Evolutionism or Creacionism?

[einherjar]

Please vote and give your opinion

[Kassaa]

Evolutionism. Even Harry Potter is more probable than creationism.

[einherjar]

That's also my opinion... But i know there are still many people believing in it... i see many people in the internet who mock with evolutionism and believe criationism... ( I am trying to be neutral by avoiding ). But im just checking the opinion here at piano-street forum.

[pianistimo]

if u study dna, u'll see that many things that used to be believed have been disproven.  science is proving creationism more than evolutionism.  but, noone says anything because they'll get flack.  a very high percentage of nobel peace prize winners believe there is a God.  why?  because it's not just science  that gets people places - it's living together in harmony and peace that's the most difficult problem in the world.

[prometheus]

There is no theory of creationism. "God did it." is not a theory.

Science is not proving creationism at all. Darwinistic evolution is one of the strongest theories in the history of science. Getting so much opposition and still going strong. Actually, going stronger than ever and still increasing.

Creationism has been reduced to Intelligent Design.


Pianistimo you are blantly lying. Stop it.

[einherjar]

Hey, this is not about God's existance or not!
I am Catholic and believe in God, but  i am also Evolutionist. Darwin believed in God too.
But even the Catholic Church says that the Genesis is figurative... It's not that seven day thing. God created the Universe, but with more advance mechanisms... wich science tries to understand... BtW, Evolutionism as with all teories have it's flaws, but it's much more plausible than Creationism... And what are the proofs in favor of Creationism nowadays? i would like to see them.

[pianistimo]

i have enountered others who believe in a longer creation who are religious as well.  i think the church and science have actually melded much more - because many religious leaders are losing the 'faith once delivered.'  if every word of God is true - then we can't doubt some and believe others, imo.  if God says creation happened in six days (and he created the sun and moon to make 'one evening and one morning' - we know a day means a day) then it had to be six days if u go by faith.

if u go by reason - there are other things that prove creation.  www.defendyourfaith.org and click on the earth - 'creation' and then 'intelligent design' and then 'dna.'

one direct site for dna stuff is :  www.rae.org/revev6.html

ps  if God allowed 'evolution' to 'evolve' it wouldn't be a matter of a creator 'creating' and making each thing - but a sort of 'standing back' and 'watching it all happen.'  but, if God's word is POWERFUL - then HE CAN speak things into existence.  can u imagine how  powerful the moment must have been 'let there be LIGHT'  - that could have been a big bang right there - but it didn't just 'happen'  - it was 'created.'

[prometheus]

For creationists it is about the existence of god. Otherwise they wouldn't be creationists since the only reason to be one is because you beleive in god and in a literal interpretation of the bible.


About evolutionism. There are many many different theories of evolution. Only the one by Darwin, and that has been modified with current knowledge, is still strong. The others are not. That's why people talk about 'darwinism' and 'darwinistic evolution' because there has to be a clear distinction. It is not that my children will be 'human giraffes' when I try to stretch my neck all day long, every day of my life, trying to reaches the upper leaves of the tree. This kind of evolution is not what is observed and this theory of evolution, this part of evolutionism, which in itself is as old as creationism, is dead.

The main problem with creationism is not that it is religion, that is a problem, but that it is largely empty. The so called 'theory of creationism', and there are many, often doesn't state anything. How does that theory explain the origin of life?

The bible itself explains that God used his voice and commanded things into existence. The question is how this works. How can one command things into existance with ones voice. Does gods voice create some kind of vibrations, which energy can be converted into matter?
Then the bible retells the story in a different, contradicting, way. Humans are created out of sand. But humans are made of carbon. And not out of silicium. Silicium is similar to carbon but of course it is a different element. So did God use fission to go from silicium to carbon? What was the exact reaction and how did she start it off?

These things are to be answered before something is a theory. If you do this then the theory can be refuted. We call this falsifiability. A theory needs to be falsifiable, meaning it can be proven to be wrong in the case that it is wrong, to be usable.

Creationism hasn't done this. There are many different and all incomplete theories. Most creationists don't even have a theory. All they have is: "God did it." The same thing they had 4000 years ago and the same thing they will have 4000 years into the future.

[pianistimo]

because i am a simpler thinker than many of these scientists - i can most readily identify with the 'mutations' aspect.  when he says 'now who wants to have their genes mutated or radiated' to get some variety going?  i think it is kinda funny.  but, not funny.  it's not a joke.  either God created us good - or he created us for some small variety but not outside of our general dna makeup. 

brains - now that is another aspect.  why are we STILL after thousands of years of human history - the top of the 'chain?'  there are supposedly these thousands of years that we barely existed - but when we uncover sites that ancient people lived - there were obvious iron and bronzing work done - and not by animals.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,  you yourself said saying 'God did it' is not a theory.  u are right!  we could debate this for ages - but for many christians - it is a matter of faith.  we simply take His word by faith.  we see in our own lives that He is much more powerful and wise than we are - so we don't really doubt. 

this seems ridiculous to think about trusting someone to that extent.  but, if u realize how God has maintained this earth for so very long - just that alone could build trust.  if our earth has very minute degrees of heat and cold that sustain life - this could have been erased years ago by allowing the earth to be hit by meteors (which is still a very real supposed threat today).  if u ask a scientist who is not christian why we haven't yet been hit by a meteor of very large size and had a large portion of the earth destroyed - they might not have an explaination.

can anyone find a tree ring that proves (fossilized or otherwise) that proves more than 6000 years of existence?

(i admit to simple thinking, ok).  and - as far as humans and silicium and carbon - whatever elements - they return to dust when burned.  that's what i see.  dust.  silicium - when i googled it - came up 'the greater part of sand or rock.'  now you can probably tell me more about what this is about - but from a reading of the bible - i read that God created man from the dust of the earth.

[Derek]

I don't think it makes sense to see these two things as mutually exclusive. We DO know that there is a pattern in the fossil record which suggests many aspects of the theory of evolution are true. However none of these patterns offers an explanation for how life started to begin with.

We just...don't....know.

Therefore....I don't think it appropriate for schools to offer an "alternative theory" such as intelligent design, however teachers SHOULD be careful not to allow students to take it for granted that evolution *EXPLAINS* life, because it does not. It merely describes its development thus far---hardly an explanation. Yet there ARE thousands of people today who do seem to use evolution as a way to assume there is no God. This is ignorant, in my opinion.

[pianistimo]

many people try to disprove the bible - and i myself have been pondering some verses - not doubting but just wondering.  for instance on the other thread about death - how could ancient people have lived up to 900+ years - and then God decides that because of 'nephillim' and 'men of renown' (which could be the source of the idea of greek gods) that he only wanted man to have a lifespan of 120 years.

that was before the flood and who knows what remnants of human remains are to be found from that era unless frozen - which is why i am extremely interested in the polar regions.  from day to day more is being thawed out - and i hope that scientists are gathering more and more information about the early days of the earth.  if the earth was once - and i'm thinking more about where God says 'a mist used to rise over the whole earth ' implying a moderate temperature over the entire earth - then very ancient man might be found at the polar regions (if enough time lapsed to migrate there). 

[pianistimo]

i think God has the power to do pretty much whatever He pleases - including prolonged or shortened lifespans - allow certain animals to become extinct - create more - fiddle around.  I do think that we are finite and are only allowed a certain amount of finite activities right now - but that if we are in 'the image of God' and Christ is our mediator to the Father - and we have access to the same GOD that He does - we have the potential to be 'sons of God' and 'heirs' also of the same kingdom.  We may not posess the 'throne' but we may rule WITH him at a later date.

