Faith is a substituted explanation for the lack thereof.

What I find most entertaining about this religion is that it is taking the hardest to understand aspects of both Creation and Evolution and then combining them. The only problem with Creation is the existence of a supernatural being. Evolution's problem is all the time before scientific measuments came around as well as a lack of evidence. Your religion combines both aspects.

Anyways, the only place that see that there is a God that created the earth is from the Bible. If you use the Bible to try to explain your theory, you will contradict yourself. The Bible claims that man brought sin into the world (as well as death, disease, etc.). The Theory of Evolution claims that all that occurred before man ever existed. Clearly, there is a large contradiction.

There is no place in the Bible where you can stick a few billion years (this is probably the main reason for the (boring) geneologies). If the Bible is where you get your idea that God created life and then basically let it go on its own, then you contradict yourself.

Yes, the Greek philosophers had the idea of Evolution.

"Sin" and death and disease weren't something that came about at a certain point in time. o_O
Sin is a concept exclusive to the belief in God/etc. since sins go against the creator's will, etc.
There's always been death as long there have been living organisms because everything dies. And disease is a product of microorganisms (bacteria, virus, etc.) that attack the host.

Latest reply to Titan

The Bible says that the tail "sways like a cedar". If it was truly talking about the leafy branches, then wouldn't the Bible have choosed a different thing to compare it with? Seriously, when you think of a cedar, you think of the thick and long trunk. If they were just comparing the way the cedar sways, then they would choose a word such as "sapling" or a smaller tree. Also, the reason they mention the strength of the loins is to help describe the strength to hold us such a massive tail.

I know I have heard this from Creationists but I have heard two or three different accounts of huge problems with carbon dating. I never did hear anything about a crystal, though. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Ken Ham (I think that's how you spell it) but he is one source where I heard huge problems with these dating methods. Another source is that book that I quoted. I don't think that they would have "sloppy" methods or misinterpret information. Otherwise, they wouldn't publish it.

But the scientists created this method assuming that Evolution actually occurred. They might not be trying to prove Evolution but they did assume it before they actually developed these dating methods.

Some might but most of the information we find supports our theory. We don't have to hide information. Since our theory is based on science, we really don't have to keep things from the public. Evolution has many problems and they keep on readjusting their opinions; Creationists have had the same view since the world was created. Some ideas (such as a flat world) have changed due to certain findings but the main message is still the same and is supported by science.

I'm pretty sure that I had said that this was just my opinion. Sorry, you misunderstood me, though. There is no place in the Bible that actually says this; this is just a theory that I believe. I don't completely believe it since there really is not 100% evidence supporting it (in fact, there is much less) but it makes sense and so I just wanted to say it.

Excuse me, but I was referring to a quote stating a Creationist/Evolutionist view. If I understood him right, he was saying that God created life and then it evolved to what we see today. The idea of God usually comes from the Bible and so if he believes that, then the Bible will contradict his religion.

Now to your post. Really, you can't say that sin, death, and disease were always present; you have no proof and no one was there. Your entire post assumes that Evolution actually occurred. Evolution is not a fact; it is a religion.

The Creationist view is that everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden (except for the one aspect). When Adam ate the forbidden fruit, sin, death, and disease entered the world. It wasn't as prominent at first as it is today due to the "suspended mist" that kept out many problems we currently see. After the flood, this "water canopy" came down, allowing the "full force" of disease and harmful pathogens we currently see.

Since no one is replying to this thread, I am going to start a new topic. In my opinion, there was a large amount of information (gained from direct contact with God in the Garden of Eden). This would account for the many various religions in almost every culture (both advanced and primitive). It also goes exactly with Micro-Evolution in the way that there was one species that through natural selection, the different genes combined in different ways to create different "sub-species" to make it easier to adapt to certain environments. We do see changes within a species today; we don't see changes from species evolving into different species (Macro-Evolution). Just an interesting thought to throw out.

I never said sin was real, sin implies belief in God. >_>

I've heard of that canopy theory before, and I really can't fathom a vapour canopy that completely covered the Earth. There are so many logical fallacies that could be made from that theory, it's ridiculous. A lack of light would firstly inhibit the growth of plant life, which through the food chain make it improbable for life to be sustained, etc. Secondly, a vapour canopy would probably be very unstable. It would have disintegrated over time, rather than just suddenly "collapse" and flood the planet one day.

Of course the only place I'd heard about the canopy thing was cos I have family who are part of jehovahs witnesses, and they believe that it existed. :/

I went with "Christian Evolutionist" but really, who's to say?

We know how the universe behaved up to right after the big bang. There is actually a ton of coincidental evidence that suggests a creator set the initial conditions of the universe.

For example, I'm sure everyone has heard of The Big Bang... and the supposed Big Crunch that will follow. There is a certain value for the rate of expansion of the universe in which the rate of expansion perfectly matches the attraction of gravity between the matter in the universe, and the universe continues to exist forever. If the value is bigger, the universe just keeps expanding forever. If it is smaller, the universe will come to a big crunch as gravity will eventually overtake the expansion.

Scientists have determined that we are within the big crunch bounds (at least, Stephen Hawking argues this in his book "A Brief History of Time") and the universe will eventually collapse. But if the energy blast at the start of the universe was even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction smaller than what it actually was, the universe would have already recollapsed! In fact, the rate of expansion is extremely close to, but not exactly, that critical value - the universe's expansion is slowing, but so slowly it will last for a veeeeerrrry long time. And similarly, if the gravitational constant of the universe was even a tiny tiny tiny bit bigger, the universe would have already recollapsed. In fact, if any of the many physical constants were at all different, like gravity and the electrostatic forces, the speed of light... then the universe may have looked and behaved quite differently and may not have allowed for the development of any intelligent life at all!

Without the properties of useful atoms like carbon, we could not exist. Without the wonderful water molecule, that great example of emergent properties, we could not exist. Without the star formation process occurring exactly as it does, the elements that we are made of would never have been made in the first place. There are so many variables that had to be set just right for us to even have a chance to exist, it's mind boggling that they all came together so perfectly!

So one could be led to conclude that perhaps some creator set very specific initial conditions so that intelligent life could exist.

However, while it is incredible evidence, it is all still just coincidence. And on the other side of the coin, there is strong, physical evidence that upholds evolutionary theory, evidence you can go and see in a museum.

And, even if the creator exists, why couldn't evolution be the mechanism by which we came about on this planet? He seems to be pretty into the whole science thing as he made all those constants nice and friendly - why wouldn't he set up evolution as the means for us to develop?

So who's to say who's right? Frankly, we don't know and we definitely won't know for sure in our lifetimes. So who cares? Appreciate the fact that you're alive and go have fun. Why waste time debating something that won't make even make a difference either way?

lol

The idea is not just some made up theory; it comes from the Bible. We are not like Evolutionists who find some little obscure "fact" and then make up entire books about it; we actually have a book that claims that the "author" was actually there to tell us what happened.

This canopy wouldn't block most light; it merely prevents many harmful diseases and things from growing. Basically, it would be an "ideal atmosphere" while blocking out harmful effects and allowing the climate to be like a "tropical paradise".

I don't know exactly how this water vapor was suspended in the air. There are probably many ideas that I just haven't heard of. Even though this doesn't answer the question, this article explains the theory quite well and basically states what I have been saying in a much better way. Chapter 7: Earth's Pre-Flood Water Canopy

I'm not sure if you are saying that the Big Bang actually happened but there is sufficient evidence disproving it. (If you want me to post some ideas refuting the Big Bang, then please tell me.) I do agree with you about the certain conditions that must be met to allow life on earth. If the earth was positioned slightly different in the universe, life couldn't exist. There must have been Intelligent Design.

There actually isn't "strong, physical evidence that upholds evolutionary theory". I really don't know what you are talking about because this evidence is really not proof of Evolution but rather the way Evolutionists want to interpret the evidence. As I said before in one of my posts, Evolutionists find a bone and then go on to say what animal it was, how many million years ago it lived, what conditions were present during its lifetime, the color of the animal, as well as many other ideas that would be impossible to find from the insufficient amount of evidence. This happens all the time. Rather, the evidence supports the Creation idea which is proposed by the Bible. The Bible tells us most of the necessary answers so we don't have to "guess" which makes it theory (at best) rather than fact.

We know this isn't possible. God didn't create through Evolution for a number of reasons. First of all, the evidence supports creation much more than Evolution. Next, the Bible (the Creator's "book") states that God created in six days. Also, the Bible doesn't allow any time in between to allow for millions of years. And last, the Bible claims that sin, death, and disease entered through one man (Adam) and we can be saved by one man (Jesus). If you can't believe this fundamental concept stated in the Bible, then there is no reason why you should believe in anything else the Bible says (including the existence of a God).

This debate has much significance. Evolution and Creation is the basis for all fundamental concepts ranging from abortion to morals to types of government. By attacking Creation, Evolutists can destroy other important issues including the Christian faith which ultimately decides your eternal outcome.