Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: Religion & School

Religion & School 3 years 1 month ago #95451

  • ken10wil
  • ken10wil's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • bossome
  • Posts: 186
  • Thank you received: 161
endershadow112 wrote:
Responses in bold. Also, I didn't address all the points because I'm not an expert and don't know about some of those things, but I tried to respond to most of them.tasha1507 wrote:
I noticed your new signature so I hope I can give you a look at some better arguments against evolution and for the Bible. I'm not an expert, like Rich and others, and this is mostly based on my own research. I had the chance to be able to study both the evolution and creation views of science during my school years, and I understand some don't have that opportunity. But there are plenty of resources for everyone to check out.

A great scientist I've always enjoyed watching is Prof. Walter Vieth and his Genesis Conflict series - Here. He was a professor of zoology and an evolutionist before he became an Adventist and creationist. It's amazing stuff and because he was an evolutionist, he's really great at his counterarguments against evolution. His site is amazingdiscoveries.org. Anyway, I've given it a go to reply to your post and it's pretty long. I've done my best to explain it in a way for younger kids to understand too :)

It's not really related to evolution, but I would like to point out that the website promotes geocentrism, which means that they believe the earth is at the center of the universe, which is a very unscientific opinion.

I went and did some more research, and I should have used the word "kind" instead of "species" as it is more accurate. Also natural selection would be a better phrase to use as both evolutionists and creationists agree with it. Natural selection is, of course, the natural process of the population of species adapting to the environment around it, based on the elimination of individuals who are almost similar, except they don't possess the traits to survive in that particular environment. Or in the case of domestic dogs, humans selecting the traits they want. Mircoevolution is basically the same thing.

Actually, "kind" is a worse choice, because it's not a scientific term. Also, kind doesn't really seem to have a concrete deifinition, so it's not really useful. Plus, it's often used as a way to get out of a tight spot in an argument by changing its meaning, for example identifying dogs as one "kind" and all birds also being identified as a "kind", which is a problem because those are very different categories.

This happens all the time, and can be seen around us. One of the key factors of evolution is the increase in information. But the result of nattual selection is an overall decrease in information in the population, and it uses info that was/is already present in its DNA involving genes turning on or turning off. Nothing new has been added to the DNA and no new information besides the genes it contains is passed on, unlike what evolution promotes.

Actually, new genetic material can be created. This happens with a simple gene duplication mutation, which then creates more gentic material that can be altered to produce more traits.

Your examples are very good examples of natural selection. One thing to note is that those birds are still birds, and the rabbits? Still rabbits. Yes, it's not a change over supposed "millions" of years, but there's still no major change towards becoming a completely different kind.

Yes, because that much evolution takes very long periods of time, and it's probably not something we're ever gonna be able to observe in our lifetimes. Arguing that is like saying that because you don't see a redwood sapling making a lot of progress, it must not be able to turn into a tree.

Now with macro... Would millions of years change one kind into another? Let's look at some "living" fossils and the ages evolutionists give them in the fossil record. The Nautilus is alive today and supposedly existed 500 million years ago. The horseshoe crab, 450 million years ago. Elephant sharks, 420 million years ago (almost 0 change in DNA). The hagfish, 350 million years ago. Coelacanths (the supposed "pre-walking" fish), 80 millions years ago and, true to being a fish, it still swims around the oceans and doesn't walk on dry land.

Evolution/natural selection occurs when there are selection pressures, or things that will only allow "the fittest" to survive. So it's not disproving of evolution that some species stayed the same. Also, the whole species doesn't necessarily evolve together. For example, one group of coelacanths could've migrated to a new area. Over time, this group evolves to walk on land, while the group they left remains the same. I don't know if this is how it happened, since I haven't researched the coelacanth, but it's an example of how it might've happened.

All of these creatures appear exactly as how they are found in the fossil record. Scientists have also found insects and plant life fossilised in amber and they appear exactly the same as those existing today. No change at all.

One difference in some of them? They were huge! A dragonfly wingspan was 3 feet! Evolution promotes small creatures to big, which that's rarely the case in fossils but that's another topic.

Evolution doesn't necessarily promote small creatures to big. Size will change based on whether it helps the organism survive. For example, a massive squirrel might be slower and too heavy to run across certain tree branches. In this case, a smaller squirrel would be better at surviving, and would survive longer to pass on its genes. In this case, natural selection/evolution would keep the squirrels the size which enables them to survive the best.

If "millions" of years are needed for a kind to change into another kind, then why haven't these creatures changed? Some say "Oh they didn't need to evolve, as they were already perfect." So not everything goes through evolution? Hmm, that's a big hole there in the theory.

I already addressed this point, but not everything will go through evolution, and there's a reason for it. Selection pressures cause species to evolve, meaning in the case where a creature is well suited to their environment, they will remain relatively the same.

The land mammal to whale transition fossils... When they've found "transition" whales in the fossil record, they are either exactly like our modern day whales, or it's one part of a fossil... that turns out to have nothing to do with whales or transitions in any way.
You may look at these links to have a read on these "transition" fossils.

answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fos...-of-whale-evolution/
creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Reptile to birds... It would require a lot of faith to even think it could be possible. Like I said, DNA has no capability to add new information, even gradually over time, to become a completely different kind and to be perfectly functional in every way. Reptile scales are used for protection unlike the perfectly aerodynamic feathers of a flying bird. Reptile bones are extremely dense compared to the lightweight bones of birds. Reptile limbs are totally different from bird wings and feet. There are countless other major differences that would have to be totally changed in order for a reptile to evolve into a bird. Again, the supposed feathered flying transition fossils found turn out to be complete dinos/lizards or complete birds, or another creature that is extinct.
A couple links on this below.

As previously stated, new genetic information can be added through a gene duplication mutation. Birds also don't need to directly transition to flying. Feather could've first developed for warmth. Flightless bird's wings could be useful for gliding short distances, and lighter bones would also be useful for gliding. Natural selection could favor individuals who are better at gliding, meaning they get smaller/lighter, and feathers become more aerodynamic. Eventually, gliding becomes short flight, and then becomes longer flights and the birds we know today.

Also, here's an actual source on the evolution of dinosaurs to birds: www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-d...nk-and-became-birds/


creation.com/living-dinosaurs-or-just-birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/...urs-turn-into-birds/

Even if it could have happened (if you want to disregard the Bible and listen to men), where are these complete "transition" fossils? How come we have complete fossils of perfectly formed creatures - land mammals, whales, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, etc - but no fossils that everyone can say, without any doubt, that they are truly transition fossils? Evolutionists say that they are yet to be found, after 150+ years of exploring all over the world. But since just about everything we see in nature supposedly went through evolution, why aren't transition fossils even more abundant than fully formed and perfect fossils?

Technically, all fossils of creatures that don't exist today could be considered transition fossils. Dinosaur fossils could be considered transition fossils of birds and crocodiles, and you could consider mammoths transition fossils of elephants. Also, all fossils of earlier versions of the horse could be considered transition fossils, as well as fossils of earlier whales. It seems like your being very picky on what you consider a transition fossil.

Evolutionists continually jump to conclusions based on a tooth/skull/partial fossil, only to be repeatedly proven wrong. One problem is that evolutionists base most of their guesses on the nature alive today. The problem is that fossils that have been found fit into over 50 phyla (next level below kingdom in science) but we have only 38 currently living on Earth. So we don't know all the species that have existed in the past to be able to correctly identify them. That is one of the mistakes evolutionists constantly make. They keep trying to fit fossils to modern nature to prove their theory right, instead of investigating the fossils to find out if they are something we don't have today and leaving it at that.

The fossil record isn't a linear "record" of Earth's history, starting from the beginning to now. There are massive chunks of "time" layers missing all over the place and there are major problems with calling it a historical record (normal sediments don't form fossils, erosion, trees "growing" through layers, etc.) Instead, it is more like an encyclopedia of everything that has lived on Earth, but not in time order, because they all existed at the same time. There is evidence in the rocks and fossils that support the existence of a worldwide catastrophic Flood, definitely the Biblical flood of Noah and his ark. (Fossilied jellyfish, trees with no bark and no roots, creatures buried while giving birth/eating, water sorted fossils, rapid water marks, etc.) You can find more evidence and explanations at the sites I've linked above and the link in my first post.

Fossils actually do appear only in "organized" layers, with the exception of trees who can remain standing while multiple layers form. Also, evidence of a flood does not necessarily indicate a worldwide flood. Local floods are a thing too. Also, if there was a worldwide flood of that scale, there would be a layer covering the whole world showing it, which there isn't. Also, I think fossils of dinosaurs eating would not be evidence of a flood, because if it was flooding these creatures would have time to stop what they're doing. They would have died drowning, and not be fossilized while eating. Giving birth is possible, but that just indicates a quick death, not necessarily a flood.

Just about every time they find something, the theory changes drastically. How can you trust a theory that is changing all over the place? Evolutionists say "Give us more time, then we'll have the answers." In 150+ years, they have only found more questions that shake their theory's core beliefs than proper answers. God never changes and the Bible never changes so the literal story of Creation never changes. Man's science is never above the Bible. Our lives and beliefs should be based on the Bible and the Bible only. Satan has invented evolution to corrupt the world, destory faith in the Bible, and to promote atheism and the new age religion (because that is what evolution leads to). The leading evolutionist are staunch atheists and hate Christians and the Bible. Why would any Christian want to support a theory so vile and which openly denies God?

