Creation or Evolution?

[RomSpaceKnight]

What is the proof for creation? The bible!

What is the proof for evolution? DNA, fossils, observation and critical thinking.

4:1 evolution wins.

 

[Minority Observer84]

What is the proof for creation? The bible!

What is the proof for evolution? DNA, fossils, observation and critical thinking.

4:1 evolution wins.

That's rational and one this creationists are not is rational .
They look for dumb things like "missing links " people often misunderstand them for ignorant they are not just deluded if you believe in something strongly enough no idea that does not fit into that frame of mind will ever make sense to you hence my sig

 

[CMCummings]

Many times and places are without total security concerning a small percentage of others that are in true knowledge of them…and that is exactly why some as a people within the geological aggregate of the now can effect many things in relation to “another” and/or “many others” as they choose…

Please Understand That “All Things” not just 60% or 80% “are possible”…However would you kill the man next door just because it’s possible?...And in the end “Who will be the judge”?…and some might say: “if one be necessary?”…

And there are those that can say God-damn God and you with him in hell fire and brimstone for ever and ever in the name of Jesus Christ…followed by a loud “A-men”! And “making it so” at the completion of the sentence…

Simply because they can….and for what ever reason tops the knowledge…as we will all live on in peace minus one dirty sock that we “now” know has received its final reward…


Further events of true histories for “The Believer and The Non Believer” as in Ha! Ha!...”Believe it or Not”…?

Presenting…The Area 51 Chronicle

In an era of creation during the time of the first *casting of round worlds and universes *(casting: The art of the command of substance) was called: The Newity of Reform Round World...Requiring 6 months to complete and on the 7th month talkers were sent about to the many lands of the old world as barkers, offering enlistments “at a price” for the crossing.

During this time a small but very talented family, had created an experimental but eternal form of person to be used as hosts by them. These unique forms of person were almost ageless and very creative. However as these experiments continued, it was found to be impossible for them to transfer their spirits within these specially prepared living beings.

This same family were the owners of a magic business (or so it was called) and a very profitable one, most famous and unique for the era. Being experienced in multiple technologies and dimensional know how they had cornered the market on technological changes.

Even so, their plans of living forever within their newly created hosts as a show of “whatever” or “GOD” or just as “humble servants to mankind” (which I doubt) had been short lived.

Anyway, during that time of their “almost worked” plan of immortality, a secretive program called “The Newity of Reform Round World” was in near completion. Since this family had also investments in the round world program, they decided to incorporate these “prototypes of person” as a booster shot for mankind.

The prototypes were placed in a far away galaxy from the earth during the completion of the casting. This allowed the man made prototypes to advance independently.

These creatures would later find it necessary to be in the company of mankind, actually because of an inherent need to fulfill their spirit, because of being created from the person of man. They were placed or configured so they would establish contact sometime during the mid to late 20th century...and that attempted contact was The Area 51 crash.

The contact was “of course” not a complete success. However the good news is: It would have been a bad ending for all if an actual living contact with any longevity had been established.

Further explained

Concerning a “getting to know you process” with the prototypes (should they have survived the crash), it is known that because of existing dimensional connectivity “any real longevity with the prototypes” would have later caused a “jetting effect”, spawning a vanishing point “of no return within that which we are.

However there is more to this unusual truth. The remainder is that this can happen only as a free space singularity...and would occur unknowns to any other time or place in creation...meaning “oh well” what is “one” singularity?

On second thought, “what if we were to fall within parameters of this possibility"? Then we would be on our own “forever and always” with “nothing and no one” ever being able to find us...or we to find them...“irreversible” in a singularity world and universe of our own.

Concerning the supposed upgrade…this might have, should have and could have worked...however “read on”!

If this were to have happened, we would have advanced rapidly in spaces of achievement for a very long time. And as we did so, we would begin to reach more into the knowledge of immortality, learning even more than could be truly understood.

As the times seemed to ensure, becoming very comfortable and embracing the great longevity of knowledge and success “suddenly” sustaining factors would begin to break down. And when life’s expediency declines to less than 50% for any duration, this will guarantee perishment irreversible with death being like a dot on the horizon that can never be reached to end the demise.

Anyway this “best of intentions” booster shot intended for mankind concerning our present “now” was known about long before it’s time and has been termed: “The Thorn of The Millennium”.

(This information has been obtained in direct affiliation with other times and places)

American Chieftain~Conrad M Cummings

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...talkers were sent about to the many lands of the old world as barkers...

Barking mad, maybe, but definitely barking. If there were a daily prize for incoherence, you'd have won it with that post, no contest.

 

[Minority Observer84]

Honestly creationism and evolution should not even be compared , creationism has no foundation in science just in scripture . You can give it a scientific sounding label like intelligent design but it doesn't change the unscientific bases for that theory .
For evolution we have numerous proofs :
Similarities in bone structure between animals .
The abundance of useless structures in animals (Like a human apendix( A structure useless in humans but vital to herbivores , a snake's pelvis and leg bone structures , whale pelvis and leg bone structure http://images.livescience.com/images/top10_vestigial_whalebone.jpg , chronological proofs of the increasing complexity of life , DNA proofs .....................)
Creationism has nothing .

 

[look3467]

What is the proof for creation? The bible!

What is the proof for evolution? DNA, fossils, observation and critical thinking.

4:1 evolution wins.

I can include evolution's theories into my understanding of the bible creation.

The evolutionists cannot include the bible.

My understanding swallows up evolution and makes it a friend, while evolution makes creationism an enemy.

Which is the greater?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

Many times and places are without total security concerning a small percentage of others that are in true knowledge of them…and that is exactly why some as a people within the geological aggregate of the now can effect many things in relation to “another” and/or “many others” as they choose…

Please Understand That “All Things” not just 60% or 80% “are possible”…However would you kill the man next door just because it’s possible?...And in the end “Who will be the judge”?…and some might say: “if one be necessary?”…

And there are those that can say God-damn God and you with him in hell fire and brimstone for ever and ever in the name of Jesus Christ…followed by a loud “A-men”! And “making it so” at the completion of the sentence…

Simply because they can….and for what ever reason tops the knowledge…as we will all live on in peace minus one dirty sock that we “now” know has received its final reward…


Further events of true histories for “The Believer and The Non Believer” as in Ha! Ha!...”Believe it or Not”…?

Presenting…The Area 51 Chronicle

In an era of creation during the time of the first *casting of round worlds and universes *(casting: The art of the command of substance) was called: The Newity of Reform Round World...Requiring 6 months to complete and on the 7th month talkers were sent about to the many lands of the old world as barkers, offering enlistments “at a price” for the crossing.

During this time a small but very talented family, had created an experimental but eternal form of person to be used as hosts by them. These unique forms of person were almost ageless and very creative. However as these experiments continued, it was found to be impossible for them to transfer their spirits within these specially prepared living beings.

This same family were the owners of a magic business (or so it was called) and a very profitable one, most famous and unique for the era. Being experienced in multiple technologies and dimensional know how they had cornered the market on technological changes.

Even so, their plans of living forever within their newly created hosts as a show of “whatever” or “GOD” or just as “humble servants to mankind” (which I doubt) had been short lived.

Anyway, during that time of their “almost worked” plan of immortality, a secretive program called “The Newity of Reform Round World” was in near completion. Since this family had also investments in the round world program, they decided to incorporate these “prototypes of person” as a booster shot for mankind.

The prototypes were placed in a far away galaxy from the earth during the completion of the casting. This allowed the man made prototypes to advance independently.

These creatures would later find it necessary to be in the company of mankind, actually because of an inherent need to fulfill their spirit, because of being created from the person of man. They were placed or configured so they would establish contact sometime during the mid to late 20th century...and that attempted contact was The Area 51 crash.

The contact was “of course” not a complete success. However the good news is: It would have been a bad ending for all if an actual living contact with any longevity had been established.

Further explained

Concerning a “getting to know you process” with the prototypes (should they have survived the crash), it is known that because of existing dimensional connectivity “any real longevity with the prototypes” would have later caused a “jetting effect”, spawning a vanishing point “of no return within that which we are.

However there is more to this unusual truth. The remainder is that this can happen only as a free space singularity...and would occur unknowns to any other time or place in creation...meaning “oh well” what is “one” singularity?

