Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 96 of 167 (523955)
09-13-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tanndarr
09-13-2009 9:06 AM


Re: Your sources aren't working
Tanndarr writes:
I tried following the link to your creationists.org site, the article you linked to returns a 404 not found and the whole site merely gives an under construction message. Perhaps it's just adapting, but until it finishes could you please provide a valid reference for us?
If you are referring post # 88 above by me, with this link: Is evolution pseudoscience? - creation.com I went so far as to also copy and paste the article itself with the link, so what is your complaint? unless you are speaking to a different link, then quote it and I will make it right. I must say though that I have clicked on every link I have posted and they all work for me. But let me know if any don't and I will C&P the content. But creation.com has already been done in post 88.
In the meantime you might want to consider that the ability of science to account for new evidence by changing is exactly why science is not a religion. Religions are revealed, science is discovered. We didn't pray a man onto the moon and Jesus did not personally deliver smallpox vaccine.
But true science doesn't claim new facts based on assumptions and unproven conclusions as evolution does. Science builds its conclusions upon foundations of proven and tested facts. You have no proof of anything in evo, yet you sit there and insist that your so called science is valid. Let me give you yet another example of the massive leaps you make which are based on observations made but which science hasn't determined how or why that observation occurs. Yet, without knowing the how or why, evolution adopts the observation to explain an end result in their unprovable theory.
dark energy
dark energy, repulsive force that opposes the self-attraction of matter (see gravitation) and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The search for dark energy was triggered by the discovery (1998) in images from the Hubble Space Telescope of a distant supernova that implied an accelerating, expanding universe, which in turn required a new cosmological model (see cosmology). Although dark energy is predicted in particle physics, it has never been directly observed. It is generally agreed, however, that dark energy dominates the universe, which is projected to have a composition of c.70% dark energy, c.30% dark matter, and c.0.5% bright stars. By 2006, astronomers using the space telescope to examine more distant supernovas had found evidence of the effects of dark energy dating to 9 billion years ago.
The concept of dark energy was first proposed, and then discarded, by Albert Einstein early in the 20th cent. His theory of general relativity implied that the pull of gravity would make the universe collapse, but, like many scientists of his time, he assumed the universe to be static and unchanging. To make his equations fit these assumptions, Einstein added a cosmological constant whose effect was repulsive. When American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, it was assumed that the universe must be slowing down because of gravity and might even come to a halt. This led Einstein to remove the cosmological constant from his equations and to say that it had been the biggest blunder of his career. dark energy | Infoplease
As I said, we think we understand that dark energy is real, and I say THINK! But just look at the way it is use to extrapolate conclusions when we don't understand how, why or the full extent of its impact on space, the speed of light or gravity to just name 3 problems off the top of my head. How does evo apply something no man fully understands and hope to come to any reliable conclusions?
You're not only demanding that science conforms to your worldview, you're demanding God conform to your worldview as well. Your position is based on the interpretation of a translation of a really old book. If you believe in God you are positively turning your back to him by studying a book written by man instead of the creation written by God.
Balderdash, TO THE MAX. You are just exposing first, your ignorance of the reliability of Gods word, and secondly your understanding of its consistency when one delves into every detail of it. You need to do better than that if your going to cause this believer to stumble and drop my belief system for the lies which yours represents.
Finally, you are equivocating when you try to differentiate adaptation and evolution. Change is change and that's really all that the theory of evolution says is happening. Once you accept a small change can happen then you have to accept that another can happen and so on...evolution.
No I'm not equivocating at all. The fact is that evolution claims more than changes take place. It claims that all species life on earth, from plants through insects, up to fish all the way to we human beings share a COMMON DESCENT FROM ONE UNIVERSAL ANCESTOR WHO BORE US ALL THROUGH GENETIC DRIFT. In other words MACROEVOLUTION. That is what you believe occurred and nothing discovered in rapid adaptation shows changes in alleles which allow one species to evolve or adapt into another.
Look at it this way, much of what you evos call junk DNA just because you can't figure out what it does, is precisely that DNA which allows for rapid adaptation based on environmental pressures throughout the animal kingdom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tanndarr, posted 09-13-2009 9:06 AM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by bluescat48, posted 09-13-2009 4:54 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 100 by Tanndarr, posted 09-13-2009 6:41 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 99 of 167 (523967)
09-13-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by SammyJean
09-13-2009 2:47 PM


