Science, Creation & EvolutionAge of the EarthRev wrote: the point of all this is to come to one conclusion from two possibilities. 1) we accept the words and ideas of fallen, finite humans, who are sinful, didn't observe everything, weren't around when these events happened, and don't know everything. (read this for an example of the problem i speak of): http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp) 2) we accept the Words of the Infinite Creator who WAS there, knows all, witnessed everything, and recorded it for us. (granted, that takes some faith, but can be justified by the evidence we see everyday). so i start with #2, and you start with #1. well. let me ask you this. what did you guys do when red blood cells and soft-tissue were found in a T-Rex fossil that was supposed to be millions of years old (knowing good and well those substances can't possibly last that long)? the fact is that you weren't there to see how those could footprints could have formed, so can't exactly be positive in your ideas of them. i see you've been led captive by MORE false ideas of men. what actually happened is that the Ptolemaic model of the universe was adopted by the church, which then interpreted certain passages to imply a fixed earth. but the Bible doesn't actually say that the sun revolves around the earth. rather it uses language that enables us to understand from OUR vantage point. would you call a scientist today "unscientific" if he were to tell you to look at the sunset? he's just using the earth as a reference frame, just as the Bible does. here's little more on what the problem was then:
"gene duplication". this assumes that there are genes in the first place. copying something doesn't mean that it arose by itself or can evolve by itself. you need to explain the origin of these things in the first place. as the saying goes: "Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but not the ARRIVAL of the fittest." this would be as silly as someone alone on a desert island finding a radio wash up on shore, studying it, taking it apart and replicating it exactly, and concluding that therefore the radio must've evolved by itself, since he was able to "duplicate" it. like i said. i don't deny the evidence, but the extrapolations or interpretations attributed to it. i'm not sure i get the point here. are you saying that "science" has disproven Genesis, and that therefore the religions based on it are founded on falsehood? this would be true, if indeed science has disproven Genesis. it hasn't, so your statement is false. aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the most influential scientists of all time were biblical creationists. indeed science was born from the precepts of Christianity. get rid of Chrisianity, and you get rid of your foundation for science in the first place. for without an ordered universe coming from a rational, moral, intelligent First Cause, the universe would be devoid of order or meaning or mind or thought. that's a perfect example of a FALSE extrapolation. it doesn't follow that if these two animals are related, that therefore man and chimp are related. Man was created in God's image, distinct from EVERY other animal. our very reason and rationality and minds attest to that. no other creature on earth has the mind or capacity that humans do. that's not something that can be gained or lost through some evolutionary, genetic process. not to mention the fact that the Bible calls creation "very good". if what you say is true, then that means that God used thousands or millions of years of suffering and disease and death ("the last enemy" as described in 1 Cor 15:26) to bring about man and His "very good" creation. and if God used the "last enemy" as His means of bringing about His "very good" creation, what's the point of Jesus dying in our place for our sins? you also err when you forget about Eve. Adam was created first, then Eve from his rib. now, by an evolutionary understanding, how could Eve come from Adam's rib when she evolved along with Adam? your conclusions are too simplistic and only reveal a lack of study on these issues. once again, you're talking about an INCREASE in information (i.e. lower form of animal --> chimp --> man). this is demonstrably false by genetics. the fact that the Gallapogos finches move back and forth genetically demonstrates this. as does the fact that when bred enough, and in a certain way or direction, a species of dog can be bred down to a genetic "dead-end", only able to produce the same dogs (like poodles). you can't breed them more and more and come up with a Great Dane again or some other dog. i deny YOUR interpretations. that very doubt right there affirms His existence. without God, there is no mind, thought, right or wrong. you wouldn't even be able to have doubt. i hear these kinds of objections a lot. i'm glad i was able to be given good answers to these questions so don't remain lost like so many. do you also believe that He would create His "very good" creation through millions of years of death (the "last enemy" 1 Cor 15:26) and suffering and pain and misery and bloodshed and disease and pain? what is general revelation without special revelation? if we can't know His will, what's the point of creation? Romans 1 speaks about the problem of man dealing with general revelation, and Colossians 2:8 warns against being taken captive by wordly, empty philosophies that depend on human tradition, which, sadly, you've become a victim of. this is also a misnomer. what you call "His Works" is very often man's interpretation of nature, WITHOUT the light of the Word to clarify and explain it. to take ideas of men about nature, without the power of the Word is to ask for serious trouble. i clearly said "Naturalist" with a capital "N". without the light of scripture, studying nature doesn't lead to truth, but to confusion (1 Corinthians 2:14): ...and ultimately to judgment and condemnation. i do that, and enjoy it. but more importantly, i study God's Word in order to make sense of this nature that we see. YOU should try THAT. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame