Actually, the Big Bang theory allows there to have been a setting of initial conditions at all and therefore allows a creator. The continuous universe theory, in which the universe did not start at a singularity, actually disallows any position a creator might had because there would be no chance for initial conditions to be set. This is of course assuming the creator hasn't been there all the time and just decided the time to create earth and all the rest arbitrarily. So, the big bang theory is actually good news for creationists.

I bolded that one statement because you can say that about anything. Anyone can "interpret" anything they want about anything. Two people can read the same book, watch the same movie and get different things out of it - that's why more than one person writes a review or criticism, because one person's opinion is not law. Two people can see smoke in the distance; one thinks a house is on fire and one thinks it is a campfire. The point is, I could say you are interpreting the bible the way you want because that's the way you want to interpret the bible. What if I read the bible and interpreted it completely different? No one who had anything to do with the bible is around to tell us what they really meant when they wrote it. As we won't get anywhere arguing about this, just leave it alone. It's like the kettle calling the frying pan black.

No scientist talks about what color animals were based on their bones... that's just artistic license for movies and pictures. Although they did find one incredibly well preserved fossil lately that still flesh on it.

Don't be so hasty to discredit rocks as sources of information. We know animals with flat teeth nowadays eat plants, right? The flat teeth grind up the plants. It stands to reason that teeth bones that are flat from a fossil were also used to eat plants. Plant fossils found near the plant-eater are probably what was eaten. Finding groups of dinosaur fossils together suggests they lived in herds. Sharp-toothed dinosaurs probably ate meat. Scientists can easily tell the age of rock using carbon dating and relative dating. If we find 100 dinosaur fossils in the same area, you can start to make connections between how they might have interacted. None of this sounds that far fetched - they are perfectly reasonable conclusions based on simple logic. These people aren't just pulling this out of their butt, and they certainly aren't guessing.

Uh, what? How does this evidence I just talked about support creationism? I thought you just said we had a time-limit of a couple thousand years after creation. Those rocks they are finding are millions of years old. Also, you have the common misconception that scientific theory is a "guess" or "just a theory". Scientific theory is based on hundreds of thousands of experiments that the theory correct predicts. When's the last time something you dropped floated up to the sky instead of falling to the ground? Hence the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution is similar in this manner.

This is the second time you said "the evidence supports creation more than evolution". What exactly are you referring to? You immediately contradicted yourself as evolution requires millions of years while the bible only allows several thousand. Again, the rocks we've found, i.e., the evidence, date to millions of years ago. The only piece of evidence you seem to have is the bible. Everything else points towards evolution as being correct.

Also, I don't get how a book written 2000 years ago is undeniable proof of creationism. All you have is a book. That's it. What is the evidence you are referring to? I've got a book too, it's called "The Origin of Species". Well, the origin of species is a book, and therefore irrefutable evidence that evolution is true.

Since we have too contradicting books, both that are inherently irrefutable, what are we to do? Oh, wait. Darwin's book is based on evidence you can go and see for yourself right now, and the bible isn't.

Good point.

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

Look man, I'm Christian. I believe God exists. I love Jesus and I think the message of Christianity is great. But what you are saying just doesn't make any logical sense. And before you say how I can accept one part of the bible and not the other, remember that the bible is two books, new and old. That old part sounds like a lot of lost, distracted people trying to find some meaning in a confusing and inexplicable world by writing everything off as the work of God. The new part sounds a bit more coherent, and focuses on how man is responsible for himself and has to be good and do good. I don't think it's too hard to separate the gold from the dirt here.

There's a book out about how a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the god and creator of the universe. It's got just as much evidence behind it as the bible does: absolutely nothing.

I'm just going to say this bluntly, the Big Bang theory is not good news for Creationists because even though it might allow room for a Creator, it still isn't right. We don't have to "fit in" Intelligent Design; the way that God says it was still is the way it actually happened.

