Creationism vs. Evolution

Earth: The Making of a Planet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rZJ5bkveNc&feature=player_detailpage

 

It helps in understanding John's revelation to keep in mind that he was describing a vision that he saw and that his vision was rich with symbols. But those symbols do represent real forces at work in this world.

Generally speaking, the 4 Horsemen represent a shitstorm on people who have given themselves over to doing evil. Sort of like the credit collapse of 2008 times one million.

 

A thread of its own someday...

 

I get it, you make a conclusion that something I said means the bible has absolutely no meaning or nothing to offer me, and tell me that in an insulting way as a response. Got it.

 

Stalin gave it a good go. Mao as well.

"Without God and immortality, all things are lawfull"

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

I was referring to a specific reference in someone else's post

 

The answers don't fit into little sound bites, there are detailed peer-reviewed papers that explain minute changes and then accumulations of related papers to develop a chain of discovery on a single evolutionary or geological theory.

Are you saying it shouldn't take imagination? Of course it does. Creationists don't appear to want to imagine anything outside of the bible or only imagine explanations that conform to the bible, not to what the evidence leads to.

Evolutionists goal is to figure out and understand the physical world, wherever the evidence leads. Creationism instead does the opposite, starting with the answer and searching for explanations that may or may not involve science, and often with wild imagination that simply can't be backed by science. Or they simply try to create gaps in evolution theory by misrepresenting what scientists have theorized.

 

I'll admit I skimmed. Still it is hard for me to believe much of basic assumptions.

For instance, "The evidence shows that the Bible is unique and that God is its author." That is nothing more than faith, I don't see the evidence here.

"Self-authentication. It is essential to remember that the Bible is self-authenticating since its books were breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, the books were canonical the moment they were written. It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. " I missed something, where is the evidence anything is breathed out by God.

"Even if a letter of Paul were discovered, it would not be canonical. After all, Paul must have written many letters during his lifetime in addition to the ones that are in the New Testament; yet the church did not include them in the canon. Not everything an apostle wrote was inspired..." They pre-decided in AD 397 discovery of new writing from Paul could never be self-authenticated and breathed out by God?

It is difficult to get past the first section without concluding this is strictly based on faith that the bible is truly 100% the word of a god.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...k&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share Buttons

interesting since we were on the topic... comes out for download on the 9th. Should be interesting to see what they bring to the table.

 

Repost

I find it interesting that the creationists realize that are really a marginal fringe that doesn't participate with the mainstream scientific community and won't until they actually engage with the scientific community with papers that can stand up to peer-review. Because their "science" wouldn't stand up they find an audience on the internet and books that avoid scrutiny.

This movie advertises it is a slam dunk demolition of evolution as though it will not get ignored or point by point show to be a distortion of evolution.

It pretends there is an on going debate between evolution and creationism and that creation is winning or about to win something, while avoiding joining the scientific process.

Creationists should start presenting their science to the world in the same way the other science does and sink or swim, not rely on films by evangelists to claim victory.

 

Just watch it when it comes out then we can debate what you think you already know is in it.

 

The evangelist that made the movie already gave me some good idea what to expect.

“[I asked], ‘Is there scientific evidence, observable evidence?,’” he explained to TheBlaze. “[None] of the scientists could provide any.

Yep, no evolutionary scientist can provide any observable evidence......as defined by an evangelist with 100% stake in proving evolution wrong.

"It is scientifically impossible for nature to create itself,” he noted, adding that this is indicative of a Higher Power setting it all in motion."

Creationist should say it is scientifically impossible for a creator to create itself, or always have been, with equal authority, but that isn't their answer.

"Comfort noted that even the most intelligent scientist on the face of the earth “can’t make a grain of sand from anything,” nor can he or she create animals that are able to reproduce."

Scientist don't claim the ability to create sand or animals, but he clearly expects scientists to do if evolution is real.

He claims atheist are embarrassingly stupid. All humans are atheist, some are atheist to all gods, others all but one. - paraphrasing someone.

Richard Dawkins opened the door to the joys of sin … If evolution is true and we are primates, then escapades are mere instincts — homosexuality, adultery, etc.,” he said. “[These things are] okay if there’s no God and we are merely primates. That’s why when [Dawkins], the pied piper, plays his tunes millions of people listen … they just want to confirm their worldview and their lifestyle.

This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, just an evangelist showing this is really about maintaining the idea that morality can only come from the bible and without that "cats and dogs sleeping together.....mass hysteria". Believe it or not there are human instincts that came from evolution, and it's funny the evangelist wants to deny that and imagine a world of alternative lifestyle if evolution prevails.

There is plenty of evidence that people of faith opened the doors to the joys of sin without Richard Dawkins pied pipering.

Me thinks Comfort has a secret hard-on for Dawkins.

 

I have always wondered if our pets will be in heaven when we get there

 

The Bible's value to me is as a God inspired textbook concerning moral accountability for my behavior to What made me. Denial doesn't exempt anyone from their personal responsibility any more than it could cancel the law of gravity.

 

I think they are in limbo until the original "custodian" arrives. They go to either heaven or hell depending.

I don't want a heaven where my dogs don't get to go too.

 

So it's not literal

 

Always cryptic?

So if I deny the bible I still have to show up to work on time and pay my taxes? I thought denial could only lead to moral depravity.

 

In your own words:

You only have your own words to blame for your self inflicted offense.

 

you guys see this humanzee shit ??

 

No parts. Simply by observing how human nature operates in real time in the real world.