The fact that the theory of evolution changes is more reason to believe it if you ask me. That means it accounts for all new evidence, and is the most accurate to what we know. Arguing that evolution shouldn't be trusted because it changes is like saying physics shouldn't be trusted because of the changes (discoveries) that have been made to it. Also, creationists are the only ones saying evolution is getting weakened, most scientists say that evidence for evolution is growing stronger.

Evolution is based on man's opinion of science, Creation is based on God's account in the Bible. Evolutionists base their science on a man made belief, Creationists base their science on the Bible. Evolution promotes no God/no law just follow your "animal instincts" and truth is relative, while Creation promotes God's love and His wonderful law.

And, the bible is written by man. It claims to be inspired by God, but how do you know that's true? This is circular reasoning. You could replace "bible" with Quran and "God" with Allah, and it would be just as valid an argument. (Not really valid) Also, evolution doesn't promote following your animal instincts, it just states that that's part of the reason we're here today.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The Quran also says this about non-Muslims, so what makes the bible's word superior to the Quran's?

Evolution can be considered a religion as one needs a lot of faith to fill in all these gaping holes (and many more) in their theory. On the other hand, there is solid evidence for the Bible, the flood, and a young universe. Sometimes it's the only thing people have known and they believe evolution is true because it's popular but that doesn't make it truth. Man is sinful and lies for his own benefit. The Bible is truth and never lies. Everyone in the end will have to decide to believe either man's word or God's word. And I pray we all make the right choice with our eternal destiny in mind.

Evolution is not a religion. Whether something is a religion is not determined by how much faith you need, and religions also have specific moral systems, which evolution doesn't. Again, you don't prove the bible is always true, the only proof offered is circular reasoning. There's also people who argue that the bible does lie and has internal contradictions, which would make the bible fallible.

Also, there is proof that the earth and universe is much older than young earth creationists claim. For example, how can we see stars that are millions of lightyears away if the earth is only a few thousand years old? There is also the issue that rocks are dated to be much older than would be possible in a young earth. There's two arguments I've heard against that, the main one is that the dating in inaccurate, though I find it to be a flimsy response. A common claim of the argument is that nuclear half-lives are not constant, which is ridiculous because they are constant, and the whole reason they're used for dating is because they're constant. (The other counter argument that the mass of the earth was there before God molded it into our earth, but then why would there be fossils inside them, before God even created animals?) As stated before, there's also little proof that the flood happened, which would have had to happen if the bible account was true.

Creation also leaves a gaping hole of what happened to the dinosaurs. People claim that they were destroyed in the flood, but God told noah to take two of every creature, which I'm sure would include dinosaurs. The other arguments I've heard is that dinosaurs were too dangerous, and God had to destroy them, or that dinosaurs were created by pre-flood people. But, not all dinosaurs are carnivorous, and why would God not let dinosaurs but still take creatures like rats, or preserve microorganisms which cause diseases like the black plague or smallpox? And if dinosaurs were created by pre-flood people, wouldn't that mean macroevolution is possible?
Spot-on. I'm a creationist myself, but denying the existence of evolution forces (Adventists specifically) to go into further delusions. Why do Dinosaurs exist? Ellen G. White said that the anti deluvians bred them. But wouldn't that make macro-evolution feasible? Well the anti-deluvians had super advanced technology they used to do it.Technology more advanced than what we have now? Yeah, the anti-deluvians were like super huge and way smarter than us, how do you think Noah built the ark. Well where is this technology? The flood washed it away. But we can find fossils right, if we can find bones that the flood washed away, shouldn't we be able to find this ancient advanced technology?...While on the subject, why can't we find fossils of these giant humans, real ones, not fake ones photoshopped in design contests[url=http://https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giant-skeleton-uncovered-saudi-arabia/]not fake ones photoshopped in design contests[/url].

At this point i'll give more credit to the people who's default response to any challenge to evolution-less creationism is "God did it", since God doing the impossible makes more sense than the impossible just happening.
video games are awesome, Politics is just making me sad at this point
favorite text:
12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:12
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: endershadow112

Religion & School 3 years 3 weeks ago #95528

  • Skite
  • Skite's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Science and LEGO Bricks. Oh and sleep.
  • Posts: 1233
  • Thank you received: 657
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.

Ok......I can't stand for this, I`m getting into this debate too

First of all Ender, I have noticed that in some posts your arguments are trying to discredit real Christian scientists, which I feel, is very unprofessional. I for one, recognize that we have many brilliant scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, and that's fine, we live in a free society and world where we can believe whatever we can. It saddens me that you don't wish to recognize the hundreds of amazing Christian scientists through the years, who have made phenomenal contributions to science and making the world a better place and much better understood. It's true that a good number believe in evolution, and others believe in a mix of evolution and creation, but there are also a good number of real Christian scientists who believe the Word of God and it's account of Creation. You treat these people as if they aren't qualified, and that their qualifications are just as non-existent in your mind as God is in an Atheist's mind.

So I urge you, to look at the links below and contemplate the hundreds of Christian scientists who deserve to be recognized as real scientists, and who have just the same right to believe in Creation as a scientific origin theory of life on earth as scientists who believe in evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians...ience_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science (I haven't read the whole article for this one, but the first few sections were fascinating to me)
relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreakin...pened-be-christians/
creation.com/creation-scientists
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists (There is a list here showing the names in different colors, with green meaning they were qualified, and red meaning they are not. I admit, not all creation scientists in the views of the rest of the scientific community are qualified, but I must say, I saw quite a good number of green in this list)
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

I'm just saddened how you use this argument again and again, that those who defend Creationism aren't scientists. Well what does that make you? what does it make the millions of other people who believe in evolution yet are not scientists? Why can you make the claim that you can proclaim evolution as science, and that it is the only origin of life theory, and no other alternatives come close, just because the consensus says so? Sure it is the majority, but it still remains a theory, that needs changes and is filled with holes here and there. And yes I have read about the scientific definition of theory, but that doesn't mean that a theory can sit on it's pedestal of honor forever, there have been theories that have died :side: , (just saying, no need to lecture me on scientific definition of theory :whistle: )

So I just want you to know that scientists who believe in Creation as a valid scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth, are just as qualified as any other scientist in that community, and they don't deserve being discredited by people who don't like them.

Jack Horner is a renowned paleontologist, and I don't doubt his qualifications as such, and yet he believes in evolution. I have respect for what he does, and the fact that he is a real researcher who has discovered some interesting realities about dinosaur life (mainly, that some dinosaurs cared for their young), is a fact that I don't ignore. I just disagree with evolution, but I don't discredit the scientists.

Second of all, both Macro and Micro evolution are scientific terms, and they were created by a Russian scientist going by the name of Yuri Filipchenko who was kind a Darwinist and also an Orthogenetic. Despite him being a Orthogenetic, he is still recognized as a scientist and a contributor to the theory of evolution, etc, etc. By the way, Orthogenesis was a hypothesis almost turning into theory, that is now not accepted as part of evolutionary theory, but imagine if it was, and natural selection would have suffered it's fate, just saying :whistle:

As I was saying, and based on my reading, you're right, macro and micro evolution are the same, only that the former occurs over humongous periods of time (or else the theory would fall apart), and the latter occurring in shorter periods (compared to macro) and usually at the species level. Many creationists believe that the mechanism of micro-evolution (adaptations) is a pretty good explanation for the diversity we encounter in the natural world, and so this is probably the only part of evolution that we agree with, hehehehe. What we disagree with is saying that every living thing has a common ancestor, because of the challenge of completely changing animals above the species level, which necessitates large amounts of time. That is our advantage, we don't rely on time, but evolutionary theory does, or else it would completely fall apart.

So just to recap, Creationists are just as qualified to do their job as any other scientist, and, we aren't responsible for some of the messy aspects of evolution. Obviously Creationism has some unanswered questions for itself, and bringing moral and religious issues back to the table doesn't help, but it still deserves to be recognized as science as well. That is what all these Christian scientists are working hard to do, which is to bring an objective and scientific view to the table, in the evolution-creation controversy that is currently taking place.
So let me sing for the love
Let me love for the lost
Let me lose all I have
For what I found on the cross
Let me trust you with my life
Let me live to give you praise
Lord, let me praise you
For the grace by which I'm saved
Lord, let me sing

- Chorus of "Let me sing" by Andrew Peterson
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 3 years 5 days ago #95652

Skite wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.

Ok......I can't stand for this, I`m getting into this debate too

First of all Ender, I have noticed that in some posts your arguments are trying to discredit real Christian scientists, which I feel, is very unprofessional. I for one, recognize that we have many brilliant scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, and that's fine, we live in a free society and world where we can believe whatever we can. It saddens me that you don't wish to recognize the hundreds of amazing Christian scientists through the years, who have made phenomenal contributions to science and making the world a better place and much better understood. It's true that a good number believe in evolution, and others believe in a mix of evolution and creation, but there are also a good number of real Christian scientists who believe the Word of God and it's account of Creation. You treat these people as if they aren't qualified, and that their qualifications are just as non-existent in your mind as God is in an Atheist's mind.

