Okay now that you are reading here is how I got there. According to people that believe in the religion of evolution; over the course of billions of years animals evolved from single cell organisms to the animals we have today. The problem with this belief is that we have this thing called volcanism and plate tectonics. Every few hundred million years the surface of the earth is replaced. New York one hundred million years ago was on the equator, the planet suffered an ice age that lasted a few million years. Suddenly 65 million years ago there was a sudden explosion of life on this planet. All the species we see today started 65 million years ago. If this evolution thing takes billions of years to happen the planet has not seen billions of years of a stable climate in order for this evolution thing to work.
There have been at least three ages or three separate climate changes on this planet over the last four billion years.
The first age:
The planet was molten and had a average global temperature of five thousand degrees. That is half the temperature of the surface of the Sun. I think you will agree that in this age there would be little chance of any cellular or microbial life of import.
The second age:
The Earth cooled and water suddenly appeared on the planet. Here is where we have the chance for life. The issue is that the atmosphere, the air is made up mostly of Nitrogen, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon dioxide. The water had so much carbon in it that the water was mostly carbonic acid. The animals that showed up then thrived on sulfur and carbon releasing the oxygen. Volcanoes produce the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in huge quantities. No species that is alive today could live in this environment. The problem with the animal life that lived in this age was themselves, they polluted the air so much that it became toxic to them killing them off. Well it killed most of all animal life, this life can be found at the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where the conditions are like that near the surface when they were dominant. These animals are just like the ones we have near the surface but they adapted or “evolved” to the new environment. Crabs, lobsters, clams and other sea life thrive in this new toxic environment.
The third age:
The Earths orbit changed and the wobble of the Earth in conjunction with the volcanic actions caused an ice age that lasted at least two million years. This ice age covered the entire planet to a depth of two miles. This would prohibit most life we currently see on the Earth today. The tectonic plates are still moving around but only 65 to 200 million years ago did the ice melt. The sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide that were the dominant gases in our atmosphere suddenly became trace elements and the released oxygen became the dominant gas. Allow me to be clearer, the atmosphere is roughly 80% nitrogen all other gases make up the other 20% animal life cause that 20% to change depending on the surface conditions. Trees and plants like coral feed on carbon dioxide. The animals and plants that feed on sulfur are mostly gone. The carbon is dwindling now so we are going to start losing trees and plants. The current life on this planet is running out of fuel i.e. carbon dioxide. When that happens we will run into the next age of the Earth. Since the plants feed on carbon dioxide and the animals produce carbon dioxide the plants are consuming more that animals can produce. Because of this the ratio of carbon and oxygen is changing and the atmosphere will become toxic to the plants that sustain us.
What is happening now on our planet is that our oceans are boiling away from the heat of the Sun, and volcanism. This is not new; scientists have proven this back in 1972 with Apollo 17, if memory serves, hydrogen and oxygen is leaving the planet by the metric ton per second. With out that element we will not have water. As the Sun expands the Earth will get hotter, and more and more gases in the atmosphere will escape as it did on the planets Venus and Mars.
With the different ages happening just under every one and a quarter billion years how did this evolution thing happen? Evolution could not happen in less than a billion years according to the people that believe in evolution. For evolution to happen we need a stable environment for billions of years. Science has proven that we have not billions of years of a stable environment. Now if evolutionists wish to claim that it takes millions of years, for all life to evolve into different species then they might have a chance to be correct but scientific evidence does not support this. Man did not become the dominant species till ten or fifteen thousand years ago along with all the most all the species we see today. This happened after the end of the last big ice age. So now we have to have all species evolve in less than a million years.
Think it through and you will see that evolution as stated by Charles Darwin and his supporters and the numbers don’t work.
I know that the people that believe in the religion of evolution will disagree, I am just pointing out the fact and not denigrating your religious beliefs.
I disagree, you're being denigrating and a tad pretentious. As for arguing it, I'm not going to bother because you've shown to be immovable in your opinion. All I'm going to do is provide a link or two and hope that you educate yourself, outside of the church doors.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
~Alderic
Actually, I take that back - there is something I am going to say, only because it has been bugging me for a long time. This is directed at those who are religious:
Would it seem unreasonable to you, that evolution - even as it is mentioned by Darwin, etc. - is a tool of your God? Why does religion/God have to be so mutually exclusive toward evolution?
