PDA

View Full Version : Evolution >< Creationism


C'jais
03-27-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
I do not believe that the earth is billions of years old, just as i do not believe in any sort of evolution, started by God or not.

Read this thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89510) It should cover all or most of the questions you're going to ask me, and the points we're going to debate. I'm sorry, but I don't feel the need to start an entirely new thread when the subject has been beaten to death already in another forum. But if you insist, just read this first, so that you're better prepared.

However, a faster lion is still a lion, and a bear with longer hair is still a bear, the species doesn't change.

I'm just interested in where you draw the line between a species "adapting" and a species "evolving". How much is it allowed to change over several millions years before it's no longer the same species?

Now, all the changes come through mutations in genes, but at a basic level no information is ever added, only subtracted or modified,

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Just as base pairs can get subtracted and changed, so can it be added. In fact, among humans, a very known chromosomal disease is one where an entire chromosome is added.

As for the earth being billions of years old, what is your proof?

Radioisotope dating. It's explained thoroughly in the thread mentioned above.

I have no belief in carbon data

Carbon dating can only go back some 50.000 years, and only works on organic matter anyway, so it wouldn't be much use in determining the age of the earth, I'll give you that.

that when two layers of rock were dated the one on top was "found" to be onlder than the one on bottom, and there were no traces of subterrainian rivers or water of any kind, and the numbers weren't even close. Care to tell me how that's possible?

Tectonic movements (which are also an indicator of an old earth, BTW) can push an old layer atop another. It happens all the time (though slowly).

The big bang could have created the canyon or the carbon just as they are, couldn't it have? Theoretically it could have created fossils already in the ground, no?

Eh? The big bang could have done that? Not really, as a few billion years are in the way (:

Of course, i believe some sort of great flood destroyed many animals and created the fossils all at once, which is scientifically possible.

Nope. And as for the flood itself, if it did happen it would have broken off all the ice on the polar caps so there wouldn't be any left.

The fact that nearly every society, from the Jews to the English tribes to the Chinese tribes to the Native American tribes, all have some version of a flood story lends itself very well to the theory.

Many cultures have a flood myth, but its details vary greatly.

Again, if Noah's ark did indeed happen, what would the animals live off after landfall? How would Noah be able to farm anything? How could all the species that ever existed fit into the ark?

Oh, and the idea of "virtual particles" and "false vacuum" sounds just as convoluded and contrived as you might say the Bible is.

Maybe, but they're fact no matter what, as they can measured and objectively registered. The Bible's story cannot.

They seem to be nothing but crazy ideas invented to explain what they cannot. They are theorized, not tested or proven, thought to be potential but not truly known to be.

In case you don't know, theories are able to tested and found as fact. Such is Einstein's theory of relativity and the atomic theory. Or Darwin's theory.

Think about it. If i have one marble, that marble is the same as two marbles minus one marble. Does that mean i actually have two real marbles and one negative marble which cancels one real marble out? No, i only have one marble, and while other things may be theoretically equal to having one marble, that doesn't change the fact that i only have one.

I didn't get this part. What are you on about exactly? I don't think you're able to symbolize advanced quantum through such a vague example as this, but, your call.

Zygomaticus
03-27-2003, 08:11 PM
I know you may not be talking to me, but I'll answer some anyways...

How much is it allowed to change over several millions years before it's no longer the same species?

Technically, two species are so when they stop interbreeding or when their breeding produces an inferior hybrid.

Again, if Noah's ark did indeed happen, what would the animals live off after landfall? How would Noah be able to farm anything? How could all the species that ever existed fit into the ark?

That's another reason I don't believe in all the Bible says. First reason being I'm not christian :p

They seem to be nothing but crazy ideas invented to explain what they cannot. They are theorized, not tested or proven, thought to be potential but not truly known to be.

Isn't the bible also a collection of stories written to portray good morality? (Who DID write the bible?)

***

Personally, I am a believer in evolutionism too. I don't believe in god simply one day/week "putting" all the animals on earth just like that. But being a relatively religious person, I do believe he created stuff, the first stuff, and constantly supervises what happens. Nothing happens without His approval ;)

Artoo
03-27-2003, 10:31 PM
Gen 1:1-3
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
NIV

I don't know about you, but I've got a source for exactly how the universe was created, and you still can't explain it. All that talk in that other thread was about how Creationists don't have source, they just nitpick evolution. There's my source, a book older than most sovereign nations.

I have my source, and I take it as fact that the universe was created therefore the rest of my posts will be nitpicks of evolution.

By the theory of evolution you still have not explained how something as complex as an eye can come into being. You say that neccesities change slowly over time which is evolution, well by your theory of evolution, something as complex as an eye can't pop into existance in one generation, it would be something that wasn't even close to an eye. It would only have the beginnings of an eye. This would make it useless, by your theory of adaptation. The "pre-eye" is useless therefore it would be selected against, and would be lost in the genes. You can't have evolution without adaptation, so what's it going to be?

I have a logical explanation for how an eye came into existance, God needed things to see so everything could run smoothly, so he gave them eyes.

Tie Guy
03-27-2003, 11:04 PM
Well, i'm not going to dicuss this issue, though Artoo just said basically what i agree to. I've talked about this a lot and i just don't want to talk anymore right now. Maybe if this pops up later i'll debate it then, but not now.


As for where the Bible came from, very briefly, it was written by men thousands of years ago and expanded upon as time went on by various authors, many of whom have their additions named after them. I will tell you that the men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the books, and therefore the words are the word and will of God.

Now, the first five books were written by Moses, fact. It's not in the Bible, but it is historically accurate that Moses wrote the first 5 books. Paul, on the other hand, wrote many New Testament books called the Epistles.

So argue what you want on whether they were inspired by God, but they were not just made up by a guy or for morality's sake, they were written as an accurate historical document (and from the christian's point of view the will of God) thousands of years ago, and that is beyond dispute.

And no, not everything in the Bible can be taken literally, because times have changed and what might have been linguistically accurate 4000 or 2000 years ago might not be now. Also things must be taken in context to ancient society and cutoms and such.

There is, for example, a likely possiblity that the flood that destroyed the "entire earth" was actually just the entire known earth, which at the time would have included all the people on the earth. Geographical and archeological finds have legitamized this theory, and quite honestly one can never really know for sure. I certainly can believe it much more easily than some contrived theory based on scientific impossiblities and/or near impossiblities.

Zygomaticus
03-27-2003, 11:28 PM
True that not everything about evolution is known yet. It's still being figured out. But just because one doesn't know about it, doesn't mean it's not true, for that matter, doesn't mean it's true, either.

For just the tip of the iceberg, might I recommend Campbell - Reece Biology Sixth Edition. I've been reading it (not as bed time reading, but for school) and it makes sense for one like me, who isn't christian.

Some time in the future, maybe everything will come down like a bolt of lightning and the universal accepted truth will become Creationism and Evolution will be ridiculed and I will have wasted my whole junior year studying crap :p But let's hope it doesn't come to that...

For that matter, Artoo/TieGuy, have you guys every touched upon or studied evolution at school? I know Artoo goes to a Private School, so do they teach this there?

C'jais
03-28-2003, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by Artoo
I don't know about you, but I've got a source for exactly how the universe was created, and you still can't explain it.

I haven't tried yet (:

All that talk in that other thread was about how Creationists don't have source, they just nitpick evolution. There's my source, a book older than most sovereign nations.

Sad to say, that book is of no use in a discussion as this. A source must be consistent and factual. If the flood did indeed happen, there would have been worldwide geological proof of it.

The "pre-eye" is useless therefore

No it isn't. Light sensitive cells were the pre-eyes. Cells that make the distinction between light areas and dark areas underwater - a great use for finding out where the surface and the bottom is.

C'jais
03-28-2003, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
I will tell you that the men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the books, and therefore the words are the word and will of God.

Yes, but how do you know?

From the Bible of course. And who wrote the Bible? Man did.

So the Bible is true because it says it's true. That's circular reasoning.

And no, not everything in the Bible can be taken literally, because times have changed and what might have been linguistically accurate 4000 or 2000 years ago might not be now. Also things must be taken in context to ancient society and cutoms and such.

Ahhh. Thank you very much.

There is, for example, a likely possiblity that the flood that destroyed the "entire earth" was actually just the entire known earth, which at the time would have included all the people on the earth. Geographical and archeological finds have legitamized this theory, and quite honestly one can never really know for sure.

That's even more brilliant. Yes, a local flood is much more realistic, and there have been found geological strata that support this theory in the area around Turkey and the Black Sea.

Regarding the flood myth as a whole, it appears it might have been "borrowed" nearly verbatim from a 4000 year old Mesopotamian story - the likeness is very striking, such as the main character sending out 3 birds to search for land, much as Noah did.

I certainly can believe it much more easily than some contrived theory based on scientific impossiblities and/or near impossiblities.

I wouldn't begin to talk ill of science here, as the radio-dating method has been giving us an extraordinary insight into the workings of plate tectonics.

