*Debate* Evolution and Creationism

[Kraken]

bacteria, fish, monkeys, man.

simple math to me.

[Fresh Water Fighters]

Well I think that God mad Man.
It is not really importent how he did it.
I think that he made man the he hi is.
I don't think he make monkeys and evolved them in to men.
As i said i think that this is an instring topic but not a imporent one.

God made us.
We sined.
We were seraperated from God
He sent Jesus to Forgive our sins if we belive in him.
We rejoined with God. (If we accepted and belived and asked for forgivens in Juses Christ)
When we did we get to be with him for enternty in heaven.

It dose not matter how we were made just why were made and what we do with our life. I am not saying it is not instring it is just not as imporent as other things.
~FWF

P.S. Even this game is unimportent, it is just fun.

[Corban]

Here is FWF's post with the spelling corrected:

Well I think that God made Man.
It is not really important how he did it.
I think that he made man the way he is.
I don't think he made monkeys and evolved them in to men.
As I said I think that this is an interesting topic but not a important one.

God made us.
We sinned.
We were separated from God
He sent Jesus to forgive our sins if we believe in him.
We rejoined with God. (If we accepted and believed and asked for forgiveness in Jesus Christ)
When we did we get to be with him for eternity in heaven.

It does not matter how we were made just why were made and what we do with our life. I am not saying it is not interesting it is just not as important as other things.
~FWF

P.S. Even this game is unimportant, it is just fun.

Edit: Sorry if I corrected this wrong anywhere, but I think this is what you were trying to say.

[Ruddertail]

I don't think Darwin could have been a Christian. Maybe at first, but he obviously went against what the Bible says. He may claim he was a Christian, but his beliefs don't show it. I believe in six literal days of creation, and FWF's second paragraph pretty much sums it up for me.

But, FWF, I think the issue of how the world came about is very important. It's basicly the foundation. If you don't believe that God created the earth, then what athority did he have to forgive sins? If you think things happened differently from Genisis, then you're saying God either lied, or doesn't exist. If you believe he lied then, then why believe he told the truth any other time?

Beatles, where in the context does Genisis indicate that it might be a parable? You say the context of what Jesus said indicates it's a parable, then don't you think that if Genisis was a parable, it would indicate in the book it's a parable, not wait for science to indicate it is? Also, here is a good site that presents a lot of evidence for a Biblical creation. Answers In Genesis It may be biased, if by biased you mean that they have a preconcived veiw that they're trying to prove, but doesn't everyone? It seems that everyone out there researching and finding evidence already believes one way or another, and natrually, they'll try and prove that they're right.

[The Beatles]

First off, Corban, Poisoning the Well is when you discredit statement X by person A because statement Y by person A was wrong. But that doesn't mean X is wrong. I am referring to the day-age church fathers.

Kraken - if you'd bother to look into facts a little, you'd see that there are fundamental holes in the evolutionary theory as it stands. To be precise, there are 4 unexplained things. I will list them if you wish, but the 2 I remember off the top of my head are the chirality of amino acids, and the proportion of glucose and fructose in primeval soup.

I don't know about Darwin, but a lot of people don't see Evolution and Christianity as conflicting. To be honest, the majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics and most Protestants) believe in Evolution, it is mostly Baptists who don't.

[Ruddertail]

I don't think that those people are correct in their beliefes. Like I said, to deny Genesis is pretty much to call God a liar. Just from reading it, it doesn't seem a parable. What could it be pointing to? In the passage you quoted what it seems to mean is that everything God doesn't start will not succeed. But what would Genesis mean? If God had evolved the world, why did he not explain it that way? The ancient peoples would have been able to comprehend that just as easilly as him just creating out of nothing.

[The Beatles]

I don't think the ancient peoples would have been able to comprehend it just as well. Consider all the stuff they believed until the 18th century.

[Corban]

Beatles, discrediting evolution can indeed be very hard (as you may well know) because of the many different views of it. If you attack one theory the other 99 still stand. It can become rather confusing to debate an evolutionist without him stating exactly what form of evolution he believes in.

Also Ruddertail the view of the day-age theory, while I personally do not agree with it, is actually well thought up.

Now here one problem with evolution is Irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is simply "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". Now as the above definition states in a system the removal of a single part causes the system to cease functioning. An example of this would be the clotting cascade, in which a their are 13 factors which all need to be functioning in order for your blood to clot. If any one of these factors is somehow missing the your body cannot clot its blood.