On second thought, “what if we were to fall within parameters of this possibility"? Then we would be on our own “forever and always” with “nothing and no one” ever being able to find us...or we to find them...“irreversible” in a singularity world and universe of our own.

Concerning the supposed upgrade…this might have, should have and could have worked...however “read on”!

If this were to have happened, we would have advanced rapidly in spaces of achievement for a very long time. And as we did so, we would begin to reach more into the knowledge of immortality, learning even more than could be truly understood.

As the times seemed to ensure, becoming very comfortable and embracing the great longevity of knowledge and success “suddenly” sustaining factors would begin to break down. And when life’s expediency declines to less than 50% for any duration, this will guarantee perishment irreversible with death being like a dot on the horizon that can never be reached to end the demise.

Anyway this “best of intentions” booster shot intended for mankind concerning our present “now” was known about long before it’s time and has been termed: “The Thorn of The Millennium”.

(This information has been obtained in direct affiliation with other times and places)

American Chieftain~Conrad M Cummings

The greatest demonstration of the existence of God is love.

Now as far as all the alien stories that I've heard of, none of them have yet demonstrated love to humanity.

Where as God, did by His Son Jesus.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

Honestly creationism and evolution should not even be compared , creationism has no foundation in science just in scripture . You can give it a scientific sounding label like intelligent design but it doesn't change the unscientific bases for that theory .
For evolution we have numerous proofs :
Similarities in bone structure between animals .
The abundance of useless structures in animals (Like a human apendix( A structure useless in humans but vital to herbivores , a snake's pelvis and leg bone structures , whale pelvis and leg bone structure http://images.livescience.com/images/top10_vestigial_whalebone.jpg , chronological proofs of the increasing complexity of life , DNA proofs .....................)
Creationism has nothing .

Creationism is the explanation of the designed works of God as evident by the sum of all its parts, the earth, humanity and the universe.

If God were to tell us everything, then what would we have to learn with.

If I say to a child, don't touch the fire because it will burn you", teaches it nothing, until the child actually tests it and finds out.

We have the universe and all of the worlds things to discover, and is as a form of entertainment.

Just look at the Discovery channel, how interesting it is.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Minority Observer84]

Creationism is the explanation of the designed works of God as evident by the sum of all its parts, the earth, humanity and the universe.

If God were to tell us everything, then what would we have to learn with.

If I say to a child, don't touch the fire because it will burn you", teaches it nothing, until the child actually tests it and finds out.

We have the universe and all of the worlds things to discover, and is as a form of entertainment.

Just look at the Discovery channel, how interesting it is.

Peace>>>AJ

There is no evidence to suggest that god had anything to do with it your just making A-priori statements to try to include science under your understanding of theology . But that is not what this post is about this post is about people trying to say that everything was "created" in it's current form .To me i think everyone is entitled to believe as they wish(you can wish all you want but believing is not going to make something true) , but please do not call your illogical beliefs science and try to have them taught in a biology class. Creationism is a spiritual idea and belief with no proof for it what so ever it belongs in sunday school not in a classroom of science .

 

[look3467]

There is no evidence to suggest that god had anything to do with it your just making A-priori statements to try to include science under your understanding of theology . But that is not what this post is about this post is about people trying to say that everything was "created" in it's current form .To me i think everyone is entitled to believe as they wish(you can wish all you want but believing is not going to make something true) , but please do not call your illogical beliefs science and try to have them taught in a biology class. Creationism is a spiritual idea and belief with no proof for it what so ever it belongs in sunday school not in a classroom of science .

Evidence is seen all around in simple analogy, as saying: something made all these things, organized them and made them work wonderfully well.

But to dissect them for evidences of existence of God, will not be found, for the burden of proof is on faith, faith in something said, believed and accepted as real.

This can only take place in our individual spirits for faith in God is a spiritual thing.

My ideological beliefs include the sciences, for they are wonderfully made, giving glory to the creator of them.

There is no way around it, for it all points to a creator.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Ariadne]

Can we be both? Sort of like being in love with two men (or women as it may be) at the same time for very different reasons?

Evolution makes perfect sense, especially when you consider the amount of research that has gone into crude oil origins (those fossils). Where did the dinosaurs come from and should we really believe that God created Adam and Eve before the dinosaurs, or did people live at the same time as dinosaurs? I don't know. I thought the dinosaurs were here way earlier. If that's the case, could it be that God was looking around for a good planet, after the dinosaurs died, and found Earth. Adam and Eve seemed like the first sign of life to the people around at that time?

WhadoIknow! There were dinosaurs a long time ago. Maybe the geologists got it wrong when they made up their age dating formulas ... someone got a zero wrong so it's not really billions ... donno.

I'm going with the theory that God didn't consider Earth as a viable option until after the dinosaurs died. After He made Adam and Eve, people discovered signs of life before Adam and Eve. Most people accepted the conclusion of there being life before people (although landing on the moon didn't convince everyone that the earth was round), but others resisted preferring to believe that Man came first. I wonder how many women v men believe in evolution v creationism - might just be another gender issue.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Creationism is the explanation of the designed works of God as evident by the sum of all its parts, the earth, humanity and the universe.

No it's not. Creationism is essentially the claim that everything was created by divine fiat in the forms we currently observe 6000 years ago, or longer depending on which version of it you want to talk about. There are young earth creationists who'll hold to the 6000 year time frame. There are some who'll concede it might have been as long as 10,000 years ago. There are old earth creationists who'll accept the results of science for the age of things but still insist there was a divine act of creation, or possibly several of them, at some point. There are proponents of Intelligent Design, which is really just another form of Creationism tarted up with some scientific-sounding jargon. And there are people with every possible opinion in between.

Creationism in any form is a religiously-based, evidence-free position rooted in abysmal ignorance that denies the legitimacy of all the findings of science over the last 400 years. If any of them are right, then everything we think we know about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, archeology, paleontology, and a host of other converging lines of evidence, is simply and completely wrong. Given that we're fallible humans I supposed that's always a finite, non-zero probability, but given the success of science at figuring things out and creating new technologies over the last few centuries, it can't be easy to create a compelling argument that we've got it all wrong. Science and its technological spinoffs work, and they work whether you believe in them or not, so it's hard to credit a claim that essentially implies we've got everything wrong. Science doesn't claim to have the final, absolute truth of things, but it quite legitimately claims to understand enough about the way things really are that we can use that knowledge to build things that work satisfactorily in the real world.

But most Creationists just don't understand the broader implications of what they're claiming. If the young earth Creationists were right about the age of the earth, for instance, then our understanding of radioactive decay is fundamentally wrong, and nuclear power plants and smoke detectors wouldn't work. But they do, so young earth creationists must be wrong.

 

[Ariadne]

No it's not.... so young earth creationists must be wrong.

"Creationism is essentially the claim that everything was created by divine fiat in the forms we currently observe 6000 years ago, or longer depending on which version of it you want to talk about."

What is a divine fiat?

 

[Unforgiven]

"Creationism is essentially the claim that everything was created by divine fiat in the forms we currently observe 6000 years ago, or longer depending on which version of it you want to talk about."

What is a divine fiat?

Hmmm I'd suggest the Fiat Spider. Clearly a sweet ride, though "divine" may need the position of an enthusiast. arf arf arf arf arf.

 

[Minority Observer84]

"Creationism is essentially the claim that everything was created by divine fiat in the forms we currently observe 6000 years ago, or longer depending on which version of it you want to talk about."

What is a divine fiat?

I think he meant divine feat

 

[look3467]

No it's not. Creationism is essentially the claim that everything was created by divine fiat in the forms we currently observe 6000 years ago, or longer depending on which version of it you want to talk about. There are young earth creationists who'll hold to the 6000 year time frame. There are some who'll concede it might have been as long as 10,000 years ago. There are old earth creationists who'll accept the results of science for the age of things but still insist there was a divine act of creation, or possibly several of them, at some point. There are proponents of Intelligent Design, which is really just another form of Creationism tarted up with some scientific-sounding jargon. And there are people with every possible opinion in between.

Creationism in any form is a religiously-based, evidence-free position rooted in abysmal ignorance that denies the legitimacy of all the findings of science over the last 400 years. If any of them are right, then everything we think we know about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, archeology, paleontology, and a host of other converging lines of evidence, is simply and completely wrong. Given that we're fallible humans I supposed that's always a finite, non-zero probability, but given the success of science at figuring things out and creating new technologies over the last few centuries, it can't be easy to create a compelling argument that we've got it all wrong. Science and its technological spinoffs work, and they work whether you believe in them or not, so it's hard to credit a claim that essentially implies we've got everything wrong. Science doesn't claim to have the final, absolute truth of things, but it quite legitimately claims to understand enough about the way things really are that we can use that knowledge to build things that work satisfactorily in the real world.

But most Creationists just don't understand the broader implications of what they're claiming. If the young earth Creationists were right about the age of the earth, for instance, then our understanding of radioactive decay is fundamentally wrong, and nuclear power plants and smoke detectors wouldn't work. But they do, so young earth creationists must be wrong.

All that you said about science is correct in that as we discover things we are enlightened to its mystery and learn from it.

I used to belong to the first thought of creationism in the 6,000 year theory but not any more.
I am more towards the thought of humanity being as old as it takes to arrive to its present state of today.

The story of Adam and Eve is not a story of time, but a story depicting the creation series of events explained in simple format for a child to understand, but expected to mature to a more mature thought, such as I have arrived today.

Because we are in the flesh, knowledge belongs to the flesh. Knowledge discovered through trial and error is mankind's quest in life.
If left purely to knowledge of earthly things, then, there is no room for a spiritual being such as God.

But instilled into the makeup of each individual mankind, is a spark of light that desires to be discovered.
Asking the question, "There must be something higher than myself, a spiritual something"?

All of humanity throughout all the ages have had this inkling to one degree or another, based upon evidence of stone images, study of astronomy depicting gods of various designs.

Science is still the same, ever discovering itself to improve the specie of mankind to higher levels of life and thought.

Ultimately, God is in the mix in all of it, understood as God or not.

Though the argument may be against the existence of God, there is also the argument for the existence of God.

This battle or division is a must for the intended purpose of discovery.
Without this division, there is no multiplication of either or.

The hope is for the either more than the or.

My thoughts as is.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Minority Observer84]

Can we be both? Sort of like being in love with two men (or women as it may be) at the same time for very different reasons?

Evolution makes perfect sense, especially when you consider the amount of research that has gone into crude oil origins (those fossils). Where did the dinosaurs come from and should we really believe that God created Adam and Eve before the dinosaurs, or did people live at the same time as dinosaurs? I don't know. I thought the dinosaurs were here way earlier. If that's the case, could it be that God was looking around for a good planet, after the dinosaurs died, and found Earth. Adam and Eve seemed like the first sign of life to the people around at that time?

WhadoIknow! There were dinosaurs a long time ago. Maybe the geologists got it wrong when they made up their age dating formulas ... someone got a zero wrong so it's not really billions ... donno.

I'm going with the theory that God didn't consider Earth as a viable option until after the dinosaurs died. After He made Adam and Eve, people discovered signs of life before Adam and Eve. Most people accepted the conclusion of there being life before people (although landing on the moon didn't convince everyone that the earth was round), but others resisted preferring to believe that Man came first. I wonder how many women v men believe in evolution v creationism - might just be another gender issue.

There is no proof whatsoever in a creator . When people like Aj point to the world around them as proof what they are doing is misleading you into thinking the question is the answer and it is not just because there are things that science does not know yet , or just because there are inconsistencies in our theories does not imply that some divine being jumps into the gap .
You can believe what you want but the science says that evolution created humanity and not some divine intelligence , we have proof for this again religion has none . And what created the dinosaurs ? What your doing is your trying quite desperately to fit the science onto your beliefs which is about as functional as trying to force a wrong piece into a jigsaw puzzle . You are free of course to believe what you want but it has no place in a scientific discourse or as a logical argument .

 

[look3467]

The 6,000 year theory is a 101 course for beginners in theology, but are expected to move on to a more mature understanding of the works of God.

Here is the situation as analysed by me concerning Christianity and the 6,ooo year creation theory; there is no way that mankind is 6,000 years old, disproving it.

