...here is one astute opinion about me click here but I am not seeking the praise of mankind. I do think that, we can not ignore what is, but then, it seems that this is exactly what is being done in the realm of science concerning evolution.

To me, even quantum physics makes more sense.



This is refered to,in response to, PS Are you like Julian and I? Non-scientists and so not really qualified to weigh up the evidence here?



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

'flow where flow does not exist' I do not understand - could you explain further.



Thanks and good wishes



Laurie



PS Are you like Julian and I? Non-scientists and so not really qualified to weigh up the evidence here?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

If it were not for the foibles and inconsistencies inherent in this systemized belief in "flow where flow does not exist", and 1,000 other similar problems like "the viable survive! Not so, says the evolutionist!" And on and on it goes. Scrap the fossils. We should see "flow" right now. The argument that the "in betweens were not very viable" ensures that not enough of them survived to continue the flow. Everything I read on evolution leaves out any mention of evidences of flow, which should be easily seen. Not hidden "on purpose" by the unthinking hand of nature.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well no Laurie, that is NOT the case. They still THINK evolution must be the answer, and are LOOKING for evidence to support the hypothosis, that is not the same as HAVING enopugh evidence to make it a reasnable conclusion.

There are so many gaps in the theory (and in the evidence so called) that it makes a mockery of true scientific facts.

More on this later, but will be posted on:



http://uk.msnusers.com/BIBLEBANTER



Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It seems that nobody is clear of the EXACT way that modern man evolved. And they may never be because so few fossils survive and, as I stated elsewhere, speciation is thought to be very rapid so there will in any case be relatively few that could have survived. People working within the theory of evolution will find plenty of scope to disagree about how a particular fossil fits in.



What they all agree about however, because the evidence for the general theory is overwhelming, is that evolution is correct.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

At least those in the know, admit to ignorance in this area. Here is what I mean: The book, "The Origin of Modern Humans" a book devoted to the "evolution" of humans, clearly gives several "conflicting and incongruous" theories concerning this topic. The conclusion is: maybe none of them are correct. The book offers a concise look at the field of paleoanthropology, and the competing theories on human origin. Included are in-depth coverage of the 1856 discovery of Neanderthal man, the debacle of Piltdown hoax, as well as the failures of various scientists, and inludes recent DNA analysis. It is published under Scientific American Library and is written by Roger Lewin. The book pushes evolution, of course, but at the same time illustrates the growing gap between what is known and what is only "filling in the gaps with imagination".

One doctor said: "it is said that for every question answered, we end up creating 3 more; I personally think it is more like 50 more."



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc



But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.



Just a thought.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.

Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.

Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.



Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?



If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.



What do Creationists think of these problems?



Best wishes



Laurie

I still do not see why, if you can interpret Genesis dramatically to deal with the problem that, say, land animals came before birds, you cannot take the whole story dramatically to allow evolution. Then you faith does not collide with science here.



Also it is precisely the position taken by the majority of Christians. They might be correct you know.



Good luck



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc



But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.



Just a thought.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.

Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.

Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.



Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?



If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.



What do Creationists think of these problems?



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Over the next few weeks I will be posting on the Bible Banter forum on this subject, you are always welcome to visit there.

http://uk.msnusers.com/BIBLEBANTER

It isn't really busy yet, but has only just been put on the MSN index, you are very welcome to follow my posatings on this subject, and also to post your thoughts if you so wish (or any articles you think are relevant)

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I still do not see why, if you can interpret Genesis dramatically to deal with the problem that, say, land animals came before birds, you cannot take the whole story dramatically to allow evolution. Then you faith does not collide with science here.



Also it is precisely the position taken by the majority of Christians. They might be correct you know.



Good luck



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc



But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.



Just a thought.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.

Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.

Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.



Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?



If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.



What do Creationists think of these problems?



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: kingdomsearcher@msn.com

Lets see ... whom to believe ... scientists who were NOT there at the time ... or God who was!



I'll take that reliable eye witness account. As God says in His 'creation account'He created all the living things 'after their kind.' True, selective breeding will form variations of "that kind" but NEVER .. I repeat NEVER a change from one species to another.



Laurie, neither YOU nor a single one of your scientists can produce evidence to document a single such complete transition. There is especially not enough real evidence - nor even enough realistic conjecture to justify not believing what God said.



The DAYS of creation are just that ... days. And it certainly wasn't required that God take that long as He could have done it instantly. God created Adam a full grown man - not a baby. If a scientist were to examine Adam on his first day of life they would claim he was 2-3 decades old and not a just a one-day-old. They would say that God is a liar and that anyone who didn't believe their "science" was an idiot. But they are the liars and the fools. Why would they make this mistake? Because they have incomplete knowledge and THEY WERE NOT THERE! But God left a testimony through the writings of His servant Moses that tell the truth of creation. Man should take God's truth over man's theories anyday. Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.



Laurie, you chide Christians because you think they have little evidence for their belief and you think them simple-minded. But the belief-system that you have chosen has an imperfect and even less credible witness. It requires more faith to believe a made up story by imperfect men who change their stories back & forth over the years than to believe in the creator God who was there and is faithful and true.



And He is the only one who can save you from certain eternal death. What have you got to lose in believing God, my friend?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.



Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?



If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.



What do Creationists think of these problems?



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: TruthOnWeb@aol.com

is that you do reject all the evidence from science that the earth is millions of years old and that different animals were around at different times.



So not only do you claim that biologists are wrong about evolution you ALSO claim that geologists are wrong when they tell us about the age of the earth. On this thread I am just trying to get this point clear.



In one respect I agree with you. IF there is an omniscient God and IF we can know what he says then this would be a more secure source of knowledge than science. But I have grave doubts on all of these matters.

a] The evidence for God's existence seems poor.

b] The evidence that the Bible is his inerrant word seems even worse. Even if it was...

c] Different lots of 'bible' Christians give differing interpretations of what it says. So I would still not be sure that I had got God's words aright.



Best Wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Lets see ... whom to believe ... scientists who were NOT there at the time ... or God who was!



I'll take that reliable eye witness account. As God says in His 'creation account'He created all the living things 'after their kind.' True, selective breeding will form variations of "that kind" but NEVER .. I repeat NEVER a change from one species to another.



Laurie, neither YOU nor a single one of your scientists can produce evidence to document a single such complete transition. There is especially not enough real evidence - nor even enough realistic conjecture to justify not believing what God said.



The DAYS of creation are just that ... days. And it certainly wasn't required that God take that long as He could have done it instantly. God created Adam a full grown man - not a baby. If a scientist were to examine Adam on his first day of life they would claim he was 2-3 decades old and not a just a one-day-old. They would say that God is a liar and that anyone who didn't believe their "science" was an idiot. But they are the liars and the fools. Why would they make this mistake? Because they have incomplete knowledge and THEY WERE NOT THERE! But God left a testimony through the writings of His servant Moses that tell the truth of creation. Man should take God's truth over man's theories anyday. Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.



Laurie, you chide Christians because you think they have little evidence for their belief and you think them simple-minded. But the belief-system that you have chosen has an imperfect and even less credible witness. It requires more faith to believe a made up story by imperfect men who change their stories back & forth over the years than to believe in the creator God who was there and is faithful and true.



And He is the only one who can save you from certain eternal death. What have you got to lose in believing God, my friend?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.



Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?



If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.



What do Creationists think of these problems?



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com