Creation vs Evolution

[Fenster]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

This is outside my realm of knowledge. I am only interested in what science and actual physical evidence can teach us about our universe.

I find it stange that you feel somehow that the evidence for evolutionary theory being true would be bolstered by a claim made in an ancient book regarding a man buildig a boat. If this troubles you, then you are clearly looking to accept evolution on philosophical grounds rather than based on empirical evidence.

For information on the ark visit here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

To me Noahs ark will always be a matter for personal faith, although I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence to support a global flood.

If you take a literal interpretation of the bible you cant pick and choose the bits that suit you. Thats all.

Actually I completely agree with you. I don't claim to not believe in evolution based on any religious belief I'm not religious at all although I personally do believe in a creator.

I don't go to church, I never pray and don't live a christian life.

alright Bilbo CC back.

I'm not an expert in evolution, so can't, and wouldn't dream of debating FOR it.

[Fenster]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

Noah's ark-yes
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes

It doesn't need a separate thread

If you want to explain how this could of happened

i'm all ears

[Kev]

this seems to a matter of verbage....to me the progress and advancement that you speak of equal evolving as a species. Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs that you can't say that man as a species evolves without contradicting your personal belief that he didn't evolve from another species? Haven't you been espousing that "we" should open our minds and not just take science at face value? You've already stated that prehistoric man and present humans have some basic differences. You make good points bilbo and you obviously have done your homework, but you seem to be contradicting yourself at times and using a little circular reasoning.

Ok let me clarify this.

Technological advancement and an increase in human learning is NOT evolution.

Evolution is the belief that one organism can undergo transformation within its DNA that adds to new information being added to the DNA and then the organism becoming a new species.

Look man you don't get to pick the definition to suit your argument....You've told people to read your posts earlier in the thread well Id tell you to do the same of me. I openly stated that I wasn't refering to genetic changes over time nor defending a monkey to man evolutionary chain. I was only stating that to say man hasn't evolved as a species over time is ignoring history. I don't really see you arguing the details with me just verbage. Whats wrong Bilbo will you lose you creationist union card if you so much as concede that man has evolved as a species just not genetically?

I think we are disagreeing over our definition of evolution here rather than over whether man has improved or not over time.

Let me quote from a dictionary the full definitions of evoltuion...


ev·o·lu·tion (ĕv'ə-lū'shən, ē'və-) pronunciation
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

[Latin ēvolūtiō, ēvolūtiōn-, from ēvolūtus, past participle of ēvolvere,


Looking a the definitions you are referring to definiton 2,

The process of developing, gradual development,

wheras I am talking about defintion 3

Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

So in answer to your question yes I completely agree with you regarding man's evolution according to definiton 2 but I am talking about evidence for and against definition 3 which is something entirely different.

Hope that makes sense. The arguments for man's evolution according to definition 2 cannot be used as evidence for evolution according to definiton 3 and vice versa, they are concerned with two seperate things.

To illustrate consider the evolution of the motor car. It is obviously clear that as mankind's knowledge and experience has improved in relation to the motor car so we have been able to produce better and more advanced cars.

This is evolution according to definiton 2.

However it is not evolution according to definiton 3. The cars did not actually evolve from each other, rather they were each independent seperate acts of creation that can be arranged to form an evolutionary chart beginning with earliest cars and progressing to more advanced types.

The evolutionary chart is merely a chart however and does not suggest that these cars evolved from each other, they were actually independent acts of creation as I said above.

So it's not evidence for evolution according to definiton 3.

Hope that makes sense, have a

There is no need for us to get aggressive with each other we are just having an interesting dialouge and exchange of ideas.

[luvfightgame]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

Noah's ark-yes
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes

It doesn't need a seperate thread

If you want to explain how this could of happened

i'm all ears

Ok,

It took approximately 120 years to build the ark.

It didn't require fish, insects, nor every variety of species. It only required 1 "kind" therefore a single dog breed would suffice. Same for each other "kind".

He took baby dinosaurs.

[Kev]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

Noah's ark-yes
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes

It doesn't need a seperate thread

If you want to explain how this could of happened

i'm all ears

Hey Fenster as I said earlier to demonstrate the specifics of the Noah Flood story is impossible as obviously events such as all the animals coming to Noah, Noah receiving a warning from God and being told to build an ark, Noah's wooden ark with all the animals on board surviving a worldwide cataclysmic flood so devastaing it destroyed every other human and land animal not on board the ark the whole world over are quite blatently things that could only happen if you believe in miracles and a miracoulus God.

If you don't no amount of discussion will convince you otherwise.

Personally my own investigations into the issue were all about trying to disprove the bible's account.

I started firstly by examining the geanealogies in the bible regarding people before the flood, their births and deaths. The bible tells us all of Noah's ancestors and how long they lived.

I figured if I added them all up I could see if anybody lived after the flood thus proving a contradiction. What I found amazed me. Everyone of Noahs descendents although living for hundreds of years died before the flood year.