So I urge you, to look at the links below and contemplate the hundreds of Christian scientists who deserve to be recognized as real scientists, and who have just the same right to believe in Creation as a scientific origin theory of life on earth as scientists who believe in evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians...ience_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science (I haven't read the whole article for this one, but the first few sections were fascinating to me)
relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreakin...pened-be-christians/
creation.com/creation-scientists
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists (There is a list here showing the names in different colors, with green meaning they were qualified, and red meaning they are not. I admit, not all creation scientists in the views of the rest of the scientific community are qualified, but I must say, I saw quite a good number of green in this list)
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

I'm just saddened how you use this argument again and again, that those who defend Creationism aren't scientists. Well what does that make you? what does it make the millions of other people who believe in evolution yet are not scientists? Why can you make the claim that you can proclaim evolution as science, and that it is the only origin of life theory, and no other alternatives come close, just because the consensus says so? Sure it is the majority, but it still remains a theory, that needs changes and is filled with holes here and there. And yes I have read about the scientific definition of theory, but that doesn't mean that a theory can sit on it's pedestal of honor forever, there have been theories that have died :side: , (just saying, no need to lecture me on scientific definition of theory :whistle: )

So I just want you to know that scientists who believe in Creation as a valid scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth, are just as qualified as any other scientist in that community, and they don't deserve being discredited by people who don't like them.

Jack Horner is a renowned paleontologist, and I don't doubt his qualifications as such, and yet he believes in evolution. I have respect for what he does, and the fact that he is a real researcher who has discovered some interesting realities about dinosaur life (mainly, that some dinosaurs cared for their young), is a fact that I don't ignore. I just disagree with evolution, but I don't discredit the scientists.

Second of all, both Macro and Micro evolution are scientific terms, and they were created by a Russian scientist going by the name of Yuri Filipchenko who was kind a Darwinist and also an Orthogenetic. Despite him being a Orthogenetic, he is still recognized as a scientist and a contributor to the theory of evolution, etc, etc. By the way, Orthogenesis was a hypothesis almost turning into theory, that is now not accepted as part of evolutionary theory, but imagine if it was, and natural selection would have suffered it's fate, just saying :whistle:

As I was saying, and based on my reading, you're right, macro and micro evolution are the same, only that the former occurs over humongous periods of time (or else the theory would fall apart), and the latter occurring in shorter periods (compared to macro) and usually at the species level. Many creationists believe that the mechanism of micro-evolution (adaptations) is a pretty good explanation for the diversity we encounter in the natural world, and so this is probably the only part of evolution that we agree with, hehehehe. What we disagree with is saying that every living thing has a common ancestor, because of the challenge of completely changing animals above the species level, which necessitates large amounts of time. That is our advantage, we don't rely on time, but evolutionary theory does, or else it would completely fall apart.

So just to recap, Creationists are just as qualified to do their job as any other scientist, and, we aren't responsible for some of the messy aspects of evolution. Obviously Creationism has some unanswered questions for itself, and bringing moral and religious issues back to the table doesn't help, but it still deserves to be recognized as science as well. That is what all these Christian scientists are working hard to do, which is to bring an objective and scientific view to the table, in the evolution-creation controversy that is currently taking place.

To be clear, I don't think creationists are necessarily bad scientists. I don't think creationism should be considered science, but the scientists can still make discoveries in their own fields and be qualified for their field.

About some of your other points: I don't think evolution is right because that's what the majority believes, I believe it because I believe the evidence for it. Yes, it has some holes, but it's still supported by evidence, and science doesn't appear fully formed, it takes time to research and find out the truth about something.

If you want to know why I believe evolution, then research the proofs of evolution. There's some good videos about them on YouTube, but you'll have to find it yourself because if I link them this reply will probably not be let through.
The topic has been locked.

Re: Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100702

  • ken10wil
  • ken10wil's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • bossome
  • Posts: 186
  • Thank you received: 161
richaguilera wrote:
Just depends on how you look at "land of the free". You are free to do whatever you want, sometime it's actually TOO much freedom because things get worse when people don't have at least SOME boundaries. This means schools don't want to "push" any religious beliefs on anyone so they took all that out of the schools. The ironic part is that evolution, which is taught in school as "science", is actually a religion too. It has never been observed, and there are no experiments that can prove it happened, yet it is taught out of FAITH that it happened. Believing in something out of faith is religion.
Its been years and how wrong this statement is still bugs me.
video games are awesome, Politics is just making me sad at this point
favorite text:
12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:12
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: endershadow112

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100704

  • ken10wil
  • ken10wil's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • bossome
  • Posts: 186
  • Thank you received: 161
endershadow112 wrote:
Skite wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.

Ok......I can't stand for this, I`m getting into this debate too

First of all Ender, I have noticed that in some posts your arguments are trying to discredit real Christian scientists, which I feel, is very unprofessional. I for one, recognize that we have many brilliant scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, and that's fine, we live in a free society and world where we can believe whatever we can. It saddens me that you don't wish to recognize the hundreds of amazing Christian scientists through the years, who have made phenomenal contributions to science and making the world a better place and much better understood. It's true that a good number believe in evolution, and others believe in a mix of evolution and creation, but there are also a good number of real Christian scientists who believe the Word of God and it's account of Creation. You treat these people as if they aren't qualified, and that their qualifications are just as non-existent in your mind as God is in an Atheist's mind.

So I urge you, to look at the links below and contemplate the hundreds of Christian scientists who deserve to be recognized as real scientists, and who have just the same right to believe in Creation as a scientific origin theory of life on earth as scientists who believe in evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians...ience_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science (I haven't read the whole article for this one, but the first few sections were fascinating to me)
relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreakin...pened-be-christians/
creation.com/creation-scientists
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists (There is a list here showing the names in different colors, with green meaning they were qualified, and red meaning they are not. I admit, not all creation scientists in the views of the rest of the scientific community are qualified, but I must say, I saw quite a good number of green in this list)
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

I'm just saddened how you use this argument again and again, that those who defend Creationism aren't scientists. Well what does that make you? what does it make the millions of other people who believe in evolution yet are not scientists? Why can you make the claim that you can proclaim evolution as science, and that it is the only origin of life theory, and no other alternatives come close, just because the consensus says so? Sure it is the majority, but it still remains a theory, that needs changes and is filled with holes here and there. And yes I have read about the scientific definition of theory, but that doesn't mean that a theory can sit on it's pedestal of honor forever, there have been theories that have died :side: , (just saying, no need to lecture me on scientific definition of theory :whistle: )

So I just want you to know that scientists who believe in Creation as a valid scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth, are just as qualified as any other scientist in that community, and they don't deserve being discredited by people who don't like them.

Jack Horner is a renowned paleontologist, and I don't doubt his qualifications as such, and yet he believes in evolution. I have respect for what he does, and the fact that he is a real researcher who has discovered some interesting realities about dinosaur life (mainly, that some dinosaurs cared for their young), is a fact that I don't ignore. I just disagree with evolution, but I don't discredit the scientists.

Second of all, both Macro and Micro evolution are scientific terms, and they were created by a Russian scientist going by the name of Yuri Filipchenko who was kind a Darwinist and also an Orthogenetic. Despite him being a Orthogenetic, he is still recognized as a scientist and a contributor to the theory of evolution, etc, etc. By the way, Orthogenesis was a hypothesis almost turning into theory, that is now not accepted as part of evolutionary theory, but imagine if it was, and natural selection would have suffered it's fate, just saying :whistle:

As I was saying, and based on my reading, you're right, macro and micro evolution are the same, only that the former occurs over humongous periods of time (or else the theory would fall apart), and the latter occurring in shorter periods (compared to macro) and usually at the species level. Many creationists believe that the mechanism of micro-evolution (adaptations) is a pretty good explanation for the diversity we encounter in the natural world, and so this is probably the only part of evolution that we agree with, hehehehe. What we disagree with is saying that every living thing has a common ancestor, because of the challenge of completely changing animals above the species level, which necessitates large amounts of time. That is our advantage, we don't rely on time, but evolutionary theory does, or else it would completely fall apart.

So just to recap, Creationists are just as qualified to do their job as any other scientist, and, we aren't responsible for some of the messy aspects of evolution. Obviously Creationism has some unanswered questions for itself, and bringing moral and religious issues back to the table doesn't help, but it still deserves to be recognized as science as well. That is what all these Christian scientists are working hard to do, which is to bring an objective and scientific view to the table, in the evolution-creation controversy that is currently taking place.

To be clear, I don't think creationists are necessarily bad scientists. I don't think creationism should be considered science, but the scientists can still make discoveries in their own fields and be qualified for their field.

About some of your other points: I don't think evolution is right because that's what the majority believes, I believe it because I believe the evidence for it. Yes, it has some holes, but it's still supported by evidence, and science doesn't appear fully formed, it takes time to research and find out the truth about something.

If you want to know why I believe evolution, then research the proofs of evolution. There's some good videos about them on YouTube, but you'll have to find it yourself because if I link them this reply will probably not be let through.
mods still censoring links/views they dont like?
video games are awesome, Politics is just making me sad at this point
favorite text:
12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:12
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100705

  • Pyrrhic
  • Pyrrhic's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • in-between speechless and rambling
  • Posts: 1162
  • Thank you received: 616
ken10wil wrote:
mods still censoring links/views they dont like?
No, please read the rules of the forum. That is what we abide on.
I already have said enough.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100708

  • pathfinder4ever
  • pathfinder4ever's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • don’t click my profile.. Philippians 4:13
  • Posts: 2061
  • Thank you received: 632
ken10wil wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
Skite wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.

