Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

Not to leap in in the middle or anything (page 5?) but why are people limiting the discussion to evolution vs. the Bible. What about the Koran, Shinto beliefs, those of Native Americans, Inuit, Africans...the list goes on. What about Zeus, what about Thor? With a panoply of faiths to look at, who is to say Chritianity beats out other faiths, much less modern science? Remember Douglas Adams' theory that Man, needing omnipotent beings to believe in, creates Gods, makes them immortal, and then moves on to other, newer Gods, leaving the earlier Gods (since they're immortal) stuck wandering around London rail stations scaring commuters. Works for me.

blitzkrieg53 and T-red2000se:

Great comments!! I am really getting tired of us Creationists being the only one who posts evidence and references!

scooby757:

I didn't reply to your previous question because it has been answered before. As for your questions on believing in God, it almost doesn't deserve an answer either. But, I will give it a shot.

You admitted that the vast complexity of living things is amazing. Yes, it is truely amazing and astounding. So much so, I say it takes just as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe the universe came from a spontaneous, pin-point explosion, and the earth and its living things came from non-living material. Order came from chaos? Yeah, right. There is a little thing called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which CAN be applied to the universe and the earth.

Daveandrews:

Ah, once again, you are getting microevolution confused with macroevolution! With the moth example, changes occurred WITHIN a species (microevolution). A new species was not created through a mutation (macroevolution).

You say evidence of evolution is in any anthropology text or any book on species. I would like to discuss this statement.

In the first place, any objective paleontologist must concede that one's interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one's presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Also, Steven M. Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

Let us be reminded at this point that one alleged evolutionary ancestor of man (Piltdown Man) was exposed as a deliberate hoax; that another (Nebraska Man) might as well have been a hoax, a whole hominid “species” having been contrived entirely from a single tooth, which turned out to belong to a pig; and that among other now seriously questioned human “ancestors” is Ramapithecus (since reclassified as Sivapithecus), based on a few teeth and jaw fragments that turned out to so closely resemble those of a modern day orangutan that Richard Leakey's associate and co-author Alan Walker has cautiously alluded to the orangutan as a potential “living fossil”. The history of paleontology abounds with the rise and fall of various fabrications and complete reversals, demonstrating the need for extreme caution in accepting any claims based on what is often scant and equivocal evidence.

Having asserted that transitional fossils abound, some evolutionists cite Archaeopteryx as an example, declaring that it “is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact).”
Yet concerning Archaeopteryx, at least a few leading authorities on the subject seem to disagree with Isaak:

“... Archaeopteryxwas, in a modern sense, a BIRD.”
[Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993) (emphasis added)]

It should also be mentioned here that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. [Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991)]

And GEEZZZ, don't get me started on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!!!!!!

NOTE: I do not claim to have all of this evidence in my head. I have pulled much of my evidence and references from an excellent website, http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp and www.drdino.com. Check them out.

"Without the possibility of sin, we would not have been human."
I don't understand how a being can "create" man, and, "everything" of his own design and in his image, and then once they are "made" suddenly have no control over the "rules" governing their existance. If he is the end all/be all of existance, whose rules would we be breaking? A one and ONLY god would have no use of sin, hate, suffering, etc. etc.. Who made the rule that says to be human you must have the sin factor in there some place? So why would God make-up all these rules, and hence invent the actions themselves, yet try in all manor of odd ways to get "his" message across not to sin etc... It makes no sense to hope for an outcome you could have factored out from the beginning. I mean, you designed it from top to bottom right? Who would accuse God of cheating on the experiment? Man? Beast? I don't get it. It's so common to talk of all the power one minute, and having hands tied the next. How could that be? Who would keep God from changing things anyway he wished? On the one hand it's common to throw out examples of "rules" and "laws" of life, as if we follow the grand recipe book of "creating a world". Yet we are supposed to be the only ones, and God being the only one of his kind. So where did all the "laws of hate, love etc. come into being? They just came into being on their own?

"Man turned his back on God". Then I suggest he didn't try very hard to convince him of the truth.
Someone capable of such grand creations should have no trouble convincing the likes of man to the point of NO skeptics with relative ease. Yet the being responsible for everything there is, has a real hard time with that one...?????

TheGreatOne:

The Bible does not use the word "Dinosaur." However, check out the following verses. (I posted this back on page 1)

Job 40: 15-20
15 "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.

And I also offer evidence that shows that man could have walked the earth with dinosaurs:

Leakey's Footprints (1977). Throughout the 20th century, human footprints have been found in supposedly ancient rock, sometimes with dinosaur prints. In approximately 1977, Mary Leaky found at Laetoli in Africa, 30 miles [48 km] south of Olduvai Gorge, human footprints which, by the strata they are on, evolutionists date at nearly 4 million years in the past. Yet they are identical to modern human footprints. These and other footprints disprove evolutionary theories, especially those in which dinosaur prints are found with human footprints. Dinosaurs are said to be dated from 65 million to 135 million years ago; whereas man is said to have appeared far more recently (National Geographic, April 1979; Science News, February 9, 1980).

