Thank you.
But none of that explains why the creationists have been unable to point to any scientific flaw in the theory of evolution.
The traffic has been all the other way, and it's heavy traffic indeed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can any creationist tell me ...
- Thread starter blü 2
- Start date
But none of that explains why the creationists have been unable to point to any scientific flaw in the theory of evolution.
The traffic has been all the other way, and it's heavy traffic indeed.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
That's all due to the fact, that Creationists can not get pass that the earth is not 6000 yrs old. If they did the creationist would probably see there is no flaw.
Back in when I younger in Junior High School in the 8th and 9th grade science class. Here is where I started to question the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.
I was raised in a Christian home and in believing the earth was only 6000 yrs old.
Here's was my dilemma in the 8th and 9th grade science class.
I reason to myself over the years, how can this be, if the earth is only 6000 yrs old as I am taught in church, how can the dinosaurs bones be Millions of yrs old?
In thinking to myself, how can something that is a Millions of yrs old,
fit into 6000 yrs old earth.
That was my dilemma for so many years.
Until one day, I discovered in the bible, studying that how God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1. And then in Verse 2. How the earth was without form and void.
Then I discovered that the word ( was ) in the Greek translation means ( became)
So I started to question, what happened that the earth became without form and void. Something had to happen for the earth to became without form and void.
The earth was never without form and void, that something happened that the earth to became without form and void.
But what, and when did this happen to the earth to became without form and void?
Then I found how Satan lead a Rebillion against God that caused a third of the angels to follow Satan in his rebillion against God, that caused darkness to come upon the earth and the whole face of the deep (universe).
And then in my studying the Bible, I soon found how the world that then was being overflowed with water Perished.
This explained why there was water covering the earth in Genesis 1:2.
Knowing that the Almighty God would not create the earth and then cover it with water. And then cause the earth to appear and put the water in it's rightful place as it is now. Why not just it in the first place, knowing he is the Almighty God.
So now in finding all of this, This explained to me as to where dinosaurs bones came from and what happened that cause the earth to became without form and void. All because of Satan's rebellion against God, back way before this earth age that we now live in came to be.
The earth that once was, is where the dinosaurs lived, and then because of Satan's rebellion,
God destroyed that first earth age, that now we have the dinosaurs bones as proof of that world that then was.
Of Millions of yrs ago.
The creationist of Genesis, will not accept this, All because they are stuck with the earth as being only
6000 yrs old. And can not accept the dinosaurs bones as being Millions of yrs old.
Until the Genesis creationists get pass the earth is not 6000 yrs old, they will continue to be stuck.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I listened to a three-hour debate on evolution v creationism between Morris and Dr. Peoples that was broadcast on a Detroit radio station back in 1970's, the latter of which was a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan. It was a complete blow-out. At the end of the debate, the moderator simply told Morris that his position simply didn't make sense on multiple counts, and I agree.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
If I may ask, not quite sure is Morris for creation ? If so, you will not get a creationists to see anything that does not support their agenda of the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.
I myself believe that the earth is Millions, if not Billions of yrs old.
Genesis is written in Hebrew, not Greek, though Hebrew is not a language I know.
I found one translation that agrees with you:
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR 1902)
— Now, the earth, had become waste and wild, and, darkness, was on the face of the roaring deep,—but, the Spirit of God, was brooding on the face of the waters.
— Now, the earth, had become waste and wild, and, darkness, was on the face of the roaring deep,—but, the Spirit of God, was brooding on the face of the waters.
But here are a number of reputable translations that think otherwise, all of them at least as well-regarded as Rotherham's:
American Standard Version (ASV 1901) [2]
— And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
King James Version (KJV 1769)
— And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
New American Standard Bible (NASB ©1995)
— The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT 1898)
— the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Full Hebrew Names / Holy Name KJV (2008) [2] [3]
— And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.
Since you mention a Greek text, this one is of interest too, since it translates the Septuagint, which was itself a 3rd century BCE translation into Greek of various Hebrew writings including Genesis:— And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
King James Version (KJV 1769)
— And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
New American Standard Bible (NASB ©1995)
— The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT 1898)
— the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Full Hebrew Names / Holy Name KJV (2008) [2] [3]
— And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.
Brenton Greek Septuagint (LXX, Restored Names)
— But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
So though I can't offer a personal opinion on the Hebrew, and I'm interested to notice that at least one translator agrees with you, he seems to be substantially outvoted.
Regardless, I applaud your spirit of enquiry. May you never lose it!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not all "creationists" are on the same page as to how old our universe is, but what some of call "YEC" tend to believe it's only 6000 or so years old. Morris was a YEC.