[pianistimo]

which reminds me that in the theory of evolution there is really nothing prescribing that man is any wiser than beast.  therefore - as i take it - there is no purpose to authority.  basically, mankind has no authority over the animals, the woman has no authority over the children,  the man has no authority over the woman, and God has no authority over his creation.  therefore - there is no future but what is here on earth.

with creationism - u see an intelligent design that is going somewhere.  we are for a little while 'under the angels' but we may be over them later.  as they are 'stewards for our good' or something like that.  i take it that they are a sort of 'servant of God' and greater than our service right now - as they praise him day and night.  who of us is that humble that we actually praise God so often.  but, it's what we should be doing.

and, we see with man/woman/child - an order of authority - to listen and obey.  this is supposedly not really part of the bible nowdays - but i believe it is central to the idea of creation.  we were not all 'created equal' in the sense of equal responsibilities - but we are equal in needing to be supported and have chance for life and living within our roles that we were created for.  even within the church this is now debated.

[Derek]

My personal problem with intelligent design is that it is not a theory. There is no evidence of a creator here except our speculation that DNA and life and so forth is truly mind bogglingly amazing. PERSONALLY I think it looks like the product of an intelligent mind---capable of unbelievable feats of engineering...however that is mere speculation/hope. I don't have any evidence for that.

[pianistimo]

that is why God said that there is more hope for a camel going through the eye of a needle (a small space - where the camel would need to be unloaded of all it's baggage) than a rich man entering the kingdom.  (or something like that)

we have to get rid of preconceived notions.  as i understand it, that is putting all our faith in science.  we can use it for good purposes on this earth - but when it gets into the spiritual realm we're talking about love.  u can't measure it exactly - but u know it exists.

to use logic (for me) it would go like this:  if God = love   and God created me -- then my purpose must be to be 'like Him' and be loving too.

it's much simpler than solving huge problems - which i agree that scientists and engineers are good at.  if we didn't have scientific minds and engineers - we'd not have the convieniences of life and bridges and so forth.  it would be a simpler world - but not necessarily better.  i am not anti science or anti engineering.  i think that using these things for good purposes is important, though.

do u ever wonder about technology this way?  i watched someone who was talking on a cell phone to (it seemed) nobody - the way he hung up.  do people in this society use cell phones to look busy - to look less lonely?  is our society moving away from closeness - to a sort of lonliness by overuse of technology to look busy?  to act busy.  to use it as an excuse to avoid contact by others?  we don't have to walk to a neighbors to get sugar.  we don't have to do anything  like this - but we can if we want to. what about children who are getting into a 'routine' of avoiding contact and avoiding society.  i think some technology makes this easier.

on the other hand if u need quick help - having a cell phone can mean the difference between saving a life - getting ur child to the hospital, saving someone in a car accident, etc.  so there's good uses and bad uses of technology.

[prometheus]

If God says creation happened in six days then it had to be six days if u go by faith.

The problem is that the bible is not God's word per se. You don't only have to believe in god. You also have to believe that the people who say the bible is the word of god speak the truth.

if u go by reason - there are other things that prove creation.  www.defendyourfaith.org and click on the earth - 'creation' and then 'intelligent design' and then 'dna.'

Ok, the site is clearly about defending faith and not about reason or even 'defending reason'. It is clear to understand that some people are of the opinion that reason and faith collide.

Also, I am going to do a thing I shouldn't do. I am going to respond to the site instead of to you. I shouldn't do that because you can give me an endless list of sites arguing for creationism. I can't argue against the whole internet. We should argue together and you should make your own points and not link to a site. But I am going to do this anyway.

1. The Fossil Record.
The fossil record provides evidence for a complex, instantaneous creation. Why? A: The lower geologic layers reveal a sudden proliferation of complex life forms with every phyla represented. This Cambrian Explosion or “Big Bang” of life is preceded by no simpler forms.

Pre-Cambrian multi-cellular life has been found. There were single cellular life forms before the Cambrian explosion. So both simple and less simple life forms preceded the Cambrian Explosion. So there is no 'Big Bang' of life. This is false.

B: Today’s living forms show no change from their supposed ancient ancestors.

I don't get this at all. The supposed ancient ancestor of humans, and all other mammals, is a small mammal similar to some kind of modern rodent. Surely todays living forms show change. Whales have a primitive cow-like creature as an ancestor, I guess a kind of extinct hippo-like mammal, and whales today show change.

Also, even if there is no change it does not prove creation. It disproves evolution.

C: There are large and systematic gaps between the different kinds of fossils rather than gradual, evolutionary changes.

Yes, there are systematic gaps. But what is the reason for this? The reason is that fossils are rare and finding fossils is even rarer. These gaps are created by the fact that we only find a limited amount of fossils. So even if these gaps between spieces also existed we would not be able to observe this because of the fragmatation created by the fossils. Because of this we don't know how fast evolution went.

As for the fossil record in general, because this was nit-picking, it generally shows a gradual trend from simple to complex forms. Also, forms do not exist in the fossil records before their time. Meaning that one cannot find any flowers before a particular point. One does not see birds before a particular point. One does not see mammals before a particular point. This means there is progressing tendency.

2. Irreducible Complexity
Prepackaged, highly engineered systems exist in our bodies that are so complex they defy evolutionary explanations. These systems involve integrated multiple parts and reactions that work together only as a whole. If you eliminate any one piece, none of the system works at all. Evolution supposedly operates by natural selection perfecting less developed systems. However, natural selection requires something working and in place to perfect! Examples in the human body are the immune system, blood clotting, and any one of hundreds of biochemical pathways.

First off, this is a negative argument for evolution, not proof for creation.

Well, actually I am going to stop at this since after this has been concluded any other comment will be waste of time. If you want to know more use google and find out the problems with 'Irreducible Complexity'. Actually even Behe and Dembski have admitted the problems with this whole idea.

3. Gaps in the Living World
If isolated members of a species change by evolutionary processes, the main population group can still continue. We should be able to read the history of the evolutionary progression right across the very top of the evolutionary branching tree. We can’t! Just as the fossil record contains large systematic gaps, the living world does too. We see evidence for creation of distinct kinds — not one kind changing into another.

I don't get this point at all. I guess this is about not being able to understand that most species become extinct at some point. Anyway, it does not matter since this argument for creation starts to talk about what they think is wrong with evolutionary processe.

4. Laws of Probability
The odds are enormously great against the successful occurrence of each of the myriads of needed evolutionary changes! Even the probability of 1 small protein occurring by accident is 1 chance out of 10260. Since we have thousands of even larger proteins, it is inconceivable they all happened by chance. Coupling that with intricate structures like eyes, wings, hearts, lungs, etc., the laws of probability scream out, “Creation!”

Again, this is an argument against darwinistic evolution and uses the fallacy of leaving out selection. No evidence.

5. Law of Cause and Effect:
The Law of Cause and Effect is one of the best documented principles of science and of everyday experience. Every event must have a sufficient cause. Since the origin of the universe and the origin of life are events, they too must have a cause. The physical universe consisting of time, space, energy, and matter must all have a cause outside themselves. Likewise, life must have a living Cause.

This is really sad. This doesn't even critisize darwinism, this critisizes the big bang, and in what a way? First off, one does not even need a big bang to have a working theory of evolution. These theories are, and should be seperate. Cause and effect is not a fundamental principle of the univese.
The lack of an explenation for the big bang itself does not mean it must be false. How to replace it? We either have a partial expenation or we have none at all.

Following this reasoning to its logical conclusion, leads to an infinite, eternal, powerful, intelligent, living First Cause--our awesome Creator!

Logic tells us that something cannot be omnipotent and omniscient. So claiming that this is a logical conclusion, I mean isn't this site satire on religious fundamentalists instead of the real thing?