SammyJean writes:
Your link to this article doesn't work. It appears that the website is down, so I did a search for it on google. It seems as though the article only appears there, at creation.org.
Here is the link again. It works just fine for me. If your computer is faulty, then I can't be held responsible for that. Forbidden And here's all creation.org has on Young. If you have a problem with this then, well, I couldn't care less. Forbidden You can worry about irrelevant minutia if you like, I'll worry about defending my position.
I also did a search for Patrick Young, Ph.D and found a bio on him at answersingenesis.org. It appears Dr. Young is a "Creationist Chemist and Materials Scientist" with his doctorate being in the field of chemistry. This article that you keep posting is not even listed in his publications.
It seems to me that it's you that is just throwing garbage around.
Is it possible this article was written after that bio? Or is that possibility completely out of the question? Or maybe this article wasn't included with that list of article because the article is posted for all to see. And why don't you guys worry more about answering to the content of what we post rather than spending all of your time trying to attack the author, the source or our honesty in simply posting relevant evidence to support my position?
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by SammyJean, posted 09-13-2009 2:47 PM SammyJean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by SammyJean, posted 09-13-2009 7:00 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 126 of 167 (579752)
09-05-2010 10:10 PM


quote:
I was curious and starting reading here and I see no one thinking about how God could have made an ever changing universe; that would seem far more impressive and interesting in my view.
  —Blissful
God did make an ever changing universe, just not one controlled by a process of an impersonal biological evolution. Have you never heard of rapid adaptation? It is a process where by species adapt to environmental changes from generation to generation depending on the ecological stresses brought on by an ever changing planet. What is key though is that they never evolve into a different species nor do these adaptations take the millions of years that evolutions suggests they do.
quote:
Church teachings have changed over time as the Magesterium have reinterpreted the Bible and as such I feel it would be possible that the Bible is the Truth written in a manner suited for the people it was intended to be read by: not the scientific Man of today but the spiritual Man of the past. It seems a stretch to take the Bibles word as complete scientific fact if you then reject other scientific fact and evidence.
This is gibberish and makes no rational sense at all. If this so called magisterium has reinterpreted the bible to serve its purposes over time, then the bible itself would not represent any lasting truth. The reality is that no matter how many men from however many man made churches corrupt and pervert Gods word to serve their own selfish ends, the bible itself remains the absolute unvarnished and untarnished truth as He intended it to be. It is an absolute truth that no amount of misinterpreting can succeed in truly corrupting.
Its like when people deny that Jesus is the Messiah/Savior of Humanity; all of the arguments and insistences against His eternal position by FINITE MEN does nothing at all to actually diminish His place as the Son of God and the Messiah. All that remains for the scoffer is the ultimate shock that awaits them seconds after they shed this flesh and finally learn the absolute and eternal truth that evaded them for their complete lifetimes. So shall it be for the evolutionist.
quote:
From the point of view of early man, created by God in His image if you will, the world began around 6000 years ago, a time they could understand, and creatures were described as they were at his time. God created plenty of mysteries for people to explore, His very nature being the greatest example, and it seems a bit much to assume that He decided to reveal Creation in complete crystal detail.
You speak of early Man as if he were a simpleton, but of course that is what your evolution teaches you. You see them as stone age barbarian cave dwellers who were illiterate and ignorant. You fail to appreciate the advanced nature of the pre-flood world which this Age has forgotten.
Have you forgotten that God had Adam name each of the animals on Earth as He brought them to him one by one? And just think, that was shortly after being created in Gods image. So Adam was created with wisdom and perfect knowledge that we can only imagine in this Age. Also, consider this, Noah either knew Adam personally or learned from men like Methuselah, Enoch and Job who did know him personally.
You all think that the knowledge in the OT was fictional rantings of simple men who sought power over ignorant people, yet given the longevity of Adams immediate pre-flood descendants, the knowledge of Genesis was as widely disseminated as your family history is going back the last hundred years via oral tradition.
Check out this underwater city and the age it has been dated at. http://www.s8int.com/water2.html
And how about this site estimated to be 17,000 years old.
Tiahuanacu (also called Tiwanaku) is a mystery because of its age (estimated to be 17,000 years) and the peculiar stone technology. Today there is little doubt that Tiahuanaco was a major sacred ceremonial centre and focal point of a culture that spread across much of the region. The ancient people built a stone pyramid known as the Akapana
Page not found - WORLD MYSTERIES
Their have been many more remains of civilizations which predate the great flood but are much to sophisticated and massive to have been built by the stone age barbarians that evolutionists assume existed back then. Oh, one more thing; the guestimated age of man since Adam is just that, a guess! Nowhere does the bible actually date the age of humanity at 6000 years.

