Creation vs Evolution

[redfern]

Primitive? Why do you think Adam is primitive?

I don’t think Adam was primitive, any more than I think Fred Flintstone was primitive – they are both fictional people. But the people who actually wrote the bit about the sun ruling the day and the moon ruling the night, well – when the epitome of your civilization is a horse-drawn cart, well then…

You believe early man is primitive due to your "pre-existing allegiance to modern religious dogma".

Recognizing that early man hadn’t got very far with math or technology is “allegiance to modern religious dogma”? Really?

Primitive? That dogma continually leads evolutionists to wrong conclusions as in the case of Neandertals. Evolutionists assumed they were unintelligent, inarticulate etc. Those assumptions, now proven wrong by science, were not based on evidence but on religious dogma.

You’ve got just about the wackiest definitions I have ever seen. I won’t spend 10 seconds disputing that scientists have made some wrong judgments, for a variety of reasons. But that is hardly religious dogma, it is simply making mistakes. When you realize it, you correct it and move on. You outta try it for a change.

Evolutionism is crippling to good science and a disservice to everyone."

Not much interested in your penchant for memorizing and reciting what you have found in the bottom level of every scientific outhouse you have visited. Maybe what you have found there is delightful to you.

Fact remains, in spite of your disparaging rhetoric, evolution is taught in almost every reputable scientific university in the world, and is accepted by tens of thousands of good Christians.

 

[Interplanner]

The last two PBS programs I saw on geology were about the worst science since Hilary's memory. Hard to believe they would broadcast it, except to MILLIONS OF PAYING, BRAINWASHED, USEFUL IDIOTS!

 

[Interplanner]

I don’t think Adam was primitive, any more than I think Fred Flintstone was primitive – they are both fictional people. But the people who actually wrote the bit about the sun ruling the day and the moon ruling the night, well – when the epitome of your civilization is a horse-drawn cart, well then…



Recognizing that early man hadn’t got very far with math or technology is “allegiance to modern religious dogma”? Really?



You’ve got just about the wackiest definitions I have ever seen. I won’t spend 10 seconds disputing that scientists have made some wrong judgments, for a variety of reasons. But that is hardly religious dogma, it is simply making mistakes. When you realize it, you correct it and move on. You outta try it for a change.



Not much interested in your penchant for memorizing and reciting what you have found in the bottom level of every scientific outhouse you have visited. Maybe what you have found there is delightful to you.

Fact remains, in spite of your disparaging rhetoric, evolution is taught in almost every reputable scientific university in the world, and is accepted by tens of thousands of good Christians.

Is 'thousands of good Christians' code for those in liberal denomination who wouldn't know uniformitarianism if it raped them?

 

[6days]

I don’t think Adam was primitive, any more than I think Fred Flintstone was primitive – they are both fictional people.

Perhaps the reason you think that, is because you ignore evidence. Millions of people including scientists, historians, world leaders, farmers, professors and even vegetarians believe the historical accounts of Adam. Its based on evidence. IOW...your attempt at analogy is silly since none believe Flintstone is historical.

Recognizing that early man hadn’t got very far with math or technology is “allegiance to modern religious dogma”? Really?

Certainly! Darwinism is a modern religious dogma.

I won’t spend 10 seconds disputing that scientists have made some wrong judgments, for a variety of reasons. But that is hardly religious dogma, it is simply making mistakes.

Ok.... lets call it wrong judgements based on a faulty belief system. The 'mistakes' about Neandertals, junk DNA, pseudogenes, Piltdown, poor vertebrate eye design etc... were conclusions based on Darwinism...not on science.

Not much interested in your penchant for memorizing and reciting what you have found in the bottom level of every scientific outhouse you have visited.

What I had put in quote marks was not memorized nor recited....It was sarcastic quotes I borrowed from you..... You call that 'scientific outhouse'?

Fact remains, in spite of your disparaging rhetoric, evolution is taught in almost every reputable scientific university in the world, and is accepted by tens of thousands of good Christians.

Fact remains... when other arguments fail evolutionists go with their bandwagon fallacy.

 

[redfern]

Is 'thousands of good Christians' code for those in liberal denomination who wouldn't know uniformitarianism if it raped them?

Don’t know, since I am not an authority on rape. I take it you are?