Good, imo.
And thoughtful people have been agreeing ever since.
But the US constitution guarantees freedom of religious choice and as long as government remains secular, that's a better idea than the alternative.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
I miss quoted the translation should haved been the Hebrew 1961, 1933 translation.of the Strong's Concordance.
If you are using The RSV or the NIV or the NASB, There are words that will appear in these books as for reference, that do not appear in the KJV.
You see I have the KJV, Which the word (was) does not appear in the Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew translation.
But in those books listed above, the word
(Become) is found. But in the KJV the word (was) is found.
But what it all comes down to, is the words
(Was) and (become) being Translated in Hebrew, means to (become) or (became)
Simple past tense of become - became.
Hebrew translation 1961, 1933.in the Strong's Concordance of the bible.
I still don't understand why in those other Bible's NIV, RSV, NASB, would be different than in the KJV. About words.
I know one thing, I found out that some words that are in the KJV may not be the same word used in NIV, RSV, NASB, Bible's.
But they all come down to having the same meaning. Thanks to you.
I found out something I didn't know before, but if you hadn't brought it to my attention. I would haved never knew this.
Now I know why some people have a Problem in communicating on things like this, All because a person maybe using a different version of the bible and another maybe using a different bible than what the other person is using, which could lead to Confusion.
After I look it up and found in the Strong's Concordance in the Publisher's Preface how some words that maybe used in the KJV maybe not be used in the NIV, RSV,
the NASB, Bible. Or how some words that are used in the NIV, RSV. NASB, may not be found in the KJV.
But again I want to Thank you, that now when I come across something like this again, I know to look in those other Bible's and see what words they are using. That the KJV is not using in their place.
Thank You very much for bringing this to my attention.
Good to know that creationism in Islam, whatever that is, agrees also with Science and Evolution theory, that humans and pigs have a common ancestor. I was not aware of that.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
dad1
Active Member
They were't also having flatworm offspring.
But that wasn't your argument. If your argument's correct then you have no basis for knowing whether you had great-grandparents or not.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
If I may ask, Why do you address creationists, when I fact they don't have a clue either about how old the earth actually is, Themselves.
Oh they'll tell you only what they themselves has been taught by man's teachings in the churches.
That the earth is only 6000 years old.
And then these so called creationists will tell you that you can not add to or delete from the bible and then they'll turn right around and contradicting themselves and do just what they told people what not to do.
Whether people are Christian or not, people are stuck on what these so called Christians, creationists are saying about the flood of Noah's.
When Christians and those on the outside of christianity,creationists are wrong themselves also.
Not realizing that Christians, creationists are only Repeating what they have been taught in the churches by man's teachings.
Then people turn wants to point their fingers at the bible and say, that bible is wrong about the flood and the age of the earth.
When actually it's not the bible that is at fault, But those who are taught by church teachings that are wrong.
Had they stop and not ran with every teaching that they are taught in the churches and read to study the Bible for themselves, Then maybe they might see the error of what they are being taught in the churches.
That actually in the bible the earth is actually Millions of years old and not 6000 years as those are being taught in the churches.
And there are two floods of waters that came upon the earth.
The first flood of water happened Millions of years ago.
Which was way before the flood of Noah's.
But as it is people will go about pointing their fingers at the bible, when in fact they themselves have no clue what the Bible actually does say or what the Bible does confirm's.
Let's take the scientist that will say, that the dinosaurs bones as being Millions of years old.Then these scientist will point their fingers at the creationist and say, you see your wrong the earth is not 6000 years as your bible claims it is.
But what these scientist do not realize, it's those creationists that are wrong and not the bible.
What these scientist do not realize, that the bible supports them and not those creationists.
This is all because those scientist have no clue what so ever what the Bible will say or what the Bible confirm's themselves.
Let's for say, that you have this book, but I go about saying things, but people takes what I am saying, instead of going back to check it out to see if your actually saying this.
Therefore if people would check it out what people are saying, against what the Bible is actually saying.
Scientist and People would find that those creationists are the ones that's saying these things.
And not the bible are saying them.
There is no where in the bible that claims the earth as being only 6000 years old, but does claim the earth as being Millions of years old.
And that there were two floods of water that came upon the earth.
The first flood of water, happened Millions of years ago.Which out dates the flood of Noah's by Millions of years.
But it is funny to watch both sides, the Creationists and evolutionist argue over something that both sides have no clue about.
The Creationists do not come by what they say out of the Bible, What they get is only what they are taught from their Pastor's Preachers and not out of the Bible.
