Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Lief Erikson]

Meanwhile, the creation story as written in the Bible I don't find to be at all unrealistic. It is not entirely without scientific validation. Indeed, some parts of it show a great understanding of the way things used to be on Earth, a long time ago.
What we can see
For example, the Bible speaks of the dinosaurs, acknowledging their existence and speaking of their transformation into reptiles as we know them today. (Genesis 3:14)

The Bible also describes the formation of the atmosphere in exactly the same way as science describes it. As described in the Bible, originally the sky and sea were together. They were separated, and the whole of Earth was covered in one huge ocean. Then Pangea appeared (See Genesis 1:6-9). The breaking of the continents is mentioned(Genesis 10:25), though this is somewhat debatable. It could be talking about the peoples of the earth, but taken literally, it can be spoken of as meaning the continents. Especially since we already can see strong reason to believe that Pangea was accepted as existing.

It is my belief that even evolution according to environment might have been predicted in Genesis (See Genesis 1:24).
Those parts that aren't yet accepted
I already presented a theory at an earlier time for the long ages of people.

Eve's creation from Adam we can't be sure is absolutely impossible by scientific process. The changing of sex to continue a strained race has been observed among other animal species.

The flood has huge validation by vast numbers of myths and legends. Many of the accounts match in numerous characteristics. My Dad has a very good theory about the flood, but it'll be many years before I can get into that adequately . When his discoveries are published. Before that, I can't do very much on this point.

The 7 Days I don't take as literal. There is Biblical evidence also that implies they aren't literal, most blatant among them being the fact that it wasn't until the fourth day that the sun was created.




I think these are the main points.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But things can't come from nothing.

What about "God" then?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson

2. The mathematical odds against life originating in the universe are virtually infinite. Only because God exists could life exist.

wow SERIOUS logic breakdown there. where does that come from? its really the exact opposite actually. mathematically, its a virtual guarantee that something we call "life" will develop in this enormous universe. its not a matter of if, its a matter of when and how and what will it look like. so this could be a really strong argument against god in fact. not in favor of god. the clever christian will instead say that only an all powerful god creates a universe in which life has the ability to self organize and self transform. but they never seem to use this line of argument. its always "god does everything" or "god makes everything".

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
For example, the Bible speaks of the dinosaurs, acknowledging their existence and speaking of their transformation into reptiles as we know them today. (Genesis 3:14)

but they arent reptiles they are birds. reptiles existed already back then. theyve pretty much stayed the same. the modern descendents of dinosaurs are our feathered friends.

It is my belief that even evolution according to environment might have been predicted in Genesis (See Genesis 1:24).

wow I commend you on this acknowledgement. You do realize that to millions of christians this kind of thinking is considered heresy right? Never understood why though.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
For example, the Bible speaks of the dinosaurs, acknowledging their existence and speaking of their transformation into reptiles as we know them today. (Genesis 3:14)

Genesis 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

[Lizra]

That's that naughty talking snake, isn't it!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
What about "God" then?

He exists in eternity.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
wow SERIOUS logic breakdown there. where does that come from? its really the exact opposite actually. mathematically, its a virtual guarantee that something we call "life" will develop in this enormous universe. its not a matter of if, its a matter of when and how and what will it look like. so this could be a really strong argument against god in fact. not in favor of god. the clever christian will instead say that only an all powerful god creates a universe in which life has the ability to self organize and self transform. but they never seem to use this line of argument. its always "god does everything" or "god makes everything".

I'll watch the video again and take notes on what he said.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
but they arent reptiles they are birds. reptiles existed already back then. theyve pretty much stayed the same. the modern descendents of dinosaurs are our feathered friends.

That birds were the product of dinosaurs is a generalization, and also, it is not certain at all. That is the current theory, one of several, as the World Book says.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
wow I commend you on this acknowledgement. You do realize that to millions of christians this kind of thinking is considered heresy right? Never understood why though.

Mmm. Thanks . . . I think .


