[_ Old Earth _] A Question about your views on Evolution/Creationism.

[4billonyear]

Sooo this has become a chat about spiders. Well I feel like the fact that no one cares, my post of rebuttal was down right deleted, and that I just wanted to discuss evolution and creationism. This forum did not respect my question they just didn't give a. I feel kind of hurt. The reason why I got an account was to talk about this and get others options but no respected that on this forum, or at least for most of my experience. PLEASE DONT DELETE THIS. Or at least take it as some criticism. This has just made me lose all hope in religion. The forum has just disregarded the fact that I made this post. Shouldn't you guys be giving love to thy other man.

We've had like a zillion evolution vs creation threads before, so let's just derail this one.

Even if YOU have had a million I had only one. If I don't get some response to fix this I will know this site only as a place where a non believer gets no input and they treat you like ... . GAH it feels like basic bulling.

 

[reba]

Reminder:
Non-Christians ask questions, and Christians answer. Answers to questions by non-Christians will be deleted. Posts may require moderator approval before becoming publicly viewable.

Post deleted by Reba

Let me suggest you head over to http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?forums/christianity-science.12/ That forum does not have the restrictions this one does....

I will send you a PM or SAC as they are called here ... with the list of rules for that forum.... Reba

 

[WIP]

Let's get this thread back on the original topic. Spiders is not it. Your's truly is guilty as charged too.

 

[reba]

@4billionyear After a discussion of moderators your posts have been reinstated...I am sorry i know editing stops the flow of threads... away spiders are creepy...

 

[TOG]

If I don't get some response to fix this I will know this site only as a place where a non believer gets no input and they treat you like ... . GAH it feels like basic bulling.

4billonyear I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think it was anybody's intention to bully you. I certainly didn't mean to.

The title really says what I want to ask. What do you see as the theory for the foundation and beginnings of life?
Evolution or Creationism? Please put some proof with your answer. Thank you.

(Oh and put in comments with proof and answer the poll.

I don't think there really is any proof. If you think about it, it's not really reasonable to ask for scientific proof of creation, since it is not a scientific theory. But, as has been discussed in other threads, the theory of evolution isn't really scientific either, since the scientific method can't be applied to it. But even though there isn't any proof, per se, there is evidence that can be interpreted either for or against evolution and either for or against creation. When you get right down to it, that's all we're really talking about - different ways of interpreting the things we see around us. When I look at a flower, I see something that is so wonderful that it could only have been created by an all-knowing and all-powerful God. I see how the different parts of the flower all work together, as well as the rest of the plant, and conclude that these things could not be the result of anything random, like evolution. But when an evolutionist sees the same flower, he marvels that random changes over millions of years have brought about something as complex as this flower and that every part works perfectly with every other part. But neither of us has proof. We just interpret the evidence in different ways. That wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact that evolutionist claim that their interpretation isn't interpretation at all, but fact.

The TOG​

 

[WIP]

OH my ... thats alot of discussion about stuff that to me is just untrue. The fact is that we can see small steps. Bacteria can evolve many times in to new species over time. We can look in a microscope and see evolution going on. The eye is here because its taken millions of years to perfect it. We know exactly its evolutionary process. The reason we cant see a new variation in organisms is because it is TO SLOW. Its not like fish just gave birth to a frog. A fish-frog looking thing gave birth to a fish-frog with slightly longer feet that helped it hop SlIGHTLY. It took 2.3 billon years for prokaryotes to turn in to eukaryotes. Not instantly like at 2.3 it just changed. It is a constant minuscule change. To Gary whales and humans have vestige parts. The whale as a pelves used for walking well it was used to. Also human fetes have webbed feet when developing but get dissolved before birth. Probability is on our side there is 4billonyear's (hint hint) for all this evolution to occur. Just saying that evolution has good solid proof and thus it is a scientific threoy.

One thing that needs to be understood. This forum does not provide the option to debate the validity of the answers Christians provide. In this forum, a non-Christian may ask questions and Christians will give their answer. There is no debating. I will allow this particular post to stand but I will not allow a debate to ensue.

