Scientific basis for Creationism
After reading comments from Annoyed and thinking some, I thought why not expalin a few things that disprove Evolution.
One of the main tennants of Evolution is we and all living forms are Evolving to higher level organisms, when in fact we are devolving we are mutations of early man. Now someone will say well we are living longer. Yes we are living longer than people in the middle ages, but early man lived to 500 or more and that is proved by science. We have more knowledge now, because people keep building on things they learn. Also evolution can not provide the "missing link".
There are other examples and they can be found at www.answersingenesis.org. however if you chose not to check it out, then that is your choice. All I can say is I will pray for you, because if you continue to keep that attitude you will be sorry when your life here ends.
There is only one right answer, you may think I am wrong, that is your right. I do enjoy reading your posts and do agree with some. Thanks GOD BLESS
posted by GOPBUDDY @ 7:10 PM
19 Comments:
In fact, SCIENCE did find the "missing link" a couple of months ago.
A marine animal with a shoulder joint much like ours.
That website you keep sending everyone to has nothing to do with actual science.
You still haven't shown me anything in the way of actual scientists backing your claims... At least ones not writing for Christian websites
Just because they write for a Christian web site does not cause them to lose their crediantials or for even that they are not science of merit.
I don't know why you are afraid to check it out and the scientist to see if they have merit.
GOD BLESS
I did check it out.
While it offers examples of how these things may have happened it doesn't have anything to do with science.
These are just opinions backed up by theories that still require tremendous leaps of faith.
While faith is a wonderful thing it should also remain a private one! Interjecting faith based ideas into science classrooms is dangerous, misguided, and reckless in my opinion.
It is no wonder the USA is falling further behind the rest of the world in Science every day. Aisa and India are passing us by leaps and bounds!
I have to assume that a large part of the reason is becasue so many of our students are confronted with all this other nonsense in American classrooms.
That website is fine for the choir or Christians reading it... However, you can not expect anyone not operating on a faith-first level to come away being swayed from their initial opinions.
I would like to know where the people that write for that website teach science and where they contribute to the science community?
My gut feeling is they don't! They are Christians posing as scientists.
Not the same thing!
That is what I'm saying check out the names on the website and see where they teach and if they are with merit. There names and credentials are all listed.
GOD BLESS
Some of those listed are dentists...
lol
Anyway, I pulled one out and read his interview... When people say things like the following it makes it impossible to take them seriously...
Q: How old do you think the universe is?
A: Probably six to eight thousand years.
Holy hell, that is dumb!
An example of one's faith clouding any trace of actual reason.
I'm sure I could go through them all and pull out an example just like this one... It's a waste of time, imo.
"that is dumb"
is that the best rebuttle annoyed has?
"a marine animal with a shoulder joint much like ours."? So what?
-a shoulder is nowhere near sufficient to constitute a solid link between man and apes.
-how does the marine animal fit the direct link to man? Marine life is so far down the evolutionary line that there shouldn't be very much similarity.
-"much like ours"? The ambiguity of that statement is a prime example of the liberties evolutionists take when declaring that a concrete link has been found
"some of those listed are dentists"
-keyword being "SOME"
yeah and the other 200+ were doctors in geology, genetics, biochemistry, microbiology, etc...
i don't mean to attack Annoyed personaly. I enjoy a healthy intellectual fight just as much as the next guy, but please lets fight fair. Our weapons need to be logic, reasoning, history, scientific data, etc... not blanket statements and insults without explanations.
My point about the Dentist is that is sort of distorts the credentials of the others.
Anyway, for years and years the debate that creationism has staked it's entire "proof" on was this so-called "missing Link" and that there was no clear evolution between Sea and land. What I was pointing out is they have discovered an animal that once was in the sea and ventured onto land. The shoulder of this animal is much like ours today.
Evolution...
Doers this prove my side or disprove yours... no. However, the more science learns the more the bible loses absolute truth for me. In my opinion we are dealing with explanantions that served the purpose before science came along to prove or disprove many of those theories.
In the end I will never be convinced the bible is absolute truth and that it should be taught in schools as an acceptable theory.
It's a private faith-based matter.
Anyone that can honestly say they think the universe is only 6,000-8,000 years old is foolish in my opinion.
That's the thinking that still has people believing man was walking the universe with the dinosaurs...
Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any mention of them in the bible? I don't think there is.... I would have thought God mentioned the biggest of the beasts at least once?
We should be thankful that we're not living as long as early man (500 years old??), can you possibly imagine what it would be like to drive behind someone 500 years old.
And if its true that the older we get the worse we smell, well I need'nt elaborate on that...
The maker's of Depends would surely be happy with people reaching the "ripe" old age of 500 though.
GOPBuddy, evolution is hard to dispute since carbon dating uses hard data to dispute creationist claims.
Carbon dating has been disputed by many reputable scientists several years ago.
If there was not flood how do we account for the billions or fossils of different animals in areas that they are not in now.
The only way they could have got there would have been drowning and being brought together as the flood waters drained.
Anyone have an answer to my dinosaur question/point?
There are fossil remains that show that dinosaurs walked at the same time as man. As far as them not mentioned in the Bible there are some reference to "large lizards", but also the Bible does not metion every animal in the world.
To the questions, before it is asked, how could they get dinosaurs on the ark, which is one I always had. It is really simple they were probably, just like giraffes, baby ones.
