evolution vs. biblical theory

[timothy42b]

If there is one constant to the evolution/creationism debate, it is this.

The creationists who come up with objections and questions have not studied biology or any other science enough to ahve a clue what it is about.  Therefore, they ask what seem like stupid questions to anyone with a smattering of knowledge.

You would think it would be easy to answer these questions.

It is not, because the same lack of knowledge prevents them from understanding the answer.

It would be nice to have a discussion with a more educated creationist sometime.  Then we could get past the "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" idiocy and talk some real issues. 

It would be impossible to find a biologist willing to do take part in these discussions who has not read the Bible.  So far it has proved impossible to find a creationist debater who has read any real evolution texts.  Or passed a science course.  They must be out there.  But they are hard to find. 

[Daevren]

I feel it has been the reason why humans are on top of the food chain.

Humans get killed by other creatures. If God wanted humans to be on top he could have made some minor adjustment, making us immune to all animal diseases.

I think it is a maxim of advantage to develop intelligence so why hasn't there been other examples of this on a macroscopic level?

Evolution or developing intelligence? There is not enough time to do an experiment with macroscopic results. People like you seen to keep denying that evolution has been proven. Experiments done in labs have given bigger and bigger results. Total new functions have developed in bacteria in labs already. But you keep shifting the border. You want to SEE a ape evolve into a human. That will never happen. Just admit you don't want to accept evolution, no matter how much proof there is. As long as there is room to deny it, any room, you will deny it.

I am not talking about bacteria. It is obvious that in hospitals there are superbugs resistant to any antibiotics and that has come from years of the bateria having a chance to evolve and change themselves so they become resistant to what is killing them.

Doesn't this prove all evolution? Doesn't this prove humans could have evolved? Do you know about genetics?

But considering human intelligence there is absolutely no other example of an animal which we can compare to. So to say we come from Apes to me is ludicrous because the connection is so weak.

These two have nothing to do with each other. There is no reason why other animals should have developed human intelligence. I find human intelligence just as amazing as you. But I know evolution is true, it works. You admitted this also. But you don't realise that this means humans could also have evolved naturally. The chance for human intelligence to evolve might be very very rare. But I believe evolution did it. What else could have done it. If you think the chance is too unlikely and that God must have played a role then you must assume God set up the universe in such a way humans would evolve.

I don't understand what you alternative is. Did God create Homo Sapiens? How? And why didn't he just evolve humo sapiens. He evolved Homo Erectus? Or did he create Homo Erectus and evolve to Homo Sapiens? In that case he also already evolved Homo Habilis? Why not evolve from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus, its just a small step? Or did he create Homo Habilis and evolve Australopithecus garhi? Etc.

Do you even have an alternative? And does it make more sense? Why not just admit Darwinism is a correct science, but you just don't like it so you refuse to believe it because of theological reasons. Then we are finished with this and you no longer have to trick people.

As for a philosophical point of view of this. If humans didn't evolve we couldn't have observed the coincidence. The fact that we exists already means we had to evolve. So for us there is a 100% chance we would observe these unique situations that made humans evolve.

But evolution on other levels yes I agree it exists. But it still does not explain the evolution of intelligence within a creature. It doesn't explain why evolution does not exist in this.

What? I agree that evolution itself does not explain why humans evolved the way they did. We have to study the conditions in which these proto-human creatures where evolving. Evolution does not explain why evolution does not exist in the evolution of human intelligence? Of course not, evolution does not say that humans didn't evolve.

Also, there are tons of things that suggest humans had a common ancestor with the apes. They look and act much like us, they share lots of DNA. And then we have all the proto-human fossils. We also have ape-like creatures that are proto-chimp and proto-gorilla. How can you deny the observation that there is nothing that suggests humans are evolving? What about all those creatures we found that look so much like us? We found like 8 species of hominids that are in our genus. And alot more that are extinct. And some are even still alive. Chimps, Gorilla's etc are all Hominidae also.

It does not explain how humans gained their intelligence and why not one other creature which could have easily developed it, didn't.

Intelligence could have easily developed? We all know it didn't, and evolution says that intelligence is rare. I don't understand you. First you say intelligence shouldn't even exist at all according evolution and now you say evolution is wrong because only the humans have human intelligence. And I also don't understand how God does explain all this.

I cannot understand, if this human theory, which is only a few hundred years old relies on faith that Humans come from Apes

Have you been reading at all? Humans don't come from apes. Humans share a common ancestor with them. And this is not a faith. It is suggested by the fossil record.

, then I would rather place my faith on a system which has existed for much longer, which provides people with strength, answers in life and direction, rather than something which cannot provide that ever.

But no answers in science. I don't trust my faith in a system invented by people more cruel and barbaric than the Taliban.

So you admit you don't want to know what happened, but you want a system that provides you with comfort. Then why are you here discussing it?

[Torp]

I cannot understand, if this human theory, which is only a few hundred years old relies on faith that Humans come from Apes, then I would rather place my faith on a system which has existed for much longer, which provides people with strength, answers in life and direction, rather than something which cannot provide that ever.

The age of a theory has nothing to do with its validity in explaining how things happen.  If my memory serves me correctly Einstein's Theory of Relativity is younger than Darwin's Evolutionary Theories.  Come to think of it, virtually everything that we can think of in terms of physics and cosmology is younger than the bible.  The troubles of Copernicus come to mind.  The religious powers of the world have had a long history of denying even the most obvious.  While we all take for granted today that the world is NOT flat and that the sky is NOT held up by great pillars, etc., etc., the literal interpretation of the bible says that it is and this caused a great amount of consternation for the scientists who figured out that is was actually semi-round and revolving around the sun.

These very same types of debates have been happening throughout the centuries.  The nice thing is that the religious powers of the world have decreased so we can talk openly about this without the fear of being deemed heretics and have ourselves burned at the stake.

I am, of course, always humored when a claim is made that evolution exists, but it doesn't apply to humans.  That's like saying that gravity exists for bacteria but it doesn't apply to humans; wouldn't that be cool!  Either the laws of nature apply or they do not.  The pursuit of science has always been to come up with more meaningful explanations of phenomena.  The beauty of science, in my opinion, is that is purposely provides for doubt in any explanation.  Thus leaving the door open, or better yet encouraging, further and deeper inquest.

The church's long history of denial of the obvious has to be their biggest downfall.  Instead of denying science, religious groups should embrace it.  The funny thing is that science explains HOW things work, it doesn't explain WHY they work that way to begin with.  How much greater would your god be if he were the creator of evolution, relativity, thermodynamics, etc.?

To me, if the bible is taken less literally it actually becomes a much more powerful document.  Really, the story of Adam and Eve, metaphorically is the story of evolution; all of humanity, all of everything, evolved from very simple beginnings.  Thousands of years ago when it was all written that was the best they could come up with to explain our humble beginnings.  Taken metaphorically it is amazing the insight of the writers.  Taken literally it doesn't really pass the smell test.

