A basic question about evolution (myth, Revelation, atheist, abortion)

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by mams1559

SeekerSA ... This is not the thread to debate YEC vs ToE. It's getting too far off the OP. I was merely correcting what I viewed as a blanket statment. Then my next post was to provide clarification to you. If you want to debate YEC and ToE, we'll go to that thread.

The OP is really asking something quite different. S/He's asking evolutionists to answer the question of how something develops into a completely different something.

OK, just like this has gone into 3 threads so looking to see what others are saying.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Spotted1

I can't believe nobody has said this yet.

Evolution doesn't work that way!

If you're an animal stuck on it's stomach, and the things you need to survive are in a tree, you're going to become extinct. End of story.

Now, lets say you have a long haired animal... a woolly mammoth for example. The woolly mammoth is suited for living in an area where temperatures are outrageously cold because they have plenty of fur to keep them warm. One group of mammoths split off from the parent group and travel a distance in search for more food. But something happens.. the temperatures in the new area they live in begin to become increasingly warmer. This is normal as the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. Eventually it's warm enough to where the mammoth's hair is no longer helpful in protecting from the cold, but rather causing them to overheat. As the temperatures get warmer and warmer, the animals with thicker, longer hair are going to perish - removing the DNA for thicker, longer hair from the gene pool. The animals with shorter, finer hair survive and reproduce, passing on genetic mutations for shorter and shorter hair. In addition to the mutation for hair, they're now forced to adapt to a different food source that the warmer temperatures have brought. It'll be the animals that can adapt to digest these new food sources that survive, and reproduce. Eventually, enough mutations and adaptations will occur to the point that you have a whole new species.

It's not about wishing for what's in the tree, but changing to live with what you can reach on the ground.

[rifleman]

mams says: "The OP is really asking something quite different. S/He's asking evolutionists to answer the question of how something develops into a completely different something."

Exactly! But then, just like The big Bang, all sorts of improbable concepts pop up right here on C-D, proving that "unlikely" surely doesn't mean "impossible"!

In fact... I'll let Seeker say it for me...

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

While the differences seem far they are not, one is soup, one is dirt, one is insta poof and one is big bang.

The evidence for ToE far outweighs the YEC model and if you have been following the other thread, I have posted five differing disciplines proving an old earth that AiG or Kent Hovind cannot refute - the challenge is there for any YEC to offer an alternate hypothesis - no takers yet.

But, if we look with equal objectivity for physical evidence of each possibility, as well as the clues each model might possibly leave, which model is most likely? (As in fossils organized by predicted time of occurrence because of their necessary evolutionary relationship, for a good example; and then, oh boy, that also happens to cross-check precisely with what a completely independant other research group happens to find in transitional forms, and then, wowwee, along comes an equally independant study that dates some of those fossils, and huzzah, they all link correctly. But what's so logical & believable about that, eh, NIKK?), Which one serves Dr. Ockham's famous Razor best?

(Ockham's Razor: You know, the reasonable idea that the most common-sense, most logical, most likely and most evidentially supported explanation is probably also the right one? Get it? Even though it distresses the story-tale model, for which we cannot find ANY EVIDENCE, even when we look hard?)

Originally Posted by dreameyes

Why is it when people think of create they think of something magically appearing? Creating something connotes work and time and effort. Why could God not have created evolution? or better put have been the intelligence behind evolution.

He could have, but since we now know that God didn't simul-create all the known species during Genesis, and we also know exactly how and when Evolution works, why then should we grant him some special place in a Creation myth when there are so many other more likely common-sense possibilities?

Only Christians feel a desperate need to support the old mythology in the face of growing evidence to the contrary. We atheists have no such required allegiance, and are free to look under every rock. No stone unturned, etc.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

Because that would destroy the Fundamentalist Christians' claim that all life forms were as they are now in the beginning.

Right! One ***** in the armor and it can all fail. Then where would they be?

Originally Posted by Hazel Eyes

Your post is why we Christian's believe in CREATION...What's the odds of our ancient ancestors crawling to shore at the same time and being of different sexes capable of reproducing? It takes more faith to believe that than to step out in faith and believe in God and the biblical account of creation!