Lol, you know it's funny that I've been told that I can't be religious because I believe in the Big Bang "theory" which has been proven to the best of it's ability. The Bible coincides with this whole heartedly. I do however have a problem with evolution, and that problem is even the experts don't like it. I mean they have a theory that was formatted by Charles Darwin, but there is really no proof of any sort to support it. While there is evidence that species can evolve to adapt to their environment they don't change completely to another species. Though species do change over time there is still no proof that humans evolved from anything. When they find something to the contrary I will be happy to agree with you whole heartedly, but to teach in schools that "this is how it was" when there is no proof is wrong. I stand by what I said in another thread, that evolution is a belief not fact.
I think that the Bible and history go hand in hand. That it is one group's version of events and way of explaining what they see. I believe in the Christian faith because of what I have experienced in my own life, not because of anything else. I was very skeptical when I was younger and did my share of inquiring into different things so please don't just take me to be close minded. At the same token, though, think about it some more. The evolutionary theory states very clearly that men evolved from apes, however there is no concrete evidence of this at all. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, just stating what conclusion I have come to.
I agree that modern science has proven Darwin's Evolution theory false, but no sale on the billions of years for age of the earth.
I trust the stupendous Book of Genesis which states that "In the beginning, God created the universe and all that's in it, including mankind.
And granted, the Divine order of creation is written to teach spiritual things, not to determine the age of the world. I think that when chronology is studied from a geological pov, the details of Noah's Flood will be found to be in harmony with the findings of science.
Becasue I tend to take the word "day" in Genesis in the literal sense and that put together with the Flood, I think the special creation of the earth happened maybe as many as 10,000 years ago.
ALDERIC POSTS:
As to your first question, first let's agree at what Darwin's Evolution theory teaches...the term evolution has been used and is currently being taught in public schools to designate a biological change through which, in the course of billions of years, the amoeba, by passing from one species to another, "transmutation" finally becomes a human being.
What right reason and religion will not tolerate is the theory of evolution that assumes matter and motion have come into existence by their own power in some strange and yet undiscovered mode or way. It will not accept that in the course of time that inorganic, by some processes not even imaginable, became organic and that the organic by environment and by conflict, developed a physical structure like our own so that after a long length of time, man appeared as the highest development of the vertebrae, different in degree, though not in kind, from the ape.
(This is far different from the views of St.Augustine who taught that while God's Creation was instantaneous of each kind of creature, that over time it unfolded into the life forms that were always inherent within the original kind. This keeps God as the Creator of all form, matter, force, of laws, of life of man.)
As to God using evolution as a tool, I think you may be referring to what is called Theistic Evolution or Progressive Creation aka Theistic Intervention. Both these have conceptual and credibility problems that are untenable such as each "creation day" becomes millions of years long and instead of God creating effeciently in 6 days and then ceasing from creating, it would mean that God is creating right now.
From a geological viewpoint, the worldwide strata configuration and other phenomena such as polystrate tree trunks are not explained by intermittent (very long time periods) of cataastrophes. the evidence in the rocks and fossils is evident of only a one time Flood.
As to your second question and assuming we agree on the definition of Darwin's evolution as I have listed...
It boils down to the matter of the immortal soul. Right reason, Scripture, and CC teachings rule against matter giving birth to the soul. Gen. 1:27 states that God made man in His own image, male and female. Mankind therefore being composed of body and soul has a material (physical) and spiritual nature. So each and every human body being produced from pre-existing matter by human generation, is therefore subject to the laws of growth and decay. But according to Gen. 2:7, man has a soul, "The Lord formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
The human soul being a spiritual substance is therefore indestructible destined for immortality. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the soul may be defined as the ultimate principle by which we think, feel and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while soul denotes the source of our vegative activities as well.
So, the likeness of man to God lies in the conscious principle which animates the body with understanding and free will.
So as far as evolution is concerned, the chief distinction which separates mankind from all other creatures is his immortal soul..the life principle...the animal soul is generated with the body and perishes when the body dies. It's impossible to imagine that a perfect spiritual entity, a soul made directly by God when He made man, could ever have come from a body of an animal, like an ape.
Why on earth would God fall back on an animal species in order to borrow a body for a human person? God made the whole man all at once, self contained, cpmplete and independent of all antecedents.
There were plenty of volcanoes and plate tectonics shifting around during the Great Flood of Noah.
I concur!
the only way I believe in the Big Bang is .........God said it, and Bang it happened!
I don't think knowledgeable Christians have a hard time with that really so not sure why people say you can't believe in God and somesort of explosion that got things going. I think maybe it's because they link it with humanistic evolution and thinking it contradicts scripture they don't accept it.
Caveat emptor, this is the disclaimer the community gives for the theory of evolution.
