Creation vs Evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Bilbo when you call yourself a creationist does that mean a complete literal interpretation of Genisis and the biblical age of the world?

---

Hey vanchilds,

Actually I do and I came about that belief only through an exhaustive sift through literally hundreds of books and documents.

I believe the present geological strata and thus the earth history has to be interperated in the light of a world wide cataclysmic flood. The evidence for such an event is everywhere, the evolutionists themselves identify it but their philosophical adherance to a millions of years lifespan of the earth forces them to evaluate that evidence differently.

Thus whereas I see evidence for one absolutely catastrophic even that shaped the earth as we see it, an evolutionist sees several such events.

It is interesting that evolutionists also agree in a mass extinction. The worst one they call the PT or Permian-Triassic extinction where they believe 97% of all life on earth was wiped out! Kind of similar to the Noahic Flood event in terms of devestation.

The bible says all of mankind is descended from a single woman Eve, science has been forced to reluctantly agree, mitochondrial DND tracing back to a single female, although again their evolutionary interperatation puts her at around 1 -4 million years ago.

The bible says Adam was made of the dust of the earth, a statement now known to be chemically and biologically true.

As regards to the post flood world do you realise the evolutionary community has yet to properly explain the reason for the ice age? I won't bore you now with the mechanics of it but basically the best model to predict how a world wide ice age could have come into being is for there to have been a world wide flood.

Also civilisations only go back some 6000 or so years, to roughly just after the time the bible says 8 people got off an ark. Cvilisations began in the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia and slowly spread out. The bible again says that this was the location that man began to rebuild cities.

Another interesting event occured here and that is the building of the tower of Babel. It is said in the bible that God then confounded the people changing their languages so they no longer understood one another forcing them to disperse over the world. This would explain why other civilisations sprung up around the world shortly after this time.

Interestingly after the flood Noah was ordered by God to sacrifice a number of animals as an atonement. This ritual has been carried on by every ancient civilisation. Wherever a civilisation occurs, even in the Americas archaeologists have found that a system of ritual sacrifce had been practiced.

This world wide early religious ritual is incredibely hard to explain as how and why did all these civilisations, completely unrelated and unaware of each other all introduce a sacrificial rite? It's very difficult to come up with a theory that does not involve some sort of shared cultural heritage. The bible is the only ancient source that describe the reason for the institution of sacrifice.

Also interestingly if the flood really was a global event and everybody who is alive on earth now is descended from people who got off the ark you would expect people around the world to have a memory of it right? Well it may suprise you but virtually every ancient culture from the Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Europeans even the Australian aboriginees and native American Indians have or had a flood story, where God or the Gods punished mankind by flooding the earth. Many cultures unrelated to the bible even have the story of a man building a boat and surviving, exactly what you would expect if it actually occured.

Furthermore the measurments of the boat are given precisely in the bible. The boat's length, width and height are all contained in the bible and many models have been built.

It is a fact that in countless tests this boat has been impossible to tip over even under the harshest simulated waves. It has been noted by expert boat builders that the sizes given in the bible are exactly the right dimensions for a boat to be able to survive a raging tempest. That in itself is really worth looking up as it is unbeliveable how a few of ancient illiterates could have come up with the exact dimensions!

These are a just a few reasons why I do believe the biblical model, There are many many more but my fingers are hurting from all this typing and I need a rest, lol.

But I do seriously urge people to look into this stuff. There is no subject more fascinating than our own origins after all :)

Let me just add here that we should all be respectful of other people's views.

Lets not be abusive or make derogotory remarks about one another.

The subject of our origins is the most controversial and deeply personal question of all.

Lets try and keep this thread respectful and also to share ideas and put forward pieces of evidence.

So far I have not seen anybody put forward evidence to support evolution other than to state that is is obvious and the evidence is everywhere. But where? If it's everywehre then somebody please post some of it on here! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrokai

Words of wisdom:
"Don't let your mind be controlled by ideas you can't find out by yourself."