That should beg the question, "well what is the truth then"?

Study the scriptures to make one wise is the answer. To just listen to a preacher only on Sunday mornings is not enough. That makes for a shallow believer that can be thrown off at the slightest deflection.
Proof is in Guyana, David Koresh and the Hitlers of the world.

The mind is easy to manipulate given that, that mind is not founded and stable in a solid foundation of belief where a deflection of any size will not dis-table it.

Christianity is evolving from as a child born 2,000 years again towards maturity as knowledge and wisdom of God is discovered.

It is a process of discovery as well, evolving much like the sciences to a better understanding og God the creator and the world around us.

We are by far more privileged to live in this day and time then our ancestors who had not the knowledge of the sciences we have today and the knowledge of God as well.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

There is no proof whatsoever in a creator . When people like Aj point to the world around them as proof what they are doing is misleading you into thinking the question is the answer and it is not just because there are things that science does not know yet , or just because there are inconsistencies in our theories does not imply that some divine being jumps into the gap .
You can believe what you want but the science says that evolution created humanity and not some divine intelligence , we have proof for this again religion has none . And what created the dinosaurs ? What your doing is your trying quite desperately to fit the science onto your beliefs which is about as functional as trying to force a wrong piece into a jigsaw puzzle . You are free of course to believe what you want but it has no place in a scientific discourse or as a logical argument .

Can you show me by science when , where or how it all begin?

I can give you a liable plan as to when, where and how the creation started, based solely on the contents of the bible.
Of course, this plan is a faith based plan, but I can tell you that it fits perfectly into an understandable, believable and workable plan.
I have absolutely no issues with evolution, but encompass it with the workable plan of Gods description of how He created all things.

Of two I make one, where as of two many make two, such as in your case.

I consider the creation story the basis for understanding by faith those things which are not yet brought to light or discovered.

Of the two choices, evolution and creationism, I can deal with both as one in harmony with each other, for the sake of my fellow human beings.

I am able to exercise Godly characteristics in demonstration of unity between my fellow brothers and sister human being regardless of their views, in love.

If you choose to believe as you now do, I have absolutely no problem with that. The only thing that I believe is that you are missing out on the blessing of this unbelievable God as He I know has blessed me countless amount of times and has worked on my behalf at my request.

I can only testify of that fact and that's all.

You as an unbeliever are no less important to me as the believer, for my God loves both equally the same.
I try to follow His example in word and action.

How am I doing so far? Have you found me to be unwilling to accept others views as proper and just?

I will though be persistent in sharing my views as I believe them to be, in hopes that I may bridge the gap between two opposites, as one in brotherly love.

I may be a finger, a tooth, an ear, nose, a hair or any other part of the body as sum of all parts of the Godly body, a living spiritual body, journeying through this life in the midst of many mysteries as jointly contributing the whole in good will.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Minority Observer84]

Can you show me by science when , where or how it all begin?

LOL your pulling the old first cause argument .
I've said this before and you've no doubt read it but here goes again :
No one knows how it all began , our universe in it's present form is 14 billion years old . We can theorize but unlike evolution which is a case put to reset there is no conclusive evidence to propose any of our present ideas as fact . Unlike religion science does not deal in absolutes and does not offer answers based on no evidence , Just because there is a gap does not in any way shape or form imply that your god created the universe anymore than it implies that the universe was created by a rouge band of roving purple ponies . There are indications that that the universe expanded from a single point of concentration http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature1/zoom1.html that looks like that , that picture is the image recovered from light that was detected on Chile that traveled for 14 billion years and was recorded by NASA . As for the matter concentration itself and where it comes from that's an even more archaic question . The Big crunch theory explains that the universe is on a schedule of expansion and contraction this leads some cosmologists to conclude that the end of thie eternal cycle is a constriction back into a singulaity with in turn explodes to start the cyce again . I think this theory explains things very neatly and mathematically but recent evidence suggests that the universal expansion is not going to be halted which would render the theory debunked but confirm realitivty . There is no clear cut answer to these issues the fact that no conclusive answer exists is in no way condusive to your argument of a inteligent creator who created everything but was uncreated himself (somehow contradicting your own logic ) and who is also invisiable .