|
Post by MarySchuhriemen on Jan 18, 2004 18:34:31 GMT -5
Whooow, this is a thread of LOOOOOOOOONG posts!
Matt, I have been thinking over this issue for a long time, and now I think I have made up my mind about this. I think I can style myself a "creation-evolutionist"
Now before everyone says "HUH?!?!?!?!?", let me explain.
I believe in the big bang theory. BUT when God created life, He created many species, not just some weird little organisms that became everything else. And He created them at different times. The evolution part is this: He allowed them to change slightly over time to become related species. No, a frog didn't turn into a horse, but that one type of horse turned into another type. And dogs have come from wolves, etc.
That's what I believe happened. Man was created, and did NOT evolve from apes.
|
|
|
Post by DavidRojas on Jan 18, 2004 18:56:55 GMT -5
Isn't that what most creationists believe? No intelligent person would deny the existence of microevolution. In addition, if every species was originally created, they probably would not have all fit on the ark. I agree with your views, Mary... I think...
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Jan 18, 2004 20:48:48 GMT -5
I do not believe that the big bang theory holds water, I do not believe the earth is any older than 6000 years (give or take twenty years) I certainly do not believe that the earth is billions of years old, neither is the universe, it is not possible.
I believe that God created each species perfectly, but after the fall the DNA unravelled from that of a DOG into that of a poodle, wolf, etc. This is consitant with one of the laws of thermo something or other, the one that says things tend to disorder. I believe that God put two dogs (or seven if they were clean) and these dogs had enough DNA information to make all the types of dogs found today.
I believe there was a literal Adam, and a global flood. This global flood is the cause of the fossil record, not millions of years of death, disease, and destruction before the Fall.
|
|
|
Post by DavidRojas on Jan 18, 2004 21:18:40 GMT -5
Errm, yes, I must have missed that part. I do not believe in the big bang theory either.
|
|
|
Post by StephenColbert on Jan 21, 2004 8:16:54 GMT -5
allmost all breeds of dogs we have today came from this one type of wolf. so I think all different types of animals were created, and then micro-evolution did the rest
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Jan 26, 2004 13:50:57 GMT -5
Whooow, this is a thread of LOOOOOOOOONG posts! Matt, I have been thinking over this issue for a long time, and now I think I have made up my mind about this. I think I can style myself a "creation-evolutionist" Now before everyone says "HUH?!?!?!?!?", let me explain. I believe in the big bang theory. BUT when God created life, He created many species, not just some weird little organisms that became everything else. And He created them at different times. The evolution part is this: He allowed them to change slightly over time to become related species. No, a frog didn't turn into a horse, but that one type of horse turned into another type. And dogs have come from wolves, etc. That's what I believe happened. Man was created, and did NOT evolve from apes. Mary... you don't actually have to believe in evolution to explain how you get a domestic dog from a wolf. Just think about those fury felines. You have so many different "spiecies" of cats... the same is true with dogs. You have golden retrievers, poodles (which really is more like a domestic cat), german shepards, and even wolfs. It's very fesable through cross breeding and the like to get the different kind of dogs we see today. Oh and why do you believe in the big bang theory may I ask? I guess I fail to see how it fits in with the whole picture. His Servant, Jason
|
|
|
Post by MarySchuhriemen on Jan 31, 2004 14:46:43 GMT -5
God could do the Big Bang if he wanted to. Scientists are saying that the universe is moving fast away from the center, and so that could only happen if there was something that set it off.
Matt, do you believe in the Big Bang?
Race, why is it not possible that the world is older than 6000 years old? Science points otherwise......
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 1, 2004 1:42:36 GMT -5
Science points otherwise? well I am not scientist but here are some arguments against billions of years. (I will signpost then go through each one)
Helium levels Spinning of Earth Comets North Pole Solubility of the Oceans
After my arguments I will analyze some of the billion yearists will bring up and offer my explanation
(I am no expert in any of these, but I have heard these arguments made and are convincing, although I dont have the wherewithal to give any justice to them, or back them up (fault is on me, not arguments)
Helium levels: The earth's crust (so I believe, it may be something else) emmits a certain amount of helium gas. Some of this escapes through the atmosphere, but some remains (more remains than goes) therefore at the end of the year there is more than at the beginning. Apparently someone has measured the levels of Helium and there is only enough helium to account for a few thousand years, not enough for billions of years.
Spinning of the earth. The Earth is slowing down (slowly but still it is) now if it has been continously (if it hasnt been continually slowing down then it is defying other laws (such as in the real world nothing can achieve perpetual motion)) None the less a couple of billion of years ago the earth would be spinning very very quickly, so quickly that the forces and gravity involved would make life (or the formation of it) pretty hard.
Comets, each time a comet (hairy star) flies past the sun some of it burns up. Now this is not a problem for six thousand years, but a billion years, well there wouldnt be any comets left. (scientists have come up with a large asteroid field which pre-comets knock into each other and then are put into orbit as a comet. I dont understand the argument, but apparently there are either too many or too few comets at present for this theory to be true (I think the figure is ten or one hundred times too many or too few))
Apparently the two magnetic poles are not permanent. Magnetics only last for a short limited time, the north and south pole are supposted to be able to stand for ten thousand years.
This is my own argument so I dont know how effective it will be, although if some one would like to answer it I would be most indebted. The rivers of the world all empty into the oceans. They not only empty water, but also mud and minerals as well. Now seeing as water evaportates but minerals do not, wouldnt it follow that after billions of years there would be a whole lot of minerals in the oceans? I know that there is a lot already, but I would think there would be drastically more over several billion years.
