Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

This issue has been testing me as of late, especially since it has been brought to the media forefront in Ohio with regards to its place in public education. For the record I am not a stranger to science or theory, being a degreed engineer, nor am I generally prone to hide from any possibilities.

Now, aside from the 'age of the earth' issue, lets examine something else. From a creationism point of view, the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago by an omnipotent 'being' who chose a 'messanger' to spread his 'word' to the people of the earth. That's great as far as the current Middle East is concerned, but what about the rest of the world? Why would a being, capable of creating a world, universe, etc... choose only one messanger in only one location to spread his word? Thats not only inefficient but poor planning, and as a result here we are debating the issue.

Another glaring inconsistancy I can't get around is that over half the planet (that's a whole lot of people) doesn't believe in a singular Christian god but rather in their own dieties with their own creationism ideas. So, what makes the Christian creation idea the correct one for all the people of the Earth?

One of the most powerful things that evolution theory has going for it, I believe, is that like most scientific theories, it is fundamental and generic enough to allow for all the religions & beliefs of the world to have their place over time. It does not claim that they don't exist.

also another reason why we havent found more fossils is because alot of them were buried in the Flood. Scientists also wonder how shells and other aquatic fossils end up on the top of mountains. hmm wonder how they got up there.

Tectonic theory explains all of this. Movement of land masses due to changing climates, etc.

Viss1, that is true, tectonics could be the answer. I don't disagree, but I believe there was a great flood of noah's day, based on one simple fact.

In every religion, if you study enough, you will find a account of a flood.

A little to eerie for me to disbelieve.

This is a good discussion but one that will never end and I must go home.

did anyone ever watch that tv show special about 5 years back where they believe they found noah's ark on top of a mountain buried under a bunch of snow and ice? pretty interesting.

I went to catholic school most of my life, and when IW as in high school, in religion class, the priest who was teaching the class said something I will always remember. Regardless what people believe, the Bible is not a 100% literal documaentation of the way things happened. Back then, history and such were told by stories, because not many people could read/write. What happens when people tell a story? They exxagerate, leave out parts, add parts, change words around, etc. Anyway, he said the church doesn't discount any scientific theory, but, we do believe that at one point God came and gave man a human soul.

I myself don't practice much faith anymore. The only thing that bothers me about the scientific theories regarding the universe and it's creation is..where did it all begin? I mean, we know the big bang was caused by gases and such that were so compressed they just exploded and kept expanding, creating the universe....ok, well, where did those gases come from? They had to come from somwehere right? ? It's actually scary to think about, because we just don't know. That's where beliefs come in and science goes out the door. It's easier to just imagine some higher power created the universe.

Even though we all know religion is something created by man to calm his own fear of impending death.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cpurser:
[QB]Very good, sboardsvt.

Shaun G, why do you want me to stop proving evolution wrong? If you don't want to disprove evolution, why do I have to prove Creation? Can you prove Creation wrong?

hhhmmmm....prove creation wrong...hmmmmm..let me think....uhhh..how about...uhhh..mmm...A magic being made all the animals at the same time 6000 years ago.. ok...are you all convinced?

"Wouter Bleeker and his colleages in the Geological Survey of Canada determined the age of the rocks by a process known as radoiactive dating. they measured how much of the uranium origanally contained in the rocks had decayed to lead. This slow change, when measured, yields a very precise scientific clock." S.J. Mercury News Science and Health section 3/19/02
"Last year, radioactive dating showed the zircon to be approximately 4.4 billion years old-97% of the age of the planet. Less than one-hundredth of an inch wide, the tiny speck is the oldest object discovered anywhere in the world, according to geologists Simon Wilde of Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Austalia, and John Valley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who preformed the dating." Same source
I have other sources but can not get to them right now as I am at work. But will be sure to add to this as soon as I can.
Well cpurser you better call the universities and geological foundations and tell them that they are wasting their time and money because you got it all figured out. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I really hate smartasses.

LOL, funny.

Moses wrote the first book of the bible Genesis. Moses lived during Egyptian times. Moses grew up with the egyptians and was taught by them during his childhood.

Egyptians knew how to write very well. There society was well advanced.

For you pastor, priest to say that it is not literal because people didn't know how to read or write well, is absurd.

OK, ASSVT, I apologize for being a smart@ss. I have tried to be as professional I as could during this discussion. However, my emotions got the best of me.

Now, as for the uranium dating, I refer you to sboardsvt's post:

"So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time. Thus, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.”