|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 12:34:28 PM | | i just copied wics spelling of Archeopterix, i dont remember how to spell it. again, there is only one objective reality. i maintain that science should complement the bible in every way except in the instances where the bible says a miracle was performed. so apart from miracles, the world should function how scientists claim. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 12:37:51 PM | | Peter, Sceince can only deal with fact's, the evidince they see with their own eye's lest they become byest, and that does no one any good...Church and Science should be as seprate as chuch and state, tis is important I think, Im religious, but I wouldnt want them to base sceince on it, only because that would be byest... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 12:53:41 PM | evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?search=rate
muahahahaha. now this site is just plain hilarious. how bout this quote eh?
"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.
You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.'
I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."
Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 1:10:23 PM |
i maintain that science should complement the bible in every way except in the instances where the bible says a miracle was performed. so apart from miracles, the world should function how scientists claim That makes it sound like miracles are just a cop-out to maintain the credibility of religion when it doesn't agree with 'objective reality'
So, can we try to understand miracles? Are they just a part of God's reality - which isn't the same as our reality? Or are they a wild-card that God throws into the mix once in a while? Is it possible to move towards an understanding of God's reality? In other words, should we be trying to understand miracles and the reality in which they work?
This seems like an important question for us mere humans. A few miracles could really help with medical bills and hospital waits, for example. I'm sure you can think of lots more good and useful applications for tons of miracles. Science seems to be bumbling along making slow but steady progress, but it seems that those closest to God might have an inside track on progress if they chose to go for it. Do you think it's possible for us to figure out how to work miracles? Isn't that more important than bickering about what science hasn't yet achieved? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 1:15:48 PM | | Miracles are not a cop out at all. I dont just claim 'miracle' for everything i cant explain lol. The miracles I refer to are directly recorded in the bible. They do not work according to the laws of the universe. Its where God steps in and causes things to behave abnormally, i know not why. The bible clearly states His ways are not ours. We could indeed work miracles if God gave us the ability to do so. Many of the disciples etc performed miracles in their day, but only through the power of God. God also gave us a mind for a reason, science has gotten us far in understanding the universe, but cannot be the end all of everything. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 1:20:03 PM | "My biggest problem (and there are many) with the Bible is lack of monumental proof. I can't find a single verse that goes something like this: 'And Jesus and Peter were walking through the field, and Jesus grabbed Peter and said, "Lo, Peter, behold, a Brontosaurus is nigh." That was a quote by Bill Hicks.
Even in the world of science, which is only religion if it consumes your life, there are all kinds of debates, because the scientific method does not always apply. Personally, from my fact-finding missions, the only time science and religion ever came close to co-existing congruently were when the Taoists impacted early Chinese culture. And they readily accepted "evolutionary" ideas. The one begats two, the two begats three, and thus,the myraid of life. Chinese medicine is very complex, and in some circles, it has been proven. But a majority of it's practitioners are inept quacks, not to mention, that the cultural revolution wiped out many, many, many, of its teachers.
Science rooted deeply in Cartesian philosophy, which was needed, can only go so far. Either/or mentalities are self-limiting. Although, I think Judeo-Christian philosophies are byfar the poorest choice of teaching that we could possibly pick for ouselves to follow. I mean, how many wars have the Buddhists started?
Just my thoughts. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 1:42:37 PM | I'm certainly interested in you saying that you don't just claim 'miracle' for everything you can't explain. How do you make the distinction between the results of a 'miracle' and just something you can't explain?
Again, this seems important because a lot of people spend an awful lot of time, effort and money trying to understand our origins and its consequences. Your stand seems to suggest that these people are wasting a lot of resources on something that is just plain wrong, based on your stance that it was all 'just a miracle'. I suppose a similar stand was taken against Copernicus and Gallileo.
Is it possible to explain a miracle scientifically? Are miracles predictably repeatable?
I presume your answer to the above 2 questions would be 'no', so, how do you differentiate between a scientific mystery which should be pursued until understood and a miracle which you presumably believe is inexplicable and thus not worthy of scientific investigation? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 2:02:13 PM | | as i explained before, miracles cannot be explained scientifically. they contradict science. i told you, the events recorded in the bible as miracles i dont try to scientifically explain, everything else is fair game. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 2:17:18 PM | You're not getting through to me here....
I take it that, in your opinion, miracles are phenomenological 'wildcards' occasionally thrown into the rational world, but which have no basis in rationality.
Given an inexplicable observation, what are your criteria for identifying it as a miracle rather than an unexplained 'real world' phenomenom?
Or are you suggesting that the only 'real' miracles are those reported in the Bible? - What does that make of the requirement that, to be considered for sainthood, a person must have performed miracles? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 3:39:36 PM | yes, miracles do not operate according to the normal laws of the physical universe. i believe the miracles described in bible occured just as they are discribed and have no scientific explanation. yes, God can do miracles today, and in some instances he still does. but nearly all of the supposed 'miracles' you hear about are no doubt coincidence or simply scientific phenomenon. theres no set guidelines per se to evaluating a miracle. dont get me wrong, im not saying anything i cant explain i attribute to be a miracle, but some events cannot logically be explained by naturalistic terms, to do so would not be rational. of course i first resort to science to explain something just as you would. and even if i couldnt, that doesnt make it a miracle, i would simply admit i dont know how the phenomenon occured. but some things i have witnessed, or trusted friends have witnessed simply cannot be explained by science.
i have no idea what you are talking about in terms of requirements for sainthood? saints are simply those who have trusted Christ as their savior, nothing more. perhaps this is a catholic belief? idk, i am not catholic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 3:54:53 PM |
I dont just claim 'miracle' for everything i cant explain lol. The miracles I refer to are directly recorded in the bible. (Message 85) Did you just change your position on miracles?
yes, God can do miracles today, and in some instances he still does. (Message 90)
but some things i have witnessed, or trusted friends have witnessed simply cannot be explained by science So, once again, how do you determine that something cannot be explained by science? The entire goal of scientific research is to explain what hasn't already been explained. How do you determine when to abandon research and resort to miracles - which you now seem to claim still happen?
How can you ever be so certain of a miracle when you state
im not saying anything i cant explain i attribute to be a miracle and
i first resort to science to explain something just as you would. and even if i couldnt, that doesnt make it a miracle | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 4:02:53 PM | ok, the miracles i know for sure happened are in the bible. different things ive seen i wonder if they are miracles but i have no proof. idk if that clarifies anything. i believe he still does personally, but that is a personal belief only.
oh, and though no answers in genesis absolutely hates this guy (i admit he can be obnoxious though i personally find him funny as hell), this guy has some good things to say regardless of what they believe.
drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=72
He offers $250,000 for any concrete evidence supporting* evolution.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 4:54:19 PM | So now we're back to staking our way of life and interpretations of our origins on a book and trusting that it accurately reflects the word of God, accurately recorded by every transcriber who claims to have heard the word of God and accurately translated and interpreted by every translator who had a hand in creating the version that we currently use. Independent of politics, even though many of those involved stood to gain by their 'interpretation'. Creation occurred in 6 'days', despite using the ancient Hebrew word for 'day' that is just as appropriately translated as an unspecified time period. Despite the sun not being created until day 4. Despite modern physics claiming that time is not constant. It doesn't take much for me to see a respected place for the Bible in the vast library which represents the development of knowledge over the ages but it boggles my mind that people can place so much importance on a single document, subject to considerable (mis)interpretation, that they constantly interrupt and disrupt genuine efforts to better understand the world they live in and in some cases even persecute the people making those efforts.
Personally, I believe the Bible and many of its most rabid adherents belittle God and disrupt genuine efforts to better understand Him and the miraculous world around us. I don't think God wants to be a mystery. I think he just wants us to figure it out. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/17/2005 11:05:31 AM | You make a lot of very ingorant and bold claims my friend. Not trying to insult you, but its true. Read Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh Mcdowell. He was an atheist who studied the orgins of the bible for 13 years and yes is now a believer. Or perhaps A Case For Faith by Lee Strobel (former senior editor of chicago tribune). You are not nearly as informed on this subject as you present yourself to be. We have more copies of the Bible than any other ancient documents and less than 1/1000th every varies at all even including the worst texts. not to mention, where it does very, its of no significance to the meaning whatsoever. To think we used to walk and talk with God and now people dont even believe he exists, the irony of it all.
