Creation vs. Evolution

10-30-03 | J. Greene

[J. Greene]

I am starting this thread to get both Creationist and Evolutionist point of views, and what each side thinks as of proof of their point of view. I personally believe in Creation as the way the Bible teaches it in six literal days.

[John H K]

Thanks, this was necessary as there's NEVER been a creation v. evolution thread on FR before.

[Consort]

If we can find a third alternative, then Creation vs. Evolution won't matter. Does it matter now?

[So Cal Rocket]

It's not a question of "proof".

Scientific answers require proof.
Spiritualistic answers require faith.

I'll take faith over proof any day.

[LiteKeeper]

I believe with you - however, there are endless threads of this topic on this forum. Suggest you do a search for one of them. This type of thread always generates more "heat" than "light"

LiteKeeper
Chaplain, US Army, retired
Young Earth Creationist

[steplock]

I believe in Evolutionary Creationism

Who among mortals can positively state WHAT a day means to the CREATOR who lives in ETERNITY?

Not I.

[rface]

I personally believe in Creation as the way the Bible teaches it in six literal days.

I suspect that you are here just to stir up trouble and that you've already had at least one account banned and this will just be another.

[Right Wing Professor]

I personally believe in Creation as the way the Bible teaches it in six literal days.

J. Greene Since Oct 30, 2003. So I guess you're a freeper for less than one literal day.

[J. Greene]

Yes they do. But I am trying basically to get information from both point of views to help me with my knowledge of the subject. Thank you for the advice!

[I got the rope]

ROTFLMAO!

[70times7]

Before I even looked I knew you have not been around here long... let the flames begin.

Just being able to post so early in a thread that is (as usual) likely to go into the 200 to 300+ range (with nothing new to add) is making me think I may play the lottery tonight.

bye all!

[J. Greene]

Actually, today was the first time I ever heard of this site at all. This is also the first time I ever joined a forum like this. I want to gain knowledge on what both sides think.

[Right Wing Professor]

On the 0.1% possibility you're sincere, the best archive of scientific information on evolution, and on the (huge) body of scientific evidence against YEC, is at

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[J. Greene]

I appreciate this link, I have been searching for a good website with substantial evidence. I am really needing like formulas, and indepth scientific proof that Creation is right, if you have any thing of the sort.

[Right Wing Professor]

Just so I get this straight, you're saying is you just blew in here, didn't bother to lurk for a while to get a feel for the place or to find out what had been discussed before, and now you want people to line up and explain their views to you?

[Lee Heggy]

by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of
Alberta)

Ovulation versus cretinism

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory
of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in
the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour
of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught
in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth.
Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This
can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the
theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately
nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a
newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of
sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where
sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive
correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are
decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific
methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the
stork.

[70times7]

I suspect that you are here just to stir up trouble...

OH PLEASE! As if anyone new is needed to "stir up trouble" with regard to this topic.

The only useful purpose I have seen so far with these threads is that they seem to serve as an "arrogance vent" for some from both sides who are likely to blow at any minute.

[banjo joe]

"Science" can be closed-minded (something they accuse religous zealots of). If it doesn't fit with accepted knowledge or models, it cannot be.
Example: how often does nutrition "science" reverse itself?

[ch53gunner]

"I'll take faith over proof any day."

---

Quite - proof can be dis-proven, whereas faith in God is always true.

[LiteKeeper]

On the 0.1% possibility you're sincere, the best archive of scientific information on evolution, and on the (huge) body of scientific evidence against YEC, is at http://www.talkorigins.org/

And the YEC counter to that site is True Origins