GOD BLESS
See, that's not true.
Every documentry I've watched on Dinosaurs says clearly that they were gone long before Man walked the earth.
Long, long before!
Any scientist who says different is lying to save face with his personal faith.
It still doesn't do much for your argument when people you ask me to look up claim th earth is 8,000 years old and the scientific FACTS are the Dinosaurs went extinct 65 MILLION years ago!
Pretty big gap there!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Man lived to 500 years old and beyond? Proven by science? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Idiocy like this, is why (rightfully) creationist idiots get no respect.
And what exactly is a "crediantial."
Annoyed, the question is not whether the earth is 8000 years old, the question is how that dinosaur was created. The fact that you can sit at your computer and debate the existance of God is in and of itself a miracle. Instead of watching the History Channel for the basis of your commentary why don't you do some honest research. You will find a Creators fingerprint on everything. There are 20 specific requirements for our planet to be able to sustain life. If even one of these requirements were not met we would not be here. To believe that we arrose from a primordial ooze is ignorant. Do yourself a favor and obtain some knowledge that will save your eternal soul.
Just thought I'd interject while I'm reading this debate (though it seems more to me like a bunch of rude religious fanatics on the evolution side bashing a few creation scientist who actually have their facts straight, and good arguments...)
Dinosaurs do still exist on the earth today. That's a slight problem with evolution that evolution can't seem to do anything about. Students from other countries (specifically those in the areas that Annoyed said are ahead of us) accept, and actually SEE these creatures. They are amazed when they come to America and find out that we actually teach in our SCHOOLS that these creatures are extinct! There have been creatures resembling the Plesiosaurus, Pterodactyl, and other "extinct" dinosaurs that have been seen, and photographed. In Japan the government found a dead creature similar (if not the same as) the Plesiosaurus floating in the ocean. They photographed it, and even showed it to scientists in the USA, and they refused to even look at the pictures. Sounds like someone has a pretty closed minded there?
The truth is that the earth keeps getting older by millions of years.... EACH YEAR.... or at least that's according to Evolutionists who keep changing the text books. Sounds like they can't even keep their facts straight.
Oh, and while I'm here... dinosaurs ARE mentioned in the Bible. of course, they aren't called "dinosaurs" as that word wasn't even invented until the 1800s (I think...) they were referred to as the "leviathan" (in Job) and as dragons in other books of the bible. In Psalms they are referred to as "Behemoth".
Both Creationism and Evolution when proposed in reference to the Beginning of Man are theories.
Why teach one and not the other ? Introduce them BOTH as THEORIES.
Doesn't this empower a kid to make up his own mind ?
Teach both concepts, and require kids to do research papers supporting whichever theory they individually wish to choose in favor of the other.
This actually PROMOTES kids' learning how to find their own facts, seek their own material and sources, put it all together into a cohesive picture, and FORM THEIR OWN REASONING with their own armory of evidence to back it all up.
What would be wrong with this ?
Schools definitely teach History ... in many areas. Shoot, I learned about Greek Mythology and Roman Mythology in Western Civilization, I learned all about the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades... Religion in History goes on and on. Religion basically was necessary in SHAPING History.
The word "Religion" is not a curse word in a Public School. It shouldn't be, anyway.
Science classes teach about Natural Selection. However, there are large discrepancies in teaching that Natural Selection was solely responsible for the presence of mankind.
Both your History subjects AND your Science subjects (not to mention Mathematics) dictate that a Religion-based Theory is very responsible for shaping much of World History by addressing those discrepancies.
Again, they are both theories. Teachers should address them in that manner.
I'm not suggesting that creationism be "taught" as much as simply "introduced".
Teach natural selection. Natural selection is proven in many examples of adaptational evolution.
Introduce evolution as what it is in regards to the origin of Man: an unproven theory.
Introduce creationism as a theory useful to counter the large chunks of missing evidence needed to further support and prove the initial theory.
There's your science. If you think a well-educated creationist cannot use science to support creationism...
counter to your ludicrous notion that creationism originated and exists only due to the Book of Genesis...
then you have much. MUCH. to learn about it.
And the theory of Creationism has absolutely affected the course of History. Rather sharply. Just have many other theories based largely on concepts of deism.
Creationism can and should be introduced both scientifically AND historically in schools.
Again, all we would be doing is something most folks CLAIM to strongly support.
We would be empowering kids to learn on their own and to draw their own conclusions based on their own work.
What would an evolutionist have to be afraid of in doing this ? In gathering our own evidence, and forming our own conclusions, are we all not participating in science ?
As for Annoyed's comment about the Bible never mentioning "dinosaurs"... I did some research and the Bible refers to what we know as dinosaurs MANY times; however, like Regano said, the word "dinosaur" was not invented until 1841. Some of the so called dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible are: Tanniyn, Behemowth, and Leviathan.
"Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word 'dinosaur.' The word 'dinosaur' was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to 'Tanniyn.' To make things clearer, we constructed the following table comparing the scientific names with the Biblical names tanniyn, behemoth, and Leviathan.
Check out http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml to read more.
I agree with Scot,please back up your statements with logic and facts.
I think the admin of this website is genuinely working hard in favor of his web page, because here every material is quality based data.
Review my page - north face canada
Post a Comment
<< Home