Well, yes it would take a lot of faith, especially when that's not how it happens. Even vaguely. Again I note the case when a devout (though very silly and un-educated) Christian woman once sternly told me that she'd never seen a cat turn into a dog. Not overnight, not in the cat's lifetime, not ever! So, therefore, she confidently and rudely told me, "Evolution is a hoax, a fairytale!"

There you have it. A complete absence of even the most basic understanding of something, followed by an absolute decree based on scientific and theoretical illiteracy!

Now THAT'S convincing, in'it?

Originally Posted by mams1559

"Molecules-to-man" evolution is the ultimate, logical conclusion if one subscribes to Darwinian evolution aka the ToE. The ToE states all life came from a single, common ancestor. So, logically, following the framework of the ToE from today backwards to the single common ancestor, the question arises, where did that single, common ancestor come from? If they don't believe in "creation" by God in any form, then the single common ancestor had to arise from the "primordial soup" -- hence the phrase "molecules-to-man".

IMHO it is not the YEC that mis-use the phrase/term, but the evolutionist who can't or won't admit where the ToE truly begins. As a YEC I readily admit in the beginning God created. Will those who support the ToE readily admit that their alleged single common ancestor had to begin as non-living molecules that eventually formed the first living cell (abiogenesis)? I doubt it.

[color=DarkRed]Just tell us how many times more we'll have to repeat the fact that Evolution has NOTHING TO DO with abiogenesis. You always state ideas that evolutionists are trying to force on everyone about the origins of life. How silly! Not the case.

Moderator cut: rude personal attacks

Originally Posted by Spotted1

I can't believe nobody has said this yet.

Evolution doesn't work that way!

Thanks, spotted! You restore my faith in at least some of humanity's IQ.

If you're an animal stuck on it's stomach, and the things you need to survive are in a tree, you're going to become extinct. End of story.

Now, lets say you have a long haired animal... a woolly mammoth for example. The woolly mammoth is suited for living in an area where temperatures are outrageously cold because they have plenty of fur to keep them warm. One group of mammoths split off from the parent group and travel a distance in search for more food. But something happens.. the temperatures in the new area they live in begin to become increasingly warmer. This is normal as the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. Eventually it's warm enough to where the mammoth's hair is no longer helpful in protecting from the cold, but rather causing them to overheat. As the temperatures get warmer and warmer, the animals with thicker, longer hair are going to perish - removing the DNA for thicker, longer hair from the gene pool. The animals with shorter, finer hair survive and reproduce, passing on genetic mutations for shorter and shorter hair. In addition to the mutation for hair, they're now forced to adapt to a different food source that the warmer temperatures have brought. It'll be the animals that can adapt to digest these new food sources that survive, and reproduce. Eventually, enough mutations and adaptations will occur to the point that you have a whole new species.

It's not about wishing for what's in the tree, but changing to live with what you can reach on the ground.

Elegant, but it will be ignored. I predict.

Originally Posted by Nikk

According to current historical scientists .... blah blah blah... and on and on ... blah blah blah... etc. etc. ..it did happen.

So, InsaneInDamembrane you can pick whatever just so story you want. You have already rejected God's involvement so it doesn't matter the answers we give, all you have to do is pick the most appealing story you like and believe that one.

We have, but our choices are based, as I've noted, on an unbiased review of all the possibilities, while being beholden to none of them. Just looking at the available evidence, no matter how sketchy. Or, in the case, of Christianity, the total absence of evidence other than a poorly written (as a science text at least) biblical account.

Then there's all that stuff that our hypotheses predict. We postulate what we should find if our ideas are true, then we go look, and we've found exactly that supporting evidence, more and more and more, and finally, yeppers, you are right, we do decide.

Not maliciously, as many Xtians love to insultingly accuse. Not without logic. Not without thinking it all through. All those things were utilized. And a good dose of Dr. Ockham's principle, which only seems reasonable. Why toss out common sense, after all? We'll leave that to Xtians.

We also don't offend anyone or our childhood god-figure. It's all good!

And finally, I'll say yet again, "science" is only the tool-set, not The Devil. It never claimed to have, nor does it owe anyone, all the big answers. It only gives us an incontrovertible means of asking and answering.

Since it's so rigorously developed and reliable now, it tends to provide better answers than painting one's body blue and dancing around the alter while stabbing live goats or virgins.