Humans may be more intelligent that other species, though I'd like to see that tested in a meaningful way.  However, there are many aspects of humanity that are incredibly inferior to other animals or organisms.  Our smell, our sight, our hearing, our strength, our cardiovascular endurance are all inferior to the best of the best in those categories.  Our adaptive niche has been intelligence.  It has proven to be a valuable asset, though it has very little power over many things, i.e. E coli, AIDS, Ebola, etc.

Whether humanity ultimately proves to be a long-lasting species remains to be seen.

[Daevren]

When I claim that human intelligence is unique van very special other biologists shake their shoulders and say: "Well, every creature is unique in its own way. Humans are just as special as any other creature. Its just that we put more value on ourselves and our intelligence." Of course those people have good point also.

[ludwig]

maybe we should argue about design vs naturalism, rather than creation vs evolution?  because Science and Religion cannot answer the question "where do we come from"in isolation, but we can look at "how we got here?"

[Derek]

Of course. Do you think the first life form ever had all the same organs as we have?

But when you are talking about a human with a new organ, no. Thats not how evolution works.

But if you look at the Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas. This might one day become an independent organ. This gives you an idea how a new organ might evolve.

Note that all mammals (or most, I am not an expert on this) have these Islets too. There may one day be an animal living in such an enviroment that its food contains alot of sugar so it needs a more effective system of glucose control. Step by step the islets could become bigger and more effective. And at the end there could be one independent organ left.

 Your defense of evolution with regards to my question is woefully devoid of "has" and "will" and "does"     Which, if I am not much mistaken, is what science is supposed to do.

(for those just reading my post, my question was can evolution evolve new internal organs?)

[Daevren]

All organs Must have evolved. Didn't I answer your question with "Of course."? After that I started to speculate about the future.

Its just that I don't know what will happen in the future. I am not a truthsayer. Of course new organs could evolve. It already happened before. It is just that I don't know what new organ might evolve in what kind of a creature and for what kind of reason.

This is not my defence of evolution.

maybe we should argue about design vs naturalism, rather than creation vs evolution?  because Science and Religion cannot answer the question "where do we come from"in isolation, but we can look at "how we got here?"

There is no design movement in biology. There are scientists that support design. And some are very good, in their field. But they are never biologists. And they believe in design because they are religious, not because they are scientists.

Just find me one creationist biologist who doesn't stop doing biology. Or find me an atheist creationist scientist.

I know of one biologist that switched to creationist becase he became a christian because his child survived some horrible accident. He was then forced to leave the field of biology and moved to chemisty(I think). A creationist biologist is like a intercontinental pilot that believes the earth is flat. It's ok to believe the earth is flat if you are a banker or a administrator. But when you are a pilot or a biologist you can no longer deny a 'round' earth or Darwinism.

There is no longer a debate in science between design and evolution. Also, everything that is not naturalism falls outside the field of science. All supernatural things are non-scientific in definition. If Darwinism is wrong we need a naturalistic alternative. Untill that happens I support Darwism.

[Derek]

Why don't we change the topic a bit. For most of scientific history, it was believed that everything behaved according to newtonian mechanics, and that everything in the universe was already here.  However, as is now common knowledge, the Big Bang theory suggests a very definite BEGINNING to the universe. It seems to me that scientifically, creationists have triumphed in this case.

[pianonut]

how do you explain the earths abundance of water?

some scientists believe that comets brought to earth a lot of the water (a lot - not all) and that somehow water (by itself) created life.  there are so many HOLES in this theory.  when you read the biblical version there are less holes.

on july 4, NASA scientists are aiming to "punch a hole in the belly of a comet."  national geographic explains this whole idea on page 20 (unmarked page number) "if they're lucky, (they claim) secrets of the solar system locked away for 'billions' of years will spill out...the mission, named 'deep impact' is akin to a dissection:  investigators hope that by blasting tempil I (comet), an oblong comet roughly 9 miles long, they'll expose it's basic anatomy."

"engineers designed two vehicles for the mission, an suv-size flyby spacecraft equipped with telescopes, cameras, and a spectrometer.  also, an 820 lb impact craft about the size of a large washing machine." if i understand correctly, this impact craft will fly directly in front of the comet until "the comet slams into it with the force of nearly five tons of dynamite."

they expect a crater about the size of a football field.

another of the mysteries (of God, i believe) is the power of cells to divide, of the body to repair itself, and of the inner workings of each organ of the body developing and developed.  ok. back to the national geographic (scientist that i am - hahah) "in the beginning, one cell becomes two, and two become four.  being fruitful, they multiply into A ball (bob!) of many cells, a shimmering sphere of human 'potential.' "

this is taking something already created and trying to unlock the secrets of it (just like the comet) - not creating something new, or seeing something in the evolutionary process, or genetically linking something with our understanding of DNA.  it seems that we are limited to a certain amount of knowledge (though it keeps growing) and cannot create life, sustain life (make more water from nothing), or do anything major that God does by simply speaking the Word.  we are limited little creations with potential to become more than what we are.  seeds, so to speak.

even if we understood all the secrets of the universe, without love, we are nothing.  so, to me, living a good life is better than being the ultimate knower.

[Derek]

Yes, indeed. And that leads us to the question, how did the very first cell arise? Did it evolve, too? How could it have, since it has many interdependent structures inside of it? To me, life is far too amazing to believe that it is the result of a chaotic process.  If it is the result of a chaotic process WITHIN a higher intelligence (like God improvising, as it were , I could accept that. But just pure, unthinking chaos? Nope.

Alternatively, I could accept the possibility that all the structures found in life are "already there" and just like crystals WILL arise of their own accord, so will life.

However, even this leaves open the question: Why is there ANY order in the universe at all? That's something science can't answer, but at least religion allows us a way to intuitively think about and study the Grand Mystery (and in many cases even connect us with God!)

[pianonut]

agreed!  there is so much order to everything.  it reminds me of haydn's creation and the chaos section (disharmony, etc.) and then it suddenly goes to C major and bang, there is light.  it dissolves the darkness.  you can see.

ps.  not trying to say that i don't like modern music, just that there is so much harmony in how things are interrelated, as you say.  the food chain, the environments, etc.  when you look at disjointed things, there is not a feeling of being cared for, loved...but more a feeling of isolation, darkness, things related to chaos.

[xvimbi]

However, even this leaves open the question: Why is there ANY order in the universe at all? That's something science can't answer, but at least religion allows us a way to intuitively think about and study the Grand Mystery (and in many cases even connect us with God!)

Isn't is amazing that what science can explain, people call "knowledge", and what science can't explain becomes the basis of "religion." What's really funny is that many religious people are frightened by the possibility that science might in the end just fill those gaps of knowledge so that there is no basis for religion anymore. People who really believe in such a possibility have not understood that science and religion can perfectly coexist. There is no need to bash evolution; it's perfectly compatible with there being a God who created Life. The fact that we know how one species evolved from another does not mean we understand the origin of all of that. Don't get caught up in debating something as meaningless (on a grander scale of things) as evolution in the hopes to proof/disproof science or religion.

