Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99715 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.
Whoa! That's a whole lot of claims here, bud. Got any references to back these up or are we simply to take your word for it?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#99716 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses?
Did YOU know that Pangaea was NOT the "original continent" but that the continents have been coming together and splitting apart cyclically for the last few billion years? On that scale Pangaea is recent, only forming about 300 million years ago and then gradually splitting apart. And the continents will do the same again, in a grand cycle, for the next few billion years too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_c...

There were islands before Pangaea and there will be islands during and after the next supercontinent.

Having said that, its just amazing what you creationists try to spin out of a few random lines in an old myth. I could just as easily weave some order from the Norse myths. 600 million years ago the earth was in a deep freeze and that accords with their origin accounts. Thundering Thor, Lars and Snorri were right!

Time to sharpen my sword and get set for a bit o' rape n' pillage!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#99717 Sep 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa! That's a whole lot of claims here, bud. Got any references to back these up or are we simply to take your word for it?
What kind of references are you expecting from the author of:

"Science want's us to believe that in hundreds of trillions of years matter finally got it right so that life could evolve to become what it is on a single solitary planet." ?

All else considered, I'm impressed that they were able to spell "to" correctly.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99718 Sep 17, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of references are you expecting from the author of:
"Science want's us to believe that in hundreds of trillions of years matter finally got it right so that life could evolve to become what it is on a single solitary planet." ?
All else considered, I'm impressed that they were able to spell "to" correctly.
In all honesty, I don't expect any references. Although it wouldn't surprise me if we get pointed to some off-the-wall fundie sites.
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99719 Sep 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitively we can say the universe created us,
And it will also destroy us!
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> to be it's eyes and ears to see and hear with our senses, and with knowledge to create ways to see and hear beyond our senses. The intelligent designer is US, and if the universe is to be populated by the living biosphere, it entirely rests on the shoulders of humanity to do so. There is no indication there is any other thing that can ever do so. So understanding the burden on our shoulders is but the real cross humanity has to bear, and if there is a god, it is of OUR making. Otherwise extinction and forgotten are all the dreams of creation and a living universe.
No small task for the best creation of the biosphere , but a task none the less and a goal for the living apex predator this universe has ever known.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =foa18lWDPy4XX
pgardner31

Arlington, TX

#99720 Sep 17, 2013
The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs.'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the apparent discrepancy between science and the Bible

1. Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references. Electricity is a good example. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.
2. It is impossible to understand the Bible merely with the finite human mind alone, regardless of how much time and theology you employ to do so. The truths contained in the Bible must be REVEALED spiritually in order to be correctly understood mentally.
3. The best means to convey this is the illustration of learning a language. You cannot directly learn a language, the components of the language must first be directly correlated to visible concrete objects. A human being (a child, for instance) is first shown a visible picture of a physical object and then the audible or written symbolic language component is linked to it to give comprehension.
4. Likewise, the spiritual reality to come forth in the New Testament would be totally incomprehensible without firstly having the detailed typology of the Old Testament.
This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.
5. For example: "Behold the Lamb of God". Certainly allegorical- Christ is not being described as the 4-legged offspring of a sheep here.'The New Jerusalem, the bride of the lamb'. Is the lamb marrying a physical city? No! Again, obviously allegorical. If the Bible is the Word of God, then scientific, empirical knowledge cannot help but verify it. Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations <usually traditional> of either secular or scriptural <or both> evidence. C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don't you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?
Now, to apply these parameters to the crux of the matter.
Life, like electricity, is abstract and mysterious: it cannot be analyzed and comprehended directly. So any depiction of the process of life must be communicated allegorically.
6. The Bible is a book of LIFE, NOT a book of knowledge. Genesis Chapter One is an account of the propagation of life, NOT creation per se. It is an allegorical depiction of the relationship of the Spirit, the Word, light, and life. It is NOT a scientific chronology of creation. If a person interprets it literally instead of allegorically, then they are doomed to try to fit the square peg of the fossil record into the round hole of their mistaken (and incorrect scripturally) dogmatic, religious fallacy.
To my dear brothers and sisters: When did 'Creationism, et. al.' become an article of the faith? Why is it virtually considered heresy to believe that God may have used evolution to create man?
To those who are not yet my brothers and sisters: The world is headed inexorably in one direction, and no one can prevent it. Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later. THIS FACT, and not any amount of accumulation of the details of the physical universe, needs to be your primary consideration. The outward picture of the Flood and the Ark is a type foretelling a spiritual reality to come. It would be 'wise and prudent' for you to expend a modicum of time and effort to ascertain what the 'ark' symbolizes, and how you can enter into Him before the flood comes.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99721 Sep 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When you debunk something you don't have to show that all aspects are false. Just the main tenets. There was no flood. There was no Garden of Eden, there was no Exodus. Tell me what you want debunked and I can list some of the evidence debunking it.
lol...what's wrong? You made a statement. I challenged your statement. Now you're avoiding showing proof for what YOU CLAIMED and now ask for me to ask you specific questions? lol...really humorous dude.
You stated... "But the first two books of the Bible...have been shown to be false." You stated the first two books were false. You didn't state 'some' of the first two books of the Bible are false. You need to make your mind up of what you mean.
But I'll bite. Prove there was never a garden of Eden so as described in Genesis. Prove there was never an exodus of Israelites from Egypt. Got a clue to save you some time. You can't prove neither happened/existed. Their stories. And if their is no evidence for a story, it is neither true or false. It just remains a story.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article...

From an interesting article on the web of the pros and cons of Bible archaeology... "It's a truism in archaeology that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
In 1979 Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay found two tiny silver scrolls inside a Jerusalem tomb. They were dated to around 600 B.C., shortly before the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the Israelites' exile in Babylon. When scientists carefully unrolled the scrolls at the Israel Museum, they found a benediction from the Book of Numbers etched into their surface. The discovery made it clear that parts of the Old Testament were being copied long before some skeptics had believed they were even written.

In 1986 archaeologists revealed that several lumps of figured clay called bullae, bought from Arab dealers in 1975, had once been used to mark documents. Nahman Avigad of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem identified the impressions stamped into one piece of clay as coming from the seal of Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the doomsday proclamations of the prophet Jeremiah. Another bore the seal of Yerahme'el, son of King Jehoiakim's son, who the Book of Jeremiah says was sent on an unsuccessful mission to arrest both prophet and scribe--again confirming the existence of biblical characters.

In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C., celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. "Israel is laid waste," it reads, suggesting that the Israelites were a distinct population more than 3,000 years ago, and not just because the Bible tells us so.

In 1993 Avraham Biran of Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion and Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University announced they had found an inscription bearing the phrases "House of David" and "King of Israel." The writing--dated to the 9th century B.C., only a century after David's reign--described a victory by a neighboring King over the Israelites. Some minimalists tried to argue that the inscription might have been misread, but most experts believe Biran and Naveh got it right. The skeptics' claim that King David never existed is now hard to defend.

Last year the French scholar Andre Lemaire reported a related "House of David" discovery in Biblical Archaeology Review. His subject was the Mesha Stele (also known as the Moabite Stone), the most extensive inscription ever recovered from ancient Palestine. Found in 1868 at the ruins of biblical Dibon and later fractured, the basalt stone wound up in the Louvre, where Lemaire spent seven years studying it. His conclusion: the phrase "House of David" appears there as well.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99722 Sep 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so the infallible god couldn't get humans to write his story down correctly about the creation? good, you just showed no divine inspiration in the writing of the bible, so it is just the work of man, thus the god is a creation of man.
fun facts about water, but there was no global flood in the time of humans on this planet. proven fact.
your god is a proven myth. just like all the other cults.
If you have children you know what it's like to have power on end over them to command them and tell them what to do and how to do it. Do they always listen? Do they always do as you say? If they're old enough to write something and you tell them what to say is it always written as you said it or does what you said get changed, added to and taken away from?
Point being, if their is a creator and that creator did give us 'free will', that free will defines why things the creator said never remained in their correct context. Humans can't even keep in correct context what another human has stated. How the heck do you expect humans to keep what a creator stated correct? Really funny!

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99723 Sep 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Your cult information sources are lying to you my friend.
lol...my 'cult information sources' are a thing called 'modern science'. Modern science has stated after research that there's more water in the crust of the earth than what's on the surface. Maybe you should research this 'cult information' eh?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99725 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...my 'cult information sources' are a thing called 'modern science'. Modern science has stated after research that there's more water in the crust of the earth than what's on the surface. Maybe you should research this 'cult information' eh?
Does your 'modern science' include the creation of the universe in six twenty-four hour days 6000 years ago?

Does your 'modern science' ignore the VAST amount of evidence that shows conclusively that a world-wide flood 4500+/- years ago is impossible?