Tie Guy
03-28-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Regarding the flood myth as a whole, it appears it might have been "borrowed" nearly verbatim from a 4000 year old Mesopotamian story - the likeness is very striking, such as the main character sending out 3 birds to search for land, much as Noah did.

Noah was Mesopatamian. I really don't think the story was "borrowed" from anyone, it's just that an event actually happened and it affected everyone on earth (which at the time would most likely have only been the Mesopatamian society).


Oh, as for how i know the Bible is true--I don't know or sure, just as you don't know evolution is true. I have faith, and i can feel God (what i would call God, anyway) working in my life and heart. You may think it's crazy and unreal, but ask any true Christian and they will say the same.

Crazy_dog no.3
03-28-2003, 04:28 PM
I don't think it's crazy. But I do think it is the wrong explanation. The Big Bang and evolution sound far more convincing.

Artoo
03-28-2003, 07:03 PM
Christian Evidences 101. The Bible is filled with historically accurate data. Bring your argments against it that it is not accurate and I'll give you my replies. The "great flood" is not historically inaccurate as TieGuy explained.

And as for the question concerning whether my private, christian school teaches evolution, my school teaches the theory of evolution, but it also teaches how unlikely it is that it is fact, it doesn't just say that it can't happen because the Bible said so.

Oh and according to you, this complex eye could not come into being. Sure a group of photo-sensitive cells could arise, but they could never "evolve" into something as complex as an eye. You said yourself that evolution happens slowly over a very long time. Well each part in the eye is a necessity for vision barring cones. All of these parts require each other to function, so they would have to have evolved together, or they would have been breeded out, and according to your "theory of evolution" this isn't possible since gene changes of that magnitude do not happen in only a few generations.

Thank you Mr. Swayne! :D

Zygomaticus
03-28-2003, 07:19 PM
Sure a group of photo-sensitive cells could arise, but they could never "evolve" into something as complex as an eye.

You really don't know that, do you? It's only what you believe, and that's okay.

I like CrazyDog believe in evolution as far more convincing than anything the Bible or my own religion teaches. If species were just "put" on earth why doesn't it happen anymore? Things of such creative magnitude and geneous are unheard of. Personally, I hold a mixed evolution/creationism point of view, being that I'm religious and that I find evolution more convincing than the sudden "putting on earth" process...

Breton
03-28-2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Artoo

And as for the question concerning whether my private, christian school teaches evolution, my school teaches the theory of evolution, but it also teaches how unlikely it is that it is fact, it doesn't just say that it can't happen because the Bible said so.


But he obviously forgot about teaching you about how extremely unlikely it is that the bible is true. And even if evolution didn't occur (probably did though, we have seen enough evidence to be pretty sure it's true, Darwin studied the animal life on the Galapagos islands for many years and found animals on different islands wich are the same species, but still with minor differences to make it easier to survive on that specific island) why does that automaticly mean that Christianity is true? Hell, for all you know, I might have created the world. If I wrote that I created the world in a book, then I'd be just as true as the Christian God, right?

And you keep wondering where the energy/matter that made the Big Bang happen came from, but I have only one question: Where did your God come from then? No one has ever told me that, and perhaps someone should.

Artoo
03-28-2003, 07:53 PM
And you keep wondering where the energy/matter that made the Big Bang happen came from, but I have only one question: Where did your God come from then? No one has ever told me that, and perhaps someone should.

He has always been and always will be. That's what makes him God.

But he obviously forgot about teaching you about how extremely unlikely it is that the bible is true. And even if evolution didn't occur (probably did though, we have seen enough evidence to be pretty sure it's true, Darwin studied the animal life on the Galapagos islands for many years and found animals on different islands wich are the same species, but still with minor differences to make it easier to survive on that specific island) why does that automaticly mean that Christianity is true? Hell, for all you know, I might have created the world. If I wrote that I created the world in a book, then I'd be just as true as the Christian God, right?

They forgot to teach us that because it's much more likely that Christianity is true than Evolution. What Darwin studied was adaptation, and adaptation is quite well accepted among creationists, it's very scientifically sound.

What makes Christianity true is the great volume of evidence that has been presented not by one person on one occasion, but thousands of people on hundreds of occasions, all throughout history, and is all well-documented and accepted.

If you wrote a book and said you created the world you would be mocked, because it is quite clear that you didn't. You wouldn't be jsut as true as God because you don't have the volume of evidence in your favor.

Tie Guy
03-28-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
And you keep wondering where the energy/matter that made the Big Bang happen came from, but I have only one question: Where did your God come from then? No one has ever told me that, and perhaps someone should.

God is not made of matter, nor is he bound by the laws of science. If he were he wouldn't have been able to create matter, would he? He never had to be created, just as space did not, both have always just been there.

Crazy_dog no.3
03-29-2003, 07:37 AM
Let's say it's true, then. It would still be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, to imagine something which has always been.

C'jais
03-29-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
Noah was Mesopatamian. I really don't think the story was "borrowed" from anyone, it's just that an event actually happened and it affected everyone on earth (which at the time would most likely have only been the Mesopatamian society).

The so called Gilgamesh epic was written in cuneiform and tells nearly completely the same story as the Flood story. It was written 4000 years ago (funny enough, several great cultures existed at the time of the flood and were not affected by it), whereas the old testament was written about 3000 years ago.


Oh, as for how i know the Bible is true--I don't know or sure, just as you don't know evolution is true.

You don't believe fact. As soon as you start believing in something, it turns into a matter of faith, which is the opposite of fact.

I have faith, and i can feel God (what i would call God, anyway) working in my life and heart. You may think it's crazy and unreal, but ask any true Christian and they will say the same.

That's cool with me, really - as long as you remember the difference between faith and facts.

C'jais
03-29-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Artoo
Christian Evidences 101. The Bible is filled with historically accurate data. Bring your argments against it that it is not accurate and I'll give you my replies. The "great flood" is not historically inaccurate as TieGuy explained.

The Old Testament.

It is historically inaccurate to state that there was once a worldwide flood spanning the entire globe except for a mountain called Ararat, which is in fact shorter than several other mountains. This is impossible.

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.

Where did all of the water come from and go to?

What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.

Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.

Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.

Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).

Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?

Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

And as for the question concerning whether my private, christian school teaches evolution, my school teaches the theory of evolution, but it also teaches how unlikely it is that it is fact, it doesn't just say that it can't happen because the Bible said so.

Ahhh... a Christian school. Are there any left? How quaint.

Oh and according to you, this complex eye could not come into being.

According to me? Hohoho.

No, according to you.

Sure a group of photo-sensitive cells could arise, but they could never "evolve" into something as complex as an eye. You said yourself that evolution happens slowly over a very long time. Well each part in the eye is a necessity for vision barring cones. All of these parts require each other to function, so they would have to have evolved together, or they would have been breeded out, and according to your "theory of evolution" this isn't possible since gene changes of that magnitude do not happen in only a few generations.

If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through continuous small improvements of design. Given a very pessimistic view of the time required to acheive this, it still only needs to take a few hundred thousand years.

C'jais
03-29-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Artoo
They forgot to teach us that because it's much more likely that Christianity is true than Evolution. What Darwin studied was adaptation, and adaptation is quite well accepted among creationists, it's very scientifically sound.

So is evolution.

No, Darwin did study natural selection, and did actually look for a way to explain the origin of life and the subsequent evolving of it into the life forms we see today.

What makes Christianity true is the great volume of evidence that has been presented not by one person on one occasion, but thousands of people on hundreds of occasions, all throughout history, and is all well-documented and accepted.

Such talk.

If you wrote a book and said you created the world you would be mocked, because it is quite clear that you didn't. You wouldn't be jsut as true as God because you don't have the volume of evidence in your favor.

Tell me then, what evidence does God have in his favour?

C'jais
03-29-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3
Let's say it's true, then. It would still be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, to imagine something which has always been.

Not really.

It is not hard to imagine a universe which has always been there, and always will.

Dagobahn Eagle
03-29-2003, 06:38 PM
Sad to say, that book is of no use in a discussion as this. A source must be consistent and factual. If the flood did indeed happen, there would have been worldwide geological proof of it.

Just thought I'd add some things, from a pretty objective standpoint:


There is evidence of a flood occuring in the region where the people who wrote the Bible lived. This flood put a good deal of the area under water and could perfectly well be the flood the Bible describes.

We know they couldn't have taken two of all the animals in the world with them. How? For two simple reasons:

1. No boat is that big.
2. He'd have to travel around the whole planet to collect polar reindeers in Norway and two Bisons in North America, for example. Seeing they didn't even know about those places, and couldn't travel to them, it's technically impossible that he could have put all the animals in the world in the Ark.

According to the Bible, however, it would seem they knew about the flood in advance. How? Maybe they just foresaw it from the changes in climate, or maybe......

More interestingly, there is evidence of a giant hurricane taking place near one of the seas in the Middle East that actually did drain the whole sea for a few hours. Most scientists who discuss the draining agree this is the flooding in question.

However, did Moses make it happen? Well......