 

[redfern]

Perhaps the reason you think that, is because you ignore evidence. Millions of people including scientists, historians, world leaders, farmers, professors and even vegetarians believe the historical accounts of Adam. It’s based on evidence.

Show the evidence.

Certainly! Darwinism is a modern religious dogma.

You often express a deep disdain for Darwinism. But I know for lots of people “religion” connotes something that is special and meaningful in their life. By referring to Darwinism as a “religion”, is it because for you “religion” is also something you despise, or is it because in fact you see Darwinism as almost deserving of the same level of respect as have for you own your own religion?

Ok.... lets call it wrong judgements based on a faulty belief system. The 'mistakes' about Neandertals, junk DNA, pseudogenes, Piltdown, poor vertebrate eye design etc... were conclusions based on Darwinism...not on science.

Except you are not the one who defines what is and is not science. Science is a methodology, and across the world evolution is recognized as conforming to that methodology.

What I had put in quote marks was not memorized nor recited....

I was not referring to what you put in quotes, I had in mind your extended series of posts in which you regale in mocking evolution’s link to Nazism, Neandertals, Piltdown, etc. Most definitely what you have collected as prizes in your outhouse forays.

Fact remains... when other arguments fail evolutionists go with their bandwagon fallacy.

But I said nothing about accepting evolution for “bandwagon” (popularity) reasons. I specifically said reputable scientific universities – which means those who have the most qualified scientists on staff to pass judgment on what is valid science. I guess you relish the underdog position, where the scientists on your side have a long history of being scientifically impotent?

 

[6days]

Show the evidence (that people including scientists, historians, world leaders, farmers, professors and even vegetarians believe the historical accounts of Adam.

Sure... For example we can look at the trust worthiness of the historical record. It is recognized as being accurate by many historians from the earliest times...Archaeology continues providing evidence that the accounts are true.

You often express a deep disdain for Darwinism. But I know for lots of people “religion” connotes something that is special and meaningful in their life. By referring to Darwinism as a “religion”, is it because for you “religion” is also something you despise, or is it because in fact you see Darwinism as almost deserving of the same level of respect as have for you own your own religion?

I see Darwinism as a form of religion. Dr. Michael Ruse, a atheist and a hard core evolutionists says “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality …. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Canadian National Post (May 13, 2000)

In the Australian Skeptics magazine, 'The Southern Skeptic', "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God."
Catch that??? No matter how good the evidence is supporting creation, they won't believe!!

Evolution IS a religion and most evolutionists are not prepared to change their beliefs. Most evolutionists are unwilling to follow the evidence that leads to an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

Except you are not the one who defines what is and is not science. Science is a methodology, and across the world evolution is recognized as conforming to that methodology.

Science is a methodology. But common ancestry beliefs are a religion. (Perhaps you meant to say that adaptation, mutation rates, genetic drift etc conform to that methodology)

But I said nothing about accepting evolution for “bandwagon” (popularity) reasons. I specifically said reputable scientific universities – which means those who have the most qualified scientists on staff to pass judgment on what is valid science. I guess you relish the underdog position, where the scientists on your side have a long history of being scientifically impotent?

Actually you have it backwards.
Reputable scientific universities have a history of teaching things, (later disproven by science) like Piltdown as evidence of Darwinism. Truth is not determined by evolutionary beliefs accepted at universities. We can go down the list of how science keeps pushing evolutionists closer to the truth... We are wonderfully made.... we are all one blood.....women are not less highly evolved than men....Dark skin color does not mean you are less highly evolved....our bodies are not full of useless and / or biological remnants....Ancient man was highly intelligent ETC ETC

Redfern, the evidence supports... "In the beginning, God....."

 

[Rosenritter]

Then what are they? They exhibit characteristics of living creatures, they metabolize, they grow, they respond to certain stimuli. they are alive, no? so your issue must be with the "creature" wording.
OK, but how about insects and other invertebrates, did the curse affect them as well? Are they living creatures?

As far as the rights for defining "living creature" goes, God got there first. He says that plants aren't living creatures. Surely you're able to tell the difference between an animal and a plant, right? The system you are using even recognizes a difference.

Animals make choices, they take actions. Plants don't make choices or take actions. Animals have a spirit, plants.... well, are "vegetables" as far as the question of consciousness goes.

I can't recall God ever making a distinction about whether an animal had a spinal column or not. Octopi are pretty smart critters and have emotions, yet no backbone.