On a more scientific note, a question to the evolution-bashers: when were the first humans created? How come we don't have any fossil records from that time of humans that had an intelligence similar to ours today? How come we have plenty of fossil records of humans that are quite remote from how humans are today, and they are only a few tens of thousand years old?

[Daevren]

Why don't we change the topic a bit. For most of scientific history, it was believed that everything behaved according to newtonian mechanics, and that everything in the universe was already here.  However, as is now common knowledge, the Big Bang theory suggests a very definite BEGINNING to the universe. It seems to me that scientifically, creationists have triumphed in this case.

There is no creationism in science. Scientificly creationists have done absolutely nothing.

I don't understand what you mean by this. We made complex observations about complex prosesses and with complex calculations that suggest the universe must have been origined. Before that we didn't really know. There were several theories. Funny thing is that religion favored Big Bang. The name Big Bang was actually coined to rediculize the idea. But it turned out to be quite correct. Some scientists tried to destory the Big Bang theory because it was too religious. But other scientists proved it was quite correct.

So if creationism was supported by the facts scientist would conclude creationism to be correct. Science has no anti-religion bias.


We don't know how cellular life first developed. We also don't know for sure how the earth got all the water it has. But what has this to do with Darwinism? And what does it prove? It proved that scientists don't have all the answers? Well, that is a good thing, it means they look carefully at the facts and keep shut when there are no facts. We don't have enough facts about cellular life, this means we also don't see Gods fingerprints.

when you read the biblical version there are less holes.

I think the explenation "God did it." Is one huge hole that doesn't seem to require and filling. Really, the bible explains nothing. If you believe the bible ansers scientific questions, please give examples.

But this has nothing to do with Darwnism.

another of the mysteries is the power of cells to divide, of the body to repair itself, and of the inner workings of each organ of the body developing and developed.

Are you kidding? We already know how this works.

"in the beginning, one cell becomes two, and two become four.  being fruitful, they multiply into A ball (bob!) of many cells, a shimmering sphere of human 'potential.' "

Come on. This is a sad caricature or straw man. This is not Darwinism.

this is taking something already created and trying to unlock the secrets of it (just like the comet) - not creating something new, or seeing something in the evolutionary process, or genetically linking something with our understanding of DNA.

That's why I say its a caricature. When DNA is copied new inforamtion is added.

it seems that we are limited to a certain amount of knowledge (though it keeps growing) and cannot create life, sustain life (make more water from nothing), or do anything major that God does by simply speaking the Word.  we are limited little creations with potential to become more than what we are.  seeds, so to speak.

I have no idea what you mean with this. Creation water out of nothing? Why are we 'limited little creations'? What is this limit on knowledge and how does it work?

even if we understood all the secrets of the universe, without love, we are nothing.  so, to me, living a good life is better than being the ultimate knower.

Is this an argument against Darwism? I also don't understand why we can't do both? Can't God? Doesn't he know all the secrets of the universe and if full with love?

To me, life is far too amazing to believe that it is the result of a chaotic process.  If it is the result of a chaotic process WITHIN a higher intelligence (like God improvising, as it were Smiley, I could accept that. But just pure, unthinking chaos? Nope.

Its not pure chaos. A Chimp could type the works of Shakespeare with selection. We have mutations and natural selection.

Really, life is so amazing. How could it be created in one big step? Why not very many little steps? If you look at life you don't see design. You see little improving steps. If you look at the fossil record creationism seems simple.


But, give me a scientific alternative to Darwinism.

However, even this leaves open the question: Why is there ANY order in the universe at all? That's something science can't answer, but at least religion allows us a way to intuitively think about and study the Grand Mystery (and in many cases even connect us with God!)

Really, scientists know how amazing this universe is in a much bigger magnitude than non-scientists. It is really amazingly special. The chance a random universe would be like our universe is like one in trillion. Why this is, we don't know. Religion didn't tell us how special the universe is. Science did. But I already said this before.

If there wasn't any order we wouldn't be here to observe it. But this has nothing to do with evolution. Our universe is amazing. Science can't explain why. Religion doesn't even know how special the universe is. Science is miles ahead here.

[i_m_robot]

If there is one constant to the evolution/creationism debate, it is this.

The creationists who come up with objections and questions have not studied biology or any other science enough to ahve a clue what it is about.  Therefore, they ask what seem like stupid questions to anyone with a smattering of knowledge.

You would think it would be easy to answer these questions.

It is not, because the same lack of knowledge prevents them from understanding the answer.

It would be nice to have a discussion with a more educated creationist sometime.  Then we could get past the "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" idiocy and talk some real issues. 

It would be impossible to find a biologist willing to do take part in these discussions who has not read the Bible.  So far it has proved impossible to find a creationist debater who has read any real evolution texts.  Or passed a science course.  They must be out there.  But they are hard to find. 

actually here be one 

and self theory is more sensical than most would think

self physics professor thinks so

the bible says the universe was made in seven days right

how the world could it be made in days if it did not exist to begin with (day and night)

this means that it must have been made in stages and somewhere along the line some genius turn it into days

let there be light - bigbang

my question was can evolution evolve new internal organs

most internal organs were completely different organisms

they joined in a simbiotic relatinoship with one another and formed larger organisms

and the separate organism are called organs

the answer to your question is then yes (since you prefer absolutes)

but it is unlikely the new organs would form as evolution of almost any kind has been stunted by man

more likely the mutation of organs through generations will cause more powerful or weaker organs (of ones that already exist) to develope but it is unlikely that new organs will sprout out of nowhere

[Torp]

For most of scientific history, it was believed that everything behaved according to newtonian mechanics, and that everything in the universe was already here. 

I have yet to see anything in Newtonian Physics that states that its laws are based on the world always having been here.  Additionally, Newton's concepts and pricipals are very much alive and well today because they do a phenomenal job of explaining how things work.  The fact that Science and Scientific Thought are continually pushing the boundaries of knowledge and explanation simply shows that science itself is evolving.  Euclidian geometry was not rendered invalid by non-euclidian geometry; nor was Newtonian Physics rendered obsolete by Relativity.

However, as is now common knowledge, the Big Bang theory suggests a very definite BEGINNING to the universe. It seems to me that scientifically, creationists have triumphed in this case.

OK, so, you've just said that a "theory suggests" something and have used that "suggestion" to bolster your position.  The problem you will have with this is that that "theory" is in direct contradiction to the very book which proposed the "theory" of creationism.  You can't have both.  Either you must admit that your book is not historically accurate and is merely a story or you must say that the big bang theory is erroneous because the bible does not describe it that way.  Which is it?

Additionally, since a mountain of evidence has been found that "more than suggests" both the big bang occurred AND that evolution has, and continues, to occur, by your own statement this evidence must lead to common knowledge and thus to truth.  Science has spent many thousands of years searching for evidence to substantiate and/or refute its theories.  Since creationism is being portrayed as a FACT it therefore follows that it must have at least as much evidence to support it, if not substantially more, as does evolution to support itself.  Where is this evidence?  And, no, the bible, which purports this theory to begin with, is not evidence of it.

