Let's be clear. The only science I've shot down as a lie is pseudo science that says life came from non-life and over billions of years the earth was formed and after millions of years afterward humans evolved from apes. You can believe it, I don't for it's totally unrational to me.

I'm fully aware of the way the world works...and unless and until you fully appreciate faith in Almighty God over faith of those in the world, you'll not. Same for everyone else.


What is true whether you'll admit it or not is that no evolutionary hypothesis on our origins of the world or of mankind has been conclusively demonstrated as factual...and it never will. Far from it...scientific theory about origins tends to favor the Creationist version than the Evolutionist one. Will you agree that a scientific hypothesis incapable of scientific demonstration of being verified as true or false is not, strictly speaking, a scientific hypothesis? It may be true, but the truth of falsity of the theory must be decided on grounds and with methods of reflection proper to other branches of learning. those dealing with the theological if the hypothesis is primarily theological..and that's what the question of our origins of the world and of man is....not a question of science, but of theology including sound metaphysics.

Whenever there is a question of the supernatural or of the miraculous, it's beyond the limits of empirical science to tell us about the material reality and what are the principals of its operations. the origin of the universe, of Adam and Eve, and the origin of every human person at conception is a miraculous historic event carefully planned and executed by our Creator and in the case of all of Adam's children, with the pro-creator parents. The simple explanaton is all life comes from God.

You guys have certainly been busy, there's a lot to go through here, i think it'd be interesting to put some of the counters across here into a seperate article, as i know a lot of people fail in reading comments (such as me).

Well at least i've got a good read awaiting me (i hope) during my lunch hour. Will post shortly afterwards.

 

Okay, I have no problem with that statement. It can be neither proved nor disproved. I do have a problem with the fact that you state a literal interpretation of the bible in that the earth and humanity was created in 6 days. If we were created by God (or flying spaghetti monster, oh whom I am a huge fan), then he would have to play by the rules he set down at the beginning of the universe. This would essentially mean that after the big bang he would be an observer to see everything unfold. Think of it as God playing a game of pool, and he's set up the ultimate trick shot. He's not going to reach out onto the table with his hands and throw the balls around. Instead he has to play by the rules. Translated into reality, that means that the creation of planets and stars and the evolution of life on those planets takes place on a scale of hundreds of millions to billions of years.

For example, our distant predecessors were once aquatic. The bible doesn't talk about that, but the evidence is right here in our bodies. We have webbed fingers and toes, our bodies are actually still somewhat streamlined to be hydrodynamic and we have the mamalian dive reflex- when we get submerged under water our metabolism slows down to prolong the length of time we can go without taking in air. Now since we've been land-lubbers for so damned long, most of these features are largely vestigial, but you can damn well be sure our (very) distant ancestors once had more in common with dolphins than apes.

My problem is that certain elements of the church absolutely, steadfastly refuse to even consider the fact that as a species we haven't always been this way. As if the fact that we were once different, or even non-sentient somehow makes us unclean or is heresy. It isn't- it is the truth, and the sooner we accept it and move on to bigger and better things we'll all be better off!

One small clue in a pile of evidence.  Let's not forget the fossil record, DNA similarity in 90th percentile between other apes, and yadda yadda yadda...I've said this all before.

If facts and logic based on those facts make no sense to you then there's no hope.

Good day!

~Zoo

So, in other words, there is no potential fossil evidence that you would consider proof. I'll ask again, what would constitute evidence of species change to you?


Bzzt, sorry but even if the fossil record did not reveal macro evolution occurring as you vehemently believe, it would not mean it "revealed" that it didn't occur.

What do you mean these have nothing to do with evolutionary theory? Of course ET has given us their version of the origin of the universe, the world, and how living cells came about.

Apparently, you seem to think your categorization/definition of evolutionary theory is the only one that counts. If you want to debate abiogenesis, earth's formation, or the beginnings of the universe fine, but don't call them evolutionary theory. It is almost like you want to attack evolutionary theory but can't so you attack its "relatives and friends" (so to speak) in hopes of proving it guilty by association.

Evolution theory essentially is a set of ideas promoting the Godless view...

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of god(s), anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Its insights and ideas may run counter to certain literal interpretations of certain ancient texts, but it in no way attempts to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. This is true of science in general.

I myself don't base my life on "word of mouth".

Really? So, if your neighbor's house down the street was burning and someone came to your door for help and told you of the incident, you wouldn't believe it on "word of mouth"?

