Creationism vs. Evolution

[Jack]

He said "unbased", not biased. Your arguing against something that was never posted.

[Will_00]

Please watch this.

[Halofan48]

lol, doesn't work like that will. If you study evolution, you'd understand a lot more and see why it is accepted.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: will_00 What are you talking about? Comeon. That is ridiculous. Why would you think I would be "filling in the blanks?"

Because I find little connection to what you are saying and what the Bible says. Prove me wrong. Take the time to post the places in the Bible that prove you right. I don't think there are any places that prove you right. I just want to make sure.

[Jack]

I watched it. If you'd like to see the full 2 hours of it, go here.

The point was made and ignored that Comfort and Cameron do not understand evolutionary theory and are arguing against suppositions that the theory does not make.

For example, Cameron calls evolution a pre-supposition, a conclusion reached before any evidence is presented. Any honest person, Christian included, should be able to see the falsity of that statement. Darwin and every evolutionary biologist since him has looked at existing evidence to reach the conclusion that evolution is the best natural explanation we can come up with to account for the evidence found. It's a conclusion based on the evidence. The explanation must always follow the evidence.

Cameron and Comfort do not understand what a transitional stage is or what transitional fossils represent. As was stated, evolution is always occurring. We are transitional forms between our ancestors and what humans will evolve into. The expectation that we'll find a fossil half-duck and half-dog are nonsensical and misrepresent how evolution works.

Comfort loves to display his ignorance. His most foolish video shows him describing how a banana is evidence of god since it fits our hand so perfectly. Well, the banana he uses in his video is a cultured banana, a product of selective evolution. A natural banana looks like this:

That hardly meets Comfort's criteria for a fruit designed to accommodate our hands by god.

If anyone wishes to debunk evolution they need to do more than point out the problems with the current theory. That's not debunking, that's just showing where our imperfect science has yet to account for evidence. They need to propose a better theory, one that accounts for the evidence better than evolution does, and that can be tested and verified by any scientists who wishes to do so.

Otherwise, like Comfort and Cameron, they're just displaying their lack of education and earning our disdain.

[Winter wind]

I'm just saying evolution is logical without evidence, but that works too.

[Will_00]

lol, doesn't work like that will. If you study evolution, you'd understand a lot more and see why it is accepted.

Yet the evidence is imperfect. What is the use of studying such?

Because I find little connection to what you are saying and what the Bible says. Prove me wrong. Take the time to post the places in the Bible that prove you right. I don't think there are any places that prove you right. I just want to make sure.

Fine. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

The explanation must always follow the evidence.

I have given explanations. Yet if I quote the Bible, you simply dismiss it as being false. Can not I do the same with any of your quotes or references to any scientific publication?

They need to propose a better theory, one that accounts for the evidence better than evolution does, and that can be tested and verified by any scientists who wishes to do so.

Why does it need to be physically "proven?"

[Will_00]

As well, what is your point considering the banana?

[Halofan48]

Yet the evidence is imperfect. What is the use of studying such?

So you know what your debating against instead of immediately saying it's wrong.

I have given explanations. Yet if I quote the Bible, you simply dismiss it as being false. Can not I do the same with any of your quotes or references to any scientific publication?

You haven't given evidence though. You have provided none. All you've down is say that the bible is always true.

Why does it need to be physically "proven?"

As opposed to? If you cannot provide physical evidence that creationism is correct, your argument becomes very weak.

[Jack]

Quote by: Will_00 Yet the evidence is imperfect. What is the use of studying such?

To at least avoid the ignorance shown by Cameron and Comfort. What's the matter with studying a subject so as to know what you're talking about even if you don't subscribe to it? I've read the Bible, I watched that video, and my brain didn't suddenly melt nor did I fall on my knees and accept Jesus. Knowledge itself is harmless and useful. Knowledge does not necessitate acceptance.

I have given explanations. Yet if I quote the Bible, you simply dismiss it as being false. Can not I do the same with any of your quotes or references to any scientific publication?

Quoting the Bible in place of expressing your own thoughts is what people object to. We don't come here to be preached to or have Bible verses (with which most of us are familiar) thrown about as substitutes for original thought.

Why does it need to be physically "proven?"

Because evolution can be, and if you wish to contradict it, you have to meet the same criteria scientists require of evolutionary theories.

Quote by: Will_00 As well, what is your point considering the banana?

That Comfort's an idiot who didn't bother to do a little research before trying to convince us god exists because of a hybrid fruit.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: will_00 Fine. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Now we're rolling. That doesn't tell us what time he made the heaven's and the earth. By the way, when they use the term a day in the Bible, this was before the concept of a day or night existed (along with a sun or moon). So why is it so out there to say that it could have been a million-year day?

[Will_00]

Now we're rolling. That doesn't tell us what time he made the heaven's and the earth. By the way, when they use the term a day in the Bible, this was before the concept of a day or night existed (along with a sun or moon). So why is it so out there to say that it could have been a million-year day?

Time existed when he created the Universe. What if I was to ask, what if the current day is actually 1 million years long each day?

[Jack]

What if I was to ask, what if the current day is actually 1 million years long each day?

The only definition of day we know is a terrestrial day, one created by the Earth's rotation relative to the Sun. On other planets days have varying lengths based on their rotational period. There is no universal "day". So to say a day lasts a thousand years is nonsensical unless you can specify a condition where it takes 1000 years for a complete rotation. A day is a specific measure, not an ambiguous one, except in poetry.

[Will_00]

A day is a specific measure, not an ambiguous one, except in poetry.

But continually, I can reverse all of what you say and then manipulate it to such an extent.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: jack The only definition of day we know is a terrestrial day, one created by the Earth's rotation relative to the Sun. On other planets days have varying lengths based on their rotational period. There is no universal "day". So to say a day lasts a thousand years is nonsensical unless you can specify a condition where it takes 1000 years for a complete rotation. A day is a specific measure, not an ambiguous one, except in poetry.

But before there was a sun or earth, how would you define a day? Is it still 24 hours?

[Jack]

But continually, I can reverse all of what you say and then manipulate it to such an extent.

Then do so, don't just offer, deliver. I've manipulated nothing. If the definition of a day is new to you, then we cannot debate your comment.

[Will_00]

But before there was a sun or earth, how would you define a day? Is it still 24 hours?

Because: "3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." Genesis 1:3-5

[Jack]

Quote by: Winter wind But before there was a sun or earth, how would you define a day? Is it still 24 hours?

There was no 24 hour day before the Earth was formed unless it was on another planet that had a 24 hour (based on our measurement of time) rotational period. Even when we talk about the universe being so many billions of years old, we're using our measurements based on our planet. Time is relative. The definitions and divisions of time even more so.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: will_00 Because: "3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." Genesis 1:3-5

And yet the earth and sun were not created until much later. This passage sounds eerily familiar to the Big Bang. So what's to say that days and nights lasted longer before there was an earth to rotate on it's axis once every 24 ish hours?

[Will_00]

And yet the earth and sun were not created until much later. This passage sounds eerily familiar to the Big Bang. So what's to say that days and nights lasted longer before there was an earth to rotate on it's axis once every 24 ish hours?

Obviously this is a manipulation of the Truth. "31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." Genesis 1:31

God would not have "manipulated" the day to make it a million years old. As well, it was written for us.