One person Methuselah the oldest living human in history according to the bible lived to be 900 and something. He died in the year of the flood.

I looked up the meaning of his name. In Hebrew it literally mean's 'When he is dead, judgement will come'.

This isn't mentioned in the bible at all, that was just my own investigation and I discovery of the first of many hidden signs in the bible.

Next I examined the biblical account of the flood. It lasted for 150 days, it wasnt caused merely by rainfall as people seem to believe but according to the bible by the undersea foundations of the earth breaking apart.

Geologically this is actually what we observe. Massive tectonic shifts, the seperation of the continents, seabeds wrenching forth to become the highest mountains. The bible gets it right.

Thirdly I examined what the bible says about the ark itself. The dimensions of the ark are in the bible and amazingly they are exactly correct an amazing feat of guesswork for early goatherders and shepeards to guess at.

The size of the ark was as follows, 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. If it really existed this would make it the largest ancient vessal in existence.

What is remarkable however is that the dimensions of the ark were as I said above exactly the correct design for an boat designed to stay afloat. Interestingly, the British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering.

There are other ancient accounts of a golbal flood, in fact every single ancient culture has a flood story, but interestingly those that give the dimensions of the ark get it hopelessy wrong.

The sumerians described the ark as being cube shaped which obviously would not work, it was get tossed over repeatedly and sunk.

The biblical ark would have been virtually impossible to tip over, a fact attested to by the hundreds of replica's that have been built and then put into a virtual wave generating machine.

Nobody has been able to get the boat to upturn, again google this for yourself.

As for evidence for a global flood the fossil record is proof positive. The only way fossils can be formed is if a creature or plant is engulfed by water, sediments lain over it quickly and compacted. If a global flood actually happened you would ecpect to find billions of fossils, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth, that is precisely what you find.

Incidently if you google fossils, try and find a fossil that evolutionists don't think was created by a flooding of water, thats how fossils are made

Furthermore the ice age has long been a problem for evololutionists who thus far have no accepted explanation, but rather a dozen different thoeries, each one contradicting the others.

A global flood actually would explain how the ice age came to be. Again google if you are interested.

Also population statistics support the fact that man has only lived on earth for a few thousand years, exactly the same time frame for 8 people stepping off an ark.

Evolutionists believe anatomically modern humans exactly like us lived upto 250,000 years ago but left no trace of their existence or preserved no records until they decided to build civilisations in the exact same spot the bible says they did around 6000 years ago.

There is numerous evidence from geography, archaeology, oral tradition, the fossil record etc to demonstrate the world once suffered a catastrophic global flood.

Although Noah's ark will remain a matter of personal faith, evidence for a global flood which some might say would be proof enough is is demonstrated abundantly.

[Munkymagic]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

Noah's ark-yes
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes

It doesn't need a seperate thread

If you want to explain how this could of happened

i'm all ears

Hey Fenster as I said earlier to demonstrate the specifics of the Noah Flood story is impossible as obviously events such as all the animals coming to Noah, Noah receiving a warning from God and being told to build an ark, Noah's wooden ark with all the animals on board surviving a worldwide cataclysmic flood so devastaing it destroyed every other human and land animal not on board the ark the whole world over are quite blatently things that could only happen if you believe in miracles and a miracoulus God.

If you don't no amount of discussion will convince you otherwise.

Personally my own investigations into the issue were all about trying to disprove the bible's account.

I started firstly by examining the geanealogies in the bible regarding people before the flood, their births and deaths. The bible tells us all of Noah's ancestors and how long they lived.

I figured if I added them all up I could see if anybody lived after the flood thus proving a contradiction. What I found amazed me. Everyone of Noahs descendents although living for hundreds of years died before the flood year.

One person Methuselah the oldest living human in history according to the bible lived to be 900 and something. He died in the year of the flood.

I looked up the meaning of his name. In Hebrew it literally mean's 'When he is dead, judgement will come'.

This isn't mentioned in the bible at all, that was just my own investigation and I discovery of the first of many hidden signs in the bible.

Next I examined the biblical account of the flood. It lasted for 150 days, it wasnt caused merely by rainfall as people seem to believe but according to the bible by the undersea foundations of the earth breaking apart.

Geologically this is actually what we observe. Massive tectonic shifts, the seperation of the continents, seabeds wrenching forth to become the highest mountains. The bible gets it right.

Thirdly I examined what the bible says about the ark itself. The dimensions of the ark are in the bible and amazingly they are exactly correct an amazing feat of guesswork for early goatherders and shepeards to guess at.

The size of the ark was as follows, 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. If it really existed this would make it the largest ancient vessal in existence.

What is remarkable however is that the dimensions of the ark were as I said above exactly the correct design for an boat designed to stay afloat. Interestingly, the British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering.

There are other ancient accounts of a golbal flood, in fact every single ancient culture has a flood story, but interestingly those that give the dimensions of the ark get it hopelessy wrong.

