Evolution vs. Creation

[Zaku]

I'm sorry guys I'm really trying to find stuff to back up my words but I'm also really busy with school  :-[ I'll research more later, promise

[LOTRfan1414]

so, Beren, you think tht all the scientific evidence to the contrary is wrong? What about the dinosaus, and Darwin's theory of evolution?? YOu can't argue with what almost all of the scientific community holds as fact.

[Beren One-Hand]

Zaku: no problem.  Study hard and when you have time, rejoin the debate.  I know all too well how time consuming studying can be.

FAN: scientific evidence?  So far we have just been talking about theories, not fact.  Dinosaurs without question existed.  Have you ever been to the Royal Tyrrell Museum?  It is located in Drumheller, Alberta, Canada.  Check out the following link if your are interested: http://www.tyrrellmuseum.com/ Anyway, I have been there, and it is one of the most amazing places that I have ever seen.  I just take exception to how scientists date fossils - i.e. carbon dating, and believe that the earth is not as old as they would like to believe.

Darwin's theory: I have owned my own copy of The Origin of Species for many years.  I am not afraid to dabble in what I disagree with.  However, Darwin has many logical and truly scientific things to say.  As to Natural Selection, I agree that adaptation occurs within a species and with the notion of the survival of the fittest.  Darwin himself called Natural Selection a "principle of preservation."  (The Origin of Species, p. 171)  Humans and animals have and will always be able to adapt to their environments and those who do not will not survive - ultimately.  A study was done a number of years ago, showing squirrels on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon.  It simply demonstrated how these squirrels, which were very similar to each other, had undoubtedly developed certain characteristics over a long period of time.  One squirrel, which lived north of the canyon, had thicker fur, to protect it from colder weather conditions, and sharp claws that were suitable for climbing trees.  The other squirrel, south of the canyon, had thinner fur, for the warmer conditions, and became more of a digger, than a climber.  Obviously, there are numerous examples affirming adaptation within species - i.e. the polar bear versus the grizzly bear.

Beren

[LOTRfan1414]

I agree with you about God creating everything, but you must realize that you can't argue with almost every reasonable scientist agrees with, that radio carbon-dating is accurate. Another thing, if all living things were created at the same time, what happened to the dinosaurs? There are known written records of any humans living next to dinosaurs, so there must be another explanation. Why can't have God used evolution, (and science) to create humans? God works in mysterious ways, but what is  more mysterious than using nature

[Beren One-Hand]

I'm not saying there is no validity to carbon dating completely.  But it's reliability and accuracy, according to some scientists can only be verified to a certain points - say thousands of years.  When evolutionists try and say the earth is billions of years old, they are applying theories once again.  God might have used the big-bang, but I don't believe he used inter-species evolution to do so (we have to agree to disagree here).

By the way, I never really said "all living things were created at the same time."  I said God created life out of nothing.  Look at the biblical six-days of creation.  More conservative scholars and theologians affirm a literal reading of the six-days.  Even then you have creation happening in sequential stages.  More liberal scholars might affirm other theories.  Personally, and these are open for debate, I like what is called the Day-Age theory.  I.E. that each day represents an age.  IN this theory the earth is older than in the literal theory (where the earth is believed to be only 6,000 years old).  I think the earth could very easily be tens of thousands of years old, maybe even in the hundreds.  But millions?  Billions?  That seems ridiculous and hard to believe.  It would take more faith to believe in someting like that.  But these theories don't say anything about inter-species evolution.  Some might still choose to take that stance as well.

I said I believe that the dinosaurs existed without question.  Obviously they became extinct somehow.  Remember what I said about Darwin's theory on evolution?  His view had more to do with adaptation within species and with the survival of the fittest idea.  The dinosaurs, one way or another, failed to adapt to a changing world, and died-out.  Maybe an ice age, or world wide flood killed them.  Who knows?  Oh and regarding what the Bible might say regarding dinorsaurs, check out Job 40:15-24; and Job 40:1-34.  The first passage speaks of a beast called a behemoth; the second speaks of a beast called the leviathan.  Interesting references - read these passages and tell me what you think they might be.  I think that either one of these could very well refer to dinosaur(s).  And if this passage actually referred to dinosaurs, it means that they were alive along with mankind.

[LOTRfan1414]

Except for the fact that writing has been around since 5000 B. C. and no one in history has an accurate and consistent accountant of a real-life dinosaur. Another thing about the bible, not everything in it is the exact word of God, so some parts are inaccurate.

And why is it so hard to believe that the Earth can be millions of years old? God does not perceive time the same way we do, He could do whatever He wants, when He wants. We can not think that we can have known His plans.

[Beren One-Hand]

I am in the view of biblical inerrancy.  This means that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  But, God chose to use men to channel his wisdom and gospel - so in some ways the Bible bears a distinct human quality.  The Bible as the word is not superior to the Word - Christ.  However, the written word is the word of Christ - his gospel.  Also, inerrancy doesn't mean there will be no confusion or unanswered questions or debates.  But as to the creedal and essential tenets of the Bible, it is very clear and simple.  And it is only when tackling deeper theological issues that confusion can arise.  Much of my educational background is in the area of biblical studies/theology.

The Bible also has been proven by scholars and archaeologists in several aspects to be accurate.  Check out: A History of Israel, by John Bright.