprove a "fact", then the "fact" was never a "fact" at all. Merely a set of data.

What was the point of this? I don't know. Probably a complaint about your use of the word "fact".

I agree facts are accurate. Facts are proven we agree on that.

What I am saying it that (based on the 3 points from the post) we do not have facts from the past. Because no one can actually prove when something happened in history before someone else was there. Science requires proof not speculation and assumptions.

Much of the "facts" people say evolution or creation have are based on assumptions of the initial data.

So again.
A) I want to look at individual topics and see how each side analyzes the current data (fact)

B) How they apply models and theories to the facts (see A) and see how things got here and where they came from (assumption)

C) Analyze both models and see which is more consistent with what we humans see in nature today.

If everyone can agree to these statements and the large post I have several pages back , we can start the topical study.

WM

[unriggable]

These are facts.

Iridium is rare on earth and common in foreign objects. There is a thin layer between the mesozoic dirt samples and cenozoic dirt samples. Above this layer, we see no dinosaur bones. Below it, we do.

When an asteroid approaches earth, the atmosphere burns it to a crisp. Larger meteors, on the other hand, while losing more meteor substance still manages to hit the earth. The result is a huge crater because the meteor explodes upon impact, sending dirt and soot, and more importantly iridium in all directions. It is carried by the wind. The amount of iridium in this layer increases as we get closer to the crater.

In the case the iridium levels points to a huge crater in the Yucatan peninsula.

Now these are speculations.

Since the iridium layer separates the dinosaur and dinosaur-less layers, it would be beyond coincidence to think the asteroid did not cause them to die. This means that a flood is not the source of death, leading us to the conclusion that the bible, specifically genesis, is full of shit.

[jay_a2j]

Genesis is FIGURATIVELY true.

This is an opinion which not all Christians agree.

God created Adam and Eve and created the beasts of the land. Not that He created something, which became these things. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible. IMO

Since when is christianity more than believing that christ is your savior? It's a thing radicals can't get across their heads...'you aren't a real christian if you aren't just like me'.

Who said someone wasn't a Christian? News Flash!!! All Christians do not believe the same things. (hence denominations) What we DO agree on is what is important, that Jesus is Lord, who came and died for our sins and rose from the dead. Christians don't get "demoted" for believing things that may not be true (ie.evolution)...I am sure I'm in for a rude awakening myself!


***looks at thread title*** We are on topic, are we not?


1. Fact: evolution is not described in scripture.

2. Fact: Creation is.

[Titanic]

Genesis is FIGURATIVELY true.

This is an opinion which not all Christians agree.

God created Adam and Eve and created the beasts of the land. Not that He created something, which became these things. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible. IMO

Since when is christianity more than believing that christ is your savior? It's a thing radicals can't get across their heads...'you aren't a real christian if you aren't just like me'.

Who said someone wasn't a Christian? News Flash!!! All Christians do not believe the same things. (hence denominations) What we DO agree on is what is important, that Jesus is Lord, who came and died for our sins and rose from the dead. Christians don't get "demoted" for believing things that may not be true (ie.evolution)...I am sure I'm in for a rude awakening myself!


***looks at thread title*** We are on topic, are we not?


1. Fact: evolution is not described in scripture.

2. Fact: Creation is.

1) Evolution has scientific proof which backs it up.

2) Creation has no scientific proof.

[jay_a2j]

1) Evolution has scientific proof which backs it up.

Please elaborate. There is no "proof" to back up evolution. Its all theory, hypothesis and so on.


Evolutionists please explain the following:

1. Why do we not see apes walking upright or shedding hair. Did evolution stop? All the apes I have ever seen, well.... look like apes.

2.It is fact that speech is a learned behavior. Tell me, who taught the apes to speak? (not 1 but hundreds of languages)

3.Tracing evolution back to the very first living thing... where did IT come from?


It seems that it would require more faith to believe in evolution, then it does to believe in God.

[ParadiceCity9]

1) Evolution has scientific proof which backs it up.

Please elaborate. There is no "proof" to back up evolution. Its all theory, hypothesis and so on.


Evolutionists please explain the following:

1. Why do we not see apes walking upright or shedding hair. Did evolution stop? All the apes I have ever seen, well.... look like apes.

2.It is fact that speech is a learned behavior. Tell me, who taught the apes to speak? (not 1 but hundreds of languages)

3.Tracing evolution back to the very first living thing... where did IT come from?


It seems that it would require more faith to believe in evolution, then it does to believe in God.

The evolution theory is a well-thought out hypothesis or where organisms came from. Darwin didn't just pick things out of the air, he used his mind and made intelligent guesses.

1. When we evolved from apes, not all apes evolved, explaining why there are still apes which look like apes.

2. Our minds developed as time went on and we created languages.

3. IT came from different combinations of reactions and energy.

[ParadiceCity9]

Diamonds: Diamonds have Carbon – 14. If diamonds are millions of years old, how do they have carbon 14.

Diamonds aren't dead...they're DIAMONDS!!