Home > Creationism Group > Discussion Board

@frizzyperm (57): Your anecdote illustrates why the transitional species aren't around, but it still leaves the question: "why are there still monkies" unanswered. To use the same example, sure the model T's all evolved into Taurus 2010's, but you don't see alot of horse and buggies around either. Your answer seems to be of the sort that when evolution took place all of the evolved sort of snowball into a more adapted form leaving none behind (if i'm following you correctly). Perhaps if i rephrase my question:

Why do all the transitional speicies evolve or die, while the initial species seems to remain stable?

@frizzyperm (58): interesting link, I had never heard of that before. However, doesn't the process of a theory becoming fact require the ability to reproduce the effect in a controlled environment?

This is the most ridiculous discussion I have seen yet. No one is going to convince a "true believer" of anything, and the "true believers" aren't going to convince atheists or scientists that this Holy Bible a 3rd and even 4th hand account of creation stories originating in Sumer is absolute truth.

Paul speaks for God because Paul says he does.

Mohammed speaks for God because Mohammed says he does.

The pope speaks for God because he says he does and all his followers agree with him.

Christianity along with Islam has a basic tenet of convert or be killed even though the Christian pronouncements of this are now pretty much quieted, but the basic fundamentalist extremeists of any religion except maybe buddhism preach the same thing.

Without religion there would have been a more peaceful world is my own (stupid?) considered opinion now.

This is the most ridiculous discussion I have seen yet. No one is going to convince a "true believer" of anything, and the "true believers" aren't going to convince atheists or scientists that this Holy Bible a 3rd and even 4th hand account of creation stories originating in Sumer is absolute truth. - Laine.

You are right. But there is one group that can be convinced of almost anything - children. Which is why the argument is important. The truth of science cannot be destroyed, but it can be drowned out. There are people telling lies about science to children to make them believe in Christianity.

It is my belief that God and science are compliments to one another.  One is not explained without the other.  The statement that there is "no scientific evidence of this god you mention" is as ludicrous as the statement that the Bible, translated thousands of times, has no mistakes.

The God of the Universe, the great designer of billions of systems which rely upon billions of things to occur precisely at the right times, in the right amounts, and to the right degree, is as capable of creating the process of Evolution as He is capable of creating the universe from a huge BANG or from nothing at all and beginnng in a garden.

To #54 and #61:  The humonkey is neither human nor monkey.  The humonkey may have lived in one particular niche.  The human and the monkey may have their origens in the humonkey, but they each evolved along a diverging path each filling a distinctly different niche in which their individual adaptations were well suited.

Referring to the Model T example:  yes, the model T may have started it all.  And now we have a Taurus.  However, we also have an Aston Martin and a Chevy Silverado.  Both of these originated with the Model T but are distinctly different from their origin.

I have to agree with #65.  Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.  I do not believe it has to be science OR faith.

The order in which evolutionists claim life evolved is the same as the order of the Bible.  Both believe that the Earth's atmosphere underwent major changes in which liquid water collected on the earth.  Then plants emerged followed by more complex lifeforms.  Both agree that compared to the rest of creation, man is a newcomer.

The Bible says that it was on day four that God created the sun, moon, and stars "to mark seasons and days and years".  Essentially this would be the creation of time.  If that is true, then we can understand the "day" referred to in Genesis as an epoch of time rather than a 24 hour day since there had already been 3 "days" before time was counted.

Perhaps science is actually one method by which we can strive to understand the mind of God?

If you consider this whole discussion in terms of human beings and all their many different cultures over time, one common thread emerges. Humans throughout their history have always been driven to understand the wonder of creation and to know its source. This is simply programmed into us, regardless of time or circumstance. Atheists, no doubt, would explain this as some kind of biological quirk imprinted in our DNA. I believe it is far more profound and shows that we are spiritual beings whose creation wasn't random and who try to find their way back to its divine source. The creation "myths" of every human culture demonstrate the same need. Accepting the Book of Genesis as the ultimate truth of creation or accepting scientific theory as the means to understand creation also demonstrate this search for spiritual understanding. Science does not negate faith. For many, it is an expression of it.

"The order in which evolutionists claim life evolved is the same as the order of the Bible... The Bible says that it was on day four that God created the sun, moon, and stars "to mark seasons and days and years". mbeimer

But, before God created the stars, it says he did this...

"Gen3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

So days and nights and light on Earth began before the sun had been created??? That's scientifically impossible. Two lines later it describes how God created two 'lights', the sun and the moon. But of course the moon is not a light source, so that's a major error concerning the nature of the moon. Etc Etc...

So as early as sentence three of The Bible, we are forced to admit that the Bible does NOT conform to science's version of events and that it has no value to science. Genesis is the creation myth of desert tribesmen who lived the stone age. The chances that it has anything to offer modern science are practically zero.

In reply to #20:

It's interesting to observe here how a lack of scientific support for an argument leads to threats and emotional outbursts.

That's healthy for society right? Go GOD!