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Omnivorous, posted 09-05-2010 10:44 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 128 by bluescat48, posted 09-05-2010 11:35 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 2:15 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 130 of 167 (579821)
09-06-2010 7:31 AM


Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
Why is it that you people are completely incapable of actually dealing with and responding to the evidence and issues I raise rather than just scoffing at and insulting them?
The point of my argument was to say that a complete pre-flood civilization existed which produced massive cities on the scale of what exists today. I believe that rather than the mechanical technology we currently enjoy, they accomplished great feats with brain power that we can't even imagine in this Age.
Rather than even try to respond to the question of who and how these ancient structures came to be, you just scoff at them even though dating methods which you accept as accurate determined their ages. Your acceptance of evidence is totally biassed and dependent upon it agreeing with your world view. If your same accepted dating methods lead to evidence which contradicts your world view, you immediately disregard it and scoff at it.
How convenient it must be for your side to be able to accept and reject evidence depending on whether it fits into your limited world view or not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by nator, posted 09-06-2010 7:42 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 132 by Omnivorous, posted 09-06-2010 7:47 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 137 by jar, posted 09-06-2010 10:02 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 146 by Omnivorous, posted 09-06-2010 11:45 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 133 of 167 (579827)
09-06-2010 8:42 AM


See the links in my post #126, do you think those cities and monolithic structures were built by stone age cave dwellers as you evolutionists assert WITH ALLEGED EVIDENCE occupied the world between 10 and 20,000 years ago? The whole reason you all universally reject these archeological findings and never discuss them at all is because they don't fit into your world view.
Just look at the detail and size/weight of these stone artifacts in Puma Punku dating back 17,000 years according to your own accepted dating methods. Page not found - WORLD MYSTERIES How do you explain the existence of these stone age era monoliths? The answer is, you don't even try to. You just scoff and mock the links as if the evidence itself was just made up.
What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS. Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.
Also, explain this connection between Easter Island and Peru, if you can. Page not found - WORLD MYSTERIES
Edited by Archangel, : To add content:
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 9:08 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 10:53 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 144 by Granny Magda, posted 09-06-2010 11:03 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 152 by nator, posted 09-06-2010 7:46 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 135 of 167 (579838)
09-06-2010 9:45 AM


How do you explain the detailed and highly intricate design and weight of these interlocking stone pieces which made up the wall around the site?
"How were such titanic blocks of stone brought to the top of the mountain from the quarries many miles away? How were they cut and fitted? How were they raised and put in place? Now one knows, no one can even guess. There are archaeologists, scientists, who would have us believe that the dense, hard andesite rock was cut, surfaced and faced by means of stone or bronze tools. Such an explanation is so utterly preposterous that it is not even worthy of serious consideration. No one ever has found anywhere any stone tool or implement that would cut or chip the andesite, and no bronze ever made will make any impression upon it."
Page not found - WORLD MYSTERIES

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 9:48 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 151 by frako, posted 09-06-2010 4:10 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 138 of 167 (579847)
09-06-2010 10:17 AM


quote:
It wasn't dated that early it was dated to A.D. 536—600. Link.
  —Huntard
Really? According to your link it existed in the Pre-Columbian Era, that era extended from 15,000 BC to 600 AD. So different experts apply different times to their existence and you know that very well. You just selectively choose the opinion which fits with your preferred world view. And what's more, even with your preferred world view you can't answer my question as to how they lifted these massive multi ton stone works, or how they carved them or even who had the power to disassemble them once they were constructed.
But nice job ignoring and avoiding the meat of the debate and selectively choosing a few centuries within the pre-columbian era in order to dishonestly limit this civilizations existence.
Interpreting the meaning of ritual spaces: The temple complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia
Alexei N Vranich, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract
The built environment embodies symbolic messages and helps transform human activity into meaningful experience. Anthropological archaeologists often study buildings from a materialist perspective, examining their functions, the labor investment they required, or their role in the political economy; they generally ignore important symbolic and phenomenological aspects of the built environment. This investigation addresses this lacuna through an examination of the Temple Complex of Pumapunku, one of the largest and most important ritual precincts in the pre-Columbian city of Tiwanaku. Architectural analysis of data from detailed mapping and selective excavation shows that the Pumapunku. Complex is an extensive integrated compound consisting of platforms, buildings, plazas, courtyards, and stairways, measuring half a kilometer in length. Although this complex was modified several times, its formal plan remained unchanged. Two interpretive approaches are used to understand the experience and meaning of the temple complex. The first is a phenomenological approach. The architectural spaces are interpreted from the point of view of a pilgrim walking through the complex, examining the physical and emotional reactions he or she might have experienced. The Pumapunku Complex was designed to funnel groups of people across specially constructed architectural spaces, and to display a series of symbolically important and ritually charged images and activities. The pilgrim was thus exposed to the cosmological meanings imbedded in the architecture of the compound and indoctrinated into important aspects of Tiwanaku religion. The second interpretive approach is structuralist. A model of the axis mundi is developed based on historical and archaeological evidence of a specific architectural form used by the Inka. The material correlates of this model are compared to the Pumapunku Complex, and analysis suggests that the temple complex is an architectural representation of the center of the Andean world. Together the two complementary approaches provide a better understanding of the purpose and meaning of this complex to the people who built it and participated in rituals within it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 10:29 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 147 by Theodoric, posted 09-06-2010 11:48 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 140 of 167 (579850)
09-06-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
09-06-2010 10:02 AM


Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
quote:
There was no Biblical Flood, hence no such thing as pre-flood civilizations.
No one disputes that there were early civilizations but so far none found produced anything that cannot be reproduced today.
  —Jar
Really? Are you forgetting that we are discussing allegedly stone age level societies who had no heavy duty mechanical knowledge or machinery? How did they lift dense rocks up to 70 TONS in weight? How did allegedly pre bronze age societies carve stones so dense they defy/challenge todays diamond edge cutting tools? And most basically, who had the power or technology to destroy these monolithic structures except a super human power?
So you see, the question isn't whether or not we can reproduce what they accomplished, (which in many cases we can't) the question is, how did they accomplish these feats with their alleged stone age limitations? But as usual I get no real answers or evidence for anything I say or ask. Just more excuses and lame explanations which say nothing substantive at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 09-06-2010 10:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 10:41 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 142 by jar, posted 09-06-2010 10:49 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 148 by Taz, posted 09-06-2010 11:55 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 145 of 167 (579874)
09-06-2010 11:37 AM


quote:
Yes, your links do contain material about aliens. From the "World Mysteries" site - the one that you cited;
quote:
The high desert of Peru holds one of the most mystifying monuments of the known worldthe massive-scale geoglyphs known as the Nasca Lines. Ranging from geometric patterns to drawings of different animals and stylized human-like forms. The ancient lines can only be truly taken in, their forms discerned, from high in the air, leaving generations mystified as to how these precise works could’ve been completed long before the documented invention of human flight. Are the lines signs left by an alien race? Landing strips for UFOs? Relics of a ancient people far more advancedcapable of human flightthen previously imagined? Link
Patently absurd.
But it's from the site that you cited. No-one made you cite a nutcase website, you chose to do that. If mention of aliens is enough to discredit a source (something I would agree with), then your own source is discredited.
  —Granny Magda
How typical Granny, you assume because a site that very accurately depicts unexplainable information which nobody denies actually exists, but quotes sources which attempt to explain the massive pictures carved into the earth that can only be appreciated from high altitude as having been placed their by or for aliens to be absurd simply because aliens were mentioned. You fail to appreciate the deeper question that these images were carved into the Earth many hundreds of years before flight was possible on Earth yet they still survive to this day. How is that?
Why haven't they been covered up when an inch of sediment is expected to be laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, so why do these shallow carvings in the earth still exist from great altitudes today?
But more interesting to me is why are such allegedly intelligent intellectuals as you and your ilk claim to be, completely incapable of getting past the shallow observations you do make and observing the meatier questions which are so obvious to me? That these sources attempt to attribute these landmarks to aliens is much less important than why earthbound people would carve them in the first place when nobody on earth allegedly existed at that time who could appreciate them from the available vantage point which existed.
You may consider the mere mention of alien interaction with humans as enough to to completely discredit the site, but until you can come up with a better explanation for the existence of these pictures, then you just prove how condescending and arrogant you are in your dismissal of that which you can't yourself explain.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 1:31 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 09-06-2010 3:13 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 155 of 167 (583187)
09-25-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


Let me simplify this for you:
While staying on topic regarding the OP. This question: Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution? If true would prove God a liar, and not a very good one since everything He tells us in Genesis directly and specifically contradicts what evolution teaches is the origin of life on Earth.
The bible very clearly says that God created MAN in HIS (Gods) own image and that He gave us dominion over all life on Earth. That we have always had this God given dominion is undeniable and that we remain superior to all other life forms as creative, imaginative and intellectual superiors also remains an undeniable fact.
So the question is, by what observable evidence/claims within and from Gods Word (THE BIBLE) do you surmise that He used macro-evolution in any way to make Creation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM Blissful has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by nwr, posted 09-25-2010 10:16 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 157 by jar, posted 09-25-2010 12:03 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 158 by Granny Magda, posted 09-25-2010 3:24 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024