Here are some of the arguments put forward that billion yearists put forward:
Carbon dating, Ice levels millions of years for Oil, opals, and petrified wood to form (as well as stelagtites, and the other one)
Firstly Carbon dating is not all that reliable, it seems fine in theory, but the way it is calculated is based on an evolutionist theory taken as fact. It has been known that a turtle shell has been carbon tested (with the turtle still in it, or only recently departed) to be "millions of years old" from a live (or only just) dead turtle.
Some people will claim that the polar ice caps took millions of years to form into the size they are today. quite recently a WWII fighter/bomber was discovered somewhere (I think Greenland) under fifty feet of ice. After only fifty years, fifty feet of ice had formed, now a after a thousand years a thousand feet of ice could have formed. . . . .
Supposedly opals oil, petrified wood, take millions of years to form. Scientists have created in a matter of weeks, in a lab, opals, and oil. It takes a lot of pressure to do, but still is possible (considering the massive tectonic shifts that would have happened during a global flood) petrified wood. . . . well there is an explaination for that, I just cant remember it!
Also there have been stalagmites and the other, formed in a matter of fifty years.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 1, 2004 1:52:26 GMT -5
A couple of questions so that I know what angle you are approaching this from
Mary, do you believe there was a literal adam (that he existed, lived and fell how Genesis three says, or do you believe it to be a metaphor)
If you believe there was a literal adam, do you believe that he lived around six thousand years ago, or do you believe he was a lot further back in time?
Do you believe that the flood was global or local?
If these questions seem a bit pointed, I apologise, it is not my intention offend. A specific apology to Matt, I know he differs greatly from me on the question of a literal adam, I hope you arent offended.
|
|
|
Post by MarySchuhriemen on Feb 2, 2004 16:30:27 GMT -5
Race,
I believe that Adam was a metaphor(sp?)
I believe the flood was local,
I would like to see what scientists back up the theories you brought up, and if they are biased towards young earth. Since you will reject carbon dating because it is supported by evolutionary ideas, we could also reject the theories that are supported by young earth ideas.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 3, 2004 13:27:04 GMT -5
I dont reject carbon dating, I reject the findings that are interpreted solely to fit evolution. As Albert Einstein once said, "If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts"
I can see that this is going to be one interesting discussion if we are going to be challenging other people's sources. I will reject what evolutionist scientists say, and you will reject what creationist say, an interesting problem.
my scientist people are the people who work for Answers in Genesis. Yes they are biased, but then again isnt everybody? Also I read some articles by other leading scientists who are creationists that write for Creation Mag.
On the question of the local flood, how do you interpret this passage:
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; ; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Now as I see it, if a literal interpretation was taken then there is no possibility that the Flood could be local. The Forces of Nature have it that water seeks a level (yes with a small miniscus thingy) but it couldnt cover a mountain without covering the earth.
But lets say that it was a local flood, so that we can examine the ramification of this. Now either all things that werent on the ark were wiped out, or some were. If all things on Earth were wiped out then why would there need to be a local flood? why not a literal interpretation, they would amount to the same thing.
Assuming that the Flood killed all life other than those on the ark, In the area which the water covered, none else. What does this mean? It means that when God came to punish sin he punished some sin, not all of it. This is a foreshadowing of the Judgement Day, if God didnt punish all sin during the flood, but some sin managed to hide, then on Judgement Day some sin will hide from God. I am unwilling to accept that God wont punish all sin. God has will punish every sin ever comitted. In Christ, the sins of the elect have been atoned for by his righteous sacrifice, but our sins were still punished, but Christ was punished for us.
Mary, what is your reason for accepting a local flood? Not because it is right or wrong, or the facts fit or anything like that, but the philosophy of the matter, what makes local flood more attractive than a global flood?
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 3, 2004 13:28:30 GMT -5
I will post about a literal adam in the next day or so, once I have figured out what to say. . . . .
|
|
|
Post by StephenColbert on Feb 7, 2004 16:14:01 GMT -5
everybody, we will have a speaker come to our church youth group (it reallly actually famillies) to speak on this subject. it is on sunday Feb. 15. pizza at 5. speaker at 6. let me know if you can come, so I can give you directions. stephencolbert@wideopenwest.com
|
|
DavidStecker
Just Plugged into CHARGE
man i havnt been on in a wile
Posts: 28
|
Post by DavidStecker on Feb 17, 2004 9:40:19 GMT -5
yah! i'm with Race! macroevolution? it can barely be called a hypothesis! anyone who studies evolution at ALL can't help being disgusted, really, at how much of it is outright lies. And what's not lies is random unproven guesses. But I don't really know why we have this thread....i doubt anyone here is an evolutionist..... hay tori i think that the"..." mean you have sumpthing to hide. jk jk jk jk jk jk jk jk jk jk jk
|
|
DavidStecker
Just Plugged into CHARGE
man i havnt been on in a wile
Posts: 28
|
Post by DavidStecker on Feb 17, 2004 9:45:04 GMT -5
Whooow, this is a thread of LOOOOOOOOONG posts! Matt, I have been thinking over this issue for a long time, and now I think I have made up my mind about this. I think I can style myself a "creation-evolutionist" Now before everyone says "HUH?!?!?!?!?", let me explain. I believe in the big bang theory. BUT when God created life, He created many species, not just some weird little organisms that became everything else. And He created them at different times. The evolution part is this: He allowed them to change slightly over time to become related species. No, a frog didn't turn into a horse, but that one type of horse turned into another type. And dogs have come from wolves, etc. That's what I believe happened. Man was created, and did NOT evolve from apes. you know mary i dont think that i think that on horse came for to horses that were to diferent types of horses ond so on ond so on haha wolves were domesticated over time by ppl.
|
|