Does the Debate Carry Weight?

[SERay]

It seems that people are either entirely against Evolution or don't care one way or another. I find few people who feel the issue of Creationism need defended. I am inclined to agree. It is not the propose of the Christian to waste time on factual exegesis regarding the appearance of matter. Rather, Christians are taught to focus on the eternal, not the temporal. Christians are to allow their lives to be a light of love through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as to attract those who seek HIM. Really, the whole matter is a vanity to argue, whereas the heavens and earth will pass away and only what remains is of any real value, our souls.

Please read complete published article here: http://www.eternalpath.com/creationism.html

[Tracea]

what if they're one and the same?

For many years, I was a staunch believer in creationism and a very young earth (6000 yrs). Then I came across the vast array of information on the Web and started researching further. I am a seeker of truth, and feel like I am forever seeking, not so much finding. I just keep digging and digging and it's almost addictive. I'm not sure I'll ever have all the answers, but I am enjoying the journey and discovery. I found one site about how God views time differently than we do, and time moving forward from day one is different from time looking back on it from "now." Quantum physics and Einstein's theories seem to prove that God could indeed have used evolution in His creation process. These Web sites are amazing: http://www.aish.com/societyWork/scie...e_Universe.asp and http://www.thegreatstory.org.

Scientists are finding God (or what they call intelligent design) and Christians are seeing their faith confirmed by scientific discoveries. I think science and spirituality are engaged to be married!

[SERay]

The universe is old, but the exact age cannot be quantified with any known method, especially Radiocarbon dating using the carbon-14 method. There is the literal and implied message as promoted by written scripture. If you are a conservative, the written scripture is infallible and if you can question one word, all words are subject to question, therefore nothing should be questioned. Or you could be a liberal whereas the Biblios is the quintessential essence of truth, but subject to discretion regarding certain facts. One could say the Genesis account is literal, while another could say it is written for ease of understanding less the facts. I suggested that people need to look at the supernatural aspects of creations in combination of physics to realize that there are other options that are overlooked.

We coexist in a definitive linear time framework that is governed by the subjective laws and effects contained. The spiritual realm which eclipses our physical reality is infinite and not subject to time as we know it. If a person holds to the monotheistic God and accepts that incomprehensible power created all matter, then it is the same that can control all matter. In simple terms, the Creator could have breached the physics of our linear time confined by the physical realm and accelerate matter by time bursts in succession or over a span as some biblical accounts seem to imply. Science can accurately define cause and effect based on controlled criteria. However if the Deity of matter decided to alter any aspect of our physical dimension, man’s scientific laws would not be able to compensate by logic or methods of measurement. We have to remember that all things are subject to physics, mathematical measurements, geometrical dimensions, etc. Our physical domain is the absolute result of intelligent contrivance, not happenstance as the Abiogenesis so eloquently suggest.

[Miguel]

I believe the earth is 6000 years old, this can be proven through strata the layers of the earth, Carbon daiting dose not prove the arguement for evolution, fosel records do not prove how old a fosel is, but it prove`s their was a global flood, these scientists who whould argue and have us believe that Dogs and Bananas have a common ancester, it is a silly idea but they think this is a answer to evolution.

The fact that the issue should be called Evolutionism and not Creationism, it should be Creation vs Evolutionism because having the title Evolution vs Creationism makes evolution to be more superior then the God of Creation, because Creation is a science evolution is a religion, the god of evolution is time, why because its simple really when you think that time has not evolved and simply that time is the answer for evolution.

If you ask some one who believes in evolution, they will use the word time more then 15 times in a arguement for evolution, when they cannot even explain cosmic and chemical evolution.

I would like to know what they mean by evolution, and what form do they believe in.

their are really 5 diffrent forms to my knowlege, their is Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Organic Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution.

Miguel

[Miguel]

these are the best images i could find on the age of the earth.

You can get more images from the following sites

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.drdino.com/

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

[CarlSW]

Science operates the way it operates. If you really want to understand how science does what it does and how/why it arrives at its conclusions, you can do some research. I'm assuming you are interested in what is factually correct and that it matters to you to speak accurately about what science does or does not say or how science does or does not operate.

My understanding, based in a serious concern for truth and accuracy and a correct understanding of the facts, is that scientists don't know how to study/explore/methodologically scrutinize concepts that are important to those who argue for Creation. 'God' and 'creation from nothing', for example, aren't able to be put under microscopes, statistically or mathematically analyzed, or used to come up with scientific hypothesis. It isn't at all clear how science should proceed to robustly explore the subject.