[i_m_robot]

OK, so, you've just said that a "theory suggests" something and have used that "suggestion" to bolster your position.  The problem you will have with this is that that "theory" is in direct contradiction to the very book which proposed the "theory" of creationism.  You can't have both. 

.


yes you can

this is a strange assumption

4+ billion years could be seven days, stages, whatever to a god

who knows

[i_m_robot]

why is everyone so eager to say there can only be one way

when clearly there can be many

think outside your respective boxes

[Daevren]

The bible doesn't describe the Big Bang or evolution.

[Torp]

The bible doesn't describe the Big Bang or evolution.

My point exactly, thank you.

[Derek]

It seems to me though it may be true some religious types are afraid Science might explain everything eventually (which it will not, and cannot, by the way), on the same token it seems to me equally thoughtless atheists are afraid that God DOES exist.

[Torp]

Many dozens of "proofs" that evolution never happened have been put forth by creation scientists. These indicators have been well circulated among scientists; all have been easily refuted by them. If such a proof existed, it would be the discovery of the century! It would disprove the entire structure of evolution -- of the earth itself, of its life forms and of the rest of the universe. This structure has been laboriously pieced together over more than a century. Any scientist who was able to disprove evolution would be a shoo-in for the next Nobel Prize, and would receive world-wide fame. It seems obvious that very few scientists could resist such fame and economic rewards; he or she would publish an article immediately and wait by the phone for the Nobel Prize committee to call. But, although tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists are familiar with these "proofs" by creation scientists, no scientist has ever come forward and published a proof in a peer-reviewed journal.

So, how could evolution be proven false?
That would not be a simple task!

The foundational observations which support evolution are
1. The ordered fossil record and,
2. Radiometric analysis of the dates of rocks.

If the radiometric analysis of the age of rocks is valid, then two main beliefs of young-earth creation scientists are disproved.
1. The rock layers were deposited over billions of years, not during the 150 days of Noah's flood.
2. That the earth IS on the order of 4.6 billion years old, not many thousands of years old.

Still, if some convincing proof were discovered that the radiometric analyses are in error by about a factor of 500,000 or so, and that the earth is fewer than 10,000 years of age, then evolution would be disproved. There simply would not have been sufficient time for all of the new species to have evolved. Six specialists in geology, geochemistry and physics have formed the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) research group. They have been working since 1997 to disprove radiometric dating, to prove that the earth is young, and thereby disprove evolution.

If one focuses on the fossils, it becomes clear that the fossils are sorted by geological age. Deep rock layers generally contain the remains of simple creatures; the upper layers have evidence of more complex animals. By studying the entire fossil record, one can determine in what order various species first appeared and when they apparently became extinct.

The sorting of fossils is complete. Dinosaurs have NEVER been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have NEVER been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND with human remains, and so on for perhaps a million other combinations. There are literally millions of pairs of species which have never been found together in the same rock layer. One simple example may clarify this. There is a thin layer of clay containing a high concentration of Iridium which was laid down between the Cretaceous and Tertiary rock layers about 65 million years ago. Because it is found in so many places around the world, it is a very useful date marker. There are thousands of species whose fossils are ONLY found lower in the fossil record than this layer; there are thousands of species which are ONLY found higher. This is overwhelming proof that the rock layers, and the species they contain, were laid down over long periods of time.

In order to disprove evolution, it would be necessary for creation scientists to PROVE that all species co-existed together, and were somehow precisely sorted into layers by species. I am unaware of any efforts by young-earth creation scientists working in this area.

[Daevren]

Some Young Earth scientists deny all science, but they often don't realise it. But they do own a tv, cell phone, computer etc.

How to disprove evolution? Thats a stupid question. All the things I could think of change the nature of this world. For example, no DNA, no fossils, a system limiting mutations.

[i_m_robot]

The bible doesn't describe the Big Bang or evolution.

actually it does

it doesnt blatantly say

there was a big bang

but self believes the steps in the universe and mans creation do coincide with big bang and evolution

like self said

get out of your box

dont take words written thousands of years ago in their exact sense

there werent always ways to say what one meant

but there were always ways to misinterpret

oh yeah

and little girls can come out of the tv

[Daevren]

In 1927, the Belgian Jesuit priest Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang.

He was the first human to have this theory.

Arguing that the bible isn't in violation with the big bang theory is something different.

Genesis says God created light on day. But on day four he created the stars. Without stars there is no light. Genesis says that on day two God created the 'the firmament of heaven. Such a thing has never been observed and is no part of the big bang theory.

And in terms of evolution; on the fifth day God created marine life and birds. We know now that birds evolved from dinosaurs, which are a special kind of land reptiles. But land animals were only created on day six. So this is wrong too.

[Torp]

actually it does

it doesnt blatantly say

there was a big bang

but self believes the steps in the universe and mans creation do coincide with big bang and evolution

like self said

get out of your box

dont take words written thousands of years ago in their exact sense

Daevren has been discussing evolution vs. creationism with the very people who DO take the bible literally and attempt to use it as "proof" of creationism and "proof" that evolution does not exist.

I personally do not take the story of the bible literally.  From Daevren's many comments I doubt s/he takes it literally either.  However, when debating the topic at hand, and the information is being used as a factual basis by one side, it only makes sense to address the fallacy of that argument from the same position.

To implore the evolutionist side to not take the bible literally is preaching to the choir.

[Daevren]

If you don't take the bible literally then creationism has no basis at all.

It would actually be interesting to see how much Christians or Muslims believe in creationism but don't take the ancient texts literally.


Some christians believe the bible is God's word. That the people who wrote the bible were 'inspired' or maybe you could call it 'possessed' by God so that the actual words used are Gods words. This also means taking the text literally, ea the bible is God's message to man.

[i_m_robot]

If you don't take the bible literally then creationism has no basis at all.

not exactly true and not exactly what self is trying to say

selfs saying that many things could be lost in translation

that one can connect the dots to events that coincide with both science and the bible


the underlying theory of creationism is that got created s#!^

this does not mean that it happened in the order that the bible says

or possibly the bible had the right order at one time and it was lost over the years

then some guy decided "hey, lets give em a week then"

or some translator guy was like "I cant read this s@#$", "guess ill have to improvise"

yeah and uh

little girls can come out of the tv screen too

[ted]

I know next to nothing about religion and sweet Fanny Adams about biology so I cannot constructively enter the debate. As an speculative aside, one point I do not understand is why order cannot arise from randomness. That it can is surely the amazing discovery of chaos over the last thirty years isn't it ? (in the mathematical sense of the word "chaos", not the dictionary definition) All you need is some data and a rule. Substitute matter for data and a few laws of physics for the rule and by definition a chaotic model, with all the implication of cycles of order and disorder, exists in physical form.

