Evolution vs Creation

Not all of the internet is unreliable but there is plenty that is not true. Not unlike some of the news nowadays. The old joke "If it is on tv it must be true" carries over to the net. Just because it is there doesn't mean it is true.

The Answers in Genesis guys would say the same about shaky scientific methods to those who endorse evolution. Thus the debate that was so innocently started.
 
Not all of the internet is unreliable but there is plenty that is not true. Not unlike some of the news nowadays. The old joke "If it is on tv it must be true" carries over to the net. Just because it is there doesn't mean it is true.

The Answers in Genesis guys would say the same about shaky scientific methods to those who endorse evolution. Thus the debate that was so innocently started.

AiG "scientists" simply ignore science and evidence that doesn't agree with their foregone conclusion. That isn't what the scientific method is about.
 
It always amazes me how highly intelligent and scientific people can take the Bible literally.
I can't see NOT believing in evolution. There's physical evidence, whereas there's not physical evidence of Adam and Eve or a Garden of Eden.

Be amazed.

Be very amazed.

How about these highly intelligent scientific people?
Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
Louis Pasteur

More recently:
Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of the MRI scanner
Dr. Richard Lumsden - formerly professor of parasitology and cell biology at Tulane University
Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith - Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry; PhD in pharmacology; PhD in pharmacological sciences. Formerly a professor at the University of Geneva, in addition, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a NATO three-star general!

Pretty impressive bunch, huh? And all 6 day creationists!


Regarding evidence for Adam and Eve. Recent research into human genetics have established that everyone in the world is descended from one man and one woman. They call them "genetic Adam" and "genetic Eve". So genetics support concept that we all descend from one man and one woman.
 
What I believe is pretty much what my religion teacher told us she believed,
I think the creation stories were thought up by the teachers and educated minds coming together and trying to explain how we came to be.
I dont take them as fact, it doesn't really bother me.:confused3

This is my belief, too. What separates us from animals is that we want to know more, we want to better ourselves and not just exist. We crave knowledge. The stories were meant to make sense of the world.

Thanks goodness for Dr. Green at Mississippi College. He helped me more than anyone else ever has to formulate my beliefs.

I am upset that some of the threads are making fun of fundamentalist beliefs-I don't believe in making fun of anyone's religion. I am in the Bible belt, and listen to people talking about fundamental issues all the time, and I've never made fun of it. It just isn't how dh and I believe. As I've stated, as my kids get older and ask questions, I'll explain my beliefs to them, and it will be up to them to set their own belief systems.
 

Not a single one of the six links you provide mention that all cultures have a worldwide flood myth, and that a worldwide flood is the only myth that is in common to all cultures.

When we are talking about science - and not faith - it's important to be correct. It seems even you are now agreeing that your original statement wasn't true.

Those are simply links to resources that would provide such evidence.

IMHO - science cannot be discussed without faith. To believe evolution demands a certain level of faith as does creation. Either way faith is involved at some level.

Also, the whole debate is based off of starting points. Meaning everyone is predisposed whether by personal beliefs or upbringing or education to start somewhere when researching any topic, scientific or otherwise. A religious person may start by assuming the Bible to be a reliable scientific/historical source while an atheist will start on the opposite end of the spectrum. Different starting points will often lead to different conclusions because the predisposition of the individual often influences how they interpret the evidence.

Hence the great debate - there are a multitude of good strong scientist that believe the theory of evolution. There are also a multitude of good strong scientist that believe the creation story. Scientist on both sides of the issue claim the other to be wrong. And scientist on both sides want the masses of non educated people on the matter to believe the other is not only wrong but foolish for believing in anything other than their theory. I am not a scientist and never claimed to be but thought I would humbly state my opinions along with others in this thread. Take them for what they are worth - you will not change my mind and I will not change yours nor do I care too. I only desire that all would take it upon themselves to seek out good, solid, strong, truthful, reliable evidence to educate themselves - something I constantly try to do - even though my conclusions may not agree with yours.
 
Those are simply links to resources that would provide such evidence.

IMHO - science cannot be discussed without faith. To believe evolution demands a certain level of faith as does creation. Either way faith is involved at some level.

Also, the whole debate is based off of starting points. Meaning everyone is predisposed whether by personal beliefs or upbringing or education to start somewhere when researching any topic, scientific or otherwise. A religious person may start by assuming the Bible to be a reliable scientific/historical source while an atheist will start on the opposite end of the spectrum. Different starting points will often lead to different conclusions because the predisposition of the individual often influences how they interpret the evidence.

Hence the great debate - there are a multitude of good strong scientist that believe the theory of evolution. There are also a multitude of good strong scientist that believe the creation story. Scientist on both sides of the issue claim the other to be wrong. And scientist on both sides want the masses of non educated people on the matter to believe the other is not only wrong but foolish for believing in anything other than their theory. I am not a scientist and never claimed to be but thought I would humbly state my opinions along with others in this thread. Take them for what they are worth - you will not change my mind and I will not change yours nor do I care too. I only desire that all would take it upon themselves to seek out good, solid, strong, truthful, reliable evidence to educate themselves - something I constantly try to do - even though my conclusions may not agree with yours.

