creation science vs. evolution

[Ralph 123]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Why do people seem so concerned with too much discussion and debate and with "changing minds" ? I must be nuts but it is the opposite that concerns me.<br /><br />

Discussion, debate, etc are healthy and valuable. It does not have to change a single mind to be of value to many.<br />

I am pretty well educated guy and I have learned a great deal from this thread not the least of which is something about the people who have posted.

 

[Carphunter]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Thanks Ralph for putting into words what many of us feel. You are very good at that. <br /><br />Mikeandronda, Great post! <br /><br />I too have learned a lot from this thread. My beliefs have not been changed, but I have a better understanding of others beliefs....................which is good.<br /><br />I would say that this is one of the best threads ever posted here. Thanks Mellow.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Commander Mcbragg heres something I found that you may find interesting.This is some reasons we can believe the Bible is still reliable and that the translations are really right on.<br /><br />the QUANTITY OF MANUSCRIPTS - <br /><br />To date, and unparalleled in ancient literature there are more than 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts and another 1,000 manuscripts in various other languages. Coupled with this there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. Now contrasting that the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Caesar range from 1 to 20! With this vast number of remaining copies from earlier centuries, we can check them against each other to see if any grave errors of transmission have occurred. The answer of course is none! Secondly there is, <br /><br />(2) THE QUALITY OF MANUSCRIPTS -<br /><br /> You see, the scribes of both the Old and New Testaments were meticulously careful in copying, to avoid the slightest error. When there work was done, the number of letters, words, and lines were counted. If a single mistake was found, the entire transmission document was destroyed and the scribe started over. This reliability, friend, gives us confidence that our Bible today is an accurate representation of the original writings of the Bible. As a result of this matchless care, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, scholars found an original copy of the Old Testament dated about 150 years before Christ. Now they could compare today's bible with a copy older than anything ever found. What was the result? Well, for every 10,000 words, 9,999 of today's reliable translations were an accurate representation of the original! To sum it up, even the New Testament can now be regarded as 99.5% pure and the remaining question is only in areas of non-doctrinal, and inconsequential matters.

 

[Andrew Leigh]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

O.K. here goes,<br /><br />At times our opinions are based on theories that at best should be part of Urban Legend. If we closely studied the manual from which we try disprove theories then we would rapidly come to the conclusion we are guilty of some glaring oversights.<br /><br />There are two issues, biblically speaking that I would like to add to this discussion.<br /><br />Firstly, in my studies I am yet to find where the bible limits the age of the earth, on the contrary the bible gives no start point to creation as in Gen1:1. Nowhere can I find where the bible claims that the earth was created 6000 years ago. People believe this to be the case based on the rough estimation of when the bible says Adam was created. And guess what? Nowhere does the bible claim Adam was the first man on earth.<br /><br />Regarding creation. There is much scriptural evidence to support that there was one creation as evidenced in Gen 1:1 and a returning of the earth to it’s original state as originally created in Gen 1:2. There is an unknown period, could be billions of years, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The difference will become apparent as we proceed but unfortunately there are many supporting scriptures both in the old and new testaments, too numerous for a post like this. <br /><br />In Gen 1:1 God creates the heavens and earth yet in the first half of vs. 2 the earth was suddenly formless and void. What happened to allow the earth to become formless and void (void translated from the Hebrew “tohu ah bohu” means laid to waste). The context of laid to waste will immediately suggest that something catastrophic had occurred rather than the simple state of “formless and void”. Scripture also clearly indicates there was a time when angels inhabited the earth with people, before Gen 1:2 has taken place. Again Isaiah 14 refers. I am trying to find the scripture that I have read which says that angels and mankind were having sexual relations during Gen 1:1 and 1:2 which displeased God greatly. <br /> <br />The account in Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:2 is generally accepted by biblical scholars as the “Ante-Chaotic Age” or “The Dispensensation of Angels”. Simply put this is when Lucifer and his fallen angels were rulers of the earth (Is 14:12-14 & Ezek 28:14), know one knows how long this reign was for. Scripture also tells us that during this period that there was no light as it was an age of darkness and sin. Because there was no sunlight/light the water vapour rose from the ground condensed and fell back down (Gen 2:6). This caused the earth to flood over a period of time, known as the flood of Lucifer. Note that the flood of Lucifer and the flood of Noah were different in their outcome, there are 20 differences between the floods.<br /><br />God had created in Gen 1:1, satan and his fallen angels allowed the world to degenerate into a state of chaos on destruction, remember it was “laid to waste”. Satan was judged and thrown, with his demons, into the abyss. God then set about the task of returning the earth to the state he formerly created it in. This was achieved by “let”. The “let” from “let there be light” as used in the other verses is used 13 odd times Ch 1 and in no ways is used in the context of creation but rather of “made to appear” or “made visible”. The light had already been created in vs. 1. There is a big difference between creation and the returning to normal what had originally been created. This God achieved with “let”.<br /><br />When god said “let there be light” He merely allowed the light to overcome the darkness. Later he “made” the sun and moon. Made here also in different context to “let” or “create” and is more of a “let” than a “create”. Once God allowed for sunlight, the sunlight allowed for evaporation and the unnatural flood conditions that had been prevalent to disappear. Read all the “let” verses to see that they all return the earth to normality.<br /><br />In Gen 1:1 we read of God creating (in Hebrew context). The next time we read of creation is in vs. 21 when God is creating the animal kingdom, the next time we read of creation it is the creation of Adam. The intervening period in Gen 1:2 was purely a rearrangement of nature and it’s forces to reflect the earth as originally created before satan got out of hand and after he was judged and thrown into the abyss and the earth was flooded. Jeremiah nicely describes how satan wrecked the whole thing in Jer 4: 23-27. It talks of the period when the earth had become formless and void. <br /><br />And then there is the “Adamic Age”, the age we currently know. The last 6000 plus years.<br /><br />I suppose where Christians have a dilemma is that the bible makes it very clear that God created and that each “brings forth of it’s own kind”. In other words a monkey should not bring forth a Neandrathal Man then a Pilkdown Man then Mrs. Ples and finally man as we know it today. Also if God created man in his own image then was God a monkey who then evolved to a Neandrathal Man then a Pilkdown Man then Mrs. Ples so that he could keep pace with humans so that he could constantly ensure through the ages that man was always created in his image?<br /><br />It is not the written letter of scripture that is bad but we simply do not take the time out to conduct thorough studies. Scriptures have numerous wonderful pieces of advice for good living. Where do you think most our wise sayings and proverbs come from? It is my opinion that most of our moral value system comes from some form of religion, be it right or wrong. Countries Constitutions have at their core the 10 commandments and practices that uphold religion. If we don’t teach the fundamentals of what got us to the constitution then how could we ever fully appreciate and understand the basis of the constitution? Are we about to throw away our cornerstone?<br /> <br />Is it not amazing how as countries develop they seem to move further from the church, most countries founding fathers came with bible in hand. Faith in God was integral to fighting the perceived evils of the day. Most towns had as their first building a church, this throughout the world. If there ever was a case for not having evolved this must be one. We are “evolving” away from the very things that we held sacred and built countries on.<br /><br />If you don’t follow your motor manual when fixing your motor don’t blame the manual when your boat won’t run. <br /><br />Cheers<br />Andrew