[Derek]

It depends on the variety of order we're talking about. Of course order comes from unthinking chaos---snowflakes are a perfect example. But thats a far cry from a system of trillions of cells who all have interdependent jobs in organs, several billion of which comprise the human brain. Not to mention that each cell is unimaginably complex in and of itself. It seems to me one could liken the development of a snowflake (or a solar system perhaps) to the existence of chords in the physics of sound, and  the development of a composition to the sort of "chaos + higher intelligence"  required to create a living thing, and especially a living thing like a human being.   That may be a rather far fetched analogy, but thats how I see it.

[i_m_robot]

what causes motion

how does an object, matter, anything get from one smallest point to the next



it boggles da mind

[lostinidlewonder]

Humans get killed by other creatures. If God wanted humans to be on top he could have made some minor adjustment, making us immune to all animal diseases.

We are at the top dummy. Even though we can get killed do we get killed and hunted? NO! Because of our intelligence. I am saying, evolution says fantastic things on a macroscopic level. I am not asking for Proof I am asking all of you who believe evolution to give me ONE MORE MACROSCOPIC EXAMPLE OF IT, like HUMAN-APE, give me one more and explain how and in detail like they do with Man to Ape.

As long as there is room to deny it, any room, you will deny it.

Arrg stop trying to get into my head. Im not a stubborn teen who knows it all anymore. My mind is very open, but I know when I hear THEORIES and TRUTHS. GOD and SCIENCE are both THEORIES, but! There is a big but! Science will not give you strength and hope, God will. WHY! Why does this happen? We are the only animals which bury their Dead, did our concept of death evolve to the concept of God? I dont think so. Rather I believe that our concept of God existed all along. Evolution does not explain intelligence, nor does it explain spirituality, it explains how organisms change, but on a microsopic level. This is by no means a device to say, HUMANS come from APES.

I find human intelligence just as amazing as you. But I know evolution is true, it works. You admitted this also. But you don't realise that this means humans could also have evolved naturally. The chance for human intelligence to evolve might be very very rare. But I believe evolution did it. What else could have done it.

Here again you rely on Faith. And you are placing your Faith on a HUMAN system which has only existed for little over a hundred years. If you can place faith on a pathetic human model and explain all creation with it, why can't you place it on God, a model which has existed far longer and much much more people have held close to their hearts throughout history? Do you trully believe that humans intelligence can explain the universe??

I don't understand what you alternative is. Did God create Homo Sapiens? How? And why didn't he just evolve humo sapiens. He evolved Homo Erectus? Or did he create Homo Erectus and evolve to Homo Sapiens? In that case he also already evolved Homo Habilis? Why not evolve from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus, its just a small step? Or did he create Homo Habilis and evolve Australopithecus garhi? Etc.

You see how many questions face you when you try to explain it all. If the theory of Evolution, or EVILUTION i should say, was so all encompassing you would have these answers. It is funny, becase if you trust God created it all you realise how unimportant it is to undestand HOW we became. Do you care about how the electricity comes into your computer? No you just care that it is working. Does working out how the electricity comes into your comptuer make you better at using the computer? No way. Same as this life. If you realise where you life came from does that help you? Not really. Instead you study how to live your life, anything else is useless and offers no hope and dreams in our life.

Do you even have an alternative? And does it make more sense? Why not just admit Darwinism is a correct science, but you just don't like it so you refuse to believe it because of theological reasons. Then we are finished with this and you no longer have to trick people.

Again you think you know my mind which you don't. I actually enjoy being in opposition to other people, it doesnt infuriate me it interests me greatly. TO be around people with opposing ideas can only make you wiser and smarter. Those who think that you have to make others think like you will never like discussion. I don't want to convince anyone but I like to discuss tough things.

I won't admit it is a correct science because all science is based on theory and in the end requires trust and belief, testing procedures can push us into the correct direction and offer us more confidenece to believe something, but then again so does the case for Jesus Christ and God.

If humans didn't evolve we couldn't have observed the coincidence. The fact that we exists already means we had to evolve. So for us there is a 100% chance we would observe these unique situations that made humans evolve.

Assuming we have lived on this earth for billions and billions of years which we have not. Carbon testing and finding the age of bones all rests on THEORY. That the radioactive decay of Carbon atoms go at the theorised rate. We cannot test if this is true, but we theorise, we place faith in it like one would place faith in God.

Evolution does not explain why evolution does not exist in the evolution of human intelligence? Of course not, evolution does not say that humans didn't evolve.

You must study a lot of LAW with heaps of double negatives because this sentence is just confusing and doesn't say anything if you read it many times.

Also, there are tons of things that suggest humans had a common ancestor with the apes. They look and act much like us, they share lots of DNA. And then we have all the proto-human fossils. We also have ape-like creatures that are proto-chimp and proto-gorilla. How can you deny the observation that there is nothing that suggests humans are evolving? What about all those creatures we found that look so much like us? We found like 8 species of hominids that are in our genus. And alot more that are extinct. And some are even still alive. Chimps, Gorilla's etc are all Hominidae also.

There is still the MISSING LINK. We have all these bones but none which point directly that we come from Apes, they just look similar. The Muslim Allah is similar to the Christian god so should I follow him? Also these bones ages are questionable and many scientists will agree that Carbon dating isnt a precise science, very theorised.

Intelligence could have easily developed? We all know it didn't, and evolution says that intelligence is rare. I don't understand you. First you say intelligence shouldn't even exist at all according evolution and now you say evolution is wrong because only the humans have human intelligence. And I also don't understand how God does explain all this.

I want to understand why is it that HUMANS are the only beings with Choice, a concept of Death, and have this intelligence. No other animal comes close. We are the rulers of this earth. We bury our dead. What does this all mean? It is God? It is Science? It is GOD i think for now becuase NO human intelligence can explain this to me yet.

Have you been reading at all? Humans don't come from apes. Humans share a common ancestor with them. And this is not a faith. It is suggested by the fossil record.

It is suggested so then it should mean that humans come from apes or why at all suggest it!!! Ludicrous. If science is sitting on the fence for this one so be it, but I hear lots of people saying We come from Apes and Evolution proves it, I can't see that.

But no answers in science. I don't trust my faith in a system invented by people more cruel and barbaric than the Taliban.

But you place your faith system in something created by a scientist. You are placing a lot of FAITH in human knoweldge. Christians stand to say, Humans do not know it all! That is why we place our faith in God and Jesus Christ.

The Church or Jesus Christ, Christianity, was NEVER spread with hate. It was the Roman influence on the faith which made it so.

So you admit you don't want to know what happened, but you want a system that provides you with comfort. Then why are you here discussing it?

I can't see why anyone would trust a system which brings distress and loss of hope. It seems utterly pointless. Whatever you stand by has to be for a positive reason. If one stands by something and it offers nothing but just a statement how is that helpful?

[ludwig]

I think its impossible to argue the "beginnings" of everything because of the loop holes from both science and religion. I agree that what one cannot explain, we look for it the other, we like to fill in the gaps...How did everything get here biologically? who cares! We won't know for certain from science until proven (so just wait?) , and if you intepret the bible very literally What we can do is look at the process of change...

