Creation and evolution

by Unknown

Back to The Real World.

Unknown2005-02-07 18:01:14
Monkies? God? Rock? Soup?

Nothing exploded and created everything?

Awesome design, must be an awesome designer?

What do you think? Please don't bash anyone's opinions.
Unknown2005-02-07 18:06:26
I'm lazy, so here's what I wrote on the Funnies section.


QUOTE(Aebrin @ Feb 7 2005, 09:22 AM)

As for the creation story: did you know the word "days" used in the Jewish Holy Book can also be translated into ANY form of time - ie aeons, centuries, ages etc. etc.







Ah, this one has been used a lot. Using the Bible to try to prove evolution. In the Bible days means days, nothing more. I believe God choose the order He created things so we could shoot this theory down with ease.

God created trees and plants and all that green stuff on the third day according to the Bible, He created the sun on the fourth day, according to the Bible. Plants can last a day with out the sun, then cannot last a month, a year, an aeon, etc.

In all those science books you read, they never tell you that among those bones of the "missing link", i.e. some human like monkey, they found human bones. The missing links are nothing more than some odd monkies and deformed humans. Lucy, who is taught to be a missing link has been proven to be a monkey, but the books don't tell you that. The very first "missing link" skeleton every created was proved to be pieced together from a monkey and human's remains.

If the world is so old, why is the olded desert only 4,000 years old? Why is the oldest tree only 4,000 years old? Carbon dating isn't accurate at all, as the magnetic field doesn't have a consistant strength throughout the world all that carbony stuff (I forget the number) is released at different rates of time. A fossil that was dated as millions of years old, through carbon dating had a shoe print in it....wow, old shoe.

Aebrin2005-02-07 18:16:29
I'm curious now what people believe, so *pulls a poll out of his bum* *points*
Raan2005-02-07 18:23:52
QUOTE
2 And the earth was without aform•, and void; and I caused bdarkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my cSpirit dmoved• upon the face of the water; for I am God.

3 And I, God, said: Let there be alight•; and there was light.

4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was agood•. And I, God, divided the blight from the darkness.

5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the aword• of my power, and it was done as I bspake•; and the evening and the morning were the first cday•.

6 And again, I, God, said: Let there be a afirmament• in the midst of the water, and it was so, even as I spake; and I said: Let it divide the waters from the waters; and it was done;

7 And I, God, made the firmament and divided the awaters•, yea, the great waters under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so even as I spake.

8 And I, God, called the firmament aHeaven•; and the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And I, God, said: Let the awaters under the heaven be gathered together unto bone• place, and it was so; and I, God, said: Let there be dry land; and it was so.

10 And I, God, called the dry land aEarth•; and the gathering together of the waters, called I the Sea; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good.

11 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth agrass•, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his akind•; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good;

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And I, God, said: Let there be alights• in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years;

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

16 And I, God, made two great lights; the greater alight to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the bgreater• light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word.

17 And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And the asun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the bdarkness; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good;

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And I, God, said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl which may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And I, God, created great awhales•, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good.

22 And I, God, blessed them, saying: Be fruitful, and amultiply•, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth;

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so;

25 And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and I, God, saw that all these things were good.

26 And I, God, said unto mine aOnly Begotten, which was with me from the bbeginning: Let cus dmake man in our eimage•, after our likeness; and it was so. And I, God, said: Let them have fdominion• over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 And I, God, created man in mine own aimage, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.

28 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be afruitful, and bmultiply•, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And I, God, said unto man: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which shall be the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for ameat•.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein I grant life, there shall be given every clean herb for meat; and it was so, even as I spake.

31 And I, God, saw everything that I had made, and, behold, all things which I had made were very agood•; and the evening and the morning were the bsixth• day.



Sorry for all the extre letters... copying messes everything up it seems tongue.gif
Aebrin2005-02-07 18:26:47
Where is that from?

If it's the Bible, I've never seen that version before.
Raan2005-02-07 18:27:53
http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/3
Aebrin2005-02-07 18:28:51
Ahh Latter Day Saints.
Unknown2005-02-07 18:29:01
Did you post it cuz you believe in it, or so people can have something to work off of?
Raan2005-02-07 18:29:48
Im a Latter Day Saint

So yes, because I believe in it.
Unknown2005-02-07 19:09:19
QUOTE(Alyvia Gladheon @ Feb 7 2005, 01:06 PM)
I'm lazy, so here's what I wrote on the Funnies section.
QUOTE(Aebrin @ Feb 7 2005, 09:22 AM)

As for the creation story: did you know the word "days" used in the Jewish Holy Book can also be translated into ANY form of time - ie aeons, centuries, ages etc. etc.
Ah, this one has been used a lot. Using the Bible to try to prove evolution. In the Bible days means days, nothing more. I believe God choose the order He created things so we could shoot this theory down with ease.

God created trees and plants and all that green stuff on the third day according to the Bible, He created the sun on the fourth day, according to the Bible. Plants can last a day with out the sun, then cannot last a month, a year, an aeon, etc.

In all those science books you read, they never tell you that among those bones of the "missing link", i.e. some human like monkey, they found human bones. The missing links are nothing more than some odd monkies and deformed humans. Lucy, who is taught to be a missing link has been proven to be a monkey, but the books don't tell you that. The very first "missing link" skeleton every created was proved to be pieced together from a monkey and human's remains.