About all the claims that ive 'misquoted' evolutionists. have you refuted a single one like i asked? no. you make claims without having to provide evidence and my evidence has to be absolutely fool proof. how objective are you really being? ask youself. i admit when i dont have the answers. in areas ive directly refuted some of the evolutionist claims has anyone admitted they were wrong? no, never. whos really being objective here?
The bible was enough for Christ to refute Satan. Why then should it not be enough for us? Im going out of my way to provide additional answers using science but still the evidence i provide is immeadiately labeled as religious and dismissed. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 90 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/17/2005 11:35:36 AM |
He offers $250,000 for any concrete evidence supporting* evolution.
It's a sham......
What Is Wrong With the "Offer"?
Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind's challenge?
To be as clear as possible at the very outset: Kent Hovind's "offer" has nothing to do with the validity of the vast body of evidence, from a breathtakingly broad range of disciplines, that establishes the Theory of Evolution as one of the bedrocks of modern science. His challenge, as will be seen, is a mere humbug without value in any rational appraisal of science. The terms of the offer are formulated to be unattainable and it would be nothing but a total waste of time and effort for any proponent of evolution to participate in his charade. The only intent of the offer is to gull the credulous and confuse the uninformed.
By every appearance of that opening, all that needs be done is to present some empirical scientific evidence for evolution and collect $250,000. But note the asterisk! It leads to the following footnote:
* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
That sound you hear is the scraping of goal posts being moved. It is true that, in its broadest possible sense, "evolution" can simply mean "change" and has been applied to such non-biological processes as star and planetary formation. Even cultural phenomena such as the metamorphosis of language and the development of political systems have been referred to in "evolutionary" terms. [8] Yet, in the United States today, in light of at least three-quarters of a century of conflict over the issue, "evolution" is almost universally understood, even among Hovind's own flock, it would be fair to say, to refer to "biological evolution" (perhaps, among creationists, with abiogenesis [9] thrown in).
However, Hovind is not simply using the term loosely but, instead, is trying to fashion an entirely new and idiosyncratic definition that links vastly dissimilar processes under a single rubric. He then insists, as will be seen, that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then none of them can be. It is rather like demanding that a political scientist defend the values of the People's Democratic Republic of (North) Korea or admit that all "democratic republics" are unworkable tyrannies. Just because many things can go under the umbrella of one broad term does not make everything under the umbrella part and parcel of one unitary idea or process.
Then there is, as there always is, the question of the money. It is only reasonable to inquire if Hovind even has the $250,000. In 1996, Hovind filed for bankruptcy, declaring in official court documents under penalty of perjury that, as of that time, he was receiving no income and owned absolutely no property. [23] If there is any reason to believe that his economic worth has significantly changed since then, it is not immediately obvious. All he has said about the existence or whereabouts of the money is: "The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good." [24] Sliding over the last sentence for the moment, it appears that the money and its whereabouts are as anonymous as the committee. Indeed, it is hard not to wonder if this rich friend of Hovind's, if he or she exists, is not also sitting on the committee, if it exists, "guarding" his or her funds. Apparently, we are never to know. It is perhaps instructive to compare Hovind's monetary arrangements with those of James Randi's, who has a $1,000,000 offer for evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. In Randi's offer, an independent, public investment firm certifies the existence of the money and holds the account containing it.
$1,000,000 that actually exists, why doesn't any body who can prove the super-natural exists step forward and claim this money? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/17/2005 12:41:03 PM | Well, it seems a bit pointless to debate someone whos opinions seem to come from books rather than their brains. May as well just spend the time reading. At least when I expressed disagreement with Peter's oopinions, I did so by pointing to inconsistencies in his words rather than bold claims of fallacy with no exploration of what or why. However, that seems to be the way in many religious circles and has been the reasons for many misdeeds and miscarriages of religious truth. It is a stand that frightens me, because those same mindless attitudes will undoubtedly result in further religiously justified tragedies in the future.