Ok......I can't stand for this, I`m getting into this debate too

First of all Ender, I have noticed that in some posts your arguments are trying to discredit real Christian scientists, which I feel, is very unprofessional. I for one, recognize that we have many brilliant scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, and that's fine, we live in a free society and world where we can believe whatever we can. It saddens me that you don't wish to recognize the hundreds of amazing Christian scientists through the years, who have made phenomenal contributions to science and making the world a better place and much better understood. It's true that a good number believe in evolution, and others believe in a mix of evolution and creation, but there are also a good number of real Christian scientists who believe the Word of God and it's account of Creation. You treat these people as if they aren't qualified, and that their qualifications are just as non-existent in your mind as God is in an Atheist's mind.

So I urge you, to look at the links below and contemplate the hundreds of Christian scientists who deserve to be recognized as real scientists, and who have just the same right to believe in Creation as a scientific origin theory of life on earth as scientists who believe in evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians...ience_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science (I haven't read the whole article for this one, but the first few sections were fascinating to me)
relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreakin...pened-be-christians/
creation.com/creation-scientists
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists (There is a list here showing the names in different colors, with green meaning they were qualified, and red meaning they are not. I admit, not all creation scientists in the views of the rest of the scientific community are qualified, but I must say, I saw quite a good number of green in this list)
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

I'm just saddened how you use this argument again and again, that those who defend Creationism aren't scientists. Well what does that make you? what does it make the millions of other people who believe in evolution yet are not scientists? Why can you make the claim that you can proclaim evolution as science, and that it is the only origin of life theory, and no other alternatives come close, just because the consensus says so? Sure it is the majority, but it still remains a theory, that needs changes and is filled with holes here and there. And yes I have read about the scientific definition of theory, but that doesn't mean that a theory can sit on it's pedestal of honor forever, there have been theories that have died :side: , (just saying, no need to lecture me on scientific definition of theory :whistle: )

So I just want you to know that scientists who believe in Creation as a valid scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth, are just as qualified as any other scientist in that community, and they don't deserve being discredited by people who don't like them.

Jack Horner is a renowned paleontologist, and I don't doubt his qualifications as such, and yet he believes in evolution. I have respect for what he does, and the fact that he is a real researcher who has discovered some interesting realities about dinosaur life (mainly, that some dinosaurs cared for their young), is a fact that I don't ignore. I just disagree with evolution, but I don't discredit the scientists.

Second of all, both Macro and Micro evolution are scientific terms, and they were created by a Russian scientist going by the name of Yuri Filipchenko who was kind a Darwinist and also an Orthogenetic. Despite him being a Orthogenetic, he is still recognized as a scientist and a contributor to the theory of evolution, etc, etc. By the way, Orthogenesis was a hypothesis almost turning into theory, that is now not accepted as part of evolutionary theory, but imagine if it was, and natural selection would have suffered it's fate, just saying :whistle:

As I was saying, and based on my reading, you're right, macro and micro evolution are the same, only that the former occurs over humongous periods of time (or else the theory would fall apart), and the latter occurring in shorter periods (compared to macro) and usually at the species level. Many creationists believe that the mechanism of micro-evolution (adaptations) is a pretty good explanation for the diversity we encounter in the natural world, and so this is probably the only part of evolution that we agree with, hehehehe. What we disagree with is saying that every living thing has a common ancestor, because of the challenge of completely changing animals above the species level, which necessitates large amounts of time. That is our advantage, we don't rely on time, but evolutionary theory does, or else it would completely fall apart.

So just to recap, Creationists are just as qualified to do their job as any other scientist, and, we aren't responsible for some of the messy aspects of evolution. Obviously Creationism has some unanswered questions for itself, and bringing moral and religious issues back to the table doesn't help, but it still deserves to be recognized as science as well. That is what all these Christian scientists are working hard to do, which is to bring an objective and scientific view to the table, in the evolution-creation controversy that is currently taking place.

To be clear, I don't think creationists are necessarily bad scientists. I don't think creationism should be considered science, but the scientists can still make discoveries in their own fields and be qualified for their field.

About some of your other points: I don't think evolution is right because that's what the majority believes, I believe it because I believe the evidence for it. Yes, it has some holes, but it's still supported by evidence, and science doesn't appear fully formed, it takes time to research and find out the truth about something.

If you want to know why I believe evolution, then research the proofs of evolution. There's some good videos about them on YouTube, but you'll have to find it yourself because if I link them this reply will probably not be let through.
mods still censoring links/views they dont like?
nope, check the rules if you want a good reason.
Speak for those who have no voice.
Red and yellow...black and white.... We're all precious in His sight....❤️
Any questions? Ask!
-kash (aka pathfinder4ever)
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100763

  • ken10wil
  • ken10wil's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • bossome
  • Posts: 186
  • Thank you received: 161
pathfinder4ever wrote:
ken10wil wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
Skite wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.

Ok......I can't stand for this, I`m getting into this debate too

First of all Ender, I have noticed that in some posts your arguments are trying to discredit real Christian scientists, which I feel, is very unprofessional. I for one, recognize that we have many brilliant scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, and that's fine, we live in a free society and world where we can believe whatever we can. It saddens me that you don't wish to recognize the hundreds of amazing Christian scientists through the years, who have made phenomenal contributions to science and making the world a better place and much better understood. It's true that a good number believe in evolution, and others believe in a mix of evolution and creation, but there are also a good number of real Christian scientists who believe the Word of God and it's account of Creation. You treat these people as if they aren't qualified, and that their qualifications are just as non-existent in your mind as God is in an Atheist's mind.

So I urge you, to look at the links below and contemplate the hundreds of Christian scientists who deserve to be recognized as real scientists, and who have just the same right to believe in Creation as a scientific origin theory of life on earth as scientists who believe in evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians...ience_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science (I haven't read the whole article for this one, but the first few sections were fascinating to me)
relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreakin...pened-be-christians/
creation.com/creation-scientists
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists (There is a list here showing the names in different colors, with green meaning they were qualified, and red meaning they are not. I admit, not all creation scientists in the views of the rest of the scientific community are qualified, but I must say, I saw quite a good number of green in this list)
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

I'm just saddened how you use this argument again and again, that those who defend Creationism aren't scientists. Well what does that make you? what does it make the millions of other people who believe in evolution yet are not scientists? Why can you make the claim that you can proclaim evolution as science, and that it is the only origin of life theory, and no other alternatives come close, just because the consensus says so? Sure it is the majority, but it still remains a theory, that needs changes and is filled with holes here and there. And yes I have read about the scientific definition of theory, but that doesn't mean that a theory can sit on it's pedestal of honor forever, there have been theories that have died :side: , (just saying, no need to lecture me on scientific definition of theory :whistle: )

So I just want you to know that scientists who believe in Creation as a valid scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth, are just as qualified as any other scientist in that community, and they don't deserve being discredited by people who don't like them.

Jack Horner is a renowned paleontologist, and I don't doubt his qualifications as such, and yet he believes in evolution. I have respect for what he does, and the fact that he is a real researcher who has discovered some interesting realities about dinosaur life (mainly, that some dinosaurs cared for their young), is a fact that I don't ignore. I just disagree with evolution, but I don't discredit the scientists.

Second of all, both Macro and Micro evolution are scientific terms, and they were created by a Russian scientist going by the name of Yuri Filipchenko who was kind a Darwinist and also an Orthogenetic. Despite him being a Orthogenetic, he is still recognized as a scientist and a contributor to the theory of evolution, etc, etc. By the way, Orthogenesis was a hypothesis almost turning into theory, that is now not accepted as part of evolutionary theory, but imagine if it was, and natural selection would have suffered it's fate, just saying :whistle:

As I was saying, and based on my reading, you're right, macro and micro evolution are the same, only that the former occurs over humongous periods of time (or else the theory would fall apart), and the latter occurring in shorter periods (compared to macro) and usually at the species level. Many creationists believe that the mechanism of micro-evolution (adaptations) is a pretty good explanation for the diversity we encounter in the natural world, and so this is probably the only part of evolution that we agree with, hehehehe. What we disagree with is saying that every living thing has a common ancestor, because of the challenge of completely changing animals above the species level, which necessitates large amounts of time. That is our advantage, we don't rely on time, but evolutionary theory does, or else it would completely fall apart.

So just to recap, Creationists are just as qualified to do their job as any other scientist, and, we aren't responsible for some of the messy aspects of evolution. Obviously Creationism has some unanswered questions for itself, and bringing moral and religious issues back to the table doesn't help, but it still deserves to be recognized as science as well. That is what all these Christian scientists are working hard to do, which is to bring an objective and scientific view to the table, in the evolution-creation controversy that is currently taking place.

To be clear, I don't think creationists are necessarily bad scientists. I don't think creationism should be considered science, but the scientists can still make discoveries in their own fields and be qualified for their field.

About some of your other points: I don't think evolution is right because that's what the majority believes, I believe it because I believe the evidence for it. Yes, it has some holes, but it's still supported by evidence, and science doesn't appear fully formed, it takes time to research and find out the truth about something.