WIP

 

[Jim Parker]

Evolution. The evidence is everywhere. Also, creationism doesn't suffice the scientific criteria of a theory.

"Creationism" has several meanings.

There are those who espouse a young earth (perhaps 6000 years old) that was created by God in six, twenty-four hour days. IMHO, that position requires that we ignore the scientific data that clearly refutes such a view.

However, while the evidence of some level of evolution my be "everywhere" it is not sufficient to refute the statement that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Everything that exists owes it's existence to a prior cause. It could be posited that the universe is infinitely old and that there was never a "time" when it did not exist but, by scientific observation, we know that proposition is false and that our universe is only about 13.7 billion years old. (Though , at the time that evolutionary theory was in its infancy, it was the accepted "science" that the universe was infinitely old and in a static state. The observations of Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory proved that "science" to be incorrect.)

The fact that our universe had a beginning requires that there be a cause for that beginning, a "first cause." Those who hold to the truth of a creation, in whatever form, call that first cause "God." So I do firmly believe that it was God Who created the heavens and the earth some 13.7 billion years ago when He spoke to what was yet "formless and void" (singularity???) and said, "Let there be light." That statement was followed by a very "big bang" from which light soon radiated. (Works for me.)

The source of information for Christian creationism is the Bible. But the Bible is not a science book. The account of the creation in Genesis 1 is the beginning of "The Story of Us" for Israel. It is the revelation of God and His desire for an intimate relationship with all mankind. Scripture refers to God as the "husband" of Israel and to the Church as the "bride" of Christ. Those are not scientific terms; those are terms expressing an intimate union.

So, when someone says that the Bible is "not scientific," my response is "So what?" Neither is the Iliad and the Oddyssy. They are literature as are the Baghavad Ghita and the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. They are not intended to be science textbooks.

The Bible is the revelation of God to mankind. Trying to make it into a science book or criticizing it for its lack of experimentally provable data are both endeavors in absurdity, IMHO.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

But they don't know they are invading your space, Deb. Besides, maybe you're the one invading their space.

Neither do flu viruses or bacteria that can cause my death. So I take medicines to "smoosh" them.

Drawing a line at insects is illogical. If one insist that all life be respected then one should not take antibiotics for any infection because it will cause the death of living bacteria.

iakov the fool

 

[WIP]

I am hesitant to embrace scientific study and research as fact. For example...

I stop short of agreeing that scientific data clearly refutes a young earth. That is not to say that I would agree with the opposite. I figure anything is possible with God.

I stop short of agreeing that by scientific observation we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I don't think we necessarily know anything but the scientific community believes the criteria used is valid and reliable and therefore it is believed to be true even if it isn't. That happens in science. It was once believed that the earth was flat until enough evidence was presented to change that belief. How many times have we been told about some food item being a cause for cancer only to later be told it was no longer believed true? It seems new evidence or research is introduced all the time that changes scientific theory, hence the use of the word "theory."

I prefer to trust God will give us whatever knowledge we need when we need it.

 

[Kidron]

"Creationism" has several meanings.

There are those who espouse a young earth (perhaps 6000 years old) that was created by God in six, twenty-four hour days. IMHO, that position requires that we ignore the scientific data that clearly refutes such a view.

However, while the evidence of some level of evolution my be "everywhere" it is not sufficient to refute the statement that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Everything that exists owes it's existence to a prior cause. It could be posited that the universe is infinitely old and that there was never a "time" when it did not exist but, by scientific observation, we know that proposition is false and that our universe is only about 13.7 billion years old. (Though , at the time that evolutionary theory was in its infancy, it was the accepted "science" that the universe was infinitely old and in a static state. The observations of Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory proved that "science" to be incorrect.)

The fact that our universe had a beginning requires that there be a cause for that beginning, a "first cause." Those who hold to the truth of a creation, in whatever form, call that first cause "God." So I do firmly believe that it was God Who created the heavens and the earth some 13.7 billion years ago when He spoke to what was yet "formless and void" (singularity???) and said, "Let there be light." That statement was followed by a very "big bang" from which light soon radiated. (Works for me.)