6. Chicken or Egg Principle
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for a long time. The question is even deeper, however. Chickens have many proteins. Each protein is coded for by the DNA/RNA system. However, many specific proteins are needed in order to manufacture DNA/RNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA/RNA? The logical explanation is that they were both created.

This only gives a 'logical' explanation. There is no evidence for creation.

7. Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design demands an Intelligent Designer. The airplane, computer, and digital camera originated not by random, undirected, chance processes, but by engineering genius. Such sophisticated acheivements however, pale in comparison to the extremely complex, systematically ordered, precision regulated systems of living tissue. The superior flight of the dragonfly, the mind boggling information mega-processor of the human brain, and the eye as a self-focusing, fully-automatic, high resolution, 3-D motion picture camera are the natural prototypes for our acclaimed tech marvels. It is scientifically inconceivable, unreasonable and illogical to credit blind, brainless chance as their maker. God alone is wise without limits, and deserves the Glory.

I guess it is kind of ironic that many engineers now start to use Darwinistic principles to design things. I guess the 'blind designer' is more intelligent that a creator.

Again, this isn't any evidence. The idea that you can look at something and conclude it is designed or created through evolutionary processe is false. One cannot extrapolate this. It is very much conceivable to thing that everything was created through evolution. Again, something cannot be without limits. It is logical impossible.
This is just rhetoric trying to kindle anti-darwinistic sentiments. This isn't evidence.

8. The Anthropic Principle
The Anthropic Principle observes that the universe, including our beautiful, blue planet appears to have been specifically designed for man to inhabit (just as Isaiah 45:18 says). Without the delicate balance of multitudes of physical properties, life would be impossible. Examples include the strength of the four basic forces in the universe (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces), the size and shape of the earth, the distance from earth to sun, the tilt of the earth’s axis, the concentration of atmospheric gases, and the presence of abundant liquid water. It couldn’t just happen.

Using something as philosophical as the  Anthropic Principle as evidence for creationism is silly. Adding to this, the Anthropic Principle doesn't say that the universe was designed. If you want to know more about this principle just google. But it isn't very significant. Let alone evidence for creation.

9. Information Theory
Information has intelligence as its source, not haphazard chaotic chance. A computer programmer instills purpose, plan, and design by implementing and organizing recognizable bits of data into an understandable language framework. In biological systems, information is encoded as DNA, the programmed software of cells. As evolutionist Dr . Micheal Denton says in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, “The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram.” Since raw organic molecules have no intrinsic cognitive capacity, who injected the information into the DNA? God alone is able.

Information does not have intelligence at it's origin. As for the ability of DNA to store information. This is because information is stored on an molecular level. Obviously the smaller the less weight. Again this is largely rhetoric trying to kindle the unwillingness to assume something can be designed to darwinistic processes. Something that has been proven false by experiment.

10. Extreme Complexity
Complexity beyond comprehension characterizes all life forms, including the so-called “simple cell.” As Dr. Micheal Denton states referring to the cell, “...we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity...beyond our own creative capacities.” Everything, from atomic structures to cells, organs, organ systems, and living creatures speaks of incredible order, balance, and unity as a whole.

and God Said It!
It is really hard to argue with the only One who claims to have been there when the universe and life began. He said He created everything to reproduce “after its own kind” — not one kind changing into another.

The fact that life is complex beyong our imagination doesn't say anything about the way it was created. Let alone that it is evidence that it must have been through creation.


If this were really the "10 Best Evidences for Creation" then Pianistimo now no longer believes in creation. I think that I could come up with 10 better cases of evidence for creation. Not that they would be strong or acceptable but this site is just very very very very bad. Also, it has a 'think & believe' banner. In this context that can only be considered to be a provocative oxymoron.

one direct site for dna stuff is :  www.rae.org/revev6.html

This site claims that evolution is too improbably to be true. This is because it does not consider selection. And this is no evidence for creation either. It is false critisism of evolution.

ps  if God allowed 'evolution' to 'evolve' it wouldn't be a matter of a creator 'creating' and making each thing - but a sort of 'standing back' and 'watching it all happen.

This is what most christian scientists and almost all christian biologists have to assume because of the observations they do. The world is as it is and it is clear that darwinistic evolution is part of it. The universe exists and it has resulted in us comming into being. One can only assume, if one believes in god, that god must have planned this all along. The moment of the big bang, or maybe even before that, God saw the seeds for what is happening today. This is the only logical assumption one can do.

but, if God's word is POWERFUL - then HE CAN speak things into existence.  can u imagine how  powerful the moment must have been 'let there be LIGHT'  - that could have been a big bang right there - but it didn't just 'happen'  - it was 'created.'

How does god do this?

[prometheus]

because i am a simpler thinker than many of these scientists - i can most readily identify with the 'mutations' aspect.  when he says 'now who wants to have their genes mutated or radiated' to get some variety going?  i think it is kinda funny.  but, not funny.  it's not a joke.  either God created us good - or he created us for some small variety but not outside of our general dna makeup. 

No one wants messed up DNA and mutations. But the fact is that this is the case. There are many children that suffer terrible diseases and then die because their DNA contains faulty genes.

brains - now that is another aspect.  why are we STILL after thousands of years of
human history - the top of the 'chain?

What chain? And why is this strange? In terms of evolution thousands of years is nothing so I don't really understand what you mean.

there are supposedly these thousands of years that we barely existed - but when we uncover sites that ancient people lived - there were obvious iron and bronzing work done - and not by animals.

You are talking about those creationists that claim the earth is only 6000 years old? I am sorry but I am not really following your chain of thought.

dear prometheus,  you yourself said saying 'God did it' is not a theory.  u are right!  we could debate this for ages - but for many christians - it is a matter of faith.  we simply take His word by faith.  we see in our own lives that He is much more powerful and wise than we are - so we don't really doubt.

The problem is that creationists claim their 'theory' is on par with science. It is not. But people of this kind of faith have problems reflecting this.

If u ask a scientist who is not christian why we haven't yet been hit by a meteor of very large size and had a large portion of the earth destroyed - they might not have an explaination.

Many species on earth have been destroyed by an astroid impact. The reason why it has not happened to us is that it only happens once every so much years. So you claim that now that humans populate the earth God will stop astroids from hitting the earth while before he created the universe, and the earth, in such a way that it would get hit?

I understand that one would put faith in a deity. I don't understand how one can assume one exists.

can anyone find a tree ring that proves (fossilized or otherwise) that proves more than 6000 years of existence?

A tree ring? I think that there are only a few trees of that age. But really, the evidence for an older earth is so overwhelming it is kind of silly to talk about tree rings.

(i admit to simple thinking, ok).  and - as far as humans and silicium and carbon - whatever elements - they return to dust when burned.  that's what i see. dust. 

If you burn a body you will get ashes and soot. Sand does not burn but when you melt it, very high temperatures required, you will get glass.

The point was that for someone who wants to know things about the world around him creationism just doesn't do anything for them. If god created everything I want to know how. Creationists can't tell me anything. Therefore they do not have a theory and there is nothing for me.

  silicium - when i googled it - came up 'the greater part of sand or rock.'  now you can probably tell me more about what this is about - but from a reading of the bible - i read that God created man from the dust of the earth.

Dust, generally, is made up of parts of death skin.

[pianistimo]

one could not, in a million years, make things intelligently designed by using the concept of 'random selection.'

prometheus,  i admire ur knowledge of what makes the earth tick and how much u know about chemistry and math.  there is no doubt in my mind that u are sincerely trying to get to the bottom of things - and i am mystified as to why u are discussing this with me.  there are creation scientists and all - who would gladly give u better points of view and that is why i quote them because i don't claim to have these grand arguments.  mine are fairly simple and probably in some ways flawed...but that doesn't mean they can't still have a truth behind them.  for instance, someone can believe something that is true but using flawed knowledge.  but, for me, if every Word of God is true - then every time i quote the bible - that would not be flawed.  it's probably my assumptions about what i read.

