Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

A quick stab at this list thing here blitzkrieg...
Reasons I beleive in creation

1. An ordered universe. Things in the world today are measurable.

2. Irreducable complexity

3. Fossil record the world over looking as if it has been laid down by water. This seems to be a global trend..This is consistent with a global flood world view. Billions of years of age would not give the same layers all over the earth...

4. Some people find it hard to beleive that God just said poof, and here we are, but harder than that to beleive is that nothing, turned out to poof pring us here.

5. Although this list is not in order, this is probably the main one. We got here by either of two methods. Mutually exclusive methods. one method says that there is order, and there is purpose, and design. The other says it happened by chance, and things keep getting better, and we are constantly evolving. This however flies in the face of modern science. Again, basic laws... 1. Energy can not be created or destroyed. (Some body acting outside of the parameters of this universe namely a creator, can infact create energy. However the laws inside the closed system universe, indicate that it can not be created. Its form can merely be modified, at a loss. Leading to eventual heat death.
2. Spontanious Generation. This has been disproven over and over again. Something does not come from nothing...
This has been the first installment, of an off the top list... To reply to me saying how could I beleive this, evolution is true... does not do anyone a favour. Try and explain certain things, not using the assumption that evolution in general is true.

I'm not arguing micro or macro, simply boiling down what Evolution actually means.

As for your arguement about there not being enough time for mutations and other factors. If you took Biology, you know that mutations are instant, aka it was born with it. This does not require time.

As for time...the time is dictated by what you believe. How do you know how long it takes a species to adapt? This is inherent on the lifespan of this species. For instance, take the moth example given previously in this post. Most white moths in London disappeared due to the fact that their environment was gray. The net result, gray moths flourished. This was proven and you can research this yourself. Do not give me examples from 1974 that prove one small point wrong. Lots of scientists have been proven wrong as time goes on. That is why scientists do studies and experiments, to find truth. If a theory cannot be proven wrong, it becomes fact.

Evolution is not a theory because it has been proven. So when you argue about time and Biology, try doing research. I've taken several Biology courses in college and read extensively on the subject. I think I have a very good grasp on how nature functions. Survival of the fittest. Just turn on the Discovery Channel and see how nature really works.

I suggest everyone here do a little reading on the subject. Learn about genetics, dominant and recessive genes. I am not on here to teach, only to show others that an entirely different world exists that they have yet to learn about. What I argue about can actually be proven with real data and can be reproduced.

There are millions of pages of studies and surveys that show how organisms do in fact, change their characteristics over time to better their chance at survival, and of course, increase their chances at reproduction, hence passing those important genes on to their offspring.

I will not argue religion as religion deals with supernatural entities and is based on faith. You cannot argue ones faith, so I will not. That is the point of faith, knowing something is true without hard proof.

ASSVT... I can see from your possition, and view point, that yes it seems like over kill. But, with a correct understanding of God, the judeo-christian God, the God of the Bible, we see that he is not a trial and error God. A God that is omniscient can not commit an error. He can't fumble the ball...
I am afraid that somehow we are just not comunicating. Well, I am glad however that we are elucidating responses from the masses.. grin!!

A few more questions about the arc.
1.How did the predators survive after they got off the arc? ( If there was only one pair of everything then they would have ran out of food real quick.)
2.What about the animals with special dietary requirements? ( Some animals only eat one type of plant, how did they get enough plants for them, and how did they keep them fresh.)
3.How did the human population rebound so quickly?
4.How did 8 people care for anywhere between 8000-20000 animals?
5. How did the arc stand up to the worldwide tsunami's that would be created by the theory of plate subduction?
6.How did all the plants survive? (Most plants won't live underwater, and some plants seeds wouldn't stay fertile through the trip, not to mention that all the fertile ground would have been washed away by the flood.)
7.Why do ancient redwoods with ages up to 10,000 years old so no ill effects in there growth rings?

Greatone.. the only problem with your math is that you are using one assumption.. that current rates of tectonic shift are infact constant, and have been that way since.. all the way back to whatever date you date this pangea...

ancient red woods... never heard of a 10000 year old tree. (Doesn't mean it doesn't exists).
However the date has to be wrong. How do you get a tree like that. cut it, count the rings...
I am mildly skeptical of that

Here is another one for you.
8.Scientist can accurately tell how much calcium biuld up coral reefs gain on a daily and yearly basis, with some reefs such as the great barrier reef in Australia being the millions of years old. I ask why did it not get wiped out during the flood? As coral need to be in relatively shallow water with access to sunlight. If the flood happened the silt and depth of the water would have killed the coral. Not to mention when the waters went back down they would have destroyed whatever might have been left of the coral.

Perhaps there are some topics that should not be pursued at great lengths.

We are human and fallible...so is our reasoning and logic.

That said, let's focus our energy to pray for our Allied forces overseas fighting amidst the haunting glow of the lights that mark the death spot of the World Trade Centre.

My .02

Well the way I look at it if you have to send your son to be sacrificed to try and prove your exsistance and teach everyone a lesson, you had to have gone wrong somewhere. Especially if you knew before everything was made that that was the way it was going to go down. Not trying to be a d!ck. Good discussion keep it up.

Taxed2Death, I knew someone would mention that the movement of tectonic plates doesn't necessarily have to be constant. However, if you increase the movement of the plates to the amount needed to put all the continents back into one piece, in 4-6000 years....wouldn't you agree the earth would have been a very chaotic place? IE: Very many earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, etc? I'm sure they moved faster in the early days of the world, while it was hotter/still cooling down...but unless it was an astronomical amount the time frame of 4-6000 years is pretty hard to swallow. While not a 100% accurate way to measure the age of the earth, it still gives a pretty good rough estimate.