I believe that creationism and many other aspects of what may be considered mainsteam faith totally belittle God and the wonderful world He created. Not by magically assembling everything then sitting back in judgement over it, but by setting in motion events that will unfold and express His growing greatness for eternity. Most set themselves apart from God when they are really a part of God and in so being contribute to the wonder of God. To set youself apart is to indulge in idolatry. To be self-satisfied with your understanding of Him is to indulge in idolatry. To dismiss other's attempts to understand His world is a sin. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/17/2005 12:44:57 PM |
Hovind is a really bad scientist. There is almost nothing he does that can stand up to peer review. I have listened to him being interviewed on Coast to Coast AM, and while he is a fascinating speaker I think he would only find credability with those who really want to believe in Young Earth Creation.
There may be legitimite criticisims of evolutionary theory, but that does not make Hovind believeable to me. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/17/2005 5:51:44 PM | | No Answers In Genesis' stuff on Hovind had plenty of flaws in its arguments. Kent Hovind may be obnoxious but his information is plenty legit. All of you have made claims that it is not yet still have failed to give one example of where he is wrong? No surprise here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/17/2005 6:44:08 PM | | inconsistencies in my words quietjohn2? not at all, you misunderstood me, which is why i explained myself. then i added an additional personal belief and said i had no proof for it which is why i said it was a personal belief only. you make a lot of claims yourself quietjohn2. and i do use my brain, dont just accept everything books tell me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/20/2005 7:02:31 AM |
dont just accept everything books tell me.
But, yet you take everything the bible tells you as absolute. One ancient book of unknown origin.
(You're) staking (Y)our way of life and interpretations of our origins on a book and trusting that it accurately reflects the word of God, accurately recorded by every transcriber who claims to have heard the word of God and accurately translated and interpreted by every translator who had a hand in creating the version that we currently use. Independent of politics, even though many of those involved stood to gain by their 'interpretation'. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/20/2005 8:39:40 AM | From another thread, posted by cuterguy:
Creation, or evolution?
Contrary to popular belief, Catholicism is not opposed to evolution.
There are two kinds of evolution. (By the way I *LOVE* the Crocodile Hunter!)
There is MICRO evolution and MACRO evolution.
The kind that you described (snakes having feet, human tonsils, appendix etc) is MICRO evolution. It is a well known fact that our baby toes are much much smaller than they were a couple of hundred years ago. Why? We don't use them much any more because we have vehicles now. The Church recognizes that a species can evolve **within** it's own species.
The Church rejects MACRO evolution, that is the theory that a species can evolve to something **outside** it's own species. It cannot happen and there is no proof that it ever did. It is a **theory** that is taught erroneously as **fact**.
If you read the creation account in Genesis, you have plausible evidence for the Big Bang event when G-d spoke the universe into existence:
"In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of G-d was moving over the face of the waters.
And G-d said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." (Genesis 1:1-3)
It says here that the Earth was "formless and void". Now you have to understand that at the time this was written, the "Earth" was the entire Universe to the people who wrote it. There were no telescopes or space ships to explore beyond what they saw around them. So when they say "the Earth was formless and void" they mean the Universe was formless and void.
So G-d said "let there be light" and BOOM!! Big Bang. The Universe bursts into existence, just like the theory suggests. The Catholic Church recognizes the link between the Big Bang theory and the first few verses of Genesis.
I find no problem with accepting that plants and animals evolved out of the ground from molecules. This is not official Catholic teaching, but only my own theory. The Church permits this type of reasoning as long as it does not deny G-d as the Creator behind it all.
If you look at the first chapters of Genesis, you see that a "firmament" is mentioned.
"And G-d said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
And G-d made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so." (Genesis 1:6-7)
It says that there were waters below the firmament and waters above it. The water above the firmament would have caused a greenhouse like effect because it surrounded the whole world. This would have made the Earth very warm to incubate any molecules that had settled in the "dry land" (Genesis 1:9). The molecules would be nourished by the nutrients in the soil and water. Organisms would have formed. Those organisms would then grow, nourished by the elements. Then, when they had grown sufficiently, they would have come up out of the soil and started to "evolve". We see this happening in Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:20-25 respectively.
"And G-d said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And G-d saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:11-12)
"And G-d said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." So G-d created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And G-d saw that it was good. And G-d blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. And G-d said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And G-d made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And G-d saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:20-25)
The same goes for human beings. It says that G-d fashioned man from the dirt of the Earth.