[pianistimo]

what i meant by chain - is that if evolution allows everything to evolve equally, why aren't the lions ruling?  i'm not trying to be cynical - but i know many people who think that there shouldn't be any sort of control of animals.  that wolves should be allowed to proliferate and kill humans just as we kill them.  they actually believe that we are lesser sometimes by allowing the animals to rule us instead of us ruling them.

the basic tenent of creationism isn't proving creation - it's proving that there is a future beyond this one of rulership.  it doesn't leave much to chance. 

btw, i am in no way implying animal cruelty and much prefer protecting animals - and transporting them away from humans if possible and not killing them.

[prometheus]

I don't think it makes sense to see these two things as mutually exclusive. We DO know that there is a pattern in the fossil record which suggests many aspects of the theory of evolution are true. However none of these patterns offers an explanation for how life started to begin with.

Darwinism isn't about abiogenesis. The two topics should be dealth with seperately. Darwinism doesn't need abiogenesis. It can be left unexplained. Actually, to some extend it is unexplained. Also, if something is unexplained it doesn't logically follow that it must have been God.

Therefore....I don't think it appropriate for schools to offer an "alternative theory" such as intelligent design, however teachers SHOULD be careful not to allow students to take it for granted that evolution *EXPLAINS* life, because it does not. It merely describes its development thus far---hardly an explanation. Yet there ARE thousands of people today who do seem to use evolution as a way to assume there is no God. This is ignorant, in my opinion.

Most people are ignorant about many things. Darwinism is very simple, yet hard to understand. It only gives a model for the development of live and this model has turned out to be accurate and effective. That's it, basically. ID is no alternative for darwinism since it is basically 'God did it." and nothing more. You cannot teach something like that in science class regardless of if it may be true or not. It is too incomplete and meaningless.

If the earth was once - and i'm thinking more about where God says 'a mist used to rise over the whole earth ' implying a moderate temperature over the entire earth - then very ancient man might be found at the polar regions (if enough time lapsed to migrate there). 

The north pole does not contain land mass. It is a polar sea that is permanently frozen over.

As for Antartica, it has a huge land mass but it has been covered with ice for a long time. Because of the large distance and the moments in human history it would have been populatable it is unlikely humans possessed the knowledge of seafaring at that moment.

[einherjar]

Well, quite a discussion we have here... Prometheu sayd many interesting thing..The concept of falsificability of a theory... in fact, Criationism can only be proved by faith; Why call it a theory. I believe in God and in all the Catholic dogmas... God created the universe in my opinion... and He created us in his image.So, if he is an inteligent being, we are inteligent too (not so inteligent of course), because He wanted us to be. Creationism is not using inteligence, it's denying our capacities and answering "God did it... end of story". But how did he did it? We can clearly see there is some order in the universe... there are laws of physics, etc... everything is rulled by the same principles... Science tries to find them and know how they work. That is using the inteligence God gave us. By trying to understand the universe beeter we are not denying God or His supreme intelligence. And now the bible: like prometheu said, the bible was written by men, by a people, within a context, God didnt write it. I believe there are real facts and real divine parts in it. But, there are parts in which it is exagerated... If something happens bad, it was because God abandoned and the Jewish people didn't respected the Law, etc.. Jesus comes to clarify this... God loves us , it's not like that. Jesus comes to make us closer to God. The people who wrote Genesis where trying to explain the creation and the begining of Humanity. They didn't had the means we have now; it's like the Geocentric Theory. God gave us a bit of his inteligence to use it, not to stay idle. And why do we deny the proofs that we find? They dont make God wrong or inexistant... in fact, it makes the whole picture of the Universe more beautiful ad interesting, and much more plausible.

[pianistimo]

evolution provides a concept for social inadequacy of certain races.  it provides an 'in' for racism.  if God created adam and eve - from whom every race on the earth exists - then we have a case for equality and for equal destiny for every man/woman/child.

if animals are the same level of creation/evolution then they would have surpassed in some area or other long ago.  some are so much larger.  why didn't their large brains make them smarter - or why didn't they develop the ability to use their large bodies to overcome us and rule the world.

i don't think that everyone who accepts the bible is a fool.  but, quite the opposite.  the bible says that 'a fool says in his heart, there is no God.'  even God calls 'the wise of this age...'  foolish because they assume certain things as well.  i'm not saying i'm smart.  i'm simply saying that both sides are assuming.  one side assumes that everything can be explained by bible verses - that is not correct probably - and that although we see a verse - we cannot explain these things in a satisfactory way to someone first coming to see the gospel.  the gospel is not science per se - but it would be a route to a better kind of conversion of scientific minds.  u can't just convince someone to 'have faith.'  although, Christ himself never really used the scientific model and kept a lot of knowledge to himself (perhaps to perplex the smart ones).  i mean, when He turned the water to wine - he didn't give out the recipie.

on the other hand - u have scientific minds that only see in a sort of tunnel vision and won't accept the possibility of other things having a validity because they cannot be seen.  what if there are many things that are unseen?  christians believe that there are angels, demons, God, Holy Spirit.  many people profess that they have experienced things that are not coincident with physical realm physics type experiences - unless we're dealing with a magic show.  and, even then, demons can have a certain power.  i'm not trying to bring in mysticism really - i'm just saying - for a christian we believe science can take u up to a certain point - but not beyond that point.

and, in terms of education - i believe that once u realize the verse that says '  we wrestle not with flesh and blood - but with principalities and powers...with the rulers of the darkness of this world...with spiritual wickedness in high places.' - then we see why the demons do not want our education system to acknowledge God.  then He would be respected and he would have more followers.  His ways would be taught.  the way of peace and love and life.  He would be honored by prayer.  We would include Him in our lives and be blessed. 

the results of 6000 years of living under Satan has produced nothing but death and dying and torture and killing.  do u see people in africa and places with children who have arms cut off and legs cut off.  do u think rational people do this?  i think not.  i think this is a demonic sort of mentality and we cannot afford at this late stage of human history to allow satan to have this much power.

[prometheus]

which reminds me that in the theory of evolution there is really nothing prescribing that man is any wiser than beast.  therefore - as i take it - there is no purpose to authority.  basically, mankind has no authority over the animals, the woman has no authority over the children,  the man has no authority over the woman, and God has no authority over his creation.  therefore - there is no future but what is here on earth.

These conclusions don't follow naturally. Darwinism isn't about authorty. Darwinism describes that what we observe. You shouldn't try to derive 'thelogical implications' from it since it is not theology and will not function as such.

Humans have no authority over animals, I can agree with that. I do not think we have the right to enslave animals and use them as we see fit without any considerations. Actually there are christians that believe humans should take good care of that what god has given them. Other christians believe they can use and abuse it as they see fit.

As for children. Parents naturally have authorty over their offspring. Depending on the development of the infants and their dependability the parent has little or a lot of authority. Because human infants are helpless and because human children need to learn many things from their parents human parents naturally have authority.

As for there being no future or perspective for happier things, like heaven( I guess). I do not really understand how this fits in with authority. Also, darwinism doesn't say anything about God or heaven. If you can't believe in God the moment you accept darwinism to be an accurate model of reality then that is just your lack of faith in God and in heaven and not a faulty aspect of darwinism.

and, we see with man/woman/child - an order of authority - to listen and obey.

You thing woman should listen and obey men? Woman are to men as children are to woman?

this is supposedly not really part of the bible nowdays - but i believe it is central to the idea of creation.  we were not all 'created equal' in the sense of equal responsibilities - but we are equal in needing to be supported and have chance for life and living within our roles that we were created for.  even within the church this is now debated.