I do want to say one thing, though. You claim that I interpret the Bible the way I want to interpret the Bible. Let me give you a few examples of how this is not true. I say that the Bible says that God allows evil in the world. I say that the Bible says that God allows some to go to hell. I say that humans can do nothing to save themselves (contradictory to most religous beliefs). I say that the Bible says that God created in six days (raised debate and maybe eventually persecution with unbelievers). These are not the way I want to interpret the Bible but rather the way it should be interpreted (really, there isn't much interpreting to do; it is mainly literal).

Ok, I was wrong about the color, sorry. Anyways, the point you brought up about the incredibly well preserved fossil gives much more evidence for Creation then Evolution. There is a much better probability that one of these dead creatures "survived over a few thousand years then many million years.

Ok, but this is only true IF there were never any catastrophes (such as a flood) or any other events that could have slightly changed the surface of the earth. Also, you can't find the age of a rock by using carbon dating; carbon dating can only be used on things that were once alive. You can use radiometric dating but still, all current dating methods are extremely flawed. I have said this in many other posts (with examples).

If you are referring to the "perfect, ideal, flawless" method of dating, then you are wrong here. These dating methods certainly aren't "laws" like gravity; the scientists only show you the examples they want you to see. They don't tell you about all the times where there methods bring up huge contradictions (ex. 200 year old tree in millions of years old rock).

I will not go into the dating methods again....yet. Show me where I "contradicted" myself. I'm not really sure what you are getting at. (I'm positive that I didn't; I think you might have misunderstood me.)

What I was saying was that the Bible "came out" long before all the scientific advances we currently see today. It would be extremely hard to make up some theory that long ago when they didn't even know that the earth was a sphere and not flat and make up a theory that still stands today.

Lol, Darwin's book isn't based on evidence that you can see for yourself. Darwin stated that there should be intermediate fossils (missing links, which are still missing) everywhere in the fossil record. He said that they were there but they haven't been found. Now, we see, that there aren't these missing links but rather large gaps between the different species (one obvious problem with your book). Also, you can't go out and see creatures evolving from basic lifeforms all the way to what we see today; no one has seen it or ever had actual proof that it has happened. It is just a theory and can not be observed in a laboratory. The only thing that you can't "go out and see for yourself" from the Bible is the idea of God. We have much reason to believe that there must have been a God but still there is not actual evidence of his existence. Other than that, everything the Bible says can be seen for real.

You say that you have the Christian belief and then you go on to say the rest? Sorry, but you are not a true Christian. Don't you see that the New Testament fulfills the old? That Jesus dying on the cross fulfilled many OT traditions (ex. sacrificing of animals) and changed the emphasis of the true faith (looking forward vs. looking back). Tell me what doesn't make sense to you about what I said in the previous post so I can explain it more thoroughly

Coming from a "Christian".....sigh.

I didn't have space to counter all your points, so I'm just sticking to the things I really found important.

Just to cover the interpretations argument, you make a good point, but you're assuming the bible was meant to be interpreted literally, which is just another interpretation. Pilgrim's Progress, a famous Christian work you may have heard of, focuses entirely on allegory, or the use people and events to to symbolize bigger political, social, and religious ideas. There's no reason the bible couldn't be the same way.
I'd appreciate it if you would post those examples again so I don't have to go hunting them in the thread. As far as I'm concerned radiometric dating is based on mathematical principles and universally accepted chemical theory, and is extremely accurate.
Scientists have easily explained this phenomenon with simple observation. Young tree on surface. Earthquake happens. Tree buried in very old rock.
Just because something is old doesn't mean it is right. Greek and Egyptian sciences "came out" long before the bible was ever thought of. By your logic, we should all be worshiping the Egyptian sun god Ra as it came out first.

This is simply not true. I'm going to explain evolution to you as simply and logically as possible, as well as where YOU can go and see it right now.

Haven't you heard of Darwin's finches? Darwin went to the Galapagos islands, on which there were many types of finches. In the population of finches on the island, some had smaller beaks, some had larger beaks, just like humans have slight differences in height, eye color, etc. This is called genetic variation - literally, a variety of different types of genes resulting in slightly different finches and people. So far so good?