I do think that the co-existence is worth a look at, (not the biology I know but from the point of a mathematician + physicist + religious person :p ) If you cannot argue for what is the answer, why don't we look at what isn't the answer. Previously I have believed Darwinsim is the way to go for how things evolve (micro and macro), but after doing a class in science and religion, I looked at the statistics for the chances of certain things happening in evolution, when something becomes another, and to say that they are miniscure is an understatement (i'll find the figures, its like the chance of someone winning the lottery 5 times in a row), i don't know what to believe but all I'm saying is that scientists who are religious are religious for a reason. Accidents or "randomness" to them don't make sense, thus they rule out most elements of evolution, (macro, not micro), it is the studying of the theory of evolution that precisely made them not believe in it becuase of its flaws...Anyways, i'll go and find my lecture notes on this topic, very interesting...

[Daevren]

We are at the top dummy. Even though we can get killed do we get killed and hunted? NO! Because of our intelligence.

Without technology we are rather fragile.

I am saying, evolution says fantastic things on a macroscopic level. I am not asking for Proof I am asking all of you who believe evolution to give me ONE MORE MACROSCOPIC EXAMPLE OF IT, like HUMAN-APE, give me one more and explain how and in detail like they do with Man to Ape.

I still don't understand what you mean?
 

Arrg stop trying to get into my head. Im not a stubborn teen who knows it all anymore. My mind is very open, but I know when I hear THEORIES and TRUTHS. GOD and SCIENCE are both THEORIES, but!

Then why don't you read my posts more careful?

There is a big but! Science will not give you strength and hope, God will.

So? What is your point? Does this prove Darwinism is incorrect? Does this prove science is wrong? Does this prove God exists?

WHY! Why does this happen? We are the only animals which bury their Dead, did our concept of death evolve to the concept of God? I dont think so. Rather I believe that our concept of God existed all along.

So because people feel comfort in the concept of death or afterlife God must exist? And therefore evolution must be wrong? What!?

Also, Elephants carry the bones of their death companions.

Evolution does not explain intelligence,

Of course it does. It only says human intelligence is unlikely. Obviously intelligence can be an advantage. You admitted this yourself. You wondered why not all animals are as intelligent as humans because you think evolution would result in this. And now you switched to the total opposite? Plus, you already did this before in your previous post. First you state evolution doesn't explain intelligence and then you claim evolution doesn't explain the lack of intelligence? Huh!?

nor does it explain spirituality,

Actually you can make arguments about why religion should give humans an evolutionary advantage. You already said yourself that believing in God gives comfort. Another is that shared ideas in a group strenghen group bonds. But for this they must have ideas, any idea.

Almost all human culture have some form of religion. Atheism is very rare. Still only about 3% of all humans are atheist. This is because of evolution and the above reasons. This is not about God, because some don't believe in God or believe in multiple Gods. Some believe in minor Gods only, non-creating non-omnipotent Gods. So it isn't God herself.

[qupte] it explains how organisms change, but on a microsopic level. This is by no means a device to say, HUMANS come from APES.

There is no system blocking or limiting change. If bacteria and virusses evolve then all other creatures do too. They share the same system of storing genetic data. It's just that bacteria and virusses reproduce alot faster so more generations pass. Saying only bacteria evolve, or that only micro-evolution exists is making an assumption and that assumtion needs to be backed up. What makes the difference? 

Here again you rely on Faith. And you are placing your Faith on a HUMAN system which has only existed for little over a hundred years. If you can place faith on a pathetic human model and explain all creation with it,

I place my faith in observations. I can't observe God. There are no facts that support God. If I look at the world I don't see a God. I don't see how the existence of God explains anything. It is a pacifier. "How did humans come into being?" God did it. Now lets not thing about it any more. God takes care of us, we don't need to worry about it."

why can't you place it on God,

The model of God doesn't make accurate predictions. Evolution does. There is no observation that suggests God exists. There are observations that suggest evolution happens.

a model which has existed far longer and much much more people have held close to their hearts throughout history?

A model made up by people 4000 years ago with absolutely no knowledge of the world and morals even worse than the Taliban, no thank you.

Do you trully believe that humans intelligence can explain the universe?

What has this got to do with it? Probably not. But we can try. We did get a long way already. Whereas 'the model of God' doesn't explain anything more than 4000 years ago. Science finds things out. Look at your computer. Incredible and complex science is happening inside your monitor. Quantum mechanics, totally crazy and amazing hard science.

You see how many questions face you when you try to explain it all.

You have no questions, you have God. You also have no answers. Yes, I have alot of questions unanswered. But I have tons answered too. I know a lot about the world. I know about quarks, leptons, bosons, gluons. I know how amazingly animals evolved. I know how big the universe is and how unique this universe is. You know: "God did it."

If the theory of Evolution, or EVILUTION i should say,

Now evolution is evil? Huh!?

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html

was so all encompassing you would have these answers. It is funny, becase if you trust God created it all you realise how unimportant it is to undestand HOW we became.

See. Nietzsche was right. And Marx was right too. The great pacifier propagating ignorance.

Do you care about how the electricity comes into your computer? No you just care that it is working.

Actually this is very important. I like discussing alternative energy sources. Oil is both running out and possibly changing the climate, etc.

But I guess you don't have to worry? God will clean up the atmosphere and create oil out of nothing when we run out? Right?

 

Does working out how the electricity comes into your comptuer make you better at using the computer?

How can you even have a computer if no one knows what electricity is? Are you anti-technology now? You amaze me. Maybe I need to fix my computer or add a new network card. If I didn't know what electricity is I may open the computer and add a card without turning the power of. If that happens I might be seeing Peter at the gate of heavens rather soon, won't I?

No way. Same as this life. If you realise where you life came from does that help you? Not really. Instead you study how to live your life, anything else is useless and offers no hope and dreams in our life.

Darwinism doesn't tell me how to live my life.

Again you think you know my mind which you don't. I actually enjoy being in opposition to other people, it doesnt infuriate me it interests me greatly. TO be around people with opposing ideas can only make you wiser and smarter.

Nice.

So you have an alternative for evolution?

I won't admit it is a correct science because all science is based on theory and in the end requires trust and belief,

Do you know how science works? Do you know what it means when scientists call something a theory? I guess not: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

"The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty."

testing procedures can push us into the correct direction and offer us more confidenece to believe something, but then again so does the case for Jesus Christ and God.

Does Jesus tell you to turn off your computer before you add a new chip? Or does God tell you that? Really, this is a stupid argument. This isn't the same thing. 

Assuming we have lived on this earth for billions and billions of years which we have not.

What is the value of this assumption? I fail to understand.

Carbon testing and finding the age of bones all rests on THEORY.

So it's a theory, but that's great. Also, carbon dating works, its accurate. We can know how old stuff is.

That the radioactive decay of Carbon atoms go at the theorised rate. We cannot test if this is true, but we theorise, we place faith in it like one would place faith in God.