I always find the lack of equality between men and woman shocking. And you are female while I am male.

Today in Kuwait woman for the first time are allowed to vote.

I am not anti science or anti engineering.  i think that using these things for good purposes is important, though.

do u ever wonder about technology this way?  i watched someone who was talking on a cell phone to (it seemed) nobody - the way he hung up.  do people in this society use cell phones to look busy - to look less lonely?

I don't think technology improves human happyness. I guess I am more anti technology than you are. I refuse to use cell phones and watches, for example.

But to me science isn't about improving our lives. It is about finding out how nature is.

[einherjar]

Pianistimo, no one is calling fool t anyone... Nor we are denying faith or God, or i am saying that i dont believe... you are pure and certain escaping the question... if you want to argumentate, use valid arguments... this is about a scientific theory... name the, your opinion, etc... Just don't run away from the conversation. All the Chrisitians i know (Catholics) believe in Evolutionism, not in Creationism. And as prometheu said, i also dislike social and gender discrimination and inequalitys. Jesus didnt liked it also. He just said that the poor shouldnt be jealous of the rich, and etc... but he never said the rich was more important or that the poor was born poor and he can't do anything for it...
Me and many Catholics thinks that way too. The things you say pianistimo, feel odd to me... you are not catholic right? Because that looks to fundamentalist Christian sects talking.

About science: Science can discover technology wich improves the way we live, but i agree with prometheu, the best and most beautiful thing in science is the conclusions and the understanding we gather about the world, it releases from igorance (Religion also combats ignorance in my opinion, but the "fields of action" are different)

[steveie986]

Don't be a moran. God did it!

[prometheus]

one could not, in a million years, make things intelligently designed by using the concept of 'random selection.'

Random selection. That is a Contradictio in terminis. The point is that because darwinism has selection it is not random. The mutations are random but the criteria for selecting and disgarding these mutations are not at all. This is an important aspect of darwinism. We have been debating this for a long time, we have both spend a lot of time and I have made this point before but still you refuse to accept what Darwinism really is.

...and i am mystified as to why u are discussing this with me.

I guess it is good faith in humans and that you actually want to discuss something instead of making senseless monologues. You are making points and I respond to them. Are you implying that we should give up? If you don't want people to read your messages and reply to them then why do you post them? And, why did you enter the debate? If you don't want to debate then please keep out of it so that other people who do want to debate can.
Really, I am a bit mystified by this. I have said a few times that debating with you is no use because you refuse to read what other people say. But I am giving you another chance, I have forgiven you, and then you wonder why I do this? To me this is only fair. You enter the debating arena and that means I am going to judge the points you make regardless of who you are.

there are creation scientists and all

If those people are truly scientists then they do their science work in a different field. There is no science of creationism.

- who would gladly give u better points of view and that is why i quote them because i don't claim to have these grand arguments.  mine are fairly simple and probably in some ways flawed...

Then why do you enter the debating arena?

but that doesn't mean they can't still have a truth behind them.  for instance, someone can believe something that is true but using flawed knowledge.

What worth would this have? If something is presented but with flawed logic then one can only conclude it is not correct. If it turns out to be correct in the end then that is a pure coincidence. I don't want to hear false arguments supporting something that is actually defendable or true. I will try to agrue against false pro-darwinism arguments as much as I will argue against false creation arguments.

what i meant by chain - is that if evolution allows everything to evolve equally, why aren't the lions ruling?

Because, obviously evolution doesn't allow everything to evolve at equal pace and in equal ways.

As for ruiling. One can argue about when a creature rules. Most people die of the malaria parasite. Does it rule over us? In some way, yes. But then asking why we aren't as superior as this parasite is kind of silly since it is a very primitive life form.

Also, to some people the lion was clearly the king of the jungle So I guess the lion does rule. As far as I know humans never used to hunt lions for food. So lions used to be above us in the food chain.

i'm not trying to be cynical - but i know many people who think that there shouldn't be any sort of control of animals.  that wolves should be allowed to proliferate and kill humans just as we kill them.  they actually believe that we are lesser sometimes by allowing the animals to rule us instead of us ruling them.

If you think that humans shouldn't mass breed and torture animals for money then that doesn't mean you think animals are superious to humans.

the basic tenent of creationism isn't proving creation - it's proving that there is a future beyond this one of rulership.  it doesn't leave much to chance. 

That can't be. If this is true then one should not call it creationism. The definition of creationism is clear. It is about creation and nothing else.

[lisztisforkids]

Why must science and God be at war?

 Its quite possible to beleive in Evolution and God.

Pianistimo....       

[phil13]

Let's put it this way...

I am an evolutionist, 100%, and although I do not believe in 'God', per se, I do think there has got to be a higher power out there, because:

Only a higher power could have created something as miraculous and complex as science and evolution.

Phil

[pianistimo]

i am shocked by ur statement about not ruling over the animals.  but, that is where discussion is good because we can come to see another's point of view and not make them believe ours - but simply see each other's side.  as i see it, we were told at the beginning of creation to (gen. 1:26) 'rule over the fish and birds and cattle and over all the earth...'  so we are told that it is a sort of inheritance.  we should take care of it and manage it - and not despise it.  proverbs 12:6 - 'a righteous man cares for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.'

the same for adam - as he was told to pass information on to his wife and teach her.  nowdays - this would seem lame - but as God told it  - it was beautiful.  He allowed the man to protect his wife from undue stress by giving her information she could understand and make sure that she understood it - as God did for Adam.  you might be interested as i was - that God instructed Adam to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - but obviously in later translation - eve was told that God said 'you shall not touch it or eat from it...'  i think Adam added this as a security because he started realizing the potentials of his wife from the start.  she would touch it first and become intoxicated by the touch.  this implies to me that they had a little sex before they left the garden.  now, the catholic version is that no sex - and sex is sin.  einherjar, does this seem odd?

well, this is another subject.  but, in any case - i believe that if God made everything good - then why bother trying to make it better.  if women knew they coud be happy with a man (who really believed what God said and taught her lovingly and without disrespect and looking down on her) who treated them well and not necessarily unequally - but made the final decisions in matters after considering her point of view - then it would not be a bad thing to be 'in charge.'  but, for a woman to trust a man to be 'over her' in authority - there has to be a huge amount of trust built up with experience.  what woman would want a sort of beastly guy who (say in india - with extremists) wanted to burn her skirt so he could marry again.  there are many cultures that have beautiful relationships and also terrible ones.  the terrible ones are usually because the man has become overbearing or simply mean to the one s he should love and protect. 

and, women - if they knew the beauty of love - would be happy to be more sexual creatures.  it is not a natural thing for a woman to be a provider for the whole family.  it is a burden.  this is my opinion.  for me, i am most happy to be taking care of my own children and not working outside my home for really extended periods of time (unless they're at school).  this is a different subject - perhaps - but also, women need time to relax if they're going to sexual creatures.  u can't have someone who's working a 9/5 shift suddenly be in the mood when there's piles of laundry and someone needs to cook at 6 pm.  also, it's a sudden shift to regain the children from the babysitter and take care of listening to what happened in their day.  everything takes a certain amount of time.  time is what is the essence of our schedules.  if u think that it's all easy - it's not.  even for a woman living a traditional life of having a husband provide most of the money and she pays the bills, and takes care of the home, and does laundry cleaning, etc.  it is still tiring.  but, way less tiring than two people working.  anyway - what i have persoanly found is that to 'give up' a part of urself makes u happier.  for a man - it might be giving up what he would do for sharing time with his wife.  for a wife - it might mean giving up some time for her husband and children.'  if u are time selfish - all the time goes for your own activities.  but, if u give away time, sex, whatever for a relationship - then u get back 100% - and don't care about the times that u might not get 100% exactly even if it is not.

have u ever seen a happy man who doesn't have sex?  they're uptight and angry.  same for women.  if u follow 'career career career'  these people are working all the time and have to sneak in casual affairs to fulfill their basic human desires.  if u have someone at home u come home to every night - u don't have to feel guilty or pay for it.  and, u get lots of children - which seems like not exactly what ur bargaining for at the time they are produced - but u start seeing a different plan than what the magazines tell u about.  it's a plan to increase the size of the family of God.