 

[Rosenritter]

Possibly one more thing for your list.
Humans and animals were vegetarian at the beginning.
Gen. 1:29 "Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Much later, after the flood, God gave permission to eat meat.
Gen. 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything"

Granted that Adam was vegetarian, and this continued through Noah until after the flood. That doesn't mean that some men didn't eat other animals or even each other, but they would have done so outside God's commandment. As for the animals, I don't see where it specifically says that animals were created vegetarian. I concede that they could have been, but I don't see it defined. If you see something I'm missing I wouldn't mind having this laid down concrete one way or the other.

 

[Rosenritter]

In a word intellect.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

James 2: 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Adding to that, both man and beast have spirit as part of their makeup.

Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 KJV
(19) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
(20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
(21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

The difference between the spirit of man and the spirit of beast is that God will restore spirit to man in the resurrection. But both men and beasts are animated by spirit. I would use the analogy that my computer is animated by electricity.

 

[Rosenritter]

Thanks again, RR. Just a couple comments:



I think it would be natural for a primitive people to try and explain the sun and moon that way – I think in Biblical terms the sun was to rule over the day and the moon over the night. But from a modern science perspective, we realize what we call “day” simply means the sun is shining on our side of this spherical planet. That means “day” is the term we use to define when the sun is up, it had squat to do with ancient conceptions of something in the sky ruling over the daytime.

As to the night, the situation is a bit more dire. In actuality, in addition to the day, the night is defined by the sun, not the moon. Night just means the sun is shining on the other side of our planetary ball, and the moon has no say in the matter. In fact, over many nights walk outside and see what percentage of them the moon is even visible (about 50%?). So the moon seems to be as unconcerned with conforming to supposedly divine commands as many humans are. Or we could simply admit we now actually understand orbital mechanics, and need only to use Kepler’s and Newton’s ideas to explain with great accuracy why the moon spends as much time “up” in the daytime as it does at night. Heck, we now know the moon doesn’t even make the light it does provide at night. Just like a rock in your garden, it simply reflects the light from the sun.



Okaaaaay, so you say the laws governing hydrodynamics have changed since the pre-flood days. Be truly fascinating to see those laws expressed in some coherent mathematical form.



What you have mentioned is sufficient to show that the Genesis description of the pre-flood world is in conflict with well-established concepts in modern science. Since modern science and early Genesis “science” are not compatible, then it is ludicrous to pontificate on how modern science supports that ancient account (in spite of 6day’s mindless soundbites). If early Genesis is fact, then the laws of science in force then are not the laws science is governed by today.

But when we restrict ourselves to studying the real world without any pre-existing allegiance to ancient religious dogma, we have found no reason to conclude the laws of science have ever been different than they are now. Part of the enjoyment I have had in science is productively working shoulder-to-shoulder with people who hail from almost every religious background and culture, but who know that hobbling science with religiously-based preconditions is crippling to good science and a disservice to everyone.

You need to learn a little more English language. Specifically, you are confusing the word "science" with "present day environment." Genesis does not claim that the present day world operates under the same conditions as the current day world. Science remains the same, the laws remain the same, what changed was environmental factors.

If you truly had a mind for science, you'd 1) observe and 2) hypothesize as to what conditions would satisfy the description. It's not too late, give it a try. Prove that you really are "scientific" and that it's not just us Creationists that have brains.

 

[Rosenritter]

I don’t think Adam was primitive, any more than I think Fred Flintstone was primitive – they are both fictional people. But the people who actually wrote the bit about the sun ruling the day and the moon ruling the night, well – when the epitome of your civilization is a horse-drawn cart, well then…



Recognizing that early man hadn’t got very far with math or technology is “allegiance to modern religious dogma”? Really?



You’ve got just about the wackiest definitions I have ever seen. I won’t spend 10 seconds disputing that scientists have made some wrong judgments, for a variety of reasons. But that is hardly religious dogma, it is simply making mistakes. When you realize it, you correct it and move on. You outta try it for a change.



Not much interested in your penchant for memorizing and reciting what you have found in the bottom level of every scientific outhouse you have visited. Maybe what you have found there is delightful to you.

Fact remains, in spite of your disparaging rhetoric, evolution is taught in almost every reputable scientific university in the world, and is accepted by tens of thousands of good Christians.

