Posted on 11/07/2009 1:57:39 AM PST by DouglasKC
Day and night first, then waters, then sky and land, wind, and so on... Remarkably, the Biblical account closely tracks that of the Hindu original. So how can you claim the Hindu story is not the original, correct story?
Or how about the American Indian creation story with the forming of man from mud, and the creation of the soul by the Earthmaker? How about that one?
In short, why do you believe the Biblical account over these other, equally old (or older) accounts from other religions that have the same timelines and details?
Because it IS Biblical and since the God of the Bible is real and trustworthy, what He tells us is.
My acceptance of the creation account isn’t based on which one men say is the oldest, it’s based on the integrity of Scripture.
I see. So your belief in the creation story stems not from science or man, but simply from faith; you have no basis other than faith in your position on how the world was created.
And how does that separate your position from those who believe in evolution? Is their position not one of faith as well?
It doesn't. Theirs is on faith as well.
Faith that the scientific method can lead to truth.
Faith in the interpretation of men of the evidence they claim supports their theory.
Faith that their determination of what happened in the beginning is accurate.
It's not a matter of whether one has faith in what they believe in but what their faith is in.
Others deny that they have a philosophical belief system that it based on faith as well.
The major difference is that I admit that my belief system is based on faith.
They choose men. I choose God.
You are entitled to your interpretation, but don't get too frustrated if no body takes you seriously. You repeatedly state that Darwin's own words do not have significant or credibility because you some how have a greater understanding of his thoughts and beliefs based upon reflections by those born nearly a century after his death. This twisting and manipulation of fact long after the actual events is not unlike the way that the likes of John Wycliffe and John Calvin took the Word of God and bent it to their own purposed. You fit in well with your chosen church. Since I am not one of them please, for the last time, do not trouble me with your errant postulations again.
bttt.
Of course you could start a Darwin worship caucus if such is allowable here but until then I'll comment where and what I wish without your imprimatur, thank you.
Looking at the creation as an abracadabra moment is kind of a simplistic way to look at it. The actual creation of the physical creation from basic elements of course required an advanced Godly knowledge of mathematics, chemistry, engineering, astrophysics, geology...etc. etc. The fact that we don't KNOW the mechanisms involved in it's creation doesn't mean that it was magic.
Look at a modern car. It take less than an hour to completely assemble a car. Each part can be manufactured in a relatively short amount of time. I think it's probably fair to say that if we had to start from scratch and build a car it would take 18 to 24 hours to completely manufacture every part and assemble it. Yet if I saw a car and was ignorant of how it was manufactured I would guess that somebody made it because of it's complexity. But I would also assume that it didn't take millions of years. I would give people more credit than that.
It's difficult to argue with a proposition that has no chance of being proved or disproved.
But again Darwin was wrong in his assumptions about cells. With his limited knowledge he made best guess which didn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Why you're defending it is a mystery.
From the article about cells:
• Information processing, storage and retrieval.
• Artificial languages and their decoding systems.
• Error detection, correction and proofreading devices for quality control.
• Digital data-embedding technology.
• Transportation and distribution systems.
• Automated parcel addressing (similar to zip codes and UPS labels).
• Assembly processes employing pre-fabrication and modular construction.
• Self-reproducing robotic manufacturing plants.
It's like me looking at the outside of a car and not understanding how its technology works. I might envision that it's powered by a squirrel on a treadmill chasing nuts. The guess itself isn't bad considering my limited knowledge of modern technology, but it's naive and simplistic to think that it has any basis in reality.
Nonsense. The article clearly detailed Darwin's theory of pangenesis.
From wiki:
"Pangenesis itself is now seen as deeply flawed and not supported by observation, yet it represents Darwin's attempt to explain such diverse phenomena as:"
So again, Darwin was wrong from the get go in his theory about how information was carried and transmitted in cells.
Ignore.
Aye, Yer Worshipfulness! Unless I choose otherwise.
Just because it is complex does not prove that God did it.
There is no creditable, testable evidence to support your assertion.
And you are completely ignoring over a 150 years of scientific advancement since Dawrin.
So how does this support a 6 day creation, 6,000 years ago?
The exact same argument can be made about those who based their knowledge of Creation upon the literal translations of Scripture as it has survived today. Were science to use as its foundation proclamation instead of the peer reviewed work of the many generations of highly intelligent men and women you wouldn't be banging out misconceptions on an affordable machine with more computing power and communications abilities that existed collectively in the world in Darwin's day.
If, in the 16th century, one had written of medical technology that permits a physician to peer into the body without cutting, or to replace a human heart with another John Calvin would himself had lit the pyre. If one had written about magic boxes that would cook a meal in seconds or machines that could fly faster than sound, or in mysterious machines that could instantly talk to each other and share live pictures and sounds between any two places on the planet their fate would have been sealed by those who could find no basis for such technology in Scripture.
To be wrong in science is as advancing to the overall progress of man is nearly as significant as to be right because it adds to the overall knowledge base. To propose ideas not yet provable, for future generations of of scientists to validate or refute, is the work of a real scientist.
You mean like the mouflon sheep?
So how does this support a 6 day creation, 6,000 years ago?
I don’t argue that it does since that isn’t my view. How do mouflons support species formation?
My main assertion in this thread is that Darwin was wrong about many of his assumptions and theories. There is plenty of credible evidence to support this.
You're right that complexity doesn't prove that God made something. A car is complex, but man made it. However the complexity of all of creation is a clear testament to the handiwork of God.
No, I'm not. I'm showing that the foundation of evolutionary thought today was shaky on science and fact. Things build on a shaky foundation will stand for a while but will eventually fall.
So how does this support a 6 day creation, 6,000 years ago?
Only indirectly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.