[prometheus]

evolution provides a concept for social inadequacy of certain races.  it provides an 'in' for racism.  if God created adam and eve - from whom every race on the earth exists - then we have a case for equality and for equal destiny for every man/woman/child.

The KKK use the bible as a basis for their racism.

I think we have had the discussion about races here several time. You were not part of it. My argument has always been that humans are too young and too genetically homogenous to be split into different races. And this is supported by the biological community. The genetical variance in humans is too small to talk about races. Humans are too young to have drifted apart.

Fact is that Darwinism does not tell that one should be a racist or not. Neither does the bible. The reason for being a racist are to be found in different areas.

if animals are the same level of creation/evolution then they would have surpassed in some area or other long ago.  some are so much larger.  why didn't their large brains make them smarter - or why didn't they develop the ability to use their large bodies to overcome us and rule the world.

Because that is not the goal of evolution. Evolution is blind. It does not want to go somewhere. It does not favor intelligence, it does not favor large bodies, it does not favor ruling over others. It only favors that what survives.

i don't think that everyone who accepts the bible is a fool.  but, quite the opposite.  the bible says that 'a fool says in his heart, there is no God.'  even God calls 'the wise of this age...'  foolish because they assume certain things as well.  i'm not saying i'm smart.

Actually, one needs to be smart to say stupid things. Take Fischer and Kasparov, two chess giants. The first has absolutely horrendous ideas about many things. He is paranoid and insane. The other believes in a very strange theory about chronology. Intelligence didn't prevent either of them. Actually, without their intelligence they wouldn't have cared.

But one requires a lot more intelligence for 'double think'. This is where one believes that god exists and that the bible is true while at the same time one accepts mainstream science and assumes it's conclusions as to be the correct ones. To do this a lot of intelligence is required.

on the other hand - u have scientific minds that only see in a sort of tunnel vision and won't accept the possibility of other things having a validity because they cannot be seen.  what if there are many things that are unseen?  christians believe that there are angels, demons, God, Holy Spirit.  many people profess that they have experienced things that are not coincident with physical realm physics type experiences - unless we're dealing with a magic show.  and, even then, demons can have a certain power.  i'm not trying to bring in mysticism really

Almost all of physics is about things that are unseen; forces, particles, etc. It is about things that cannot be observed. If something cannot be observed then it cannot influence us. That means it is not part of our reality.

As for the rest of the theology, I really am going to leave that be because it would just mess up this thread even more, creating more confusion.

If you want to discuss morality, ethics, theology and things like that then open a new thread.

[prometheus]

i am shocked by ur statement about not ruling over the animals.  but, that is where discussion is good because we can come to see another's point of view and not make them believe ours - but simply see each other's side.  as i see it, we were told at the beginning of creation to (gen. 1:26) 'rule over the fish and birds and cattle and over all the earth...'  so we are told that it is a sort of inheritance.  we should take care of it and manage it - and not despise it.

Genesis says: "rule over [...]". I does not say humans should take care of it. It doesn't say we should despise it. Now there are christians that believe based on this they can do with it how they see fit. It was gods gift to them and they have absolute authority over it.

Then when people come and argue that human behaviour will cause permanent damage to the earth and the ecosystem some christians don't have a big problem with it. Like what you said about astroids hitting earth. God will take care of it. He is omniscient. God will just speak and fix it, piece of cake. No big deal at all.

Also, our life in this world is not that important. We are here to prove our worthiness and to show we should be let into heaven, where the real life begins. This means that the condition of the earth is irrelevant since we will end living up in heaven.

And we are to prove our worth not through the way we treat animals and nature but trought things like sexuality. And then there are many many christians that believe that in the end it will only matter if we accept Christ as our savior or not. Humans are inherently sinful and our sins cannot be prevented. We can only accept Christ as our sin-bearer.


This interpretation of Christianity leads to immoral behavoir.

have u ever seen a happy man who doesn't have sex?  they're uptight and angry.

Is it so obvious that I am uptight and angry?

[pianistimo]

the physics class that i took only discussed the visible.  we looked at kinetic energy, electricity, the power of water, the set powers.  nothing was 'unmeasured.'  i'm talking about going beyond measuring things like energy and motion.

[prometheus]

There is a difference between visible and oberveble. But since you say this. I said that when something is unobserveble it does not have influence. Since when it does have influence the influence would be measureable and something would not be unobservable.

If something does exist but it is unobservable then it is not part of our reality. We cannot say something reasonable about something that is not part of our reality.

[pianistimo]

btw, my cat is around 18+ years old and is in very good condition. 

i never said that i thought the bible was an excuse to do whatever u want to with the earth.  quite the opposite.  if we are possible rulers of a future earth - why would we be trusted if we messed up this one?  i am constantly picking up garbage and quite careful of what i do with driving.  i try to take the least long path to get somewhere (which i hear is accomplished by making a lot of right turns - at least from ups post somewhere) - and to not leave the car running just to get lots of air conditioning (which is a real sacrifice for me).

faith is not unreasonable - and not unobservable either.

[prometheus]

I am not making any judgements.

I was just pointing out that you shouldn't make theological or ethical conclusions based on darwinism.

Like I said, there are also christians that are enviromentalists based on their faith. Maybe you should go back to what you said that resulted me to reply what I said. We are deriving from the main points. Something we shouldn't do since this was about creationism and not about enviromentalism.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, i take back what i said about racism because not everyone uses darwinism for this purpose.  but people immediately make judgements on God for believing that death existed before a curse was put upon adam and eve for sin.  basically, millions and billions of years of death before adam and eve.  now, if God wasn't in charge of the 'old earth' then - it could have been that Satan and his demons were responsible for some sort of pre-adamic state of the world.  there is no mention of this pre-adamic creation - but i suppose that if there was proof that the dinosaurs lived before man - then they could have been created, died, and decayed (producing oil fields etc) and that the new creation (of the true God) was made in a much more merciful way.  He cares for his creation and does not allow mass death without giving some reason (as with the flood).  He is proactive and not simply a god that causes ice ages or floods or catastrophes without reason.  even having a reason sometimes seems inhumane to us - but we are not God...so how can we determine what is right for God to do?

so, back to the old earth/young earth - i would say - since (and there's a lot of if's) the spirit of God was hovering over 'waters'  and these waters were covering the earth - then these were flood waters.  the very beginning (vs. 1) says that God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void.  now - if we have 1/3 of the angels who were cast down - and had the ability to 'create' then we possibly have a reason for a first or second or third or fourth creation of animals  - but no man as we know man.  nothing made in God's image.

the earth - if it is old - was remade several times without the current animals and mankind (and without the current sun and stars of the 'expanse of our heaven' - which expanse may have been already placed there?)  but, in genesis 1:7 'and God made the 'expanse' ...that he was talking about here as the waters separated from below the expanse and above the expanse.  maybe when he speaks of the expanse here - he is talking about the expanse of the atmosphere of earth.

