Creationism vs. Evolution

im a man of science

so evolution of course

 

haha this about sums it up for me

 

God can do whatever he wants in my book because I worship Him.

if the learning channel tells us something is a fact, is it a fact?

so does science prove evolution and dissprove creation?


http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/aa-big-bang/aa-big-bang

 

So He can create a women from a man's rib, change things so that she's not an identical copy, and then use those 2 people to populate the world with whites, blacks, asians, etc, etc etc. He can cause all the genetic variation in skin color, height, hair color, eye color, etc, etc, etc to create different races of people, but can't make creatures develop into more advanced ones to meet environmental or food gathering changes over long periods of time?

Sorry. I don't buy it.

 

it's not for sale brother, it's a free gift to anyone

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media#/video/ondemand/evolution-to-creation

 

Sorry, that was me trying to politely say "BS". If people can change over the short time we've been around and documenting things it's very arrogant to think other creatures couldn't change as well. Especially considering the amount of time involved, climate changes, changes in sources of food, etc. Adapt or die.

But I suppose God could just step in and replace failing species with ones better prepared for the new conditions, and that's how humans popped up.

But wait... we still have endangered species don't we. Why isn't God saving them, replacing them, or just finding a way for them to survive? Things either adapt or die. The ones that adapt live on to pass the adaptation to their offspring. Until mankind started trying to save endangered species. Or maybe God through mankind/Noah with the Ark. But no other animal helps another survive when conditions aren't favorable.

 

I apologize if I have ever came across as arrogant. I like to post these links because they say alot of what I believe. I don't mean to use them as an easy out, some people may be really interested and enjoy them as well.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media#/video/ondemand/planet-of-apes

 

Right on!!

 

That wasn't directed at you so much honestly. Just people saying evolution didn't happen, couldn't happen, etc. People that seem blinded to the fact that there's soooooo much variation in life around them. Even between members of the same species. Color patterns of cats. Some of them having extra toes, and using those to eat with their paws. Different breeds of dogs. Mini breeds never existed in nature until selective breeding brought them about. How can you get a 5lb version of a dog naturally weighing in around 100lbs if animals can't change (or "evolve") over time? Dog breeds, for example, may not have taken millions of years and were caused by men, but the fact they happened shows it COULD happen given the right circumstances in nature over time.

And it's not just dogs and cats either. Horses, other livestock, the list goes on.

 

if God allowed Himself to be provable then where would faith be? Also, kinda strange that science has yet to disprove anything in the Bible.
Creation originally, with evolution a natural progression of life. All a part of His design.

 

actually stuff like that doesn't mean much. they haven't found whole fossilized societies, they have just found a few freaks. 40 million years from now they may find the elephant man skeleton and assume we all looked like that. i cant remember the name of the island but somewhere in asia they found a small island littered with hobbit fossils. the average height was 3 feet or something like taht. thats not evolution but it is adaptation within a species. they were on a tiny island with few resources so over centuries the smaller people were the best suited in that environment. thats a perfect example of adaptation, but not evolution. just cause they found a few fucked up skeletons doesn't mean they found the missing link. alot of the "missing links" they have found have been discredited

 

i dont believe God created adam and then eve out of a rib or the earth was created in 7 days. i think thats just a nice story that people came up with to explain the unexplained. but i dont believe in straight up evolution

 

But a dog is still a dog. We have no transitional creatures before or after dogs.

good explanation nd. adaptation is what allowed one pair of cats on the Ark to become many different subspecies across the globe. Totally different than evolution.

I'm quoting from the link below.........

Has Evolution Occurred?

One of the most confusing aspects of the creation/evolution controversy is that there are several distinct definitions for the word evolution that evolutionists constantly blur together.15 One definition involves change (presumably with a genetic basis) in a population over time. Given this definition, evolution has certainly taken place. Ironically, it is the creationist model that requires such changes to be able to occur relatively rapidly. There are a number of examples in the available literature that demonstrate rapid adaptive evolution when animals are introduced into a new environment or the environment changes.16 In fact, evolutionists have had to modify their model to accommodate these observations.9
However, when most people think of evolution, they think of the conjecture that all life on earth has arisen from a common ancestor over millions of years. Obviously no one has observed this. The studies demonstrating adaptive evolution do not show one kind of animal transforming into another, yet evolutionists try to use them to support the common ancestry of all life. Furthermore, the concept that all biological life shares a common ancestor is based on a rejection of the biblical account of history and the possibility of a creator that has interaction with the real world.17 Although it is claimed that this is a scientific view, in reality it is a philosophic view that excludes certain explanations without consideration.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/life-designed-to-adapt

 

but thats my point. if they found hard evidence thats one thing, but they keep finding partial evidence and calling evolution a fact instead of a theory. in the scientific community, it has to be provable to be a fact. evolution is not proven, so its a theory. but if you are a scientists and you dont believe in evolution you are a laughing stock.

 

my point is science tends to jump to conclusions, just to be disproven later. back in the day they thought the earth was the center of hte universe. based on the info they had that was actually a logical assumption. the moon and sun and stars all appear to be revolving around us. but later on, with more research and study we found out that is not the case. scientists and philosophers observed something, made an assumption, and it was wrong. is it not possible that is the case with evolution? the fact is, we dont know how the universe was started, or how life came to be on earth. evolution is certainly a theory worth looking into but its ignorant to just assume its the right answer based on the limited information we have. i'd rather continue to ponder and study all the possibilities, than just pick the popular one just so i can have an answer

 

I don't think there is any hard evidence that Jesus even existed. It is mere hersay and someone else's writings about this figure. Science is about fact and probabilities, not just someone saying it is or is not. The proof of evolution is everywhere. Take an anthropology class, it is an eye opener for sure. I've been to church many, many times, not nearly the eye opener as the class was.

 

another way to look at it is like a crime scene. lets say you know two things and two things only. you have a dead man, and a bullet casing was found at the scene. logically you assume the dude was shot. but maybe that casing was from a failed mugging last week and the man simply died of a heart attack. or maybe the man was stabbed and fired a shot in self defense, and once he was dead the murder took the gun to pawn. my point is, a good detective (notice i said GOOD detective) would never jump to conclusions based on such limited evidence, but for some reason when scientists to it its ok. you have to look at all available evidence, follow leads, collect data, look at it from every possible standpoint and perspective. then you carefully put together the facts. alot of scientists dont do that, they look at the newest data, get excited, and run with it.