If the world is so old, why is the olded desert only 4,000 years old? Why is the oldest tree only 4,000 years old? Carbon dating isn't accurate at all, as the magnetic field doesn't have a consistant strength throughout the world all that carbony stuff (I forget the number) is released at different rates of time. A fossil that was dated as millions of years old, through carbon dating had a shoe print in it....wow, old shoe.
44198



Can you provide evidence (links, sources)?
Unknown2005-02-07 19:14:26
Btw - plants can not live even a day without the Sun. Why? They'd freeze with 0 stored heat in the earth's atmosphere.
Raan2005-02-07 19:22:21
Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link
by Lane Andserson with Steve Snyder

The science of finding and identifying man's "prehistoric ancestors" runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like "ancestor" revealed with an artist's impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the "ancestor" turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day. The latest discovery is "Lucy."

If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin."1

This is still an exaggeration since it concedes that various specimens are part of human evolution. Australopithecines, for example, are not considered transitional forms anymore, but a branch of the primate evolutionary tree. True transitional forms are still missing. ("Transitional forms" refer to those creatures which represent intermediate states of development for a supposed ape-like ancestor down to man.)

But what about Lucy? This most recent discovery in Africa is being heralded by many as a true transitional form, typically a replacement for the outmoded australopithecines. Could this be hasty judgment? Let's examine the evidence. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr. Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered.

The age is "estimated" to be 3.2 million years. The find includes a V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with very little skull fragments.2 There were other finds at the same location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.

What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws.

And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a "knocked kneed" condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.3

Does this make her an upright walker? Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers. Some experts argue that the higher angle makes her a better climber.4 This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction rather than clear scientific thinking.

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, "could have" walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that "similar structures nearly always have similar plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints." After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: "If you don't believe homology, then you don't believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!"5

What about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of Lucy's bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic scenario - such as a world wide flood?

What about Dr. Johanson's credibility? To his credit, he does talk about the tentative nature of this type of science. But another evolutionary writer says this about the search for humanlike (homonid) bones; "When it comes to finding a new 'star' as our animal ancestor, there is no business like bone business."6

Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture puts it this way, "By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be paid an honorarium."7 Regardless of the motives involved for finding our evolutionary "ancestor", we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with another knee-jerk explanation.


EDIT: This in no way implies my own personal opinion.
Unknown2005-02-07 19:26:51
QUOTE(SirVLCIV @ Feb 7 2005, 11:09 AM)
Can you provide evidence (links, sources)?
44243



Considering, I don't get everything I know off the internet, no I don't have links. I suggest you watch the creation seminars of Dr Kent Hovind. Or see if you can earn http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp from him.
Unknown2005-02-07 19:30:43
How to disprove evolution: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm
Unknown2005-02-07 19:38:18
Found on drdino.com.

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. The following questions were distributed to the 750-plus people who attended my debate at Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota, on January 9, 1993. (The videotaped debate is #6, $9.95.) Questions added since the debate remarked with an asterisk (*).

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did:

o Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

o Single-celled animals evolve?

o Fish change to amphibians?

o Amphibians change to reptiles?

o Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)



How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:

o Whales evolve?

o Sea horses evolve?

o bats evolve?

o Eyes evolve?

o Ears evolve?

o Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

o The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

o The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

o The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

o DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

o The termite or the bacteria in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

o The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

o The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

o The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

o The immune system or the need for it?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?

20. *How did thought evolve?

21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?



After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

o It is all they have been taught.

o They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

o They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

o They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

o Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

11. Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:03:54
DrDino (Dr. Hovind's) proof of creationism dispelled - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-dr.html
Aebrin2005-02-07 20:08:41
One of my brother's friend told me this story once:

For the people who believes in the Big Bang theory:

You are walking along the beach and you find a pocket watch on your way. The watch works in all significant areas - can definitely tell the time accurately, perhaps has an alarm and may even have a calender.

As you ponder at its maker, would you consider the watch to be thrown up and made by the sea with all its intricate workings and functions?

Of course not.

Then how can you define such to a universe with so many functions - physics in place, chemical reaction, so many different life forms. Our Earth itself is at the exact position so that we don't freeze or get burned up.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:15:17
Our knowledge of the universe is incredibly thin, and there's a marvelous theory of the omniverse (how the Big Bang was caused by external forces). The fact that we exist is not proof that there's something miraculous about our existence. There may be other life forms in the universe (or omniverse) - we simply don't know.

Until -proof- exists that disproves evolution, I'm inclined to believe it is -the best- theory to explain our world and universe at the present time. It is not infallible (although it has not been proven false), and it is not 'law', it is 'theory'.
Raan2005-02-07 20:15:20
Post 17:


Bravo smile.gif
Raan2005-02-07 20:17:00
QUOTE
Until -proof- exists that disproves evolution, I'm inclined to believe it is -the best- theory to explain our world and universe at the present time. It is not infallible (although it has not been proven false), and it is not 'law', it is 'theory'.


I admit, it is hard to accept anything without proof. But there are those who honestly don't need it.