If you want to know why I believe evolution, then research the proofs of evolution. There's some good videos about them on YouTube, but you'll have to find it yourself because if I link them this reply will probably not be let through.
mods still censoring links/views they dont like?
nope, check the rules if you want a good reason.
Only asking because me and SRNitro once had an experience where we had to email one of the adult mods over a post. It was let through after the email discussion, but the initial removal was very much a personal disdain for the post content.
video games are awesome, Politics is just making me sad at this point
favorite text:
12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:12
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100764

  • pathfinder4ever
  • pathfinder4ever's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • don’t click my profile.. Philippians 4:13
  • Posts: 2061
  • Thank you received: 632
ken10wil wrote:
pathfinder4ever wrote:
ken10wil wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
Skite wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.

Ok......I can't stand for this, I`m getting into this debate too

First of all Ender, I have noticed that in some posts your arguments are trying to discredit real Christian scientists, which I feel, is very unprofessional. I for one, recognize that we have many brilliant scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, and that's fine, we live in a free society and world where we can believe whatever we can. It saddens me that you don't wish to recognize the hundreds of amazing Christian scientists through the years, who have made phenomenal contributions to science and making the world a better place and much better understood. It's true that a good number believe in evolution, and others believe in a mix of evolution and creation, but there are also a good number of real Christian scientists who believe the Word of God and it's account of Creation. You treat these people as if they aren't qualified, and that their qualifications are just as non-existent in your mind as God is in an Atheist's mind.

So I urge you, to look at the links below and contemplate the hundreds of Christian scientists who deserve to be recognized as real scientists, and who have just the same right to believe in Creation as a scientific origin theory of life on earth as scientists who believe in evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians...ience_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science (I haven't read the whole article for this one, but the first few sections were fascinating to me)
relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreakin...pened-be-christians/
creation.com/creation-scientists
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists (There is a list here showing the names in different colors, with green meaning they were qualified, and red meaning they are not. I admit, not all creation scientists in the views of the rest of the scientific community are qualified, but I must say, I saw quite a good number of green in this list)
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

I'm just saddened how you use this argument again and again, that those who defend Creationism aren't scientists. Well what does that make you? what does it make the millions of other people who believe in evolution yet are not scientists? Why can you make the claim that you can proclaim evolution as science, and that it is the only origin of life theory, and no other alternatives come close, just because the consensus says so? Sure it is the majority, but it still remains a theory, that needs changes and is filled with holes here and there. And yes I have read about the scientific definition of theory, but that doesn't mean that a theory can sit on it's pedestal of honor forever, there have been theories that have died :side: , (just saying, no need to lecture me on scientific definition of theory :whistle: )

So I just want you to know that scientists who believe in Creation as a valid scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth, are just as qualified as any other scientist in that community, and they don't deserve being discredited by people who don't like them.

Jack Horner is a renowned paleontologist, and I don't doubt his qualifications as such, and yet he believes in evolution. I have respect for what he does, and the fact that he is a real researcher who has discovered some interesting realities about dinosaur life (mainly, that some dinosaurs cared for their young), is a fact that I don't ignore. I just disagree with evolution, but I don't discredit the scientists.

Second of all, both Macro and Micro evolution are scientific terms, and they were created by a Russian scientist going by the name of Yuri Filipchenko who was kind a Darwinist and also an Orthogenetic. Despite him being a Orthogenetic, he is still recognized as a scientist and a contributor to the theory of evolution, etc, etc. By the way, Orthogenesis was a hypothesis almost turning into theory, that is now not accepted as part of evolutionary theory, but imagine if it was, and natural selection would have suffered it's fate, just saying :whistle:

As I was saying, and based on my reading, you're right, macro and micro evolution are the same, only that the former occurs over humongous periods of time (or else the theory would fall apart), and the latter occurring in shorter periods (compared to macro) and usually at the species level. Many creationists believe that the mechanism of micro-evolution (adaptations) is a pretty good explanation for the diversity we encounter in the natural world, and so this is probably the only part of evolution that we agree with, hehehehe. What we disagree with is saying that every living thing has a common ancestor, because of the challenge of completely changing animals above the species level, which necessitates large amounts of time. That is our advantage, we don't rely on time, but evolutionary theory does, or else it would completely fall apart.

So just to recap, Creationists are just as qualified to do their job as any other scientist, and, we aren't responsible for some of the messy aspects of evolution. Obviously Creationism has some unanswered questions for itself, and bringing moral and religious issues back to the table doesn't help, but it still deserves to be recognized as science as well. That is what all these Christian scientists are working hard to do, which is to bring an objective and scientific view to the table, in the evolution-creation controversy that is currently taking place.

To be clear, I don't think creationists are necessarily bad scientists. I don't think creationism should be considered science, but the scientists can still make discoveries in their own fields and be qualified for their field.

About some of your other points: I don't think evolution is right because that's what the majority believes, I believe it because I believe the evidence for it. Yes, it has some holes, but it's still supported by evidence, and science doesn't appear fully formed, it takes time to research and find out the truth about something.

If you want to know why I believe evolution, then research the proofs of evolution. There's some good videos about them on YouTube, but you'll have to find it yourself because if I link them this reply will probably not be let through.
mods still censoring links/views they dont like?
nope, check the rules if you want a good reason.
Only asking because me and SRNitro once had an experience where we had to email one of the adult mods over a post. It was let through after the email discussion, but the initial removal was very much a personal disdain for the post content.
I’ve seen some vulgar things such as swearing etc,. Some things just aren’t appropriate, so that could be a reason we don’t let stuff through .
Speak for those who have no voice.
Red and yellow...black and white.... We're all precious in His sight....❤️
Any questions? Ask!
-kash (aka pathfinder4ever)
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100765

  • pathfinder4ever
  • pathfinder4ever's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • don’t click my profile.. Philippians 4:13
  • Posts: 2061
  • Thank you received: 632
endershadow112 wrote:
Skite wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.

Ok......I can't stand for this, I`m getting into this debate too

First of all Ender, I have noticed that in some posts your arguments are trying to discredit real Christian scientists, which I feel, is very unprofessional. I for one, recognize that we have many brilliant scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, and that's fine, we live in a free society and world where we can believe whatever we can. It saddens me that you don't wish to recognize the hundreds of amazing Christian scientists through the years, who have made phenomenal contributions to science and making the world a better place and much better understood. It's true that a good number believe in evolution, and others believe in a mix of evolution and creation, but there are also a good number of real Christian scientists who believe the Word of God and it's account of Creation. You treat these people as if they aren't qualified, and that their qualifications are just as non-existent in your mind as God is in an Atheist's mind.

So I urge you, to look at the links below and contemplate the hundreds of Christian scientists who deserve to be recognized as real scientists, and who have just the same right to believe in Creation as a scientific origin theory of life on earth as scientists who believe in evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians...ience_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science (I haven't read the whole article for this one, but the first few sections were fascinating to me)
relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreakin...pened-be-christians/
creation.com/creation-scientists
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists (There is a list here showing the names in different colors, with green meaning they were qualified, and red meaning they are not. I admit, not all creation scientists in the views of the rest of the scientific community are qualified, but I must say, I saw quite a good number of green in this list)
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

I'm just saddened how you use this argument again and again, that those who defend Creationism aren't scientists. Well what does that make you? what does it make the millions of other people who believe in evolution yet are not scientists? Why can you make the claim that you can proclaim evolution as science, and that it is the only origin of life theory, and no other alternatives come close, just because the consensus says so? Sure it is the majority, but it still remains a theory, that needs changes and is filled with holes here and there. And yes I have read about the scientific definition of theory, but that doesn't mean that a theory can sit on it's pedestal of honor forever, there have been theories that have died :side: , (just saying, no need to lecture me on scientific definition of theory :whistle: )

So I just want you to know that scientists who believe in Creation as a valid scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth, are just as qualified as any other scientist in that community, and they don't deserve being discredited by people who don't like them.

Jack Horner is a renowned paleontologist, and I don't doubt his qualifications as such, and yet he believes in evolution. I have respect for what he does, and the fact that he is a real researcher who has discovered some interesting realities about dinosaur life (mainly, that some dinosaurs cared for their young), is a fact that I don't ignore. I just disagree with evolution, but I don't discredit the scientists.

Second of all, both Macro and Micro evolution are scientific terms, and they were created by a Russian scientist going by the name of Yuri Filipchenko who was kind a Darwinist and also an Orthogenetic. Despite him being a Orthogenetic, he is still recognized as a scientist and a contributor to the theory of evolution, etc, etc. By the way, Orthogenesis was a hypothesis almost turning into theory, that is now not accepted as part of evolutionary theory, but imagine if it was, and natural selection would have suffered it's fate, just saying :whistle:

As I was saying, and based on my reading, you're right, macro and micro evolution are the same, only that the former occurs over humongous periods of time (or else the theory would fall apart), and the latter occurring in shorter periods (compared to macro) and usually at the species level. Many creationists believe that the mechanism of micro-evolution (adaptations) is a pretty good explanation for the diversity we encounter in the natural world, and so this is probably the only part of evolution that we agree with, hehehehe. What we disagree with is saying that every living thing has a common ancestor, because of the challenge of completely changing animals above the species level, which necessitates large amounts of time. That is our advantage, we don't rely on time, but evolutionary theory does, or else it would completely fall apart.