Now, as we have observed, during a particularly wet year, the seeds on the island plants all get big and fat. Finches with naturally bigger beaks will have an easier time cracking and eating these seeds. Think of it as taller people being able to reach higher trees. These fat beaked finches get more food and energy and reproduce more. This makes more fat-beaked finches, and the next generation of finches has on average more finches with fat beaks. Get it?

This means the genetics of the population as a whole have changed to suit the changing environment. We have measured many times the changing beak sizes in a population compared with rainfall rates, as well as similar one-change one-effect situations in other populations of other animals.

This is evolution. When it is stated simply and logically, it sounds pretty reasonable. I mean, we didn't make up anything here. The rain changed and then the finches changed as a direct result. The size of the seeds is an example of "environmental pressure". The pressure made the population change to be less pressured, you see?

Now, think of the whole island. There are lot of different things in the environment - seed size is only one. With all off these environmental factors creating different pressures on different traits, not just beak size, the population begins to not just alter but change completely until its genes are so different from what they used to be we can say they are a new species.

This changing beak size is a trend observed over the span of 2 or 3 years. Is is really so crazy to think that over a 100 years, some animal would become different from what it is today - not a new species, perhaps, but different? Then when you up that scale to 1000 years, then a million, then 100 million... it is possible. It could happen. And it did happen.

True, there are many breaks in the fossil record, but they are slowly being filled in every day as we discover more fossils, making evolution seem less and less like a huge extrapolation and more like reality. See these links for examples. The first is the newest "missing link" fossil between humans and lemurs; the second is a story reporting similarities between the raptors and birds, namely, chickens; the third is how whales evolved from land animals, one of the most well documented fossil paths with many of those intermediates you claimed were missing.

"MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?
'Chicken raptor' found in Canada
Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution

True, no one has seen the dramatic evolution of on species to another.

Still, if you see smoke, can't you infer that there is some sort of fire? How do you reach that conclusion if you've never seen the fire? Well, only smoke makes fire, that's how. And only evolution produces the gradation of fossils that we have discovered that show many examples of how one creature has gradually modified over time because of environmental pressures.
Yes, other than the "idea of God", everything in the Bible can be seen for real. So, I can go out and see people turned to salt? I can see talking snakes? The Garden of Eden? The Parting of the Red Sea? People walking on water?

Well, I can't go see that stuff.

As I'm Christian, you might now be asking yourself how I can possibly selectively believe the Bible and support evolution. That would be because always interpreting the Bible literally is silly. Humans have always used symbolism to convey the meaning of their stories, to pass down wisdom to the next generation. When Jonah is in the belly of the whale, for example, did he actually get swallowed up by a whale? Literally? Sounds like a children's tale to me. But whether he got swallowed or not doesn't make a difference. The point is he was in big trouble! The whale is just a device to show he needed to change his selfish ways. Besides, whales filter feed, unless of course it was a killer whale that got him. :)

Seriously. Take anyone. You're the cat's meow, the bees knees, cool! Are you actually the sound a cat makes? No. Are you the knees of a bee? No. Are you cold in temperature? Certainly not. Everyone uses figures of speech and metaphors naturally, even more so in writing. Taking ANYTHING literally is silly.

Up until I read this, even though I really disagreed with you, I didn't disrespect you. Who the hell do you think you are to tell me that I'm not a true Christian just because I don't agree with your view of life? I argued hard against you, maybe I was harshly sarcastic at some points, but I never questioned your beliefs or your intelligence, just the facts you put forward. You crossed the line with me on that one.

Frankly, I suppose I'll give another few responses if you reply directly to me, but I won't ramble on at length like this again for this topic. It's obvious you aren't just suddenly going to change what you think because some random guy disagrees with you on a video game forum. I only ask that, considering how young you are, that you keep an open mind in the future, and at least continue to give other theories like evolution fair consideration and not immediately dismiss them as wrong. Heck, I'm pretty young myself, and I'll continue to keep an open mind towards your point of view. However, at the moment I think the evidence for evolution continues to mount more and more strongly with each passing year.