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Serious question: How come I can conceive of things that are impossible and/or can never exist?<br /><br />Enjoyed your posting, Andrew. Loved that closing line.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Yep last line is right on...........18rabbit to your question.....Your mind goes deeper and there is more to all of this we call life then anybody will ever understand until it is explained to us after we die. Its like asking how do you know there is God? All I can say is I have experienced God on the inside, there really are no words to explian it to someone who hasnt allowed themselves that experience. Same goes how you conceve stuff others say is imposable.....Faith?

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

M&R – thanks, but...<br /><br />If I am of God, I am equal to Him (not likely) or lesser than Him (very likely).<br /><br />If I am equal to Him, my ability to conceive of that that cannot exist suggests we (Him and I) do not have dominion over everything. If I am lesser than Him, my ability to conceive of that that cannot exist suggests He exists in the abstract.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Whoa dude I never said your equal to God. I hope thats not what you got from my post . What I meant was when you experience God it is different then reading a book of knowledge or seeing a T.V. show or taking a class. You know its true but dont have the phyisical proof. Like believing in creation, something inside tells me its true, but no physical proof. Wht i was saying is conceving God is different than learning to walk or seeing a butterfly for the first time, its on the inside.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

M&R – Relax. You are still in good graces with God. I did not get that from you. <br /><br />I came up with all by myself about 35-years ago. It has been rattling around unresolved ever since.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Its cool 18Rabbit your not the first person to have that thought(equality to God). There is even a name for it though I dont remember it. I personaly believe humans go much deeper then what many see so, that is why sometime we are able to conceve things deeper than what we see and phyisically feel.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Don’t get me in trouble with Him!!! I didn’t mean to imply I am equal to Him. <br /><br />What I meant to say was if He made me, something I get from the Bible, He either made me the same model as Himself or as a lesser model. I suppose I could have been created as a more advanced model…but that would mean we are all in trouble. <br /><br />Safety is in presuming I am a factory-refurbished model.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

We are made in the "Image " of him but we are flawed. He did give us free will and we screwed it up by allowing sin to enter into us. thus seperating us from him. Jesus Christ's sacrafice and our acceptance of it "fixed" that and now as you put it we are factory referbished models. still screwed up but better than before.

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

If one believes in a God or polytheistic deities,<br />thats their "personal" choice,but with the advent of organised religions, in my opinion, humans entered into the most disastrous episode in the history of mankind.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

I don’t know about that, Elmer. Benjamin Franklin was really concerned about the relationship between the rise in crime and the drop in morals from people moving away from organized religion in early 18th century Philadelphia. In his eyes, organized religion, any and all of it was necessary or all civility would be lost. He spearheaded a movement to fund the building a public meeting hall so even the outcast “strange” religions, including Muslims, could have a place to meet and practice their faith.<br /><br />All organized religion brings with it a culture of morals and that may not necessarily be a bad thing. Think of it as disease immunization. As long as everyone around you gets immunized, you don’t have to. And so it goes with morality, as long as most of the people around you hold themselves to a moral standard, you will be propped up, too. I guess we could try to regulate behavior thru legislation…oh, wait! We tried that…hasn’t worked so far.

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Hi 18rabbit, Are you say that the regulation of moral behaviour by organised religion has worked?<br /><br />If so how does one account for the horrendous slaughterings of people, in wars and witch hunts,conducted by popes,kings and prophets throughout the ages, not to mention the recent and past cases of sexual abuse presently being prosecuted in courts here and in a few other countries,all done by the controlling proponents of organised religion?

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Elmer, just because some bad apples, rotton people, or many other names use religion to further their own needs, such as the crusades and many other holy wars it is not organized religions fault. Humans have a way of corupting everything if given enough time such as Government. At one time our counrties government was pretty pure in its agenda, now look its a mixed up mess. Same for organized religion, Which if you want to be honest is really just a form of government based on a spiritual belief.I can only comment on Christianity but nowhere in the new Testament does it condone violence, as a matter of fact it tells us to love our enemies. So its not the religion that caused these terrable things it was the people leading that had their own agenda's.