In the middle of the 19th century, Darwin presented the world with a scientific explanation for the data that naturalists had been accumulating for hundreds of years — the theory of evolution. The term theory does not refer to a mere idea or guess. Scientific theories provide interpretations of natural phenomena and processes so that they are understandable in terms of human experience. In science, as opposed to common usage, the term theory is applied only to an interpretation or explanation that is well-substantiated by evidence. Useful theories incorporate a broad spectrum of the information available at the time the theory is proposed. Facts, inferences, natural laws, and appropriate well-tested hypotheses are all part of the construction of a strong theory. Thus, a theory is very different from a belief, guess, speculation, or opinion.
Scientific theories are continually modified as we learn more about the universe and Earth. Let’s look at three examples.
Notice that while a particular theory may be discredited or modified, still-valid observational and experimental data, as well as our knowledge of natural laws, are not abandoned; they are incorporated in a new or revised theory.
We have tested some observations so thoroughly that we accept them as facts. For example, we consider it a fact that the sun appears in the eastern sky each morning or that an object released from the top of a building will fall to Earth. Some explanations are so strongly supported by facts, and describe so well some aspect of the behavior of the natural world, that they are treated as scientific laws. Good examples of these include the laws of thermodynamics, which govern the mechanical action or relations of heat; or the laws of gravitation, which cover the interactions between objects with mass.
We continue every day to learn more about the world and the universe in which we live. Thus, scientific theory is always subject to reaffirmation, reinterpretation, alteration, or abandonment as more information accumulates. This is the self-correcting nature of science; dogma does not survive long in the face of continuous scrutiny of every new idea and bit of data. When scientists do not understand how some aspect of our universe operates, they do not assume an unknowable supernatural cause. They continue to look for answers that are testable within the realm controlled by natural laws as we understand them at any given moment. It may be years or centuries before scientists unravel a particularly difficult problem, but the search for answers never stops. This quest for understanding is the wonder and excitement of science!
'Scuse me, dear, have I stumbled into the Satire section?
I postulated this theory in school in 1975 and the professor laughed out loud. Then he began to berate me for being so dumb as to believe in god. I went from an A plus to a C minus for the class. Yup, open minds abound in the scientific community. I don't have a problem with evolution, just the timeline they want us to believe. If you really read what I wrote you would see this and not have jumped into religion bashing. I truly enjoy science; I don't like misinformation being passed off as science or scientific fact. If you cut open a dolphin you will see that it was a land mammal that went back to the sea. Evolution has not explained how we had this explosion of life diversity that coincides with the bible.
My theory was that God wiped out what was here and put us in their place. This would explain the fossil records. The leading scientists against God and creation are perfectly happy to accept and agree with the theory that all this life came from space aliens who seeded the planet but can’t accept the theory of that space alien could be God. This is a bias that I fight against. There is no proof one way or the other, no theory is better than the other at this point in time, why not be just as open to one as the other?
Lol, you know it's funny that I've been told that I can't be religious because I believe in the Big Bang "theory" which has been proven to the best of it's ability. The Bible coincides with this whole heartedly.
As long as it is a theory then it has not been proven. Look, the bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth. It does not say how or when, only that he did it. God could have created the solar system billions of years ago and only recently chose to put people on it. There are many times in the bible where God said that’s it everyone out of the pool I will start over. Why could this not have happened before we got here? How many times did God destroy everything and start over? All we know about is US. Depending on your belief system we have written records that date back 6 to 10 thousand years,
I love this.
Nah, nothing about the Big Bang hypothesis or theory has been proven. Astronomers are still puzzled as ever regarding where and how matter and stars originated.
But I wonder...what's the BBT to you? Is it the same one that George Gamow and 2 associates dreamed up in 1948....that an explosion of nothing produced hydrogen and helium which then shot outward and turned and began circling and pushing itself into our present highly organized stars and galatic system?
Evidently there is clear evidence that this theory is unscientific and unworkable even though evolutionists won't abandom it. Unfortunately, those astronomers who do oppose it don't keep their jobs too long!
It has been proven that the universe is expanding. In order for the universe to be expanding then it must have been smaller than it is. "As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.". Do they have a reason for everything being in the first place, no, they don't which is why it's still a theory. However, this is where God comes in for me and many others out there. It makes perfect sense, but then another thing that evolutionists would croak over.
