What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

carolinajazz said:
....a "fairy tale book?" The first chapter of the Bible gives partial details of some vital steps that God took to prepare the earth for human enjoyment. The chapter does not give every detail; as we read it, we should not be put off if it omits particulars that ancient readers could not have comprehended anyway. For example, in writing that chapter, Moses did not report the function of microscopic algae or bacteria. Such forms of life first came into human view after the invention of the microscope, in the 16th century. Nor did Moses specifically report on dinosaurs, whose existence was deduced from fossils in the 19th century. Instead, Moses was inspired to use words that could be understood by people of his day—but words that were accurate in all they said about earth’s creation.

Animal life would depend upon chloroplasts for survival. Also, without green vegetation, earth’s atmosphere would be overly rich in carbon dioxide, and we would die from heat and lack of oxygen. Some specialists give astonishing explanations for the development of life dependent on photosynthesis. For example, they say that when single-celled organisms in the water began to run out of food, “a few pioneering cells finally invented a solution. They arrived at photosynthesis.” But could that really be so? Photosynthesis is so complex that scientists are still attempting to unravel its secrets. Do you think that self-reproducing photosynthetic life arose inexplicably and spontaneously? Or do you find it more reasonable to believe that it exists as a result of intelligent, purposeful creation, as Genesis reports?

In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time!

Can you really put faith in this account of creation and the prospects it holds out? As we noted, modern genetic research is moving toward the conclusion stated in the Bible long ago. Also, some scientists have taken note of the order of events presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time!
Click to expand...

Yes, a fairy tale book including a invisible jealous hateful GOD, burning bushes, a talking snake, a man eating fish with the man surviving to tell the tale, the great flood that contained 2 of every living species (wow that was some big boat) and a person who walks on water, tales of rising from the dead and a virgin birth. Stories taken or copied from other pagan religions all written and voted on by ordinary people deciding what was and is sacred. Besides has there ever been a person who has survived 2-3 days in side of a fish and lived? I have witnessed bushes burning but never have they talked to me. IF God does exists do you really think he would be so hateful and jealous as is recorded in the Bible. I hope that GOD (if there is one) would be above human pettiness since he is all knowing why would he/she be otherwise? You are entitled to believe it is sacred and from GOD just like I am entitled to believe it is a fairy tale.


As far as the Newsweek article, How does that prove the "truthfulness" of the bible? I would guess that most people believe that there was a first man and women. Some believed they evolved and there is plenty of science to back that up. While you used this article as "implied/proof" that the bible was right on, in reality they were wrong, Adam and Eve were not the first people on the planet and the writers of the Bible were simply writing their own history in a very small place on the planet. I wouldn't think that they would be aware of anyone else due to a lack of technology and understanding. I guess GOD could have told authors of the Bible there were other people long before Adam and Eve but he didn't since the Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first. I won't even talk about the fact that you just proved the bible wrong because you said that there is an ancestral father ( don't know if this is true) and mother over 600,000 years ago not 6,000 like bible thumpers believe. Perhaps the truth is that the book was written by infallible men who had no knowledge of the outside world and its mysteries. I see the Newsweek actually contradicting your claim of "how would they know?"

William Pratt is dead and buried. That is the best source you have.
I think the sequence of creation has already been discounted in previous comments on this thread.
 
AKMVP said:
Oh and were do you find these old geezers as your reference source?
Wallace Everette Pratt (1885–1981) was a pioneer American petroleum geologist. He died at age of 96 (33 years ago). So basically last time he had any common sense in his old brain was about 50 years ago. Nice source. As always.
Click to expand...


Oh, so your quoting and using Darwin who died decades before Pratt makes more sense and is more creditable than my source? Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! Besides, this guy has FAR more degrees and awards than your clown! Below is just a list.....an arm long.....I might add!

Graduated from the University of Kansas in 1907 with a bachelor's degree. Among the most notable early contributions made by Pratt and his staff were geological studies that led to the correct interpretation of the structure of the huge Mexia field, discovered in October 1920 in East Texas.

Pratt also played a prominent role in the scientific progress of his profession. He was the first recipient of the AAPG's Sidney Powers Memorial Award, awarded in 1945.

In 1972 he received the AAPG's Human Needs Award. He also received the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers' Anthony F. Lucas Medal in 1948, and the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 1954.
 
One Brow said:
To my knowledge, the only person in this thread who has quoted Darwin as a source for current evolutionary theory is PearlWatson.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna rifle back through this thread for the background to this....

But why is there a problem with quoting Darwin? "Darwinism" was perverted by conservative interpretations of what he wrote and poorly constructed debates between those conservatives and the reactionaries against the idea of evolution. I think his original works are still very insightful; they stand up pretty damn well.
 
carolinajazz said:
Graduated from the University of Kansas in 1907 with a bachelor's degree. Among the most notable early contributions made by Pratt and his staff were geological studies that led to the correct interpretation of the structure of the huge Mexia field, discovered in October 1920 in East Texas.

Pratt also played a prominent role in the scientific progress of his profession. He was the first recipient of the AAPG's Sidney Powers Memorial Award, awarded in 1945.

In 1972 he received the AAPG's Human Needs Award. He also received the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers' Anthony F. Lucas Medal in 1948, and the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 1954.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with creation fantasy you trying to sell as fact here. And again, look at the dates. Dude had no clue about any recent fossil discoveries, advanced dating methods or other technological advances.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];801355 said:
But why is there a problem with quoting Darwin? ... I think his original works are still very insightful; they stand up pretty damn well.
Click to expand...

Newton's works also stand up pretty well, but if I'm discussing the current state of physics, I won't quote Newton. There is nothing wrong with quoting Darwin for historical purposes.
 
AKMVP said:
Show me where I quoted Darwin please.
Click to expand...

...you have supported Darwin thinking ever since we've started this thread! "Natural selection"....."Mutations"....."biological species change from one kind to another"..."evolutionary change occurs through gradual change of populations."
.......NONE of which is/has been/or ever will be.....supported by facts, observation, fossil record or common sense!
 
carolinajazz said:
...you have supported Darwin thinking ever since we've started this thread! "Natural selection"....."Mutations"....."biological species change from one kind to another"..."evolutionary change occurs through gradual change of populations."
.......NONE of which is/has been/or ever will be.....supported by facts, observation, fossil record or common sense!
Click to expand...

Triple false. Supported and quoted are different words. Evolution is confirmed by multiple evidence and lab experiments.
And people who believe in virgin birth, 900 year old humans and Noah's ark should never mention common sense in their posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top