"then the LORD G-d formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Genesis 2
G-d is spirit. He does not have a body with hands. At least in Old Testament times before Jesus came to earth. It is completely acceptable to reason that man "evolved" up out of the ground as well. The only difference here is that human beings are the only part of G-d's creation that are created for their own sake. They are the only beings that are created in G-d's image.
"Then G-d said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d he created him; male and female he created them. And G-d blessed them, and G-d said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26-28)
What does that mean, to be created in His image? Well, we already know that G-d is spirit (except now Jesus has a human body), but back then He didn't have a body. To be created in G-d's image means that we are individual, rational beings who have the ability to make choices. We have free will rather than being subject to instinct like animals are. People often mistaken being "created in G-d's image" to mean literal, physical image. When we were created, we were perfect. In perfect harmony with G-d and creation. Then sin entered in and damaged that, but that is another discussion altogether.
Now, about Steve Erwin talking about snakes once having feet, it's in Genesis too:
"The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life." (Genesis 3:14)
Here we see that the serpent (snake) was cursed to move along the ground on it's belly. This implies that it had feet before this happened.
Here's an interesting side note for all you vegetarians out there. If you look in the first book of Genesis, you will see that before the Fall, **every creature** was a vegetarian:
"And G-d said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so." (Genesis 1:29-30)
G-d gave "every plant yielding seed and tree with seed in it's fruit" to human beings for food. He gave "every green plant" to animals, birds and everything that "creeps" on the earth for food.
It wasn't until after sin and death entered in that the harmony of creation was interupted and then people and animals became carnivors:
"And the LORD G-d made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them." (Genesis 3:21)
This implies that G-d had to kill an animal to make those garments. No where before this do we see animals being used this way. G-d also cursed the ground and made it more difficult for humans to yield food from it:
"cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:17-19)
There had to be another way to get nourishment, so it is plausible that G-d permitted the killing of animals for food. This implied in the use of animal skin for clothing.
Now, you're probably going to ask me about dinosaurs. Everyone else does.
If we look at how the Bible was **chronologically written** as opposed to how it is **Traditionally** written, the oldest book in the Bible is the Book of Job. It dates back the earliest.
So, if the Book of Job was written before the Book of Genesis, we will have to look there for evidence of dinosaurs:
"Let those curse it who curse the day, who are skilled to rouse up Leviathan." (Job 3:8)
What is Leviathan? Well, we look further in Job and find this:
"Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down his tongue with a cord?... "I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or his goodly frame. Who can strip off his outer garment? Who can penetrate his double coat of mail? Who can open the doors of his face? Round about his teeth is terror. His back is made of rows of shields, shut up closely as with a seal. One is so near to another that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another; they clasp each other and cannot be separated. His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn. Out of his mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils comes forth smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame comes forth from his mouth. In his neck abides strength, and terror dances before him. The folds of his flesh cleave together, firmly cast upon him and immovable. His heart is hard as a stone, hard as the nether millstone. When he raises himself up the mighty are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves. Though the sword reaches him, it does not avail; nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. He counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; for him slingstones are turned to stubble. Clubs are counted as stubble; he laughs at the rattle of javelins. His underparts are like sharp potsherds; he spreads himself like a threshing sledge on the mire. He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment. Behind him he leaves a shining wake; one would think the deep to be hoary. Upon earth there is not his like, a creature without fear. He beholds everything that is high; he is king over all the sons of pride." (Job 41:1, 12-33)
Coat of mail, teeth of terror, back of shields, sneezing and breathing fire, nostrils emitting smoke, breath that kindles coals...sure sounds like a dinosaur to me.
We find another dinosaur in Scripture:
"Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.
"He is the first of the works of G-d; let him who made him bring near his sword!
For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. Under the lotus plants he lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. Can one take him with hooks, or pierce his nose with a snare?"
Strength in his loins, powerful muscles in his belly, limbs like bars of iron...and here's the clincher:
"he is the first of the works of G-d;"
This would fit with the evidence that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.
The Book of Genesis has allegories and symbols. There is no way of knowing if the six "days" were a literal six "days" or if they were symbolic for a period of time. Science has shown us that the Earth is very, very old. The Bible says that with G-d a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day (2 Peter 3:8). So it the theory that the six "days" of creation were not literally six days, but six periods of time.