This doesn't explain how many religious people (scientists and non-scientists) would see that evolution is a fact. And it is.

Atheists don't necessarily start at the opposite end of the spectrum, either. My education in Catholic school included evolution. In classes covering religion, Genesis' creation myth was explained as an allegory.
 
"homosexual" is not in the Bible but the practice of sodomy is written about.

Check out this link to search http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Also read Romans 1:26-27 where the practice of sodomy is alluded too.

Using the tool you provided , it appears in the NLT bible , in the NIV , once in each.


The word homosexuality is found in

* Gen 19:1-13
* Lev 18:22; Lev 18:29; Lev 20:13
* Rom 1:26-27; Rom 1:32
* 1Cr 6:9-11

in some version of the bible , again from your search engine.
* 1Ti 1:8-10
 
Regarding evidence for Adam and Eve. Recent research into human genetics have established that everyone in the world is descended from one man and one woman. They call them "genetic Adam" and "genetic Eve". So genetics support concept that we all descend from one man and one woman.

That is not the case. This is research into mitochondrial DNA (passed from mother to daughter) and it merely established the matrilinial most recent common ancestor ("eve", if you will -- but not adam, since we cannot trace the male line through mitochondrial DNA) of all living human beings. BUT ... "eve" would not have been the oldest ancestor of all living beings (merely the most recent common ancestor) -- big difference! There would have been humans long before "eve"! Also, it has absolutely zip to do with a biblical "eve", lol.

There is also work to determine a patrilineal most recent common ancestor through the Y chromosone -- but "adam" and "eve" would not have been mates or lived at the same time. (they were about 50000 years apart).

I have to say (not directed at you in particular, since this is a very common misunderstanding of mitochondrial DNA research) but the general level of scientific illiteracy demonstrated on this thread is appalling! It's almost too cringe-worthy to read (and yet, I continue to do so :scared: )
 
I have to say (not directed at you in particular, since this is a very common misunderstanding of mitochondrial DNA research) but the general level of scientific illiteracy demonstrated on this thread is appalling! It's almost too cringe-worthy to read (and yet, I continue to do so :scared: )

I agree. But creationism isn't science, and that's where the problem lies, I think. As I said before, those who believe in it find evidence (shaky as it is) to support their foregone conclusions while ignoring the rest, and that's not how the scientific method operates. And very few questions have been satisfactorily answered on this thread. I asked how kangaroos exist only in Australia, and nothing. I wonder also, if the planet's only 6000 years old, how did the pyramids in Egypt survive the flood? The ones in Giza were built about 2500 BCE, and according to Answers in Genesis, the flood occurred in the year 2349 BCE.
 
Regarding evidence for Adam and Eve. Recent research into human genetics have established that everyone in the world is descended from one man and one woman. They call them "genetic Adam" and "genetic Eve". So genetics support concept that we all descend from one man and one woman.

You better bone up on your scientific theory before you go posting 'scientific evidence.'

First of all, it is mitochondrial Eve, not genetic Eve.

(from wikipedia - not the most reliable source, but for this purpose, puts the theories of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam in laymans terms the best)

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 140,000 years ago, according to probabilistic studies,[2] the MRCA could have been living as recently as 3,000 years ago.[3]

Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[4] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time — she was not. Had she been the only living female of her time, humanity would most likely have become extinct due to an extreme population bottleneck.
Indeed not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have descendants alive today. They may have left descendants via either son or daughters (and grandsons or granddaughters, and so on). Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve may be present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.[1]

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her contemporaries have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Furthermore, it can be shown that every contemporary woman of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every contemporary woman of hers is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.[2][5]
 
I only desire that all would take it upon themselves to seek out good, solid, strong, truthful, reliable evidence to educate themselves - something I constantly try to do - even though my conclusions may not agree with yours.
Exactly - we must seek out good solid, strong, truthful, reliable evidence. That's why objected to your statement about worldwide flood stories being universal, and that they are the only universal stories. That simply wasn't true.

Science leads us to theories that best match the evidence we have. The evidence we have matches up much better with a very old earth than with a 6,000-year old earth. That has nothing to do with faith. You don't need to faith to get to that conclusion - just evidence and logic. Science exists without Faith - just as Faith exists without science.
 
I don't care if you buy them or not but I was at least posting somewhere to find the evidence - as opposed to the internet which is completely unreliable in terms of truth.

But all of the items you listed were provided by one pro-creationist source. I was trying to stay out of this but well, that didn't happen.

My main problem with the answersingenesis people - and I have read a lot of articles on their website - is that they say that you must look at the data from their perspective (your basic argument about coming to the evidence with either the belief that the world is old or that the world is yount and then making the evidence fit your belief). Science doesn't work that way. You examine the facts, if the facts show an old world, then you have an old world. If the facts show a young world, then you have a young world.