That we'll leave to you.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by rifleman

mams says: "The OP is really asking something quite different. S/He's asking evolutionists to answer the question of how something develops into a completely different something."

Exactly! But then, just like The big Bang, all sorts of improbable concepts pop up right here on C-D, proving that "unlikely" surely doesn't mean "impossible"!

In fact... I'll let Seeker say it for me...



But, if we look with equal objectivity for physical evidence of each possibility, as well as the clues each model might possibly leave, which model is most likely? (As in fossils organized by predicted time of occurrence because of their necessary evolutionary relationship, for a good example; and then, oh boy, that also happens to cross-check precisely with what a completely independant other research group happens to find in transitional forms, and then, wowwee, along comes an equally independant study that dates some of those fossils, and huzzah, they all link correctly. But what's so logical & believable about that, eh, NIKK?), Which one serves Dr. Ockham's famous Razor best?

(Ockham's Razor: You know, the reasonable idea that the most common-sense, most logical, most likely and most evidentially supported explanation is probably also the right one? Get it? Even though it distresses the story-tale model, for which we cannot find ANY EVIDENCE, even when we look hard?)



He could have, but since we now know that God didn't simul-create all the known species during Genesis, and we also know exactly how and when Evolution works, why then should we grant him some special place in a Creation myth when there are so many other more likely common-sense possibilities?

Only Christians feel a desperate need to support the old mythology in the face of growing evidence to the contrary. We atheists have no such required allegiance, and are free to look under every rock. No stone unturned, etc.



Right! One ***** in the armor and it can all fail. Then where would they be?



Well, yes it would take a lot of faith, especially when that's not how it happens. Even vaguely. Again I note the case when a devout (though very silly and un-educated) Christian woman once sternly told me that she'd never seen a cat turn into a dog. Not overnight, not in the cat's lifetime, not ever! So, therefore, she confidently and rudely told me, "Evolution is a hoax, a fairytale!"

There you have it. A complete absence of even the most basic understanding of something, followed by an absolute decree based on scientific and theoretical illiteracy!

Now THAT'S convincing, in'it?



Just tell us how many times more we'll have to repeat the fact that Evolution has NOTHING TO DO with abiogenesis. You always state ideas that evolutionists are trying to force on everyone about the origins of life. How silly! Not the case.

You lie, apparently on purpose. A rather infantile debating technique, wouldn't you agree?

It DOES, however, prove that you don't understand even the basics, as I note above. I'm not going to bother to explain it again; others here have provided perfectly good links that will show you what "evolution" means.



Elegant, but it will be ignored. I predict.



We have, but our choices are based, as I've noted, on an unbiased review of all the possibilities, while being beholden to none of them. Just looking at the available evidence, no matter how sketchy. Or, in the case, of Christianity, the total absence of evidence other than a poorly written (as a science text at least) biblical account.

Then there's all that stuff that our hypotheses predict. We postulate what we should find if our ideas are true, then we go look, and we've found exactly that supporting evidence, more and more and more, and finally, yeppers, you are right, we do decide.

Not maliciously, as many Xtians love to insultingly accuse. Not without logic. Not without thinking it all through. All those things were utilized. And a good dose of Dr. Ockham's principle, which only seems reasonable. Why toss out common sense, after all? We'll leave that to Xtians.

We also don't offend anyone or our childhood god-figure. It's all good!

And finally, I'll say yet again, "science" is only the tool-set, not The Devil. It never claimed to have, nor does it owe anyone, all the big answers. It only gives us an incontrovertible means of asking and answering.

Since it's so rigorously developed and reliable now, it tends to provide better answers than painting one's body blue and dancing around the alter while stabbing live goats or virgins.

That we'll leave to you.

The Bible is the only Book that fortells the future. It's prophecies are happening right in front of your face. And most of the world does not even have a clue. The Bible is filled with evidence for it's truth. Yet if you spend your life trying to ignor or deny it, you will miss everything that proves it. And I can assure you, there is a Devil, and there are demons. You see UFO's today and scratch your head and wonder why. The Devil is coming to this world in a way not expected. He will decieve most. He will appear as one from an advanced race, who will come to earth to aid mankind. He is already teaching the world to accept his reality. A day of total horror is coming to this world.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by dreameyes

Why is it when people think of create they think of something magically appearing? Creating something connotes work and time and effort. Why could God not have created evolution? or better put have been the intelligence behind evolution.