GrayMouser, the talking snake was a reptile. I believe it was repreentative of the reptile races. It did not crawl on its belly before God cursed it. Its description therefore is out of wack with almost all reptiles existing today. A snake that didn't crawl on its belly? And a reptile that isn't low to the ground? It could very easily be describing the dinosaur.

Oh, darn it, I'm out of time.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, I have just a little more time now.

Insidious Rex, since I wrote that last statement about the dinosaur-to-bird thing, I remembered that I've also heard the same conclusion from a National Geographic video. It discussed the dinosaur-to-bird theory at some length, and then concluded that we just don't know the answer yet. It also described the astroid theory.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
mathematically, its a virtual guarantee that something we call "life" will develop in this enormous universe.

The way that the universe was formed is such a way that it can sustain life. The odds against the universe being formed in such a way that permits life are almost infinite.

[Blackheart]

Cosmologies are ways of viewing the universe.

Yes evolutionism is a cosmology. It has pro's and con's.

One of the intersting things about it is that it meshes very nicely with what we can know and measure about the universe.

One of the dissapointing things about it is that it fails to answer the really bothersome questions like why, and purpose etc..

The fact that science is not concerned with questions like purpose and things like unmeasurable phenomena seems to bother some people. Some people seem to like it.

I suppose it's a matter of taste, and the until humanity grows up enough to the point where they can tolerate and even embrace other viewpoints, you're just doomed to repeat your history of persecution, war, and repression over and over.

It doesn't seem to matter what the idea is, there's always some stupid fool willing to kill for it.

[Lief Erikson]

Those are interesting opinions. Some I agree with and some not . . . but I'm curious. Sorry, but . . . what does all that have to do with Evidence for Creationism?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Insidious Rex, since I wrote that last statement about the dinosaur-to-bird thing, I remembered that I've also heard the same conclusion from a National Geographic video. It discussed the dinosaur-to-bird theory at some length, and then concluded that we just don't know the answer yet. It also described the astroid theory.

well... this probably isnt the place to get into a discussion on the current thoughts behind the evolution of dinosaurs so I wont go into detail and Ill agree that nothing is absolute of course but I submit to you that there IS quite a load of evidence pointing in this direction. By the way what do most christians think about the asteroid extinction theory?

The way that the universe was formed is such a way that it can sustain life. The odds against the universe being formed in such a way that permits life are almost infinite.

um so are you saying that there were an almost infinite number of ways the universe could have formed? like what? using different physical laws? could you give me a couple examples of these infinite alternate universes that wouldnt allow life to develop?

[Cirdan]

How does one determine whether or not the odds are long on the universe's possible permutations? This would seem to require knowledge of properties other universes. Are there different universes with different physics? Isn't it just as likely that all universes would follow the same properties, or at least ones well within required parameters for some type of life form? It is really pure guesswork to try to qualify what like likely or possible with such uncertainties.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
well... this probably isnt the place to get into a discussion on the current thoughts behind the evolution of dinosaurs so I wont go into detail and Ill agree that nothing is absolute of course but I submit to you that there IS quite a load of evidence pointing in this direction. By the way what do most christians think about the asteroid extinction theory?

I can't generalize. I don't know how many people believe the Bible speaks about the transformation of the dinosaur. I doubt that it's very many, and I think a lot of Christians tend to just think as current science does on that, as it doesn't have much to do with their beliefs.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
um so are you saying that there were an almost infinite number of ways the universe could have formed? like what? using different physical laws? could you give me a couple examples of these infinite alternate universes that wouldnt allow life to develop?

For example a universe without stars is not difficult to imagine.

Cirdan and Insidious Rex, I can see that I'll have to get the exact figures for you from that taped debate. I'd like to wait until then before continuing much more on that topic, if you don't mind .

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
That is pretty silly Rian.

What, that evolutionism is a cosmology? No, it's not silly.

Anyway, I've started Bio and already there is much on evolution. Its listed as being one of the 6 major recurring themes in the bio book.