No. Didn't you learn this in high school? We don't need billions of years to know the half-life time of a radioactive element. Plus it has all been checked and verified. It requires no faith. The laws and theories hold. They are accurate. It works.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

You must study a lot of LAW with heaps of double negatives because this sentence is just confusing and doesn't say anything if you read it many times.

Thats because you were confused in the first place. You were mixing stuff up bad. I only repeated it so you would see how meaningless the things you said are.
 

There is still the MISSING LINK.

How many 'missing links' do we need to find? I assume you mean the missing link in the human evolution fossil record. Please specify which two species of hominids should be linked by this missing link. Then we can discuss this.

Missing links don't exist in science. It is a creationist construct. Just like micro and macro evolution.

We have all these bones but none which point directly that we come from Apes, they just look similar.

Just look similar. Well, doesn't that point into that direction. Some of these guys had brains the size of an ape.

The Muslim Allah is similar to the Christian god so should I follow him?

Actually you already are. Its the same God. But I don't see how this analogy works. I am going to write this down for some friends so we can have a laugh. Really, this is absurd.

Also these bones ages are questionable and many scientists will agree that Carbon dating isnt a precise science, very theorised.

Creationist lies and propaganda. Your monitor works. Scientific theories work and they are very accurate. You are not.

When something is a scientific theory it doesn't mean it is accurate or wrong. There are also no scientists that believe carbon dating is wrong and that believe in a young world form of creationism. Most of them admit evolution is right, they only say that everything evolves according to a design of an intelligence. Science does not give any more room. When you hack at carbon dating you must abandon all science. People who think carbon dating is wrong also believe the monitor of their computer doesn't work. There people are very wrong.

I want to understand why is it that HUMANS are the only beings with Choice, a concept of Death, and have this intelligence. No other animal comes close. We are the rulers of this earth. We bury our dead. What does this all mean? It is God? It is Science? It is GOD i think for now becuase NO human intelligence can explain this to me yet.

This proves God exists? We are the rules of the earth? We have only been here for like almost nothing.

The earth is  billion years old. We evolved 150,000 years ago. How long have we ruled? Last 6000 years? Thats 0,000001% of the earth's history. And the universe is 3 times older than the earth, 13,6 billion years. So we have ruled this tiny tiny speckle of dust for really 0 percent of the time. Wow, amazing.

Or are you a young earth creationist?

It is suggested so then it should mean that humans come from apes or why at all suggest it!!! Ludicrous.

One more time. We share a common ancestor, that creature lived about 25 years ago and is long extinct. We are both part of the hominid family.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

If science is sitting on the fence for this one so be it, but I hear lots of people saying We come from Apes and Evolution proves it, I can't see that. But you place your faith system in something created by a scientist. You are placing a lot of FAITH in human knoweldge. Christians stand to say, Humans do not know it all! That is why we place our faith in God and Jesus Christ.

Those people are wrong, we didn't evolve from chimps. And science doesn't require faith.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

The Church or Jesus Christ, Christianity, was NEVER spread with hate. It was the Roman influence on the faith which made it so.

What?! What about the crusades? The inquisition? The witch burnings? Those people weren't 'true' christians?

I can't see why anyone would trust a system which brings distress and loss of hope.

I don't get to pick my system. If I could I would pick a religion. But I can't support things that require faith. I want answers.

It seems utterly pointless. Whatever you stand by has to be for a positive reason. If one stands by something and it offers nothing but just a statement how is that helpful?

It helps me find the truth. I want to know how the world works. Science gives some answers. And many many more and way better answers than anything else.



So are you going to tell me how God created humans? And When? And where. Maybe some proof? 

[i_m_robot]

perhaps through evolution

[PaxNoctis]

So...  it's not possible that evolution as a process exists and is the driving force behind life, and also that it was accelerated/directed by a higher power?

Why?

~D

[Daevren]

Could be possible. But can this be proven?

Science doesn't make this kind of assumptions. There doesn't seem to be a need for a 'driving force'. So this 'driving force' assumtion answers nothing and creates alot of question. It doesn't make a theory better.


Acrtually, there already is a 'driving force'. It's called natural selection.

[i_m_robot]

what is the driving force behind motion


 



and really

what can actually be proven

can a person prove that what he perceives to be blue is actually what another person perceives

[i_m_robot]

Could be possible. But can this be proven?

Science doesn't make this kind of assumptions. There doesn't seem to be a need for a 'driving force'. So this 'driving force' assumtion answers nothing and creates alot of question. It doesn't make a theory better.


Acrtually, there already is a 'driving force'. It's called natural selection.

driving force behind natural selection is survival

driving force behind survival is....

fear

or perhaps even the force behind motion

yeah and uh

little girls can come out of the tv screen too

[Derek]

Here's a question: Why did any life form ever have a need to survive? It seems to me the rest of the matter in the universe just flies around, smacks into things, and burns.  Why is life-matter so different? Why does it strive?

[Aspiring Romantic]

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires. "
-Sigmound Freud
 
Not that Freud was a completely unbiased person.  But I think his quote fits perfectely for the definition of religion

[i_m_robot]

Here's a question: Why did any life form ever have a need to survive? It seems to me the rest of the matter in the universe just flies around, smacks into things, and burns. 

and continues to do so perpetually

much like life

[pianonut]

instinctual desires are animalistic.  intelligence gives us choice.

i don't want to argue just for the sake of arguing, but rather discuss.  and, admitting that i am not a scientist doesn't exactly put me at the head of this discussion.  BUT, following the thread, one of the points of discussion are things we see (cell division).  when i brought that up, i was speaking of the creative power that set in motion the dividing and not the dividing itself.  science may be able to explain HOW some things work, but not what set the motion going.  the big BANG, may well have been God's creative force beginning with the most powerful thing we know - light and the expression of Himself. 

genesis mentions that before this world was created AS WE KNOW IT, he was hovering over the water!?  water seemingly then covered the whole earth.  why was water over the whole earth?  probably (and i say probably, because this isn't discussed in detail or length in the bible) because there was a previous creation and God decided that it wasn't going in the direction that HE desired.  our bible starts with knowledge that God deems relevant to us.  He doesn't tell us a lot (just a little, as in the book of jude) about what went on between He and the angels.  when 1/3 of the angels rebelled, they probably wanted to destroy what God was creating.  satan is often talked of as a destroyer.

anyway, as i understand creation and science working together, God started the whole ball rolling.  he did not create man one way (without intelligence, simply a gatherer and hunter and nothing else) and then cause him to evolve higher and higher into a greater form.  i cannot accept that, because He says he created us IN HIS IMAGE.  so, we are left right now to realize the 'seed' form of Himself in us.  there ARE humans who have been embalmed (king tut - in last issue of national geographic) that we know were similar to us today.  some archeologist try to prove (with little evidence) that the bones,e tc. of early man show they were humped over, walked like apes, and didn't have much intelligence as we do today.  there is no proof of this bone structure.  simply put, darwin was so focused on his own beliefs that he tried to force his ideas into being reality.  there was recently a long article about darwinism in the national geographic.