This is going to raise some controversy, but about Jesus: There are many theories to how he could cure pain. The most popular one is that everyone were so convinced he could do it that the pain disappeared (hey, faith can make cancer disappear, so to me this is believeable). He simply was a "healer".

The other more controversial one is.. that he was on the drug cannabis, which he shared with people. The effects of the drug took away their pain :D. Ooooookay.

Ooooor he was actually an Incarnation of a God, the "son of God". How he could be the 'son' of a god, or even if it's litterally intended, is not for me to say.

Evolution: Do we know God didn't set the Big Bang off?

Do we know the Bible refers to seven Earth-days? A "week" also represents a cycle, with Sunday being the end of it. So the "week" that created Earth might refer to the Big Bang and evolution. His resting on Sunday might be that he stopped interfering after the events of the Bible (which would be the end of the cycle). See? Tons of theories.

You can't take anything in the Bible litteral. In one translation of the Bible, the commandment reads "I'm the only God. Have no other gods than me". In another translation, however, God never says that he/she/it is the only God, he just states "have no other Gods than me".

The Bible cannot have said evolution didn't happen. Why? Evolution wasn't known to humans back when the Bible was written. If God was to tell humans that evolution didn't take place, he would also have to tell them what it was. It would make no sense if someone told you that "Diofing" didn't happen. "How the heck do you Diofe?". "Well," says the person telling you this, "that is irrelevant. Point is, don't think it happened".

You get it? God would have to tell humans what he meant. And if he did, why is there no evidence of humans knowing about evolution before Darwin?

The Bible stated that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around it. If we are to take that literally, well, then it has been proven not to be true. However, if you don't take it literally, such as if you interpret the word "revolves" differently, then it makes sense.

Some people say that if they pray for God to take their fear away, their fear disappears.

My kayaking team coach, when we went jogging once, once told me how she could take away the pain of running if she believed it would go away. It worked. In fact, it works for all light pain, and even for taking light cold away when freezing. This is, however, likely not a matter of faith, but of Mind over Body.

One little question: If the Big Bang created all these planets and galaxies and animals, how come it couldn't have created God? I don't think it did, but.. :)


PM me if you want to discuss this. I'm not christian, but I have a free-thinker belief that if one God exists, then technically that means nothing proves that the others didn't. So I don't disregard any other religion without argument, however, I have picked one to faithfully follow.

To summarize:

- Some of the events in the Bible might be actual events, but many have natural explanations. Others, however, make less sense. What about the Wise Men being told that Jesus would be born at the city they would find if they followed a star.. and then he actually was born there? Okay, babies are born all the time, but how many do you know that were born in a shed?

- IMO, if the Bible holds true, that doesn't have to mean evolution didn't happen. The animals of the Earth could have been evolving while Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eve, right?

ShadowTemplar
03-29-2003, 08:26 PM
I have no belief in carbon data

Neither have I. "Belief" and "data" are mutually exclusive terms.

As for the Big Bang theory:

1) It's off topic in an evolution thread... One has to wonder how much weight somebody's critizism of a theory can hold, if the person in question doesn't even know what the theory says.

2) (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C55B5-C29B-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=4)

3) (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D59C8-5512-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2)

4) The above two are just a tiny little bit of the result of a quick search on www.sciam.com (keywords: big bang).

Lastly, I am not a supporter of the Big Bang theory, but nor am I a detractor. I simply admit the fact that I know pitifully little about it, and have to trust what I read, which again means that I can't take any stance on the matter.

So that should hopefully put any and all discussion of the Big Bang in this thread to rest... If someone wishes to debate it further, I suggest that you create a thread for it.

observer_20000
05-17-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Artoo
Gen 1:1-3
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
NIV

I don't know about you, but I've got a source for exactly how the universe was created, and you still can't explain it. All that talk in that other thread was about how Creationists don't have source, they just nitpick evolution. There's my source, a book older than most sovereign nations.

I have my source, and I take it as fact that the universe was created therefore the rest of my posts will be nitpicks of evolution.

By the theory of evolution you still have not explained how something as complex as an eye can come into being. You say that neccesities change slowly over time which is evolution, well by your theory of evolution, something as complex as an eye can't pop into existance in one generation, it would be something that wasn't even close to an eye. It would only have the beginnings of an eye. This would make it useless, by your theory of adaptation. The "pre-eye" is useless therefore it would be selected against, and would be lost in the genes. You can't have evolution without adaptation, so what's it going to be?

I have a logical explanation for how an eye came into existance, God needed things to see so everything could run smoothly, so he gave them eyes.

You quote the bible as if it is some sort credible historical record when it obviously isn't.