I appreciate your reasoning behind this is a wanting to understand the mechanics of how it was all done and perhaps a comprimise of sorts, but there's no real reason to at least from the biblical standpoint. In the Genesis account, it was'nt necessary to give mankind a scientific history lessons of how it was all accomplished. There is only a general recorded statement explaining major events in a progressive way and the order of appearance of things and nothing more. The exact order of epochs, stages or times periods of events would seem to pretty much agree with the generic/general understanding that comes from science and nothing more.

But there is however a difference in that the Bible uses the simple terminology of animals created according to their kinds and again nothing more. It's the modern day man now who has invented various terminologies to classify, documented and catalog differing types of living things for research purposes which is fine. The same continued arguement here is given for studied changes within a specific species such as Cichlids, Bacteria, Finches, whatever. What has been noticed and observed are adaptations as a result of changes of environmental circumstances, and then other terminology such as the word "mutations", are then used to explain any living organism's ability to adapt and survive the new set of circumstances. The new environment the organism finds itself in calls for an adaptation or go extinct. Supposedly by some built-in, blind-chanced, intelligence which was magically insta-poofed and software programmed into the original DNA way back who knows when, allows for this mutating and adapting to the new set of circumstances. Although the only changes noticed are simply adaptations within a given type of living organism, for which they then call a new species of that particular organism, however it is not a new a new kind of separate animal. While they acknowledge this, they never the less insist that what they have observed is the evolutionary processes at work by which new life forms could have been made in theory even though they have never actually witnessed this, nor has anyone else at any time in the past. You are simply told it is a fact and you have to take it on faith that they have it right because after all you are only a "Layman" who does'nt have the same intellect as the scientist, which in the end is identical to the same line the seminary schooled Clergy "Creationists" give with regard their 144 hour David Copperfield Vegas styled magic act. For you "Evolutionists", you might want "Penn & Teller".

That takes us to the main central debate and arguement of all these threads, the timetable. THe hard sciences like geology, astronomy, physics have taught us that the existing elements and componants have been here for billions of years. While the Bible does'nt tell us any of the how it was done, the facts nevertheless tell us how he did'nt do it. That would be a no literal interpretation of the term day given for the creative periods. Let's cut to the chase in these rediculous arguements Between the likes of Nikk & Campbell34. They adamantly insist that the 6 days are literal and anyone saying different is going to Hell. The problem is that the Bible uses the same Hebrew word for day to have multiple meansings, much the way we english speakers can use the word day for meaning of different time periods. Also, unlike the previous 6 creative days that end with the expression day and night, the 7th day does not use the expression in conclusion of day & night a 7th day. The bible shows throughout that even at present, we are indeed still inside that 7th day. So why are the 6 days 144 hours and this 7th day well over 6000 years ??? There's actually hundreds of other logical questions, but in the interests of time and getting back on track, that's for another thread.

Here's where we can trip up the false information dredged up from the Campbellium Later of contradictory statements. He adamantly insists the creative day is a literal 24 hour time period. Yet when he argues with this forum's well known historical timetable revisionist, "Preterist" in those phophecy debates, Campbell34 will quote both Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8 both of which tells us that one day to almighty God is like a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Yet he will refuse to apply this same kind of logical reasoning with regard the creative days. Something that would give the Genesis account a large measure of credibility, but does'nt much to the delight of atheists whose job is made easier.
Another area of contradictory statement making is on the subject of what God intends on doing with the United States of America. You can do a search here on the issue of Abortion debates, and he praises the United States for being God's most precious and favoured nation for it's historical stance against many abortion issues and the evangelical right's gains in influencing politicians. He's says the United States has been blessed as the super power it is because of their position on these important moral issues. Yet almost in the same breath in another thread with the subject matter being that of the "Babylon of Revelation", he practically calls the United States the "Great Satan" that God is going to have the King of the North (Russia/Iran ) destroy in some nuclear holocaust because of it's lax immoral behavioral lifestyle. So how can anyone believe anything he adamantly demands is the pure unadulterated truth in any matter, particularly creationism ???