Acting on news of a house fire in my neighborhood is not basing my life on word of mouth. It is using the present, and verifiable I might add, information to make short term, one time decisions that may or may not have a varying impact on my life in the long term. If I suspect my neighbor of lying, I can run down the street to check, or more likely just look for smoke from where I am at. If my neighbor is lying, then I'll just be a little winded and pissed but it won't affect my life long term unless I get hit by a car or trip and break my neck because I was hurrying, etc... It will not affect what I do with my life in the long term, who I choose to associate with (except probably not with them), or how I spend my weekends.

The only science I've shot down as a lie is pseudo science that says life came from non-life and over billions of years the earth was formed...

You haven't actually shot them down, just disputed them; and neither of them are within the scope of the field of evolutionary theory.

...and after millions of years afterward humans evolved from apes.

Again, still haven't shot it down, just disputed it; and in case no one has told you before, an argument from incredulity is not a valid one.

I'm fully aware of the way the world works

If you think it preposterous that the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time, and that some supernatural force just willing it into existence is a more likely explanation, then you apparently aren't aware of the way the world works. You see, one of the ways it "works" is gravity, which will "work" on you whether you believe in it or not.

scientific theory about origins tends to favor the Creationist version than the Evolutionist one.

Please do tell. What is this scientific theory that favors the Creationists' version?

Will you agree that a scientific hypothesis incapable of scientific demonstration of being verified as true or false is not, strictly speaking, a scientific hypothesis?

No, a hypothesis is an idea that has not been tested at all (or not much at least). Very little in science can be proven true/false. Most is just likely/unlikely and fits/doesn't fit the data. For instance, while the theory of gravity explains how gravity holds matter to matter, how the planets and stars move, and even how the earth possibly formed with no intervention by an outside force necessary; it does really state how it does what it does, nor can it state that it will do it the same way tomorrow. Technically, with the scientific method, you cannot even prove that yesterday even happened or that the universe even existed 1 second ago.

Whenever there is a question of the supernatural or of the miraculous, it's beyond the limits of empirical science to tell us about the material reality and what are the principals of its operations.

Yes, the supernatural is beyond the limits of science, but you cannot ever know if something is supernatural or just the unexplained natural. You see, calling something supernatural presupposes it cannot be explained and will never be explainable. But, just like you don't know what you don't know, you can't know there is no explanation for something you don't have an explanation for. Saying something is supernatural is claiming you know something you cannot possibly know. It is claiming you know what you don't know.

The proof that all life comes from God is by faith and reason.


ARTISYM POSTS:

God created nature, including all its laws. He's the Creator, we are the created. He knows and we discover what He wants us to know. We are only going to learn x amount on this side of eternity.


ARTISYM POSTS:

If you haven't already, I'd suggest you read Genesis 1 which provides a panoramic view of the unfolding of Creation.

Again, for clarity, I mentioned:



Artisym,

It is possible to interpret the Hebrew word for day as meaning a period of indefinite length. However, it seems to me that Moses (who is considered to be the sacred writer), had in mind "days", with mornings and evenings, as we know them. He used these days to typify the objective reality of God's creative work and above all, for us to remember that the main purpose was to show that God is the Author and Lord of all things. In its religious significance, the account makes use of the 7 ordinary sections of the week, and bids mankind to worship God and rest upon the 7th. Scientifically, each "day" applies to a correlative objective period required for the astronomical and geological formation.

The proof that all life comes from God is by faith and reason.


ARTISYM POSTS:

God created nature, including all its laws. He's the Creator, we are the created. He knows and we discover what He wants us to know. We are only going to learn x amount on this side of eternity.


ARTISYM POSTS:

If you haven't already, I'd suggest you read Genesis 1 which provides a panoramic view of the unfolding of Creation.

Again, for clarity, I mentioned:



Artisym,

It is possible to interpret the Hebrew word for day as meaning a period of indefinite length. However, it seems to me that Moses (who is considered to be the sacred writer), had in mind "days", with mornings and evenings, as we know them. He used these days to typify the objective reality of God's creative work and above all, for us to remember that the main purpose was to show that God is the Author and Lord of all things. In its religious significance, the account makes use of the 7 ordinary sections of the week, and bids mankind to worship God and rest upon the 7th. Scientifically, each "day" applies to a correlative objective period required for the astronomical and geological formation.

Zoo,

Think critically.

Regarding macro evolution, you've gone from evolution history is hard science, and factual data, to logic would dictate to one small clue...

Macro-evolutionists would have us believe their theories that over a vast period of time one species evolved into a different one...that we humans evolved from apes.  Yet, they have provided absolutely no conclusive evidence.