Science can look at rocks, try to date them, and try to piece things together with other scientists critically reviewing conclusions and pointing out flaws. When they do this, there are only so many ways to explain what they find, within the norms of science's ways of analyzing and talking about its findings. The various aspects to evolution (micro, macro, etc.) theory are just a way of trying to synthesize the data and talk about it scientifically, in accord with lots of attempts to understand, prove and disprove, the claims made by many researchers.

In other words, those who promote evolution as a scientific theory are not lying about their understanding of what the facts are and where the evidence leads and how best to interpret how things got to where they are now.

Any competing notion would have to amass a HUGE amount of information and interpretations and show how well it all worked together, AND survive serious scrutiny. Science proceeds by trying to find flaws in hypothesis. If you want creation to be treated more scientifically, then you have to open it up to harsh criticism and try to prove various aspects false. If it is more or less easy to cast doubt on the claims made, then science is free to wash its hands of the subject.

But philosophy, metaphysics, CAN deal with the subject of intelligent design and creation. In philosophy there is also rigorous scrutiny and serious attempts to disprove claims. Philosophy has room for subjects that aren't easily handled by statistics and physical methods of observation, etc.

If you try to attack the sincerity and seriousness of scientists, you will fail. Showing that creationists are sincere and serious doesn't help if you maliciously slander scientists.

[Redeemed]

Wow, I sure don't have the education nor knowledge that most of you seem to have- though I do feel I understand what you guys are saying.

The way I view Evolution is that Evolution is merely the scientific term for physical adaptation. As such, it fits into the ideal system that God would have created. It is not deniable that our environment is continually changing. The Earth is far different now than it was 500 years ago. As such, if our bodies (and the bodies of all the animals and plants) were to remain the same- how could we cope with the changes in climate that occur, the new diseases that appear, etc. For humans, the most common "adaptation" would be the introduction of a cure to a disease- and in some rare cases a natural improvement to our immune system that allows our bodies to naturally fight the new disease(s). For animals, being that they are incapable of creating "cures" their immune system would have to adapt to the changing environment.

Now, understand that I do not beleive that mankind evolved from apes of a fish like creature. Sure, I believe mankind used to be more primitive- after all, a lot of guys now days don't have much body hair- do you think they'd have kept all that warm 3000 years ago? Animal hides alone couldn't have kept them completely warm (especially in regions such as Alaska where it is extremely cold year-round). No, our bodies had to be different back then to allow us to survive in our climate. We did not have the luxury to go to www.cabelas.com or visit the local outdoors shop and buy some top of the line jacket and pants to keep ourselves warm.

I never claim to have all the answers, as I believe that is humanly impossible. If God wanted us to have all the answers- then everybody would. There would never be a question, ever. This is not the case, as such God is intentionally keeping some knowledge from us- and his reasons are his own. In the Bible it says how His ways our higher than our ways, and that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Yeah, I'd say that implies that he is deliberately holding some knowledge and info from us. And probably for our own good as well.

In short, I feel that Creationism and Evolution go hand in hand. Look at the String-theory, quite interesting what it suggests. And the more I study about string theory, the more it seems like something God would have initiated. Who's to say that God didn't spark the Big Bang (or how ever our "reality" came to be)? I've read the book of Genesis and no where does it get specific in how God created the heavens and earth.

I know that wasn't nearly as intellectual sounding as the rest of ya'll posts- but I'm just a simple redneck so bear with me.

Great site by the way, I frequent several computer hardware forums (I'm a major computer geek ) and have been wanting to join up with a Christian forum for the longest time. Think I've found just the right place. :thumbsup:

[cbmultiplechoice]

As a Christian with a Biology degree I think that it is VERY important to teach others about creation!! If we are to believe that God said He made the world and everything in it in six literal days(why would He go to the trouble to insert...and there was evening and morning so many times if He REALLY took thousands of years to do it?) then we are also to believe God when He said that Christ was risen from the grave after 3 literal days (which is our hope eternal...if Christ was risen then we will have eternal life also) You see to start at the very beginning of scripture and say well that is not what really happened, nad well God didn't really mean it when He said that brings the ENTIRE Bible into consideration for the same 'disbelief'. In Peter we find that he wrote...in the last days people will willing 'forget' that God created the world in 6 days...We are living in these last days that Peter was talking about and we NEED to tell people that God said what He meant and He means what He says...He is going to return and we have to be ready!! Be blessed and educated in the truth of His word =)