I've got to admit, I think you're more wordy then me!, lol.

You can do two posts. (I had to do that once since I had 17000 characters.)

I didn't say that all the Bible was supposed to be interpreted literally (ex. miracles) but just the certain aspects we were dealing with. Some places are quite obvious while others are a little harder. You can use the easier parts of the Bible to explain the rest, though, so that is how most of our interpretations are correct. I have read the Pilgrim's Progress (I was too young to get anything out of it, lol). If the Bible was all symbolism, then we would have nothing, I repeat, nothing to base our faith on or even the existence of God. Still, it would be hard to interpret certain parts of the Bible metaphorically (ex. geneologies, history).

Basically, I just quote out of this one book, "Origins Answer Book". Ok, here it goes:

"Carobon-14 dating is useful for much archaelogical work, when used with great care. As with all age estimating systems, many variables and assumptions are involved.
Creationist dating experts believe Earth was devastated by a worldwide flood cataclysm thousands of years ago. They stress that such an event would have to be taken into account to properly calibrate the Carbon-14 method. There are other problems and erroneous age estimates, as well.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree Carbon-14 would be useless for estimating the age of anything that is supposed to be millions of years old. Carbon-14 has a relatively short life, and there would be no useful measurable amount left in 30-100 thousand years.
Conventional Carbon-14 techiniques appear to produce fairly accurate age estimates from about 1000 B.C. to the present. However, when it comes to "dates" older than this, there appear to be some problems. Many Creationists seriously question the accuracy of radiocarbon "dates" older than 3 thousand years, and certainly any radiocarbon estimates greater than about 4-5 thousand years."

(on "Other Radioactive Methods")
"Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced. For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.
A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate of 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, 'Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?'"

Also, these dating methods have been created with Evolutionist idea (the idea that the earth is billions of years old). They allow millions of years to fit their theory when in reality, only more recent years show accurate results.

That could be one explanation. Still, there are many more contradictory results from everywhere in the world.

Let me just post my quote.

Was I saying that since the Bible is old, it is good? No. I was saying that what the Bible says still corresponds exactly with new scientific evidence. If this evidence didn't exist back then and the Bible is still right, then it adds more evidence that the Bible actually is true.

Ok.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists alike agree that there is natural selection and variation within a population. This does not give evidence for Macro-Evolution, though. It only shows that species will adapt to different environments. (Creationists believe this is because all species were created with a large amount of information which is being passed down along the generations. The DNA that doesn't work with a certain environment is then not passed along because that creature doesn't survive as well.) Also, you must remember, that all this variation is within a certain "baramin" (basically, species). All these variations are still classified under one species, finch. This is clearly not support for Macro-Evolution which claims that a basic creature evolved upwards, gaining information, and changing from one species to another. We do not see this today.

This is because (I pretty much just said this) animals were created with information. The information is passed along and when the animals dispersed, there were many different environments. Certain genes went better with certain environments and other genes eventually died out.

Read above.

This is Micro-Evolution. Huge difference. Creationists believe this. We believe that God created dogs. Then there was the flood and we were back to two dogs. From there, those dogs with all the information had puppies which turned into a population and then they dispersed throughout the land. Certain genes thrived in certain conditions while others were lost (ex. long vs. short hair in cold or warm weather).

Have we actually seen this happen? We have never seen a species change into a completely new species. We have seen variation within baramin but never an actual change. This is what I mean when I say that you can't go out and see Macro-Evolution taking place. Also, I would think that we should be able to see many intermediate animals all over the world who are currently evolving into new species (if your theory is correct).

It did happen? That is why we see so many "missing links" which are still missing? We have never actually seen this happen. It is just the theory proposed by Evolutionist Scientists and the liberal media.