So just to recap, Creationists are just as qualified to do their job as any other scientist, and, we aren't responsible for some of the messy aspects of evolution. Obviously Creationism has some unanswered questions for itself, and bringing moral and religious issues back to the table doesn't help, but it still deserves to be recognized as science as well. That is what all these Christian scientists are working hard to do, which is to bring an objective and scientific view to the table, in the evolution-creation controversy that is currently taking place.

To be clear, I don't think creationists are necessarily bad scientists. I don't think creationism should be considered science, but the scientists can still make discoveries in their own fields and be qualified for their field.

About some of your other points: I don't think evolution is right because that's what the majority believes, I believe it because I believe the evidence for it. Yes, it has some holes, but it's still supported by evidence, and science doesn't appear fully formed, it takes time to research and find out the truth about something.

If you want to know why I believe evolution, then research the proofs of evolution. There's some good videos about them on YouTube, but you'll have to find it yourself because if I link them this reply will probably not be let through.
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh
Speak for those who have no voice.
Red and yellow...black and white.... We're all precious in His sight....❤️
Any questions? Ask!
-kash (aka pathfinder4ever)
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100766

pathfinder4ever wrote:
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh

Yeah pretty much. Grew up being taught creation and believing all the arguments that my pastor, teachers, and even Guide gave for it. Then a few years ago I looked up what evolution actually teaches and made an effort to understand how it works, and realized all the arguments I had accepted without question were much flimsier and a lot less logical than my teachers had claimed.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100797

  • BookwormJo
  • BookwormJo's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I'm indescribable.
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thank you received: 224
endershadow112 wrote:
pathfinder4ever wrote:
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh

Yeah pretty much. Grew up being taught creation and believing all the arguments that my pastor, teachers, and even Guide gave for it. Then a few years ago I looked up what evolution actually teaches and made an effort to understand how it works, and realized all the arguments I had accepted without question were much flimsier and a lot less logical than my teachers had claimed.

If you don't believe that God created the world, then you can pretty much discredit anything the Bible says. :(
No one who trusts in God will ever be disappointed.
Trust God from the bottom of your heart; don’t try to figure out everything on your own. Proverbs 3:5 MSG

#yayparagraphcontests
#talentshowcasewriters

Warning: anything you say can -- and probably will -- be used as writing inspiration
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: pathfinder4ever

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100808

  • SGirven
  • SGirven's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Human. Writer. Latino. Photographer. Keep Running.
  • Posts: 1069
  • Thank you received: 238
Wow. Lots of discussion here.

Discord: sgir.v#7196

IG: sgir.v

“We are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, although weak, but rather furnish them with assistance.” -Sir Francis Bacon
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100819

  • Annexator
  • Annexator's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Should I change my profile pic?
  • Posts: 72
  • Thank you received: 11
I know
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
What do I type here?

Discord: TR4VL3R#4493

(finally figured out how to use bbcode)
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100831

  • SkeleBoy10
  • SkeleBoy10's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • In time I will leave the city
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 133
BookwormJo wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
pathfinder4ever wrote:
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh

Yeah pretty much. Grew up being taught creation and believing all the arguments that my pastor, teachers, and even Guide gave for it. Then a few years ago I looked up what evolution actually teaches and made an effort to understand how it works, and realized all the arguments I had accepted without question were much flimsier and a lot less logical than my teachers had claimed.

If you don't believe that God created the world, then you can pretty much discredit anything the Bible says. :(
To be fair, we don't believe that a literal woman on the moon was literally attacked by a seven headed dragon and had her baby snatched away to be at God's throne. Likewise the story of Job has been debated if it was a story or if it was literal history; if it actually happened or if it was a narrative to help explain pain in this world. Whether these happened literally or if they were symbolic, it doesn't impact me because these are stories that tell a much larger one that I can still find meaning in without belief in it being literal. The Bible and faith are so much more than being whether or not something was literal, the messages stand strong either way.

There comes problems when you take the Bible as completely literal or completely symbolic. There's a mix of the two, especially considering that the Bible was comprised of several different authors with varying ways and styles of writing that all came together to form what we know as the canonical Bible.

Believing in evolution is taking significant evidence and tons of research and experimentation and using that as a guide to guess a logical explanation for how we came into being. No one here and now was there when the world was created, so it isn't meant to be the final answer to that question of how we came into being. But evolution isn't exactly a leap of faith either - as I'd say it's more of a logical guess even if it's wrong. All of my science teachers at the public school I attend all say that religion and science can co-exist, and that the theory of evolution and the big bang are just that - theories. We can't go back in time to finally explain it, so we do our best to make an educated guess using patterns we find all around nature now. Again, I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, but rather illustrating that both have their ups and downs in belief.

It's like this; if you walk into a huge beautiful house with your friend, there's two ways of speculating how it was made. One could say it had to have been made by a skillful architect with his own genius ideas that became manifested into this house. The other could say it had to have been made and created using specific tools in order to achieve that manifestation of a larger idea. Both are correct. Evolution does not in it of itself discredit God, but rather acts as a how - as opposed to the Genesis account that is much more focused on the why we were created, the step up from the how.

So with all that said, I don't believe that not believing in the Genesis account allows you to discredit anything else. The story of creation and Adam and Eve could also have been largely symbolic or metaphorical, again in order to show us the much larger scale of the why we were created. It would not be the first time the Bible told a larger story within a symbol. You don't have to believe something literally happened in order to gain lessons from it. All evolution does is provide a how to the best of their own ability, and you don't have to believe in it as this is all theoretical. Neither make much of a difference in a personal walk with God, the same way that keeping the seventh day Sabbath is not a salvation issue for Sunday keepers right now. Being a christian means having a personal connection with Jesus, beliefs change and that's just how it is, but our walk with God isn't centered around belief or doctrine at the front, the foundation is love. If you believe in the Genesis account or in evolution, that does not change the core relationship that christianity should be about.

No one here and now was there either way.
Last Edit: 1 year 4 months ago by SkeleBoy10.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100855

  • Readingandrainbows
  • Readingandrainbows's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love writing, piano, and pathfinders
  • Posts: 364
  • Thank you received: 84
Annexator wrote:
I know
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
I logged on after lunch, and see so many posts!


Yes, I do love reading! How did you know?
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100857

  • pathfinder4ever
  • pathfinder4ever's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • don’t click my profile.. Philippians 4:13
  • Posts: 2061
  • Thank you received: 632
There’s a difference between fact and opinion. Evolution is an opinion. Creation is a fact. Believing in something that isn’t true may “make sense” but that doesn’t make you right. Good science lines up with the bible. If it doesn’t line up, it’s not good science.
Speak for those who have no voice.
Red and yellow...black and white.... We're all precious in His sight....❤️
Any questions? Ask!
-kash (aka pathfinder4ever)
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100858

  • pathfinder4ever
  • pathfinder4ever's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • don’t click my profile.. Philippians 4:13
  • Posts: 2061
  • Thank you received: 632
BookwormJo wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
pathfinder4ever wrote:
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh

Yeah pretty much. Grew up being taught creation and believing all the arguments that my pastor, teachers, and even Guide gave for it. Then a few years ago I looked up what evolution actually teaches and made an effort to understand how it works, and realized all the arguments I had accepted without question were much flimsier and a lot less logical than my teachers had claimed.

If you don't believe that God created the world, then you can pretty much discredit anything the Bible says. :(
Exactly
Speak for those who have no voice.
Red and yellow...black and white.... We're all precious in His sight....❤️
Any questions? Ask!
-kash (aka pathfinder4ever)
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: BookwormJo

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100864

  • SGirven
  • SGirven's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Human. Writer. Latino. Photographer. Keep Running.
  • Posts: 1069
  • Thank you received: 238
SkeleBoy10 wrote:
BookwormJo wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
pathfinder4ever wrote:
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh

Yeah pretty much. Grew up being taught creation and believing all the arguments that my pastor, teachers, and even Guide gave for it. Then a few years ago I looked up what evolution actually teaches and made an effort to understand how it works, and realized all the arguments I had accepted without question were much flimsier and a lot less logical than my teachers had claimed.

If you don't believe that God created the world, then you can pretty much discredit anything the Bible says. :(
To be fair, we don't believe that a literal woman on the moon was literally attacked by a seven headed dragon and had her baby snatched away to be at God's throne. Likewise the story of Job has been debated if it was a story or if it was literal history; if it actually happened or if it was a narrative to help explain pain in this world. Whether these happened literally or if they were symbolic, it doesn't impact me because these are stories that tell a much larger one that I can still find meaning in without belief in it being literal. The Bible and faith are so much more than being whether or not something was literal, the messages stand strong either way.

There comes problems when you take the Bible as completely literal or completely symbolic. There's a mix of the two, especially considering that the Bible was comprised of several different authors with varying ways and styles of writing that all came together to form what we know as the canonical Bible.

Believing in evolution is taking significant evidence and tons of research and experimentation and using that as a guide to guess a logical explanation for how we came into being. No one here and now was there when the world was created, so it isn't meant to be the final answer to that question of how we came into being. But evolution isn't exactly a leap of faith either - as I'd say it's more of a logical guess even if it's wrong. All of my science teachers at the public school I attend all say that religion and science can co-exist, and that the theory of evolution and the big bang are just that - theories. We can't go back in time to finally explain it, so we do our best to make an educated guess using patterns we find all around nature now. Again, I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, but rather illustrating that both have their ups and downs in belief.