Oh goodness. After 150 years of excavations, millions of fossils have now been discovered all over the world enough to provide a thorough analysis of the fossil record. the buried evidence points against evolutionary explanation. 3/4 of the land's area has a huge amount of sedimentary (water-borne) rock strata covering it ranging in depth down to an enormous 10,000 meters  deep known as the Cambrian strata or Cambrian explosion.

the fossil evidence found there is consistent with sudden burial; huge death pits containignvast numbers of different animals creatures frozen in mid motion overcome by violent flood and wind.

the presence of frozen muck full of plant and animal remains in relatively fresh condition demonstrates a sudden and permanent temperature drop. Hippos, saber-tooth tigers, elephants, and other low latitude animals are found buried freshly preserved. As you well know, fossils don't form when plants and animals simply die and rot away on the surface of the ground or on the bottom of the sea.

To be preserved as a fossil, a plant or animal must be buried rapidly under a heavy load of sediment which must also harden rapidly to exclude oxygen and bacteria. Otherwise, scavengers, or forces of erosion and decay would destroy the specimen.

The Cambrian strata indicates a colossal amount of eroded sediment must have been dispersed fairly rapidly over and not over eons of time. The field evidence is consistent with the idea of an enormous flood of world wide dimensions and evoltuionary theory is confounded by the evidence.

Yes, yadda, yadda, yadda! We've been up, down and all around this topic a few discussions now.

For whatever reason, you can believe you evolved from an ape. I don't becasue it doesn't even come close to making sense. Major advances and discoveries in recent years on molecular biology have shattered the hopes of evolutionists.  Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny. The Creator's design of DNA will not allow macro evolution to occur.

Even though we know for certian that the basic design system of the cell is essentially the same of  all living things, we also know that they are so complex; so far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutley without parallel, that there is not the slightest empirical hint of an macro-evolutionary sequence among all the cells on earth.

Good day to you too, and good luck on those final exams.   

 

 

 

 

 

SetarcosNous posts:

I don't want to seem rude or disrespectful, but the question is really moot.

there simply is no proof any where out there that one species has changed into a new and different one. God created us all according to "Kind" and the only change that occurs over time is within "Kind".  

Macro-evolution is not science at all rather it is a world-view; an ideology.  

 

 

Well, I suppose the most we can say is that, at this time, the fossil evidence has provided zip, nada, nothing  for the evolutionists as evidence of macro-evolution.

  

The question isn't moot, you just can't or don't want to answer it. Either you don't know what you would consider proof, or there is nothing that could possibly be discovered that you would consider proof. The way you avoid the question, I almost wonder if you are afraid someone already has what you would consider proof, and you are just afraid it would be pointed out to you.

there are a lot of evolutionary theories out there...they all seem to attempt an explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of all living things, including man.

 

One  ET formula for making the universe is:

nothing + nothing = 2 elements + lots and lots of time = 92 elements + a lot more time = all phyical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, stars, planets, systems, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

The ET formula for life is:

Dirt + water + lots of time = living creatures.  

Another is dirt + water + lots of time = frog + kiss = prince.

Actually, I think it's contrary to the truth to think the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time.

Since there is no proof that it happened, it takes faith to believe it. I'd rather place my faith in Almighty God than random process of Evolution.


I am aware of the way the world works...like all the laws of nature, Almighty God made gravity. If you disagree, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how Evolution Theory explains gravity.   

Lula posts:

I think we are discovering that the word "evolution" is confusing. Perhaps it's time for you to give your definition of ET.

What I meant by the above is that Evolution Theory is an atheistic idea that attempts to explain the origin of the universe and all life, plant and animal, including humans without God involved. At this point, Evolution Theory has become atheistic dogma, a world-view.

When you think about it science has no proof at all to contradict the Judeo-Christian religion and the idea of God Himself. What has happened is science is under the bond of atheism and is being used against religion and against God Himself. It's tendency is attempt to replace religious truth with an outlook on a universe where God no longer has any place.

Lula posts:

OK, I'm willing, in fact, I'm delighted to have you describe in detail exactly how humans evolved from apes....perhaps you can start by explaining the mechanism by which this happens. And how come there have been no fossils found of these transitional half man/half ape creatures? Or explain that if humans evolved from apes, why then are there still apes on the earth? It's my understanding that even within the different ape kinds, they cannot mate and produce offspring. Why? It's the differences in DNA, the barriers that prevent this from occurring.