There is also Dreameyes yet another reason for not believing God used evolution. When Moses wrote the account, the pagan mythology of evolution was already in existance and understood at the time by the Babylonians, Egyptians from where Israel had just been freed, and the ancient Greeks, and centuries before Charles Darwin's daddy got that twinkle in his eye. For you Atheists, that would have been back when "Moby Dick was just a minnow". Moses would'nt have used a pagan concept to explain things, and also if God had used this method, it would have been simply stated so in Genesis, since it would have been easily accepted by the Israelites since the concept was not unknown to all the then philosophers and the empies the advised. I have already quoted here in this forum from many of the well known ancient Greek philosophers own writtings on the subject back at those times, and it's uncanny identical nature to Darwin's descriptions and observations. It's obvious from the Mosaic Law that religious purity was to be maintain and attempts at corrupting it with outside pagan concepts or influences were strictly forbidden. So it is highly unlikely Moses would have recorded such beliefs if not told to do so. But again, you'd have to believe the bible in the first place in order for this to make sense.

The Creation account's biggest enemy has not been science, atheism, paganism, secularism , etc. It's always been religion itself which claims to represent the Bible. The historical misdeeds of this world's Ecclesiastical Hierarchies have proven otherwise. On another note, how can anyone even remotely attempt to believe the "Creationism" side of the issue where they talk about all the amazing wonderful works God has done, but in the end and in other threads tell us that God is going to blow the whole amazing masterpiece thing up anyway and send them off to heaven. Questions Questions Questions, but another thread.
But in the mean time I hope that answers the question about did God use evolution. In the end, I was'nt back there millions of years ago either to be an expert on the how, I can only tell you what the Biblcial account actually says and nothing more.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

The Bible is the only Book that fortells the future. It's prophecies are happening right in front of your face. And most of the world does not even have a clue. The Bible is filled with evidence for it's truth. Yet if you spend your life trying to ignor or deny it, you will miss everything that proves it. And I can assure you, there is a Devil, and there are demons. You see UFO's today and scratch your head and wonder why. The Devil is coming to this world in a way not expected. He will decieve most. He will appear as one from an advanced race, who will come to earth to aid mankind. He is already teaching the world to accept his reality. A day of total horror is coming to this world.

I really don't need to say anything, except have a nice day!

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by bluepacific

--snip-- (for brevity)
The Creation account's biggest enemy has not been science, atheism, paganism, secularism , etc. It's always been religion itself which claims to represent the Bible. The historical misdeeds of this world's Ecclesiastical Hierarchies have proven otherwise. On another note, how can anyone even remotely attempt to believe the "Creationism" side of the issue where they talk about all the amazing wonderful works God has done, but in the end and in other threads tell us that God is going to blow the whole amazing masterpiece thing up anyway and send them off to heaven. Questions Questions Questions, but another thread. --snip--

Excellent post. It at least leaves the door open to discussion and brings both side to the table with what they actually know, one the biblical account, the other hypothesis and proven finds as Rifleman mentioned.

However you are from the EU and I am from Africa, and I am guessing they do not teach creationism is schools there either. Hence we have a more open minded approach to the evidence from either side.

The American YEC camp have never bothered to adapt their POV to incorporate science and I am guessing if you never learned any proper science, the ramblings of herr doktor snake oil salesman Hovind will foll these gullible folk. The YEC camp can only cite each others material which in most cases are copy and pastes w/o independent corroboration to the facts. Scientists paper's are quote mined and taken out of context in a lame attempt to kinda support their POV. This is primarily done in trying to discredit the evolution hypothesis, deflecting to some random irrelevant topic and trying to join the dots; rather than trying to offer an alternate hypothesis.

Findings of earlier pioneers in the fields of study of evolution - where some made mistakes and most are now dead are used by default by the YEC purportionists thus closing the door to refutations of what is claimed in their name and ignoring the revised finding of living scientists that have built on their earlier findings.

Religion and science are not fields that can mix but can coexist. The error of the YEC camp is that they are trying in vain to hold onto the ridiculous notion of a 6k earth when all the evidence in multiple disciplines shows an old earth. Instead of accepting the genesis account as either mythology or allegory and getting the deeper meaning out of it like many others do, they fear that science will destroy the faith of the young. When presented with a binary choice of Creation or Evolution, the latter will come out tops statistically. If the whole teachings of said YEC "church" is founded on genesis, then obviously the young adult will lose their faith.