Please show some evidence/links to pages that are not from that website. After seeing how they twist views to fit their own agenda, I do not trust their writings.
 
To me its a trust issue.

Like it or not, none of us have done ALL the research ourselves in either direction. When I hear people ranting about this stuff (both sides) they are really doing nothing more than regurgitating a lifetime of information someone else told them. As a result, when we make a choice about which side to believe we are willfully CHOOSING to believe either Scientists or certain Religious leaders (I say certain because some Faiths do not see a conflict between Religion and Science... mine being one of them).

So it boils down to who you trust. Do you trust the Scientific Community or do you trust your Religious leaders? God himself allowed for the creation of both ideas and since free will is His greatest gift to us I believe it is wrong for one side to try and dominate the other.

Besides, no matter what side you sit on, the reality is that just because someone SAYS something is true doesn't actually change whether or not it is true and visa versa. Why bother convincing someone who doesn't agree with you when their opinion does not change reality.... I just don't get it:confused3
 
To me its a trust issue.

Like it or not, none of us have done ALL the research ourselves in either direction. When I hear people ranting about this stuff (both sides) they are really doing nothing more than regurgitating a lifetime of information someone else told them. As a result, when we make a choice about which side to believe we are willfully CHOOSING to believe either Scientists or certain Religious leaders (I say certain because some Faiths do not see a conflict between Religion and Science... mine being one of them).

So it boils down to who you trust. Do you trust the Scientific Community or do you trust your Religious leaders? God himself allowed for the creation of both ideas and since free will is His greatest gift to us I believe it is wrong for one side to try and dominate the other.

Besides, no matter what side you sit on, the reality is that just because someone SAYS something is true doesn't actually change whether or not it is true and visa versa. Why bother convincing someone who doesn't agree with you when their opinion does not change reality.... I just don't get it:confused3

I'm not trusting scientists. It's simple for me to find answers to my questions about creationism. It doesn't mesh with recorded history, let alone science.

And how do you know people will never change their minds about creationism? It happens. They just wouldn't be likely to admit it here. :rotfl:
 
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and is to be taken literally except where it is made clear that it is a parable or story. I believe that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. If science shows that the world seems older then I believe that God created the world with age. I don't need science to explain it to me, I believe that God will explain it to me when I get to Heaven if I ask Him.

I believe the story of the Tower of Babel is true and that is where all the different languages and nationalities came from. I also believe the story of Noah and the flood is true. If my God can speak this world into existence then I have to believe that he can also destroy it by a worldwide flood and that he can lead a believer to build a boat to save his family and two animals of every kind. How they became dispersed all over the globe in the way they did after the flood I don't know. But again, I can ask God when I get to Heaven.

I'm not sure what happened to the dinosaurs, but I believe that most likely they coudln't survive in the changed world after the flood and died off for the most part. I can ask God about that one too when I get to Heaven.

To some of you my blind faith in a God I can't see and things I can't necessarily prove by science or even that contradict science may seem silly. But to me that's faith. That is what God asks of me. And though I cannot physically see Him yet, I have felt Him work in my life and my heart. I felt His love and I have watched Him work in other people's lives. Its much easier for me to believe in an all powerful God that created us and loves us, than we all ended up here by chance and will one day just die and that's it.
 
I'm not trusting scientists. It's simple for me to find answers to my questions about creationism. It doesn't mesh with recorded history, let alone science.

And how do you know people will never change their minds about creationism? It happens. They just wouldn't be likely to admit it here. :rotfl:


You don't HAVE to trust anyone. That's the beauty of free will:goodvibes

As far as changing people's minds. I have never ever walked out of a disagreement with a new point of view. If people take time to look into things of their own accord SOMETIMES they will change their minds about an issues. However, challenging ideas directly does not work. It just makes everyone defensive so they dig in their heels. Not productive in my opinion.
 
I love the whole "well the bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs" or "noah couldn't have possibly loaded up all the animals" theories to leap to = all of the bible is therefore untrue and = there is no God.

The bible isn't a geography textbook or the definitive history and complete documentation of everything that has ever happened right down to specific timelines, naming every species that was every created etc.

It is what it is.

Evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory because it doesn't remotely begin to explain where the matter came from that "evolved" in the first place.
 
You don't HAVE to trust anyone. That's the beauty of free will:goodvibes

Did I say I had to trust anyone? :confused3

As far as changing people's minds. I have never ever walked out of a disagreement with a new point of view. If people take time to look into things of their own accord SOMETIMES they will change their minds about an issues. However, challenging ideas directly does not work. It just makes everyone defensive so they dig in their heels. Not productive in my opinion.

Really? I have. And I do know that people on the DIS do change their minds regarding some issues when debated here. It happens. Why not debate it, especially for the benefit of those lurking here who may be on the fence?
 
Evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory because it doesn't remotely begin to explain where the matter came from that "evolved" in the first place.

That's covered by stuff like the Big Bang Theory.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom