Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[HOBBIT]

Aight dawg, peace out yo!

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Giroth
I am not coming up with something untrue;give me some respect,guys.

I respect you and your beliefs. I think it's completely natural that people believe in the Bible and question evolution and other science.
But I think it's good if people can question the Bible too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Giroth
jersey,

I won't bother with you,Master Quote......you are as stubborn as me.
but you don't understand christianity,

Why would you think I don't understand Christianity? I actually understand it very well.

methinks.....a true christian also believes in the bible.so can't possibly see what I'm coming from.
so back off,dawg..........

I know perfectly well where you are coming from. I just don't believe in blind faith.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why would you think I don't understand Christianity? I actually understand it very well.

I know perfectly well where you are coming from. I just don't believe in blind faith.

God does not require it.

Originally posted by Jonathon
I respect you and your beliefs. I think it's completely natural that people believe in the Bible and question evolution and other science.
But I think it's good if people can question the Bible too.

If you have questions, it's good to raise them.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
All science is based on man's ideas. I can pick up many books written by many different people - doesn't make the book true or reliable.

One thing to note about the Bible is that the farthest back events are really far back, and thus more difficult, sometimes, to find evidence for. However, the most recent parts of the Bible have been proven to be essentially accurate. Compelling evidence exists for all post-Solomon events. Pre-Solomon events I can provide evidence for, if you doubt them, until Joseph.

Now let's consider the farthest back events.

Exibit A: By current dating methods, science actually does acknowledge the existence of a world wide flood, far, far back in Earth's history. I heard about that flood from an Atheist on Entmoot, if I recall correctly. Far before the time the Bible states it happen, but nevertheless, the Bible stated it happened.

Exibit B: The Bible states that the land was all in one place, originally, and that the continents divided. Science doesn't accept the time period of that statement at this time, any more than it accepts the flood's.

Both events are not believed to have happened at the time the Bible says they did, but nevertheless, they happened.

If the Bible had conformed to scientific thought of the day in the past, it would have been rendered utterly obsolete for this present time. Much of what it says was considered incorrect in the past, but now has been proved by archaeology and other accounts to have been correct.

There is reason to put faith in the Bible, based upon its largely proven validity. That leaves the spiritual side of things, only. I am willing to wait on time to provide the evidence for the ages of people, the flood, and these early events. I have faith that these events took place, but I don't believe it is "blind" faith. My own experience has completely validated the spiritual side of the Bible, for me, and the physical events have largely been proved valid by exterior (from the Bible) sources.

If the primary objection to the Bible is against the Genesis creation and flood stories, I don't find this to be a strong enough objection. If the objection is on the spiritual side, then discussion and learning from those who don't believe is warranted. Discussion of the kind Jonathon has so rightly advocated, and which I have discussed and given evidence for in the Offshoot thread.

Jonathon, if you want to discuss the spiritual side and its accuracy, I suggest you go there.

[jerseydevil]

Again Lief - just because some historical items took place in the bible - does not mean the bible is all true. The Oddessey is also based on real events. Many cities mentioned were thought to be fictional - but have since been discovered to be true. Evidence of wars mentioned in the oddessey were also found to be true. Now does this mean that there really was a cyclops? That the Greek Gods really were fighting amongst themselves during the course of this history?

As for the flood - there is no evidence of a flood taking over all the world. There are flood elements here and there. Half of NJ was under water at one point and the northern part wass locked under an ice cap. New Jersey also at one point in time extended out several miles further east than it does today. As for the world being one piece - can you please tell me where the bible says this?

I have a lot of problems with the bible. I do not however have a problem with some of it's historical aspects. That does not however make the bible a legitimate source to base science and a theory on.

[Cirdan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lief Erikson

Exibit A: By current dating methods, science actually does acknowledge the existence of a world wide flood, far, far back in Earth's history. I heard about that flood from an Atheist on Entmoot, if I recall correctly. Far before the time the Bible states it happen, but nevertheless, the Bible stated it happened.
[quote]
So, what... an atheist mooter gives this fairytale credibility? There is no scientific support for a global flood. I will glad debunk, through fact and logic, any myth that claims to support it.

The flood story would be credible if it storied a 1000 year flood in Mesopotamia where all the known "world" flooded. The term "world" would have most certainly been limited to the lands known to the people at the time, not the entire earth.

Exibit B: The Bible states that the land was all in one place, originally, and that the continents divided.

Chapter and verse (and edition), please, for those of us who haven't commited it to memory.

If the primary objection to the Bible is against the Genesis creation and flood stories, I don't find this to be a strong enough objection.

The primary objection here is to the literal interpretation of the genesis and flood stories as actual fact with any scientific applications. The social and spiritual value of the bible is not the question of this debate.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Giroth
...but the bible has been proven true

ROFLMAO! OH.. damn.. that is funny. Look, I'm not trying to rip on your beliefs but you have got to be kidding. BWAHAHAA!!

[b]...,and has been around MUCH longer than the evolution theory....B]

yes. you are correct. The bible, a book filled with little stories designed to explain primitive Man's world and answer those difficult questions in a manner in which primitive Man could understand and relate to.

But that does not mean that the theory of creation makes any sense what so ever! LOL! That is a joke!

[Coney]

Originally posted by Ruinel
[B]ROFLMAO! OH.. damn.. that is funny. Look, I'm not trying to rip on your beliefs but you have got to be kidding. BWAHAHAA!![B]

So post undeniable proof that evolution is the actual way that it happened............. or that God does not exist...........


Laughing at someones belief is easy........... proving that they are wrong, is beyond you, primate

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
...However, the most recent parts of the Bible have been proven to be essentially accurate. Compelling evidence exists for all post-Solomon events. Pre-Solomon events I can provide evidence for, if you doubt them, until Joseph.

My sister reads historical romances that contain historical information from a period in history. That historical information is true, but it does NOT make the book nor the story true.

I think that if you have actual evidence for the theory of creation, post it. If not, then lets just change the name of the thread to "Fictional Creation Story".

[Coney]

Originally posted by Ruinel

I think that if you have actual evidence for the theory of creation, post it. If not, then lets just change the name of the thread to "Fictional Creation Story".

Exactly evidence..........spot the key word there

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Coney
So post undeniable proof that evolution is the actual way that it happened............. or that God does not exist...........

Laughing at someones belief is easy........... proving that they are wrong, is beyond you, primate

Too bad I'm not on your ignore list (yeah, I read that in the other thread). Looking for a fresh victim, are you? ameba!

You want proof for the Theory of Evolution... go to the "Should Evolution be Taught in Schools" thread. Don't ask me to repost all that here.

Edit: and, by the way, I do not plan to spam this thread with you and perpetuate the argument. I will not satisfy your need to banter.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Too bad I'm not on your ignore list (yeah, I read that in the other thread). Looking for a fresh victim, are you? ameba!

You want proof for the Theory of Evolution... go to the "Should Evolution be Taught in Schools" thread. Don't ask me to repost all that here.

Yep... She's right, Coney. Check the title of the thread for further clarification.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yep... She's right, Coney. Check the title of the thread for further clarification.

Thank you, Cirdan.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yep... She's right, Coney. Check the title of the thread for further clarification.

Checked it.............still waiting to see "proof" either way.

*hopes that both the pope and the scientific community are reading this thread*

[Coney]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Too bad I'm not on your ignore list (yeah, I read that in the other thread). Looking for a fresh victim, are you? ameba!

My dear Ruinel..........I would never put you on ignore.........as an evelutionist you must realise that we have to keep a close eye on the primates

As JD has verified the legitimacy of the phrase A$$hole

"The a$$ is wide, the hole is deep..........'tween twixt and 'twain will never meet"

[HOBBIT]

This topic has turned into exactly what Rian did not want - oh well

Read the title of this topic: "evidence for creationism" it is not "evidence for evolution" Plus, we in support of evolution have over and over again posted numerous evidence? You want it? Go into a dozen other topics. "Should evolution be taught in schools?" is one.


Rian did not want a bunch of people in support of her claiming that the proof for creation is the bible did she?

She intended this topic to be for real scientific evidence that could possibly convince evolution supporters.

ALL that has been posted so far for 'evidence' for creation is a bunch of made up rubbish and the bible.

Come on people.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Chapter and verse (and edition), please, for those of us who haven't commited it to memory.

NIV version, Chapter 1:9. Further reference is Chapter 10:25.

Of course, with these passages people have tried to interpret them differently, but as science has backed the literal interpretation, I see little point in that. Unless we are afraid that the timelines of the Bible are inaccurate, and I don't believe that that is the case.

Originally posted by Cirdan
The primary objection here is to the literal interpretation of the genesis and flood stories as actual fact with any scientific applications. The social and spiritual value of the bible is not the question of this debate.

Now for the issue of the flood. My Dad read the account of a past worldwide flood, millions of years ago, in a book on the Ice Ages. I'll try to pick the book up from the library when I can, if you want a reference. I was wrong about it being an Entmoot Atheist :I.



One other thing I'd like to remark on. This is not a proof of anything, but it is an argument against evolutionary dating.

Evolution at a slow and steady rate would require that the human race has been around for several hundred thousand years at least.

Humankind expands exponentially, and we are by far the most clever species on the planet. Within the last few thousand years, we have expanded outward to cover the entire planet. This seems to connect very favorably with the Biblical dates. Does anyone think that a series of disasters, or a limitation on our genius, could keep our species from expanding exponentially as it has done now? Why did we not cover the Earth during our hundreds of thousands of years, and wait for the last few thousand?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Humankind expands exponentially, and we are by far the most clever species on the planet. Within the last few thousand years, we have expanded outward to cover the entire planet. This seems to connect very favorably with the Biblical dates. Does anyone think that a series of disasters, or a limitation on our genius, could keep our species from expanding exponentially as it has done now? Why did we not cover the Earth during our hundreds of thousands of years, and wait for the last few thousand?

There are a lot of reasons why we have prospered in the last couple of thousand years. Life has been a lot easier. Before we didn't have the weapons to use against predatory animals, we didn't have medicine we have today. These things as well as many other have helped the human species prosper and expand.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
....This is not a proof of anything, but it is an argument against evolutionary dating.....

As has been repeatedly posted, and is in the original post that started this thread. This is a thread for you to post your evidence to support the theory of creation. It is not a debate between evolution and creation, or a thread to post arguments against evolution. But again, no evidence is provided to support the theory of creation. Not by you or anyone else. Perhaps there is no evidence at all for this theory, and it is a faith issue. Either you believe it blindly, or you do not.

[wahine]

Originally posted by Coney
primate

Mammal!

I've read some of this thread, and find the "proof" raised interesting.

But science can counter everything that I have read so far.

Not saying I believe in Evolution. To be plain: I think it's a crock of bull. How can we evolve from monkeys *yeah yeah apes* when our closet DNA relative...is a squirrel?

Anyway, carry on.