Oh yes, there's lots of interesting stuff written about evolution Why don't you take a mental tally, for the sake of your own knowledge, how much of it is conjecture and/or extrapolation, and how much is based on actual hard scientific fact (and remember that tho a fossil may be a fact, most of the things SAID about the fossil by evolutionists are conjecture This is NOT to put down the theory; it's just to help you to realize how much of evolutionism is conjecture. It's not evolution's fault; it can't help being a lot of conjecture because we're talking about things in the past).

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Cosmologies are ways of viewing the universe.

Hey, we agree

Yes evolutionism is a cosmology. It has pro's and con's.

Hey, we agree yet again

One of the intersting things about it is that it meshes very nicely with what we can know and measure about the universe.

That's because they work backwards from observations And I agree that it meshes very nicely, but only in some areas.

One of the dissapointing things about it is that it fails to answer the really bothersome questions like why, and purpose etc..

Yeah, science is irritating that way, isn't it? But it was never designed to answer those types of questions.

The fact that science is not concerned with questions like purpose and things like unmeasurable phenomena seems to bother some people. Some people seem to like it.

I guess I'm neutral about it. Science was never intended to answer those questions; those questions are outside the realm of science. Looks like we agree again

I suppose it's a matter of taste, and the until humanity grows up enough to the point where they can tolerate and even embrace other viewpoints, you're just doomed to repeat your history of persecution, war, and repression over and over.

What about the viewpoint of some people that killing is right? Should we tolerate that viewpoint? I think the answer is not that simple (tolerance).

It doesn't seem to matter what the idea is, there's always some stupid fool willing to kill for it.

Lots of fools in the world, unfortunately

[hectorberlioz]

If God doesnt exist then who created morals? man?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
What about "God" then?

Well, we can either say that nothing exists, or realize that SOMETHING had to be the starting point, and God is one likely candidate. Personally, I think an omnipotent, omniscient God makes a MUCH more logical starting point for the universe than many other suggestions.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
If God doesnt exist then who created morals? man?

Sure. Who created God if not man?

[Blackheart]

"like what? using different physical laws? could you give me a couple examples of these infinite alternate universes that wouldnt allow life to develop?"

If you don't understand this, then don't blame me, go to your local libraries and browse the physics section (or google if you are lazy).

Example one: alpha=136 or <
Example two: alpha=138 or >

any change in this constant would dramaticaly change the fundamental nature of frezon (quantum packet) interaction, radically altering the way that matter and energy interact. Especially electron shells.

Many such iteraitons would be completely unstable true, but there are of course stable iterations also. Some would definately last long enough to become a "dead" universe.

It is of course impossible to measure the effects of such a change until we are able to form our own miniature universes and observe them. At which point we may very well have "graduated"... or at least matriculated...

"What about the viewpoint of some people that killing is right? Should we tolerate that viewpoint? I think the answer is not that simple (tolerance)."

If you don't tolerate that viewpoint, then you are reduced to responding in kind, which makes you into something worse...
They can have that viewpoint, it's the behavior that matters.

"...God makes a MUCH more logical starting point for the universe than many other suggestions."

Hmm. My problem with this statement is that it skirts a tautology. The only honest statement is that the starting point of the universe is unknown. God may be a form of unknown, but when you place a particular version of a divinity into the zero point, you postulate all manner of conjecture, which still falls back to into the unknown. Which doesn't seem very logical to me.

"If God doesnt exist then who created morals? man?"

Evidently. No matter what point of view you take, morals existed before monotheism was introduced into human culture. You may be trying to make an argument for MORALS, an absolute standard of behavior, with GOOD and EVIL as polar opposites, but I think we've already had that argument somewhere. Don't make me break out my Socratic dialogues on you maan.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Blackheart
"like what? using different physical laws? could you give me a couple examples of these infinite alternate universes that wouldnt allow life to develop?"

If you don't understand this, then don't blame me, go to your local libraries and browse the physics section (or google if you are lazy).

oh geez you mean i actually have to like type out the whole web address for google! *homer simpson groan*