Now, we see the account of the Flood in the Book of Genesis. If we go by the fact that the Book of Job was written chronologically before Genesis, we have an explanation of why there are no dinosaurs mentioned in that book. They would have been wiped out before then. My theory (and it is only a **my** theory) is that they were wiped out in the Flood because they did not fit into the category of either "clean" or "unclean" animals. As a result, they were not taken in to the ark with the rest of the animals.
I bet you're going to throw in the super-continent "Pangea" to throw me for a loop. Well, I know that all the continents fit together like a puzzle. One cannot look at a map of the world and not recognize that. There are fossils in South America of dinosaurs thought to be native to places on the other side of the planet. A super-continent is the only way to explain this phenomenon.
I believe in something that is similar to the "continental drift" theory. I believe that the flood caused the continents to break apart. Again, just like the "continental drift" theory, it is just a theory. It is not proven. Just like the Big Bang is, as it Evolution.
Remember, for everything to be a "scientific fact" it must be repeatable. None of the forementioned events have been repeated by scientists and therefore remain **theories**.
I realize this has been a long post, but I wanted to thoroughly answer your question and any potential questions that might arise to avoid multiple posts. If you have any other questions, please feel free to PM me.
G-d bless
Pax Christi,
the Baroness | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/21/2005 7:21:50 AM |
You make a lot of very ingorant and bold claims my friend. Not trying to insult you, but its true. Read Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh Mcdowell. He was an atheist who studied the orgins of the bible for 13 years and yes is now a believer.
OK, with regard to Josh McDowell (as well as Lee Strobel), you can feel free to examine the many critiques of the works of these two authors. I have not extensively read the writings of Josh McDowell, mainly because over the years that I'd encountered some of his writings or saw some of his lectures (by video, never saw him live), I simply wasn't impressed. That is to say, his arguments weren't anything which I hadn't encountered before and had already considered. I am not very familiar at all with Lee Stobel, but at this point, having browsed over some of his writings, he doesn't strike me as being any more knowledgable or impressive than McDowell.
The key here is to understand that these men are presenting arguments to prove that Jesus is resurrected and/or that christianity is the only rational thing to believe in. Therefore, they are only pointing you to christianity, and the issues which they are actually addressing do not encompass such things as evolution except by extension of theological premises (i.e., if we evolved, then there was not a fall of man, and therefore no need for Christ...the premise here being that there was a fall of mankind and Christ redeemed mankind).
As far a being "informed" goes, remember that your own desired outcome influences greatly by what and whom you choose to be informed by. Some people talk about the concept of having an open mind. Well, your mind can only be so open, simply because there is too much information out there to adequately consider. Therefore, it's better to determine exactly what it is YOU want to know, and then pursue that knowledge.
If you wish to know if evolution is indeed true, then you must be open to seriously consider both sides of the argument (or maybe there are more than two sides?) I don't gather that you are seriously interested in doing what I'm referring to. The main reason I believe this is that you at most rarely quote anything from sources other than creationist websites, and these creationists nearly always are Christians (I haven't varified everything you've quoted, so I won't assume that ALL are christians, but apparently the majority are).
Remember that we are dealing with a very broad topic here-evolution. As such, a quote here and there or even 20 questions asking how evolutionists explain this or that phenomenon doesn't suffice as grounds to dismiss an entire body of study and theory. Have you ever actually read the very sources you have quoted (or the sources which they quoted)? I've read more than a few, and usually the depth their works aren't nearly as shallow as the quotes taken from them.
Honestly, you will need to pause from debating long enough to decide if you really wish to examine this topic more thoroughly.
For one thing, you'll have to assume that you do not know that truth. If you approach the topic on the premise that you already stated, that is, that the bible and science MUST agree, then you will not be able to reach an informed decision, because your bias will be towards creationist arguments.
You have to be willing to actually devote your mind to taking the opposing side for a good while. Step into the other camp and allow them to speak for themselves. Carefully examine opposing viewpoints on specific topics. An example would be to read the MANY websites devoted to the refutation of Josh McDowell's arguments. And mind you, you'll have to keep doing this, not just do it for a month or year and then quit.