It's like this; if you walk into a huge beautiful house with your friend, there's two ways of speculating how it was made. One could say it had to have been made by a skillful architect with his own genius ideas that became manifested into this house. The other could say it had to have been made and created using specific tools in order to achieve that manifestation of a larger idea. Both are correct. Evolution does not in it of itself discredit God, but rather acts as a how - as opposed to the Genesis account that is much more focused on the why we were created, the step up from the how.

So with all that said, I don't believe that not believing in the Genesis account allows you to discredit anything else. The story of creation and Adam and Eve could also have been largely symbolic or metaphorical, again in order to show us the much larger scale of the why we were created. It would not be the first time the Bible told a larger story within a symbol. You don't have to believe something literally happened in order to gain lessons from it. All evolution does is provide a how to the best of their own ability, and you don't have to believe in it as this is all theoretical. Neither make much of a difference in a personal walk with God, the same way that keeping the seventh day Sabbath is not a salvation issue for Sunday keepers right now. Being a christian means having a personal connection with Jesus, beliefs change and that's just how it is, but our walk with God isn't centered around belief or doctrine at the front, the foundation is love. If you believe in the Genesis account or in evolution, that does not change the core relationship that christianity should be about.

No one here and now was there either way.
There aren't any women being attacked by dragons or babies being snatched away in Genesis. Not sure where that came from.

Discord: sgir.v#7196

IG: sgir.v

“We are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, although weak, but rather furnish them with assistance.” -Sir Francis Bacon
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100866

  • SkeleBoy10
  • SkeleBoy10's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • In time I will leave the city
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 133
SGirven wrote:
SkeleBoy10 wrote:
BookwormJo wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
pathfinder4ever wrote:
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh

Yeah pretty much. Grew up being taught creation and believing all the arguments that my pastor, teachers, and even Guide gave for it. Then a few years ago I looked up what evolution actually teaches and made an effort to understand how it works, and realized all the arguments I had accepted without question were much flimsier and a lot less logical than my teachers had claimed.

If you don't believe that God created the world, then you can pretty much discredit anything the Bible says. :(
To be fair, we don't believe that a literal woman on the moon was literally attacked by a seven headed dragon and had her baby snatched away to be at God's throne. Likewise the story of Job has been debated if it was a story or if it was literal history; if it actually happened or if it was a narrative to help explain pain in this world. Whether these happened literally or if they were symbolic, it doesn't impact me because these are stories that tell a much larger one that I can still find meaning in without belief in it being literal. The Bible and faith are so much more than being whether or not something was literal, the messages stand strong either way.

There comes problems when you take the Bible as completely literal or completely symbolic. There's a mix of the two, especially considering that the Bible was comprised of several different authors with varying ways and styles of writing that all came together to form what we know as the canonical Bible.

Believing in evolution is taking significant evidence and tons of research and experimentation and using that as a guide to guess a logical explanation for how we came into being. No one here and now was there when the world was created, so it isn't meant to be the final answer to that question of how we came into being. But evolution isn't exactly a leap of faith either - as I'd say it's more of a logical guess even if it's wrong. All of my science teachers at the public school I attend all say that religion and science can co-exist, and that the theory of evolution and the big bang are just that - theories. We can't go back in time to finally explain it, so we do our best to make an educated guess using patterns we find all around nature now. Again, I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, but rather illustrating that both have their ups and downs in belief.

It's like this; if you walk into a huge beautiful house with your friend, there's two ways of speculating how it was made. One could say it had to have been made by a skillful architect with his own genius ideas that became manifested into this house. The other could say it had to have been made and created using specific tools in order to achieve that manifestation of a larger idea. Both are correct. Evolution does not in it of itself discredit God, but rather acts as a how - as opposed to the Genesis account that is much more focused on the why we were created, the step up from the how.

So with all that said, I don't believe that not believing in the Genesis account allows you to discredit anything else. The story of creation and Adam and Eve could also have been largely symbolic or metaphorical, again in order to show us the much larger scale of the why we were created. It would not be the first time the Bible told a larger story within a symbol. You don't have to believe something literally happened in order to gain lessons from it. All evolution does is provide a how to the best of their own ability, and you don't have to believe in it as this is all theoretical. Neither make much of a difference in a personal walk with God, the same way that keeping the seventh day Sabbath is not a salvation issue for Sunday keepers right now. Being a christian means having a personal connection with Jesus, beliefs change and that's just how it is, but our walk with God isn't centered around belief or doctrine at the front, the foundation is love. If you believe in the Genesis account or in evolution, that does not change the core relationship that christianity should be about.

No one here and now was there either way.
There aren't any women being attacked by dragons or babies being snatched away in Genesis. Not sure where that came from.
There isn't one in Genesis. It's in Revelation 12. I also brought up Job afterwards; what I was bringing up wasn't about Genesis but rather how we interpret other parts of the Bible as a whole. We think that some is literal, like the creation account or the Exodus or Elijah being carried into heaven by chariots of fire, and then other parts like the majority of Revelation or prophecy is taken as obviously metaphorical. My point is to show that maybe it's not as clear cut as this, and that taking the Bible with that subconscious context could possibly serve to undermine what's important in these stories. We have a habit of being so simplistic when we come into the Bible that it can take focus away from what's actually important in these stories.

Whether or not the story of Job happened or not has no impact on my faith, because the lessons from that story transcend the literal story itself. What we can learn from this account has so much more importance than debating if it happened. With this being the case, and looking from the side of evolution as well, I can come to the conclusion that I also do not need to believe that the creation account was either literal or metaphorical to have a secure faith, because it's about the lessons for us and our relationship with God. It's not important if it happened or not, what is important is what I can learn from the account written in Genesis for creation.

Anyone who's living now has no way to tell for certain how the world was made. Even the oldest people alive today weren't close to the foundation of the world. We can't just say that one is fact and the other isn't because this issue should not be about what's literal or not. Evolution and creationism can co-exist even if you don't believe in both at the same time. They should not seek to undermine the other. Again one argues for the architect, one argues for the tools used, and no one was in the room where it happened in the first place to make the argument for the truth. We can discuss back and forth on what actually went down but the reality of it is that we don't know, and it shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is. Evolution is not taught as fact but as a theory that is not meant to be taken as truth but rather an educated explanation of a guess. Likewise what's written in Genesis has much bigger applications to us today than just discussing if it really happened or not. The Bible and our faith in general should be about these lessons and these applications, which is why discussing or even believeing in evolution has no effect against the Bible or my faith.

I can extend this idea further and make the case that the story of Jesus does not need to be true for it to have an impact. If Jesus and the life He lived was just made up, you can't deny the powerful story that it is. His life and how He lived it shows love, mercy, forgiveness, and selflessness. These concepts are so important to learn about - so much so that if the story was fiction, it would have the same impact to make us want to live like Him. There's a reason so many movies that are fiction leave people crying, for example. A story does not need to have happened for the application of the larger ideas to be taken in with joy.

I know this is a long post and a long reply, but I really do want to make my position clear. I don't want you to misinterpret my points. I'm bringing to light how quick we are to judge one thing as literal and the other as symbolic, when it shouldn't matter if they happened or not. What matters is how you use these stories to positively shape your life and how you live it. Because of this I can advocate for both evolution as a fascinating theory, and the Bible as having so many important messages for us to apply in our daily lives. The fact that evolution is seen as a gateway into disregarding the Bible should not be the case. These can co-exist even without belief in both at the same time, because we can't know in the first place. It's faith in both sides of this thing. The creation account being a fact has no impact on my faith, but what I can learn from it does. Because it's how we apply these stories that matter. And you can totally believe in the creation account and there's no judgement here, but there does come a problem from being quick to discredit the other side as well by saying it's just the opinion and creation is the fact. Both are unknowns, that's why it's faith. And even with this, our faith in God should much larger than faith in creation as literal.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100868

  • BookwormJo
  • BookwormJo's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I'm indescribable.
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thank you received: 224
SkeleBoy10 wrote:

I can extend this idea further and make the case that the story of Jesus does not need to be true for it to have an impact. If Jesus and the life He lived was just made up, you can't deny the powerful story that it is. His life and how He lived it shows love, mercy, forgiveness, and selflessness. These concepts are so important to learn about - so much so that if the story was fiction, it would have the same impact to make us want to live like Him. There's a reason so many movies that are fiction leave people crying, for example. A story does not need to have happened for the application of the larger ideas to be taken in with joy.

If the story of Jesus wasn't real, we wouldn't have eternal life. Then what would be the point of being a Christian? We would just die like everyone else, no matter how good we tried to be.
No one who trusts in God will ever be disappointed.
Trust God from the bottom of your heart; don’t try to figure out everything on your own. Proverbs 3:5 MSG

#yayparagraphcontests
#talentshowcasewriters

Warning: anything you say can -- and probably will -- be used as writing inspiration
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100869

  • BookwormJo
  • BookwormJo's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I'm indescribable.
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thank you received: 224
Anyone who's living now has no way to tell for certain how the world was made. Even the oldest people alive today weren't close to the foundation of the world. We can't just say that one is fact and the other isn't because this issue should not be about what's literal or not. Evolution and creationism can co-exist even if you don't believe in both at the same time. They should not seek to undermine the other. Again one argues for the architect, one argues for the tools used, and no one was in the room where it happened in the first place to make the argument for the truth.