And then the evolutionist listen to those so called Christians which have no clue themselves what the Bible actually does say. So both Party's argue over something that both have no clue what the Bible actually does say and supports and Confirm's.
scott777
Member
But evolution doesn't require no god, so the proper question should be how many people accept evolution as a logical possibility. I suspect much more than 19% in the US. Here in blighty, its much higher than 19%.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I take your point, definitions matter, but Dawkins and Darwin explicitly agree; that any evolution that needs help over the tricky parts by God, is no sort of evolution at all, it defeats the central point of the theory, which is to try to explain the diversity of life by purely natural, unguided processes
Darwin is something of a local hero in Great Britain though is he not? I'd expect a larger following there!
But here's that source
Also according to Wiki- belief in Darwinian evolution is 32% in the UK a little higher, but still a minority belief-
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Darwin was actually a lay minister in the Anglican Church who fell away from in his religious faith in his latter years.
There are a great many religious people who believe in "theistic evolution" (most Christian and Jewish theologians, for example), and their feeling of divine intervention within the evolutionary context does vary quite a bit.
Last edited:
scott777
Member
I take your point, definitions matter, but Dawkins and Darwin explicitly agree; that any evolution that needs help over the tricky parts by God, is no sort of evolution at all, it defeats the central point of the theory, which is to try to explain the diversity of life by purely natural, unguided processes
Darwin is something of a local hero in Great Britain though is he not? I'd expect a larger following there!
But here's that source
Also according to Wiki- belief in Darwinian evolution is 32% in the UK a little higher, but still a minority belief-
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
Evolution doesn’t need any help over tricky parts. Are you referring to the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution?
Darwin is not generally a local hero. Most people here have never studied him or even have any regard at all. The main reason for belief in evolution is because people are not very religious and it’s the only explanation they know of. Creationism is almost non-existent here. I suspect the poll is very inaccurate or misleading (left out people who are not sure).
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's one advantage of ID, it covers both
, but leaving that aside, & granting you the first replicator- the design for a single cell morphing itself into a human being though millions of pure blind chance lucky accidents.... yes there are a few fairly tricky steps along the way here! and if you disagree, you could probably argue that with even most evolutionary biologists.Similarly here though, if you go by most newspapers, magazines, TV documentaries, pop science in general- they would have you believe that belief in Darwinism is far higher than it really is. But it's really a fairly minority position at one extreme, as is young earth creationism at the other, most of us are somewhere in the middle... the world over I would think.
Belief in Darwinism is abut 5% in Brazil for instance..
scott777
Member
Certainly chance plays a big role in it, but think of it from the creatures perspective. Every creature has the survival instinct, and if it has the good fortune to have a mutation which provides a tiny tiny advantage, then it has a greater probability of passing on the gene and spreading it. That survival instinct is what overcomes those tricky steps. And given the millions of years, it does seem feasible.
Do you have any example of a disputed tricky step? Even the eye has been explained.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The spare change in my pocket gives me a tiny tiny advantage, -and not an immediately significant one. But with forethought, I can accumulate these tiny advantages for a future significant advantage. But evolution (according to the theory) cannot do so, and I think this is where some anthropomorphism creeps in. We are so used to practically every action we take, being based on a future payoff, it's extremely difficult to remove this bias entirely from our thought experiments.
But this bias can be removed in the objective mathematical algorithms, as well as lab experiments, where tiny tiny advantages are simply ignored. Because an advantage must be significant enough that an individual produces significantly more offspring to ultimately significantly alter the gene pool- and that's where it gets tricky.
Consider a mountain Gorilla with an average of 3 offspring in a lifetime, you tell me, as a percentage, how significant an advantage does that individual require, in order to raise that number by 1? it ain't tiny!
There are many, but the eye is a pretty good one yes. A fully functional eye spontaneously appearing by random chance is absurdly improbable, and half an eye is useless, it offers no advantage to be selected for
scott777
Member
That’s not correct. There only needs to be the increased probability of producing more offspring for each case that arises. If you magnify that probability to cover every creature of that species that has good mutation and then repeat it over millions of years, then that probability becomes quite high. It’s possible that millions of mutations never make a difference, because they don’t spread enough. But time and quantity solve it.
Also, a mutation will often spread a bit even without helping survival. Then you would have a group of creatures with a higher probability of survival. It’s all in the statistics. It’s entirely possible that many mutations spread without making an initial difference.
If you have a thousand birds with a particular mutated gene and a thousand which don’t, and the gene increases survival by 0.05%, then you’d expect a proportional increase in the population with that gene; 0.1% of 1000 = 5. Those 5 make a difference in the long term.
As for the eye, you can have a more basic eye, starting with a single light-sensitive cell. Dawkins perfectly explains it all here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0