Dinosaurs.. the word dinosaur was not invented until the late half of 1800's... that means that no bible before then would use that word. It didn't exist. Now, through away your assumption of old age with dino's, because the reason they have old dates is based on flawed dating methods. Then, check with almost every culture, and nation around the world, and listen closely for dragon, or scary lizard stories. The reason dragon myths abound the world over is because they are tales of terrible lizards, . People have a flare for embellishing stories. Dino's, in stories are referred to as dragons.
You argue with us saying dino's and man didn't exist. However what leads you to that conclusion? I understand that you say that because that's what your basic assumption is, but on what type of evidence is your assumption based? Please be careful referring to dating methods, as even the most careless REAL scientist will tell you there are serious problems with it. The math is easy, the assumptions and presuppositions are not.

I guess we can't use greater than less than signs for quote purposes, in a post.. just lost a great post... ohwell

wanted to spread kudos around ... we can have wildly differening views on all types of things, and still keep it friendly!!

Kudos

Dre!

The Bible verse referring to a behemoth can be referring to any animal. The fact that is is not described as a lizard makes it safe to assume they weren't talking about dinosaurs. I understand the word dinosaur wasn't in use back then, but that's what they are called now.

Flawed or not, the oldest human remains found today are younger than dinosaur fossils..significantly younger...and if man had walked the earth with dinosaurs, would we not have been destroyed with what was it, 90% of life on the planet when the earth was struck by a planet killing asteroid? I'm sure a few people could have survived...but the cold combined with no food/vegetation would have led to people ultimately starving to death. Just because someone found a footprint with a human footprint in it doesn't mean anything. There's no way to prove some human was walking through that place hundreds or thousands of years after it was created. And even if man were around with the dinosaurs, it would have been a very primative man...certainly not smart enough to document anything - aside from smearing feces on the wall of a cave or something. And where does the bible document the asteroid impact that ended pretty much all life on earth? There is scientific fact supporting the theorey that this did happen. We are talking about things that happened millions of years ago, and a book that was written a couple of thousand years ago.

The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Yes the leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by sediment filled water which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to a flood of worldwide extent, as the water rose to cover all land surfaces, animals would have been drowned, sank, and buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not at all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.

The humans that were around during the flood would have tried to do anything to escape drowning. Climing mountians, hanging on to floating debris, etc. It is no wonder there are not many human remains with dinosaurs.

Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did.

In the early 1900's on the Doheny expedition into the Grand Canyon, Indian cave drawings were found which closely resembled a duck-billed dinosaur. Legends from ancient China to ancient England have recorded descriptions of dinosaur-like creatures. The Kuku Yalanji aboriginal people have paintings which look exactly like plesiosaurs. These and other intriguing evidences seem to indicate that perhaps that age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly taught.

And if that doesn't make sense, take a look at the pictures on this web site that show dinosaurs that were discovered in this century and they are not fossils.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=15

I think everyone can agree that no one knows what exactly is in the deepest parts of the ocean. Could there still be dinosaurs in the very depths of the ocean?

TheGreatOne:

"The fact that is is not described as a lizard makes it safe to assume they weren't talking about dinosaurs."

Why do you say that?

"the oldest human remains found today are younger than dinosaur fossils..significantly younger"

Once again, how do you know the human remains are younger?!?! Geez, we have posted may times and provided much evidence saying that dating methods are severely flawed! If both a dino fossil and a human fossil are both stone, how do you know one is older than the other? And what if they are found in the same strata?

"Just because someone found a footprint with a human footprint in it doesn't mean anything."

So I guess fossils don't mean anything? Man, you make no sense. Oh, and evolutionists say that early humans had different bone structure. How could their feet be exactly the same as humans now?

Oh, and the "Great Asteroid" is another evolutionary theory on how the dinos where killed off. I know they think they found a huge crater off of Mexico, but what does that prove? Can you provide this evidence that an astroid DID wipe out most life on earth? That theory is very disputed. Why couldn't they have just died off due to environmental changes?

Oh, and this is a thought I just had. It may be a faulty thought, but I will write it anyway. If the asteroid wiped out most life on earth, wouldn't have evolution had to start over? Like I said, just a thought.

I think you answered your own question. The complexities of life prove that their existence didn't happen hap hazardly. Hence, God created them. Now, let's say for the point of discussion that you had the power to creat a living person from nothing. (The best scientists can do today is create life from existing life and then it is an exact copy.) Would you want your creation to be a robot that would do exactly what you said with no thought process? No! You would want the person to have a mind of their own to think with. You would want that person to be able to love you because they wanted to love you and not because you made them love you. That is called "free will". Now if you give your person free will there is going to come a time when they disapoint you, and turn their back on you.

When God created man from the dust of earth, He ceated them with a free will. A free will to think and act for themself. God knew before He created them that there was coming a day when His creation would disapoint Him and turn their back on Him. Does this mean His creation was flawed? No, it just means that we have the free will to choose whether to trust in God or not to trust in Him. Another interesting tidbit if you read through Genesis, is that Adam, Eve and God talked to each other just like we talk to each other. But Adam and Eve disobeyed God's law (notice singular law, "do not eat the fruit of this one tree.") and because of that, they had to face the consequences of their disobedience. They had to leave the Garden of Eden that God had placed them in and they had to work the land themselves.

Look I realize it takes a lot of faith to believe in an all powerful, all knowing God, but it takes just as much faith if not more to believe there isn't a God.

Oh, one more thing, I forget who posed the question, but why couldn't God create Eve from a rib of Adam? I believe it is still fact that women have one more rib than men do. It just shows that women are apart of men. Even God said that when a man and woman have sex they become one. They are apart of each other.