What also leads to this conflict is of course the futurists POV which infers 2000 days from creation to Noah, 2000 years from Noah to Jesus, Jesus till present followed by the alleged millennial reign. giving arbitrarily 2000+2000+2009+1000 =7009. The old adage was that the 6000+1000 = 7000 = God's perfect number (nowhere stated in the bible) means the futurist POV = creation of 7 days.

You mentioned we are in the 6th day and this is also a futurist POV. This is a theology that was invented.

As you can see the clock is ticking on past the predicted Y2K based anyway on a "secular" calendar and has already ticked past the Hebrew calendar and Daniel's alleged generations. Ow the folk are switching to the Mayan calendar. Come December 23 2012, the clock will have run out of options for the futurists and then maybe they will realize the whole rapture myth et al was no more than a fairy tale of hope for the gullible and the snake oil salesmen will have to find a new oil to sell.

This is why the YEC is sooo important to defend, it has nothing to do with facts but preservation of a myth.

I can still accept some Creator behind the evolutionary model, and in fact if there is a Creator, one would think He/She endowed us with curiosity to seek out answers. In fact the OT and NT has texts suggesting this.

Were we to allow the YEC to succeed in denying scientific curiosity, the next generations would lead us back to the dark ages. The contention of course remains mainly and American thing regarding education, the rest of the world has moved on to real science.

The evolution camp has never had it's own Jim Jones or David Koresh.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Excellent post. It at least leaves the door open to discussion and brings both side to the table with what they actually know, one the biblical account, the other hypothesis and proven finds as Rifleman mentioned.

However you are from the EU and I am from Africa, and I am guessing they do not teach creationism is schools there either. Hence we have a more open minded approach to the evidence from either side.

The E.U. has pretty much castrated religion over here, this is evidenced by their watering down of formerly hardline doctrines, but in the end it's religion's own fault. They rightly deserved what they've gotten. Mostly they (or at least what's left of them) are actually supported by the state or they would'nt exist. Having that support, though from outward appearances looks like nothing more than rescuing of a tradition, it is in reality a behind the scenes negotiation of conditions for that support. There is not enough attendance and plate collecting to pay the bills. So a marriage of sorts with the state with strings attached seems amiable.

Originally Posted by Seeker

The American YEC camp have never bothered to adapt their POV to incorporate science and I am guessing if you never learned any proper science, the ramblings of herr doktor snake oil salesman Hovind will foll these gullible folk. The YEC camp can only cite each others material which in most cases are copy and pastes w/o independent corroboration to the facts. Scientists paper's are quote mined and taken out of context in a lame attempt to kinda support their POV. This is primarily done in trying to discredit the evolution hypothesis, deflecting to some random irrelevant topic and trying to join the dots; rather than trying to offer an alternate hypothesis.

The Clergy have embarrassed themselves over the years. In times past, no one dare question their beliefs, teachings , concepts. People everywhere, including policians blindly accepted these teachings without ever doing the homework. In order to keep what's left of their flocks from leaving, the Churches have found it necessary to apologize and compromise. This is nothing new to them since they have been doing this for centuries to gain converts.

Originally Posted by Seeker

Religion and science are not fields that can mix but can coexist. The error of the YEC camp is that they are trying in vain to hold onto the ridiculous notion of a 6k earth when all the evidence in multiple disciplines shows an old earth. Instead of accepting the genesis account as either mythology or allegory and getting the deeper meaning out of it like many others do, they fear that science will destroy the faith of the young. When presented with a binary choice of Creation or Evolution, the latter will come out tops statistically. If the whole teachings of said YEC "church" is founded on genesis, then obviously the young adult will lose their faith.

What also leads to this conflict is of course the futurists POV which infers 2000 days from creation to Noah, 2000 years from Noah to Jesus, Jesus till present followed by the alleged millennial reign. giving arbitrarily 2000+2000+2009+1000 =7009. The old adage was that the 6000+1000 = 7000 = God's perfect number (nowhere stated in the bible) means the futurist POV = creation of 7 days.