Yes, at some point you'll reach a definite conclusion, but it won't come very soon. I've spent nearly 14 years going over these and many other issues. It is not a small task, so use your time effectively. Avoid people without a good reputation. Stick with persons who have proven themselves to be balanced, who don't jump to conclusions, who CAREFULLY and FAIRLY evaluate ALL the evidence, and then only make conclusions to the extent that the evidence actually allows.
And above all else, remember that YOU are not an authority on any of these topics. Your knowledge is sufficient to debate, but you aren't qualified to deduce many of the conclusions which you have. As I've stated previously, you will need to approach this from the perspective of one who is not a member of the scientific community. From this perspective, you must weigh out the relative strength of arguments. You must consider, for instance, if it is rational to conclude the evolutionists merely accept evolution because they do not have any other alternative. This is actually true; they DON'T have another viable alternative. HOWEVER, they are also aware that there are other possibilities, but that these possibilities are far from likely explanations of what has been observed. Evolution would not be accepted unless it has consistently proven itself to be a valid theory. Assuming that evolutionists are accepting the theory on poor premises isn't fair or rational. There was a period in history when there was no such theory, so claiming that it is necessary for their minds isn't reasonable at all. They have studied the actual evidence and are vastly better informed about the subject matter than are either or us. Therefore, I wouldn't dismiss their conclusions unless I was privy to equally substantial knowledge to the contrary.
No Answers In Genesis' stuff on Hovind had plenty of flaws in its arguments. Kent Hovind may be obnoxious but his information is plenty legit. All of you have made claims that it is not yet still have failed to give one example of where he is wrong?
Strange argument on your point if you think about it. There are flaws in Hovind's arguments, but his information is "plenty legit"?
OK, I'll leave it at this for Dr. Hovind:
1. please keep in mind the Hovind ISN'T a doctor of anything scientific, at least not as of 2003, nor was he in the process of studying for a doctorate. He isn't an authority on ANY of the scientific subjects which he typically addresses, nor is he an authority on biblical text either
2. there is no need to address the issue of his $250,000 reward. Mind you, this very topic has been extensively addressed by various persons from within and without the scientific community, but it is more common for people to simply quote Hovind's claim as a kind of proof of his accuracy, whether that means the accuracy of the information from which he draws conclusions, or that means the conclusions themselves.
3. if you don't feel that Hovind has good insight on the topics at hand, then you shouldn't bring him into the picture. The "information" is available to everyone who wants to find it. Hovind's conclusions on that information is another matter entirely. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/21/2005 7:38:54 AM | I still find a problem with the time frame of all this.
The Human race is less then two million years old. I would say more then a million years for us to go from animals to Civilization, so the flood had to have happened sometime after that. So we have less then a million years for the "evolution" of the various Breeds from the Pairs of each kind stored on the Ark (water buffalo, bison, cows, deer, etc., all from a pair of Bovine saved by Noah)? As well as for the land masses to drift into their current positions. It is not supported by the carbon dating, fossil and geological evidence we have found.
I don't buy it! Not enough Time! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/21/2005 9:21:48 AM | The Baroness had many good points - thanks. However, I think for the hard-core creationists, six days has to be a prerequisite which makes observation and 'facts', as most of us view them, more of a delusion than reality. Then, I suspect there is the unpalatable notion that we may be descended from creatures that don't make acceptable ancestors to creationsist.
Given those preconceptions, it seems an impossible challenge to persuade some people to even consider explanations that include challenges to such beliefs and prejudices. Consider the relatively simple notion of a spherical earth - notions of which were recorded 500 years BC, yet Columbus, almost 2000 years later, had major problems with the folklore belief that he would sail off the edge of a flat world.
Finally, you come down to the issue of "so what?" - Why not just leave people to believe what they wish to believe and quit bickering about it. I think that is an important question to ask, because it truly may not matter. On the other hand, it may be absolutely critical. The practical consequences of a spherical earth and our ability to exploit that fact has undoubtedly been a significant factor in the development of the modern world. Not least, because it prompted people like Newton, Copernicus and Gallileo to figure out how it all worked and really gave modern science its beginnings. How would a shift in your position to the 'other side' change the way you conducted your life, and the way in which you look at the future? | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