if you believe carbon dating to be accurate, perhaps the beginning of our time post-dated an ice age where there were previous creations (allowing for oil reserves for us today).  with God there is no CAN'T.  He can do anything He wants.  if he wanted to create previous life forms (possibly for our use) and he doesn't want to explain previous life ages - that's His decision.  some say that the behemoth (or giant creature talked about in job) was the dinosaur and that it became extinct at the time of noah's flood.  also, a leviathan or sea-monster is spoken of in various places.  i personally, do not believe that dinosaurs and man co-existed.  gen. 7:14 says 'every beast after it's kind' went into the ark.  the dinosaur would have been too large.

perhaps there were previous 'destructions' as spoken of in II peter 2:3 "...their judgement from LONG AGO is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." the sinful angels wanted to gain from godliness (I timothy 6:5) isaiah 14:13 mentions that they "said in their hearts, i will ascend to heaven; i will raise my throne above the starts of God, and i will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north...i will ascend above the heights of the clouds; i will make myself like the Most High."

perhaps in another creation the behemoth was created.  job 40:15 describes an animal much like the dinosaur.  (tail like a cedar)  verse 19 says that "He is the first of the ways of God."  God may have been describing to job (who thought he knew everything, to explain what happened before time existed as we know it, and the unknown ways of God).  job 40 begins with God saying "will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?  let him who reproves God answer it."  then he goes on to tell job what it was really like.  some of the first animals he ever created.  of course, he can decide what stays and what goes.  in the creation of man, i believe he decided to re-create an environment that was man-friendly.  the crocodile is probably the closest He came to a dinosaur type animal. job 41:32 "one would think the deep to be gray-haired...nothing on earth is like him..."  perhaps hints of what God had done before man existed.

[timothy42b]

No, behemoth is not a dinosaur, nor is leviathan.

Biblical historians agree.  Behemoth is a hippopotamous.  Leviathan is a crocodile.  Both were common in the Middle East where the OT was written.  Descriptions match perfectly (allowing for the language). 

I have thought about my earlier contention, that it was not clear why we couldn't find an educated creationist to debate with. 

I have come to a conclusion.

It is not possible to take more than one high school or introductory level biology class, at least not enough coursework to understand the science of it, and not abandon creationism.  Other things that would do it would be to take a geology class, an astronomy class, or possibly a physics class.  Any science class at all that teaches scientific method and an understanding of large numbers will probably destroy your faith in creationism too. 

It just seems to be the way it works.

[Daevren]

Here's a question: Why did any life form ever have a need to survive? It seems to me the rest of the matter in the universe just flies around, smacks into things, and burns.  Why is life-matter so different? Why does it strive?

It doens't need to survive. It's just that it can. And when it does is passes on it's genes. Live that doesn't survive dies, so it can't exist. Therefore all life wants to survive.

Actually, some things in the universe have quite some complexity too. Like stars. A universe needs tweaked laws to make it possible for stars to produce a fusion reaction and to produce energy/light.

Even atoms are special. The laws of the universe need to be special for even atoms to form. Otherwise protons and neutrons would join together and electrons wouldn't circle them. They would just all float around, like they do in plasma gas. Also, if gravity wasn't so weak, planets wouldn't form. Every body with mass would be like a black hole or neutron star. All matter would fall through the earth to the center of the earth. But magnetism is strong and holds everything together, countering the force of gravity.

Another strange thing is that there are 6 different kinds of quarks and only two are used to build matter as we know it. The others aren't used. Why do they exist? Then we have 12 leptons and only one is used to 'do stuff. We have 3 different kinds of neutrino's. Chargeless, almost massless, they do nothing. They can pass through 22 lightyears of lead without the lead having any effect on them. Who would design neutrino's.

So its kind of a paradox. The universe looks designed if you look at some parts of the laws of nature. But others make no sense.

[pianonut]

the course that convinced me that i was on the right path was not just science (took intro to physics- learned about matter, laws of physics, formulas) but psychology.  we dissected a sheep brain.  the thinking mind is also a mystery especially in relation to language development, comprehension, and ability to create.  when you look at a brain, or an eyeball, or anything that helps us with our senses - you wonder how it possibly could have evolved.  to me, it's so amazing that it has to have been created by a God that was a) creative  b) thoughtful  c)loving  He gave us the unique ability to make choices and also to be able to worship Him.  the animals do not worship God per se.  just rely on Him for their sustenance.  We on the other hand, have the ability to thank Him.

when you evolutionize things, there is an abstract quality that doesn't fit.  randomness, that doesn't fit.  and, lack of love.

[Daevren]

Like I said before, that does not make any scientific sense.

[timothy42b]

Like I said before, that does not make any scientific sense.

Read it more carefully.  I think he is saying he knows science is correct, but he's going to reject it anyway because he doesn't like it. 

[Torp]

To me, the advantage of the scientific method is that it has the concept of "self-correction" built in.  The scientific method works in the following way:

1. Observing something that is unexpected or unusual. Perhaps something that has been detected for the first time.
2. Gathering as much evidence as possible about the phenomenon.
3. Creating one or more hypotheses that might explain the observation(s), using intuition, analytical methods, trial and error, etc. The hypothesis is based upon the assumption that only natural forces are at work. That is, there are no supernatural forces intruding into the world causing unpredictable results at random times.
4. Designing a test that will give predictable results if the hypothesis is true. (Sometimes the opposite is done: a test is designed to attempt to prove that a hypothesis is false, in order to eliminate it from consideration.)
5. Conducting the test; check the results. Determine if the hypothesis has merit.
6. Restarting, if the hypothesis has no merit.
7. If successful, publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal.
8. Independent duplication of the above steps by others to confirm that the conclusions are reproducible.

The problem I have with so called "creation science" is that it basically says, "Go and study, and test, and make it look like the above, but if you find any evidence that contradicts the bible, then, by definition, it is wrong." In other words it is starting from the position that the bible could never be wrong and if it is shown to be then you are simply stupid and have made an "incorrect" discovery.

This is not how the advancement of knowledge works.  The funny thing is that science takes the opposite approach, a fact which many pseudoscientists try to exploit (mostly via semantics), by making the assumption that, as a scientist, you must be prepared at any moment for the possibility that a particular theory or law "could" be proven wrong.

Scientists once believed in a geocentric solar system.  As a mounting body of evidence grew to support a sun-centered solar system the religious powers of the day fought and fought to suppress that.  The geocentric system finally collapsed under its own weight.

Evolution will follow the same path.

[Torp]

"The Intelligent design hypothesis has one major flaw: it requires one to believe that a competent, thinking, omnipotent, divine being created the platypus: a venomous, egg-laying, duck billed mammal."   Anonymous

[lostinidlewonder]

The age of a theory has nothing to do with its validity in explaining how things happen.

It does to me when two of the same things require faith. I would lean towards the one which has been accepted a lot longer and has proven to offer a lot.