The sumerians described the ark as being cube shaped which obviously would not work, it was get tossed over repeatedly and sunk.

The biblical ark would have been virtually impossible to tip over, a fact attested to by the hundreds of replica's that have been built and then put into a virtual wave generating machine.

Nobody has been able to get the boat to upturn, again google this for yourself.

As for evidence for a global flood the fossil record is proof positive. The only way fossils can be formed is if a creature or plant is engulfed by water, sediments lain over it quickly and compacted. If a global flood actually happened you would ecpect to find billions of fossils, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth, that is precisely what you find.

Incidently if you google fossils, try and find a fossil that evolutionists don't think was created by a flooding of water, thats how fossils are made

Furthermore the ice age has long been a problem for evololutionists who thus far have no accepted explanation, but rather a dozen different thoeries, each one contradicting the others.

A global flood actually would explain how the ice age came to be. Again google if you are interested.

Also population statistics support the fact that man has only lived on earth for a few thousand years, exactly the same time frame for 8 people stepping off an ark.

Evolutionists believe anatomically modern humans exactly like us lived upto 250,000 years ago but left no trace of their existence or preserved no records until they decided to build civilisations in the exact same spot the bible says they did around 6000 years ago.

There is numerous evidence from geography, archaeology, oral tradition, the fossil record etc to demonstrate the world once suffered a catastrophic global flood.

Although Noah's ark will remain a matter of personal faith, evidence for a global flood which some might say would be proof enough is is demonstrated abundantly.

So what you sayin?

[Kev]

That absurd as it may sound to our modern minds, that there is overwhelming support from the fossil record, catastrophic geology, archaeology etc that an actual worldwide global flood did happen.

As for Noah building an ark, well that is a matter for personal faith, however where the biblica account could have fallen apart, for example getting the dimensions of the ark wrong, getting the cause of a worldwide flood wrong and getting the timscale of such an event wrong amazingly the bible is correct on all those matters.

Now I'm not saying it must be true, but intrinsically the story holds together.

If the size of the ark, the shape of the ark etc were wrong it could easily be proved that it couldnt have happened, but as I have said modern tests have shown by rebuilding replica's of the ark on a much smaller size scale that it's practically impossible to upturn or sink the damn thing.

That alone would be an impressive fact for some primitve goatherder of 600 years before Christ to get right.

When you factor in that the bible says the flood was caused by the foundations of the earth breaking apart, rather than rainfall as other accounts say it is another remarkable accuracy. Rainfall alone couldnt flood the earth it would be impossible, only massive tectonic activity as the bible describes could.

Did it happen? That's for indiviuals to decide. It certainly cannot be proven.

Has science been able to prove that it couldn't have happened?


Suprisingly, no they can't.

[Lords Gym]

I thought this conversation would have ended with my pictorial proof of evaluation. the eye don't lie !

[Howlin Mad Missy]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html


yawn. Transitional fossils.

[Munkymagic]

I've been sad clicked!

SHOCK HORROR!

Thats out of order.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I've balanced it out with a CC.

[Munkymagic]

I've balanced it out with a CC.

Backatcha babe

[Fenster]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

Noah's ark-yes
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes

It doesn't need a seperate thread

If you want to explain how this could of happened

i'm all ears

Ok,

It took approximately 120 years to build the ark.

It didn't require fish, insects, nor every variety of species. It only required 1 "kind" therefore a single dog breed would suffice. Same for each other "kind".

He took baby dinosaurs.

Oh of course, "kinds" and little baby dinosaurs, it makes sense now...Kent Hovind fan?

To believe that the ark story actually happened, you must really NEED to believe, for some reason



By the way Bilbo

Ica stones - http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

[luvfightgame]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

Noah's ark-yes
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes

It doesn't need a seperate thread

If you want to explain how this could of happened

i'm all ears

Ok,

It took approximately 120 years to build the ark.

It didn't require fish, insects, nor every variety of species. It only required 1 "kind" therefore a single dog breed would suffice. Same for each other "kind".

He took baby dinosaurs.

Oh of course, "kinds" and little baby dinosaurs, it makes sense now...Kent Hovind fan?

To believe that the ark story actually happened, you must really NEED to believe, for some reason



By the way Bilbo

Ica stones - http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

Yup i'm a Hovind fan. I enjoyed watching him thoroughly embarass the "experts" he debated. As far as "need", to believe.... You will come to the same conclusion, you obviously want to believe that everything can happen by accident.

Books have authors, buildings have builders, expecting something more complex than a book to have happened by random chance is crazy. A lot crazier than believing a story about a boat and a bunch of animals. Besides you can't prove it DIDN'T happen, I can prove evolution DIDN'T happen.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I read a story where it mentioned unicorns, pixies, goblins, I even read one that had a flying horse in it. Now I can't prove they didn't exist so therefore they must have been real. Glad that's sorted out.