IF there was a time variance between genesis 1 and genesis 3 -where God begins creating the current creation - there could have been another age or several ages that were not God's creation.  but - if sin and death came together - then there couldn't have been death before by this God.  it would have to be another god's creation and another paradigm of life.  perhaps one of giant dimensions. 

i don't profess to understand the age of the earth except by reading things that say that 1) the continents are eroding too quickly to be more than thousands of years old - and are pretty much as God allowed them to be at the time he 'separated the people' probably around the time of babel - but not sure about the timing.
2)there is not enough helium in the atmosphere (maybe u can explain this one).
3)many fossils can form quickly and didn't have to take millions of years to look the way they do.
4)many processes -which we have been told take millions of years - do not need such time spans at all.
5)oceans are not salty enough (i don't understand this one either) something about rivers and streams dumping a certian amount of salt every year.

i found this at www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp  and www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

and, about the possibilities of an earth creation that satan was allowed to create (after God created the initial heavens and earth in genesis 1) under an assumption that when 1/3 of the angels were cast to earth they needed something to do. 

i have also heard that regarding our current world population that it would be XXX times larger if we started more than 6,000 years ago with more than two people.  i find it interesting that in God's word there is the ability to count generations (and thus years) by when a man was born and when his first son was born)  you can basically count something like 1,656 years from the creation to the flood.  now, if this is chronologically correct - then we should see flood evidence at that point in time.  also, you can continue counting forward to Christ - and also, after Christ to our time AD 2006.  if u add this all together - u get less than 6,000 years. 

so i agree that although there are some that believe that death existed before adam - they must also admit that it couldn't have been the same God with the same theology (because of sin =death entered the world) if death had existed prior to this.

i am of the opinion that if death existed before this - it was a creation made to die.  the dinosaurs were created for our benefit.  to die!  but, this wasn't God's idea of the ideal creation.  even thorns and thistles were considered a 'curse' by Him.  if Satan truly created another creation before ours - it was for us to have the oilfields we do today. but, this is assuming that the oilfields could not be created in less time - or that the dinosaurs could have been called by another name - and been giant beasts (behemoth) that existed at the same time as pre-flood man.  we also were told in genesis that mankind himself/herself - that there were some that were giants.  after the flood they did not exist except for a few philistines (one of which David killed).

i realize this sounds like a fable or tale that people tell - but when u uncover bones of animal or man that are huge - what should we think?  i think that archeology tells it as it is.  if it was  - u can find it.  if it wasn't u can't find it archeologically, geologically - unless it has disintegrated (which many things have). 

[pianistimo]

II peter 3:5 is the only verse that i personally see in the bible that makes me think the earth could be older than 6,000 years, but not the present creation.  '...by the Word of God the heavens existed LONG AGO  and the earth was formed out of water BY WATER, through which the world AT THAT TIME was destroyed, being flooded with water.  but THE PRESENT heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men.'

now, this can be taken 2 ways.  the flood of noah was the flood that is being talked about - or that at the time of creation there had been a flood.  i tend to side with the idea that it was at the time of creation - because it does say AT THAT TIME. 

[einherjar]

Pianistimo, you shouldn't trust everything you see on the internet...
Point 1) The continents aren't eroding quickly. And eroding doesn't equals less continental surface. The rate at which the continents are destroyed is the same rate at they are regenerated (in the limits of tectonic plates). Eroding means worse quality soils for agriculture and life, etc... (The problem of Desertification)
Point 2) Of course there isn enough Helium... It is lesser dense than the rest of the atmosfere gases... Btw, what was that supposed to prove?
Point 3) Yes they can, but the decaying period of isotopes can't be changed either (at least for natural geological or biological processes); Those things are dated.... And the error the dating accepts doesn't support the 6.000 year old Earth theory.
Point 4) Don't know what processes you are talking about... be more specific please
Point 5) Rivers and streams dumping salt in enough quantities to make the ocean more salty??!!! That is bad... Rivers and streams have extremely few "salts" dissolved, and they are less than 2 % of the Earth Hidrosfere, how can they afecct the salinity of the oceans???

The population issue... If you were more informed about Evolutionism, you would know that a matematical study of the populations by a scientist ( Malthus something if i am not wrong) influenced Darwin's theory's. Overall, it said that the quantity of food wasnt enough to furfill the whole needs of a population. That plus natural selection, and the fact that we humans have free will, and we don't necessary reproduce will get your numbers straight.

Satan creating stuff? Before us? You are entering the realm of Gnosticism, an heresy...
Giants? Nephilim? Too much Book of Enoch i see.

About the flood: That, in my opinion is a very interesting subject, even scientifically and from the historic view. There may be some true behind the story, that story or very similar ones can be found in many peoples from the Fertile Crescent, like Sumerians for an instance. Maybe some big flood or periodic big floods hapened there. But it wasn't a global flood or something like that, if it was, we would have evidence...(We have evidence much older than 6.000 years old).

[pianistimo]

the idea of nephilim is in genesis.  that is right before God limits human lifespans to 120 years.

thank u so much for reading all these refutations of old earth/young earth though.  i must admit to some inadequate understanding of the worthiness of some and unworthiness of others.  for instance - i was kinda wondering about the rivers and streams and the salt thing.  i suppose that when u are intent on getting a certian result from ur research - u look at it very intently from that perspective.  i'm not necessarily saying that i think that the earth HAS to be 6,000 years old - it's just that the geneologies of the bible date human history that way.  if dinosaurs lived before us - they were not meant to be 'mindful' or even have a mind - to determine good and evil.  and were thus - a mere creation that was not made for a merciful intent.  God doesn't work like that.

about the isotopes (i confess great ignorance) here is the site that explains how it does prove a young earth:  www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

as far as gnosticism - i am not a gnostic.  i belive that what God says is TRUE.

about the continents, i beg to differ.  even the polar ice cap regions shouldn't be around if the current creation was much older than the last ice age.  and, according to the noah flood - that's when the last one happened (to have all the ice that we have - since the flood obviously had to be water before it turned to ice).

[pianistimo]

about the processes in point four - i think argonne laboratories proves that u can make all kinds of things including carbon in a very short amount of time.  have to look up the site.  anyways - i'm not the one to ask about the specifics of this - and as prometheus said - u might need a creation scientist to ask about these things and not me.

[einherjar]

But the nephilim words appear on Enochian Apocrypha. We can't trust that plain and simple. There are also Jewish legends about a older than Eve wife of Adam.

About the ice Caps: Why shouldn't they be there? Remeber the water cicle? Read this for more info: https://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewTopic.do?o=read&id=501

The carbon-isotope is the one people think most when we talk  about isotope datation. But it is not the one used in datation of the most ancient rocks and fossils. I am sorry to say, but the website you gave me is completeluy flawed, and there is nothing scientific in there

[johnny-boy]

Carbon-14 Dating has always been controversial. Even many scientists disagree about its accuracy. There are many websites pro and con.  Here’s an interesting site:

https://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

John

[anekdote]

Oh great, this debate has been brought up!

Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. It is accepted by nearly the totality of the scientific community (those who do not support it usually have an agenda and thus are not true scientists).

Evolution is an observable phenomenon. In a laboratory we can watch DNA mutate and diseases adapt. Creationists typically point out that we can not watch animals evolve on a scale noticable to the eye. This is called speciation (or macroevolution). Speciation is not observable simply because the time this process takes is too great. So we observe speciation through the fossil record.

But the nephilim words appear on Enochian Apocrypha. We can't trust that plain and simple. There are also Jewish legends about a older than Eve wife of Adam.

You mean Lilith.

[johnny-boy]

Yeah, I don't want to get into this either. I remember a discussion on this subject on another forum that went on for 60 pages.

John

[steveie986]

Yeah, I don't want to get into this either. I remember a discussion on this subject on another forum that went on for 60 pages.

I absolutely agree. This is not a worthwhile topic. After all, if your grasp of math and composition is anything to go by, you couldn't tell the difference between a monkey and a human anyway.