Actually, and I'm speaking purely from a biblical standpoint not shared by the majority here, the 7th day was never an actual day of rest as if God would need such a thing. It was a ceasing of creative works (however long those events were = billions? - millions? - milleniums upon milleniums? = does'nt matter) and God Standing back and watching or observing how his purpose for creation would unfold. You do know that the purpose of the bible was not a science/earth explanation of life, but merely written for explaining God's solution for the events which did in fact according to the bible transpire in Eden. Again, no one has to believe that, but anyway that was it's purpose for being written. An actual EXACT number for that 7th day, I of course can't say, but you are right when the foretold 1000 year millenial reign for the correcting and bringing back online God's original purpose for our Earth would have been incorporated or factored into that time period. Or at least I assume by your 1000 year reference that is what you meant.

Originally Posted by Seeker

You mentioned we are in the 6th day and this is also a futurist POV. This is a theology that was invented.

No I did'nt, I said 7th. With the creation of Eve mentioned in the Biblical account, 6th day effectively ended. However, exactly what time period that was/is I cannot and will not say.

Originally Posted by Seeker

As you can see the clock is ticking on past the predicted Y2K based anyway on a "secular" calendar and has already ticked past the Hebrew calendar and Daniel's alleged generations. Ow the folk are switching to the Mayan calendar. Come December 23 2012, the clock will have run out of options for the futurists and then maybe they will realize the whole rapture myth et al was no more than a fairy tale of hope for the gullible and the snake oil salesmen will have to find a new oil to sell.

This is why the YEC is sooo important to defend, it has nothing to do with facts but preservation of a myth.

Their predictions will never see the light of day. Anyone can see their power and influence over politicians has greatly diminished. In the United States they were taken a back by the revelation that the last beloved right-winger George W Bush they put into office does in actual fact not believe the bible to be real or factual and that evolution is possible according to him. Serves them right. Had they actually followed their claimed master's Jesus Christ advice and command to stay separate from the world as recorded in their Holy Bible, they would'nt have set themselves up for such a crashing fall.

Originally Posted by Seeker

I can still accept some Creator behind the evolutionary model, and in fact if there is a Creator, one would think He/She endowed us with curiosity to seek out answers. In fact the OT and NT has texts suggesting this.

Actually we do have the capacity for continued existance as individuals and a driving thirst and hunger for knowledge. Those who ignore such natural tendancies no doubt those are comfortable with ignorance and choose to allow the Gurus of this world (Religious/Secular) do their thinking and study for them. I believe our own resident F-Trooper brought up some links earlier about Carl Sagan and a youtube link of a "Star Trek Voyage" of sorts inside that fururistic space craft explaining Carl's love of studying the cosmos. Actually I quote Carl Sagan alot. You do realize that although we can point out many agreements with the Bible and science, it is still strictly abhorred and repulsed by the Atheist/Agnostic gang ??? That's why I like some of the things Carl Sagan has said. He's actually the true type of kinder/gentler more sincere scientist, not the outrageous hate promoting type of the modern ages. Sad he died. Here's a quote I like.

Carl Sagan,"Cosmos" (New York 1980, page #29)
"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

And another quote - Cal Thomas, New York Daily News, Carl Sagan, August 22,1986
"The central arguement against teaching the creation theory in Public Schools is that it is a religion masquerading as science. But according to Dr Carl Sagan, "Evolution is a religion masquerading around as science."

If you ever get the chance, read Carl Sagan's comments on the differences betwen the way Astronomers views the universe and starry heavens and the way Astrologers interpret it. I wrote about this in another thread somewhere else, but it applys here. Carl Sagan's illustration about two differing ways of viewing the same thing and two different interpretations. One views the facts as we know tham of the mathematical precision of the universe, etc, the other makes broad predictions of the stars and their influence on our lives. One sees a real science, and another sees or reads what it wants to from the heart. It's again almost like a C-34 or Nikk taking a specific scriptural text from the Bible and enveloping an entire religious dogma around it without considering the entire context and how it agrees with the overall theme of the bible.