Study Biology, DNA, genetics, study changes in traits, <---- all of which supports Evolution.

---

Given the copious amounts of text I have written over the past few posts how can you possibly accuse me letting my mind be controlled?

I can assure you that I have researched this topic as exhaustively as anyone who is likely to read this board.

Whether my views are right or wrong they are absolutely not borne out of ignorance.

I have given you probably around 50 reasons now why I believe creationism to be true and you have not addressed a single one, nor have you presented any information to challenge my views.

You cannot win an argument by merely telling someone you are right. Then when confronted with more evidence to contradict your belief just retort to insults and call your opponent stupid!

That is not the scientific method my friend, debate! It's all about reading your opponents arguments, then presenting clear and rational arguments as to why you believe your opponents statements to be untrue, then to put forth your own.

I am operating entirely according to scientific method, you I am afraid are not ;)

Bilbo when I referenced that man is bigger stronger faster, more stamina, lives longer, lives in all environments etc. No to mention the social and mental evolution to move from a hunter gatherer society to a agricultural...serf system...capitalism etc. Plus a refining of economic(barter to banking), Religious(poly->monotheistic), Language systems etc etc. You spoke of ancient man have denser bones, possibly being bigger and living much longer(i didn't feel like finding and quoting the post call me lazy). Lets just work from the last 4000 years. Well does this not suggest a gradual evolution of man (albeit not on a genetic level)? I've just always felt there was much more to Darwins theory than the monkey to man aspect. That part just happens to be the sexiest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Bilbo when I referenced that man is bigger stronger faster, more stamina, lives longer, lives in all environments etc. No to mention the social and mental evolution to move from a hunter gatherer society to a agricultural...serf system...capitalism etc. Plus a refining of economic(barter to banking), Religious(poly->monotheistic), Language systems etc etc. You spoke of ancient man have denser bones, possibly being bigger and living much longer(i didn't feel like finding and quoting the post call me lazy). Lets just work from the last 4000 years. Well does this not suggest a gradual evolution of man (albeit not on a genetic level)? I've just always felt there was much more to Darwins theory than the monkey to man aspect. That part just happens to be the sexiest.

---

The neandertals had denser bones and a higher cranial capacity to ourselves, meaning they were more athletic and more intelligent.

However not all ancient humans display this.

The fact is that lifespan, size, health etc are entirely determined by enviromental factors and have nothing to do with evolution. In our current western world we enjoy an extremely hige standard of living, having a diet rich in all available nutrients, good living conditions, sanitation, advanced medical care etc.

Now go and visit some pygmy tribe in the middle of the Amazon and you'll see things are completely different. They are not nearly so strong, large and healthy, nor enjoy the same lifespan! It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

Regarding social and philosophical evolution it is true we have come a long way since our humble beginnings and our knowledge has vastly improved but you have to examine why and how.

It is because we are intelligent beings, endowed with consciousness and able to reason and design. All of our improvements have come about precisely because intelligent minds have contemplated on such things and then taken action to improve them.

This again supports a creationist view of intelligent design in the universe but evolutionists do not believe that there is any intelligence or personality at work in nature.

Let me ask you this? could mankind have developed different languages, invent things and become more advanced in every possible way without an intelligent mind, planning, design and purpose?

I think you will agree the answer is no, we merely have to look at the animal kingdom to see that.

Therfore it is an absurdity to demonstrate how random chance and mutation can create similar patterns to what we can achieve using our collective intelligence and design, and then to just remove the intelligence and design factors.

Humans can achieve great things precisely and soley through our intelligence, to suggest nature achieves the same thing without intelligence, a plan or a goal is plain ridiculous.

You may find this site interesting reading. It gives a comprehensive list of reasons why evolution cannot work.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

I've copied and pasted the first page but if you visit the site you can click each problem with evolution and get it explained in detail.





Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution
by Doug LaPointe
Calvary Academy
East County Line Road
Lakewood, NJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Evolution Bias | References
Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
Bias Towards Evolution
Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred. (And other final considerations.)
Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.
Last revised: Dec 29, 1995

Go to Creation Science home page

I don't know man, take a good look at this picture and try and argue evaluation :P

I think he accounts for all the Bigfoot sightings :P wonder if he has family in Washington State and Oklahoma?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

I think he accounts for all the Bigfoot sightings :P wonder if he has family in Washington State and Oklahoma?

---

Yup it must be a great tragedy for evolutionists that their best possible example of a missing link is actually living today and looks more apelike than any of their ape men :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Bilbo when I referenced that man is bigger stronger faster, more stamina, lives longer, lives in all environments etc. No to mention the social and mental evolution to move from a hunter gatherer society to a agricultural...serf system...capitalism etc. Plus a refining of economic(barter to banking), Religious(poly->monotheistic), Language systems etc etc. You spoke of ancient man have denser bones, possibly being bigger and living much longer(i didn't feel like finding and quoting the post call me lazy). Lets just work from the last 4000 years. Well does this not suggest a gradual evolution of man (albeit not on a genetic level)? I've just always felt there was much more to Darwins theory than the monkey to man aspect. That part just happens to be the sexiest.

---

Ok, lets really examine this. bigger, stronger, faster- the Bible says man used to live 900+ years. We have fossilized evidence of plants animals and yes even people that were much bigger than today. There isn't a dispute about "prehistoric" life being bigger, stronger than we are today. That fact alone is inconsistent with the evolution theory. We would actually be getting smaller, plants, animals and people.

Scientifically we only know what 5-15% of what the brain does. It has been said that we only utilize 10% of our brain capacity on average. Did we start out at 100% or 0% to get to where we are today? I think it's harder to prove less. There are some very impressive ancient buildings that we can't produce today with our technology. Pyramid, stonehenge, easter island statues, etc.

Socially we have very full prisons, jerry springer, divorce, teen suicides, need any more???

Economic- do you really understand fractional reserve banking? And you think it's a good thing. Our country is so far in debt that if they sold everything owned in the country it wouldn't pay it off.

Language- you think english is more expressive than other older languages? Latin, greek, hebrew all of which are much older than english are much more complicated than our watered down language.

And based upon observable laws and characteristics now, evolution just doesn't make sense....
experiment
print off a copy of this post and take it to a copier. make a copy, then make a copy of the copy, and do this numerous times. Does each "generation" of copies get better or worse?

I'm still waiting for someone to present a case for creationism.

Actually english is more expressive simply because it contains more words, it has absorbed from many cultures rather than isolating itself.

I'd also like to know what site bilbo is ripping all this nonsense from.

I'll tackle one of those dodgy carvings for you that you presented as evidence ::** You are seeing what you want to see to suit you're thinking. Anyone seen a newt? you know those pre-historic lizard looking types with a tale and a ridged back..................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Bilbo when I referenced that man is bigger stronger faster, more stamina, lives longer, lives in all environments etc. No to mention the social and mental evolution to move from a hunter gatherer society to a agricultural...serf system...capitalism etc. Plus a refining of economic(barter to banking), Religious(poly->monotheistic), Language systems etc etc. You spoke of ancient man have denser bones, possibly being bigger and living much longer(i didn't feel like finding and quoting the post call me lazy). Lets just work from the last 4000 years. Well does this not suggest a gradual evolution of man (albeit not on a genetic level)? I've just always felt there was much more to Darwins theory than the monkey to man aspect. That part just happens to be the sexiest.

---

Ok, lets really examine this. bigger, stronger, faster- the Bible says man used to live 900+ years. We have fossilized evidence of plants animals and yes even people that were much bigger than today. There isn't a dispute about "prehistoric" life being bigger, stronger than we are today. That fact alone is inconsistent with the evolution theory. We would actually be getting smaller, plants, animals and people.

