Questions for creationists

[Saint Marcus]

Has anyone read the Silmarilion? If you read that, and the bible, it's hard to say which is more plausible.

[Guynemer]

Here's a question that has always bothered me.

Let's say, thousands of years from now, we've colonized other worlds, many light-years away.

And then, surprise, Yeshua decides to make his return appearance to our insignificant little rock. The "Rapture".

What the hell happens to all the people who are on the other planets?

(As a side note, I have an almost overwhelming urge to rear-end those cars that have "WARNING: This car may be rendered driverless in case of Rapture" bumper stickers.)

[orange]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous Pangea was during the day that God made the land, then seperated it to create the continents.

Problem: Pangea was not the beginning of Earth's history. This we know.

[Logical Realist]

If only you'd payed attention in class....

Doc:Was the first life a plant or animal?

Who said it had to be either plant or animal? Sounds like a false dilema. If you had payed attention in biology class you would know there were other kigndoms out there besides plants and animals, like fungi and monera. The first lifeform may have been virus like and such...In between what we consider "life" and "nonlife".

In fact I don't think any evolutionary scientist or advocater of abiogenesis ever said that the first life form was a plant or animal. The fact that you are unaware of this tells me you've done very little if any research in this area on your own.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Was the first life a plant or animal?

I doubt it would be either; they're both much too complex. I'd guess that the first life was either a protist or a moneran.

[lightblue]

Re: If only you'd payed attention in class....

Originally posted by Logical Realist


The first lifeform may have been virus like and such...In between what we consider "life" and "nonlife".

I agree with you, but it wouldn't have been a virus. One of the prime characteristics of a virus is that it needs a host cell to replicate, and if it were the first lifeform, it wouldn't have that.

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Oh, and John, there is another option.

Think of God (I can't believe I'm saying this) as Microsoft. We're version whatever of His plan. Evolution is His way of bringing out new versions, updating, and making Patches. I personally come from the school of thought that says God is responsible for Evolution. (And there is even a school of thought which says that God is the product of evolution.)

No, if you follow the Bible at all you realize it says that the Garden, Adam, and Eve were all perfect when they were created. Since the Fall we've all been devolving.

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by JohnT
Hell, the only thing I wanna know is how did the fossils get there. Either

a. The Bible is wrong and modern evolutionary theories are right (as far as our current understanding goes, though there is still plenty to learn.)

b. The Bible is right and God is a prime bastard for purposely deceiving his creations by planting false evidence that suggests a history that never happened.

Being a believer in God, I gotta go with A. If the answer is B, well, then, screw him.

There is a third option. The Bible is right and there is no false evidence, only evidence that has been misinterpreted. Much of what we were taught in school as fact is actually opinion. This whole evolution business and the age of the earth being measured in billions of years is very questionable. But since it is pushed on the general mouth breathing public as Science they swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

We can open that can of worms if you want to. I would recommend that you start another thread and PM me if you do.

David

[Goingonit]

There is one irrefutable creationist answer: God created the world as it would have been if it were created by evolution. Not only were all fossils in place, but there were plants and animals created in the process of doing things, etc. But I don't believe that. And if it were true then it would both be unprovable and have no scientific relevance.

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


Actually, if the baby hasn't been baptized, it dies with the original sin of Adam and Eve (which the Greek philosephers etc. died with. Read Dante's Inferno, awesome book.) And according to popular Judeo-Christian belief, dogs don't have souls. I don't believe it, but since I'm taking the creationist side (in this issue, just for fun), that's what the belief is.

If you're going to take the creationists side then please try to get your doctrine straight. Salvation is by faith alone, not works. Baptism or no baptism the baby (and the rest of us) get judged by God according to his/her ability to understand and believe.

Dante's Inferno is an amusing piece of fiction, don't confuse it with Scripture.

David

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by Goingonit
There is one irrefutable creationist answer: God created the world as it would have been if it were created by evolution. Not only were all fossils in place, but there were plants and animals created in the process of doing things, etc.

That is far from irrefutable. I, for one, do not believe it.

David

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Big Dave


That is far from irrefutable. I, for one, do not believe it.

David

No, but you can't refute it. It is impossible to prove incorrect.

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by Goingonit
No, but you can't refute it. It is impossible to prove
incorrect.

Yes, I can refute it. If evolution is the myth I believe it to be then Deistic Evolution is also false.

The issue here is what constitutes science. The short answer is "that which can be verified by the scientifice method". Evolution does not meet that criteria. Neither does creation. Neither event/process is reproducable.

David

[Tolkien]

evolutionists you see...are so desperate to get the better of creationists, that they'll ask the dumbest questions. But how bout we take a shot at it:

Many of you talk about the big bang. And everything just "happened." If that is so, how was it possible? You place all the nessicary computer components in a bag, toss it around a bit, and wala!!! You have a computer!! hahaha, sorry, doesn't work.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Big Dave


Yes, I can refute it. If evolution is the myth I believe it to be then Deistic Evolution is also false.

The issue here is what constitutes science. The short answer is "that which can be verified by the scientifice method". Evolution does not meet that criteria. Neither does creation. Neither event/process is reproducable.

David

Ah, but it can be ascertained through various other reproducible phenomena.

And you have not logically disproved it. You have just proved it irrelevant. Which it is.