Source for the quote - Wikipedia
Yes, the universe from what we have observed is expanding, thanks to Dr. Hubble. What we have not been able to explain with the expansion is that it is expanding faster now than years ago. Could it be the big suck theory? Our Galaxy is being sucked into the Virgo Super Cluster at one million miles an hour. Don’t forget to duck, the Andromeda Galaxy is moving at one million one hundred thousand miles an hour and it is behind us, which means it will hit our Galaxy in about 8 billion years and we will all slam into the super cluster in about fifteen billion years.
The laws of Physics state that unless there is more energy powering the movement the galaxies should slow down not speed up. So was there a big bang or is there a huge sucking thing pulling us all together into a huge mass?
I remember hearing a theory awhile ago that explained that they believe that the universe had an expand/contract cycle going on. Meaning it went bang then it would expand, when it finished expanding it would contract again until it went bang again. Not sure what they called it... slept too many times since then, but makes perfect sense to me. Though still no one knows where everything came from, and well even if it was "already there" then there's still the why question. Not something we'll get solved in our lifetime, probably not in humanity's lifetime either, but something for us to puzzle over.
According to people that believe in the religion of evolution
There is no "religion of evolution".
I take it the rest of your test is about as useful as a text that starts with "according to the science of Christianity"...
Please come back when you understood the difference between science and religion and what evolution is.
To make Creationism a science, you'd have to start with some experiments.Have there ever been successful lab experiments demonstrating how a god creates life (let alone two different lifeforms)?You need:1. A lab without any life in it.2. A big or mid-sized all-powerful god. (You can use a Greek or Roman god or a Semitic god, I don't care; please refrain from using Hindu or native American gods if possible to make the experiment easier to reproduce. Darwinists use fruit flies because they are easily obtained and well-understood. But I don't know much about Hindu gods.)3. A way to observe the process of creation. You can use a camera and I will happily believe that you will refrain from using camera tricks. (A man dressed like Zeus comes in and blinks and in the next scene there are 20 fruit flies flying around his head. If that happens I will assume it was not a camera trick if you tell me it wasn't.)I can probably help you with the lab (i.e. point you to a local university), but obtaining the god can be somewhat difficult. For me it would be, since I don't believe that Creationism is science. For someone who knows that Creationism is science, obtaining the necessary gods for casual experiments is probably as easy a task as obtaining fruit flies is for those scientists who see a difference between Creationism and science.
http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/314483/Experimental_Creationism
In scripture? Only once. Noah and the flood and it's well documented. God also said that he would never destroy the world by flood ever again. It's clear from the reading of scripture that this was not an easy thing for God to do. He did it with a heavy heart...so to speak. Creation is his baby. He didn't want to destroy it but had no choice because it got so evil. Because he's a God of Justice he had to act in this manner. We are fast re-visiting those times once again. And this time the world will be destroyed by fire and sin will forever be cleansed by fire from the earth.
Yes, but it does say HOW LONG it took him. I don't think that's there for nothing.
Your theory isn't biblical Paladin. God could have wiped out what was here before us but we have to do quite a bit of straying outside of scripture to come up with that. The fossil records can be explained quite easily by the flood as well. I agree with what you say about no theory is better than the other. That's why I stick to what God's revealed word says. Until this has been disproven why not?
(I'll give you a hint: evolution, by its very nature, does not require a stable environment over millions of years and is in fact helped by sudden changes.)
Leauki.
You keep repeating yourself over and over and over without understanding.
You cannot do what you're asking us to do either. You cannot prove the Evolutionary Theory.
So why do you keep asking us to prove the first creation.
Neither can be re-created in a lab.
Both have to be taken on faith.
You believe in the evolutionary theory and we believe in a Creator God who put all this in place.
We see the SAME evidence but come to a diff conclusion based on both of our biases.
(Another hint: The Hebrew text of the Bible does not speak of a world-wide flood and neither did the people back then have any idea of what exactly the whole world was. The world-wide flood first appeared in scripture when the Latin word for "land" ("terra") changed its meaning to "world" and when the Germanic word "earth" changed its meaning from "land" to "the planet". But that is not exactly the oldest and most holy source.)
Okay, let us analyze what I'm talking about here. What is belief?
be·lief /b?'lif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-leef] Show IPA–noun1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
What is religion?
re·li·gion /r?'l?d??n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA–noun1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.—Idiom9. get religion, Informal.a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
It looks to me like evolution qualifies nicely for a religion or belief.
Leauki,
again....getting caught up in semantics. Been there. Done this already with you many times. Read the scriptures not only for wording which is very important but also for context. Both are very important.
Wow, don't let little things like fact or logic get in your way on this subject. The topic is evolution not the bible, the example given is that it is a religion because there is no hard proof of either.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
