Evolutionism vs. Creationism: Darwinism Dismantled

[Echo42987 10+ year member]

I love jesus and I think he made the Chicken and the Eggs. God Rocks my face off

 

[btnhfan 5,000+ posts]

Who has heard of the Grand Unified Theory? (Or lack thereof)

I had molecular biology last 2 years ago, and they talked about evolutionism. Ill take a look at the text book and try to take bits and pieces out of it. Just to add more fuel to the fire. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[randomco 10+ year member]

fraksured, i dont know if you have heard of him, but there is a doctor by the name of dr. kent hovind who will debate any professor, at any time, and most of the time, he wins. he is creation scientist.

here are some examples of how MACRO evolution, and the theory of evolution is impossible

first of all the evolution side of things say that the earth is approx 4.6 billion years old, while the creationist say that it cant be more than 10,000 years old.

ok 1. the moon has been slowly leaving the earth, about 3 or so feet per year, working backward the moon would have been 3 feet closer last year and so on and so on. with creation thats fine, cause if the earth is only 10g's old then it would still put the moon in a reasonable distance away. with evolutionist the moon would be touching the earths surface as little as 1 million years ago, now if the earth is 4.6 billion years old, how is this possible?

2. the sun has been shrinking over the years, at the rate of its shrinking right now, reversing it again, as little as a couple million years ago, the sun would be so big it would burn up everything, including life. again, with creation it would be fine, cause 10,000 years ago the sun still would a good size.

much more, but ive had a brain fart

 

[randomco 10+ year member]

^ p.s. dr. kent hovind's website is http://www.drdino.com i have the 20 debate dvd set, and it is amazing. i highly recommend it.

 

[pw91686 10+ year member]

I read the whole thing, good work man. It is quite interesting, we actually talked about this in church on Sunday. As Christians, we believe that God created the earth and the heavens and everything else out of nothing. Evolutionists believe that the earth and everthing else came from nothing. So in Christianity we have: SOMEBODY + NOTHING= EVERYTHING, and with evolutionists, we have: NOBODY + NOTHING= EVERYTHING.....you do the math. Just look at that and decide for yourself. Today, you have to have more faith to be an evolutionist than it does to believe in a creator. With the belief in a creator, there is a design for this world and a purpose in all of us. And as evolutionist, there is no design, no purpose, no reason. I would say evolutionists contradict their own thoughts. Obviously, there was a purpose or a reason for them to think the way they did. If there was no purpose or reason, why you have a conception of purpose and reason?... But I dont want to get into that. If you really want to read a good book, you should read a book by C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity". It is absolutely amazing, and it was written by a man who throughout most of his life was an atheist himself.

Just a sidenot as a case for Chrsit: I was in history lecture the other day and we were talking about the early Roman Catholic Church and their belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Ok, so the church did believe this, I admit, but then he went on to talk about how the Bible says that the earth was the center of the universe and he quoted a passage from Joshua in which Joshua commands the sun to stand still. Now, my professor had inferred from the fact that since Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, then this obviously means that the sun rotates around the earth, right? Haha. I found this hilarious, because it shows how people twists things to make them say what they want. Further, I went to biology lecture right after and my teacher mentioned the exact same thing. Pretty bizarre I thought. So when I got back to my dorm I did a little research on it myself. In the book of Joshua, Joshua is fighting a battle and he asked the Lord for more sunlight so that they can finish and win the battle. Joshua commands the sun to stand still, and God does this for him. Well it turns out, there are accounts from the Chinese, Egyptians, Incans, Perus, and Native Americans (prolly more but that was all I could find with the time I had) in which there was a time that the sun stood in the sky for 2 days. Just as it says in the Bible. The Native American account specifically talked about the sun rising early in the mornign and then staying there. I thought this pretty convincing...case for Christ? You decide. Just some things to throw out there.

 

[newb 10+ year member]

Well it turns out, there are accounts from the Chinese, Egyptians, Incans, Perus, and Native Americans (prolly more but that was all I could find with the time I had) in which there was a time that the sun stood in the sky for 2 days. Just as it says in the Bible. The Native American account specifically talked about the sun rising early in the mornign and then staying there. I thought this pretty convincing...case for Christ? You decide. Just some things to throw out there.

Sounds interesting. From what resource did you get this information?

Anyways great thread by the way. I love reading up on stuff like this.

 

[chubby 10+ year member]

[No message]

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

In order to prove intelligent design, you're first going to have to prove that God even exists. Without that as a starting point, it's all just guessing or shoving creationism into the "winning" spot by default. Without a God, there is no intelligent design. And if you can prove God exists, you'll be a very famous individual.

And IMHO that drdino guy is a quack. I throw him and that Lee Strobel into the same pot....LOL

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

I am not going to try to work on this one today

 

[Frraksurred 10+ year member]

In order to prove intelligent design, you're first going to have to prove that God even exists. Without that as a starting point, it's all just guessing or shoving creationism into the "winning" spot by default. Without a God, there is no intelligent design. And if you can prove God exists, you'll be a very famous individual.

