Creationism As Scientific Fact?

[Kevin_Walker]

_Christopher_:

For what its worth, I agree with you, mostly, I think.

We know by dogmatic Church teaching through faith that we are descended from ONE pair of ORIGINAL and ONLY people, Adam and Eve.

I don’t see how evolution can jive with that certain fact of the faith.

Because, according to the Vatican, the Bible does not specify the various physical changes people might have gone through after Adam & Eve, or what physical changes animals went through after they were released from the Ark.

I totally agree with the Vatican’s view on this subject.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

MugenOne:

Hey Folks!

I believe in creationism. I do take the the Genesis literally. God created the universe and everything in six days. First, there was great void. Before big bang theory, was universe void? You tell me. According to the new scientific theory, the Earth was totally covered by water. Did God, then, create land and water on Earth? Then, he created living things and lastly people? The scientific community has problem with the six days. I think that one day of God is like millions and millions of year for us. I do believe in adaptation, but not totally evolution. Without adaptation, we all gonna die. How can we go from single protein to an ameba to a complex creature like animals and lastly human? If people are monkey descendant, then where are all the half-people and half-monkey at? You know, there are so many remote islands on earth that have people looking like us (except they look darker, lighter or whatever). If those islands are so remoted, there is a possibility that monkey man still exists. Why we haven’t evolved since we “became” man? Looks like we are doomed as a species because evolution has stopped!!! Give me a break!

God Bless!

MugenOne (Translated as Endless One in English)

sigh, not this old tired horse again!

You know, I’m not the most devout man around, far from it, but I’m ok…sortta

but nothing tees me off like someone besmirching both my faith and the general intelligence of the scientific community in particular and mankind in general by coming up with statements like the the one above.

I try to be charitable but this stuff was settled decades ago and IIRC the “duty to know” the world through rational inquiry has been a Christian tenant for at least 800 years…probably more

Give me strength

 

[PhilVaz]

SteveA << I try to be charitable but this stuff was settled decades ago and IIRC the “duty to know” the world through rational inquiry has been a Christian tenant for at least 800 years >>

Yep, more like 200 years ago virtually all geologists, even Christian ones, accepted the earth was at least millions of years old. Lyell’s book in 1830 settled the issue between the (old-earth) catastrophists and uniformitarians. For example, in 1857 Hugh Miller, a popular “creationist” geologist, believed both that the earth was old, and the Noachian Deluge was a local flood, not a worldwide one, and wrote:

“No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, – Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary.” (Testimony of the Rocks, page 324)

Changing Views of the History of the Earth

That was 150 years ago. And to Gary Sibio who accepts this “appearance of age” stuff, the two statements:

“God created the world with an appearance of old age”

AND

“God created the world by deliberately leaving misleading clues in the rocks and geologic formations of earth that point to an ancient earth”

are identical statements. I’m sorry, no way around this. As a Creator, God therefore lied in the rocks if the earth is young. No apology required. Romans 1:19-20 excludes this idea.

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

Bobby Jim:

whoops, the bogon flux meter just blew up! Remind me to turn the gain way, way down next time I visit a link like that.

Seriously, people have problems with the “theory” of evolution, but will happily accept that type of conjecture if it helps to prop up their preferred explanation? Last I heard, the changing of universal constants like the speed of light are far from proven. Apparently one study showed a change in the “fine structure constant” of 1 part in 100,000 over the course of 12 billion years. I don’t know if this has been reproduced by anyone else, or if it could reasonably be attributed to experimental error. But hey, I guess it leaves the door open a crack through which we can force whatever we want to believe.

That’s the point. We shouldn’t be so arrogant to believe we understand everything.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

no one said we understand everything

there is lots we don’t understand

that is why we have science and religion

but we do understand quite a bit

such as evolution is a fact

 

[Ahimsa]

I can understand why some people would want to say that “evolution does not teach that man evolved from monkey; it teaches we evolved from a common ancestor”. To simply announce “we evolved from monkeys”, or “we evolve from apes” implies we evolved from some present-day existing species of monkey and ape, which is definitely not true.

But what evolution does teach is that humans evolved from a species of ape that lived in Africa, a species that no longer exists, granted, but that was still just as much an ape as the Orangutan or the Chimp.

 

[buffalo]

Since man is a higher order of animal why are we surprised to see many similarities between them and us.

God created animals. Animals have DNA. They have cells.

God created man. Man has DNA. He too has cells.

Is it necessary then to believe that man descended from animals? God could have created man as a higher order of animal thereby sharing (or utilizing) many of the living complexities that he had used to create animals.