I don't suppose you've noticed, but we still use the symbol of "Sun" for day and the symbol of "Moon" for night? The sun rules the day, but if you want light during the night, you depend on the moon. Is the maker of your handheld cell phone living in a horse and cart drawn world? Because they use those icons still too.

Now, as for Adam being "primitive" ... do you realize how bad of an assumption that is? Adam was a veritable genius compared to you. His intelligence was directly God given, he was free from genetic defect, and unlike puny minds like Einstein and Tesla and Da Vinci, Adam lived for over nine hundred years, and his children for over nine hundred years, and their children for over nine hundred years. We have little idea what their civilization was like except for a couple possible references that are obscure at best, but these do not give us reason to think them as primitive. Do you see anything in the Biblical account to indicate that? Or is that just your prejudiced assumption?

That is, a prejudiced assumption that you are a "higher evolved" life form and thus superior? In truth you are more greatly degenerated, suffer from genetic defects, and are expected to live a measly fraction of his lifespan. Adam's children lived for almost a millennia. If we are judging by the "natural selection" mantra of evolution, you are a vastly inferior being and are an obnoxious blot on the evolutionary scale.

That goes for everyone here by the way, just to avoid the illusion that I'm picking on you.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear patrick jane,

Hey, it's Michael!! You're doing an excellent job here and I see more diverse people posting here who must have felt that my original thread was unwelcome to them. I don't have room in my life to take charge over my old Creation thread, which I thought about doing. I am finding much more time for doing a lot of other things in my life. I am glad for my old Creation thread's longevity. Thanks to all of you. I'm still going to be posting here in other threads, including this thread.

May God Bless This Thread Also,

Michael

 

[Jonahdog]

As far as the rights for defining "living creature" goes, God got there first. He says that plants aren't living creatures. Surely you're able to tell the difference between an animal and a plant, right? The system you are using even recognizes a difference.

Animals make choices, they take actions. Plants don't make choices or take actions. Animals have a spirit, plants.... well, are "vegetables" as far as the question of consciousness goes.

I can't recall God ever making a distinction about whether an animal had a spinal column or not. Octopi are pretty smart critters and have emotions, yet no backbone.

Then the problem becomes not whether plants are "living creatures" but, to cut to the chase, whether to base your life of the "words" of your particular deity.
No thanks.

 

[jamie]

I would use the analogy that my computer is animated by electricity.

I would use the analogy it is software. If your computer has electricity but no software your computer is dead.

 

[6days]

Granted that Adam was vegetarian, and this continued through Noah until after the flood. That doesn't mean that some men didn't eat other animals or even each other, but they would have done so outside God's commandment.

yes
As for the animals, I don't see where it specifically says that animals were created vegetarian. I concede that they could have been, but I don't see it defined. If you see something I'm missing I wouldn't mind having this laid down concrete one way or the other.

There are several possible arguments, but I think Gen.1:30 is a good indication..."And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life*in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so."

 

[Rosenritter]

There are several possible arguments, but I think Gen.1:30 is a good indication..."And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life*in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so."

Very good, thank you. Not sure how I missed that before.

 

[Rosenritter]

I would use the analogy it is software. If your computer has electricity but no software your computer is dead.

I've thought of our "software" being our "soul" ... that it needs hardware (body) and power (spirit) before it can have any life or functionality to exist in anything but an imaginary piece of information. Software doesn't have substance, we can only represent it with electrical impulses or marks on paper. It exists but it's immaterial because it's a concept, information.

We (that which is truly us) may be immaterial but it's pretty useless without living flesh, just like the software I wrote in high school doesn't exist in real application unless I have a working IBM 386 and a floppy disk to manifest it upon.

 

[Rosenritter]

Then the problem becomes not whether plants are "living creatures" but, to cut to the chase, whether to base your life of the "words" of your particular deity.
No thanks.

I cannot discern your meaning, I think maybe your thought got lost in the grammar somewhere.

 

[jamie]

It exists but it's immaterial because it's a concept, information.

Yes, our spirit is immaterial. Our brain is the hardware, our spirit is the software and the power is the oxygen our lungs derive from air.

Our mind (our soul) which is what makes us who we are is made up of brain and spirit. Separate the two and the soul is dead.

However, at resurrection our spirit can be joined with a new brain and voila, there we are.

But we only live twice, no more than that. A person who suffers a second death is washed out, unfit to live, ever.