I'm not even going to go into those sites. The very fact that you listed three is enough. How many human fossils do we see in the layers? Thousands? How many lemurs do we see? Thousands? How many links do we see? Maybe one? Basically, it is a lemur with a few human characteristics. If I'm thinking of the same one you listed, it had fingernails instead of claws but no intermediate form? Just one day, it happens to have nails instead of claws? Same goes for all these "missing links". If scientists are so excited to have ONE missing link, then isn't it obvious that gradualism isn't a possibility? There should be as many if not more "missing links" then the current creatures we see today.

And yet, the schools push it as fact? We have never even seen it once, yet alone many times within a laboratory.

We don't see one creature gradually changing into a new species over time. We see small-scale evolution but not Macro-Evolution.

Ok, I slightly misled you there. What I meant to say was that the Creation idea that is proposed by the Bible can be seen today from science except for the idea of a God. You can't just go out and see miracles.

Sigh...Jonah wasn't swallowed up by a whale; it was a LARGE FISH. The Bible never says that it was a whale; that is a popular misconception. Anyways, the Bible says that was swallowed up and spat out after three days of rotting away. There is no way to take that metaphorically. It was said as actual fact and should be taken that way. Once you start interpreting the Bible the way you want to interpret it, you make huge errors that will lead to eternal damnation. Show me where you can interpret Genesis (creation story) metaphorically.

But this is the Word of God and was written through men who were inspired by God. If the entire Bible was to be translated metaphorically, then what basis do we have for a faith? We wouldn't be able to have confidence in going to Heaven because we really wouldn't know what the point of the Bible was. Also, just because humans say or write something it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taken literally. When a professor teaches you Math, should you take it metaphorically? Only if you want an F.

Sorry, if I offended you but the Law can hurt. A True Christian is one who believes the True Faith and trusts solely in what the Bible says. If you pick and choose, then you really can't be considered to be a Christian. Many people call themselves that but really aren't. I was more saying this to the entire community of so-called "Christians" then a personal attack. Once again, sorry, but it needed to be said.

That's funny, I think that the evidence for Creation "continues to mount more and more strongly with each passing year". Just a difference in interpretation. I do remain open-minded as I argue; I just have very strong opinions based on facts that I have seen through my early years. I assume that you are remaining open-minded also and I am glad of that. I just see more evidence of Creation then Evolution.

This post was so long that I had to make it into two posts.

If you think about it the UNIVERSE is recycled, but the WORLD was created in that process of recycling.

I can not vote, because the choices are much too limited. I am not an athiest. I am no longer Christian. I don't just believe, I know (in my own head, because my pineal gland told me so) that the theory of evolution is fact.

And that's all I have to say about that.

E^D

The fossils say yes: the discovery of transitional forms has filled in some of the most talked-about gaps in the fossil record

That article presents an excellent argument against the point you just made. We DO see gradation. We don't have just ONE missing link. I highly encourage everyone interested in this thread to read this.

Saying something about someone's religion is inevitably a personal attack, even if you don't mean it that way. You keep your faith and I'll keep mine, leave it at that. I don't remember Jesus ever saying I needed to carefully follow a set interpretation of the bible or even be a Christian at all to be saved, only that I needed to believe in him and the principles he set forth. I'd go further, but this is creationism vs evolution, not protestant vs catholic. Believe what you wish, I've no criticism for someone with strong faith, like yourself, only praise. Just give other methods of belief a chance rather than shooting them down because they don't agree with what you think. I would be happy to discuss this further if you'd care to make a different thread, if not, I'll drop it here.

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

Playing Chess with Pigeons

This article presents a logical and frequently referenced argument against creationism. I essentially agree with it, so I encourage you to read it and the part two, which is linked at the bottom of this part one. It is lengthy, as it covers a large spectrum of creationist viewpoints including many you have argued, so I ask your patience, and it can quite be biting at times, but it is without a doubt an excellent argument, better than anything I could write.

Creationist

I don't know.