The source of information for Christian creationism is the Bible. But the Bible is not a science book. The account of the creation in Genesis 1 is the beginning of "The Story of Us" for Israel. It is the revelation of God and His desire for an intimate relationship with all mankind. Scripture refers to God as the "husband" of Israel and to the Church as the "bride" of Christ. Those are not scientific terms; those are terms expressing an intimate union.

So, when someone says that the Bible is "not scientific," my response is "So what?" Neither is the Iliad and the Oddyssy. They are literature as are the Baghavad Ghita and the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. They are not intended to be science textbooks.

The Bible is the revelation of God to mankind. Trying to make it into a science book or criticizing it for its lack of experimentally provable data are both endeavors in absurdity, IMHO.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

Ah yes......"first cause".. St. Thomas Aquinas , tho it was the Greeks who probably had already had the original idea.
I love the greeks.....such thinkers, and such warriors....... take the Spartans for example.
Go Leonidas I and the Battle of Thermopylae

First cause is interesting, as truly everything that exists, has a creator., and thus, everything has a beginning, a time-point moment of being created.
It is interesting to note that God created all things, "in time", that is to say, within the boundary of time, yet He exists outside of time and that is why He cant be explained as having a beginning or an end.
Also, God has the distinction of being the original "first cause" Creator and from there, all living things He created make copies., yet God alone created each thing, fully formed, "after its kind" and not as a copy.
Humans are created in the image of God, yet they only know how to recreate.
God creates a living shoreline full of flowers, and man paints it, recreates it, as a landscape, or he builds a nice flower garden using the preexisting.
God creates man out of dirt, out of a rib, and inside a virgin without intercourse or an IVF, and all man can do is combine his sperm with her egg and recreate.

Science, which would attempt to overthrow God with science, has a problem, and this problem they face is that to be a God, you have to be able to create a brand new thing from NOTHING.
Science has a bit of difficulty doing this, as they can take what preexists and manipulate it and come up with something different, and then combine it, or make a hybrid., but they cant create anything at all unless they have some pre-existing material to use.
However, God created everything He created from "scratch".
For example, take something like a Rose......a red Rose.
Science cant create one from "thin air".......they can recreate one from a seed, or take a graft and recreate, or they even clone one , but that is all manipulating the pre-existing......as they cant create a red rose from "thin air"....as only a very creative GOD who is omnipotent can do this, and when He does it, its not a laboratory trick, its an >original creation<.
He did the same regarding the universe.

 

[Jim Parker]

I am hesitant to embrace scientific study and research as fact. For example...

I stop short of agreeing that scientific data clearly refutes a young earth. That is not to say that I would agree with the opposite. I figure anything is possible with God.

I stop short of agreeing that by scientific observation we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I don't think we necessarily know anything but the scientific community believes the criteria used is valid and reliable and therefore it is believed to be true even if it isn't. That happens in science. It was once believed that the earth was flat until enough evidence was presented to change that belief. How many times have we been told about some food item being a cause for cancer only to later be told it was no longer believed true? It seems new evidence or research is introduced all the time that changes scientific theory, hence the use of the word "theory."

I prefer to trust God will give us whatever knowledge we need when we need it.

Actually, you are choosing to trust your personal understanding of what God has said about the age of the universe when the ages of the universe is not the essence of what was being revealed.

The data from which the conclusion of a 13.7 billion year old universe is not that complicated. It's essentially the Doppler effect applied to light.

The Doppler effect is an explanation of the phenomenon by which a steady tone emitted by an object traveling at a constant speed rises as the object approaches and falls as it passes and moves away.(like a train, traveling at a constant speed, blowing it's whistle or the sound of the exhaust of a race car as it approaches at a constant speed.) The sound waves occur closer together as the object approaches and they are spread out as it departs.
We experience that as an increase in pitch as the object approaches and a decrease in pitch as it moves away.