And IMHO that drdino guy is a quack. I throw him and that Lee Strobel into the same pot....LOL

You are correct in saying that in this life we will never prove that God exists without a doubt (not scientifically anyway), however the same can be said for evolution. From your point of view in order to prove that this all began from a single cell appearing out of "primordial ooze" you are going to have to prove that cell and the primordial ooze ever existed in the first place. Since none of us were there to witness it, we have to go with what the evidence best points to. If the best and most credible evidence we have today makes a more logical case for there being an intelligent design behind it, then it is a theory we had to seriously consider. When discussing our origins nothing is provable beyond a doubt...what is important for this discussion is that one will arise as more plausable than the rest.

It is simply my belief that the enormous information that is stored in the DNA of even the simplest cell, the vast complexity of even the simplest organism, the razor thin edge by which life is sustained not only in our universe, but particularly on this earth, is far better explained by intelligent design, then by chance apon chance apon chance, ad infinium.

By the way, do you label every one who's views do not align with yours as a quack? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/up2something.gif.dd110ecf3ae4b76050d87598f2f8de7c.gif

 

[B_Master_Flash 10+ year member]

I also have noticed that most creationist try to "prove" creation by disproving a miniscule corner of the evolution theory, or even a single experiment. I've read Steven Hawkings books, A Brief History of Time, and The Universe in a Nutshell, and to me, the fact that the history of the universe has been mathematically traced to within a fraction of a second after the big bang is enough to sell me.

Also, randomco, correct me if I'm just talking out of my ***, but I had always heard the sun is still growing

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

By the way, do you label every one who's views do not align with yours as a quack? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/up2something.gif.dd110ecf3ae4b76050d87598f2f8de7c.gif

LOL....I'm going to bed soon, so I just skimmed......but I wanted to comment atleast on this while I was thinkin' about it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

And the answer is no, just those two //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/silly.gif.3549b64aaa5b6729eb8e865319a3234f.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

You are correct in saying that in this life we will never prove that God exists without a doubt (not scientifically anyway), however the same can be said for evolution. From your point of view in order to prove that this all began from a single cell appearing out of "primordial ooze" you are going to have to prove that cell and the primordial ooze ever existed in the first place. Since none of us were there to witness it, we have to go with what the evidence best points to. If the best and most credible evidence we have today makes a more logical case for there being an intelligent design behind it, then it is a theory we had to seriously consider. When discussing our origins nothing is provable beyond a doubt...what is important for this discussion is that one will arise as more plausable than the rest.

But with science we have certain ways of testing whether or not our theories can hold up to the physics of the universe. And, as you have pointed out, not all of them have. So, we can promptly dismiss those and begin to test other theories or further test other theories, and back those theories up by evidence that show how the theories match the physics of life and the universe.

Problem with creationism is that it entirely relies upon something that can not (and will not) ever be proven; that there is in fact an intelligent being that created us. You can dismiss evolution all you want, but you'll never be able to prove your theories correct in the same way science can.

 

[Frraksurred 10+ year member]

the fact that the history of the universe has been mathematically traced to within a fraction of a second after the big bang is enough to sell me.

Your sold huh? Science has gone from "slight, successive, favorable variations,” from a single common ancestor (Origins) over billions of years, to an abrupt arrival of a wide representation of animals extinct and still existing. A theory that so closely resembles the Biblical account of creation that the biggest difference is the Bible gives a cause and the evolutionists are still trying to figure the "mystery" behind it.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

ok 1. the moon has been slowly leaving the earth, about 3 or so feet per year, working backward the moon would have been 3 feet closer last year and so on and so on. with creation thats fine, cause if the earth is only 10g's old then it would still put the moon in a reasonable distance away. with evolutionist the moon would be touching the earths surface as little as 1 million years ago, now if the earth is 4.6 billion years old, how is this possible?

I'm no astrophysicist, but ever heard of oscillating systems? Just because the tide goes out, doesn't mean it won't come back in...

But with science we have certain ways of testing whether or not our theories can hold up to the physics of the universe. And, as you have pointed out, not all of them have.

A theory is just that - it's not a fact, at least not without something substantial backing it up. Tectonic plate activity used to be a theory - now we know it to be true, because we can place ultra-accurate markers on different continents and track their movements via satellite. We know the Earth to be round, and not the center of the universe. These are things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Such is not the case with most theories.

The theory of the Big Bang isn't perfect, but it's pretty **** close. It accounts for the apparent red shift we see in galaxies, and the cosmic background radiation, and does so without taking into account creation of matter like theories before it. Is it perfect? No...but it works pretty well.

Now, the big question remains...if (and I do believe when, given enough time) we discover another form of life out there, what then?

Too bad we probably won't be around to witness it.

addendum: if there is "something else" out there, I'd probably take the Deist stance of Voltaire, Jefferson and most of the Founding Fathers - he's gone and left us a while ago, so we had better learn to deal with life on our own.