Scientifically we only know what 5-15% of what the brain does. It has been said that we only utilize 10% of our brain capacity on average. Did we start out at 100% or 0% to get to where we are today? I think it's harder to prove less. There are some very impressive ancient buildings that we can't produce today with our technology. Pyramid, stonehenge, easter island statues, etc.

Socially we have very full prisons, jerry springer, divorce, teen suicides, need any more???

Economic- do you really understand fractional reserve banking? And you think it's a good thing. Our country is so far in debt that if they sold everything owned in the country it wouldn't pay it off.

Language- you think english is more expressive than other older languages? Latin, greek, hebrew all of which are much older than english are much more complicated than our watered down language.

And based upon observable laws and characteristics now, evolution just doesn't make sense....
experiment
print off a copy of this post and take it to a copier. make a copy, then make a copy of the copy, and do this numerous times. Does each "generation" of copies get better or worse?

---

For starters lets not use the Bible as a credible source, b/c it isn't. If we have fossilized remains of humans who were bigger on average than man is today maybe this is indicative of a necessary change to our size at the very least it show a noticeable change over the years. But if you read my post you would have seen that I wasn't talking about prehistoric man only over the last 4000 years. What makes you think that we couldn't build the pyramids/stonehenge/easter island statues? Thats just absurd. Have you ever worked on a construction site? Your argument about social degradation is a little misinformed. Bone up on your history a little bit more. We live in a much better world than just a hundred years ago but as humans we have equal capacity for evil as good, and with instant worldwide media you get to see every missdeed from around the globe instantly. Full jails, jerry springer, and teen suicide pale in comparison to the daily violence and barbaric lifestyles of our not to distant forefathers. I don't pretend to be an expert on world economic models, but are you really suggesting that a planet goverened by barter and trade would be better than our current global economy? Try trading some fresh deer pelts for your next car. I never said anything about english in my previous post so lets not be so specific. Are you really going to suggest that prehistoric man's speach communication hasn't been refined at all?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
e‧volve  /ɪˈvɒlv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-volv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, e‧volved, e‧volv‧ing.

–verb (used with object) 1. to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.

I gotta be honest it seems what I described sounds alot like "to develop gradually". I agree that many of the changes are due to environmental surroundings, but why else would they. Something had to motivate change or we'd still be living in caves with hair down to our ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

I'm still waiting for someone to present a case for creationism.

Actually english is more expressive simply because it contains more words, it has absorbed from many cultures rather than isolating itself.

I'd also like to know what site bilbo is ripping all this nonsense from.

I'll tackle one of those dodgy carvings for you that you presented as evidence ::** You are seeing what you want to see to suit you're thinking. Anyone seen a newt? you know those pre-historic lizard looking types with a tale and a ridged back..................

---

Hey Missy, unfortunately I don't think you would ever be convinced no matter what evidence was put before you. You already reject the idea of a creator so cannot see the evidence before you without looking at it through evolutionary eyes.

However once again I will recite the examples.

Firstly the fossil record is supportive of creation NOT evolution. There is not a shred of evidence from the fossil record to show that a single species of life of any type has evolved. If evolution were true there would be coutnless examples.

I will quote from evolutionists themselves to prove this;

We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not."

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."Arthur Keith ([22], p.22)

All of the above comments were made by EVOLUTIONISTS!

You see the honest evolutionists out there readily admit that the 'evidence' that they have from the fossil record is not great and has been specifically bent and distorted to fit their world view.

Secondly all of known biology shows that life cannot arise from non life. It is biologically impossible. Again don't take my word for it, look it up, nobody knows how life started, it cannot be replicated, man has been unable to create life in countless experiments over the past 150 years.

Now some scientists are seriously considering the idea of life arriving from outer space even going so far as to say aliens created us!

There is no point me saying anything further as you don't read my posts anyway but over the previous pages I have provided countless evidence to show why evolution is not possible, is not observed now, has never been observed in the past, and has left no trace of itself in the fossil record.