The same thing happens with light except that the light of an approaching object shifts to shorter wavelength light (the blue end of the spectrum) and the light from objects moving away shifts to longer wavelengths at the red end of the spectrum.

By measuring the shift, it is possible to determine the speed of the object and whether it is moving toward us or away from us.

Stars burn hydrogen and hydrogen emits a specific light signature with specific peaks.

<----- blue shift, moving closer
View attachment 7634
red shift, moving away ---->

What astrophysicists discovered when analyzing the spectrum of galaxies was that the spectrum from every galaxy, in every direction, was shifted to the red end of the spectrum indicating that the universe is expanding. Since the universe is expanding, it must have been smaller in the past and, if one goes far enough back into the past, the entire universe must have been at one small point. It must have had a beginning.

There is no reason to reject valid scientific conclusions. They are what provided the cure for polio and enabled us to put men on the moon. But I would not consider the cancer curing potentials of any foods as touted by those who want to sell " natural cancer cures that the drug companies don't want you to know about" as being based more in science than in hype. And, yeah, I've been there and done that. She died of cancer.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

 

[WIP]

We must remember this is not a debate forum so I won't debate this with you (I probably wouldn't be qualified to debate it anyway) but I will share my thoughts. Maybe before this goes too far a new thread should be started in the appropriate forum.

I see science as a means to explain our world around us using our own limited knowledge and understanding. As we gain knowledge and further understanding science is force to adapt and adjust. I don't reject scientific understanding but I don't necessarily embrace it as absolute truth either. In other words I don't see fact and truth as being equal.

For example, it is a scientific fact that my neighbor had a cancerous tumor in his brain. It is a scientific fact that the doctors determined the tumor had grown extensions that were intertwined throughout his brain. It is a scientific fact that the medical community determined that his condition was too far along and therefore inoperable. It is a scientific fact that his prognosis dictated he only had a short time left on this earth. If my memory is correct they gave him 2-4 weeks at that time. It is also a fact that through prayer and faith in God he is now, about four years later, in remission and the tumor has diminished to the point that it no longer presents a threat. All of the scientific evidence, theory, understanding, knowledge, facts, etc. cannot explain his recovery but nevertheless he remains alive against all odds.

What science believes to be true isn't always true but it is our best understanding of the world around us at this time.

 

[WIP]

Please start a new thread in the "Christianity and Science" forum to continue this discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Jim Parker]

We must remember this is not a debate forum so I won't debate this with you (I probably wouldn't be qualified to debate it anyway) but I will share my thoughts. Maybe before this goes too far a new thread should be started in the appropriate forum.

I see science as a means to explain our world around us using our own limited knowledge and understanding. As we gain knowledge and further understanding science is force to adapt and adjust. I don't reject scientific understanding but I don't necessarily embrace it as absolute truth either. In other words I don't see fact and truth as being equal. [/QUOTE]

I agree. What we know about the universe is our best understanding at this point based on the data we have gleaned using the instruments we have.

For example, it is a scientific fact that my neighbor had a cancerous tumor in his brain. It is a scientific fact that the doctors determined the tumor had grown extensions that were intertwined throughout his brain. It is a scientific fact that the medical community determined that his condition was too far along and therefore inoperable. It is a scientific fact that his prognosis dictated he only had a short time left on this earth. If my memory is correct they gave him 2-4 weeks at that time. It is also a fact that through prayer and faith in God he is now, about four years later, in remission and the tumor has diminished to the point that it no longer presents a threat. All of the scientific evidence, theory, understanding, knowledge, facts, etc. cannot explain his recovery but nevertheless he remains alive against all odds.

You have conflated two different things.

The doctors were correct in their diagnosis of the situation and their ability to treat the condition. Those were statements of fact.

That God can intervene is outside the field of science. Science is the study of creation. God is not part of creation. God is "super-natural". He exists outside of (super) nature. Medical doctors are not trained in what God can do.

The fact that God can intervene to change nature does not make the conclusions of science false.