[ohmyjapan16]

Kraken - if you'd bother to look into facts a little, you'd see that there are fundamental holes in the evolutionary theory as it stands. To be precise, there are 4 unexplained things. I will list them if you wish, but the 2 I remember off the top of my head are the chirality of amino acids, and the proportion of glucose and fructose in primeval soup.

Do you got a link with those? I am interested.

[The Beatles]

No, they're in my biology course-book. I can copy them in later.

[ohmyjapan16]

Yea, my biology book is way too liberal. Not one mention of creation, but every other sentence has "might have" or "could have" or "strong evidence shows" without even explaining.

edit: thanks.

[windhound]

hum.

I'm at a hovering stage.. where I stand out and away from all theories and look at them, pondering which makes the most sence (none of them really work in their entirely)

on one hand we have the God theory-
Everything was created by one vastly powerful being.
My thoughts on Gods in general are that they were created to fill in the gaps of what we dont understand.. makes things much more simple: why is there thunder in the skys? Zeus is angry or just mucking around. What makes the sun move across the sky? 's Apollo's (?) charriot. Why are there cows? food.
God made the earth and its inhabitants in 7 days.. or was it 6 and the 7th was a day of rest..
The statement that Eve was created from a rib and dust doesnt exacty work for me.. or is that more of a parible?
Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for a bit.. probably more parable, but..
the very fact that two of every creature on the earth fit on a boat is also rather rough, then for it to rain 40 days and nights, and the earth to simply dry out again.. but again, parible?
if everything is in parable form, what is to be believed?
(a sidenote, eh, sidequestion: if there is evidence that life exists/existed on other plants, did our God make it or did their God make it, or did a God make it at all?)


on the other hand we have a Scientific approach-
There is a reason for everything.
All matter in the universe came together and then expolded, eventually creating solar systems and such.. kinda hard to swallow..
micro evolution works well.. people bred dogs for certain traits and different breeds were formed.. and that just takes a century or two.. what could happen in tens of thousands of years? most modern day "civilized" humans could not survive well if at all in places well inhabited 1000 years ago.. the knowledge and resilance is falling behind, to be replaced with new stuff.. most people in "civilized" places dont have to
be strong enough to plow a field or have the skill to hunt.. just work at a computer or pull a trigger (from inside a blind -.-)..
from fins to legs though?
but I 'spose the major question is how did life start.. I think some people a little while back created a prehistoric earth-like enviorment, sent some electricity through it and it formed stuff.. but the experiment couldnt be copied.. forget..

'Course, there is also the Hitchhicker's approch-
Earth was comissioned by a group of mice, and designed by a megacomputer to determine the question who's answer is 42.. but our ansestors, rejects of another planet, crash landed on Earth.. that would actually explain quite a bit..

...
..
.

yeah...

[Fresh Water Fighters]

I don't think Darwin could have been a Christian. Maybe at first, but he obviously went against what the Bible says. He may claim he was a Christian, but his beliefs don't show it. I believe in six literal days of creation, and FWF's second paragraph pretty much sums it up for me.

But, FWF, I think the issue of how the world came about is very important. It's basicly the foundation. If you don't believe that God created the earth, then what athority did he have to forgive sins? If you think things happened differently from Genisis, then you're saying God either lied, or doesn't exist. If you believe he lied then, then why believe he told the truth any other time?

Beatles, where in the context does Genisis indicate that it might be a parable? You say the context of what Jesus said indicates it's a parable, then don't you think that if Genisis was a parable, it would indicate in the book it's a parable, not wait for science to indicate it is? Also, here is a good site that presents a lot of evidence for a Biblical creation. Answers In Genesis It may be biased, if by biased you mean that they have a preconcived veiw that they're trying to prove, but doesn't everyone? It seems that everyone out there researching and finding evidence already believes one way or another, and natrually, they'll try and prove that they're right.

I am saying he did make the world in seven days.
I am sorry if that was unclear.
~FWF
P.S. I hate english.

[Corban]

*laughs*

Actually God created the earth is six day FWF... and He rested on the 7th...

Windhound, here is some interesting reading which may assist you:

The World Wide Flood:

An anti worldwide flood article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (very large)

And a rebuttal: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp (make sure you read this before you accept Isaak's article as truth).

I also encourage you to go to the answers in Genesis website, it provides a number of good solid answers for evolutionist arguments.

[Fresh Water Fighters]

I know he rested on the 7th day.
Sorry i forgot