Same can happen with science. Specific singular examples can be looked at to explain an entire theory , yet the broad contextual scope is missed entirely, or in other words, how does it relate to the whole. It see whole parts or blocks of things making appearances all at once, such as in certain eco-systems, which agrees with something I actually read this morning where an evolutionary scientist was explaining how it's apparent that several things in some areas mutated/morphed all at once. Hence we have some evidence in the fossil record of sudden appearences. Going back to Carl Sagan and his book the Cosmos, speaking on universal laws of existing matter, he says, "At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations," then he says our present universe as being, "the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have ever privilaged to glipse."

One of his pet interests were always looking specifically for extraterrestial life, which is cool because i like the idea of new discoveries. But this is an interesting take of his on the chances of the same kind of life familiar to us.
"If we started the earth all over again, even with the same physical conditions, and just let random factors operate, we would never get anything remotely resembling human beings. There are just too many accidents in our evolutionary past for things closely resembling human beings to arise anywhere else."
Is There Life on Mars - TIME

For me there is too much order and intelligence to chalk it all up to chance. I don't see kaos, disorder or random accidents that end up being beneficial. I only see those things in stupity and ignorance of humanity be it religiounist, secularist or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Seeker

The evolution camp has never had it's own Jim Jones or David Koresh.

The problem here is , and while I'll agree with you that the religious Kamp has had it's share of "Kool-Aid Evangelicals" Doomsday Prophets, you cannot fairly make blanket statements as the Most Right Reverend Richard Dawkins does when he makes hateful dogmatic statements about anyone and anything religious. You say you are religious and so am I, but neither of us go along with the Kook stuff espoused on this forum.

At the same time Atheism has indeed had it's share of madmen such as Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Hitler, PolPot, Saddam Hussein etc who also demanded their own personal version of convert or die by the sword. Now does this mean that every atheist supports those ideologies ??? Of course not, but it is unfair to make blanket statements and say everyone is at fault in this. I certianly don't believe the Rifleman, Montana-dude, Trooper, the Junester, Panterra, and others are extremist socialists. I have in the past brought up these points, but only when certain hate posters have made outrageous blanket assertions and accusations made about anything or anyone religious. It was insisted here that Hitler was raised a Christian background, but so what, he became atheist later in life and built his Nazi dogma around basic concepts espoused by the experts of the times who taught Eugenics based on theory of evolution. It would be like me saying the Reverend Dawkins is a Christian because he was raised in the Anglican , Church of England, because he was raised such down in Kenya and later England by his parents. In the end there are quacks on both sides.

Oh, and I also don't see either kamp here in this forum having any answers for saving this wonderful planet. Just a wasteful useless dwelling on and debating of the past. Moving forward is far more important.

sorry for any typos.

[SeekerSA]

Sorry about the 6th/7th day mixup. But from the analogy of the futurists, we are according to them still in the 6th day - why I don't know apart from the 7000 thingy.

While on the subject, no futurist aka YEC aka evangelical has ever been able to tell be exactly where seven is God's favorite number, maybe it is extra biblical from the casino jackpot of the one armed bandits

I watched the whole Carl Sagan Cosmos when it came out but back in the early 80's compared to now, there has been a whole heap more findings and evidence and furthermore the information gets out so much quicker. I never found his stuff in your face to those of a religious leaning. The others you mentioned I cannot comment on as I have never studied them.

I take the side of evolution because it is more logical and one can nowadays do much research into the many fields. The YEC camp came too late to the party wrt to the internet and based on how they defended in the past - town hall talks by Kent Hovind, the real populace has access to the informations should they dare to open the box.

I grew up in a system where science was taught and while obliged to attend church with my parents till I was 16. After being give the choice of sleeping in church or my bed, I chose my bed. Science had nothing to do with that decision.

Having being somewhat involved with a Christian school, it is IMO no more than kindergarten for older kids. The curriculum they followed was American.

[rifleman]

Gotta go... one'dem Debil UFO's has landed in my back field, he (it?) waddled on all five legs over to my house, and, in broken Spanglish, asked me if'n I wanted to hop on over and git on board for the ride of my life!

They've been readin' City-Data and noted my posts, and wondered if I want a front-row seat on the Final Destruction, Act I.

Do I! I wouldn't miss it for the world! So to speak! Let the fun begin, but apparently there's gonna be some mighty dissapointed Christians, what with their expectations for special treatment and all....

"Special Treatment" may not be quite what they imagined...