What science believes to be true isn't always true but it is our best understanding of the world around us at this time.

Exactly. But, I see no reason to reject the scientific conclusion that the universe is some 13.7 billion years old based on the literature of a pre-scientific society recording "the story of us." The Bible also describes the sun as rising, going down, and then going back to the place from which it will rise again. (Ecc 1:5) But we know that the sun does not rise or go down; rather, the earth rotates on its axis which gives the appearance of the sun rising and setting.

If we are to accept the six, 24-hour day, creation of the universe, then why do we not accept the sun orbiting around the earth. That was what the world believed because "the Bible said so" until people using a scientific approach to observation corrected us.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

 

[smaller]

Definitely "creation."

A big caveat is that the Biblical narrative devotes little information to "prior ages." We know that God Is The Creator, and has existed "eternally" without beginning or end, so I can't logically rule out anything from past timelines and can point to the fact that there were other ages.

Ephesians 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

What we know from the scriptures, we know about this present/current "age." That doesn't preclude prior ages upon the earth. Call it a variant of gap theory, except I might insert that gap earlier than other sights, as in prior to the start of the current narrative or immediately after vs. 1, vs. 1 being a general reference to creation.

 

[Jim Parker]

Definitely "creation."

A big caveat is that the Biblical narrative devotes little information to "prior ages." We know that God Is The Creator, and has existed "eternally" without beginning or end, so I can't logically rule out anything from past timelines and can point to the fact that there were other ages.

Ephesians 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

What we know from the scriptures, we know about this present/current "age." That doesn't preclude prior ages upon the earth. Call it a variant of gap theory, except I might insert that gap earlier than other sights, as in prior to the start of the current narrative or immediately after vs. 1, vs. 1 being a general reference to creation.

The "prior ages" that Paul was talking about are the times before the flood, after the flood but before the Law, and after the Law but before the Advent of Christ.

The "gap theory" IMHO, is pure, speculative, fantasy. It is a contrivance to explain away the existence of fossil evidence of the earth being much, much, older than 6000 years in order to support the young earth notions. It is a fairy tale invented to prop up a faulty interpretation.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

 

[turnorburn]

Mr. Parker said: "I see science as a means to explain our world around us using our own limited knowledge and understanding" i see Gods word as a means to explain our world around us, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guild us into all truth because we have limited knowledge..

tob

 

[smaller]

The "prior ages" that Paul was talking about are the times before the flood, after the flood but before the Law, and after the Law but before the Advent of Christ.

Not necessarily. That is a personal inference. There may have very well been many prior 'ages' of man on earth. Even "monkey like" men. What I'm saying generally is that scripture doesn't "definitively preclude" other ages on the earth prior to this one.

The "gap theory" IMHO, is pure, speculative, fantasy. It is a contrivance to explain away the existence of fossil evidence of the earth being much, much, older than 6000 years in order to support the young earth notions. It is a fairy tale invented to prop up a faulty interpretation.

There are many versions of "gap theory." I do not believe the earth is only 6000 years old or that the creation account must be fitted into a strictly literal 24 hour man/clock.

 

[turnorburn]

Not necessarily. That is a personal inference. There may have very well been many prior 'ages' of man on earth. Even "monkey like" men. What I'm saying generally is that scripture doesn't "definitively preclude" other ages on the earth prior to this one.



There are many versions of "gap theory." I do not believe the earth is only 6000 years old or that the creation account must be fitted into a strictly literal 24 hour man/clock.

Its not a man clock its the clock God gave to man..

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

We are using the same clock to this day..

tob

 

[smaller]

Its not a man clock its the clock God gave to man..

I don't think God is "subject to" our clock or any clock, or anything else for that matter. There are many and varied descriptors of "time" in the Spiritual aspects, and there is also presentation of "no more time."

To force a strictly literalist "earth clock" on creation is, well, senseless. We have "man's time" on earth, and that is the rotation of same around the sun, and that's about the extent of the values garnered therein. But that is not the only version of "time" in the text.