You can ask God. He has always been around. John14:14 "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." Solomon asked God for Wisdom, and God gave it to him.
No one who trusts in God will ever be disappointed.
Trust God from the bottom of your heart; don’t try to figure out everything on your own. Proverbs 3:5 MSG

#yayparagraphcontests
#talentshowcasewriters

Warning: anything you say can -- and probably will -- be used as writing inspiration
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100870

  • BookwormJo
  • BookwormJo's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I'm indescribable.
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thank you received: 224
We can't just say that one is fact and the other isn't because this issue should not be about what's literal or not. Evolution and creationism can co-exist even if you don't believe in both at the same time. They should not seek to undermine the other. Again one argues for the architect, one argues for the tools used, and no one was in the room where it happened in the first place to make the argument for the truth. We can discuss back and forth on what actually went down but the reality of it is that we don't know, and it shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is. Evolution is not taught as fact but as a theory that is not meant to be taken as truth but rather an educated explanation of a guess. Likewise what's written in Genesis has much bigger applications to us today than just discussing if it really happened or not. The Bible and our faith in general should be about these lessons and these applications, which is why discussing or even believeing in evolution has no effect against the Bible or my faith.

“Does a clay pot dare argue with its maker, a pot that is like all the others? Does the clay ask the potter what he is doing? Does the pot complain that its maker has no skill?”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭45:9‬ ‭GNT‬‬
“The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see. The act of faith is what distinguished our ancestors, set them above the crowd. By faith, we see the world called into existence by God’s word, what we see created by what we don’t see.”
‭‭
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:1-3 MSG‬‬
No one who trusts in God will ever be disappointed.
Trust God from the bottom of your heart; don’t try to figure out everything on your own. Proverbs 3:5 MSG

#yayparagraphcontests
#talentshowcasewriters

Warning: anything you say can -- and probably will -- be used as writing inspiration
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100872

  • emmykitty
  • emmykitty's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • :)
  • Posts: 1653
  • Thank you received: 687
SkeleBoy10 wrote:
SGirven wrote:
SkeleBoy10 wrote:
BookwormJo wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
pathfinder4ever wrote:
You don’t believe God created the earth? smh

Yeah pretty much. Grew up being taught creation and believing all the arguments that my pastor, teachers, and even Guide gave for it. Then a few years ago I looked up what evolution actually teaches and made an effort to understand how it works, and realized all the arguments I had accepted without question were much flimsier and a lot less logical than my teachers had claimed.

If you don't believe that God created the world, then you can pretty much discredit anything the Bible says. :(
To be fair, we don't believe that a literal woman on the moon was literally attacked by a seven headed dragon and had her baby snatched away to be at God's throne. Likewise the story of Job has been debated if it was a story or if it was literal history; if it actually happened or if it was a narrative to help explain pain in this world. Whether these happened literally or if they were symbolic, it doesn't impact me because these are stories that tell a much larger one that I can still find meaning in without belief in it being literal. The Bible and faith are so much more than being whether or not something was literal, the messages stand strong either way.

There comes problems when you take the Bible as completely literal or completely symbolic. There's a mix of the two, especially considering that the Bible was comprised of several different authors with varying ways and styles of writing that all came together to form what we know as the canonical Bible.

Believing in evolution is taking significant evidence and tons of research and experimentation and using that as a guide to guess a logical explanation for how we came into being. No one here and now was there when the world was created, so it isn't meant to be the final answer to that question of how we came into being. But evolution isn't exactly a leap of faith either - as I'd say it's more of a logical guess even if it's wrong. All of my science teachers at the public school I attend all say that religion and science can co-exist, and that the theory of evolution and the big bang are just that - theories. We can't go back in time to finally explain it, so we do our best to make an educated guess using patterns we find all around nature now. Again, I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, but rather illustrating that both have their ups and downs in belief.

It's like this; if you walk into a huge beautiful house with your friend, there's two ways of speculating how it was made. One could say it had to have been made by a skillful architect with his own genius ideas that became manifested into this house. The other could say it had to have been made and created using specific tools in order to achieve that manifestation of a larger idea. Both are correct. Evolution does not in it of itself discredit God, but rather acts as a how - as opposed to the Genesis account that is much more focused on the why we were created, the step up from the how.

So with all that said, I don't believe that not believing in the Genesis account allows you to discredit anything else. The story of creation and Adam and Eve could also have been largely symbolic or metaphorical, again in order to show us the much larger scale of the why we were created. It would not be the first time the Bible told a larger story within a symbol. You don't have to believe something literally happened in order to gain lessons from it. All evolution does is provide a how to the best of their own ability, and you don't have to believe in it as this is all theoretical. Neither make much of a difference in a personal walk with God, the same way that keeping the seventh day Sabbath is not a salvation issue for Sunday keepers right now. Being a christian means having a personal connection with Jesus, beliefs change and that's just how it is, but our walk with God isn't centered around belief or doctrine at the front, the foundation is love. If you believe in the Genesis account or in evolution, that does not change the core relationship that christianity should be about.

No one here and now was there either way.
There aren't any women being attacked by dragons or babies being snatched away in Genesis. Not sure where that came from.
There isn't one in Genesis. It's in Revelation 12. I also brought up Job afterwards; what I was bringing up wasn't about Genesis but rather how we interpret other parts of the Bible as a whole. We think that some is literal, like the creation account or the Exodus or Elijah being carried into heaven by chariots of fire, and then other parts like the majority of Revelation or prophecy is taken as obviously metaphorical. My point is to show that maybe it's not as clear cut as this, and that taking the Bible with that subconscious context could possibly serve to undermine what's important in these stories. We have a habit of being so simplistic when we come into the Bible that it can take focus away from what's actually important in these stories.

Whether or not the story of Job happened or not has no impact on my faith, because the lessons from that story transcend the literal story itself. What we can learn from this account has so much more importance than debating if it happened. With this being the case, and looking from the side of evolution as well, I can come to the conclusion that I also do not need to believe that the creation account was either literal or metaphorical to have a secure faith, because it's about the lessons for us and our relationship with God. It's not important if it happened or not, what is important is what I can learn from the account written in Genesis for creation.

Anyone who's living now has no way to tell for certain how the world was made. Even the oldest people alive today weren't close to the foundation of the world. We can't just say that one is fact and the other isn't because this issue should not be about what's literal or not. Evolution and creationism can co-exist even if you don't believe in both at the same time. They should not seek to undermine the other. Again one argues for the architect, one argues for the tools used, and no one was in the room where it happened in the first place to make the argument for the truth. We can discuss back and forth on what actually went down but the reality of it is that we don't know, and it shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is. Evolution is not taught as fact but as a theory that is not meant to be taken as truth but rather an educated explanation of a guess. Likewise what's written in Genesis has much bigger applications to us today than just discussing if it really happened or not. The Bible and our faith in general should be about these lessons and these applications, which is why discussing or even believeing in evolution has no effect against the Bible or my faith.

I can extend this idea further and make the case that the story of Jesus does not need to be true for it to have an impact. If Jesus and the life He lived was just made up, you can't deny the powerful story that it is. His life and how He lived it shows love, mercy, forgiveness, and selflessness. These concepts are so important to learn about - so much so that if the story was fiction, it would have the same impact to make us want to live like Him. There's a reason so many movies that are fiction leave people crying, for example. A story does not need to have happened for the application of the larger ideas to be taken in with joy.

I know this is a long post and a long reply, but I really do want to make my position clear. I don't want you to misinterpret my points. I'm bringing to light how quick we are to judge one thing as literal and the other as symbolic, when it shouldn't matter if they happened or not. What matters is how you use these stories to positively shape your life and how you live it. Because of this I can advocate for both evolution as a fascinating theory, and the Bible as having so many important messages for us to apply in our daily lives. The fact that evolution is seen as a gateway into disregarding the Bible should not be the case. These can co-exist even without belief in both at the same time, because we can't know in the first place. It's faith in both sides of this thing. The creation account being a fact has no impact on my faith, but what I can learn from it does. Because it's how we apply these stories that matter. And you can totally believe in the creation account and there's no judgement here, but there does come a problem from being quick to discredit the other side as well by saying it's just the opinion and creation is the fact. Both are unknowns, that's why it's faith. And even with this, our faith in God should much larger than faith in creation as literal.
now im curious haha, do you believe that noah's ark was real?
.•♫•♬•Love is friendship set to music.•♫•♬•
#MAINEMMYS
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 1 year 4 months ago #100883

SkeleBoy10 wrote:
.
It's important to be that honest to bring questions without fear. And I'm not dissing anything but rather just taking that step back as there's so much we just cannot know.

I want to emphasize this. True beliefs will stand up to questioning, and by giving certain beliefs immunity we protect and spread untrue beliefs as well. Jesus challenged the beliefs taught by the Pharisees and led other people to question them for themselves. Martin Luther questioned the beliefs of his time and started the reformation because of what he found.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: SkeleBoy10
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: richaguilera
Time to create page: 0.414 seconds