Does your 'modern science' explain how a grown man can live survive 3 days in the 'belly of a great fish'?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99726 Sep 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it could be entirely false, or parts of it could be false.
The person I responded to stated the first two books of the Bible were false. They didn't state 'parts' or 'portions' of the first two books of the Bible were false. I responded to what they stated, not what they didn't state. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99727 Sep 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it could be entirely false, or parts of it could be false.
Even the second case shows its not the inerrant word of God. Its a mythical / historical chronicle of the Israelites.
Just like the Iliad and The Odyssey are mythical / historical records of the early Greeks.
Now, in the latter we see Greeks mingling with their Gods, and we also see them attacking Troy. We found Troy in 1880ish - a historical reality and sacked at about the right time too....does that mean that Achilles was REALLY the half human son of Thetis the River Goddess?
Its no surprise to find some historical aspects of the Bible are true. But others have been found wanting in the facts department.
And as we would expect, its the earliest parts that are the most mythical.
If you really believe in God, I suggest that His universe as revealed by our observation and logic is far harder to fake than a few old fables from an obscure source. Even the light from many stars took thousands of times longer than the allowed "6000 years" to reach us. Did God fake that or did early cultures get the timing wrong????
I never said I could explain the theory of theism and creation any more than I claimed I could explain how after some supposed 'big bang' the first biological matter came from non-biological matter.
Consider this. In thought we use at most 10% of our brain's capacity. Consider if a single individual on this earth was able to use 100% of their brain in thought.
See, we humans have proved in thought we are geared to 'invent' and inventing has no limits for us. Just in the last century we have taken from materials and have caused to be examples of biology to exist that didn't exist before, hybrids we call them. We've crossbred different fruits and different vegetables so new species exist that didn't exist before. We're creating things all the time.
Well take that one person who had the talent to use 1005 of their brain in thought and consider what they could create/invent from what already exists. No more cancer? Flight without fuel? a replacement for electricity? Humans living till 200 to 300 years of age? What could this mind do for the populating of another planet? Could they be it's god? Could they bring together from existing materials the matter to be used and shaped and harnessed to bring a dead lifeless planet to one thriving with life?
I believe our comprehension of what 'God' could really be should be reexamined and based upon what we do just using one tenth of our brain for thought. Just saying...

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99728 Sep 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your 'modern science' include the creation of the universe in six twenty-four hour days 6000 years ago?
Does your 'modern science' ignore the VAST amount of evidence that shows conclusively that a world-wide flood 4500+/- years ago is impossible?
Does your 'modern science' explain how a grown man can live survive 3 days in the 'belly of a great fish'?
I don't believe the earth was created in 6000 human years or heaven days etc.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#99729 Sep 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the expansion of a singularity.
Whence the singularity?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99730 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe the earth was created in 6000 human years or heaven days etc.
So then you agree that at least portions of the Bible are metaphorical or allegorical?

But you still believe in a LITERAL world-wide flood 4500 years ago, and Jonah/Whale?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#99731 Sep 17, 2013
spOko wrote:
<quoted text> And it will also destroy us!<quoted text>
You seem convinced, but it will have to beat our own desire to do so.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99732 Sep 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa! That's a whole lot of claims here, bud. Got any references to back these up or are we simply to take your word for it?
People read without considering what is being said, just saying :)

9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist.
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99733 Sep 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem convinced, but it will have to beat our own desire to do so.
The tiny, tiny blue speck in the universe?
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99734 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
People read without considering what is being said, just saying :)
9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
Or so someone claims :-)
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#99735 Sep 17, 2013
TO PGARDNER 31 -

Will Christ's return be literal or allegorical?
(You left no room for a direct reply.)

In any case, I think you make a good argument for your particular perspective.
One question: Was all the brutality and savagery in the bible meant as allegory?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Police: Man in elf costume charged with DWI 30 min wichita-rick 7
I Like..... (Mar '14) 33 min UnderstandPeople 492
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 33 min eleanorigby 37,729
Housewife convicted of frying husband (Mar '07) 37 min Maverick 808 65
Top Deal Breakers in Relationships (Feb '13) 40 min Maverick 808 963
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 43 min Roy 152,550
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 54 min pit 1,108
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Spirit67_ 7,617
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 1 hr wichita-rick 339
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr UnderstandPeople 25,749
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 3 hr Will Dockery 24,120
More from around the web