[einherjar]

Yea, people, let's keep it scientific... Yes, i meant Lilith

[johnny-boy]

I absolutely agree. This is not a worthwhile topic. After all, if your grasp of math and composition is anything to go by, you couldn't tell the difference between a monkey and a human anyway.

Yes I can. You're a monkey and I'm a human. Ha, Ha, Ha! You lose again.

 

[prometheus]

Now, if God wasn't in charge of the 'old earth' then - it could have been that Satan and his demons were responsible for some sort of pre-adamic state of the world.

Uuh, satan is a destinction used to name Lucifer. He was an angel that was offended by the fact that God found humans a more significant creation than angels. So this means that Lucifer rebelled after the creation of humans.

there is no mention of this pre-adamic creation

You mean humans before Adam? Since god created humans last. Actually the bible must say that there were more humans than only Adam and Eve. When Cain has to leave he is afraid for other people. The same goes for marrying. There seem to be more people than just the bloodline of Adam&Eve.

But this is trying to make sense of the mythology of the bible. It was no significant for what happened with the earth.

but i suppose that if there was proof that the dinosaurs lived before man - then they could have been created, died, and decayed (producing oil fields etc)

Oil fields are created by dead plankton, algae and other small organisms living in the sea. Actually, since this process takes a lot of time this excluded young earth because obviously so much oil, and coal, cannot be created in such a small period of time.

and that the new creation (of the true God) was made in a much more merciful way.  He cares for his creation and does not allow mass death without giving some reason.

It is not a logical impossibility. But observations indicate otherwise. They indicate that humans evolved from small mammals, through monkey-like creatures into apes. And one ape turned into humanoids. There have been many kinds of humanoids but only one kind has survived. Also, other apes have survived. But there are only 4 types of apes that have survived. Chimps, Bonobo's, Gorilla's and Orang Utangs. All the other kinds have also become extinct.

He is proactive and not simply a god that causes ice ages or floods or catastrophes without reason.

The fossil record shows several mass extinctions. Most of them are caused by climate changes caused by astroid impacts. At least as far as we can tell.

 

so, back to the old earth/young earth - i would say - since the spirit of God was hovering over 'waters' and these waters were covering the earth - then these were flood waters.

God hovering above the waters was before the earth was created. The nature of these waters make no sense at all. Not only do I believe this story has nothing to do with what happened to the earth. I can't even make a fictional mythological story out of it. The first two phrases of genesis have 77 different interpretations. Personally, I can't derive one that makes mythological sense without using my imagination.

the very beginning (vs. 1) says that God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void.  now - if we have 1/3 of the angels who were cast down - and had the ability to 'create' then we possibly have a reason for a first or second or third or fourth creation of animals  - but no man as we know man.  nothing made in God's image.

I am not sure, but don't angels lack powers of these kinds? And also, the fossil records contradicts this since humans lived after the angels fell and humans didn't live during 'earlier creations'.

More important, instead of dropping the whole idea of creationism you are moving into all kinds of corners to make something that doesn't make sense into something that does. This is not only not effective and lacking elegance. It is also logical the wrong way of going. If you do this you get into absurdities like claiming God created the earth 6000 years ago. But he created it in such a way that it appears to be 4.55 billion years old and with evolved life, just to trick and test us. This is the same as saying that the earth has been created 1 second ago but in such a way as it appears how it is.

the earth - if it is old - was remade several times without the current animals and mankind (and without the current sun and stars of the 'expanse of our heaven' - which expanse may have been already placed there?)  but, in genesis 1:7 'and God made the 'expanse' ...that he was talking about here as the waters separated from below the expanse and above the expanse.  maybe when he speaks of the expanse here - he is talking about the expanse of the atmosphere of earth.

I said that to me genesis 1 doesn't make sense. But I can't make much sense out of what you are saying here. The earth was remade several times? Well, there is no indication for this. If the earth world have been recreated surely there will have to be evidence somewhere. As for the earth existing in another solar system. That is absurd. The earth would need a particular type of sun and it needs to be in a particular orbit for life to be possible. If god took out the earth and placed it in the orbit of a different sun then a majority of all life would die out because the temperature would be different, the radiation levels would be different, the duration of the seasons would differ. If the moon isn't taken along the sea tides would be distupted, etc etc.

It would have to be another god's creation and another paradigm of life.  perhaps one of giant dimensions. 

Another god? Isn't this herecy? This indicates you are really really starting to fantasize.

i don't profess to understand the age of the earth except by reading things

If you are going to read things about a subject of science then make sure it is written by someone that is knowledgeble on the subject and respected for her or his work. Especially when it touches with creationism because there is a lot of false information presented as science out there made up by christian scientists or theologicts exploring in fields they have no background in and reaching a wide audience.

that say that 1) the continents are eroding too quickly to be more than thousands of years old

Erosion is a very complex process. Soil is created and dispaced. The speeds at which these happen differ greatly. Mountains erode but are also created. These processes are slow. I don't see why this indicated a young earth at all.

- and are pretty much as God allowed them to be at the time he 'separated the people' probably around the time of babel - but not sure about the timing.

This doesn't explain why different continents have different species. The continents have to be seperated a long time ago.

2)there is not enough helium in the atmosphere (maybe u can explain this one).

I guess this is what it is about: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html

3)many fossils can form quickly and didn't have to take millions of years to look the way they do.

It's not about the amount of fossils that indicate the earth is millions of years old. The geological evidence for a 4.55 billion year old earth are of a different nature.

4)many processes -which we have been told take millions of years - do not need such time spans at all.

Maybe? Is that all? Maybe processes that had, by all indication, to take 4.55 billion years just took 6000 years? Maybe?

5)oceans are not salty enough (i don't understand this one either) something about rivers and streams dumping a certian amount of salt every year.

I guess this is about this: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html

i have also heard that regarding our current world population that it would be XXX times larger if we started more than 6,000 years ago with more than two people.

That is because the demographic developments during earlier times were very different from how they are today. It takes a lof of farm lands to support a big population. This is something you cannot calculate since it will be something very complex and modified by a lot of different variables.

i find it interesting that in God's word there is the ability to count generations (and thus years) by when a man was born and when his first son was born)  you can basically count something like 1,656 years from the creation to the flood.  now, if this is chronologically correct - then we should see flood evidence at that point in time.  also, you can continue counting forward to Christ - and also, after Christ to our time AD 2006.  if u add this all together - u get less than 6,000 years.

There is no evidence for a global flood. There are many floods. Just look at the past number of years. I know of Florida, China, Germany&Austria, Thailand&India. Floods happen very often. But a global flood is not observed. Also, I wonder which flood data match the ages of the persons in the bible.

i am of the opinion that if death existed before this - it was a creation made to die.

What?

the dinosaurs were created for our benefit. To die!

How does this work? Why had dinosaur had to be created, life for 160 million years and die out during a period of several million years. What did humans gain from this? And why did it take 65 more million years before humans came into beings to benefit from the creation and destruction of all those very different kinds of creatures?

if Satan truly created another creation before ours - it was for us to have the oilfields we do today.

Uuuh....?

the idea of nephilim is in genesis.  that is right before God limits human lifespans to 120 years.

There are people that are older than 120 years.

[prometheus]

Carbon-14 Dating has always been controversial. Even many scientists disagree about its accuracy. There are many websites pro and con.  Here’s an interesting site:

https://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

John

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

Carbon-14 dating is not controversial. There are just some problems with applying it corretly. The site you give does not say it cannot be used. It only says that one should be  careful because there can be uncertain variables.

Only creationists claim that carbon-14 dating is controversial and useless.

Also, C14 dating only goes back 60,000 years at maximum. Because the half-file of C14 carbon is roughly 5700 years, after several times that period no C14 carbon is left and the method is useless.