The evidence against evolution is damning which is why more and more in America today creationism is being taught in schools.

I firmly believe that within the next 20 years evolutionists will have been forced to concede that some dinosaurs lived as recently as a few thousand years ago, within 50 years they will probably have completely redated all of the major life stages on earth, the evidence they now use for evolution will all have been thrown out and they will touting new fossil finds as evidence instead.

It will probably take another 50 - 100 years before evolution as a theory has been completely overtaken by some other equally barmy notion amongst scientists.

The funny thing is that when they tell you that actually the dinosaurs only died out 10 million years ago and some of them lived as recent as 10 thousand years ago you will just accept that without even thinking about it for a second.

Your belief in evolution is based soley and 100% on indoctrination, you believe it because they tell you to believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

I'm still waiting for someone to present a case for creationism.

Actually english is more expressive simply because it contains more words, it has absorbed from many cultures rather than isolating itself.

I'd also like to know what site bilbo is ripping all this nonsense from.

I'll tackle one of those dodgy carvings for you that you presented as evidence ::** You are seeing what you want to see to suit you're thinking. Anyone seen a newt? you know those pre-historic lizard looking types with a tale and a ridged back..................

---

Yup so a stegasuarus drawn on a temple in Angkor Wat was actually a newt? ???

I think you are correct, you definitely see what you want to see.

By the way they also drew pictures of other animals, including newts! I'll get you a picture so you can see for yourself.

http://khmer.cc/community/t.c?b=1&t=2667

You can clearly identify the other animals, and look there is a lizard there too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

I'm still waiting for someone to present a case for creationism.

Actually english is more expressive simply because it contains more words, it has absorbed from many cultures rather than isolating itself.

I'd also like to know what site bilbo is ripping all this nonsense from.

I'll tackle one of those dodgy carvings for you that you presented as evidence ::** You are seeing what you want to see to suit you're thinking. Anyone seen a newt? you know those pre-historic lizard looking types with a tale and a ridged back..................

---

Hey Missy, unfortunately I don't think you would ever be convinced no matter what evidence was put before you. You already reject the idea of a creator so cannot see the evidence before you without looking at it through evolutionary eyes.

However once again I will recite the examples.

Firstly the fossil record is supportive of creation NOT evolution. There is not a shred of evidence from the fossil record to show that a single species of life of any type has evolved. If evolution were true there would be coutnless examples.

I will quote from evolutionists themselves to prove this;

We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not."

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."Arthur Keith ([22], p.22)

All of the above comments were made by EVOLUTIONISTS!

You see the honest evolutionists out there readily admit that the 'evidence' that they have from the fossil record is not great and has been specifically bent and distorted to fit their world view.

Secondly all of known biology shows that life cannot arise from non life. It is biologically impossible. Again don't take my word for it, look it up, nobody knows how life started, it cannot be replicated, man has been unable to create life in countless experiments over the past 150 years.

Now some scientists are seriously considering the idea of life arriving from outer space even going so far as to say aliens created us!

There is no point me saying anything further as you don't read my posts anyway but over the previous pages I have provided countless evidence to show why evolution is not possible, is not observed now, has never been observed in the past, and has left no trace of itself in the fossil record.

The evidence against evolution is damning which is why more and more in America today creationism is being taught in schools.

I firmly believe that within the next 20 years evolutionists will have been forced to concede that some dinosaurs lived as recently as a few thousand years ago, within 50 years they will probably have completely redated all of the major life stages on earth, the evidence they now use for evolution will all have been thrown out and they will touting new fossil finds as evidence instead.

It will probably take another 50 - 100 years before evolution as a theory has been completely overtaken by some other equally barmy notion amongst scientists.

The funny thing is that when they tell you that actually the dinosaurs only died out 10 million years ago and some of them lived as recent as 10 thousand years ago you will just accept that without even thinking about it for a second.

Your belief in evolution is based soley and 100% on indoctrination, you believe it because they tell you to believe it.

---

So what you trying to say?