For more than a century the creation vs. evolution debate has raged in numerous countries, nowhere more strongly than in the United States and the United Kingdom. Its sensationalist forms are fodder for the media: the Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925, the Arkansas trial of 1981, the "Intelligent Design" notion, the "Young Earthers" and the continuing controversy over what to teach in schools. Science friction.
While science and religion operate with different methods, criteria, aims and subject matter, neither has to dominate the other. Our new book, "The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us" (HarperOne, 2011), engages such contemporary issues directly by exposing the variety of ways in which the texts of the Bible address them, often from quite different perspectives. We are especially attentive not only to dissimilar positions taken within the Bible but to the kinds of questions they help us frame about both the past and the present.
Creation is an excellent example of why readers need to examine the varied expressions of a theme in the Bible. Creation was a favorite topic among ancient Israel's neighbors. For example, ancient Babylonia produced a myth about a colossal battle between the gods, at the end of which the world and humanity were created. The Egyptians viewed creation more as birthing or evolving. Biblical people were no less interested in understanding their own origins.
Readers encounter the first two accounts of creation at the very beginning of the Bible, in Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a and 2:4b-25. The former pictures God as a cosmic architect, calling everything into existence over a six-day period ending with the creation of humans, followed by a day of rest. The second story starts with the formation of humanity, followed by other living beings. Not only are the sequences and details different between the two, but the literary style shifts noticeably from highly structured, repetitious, and formal in the first to plot-driven, responsive, and intimate in the second. Most likely two different authors or traditions are behind these two stories.
In neither case do we find the notion of "creation out of nothing," an idea popularized by Saint Augustine. In Genesis 2 God uses the preexisting dry dust to form the first human. In the first account, an amorphous substance and primordial waters are the stuff out of which God creates all things: "the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep." Here is a mythic fragment from earlier cultures: the Hebrew word for "deep" is tehom, which lacks the definite article "the" and thus seems to be a proper noun, "Deep," reminiscent of the Babylonian primordial goddess Tiamat, who represents the great salty abyss around and under the earth. Modern translations water down the biblical myth when they refer to "the face of the deep."
There is much more about creation than only what Genesis 1 and 2 present. The larger context is Genesis 1-11, all of which deals with primal times, and its purpose is to account for the makeup and character of the world as it exists. While the first two chapters display the orderliness and goodness of created reality, Genesis 3-11 show how humans introduce disorder and discord.
Evil is, in effect, created by humans in the Garden of Eden. The text does not say that the snake is Satan but rather the craftiest of animals. Adam and Eve decide themselves to disobey God's command by eating a forbidden fruit (not necessarily an apple), a seemingly petty violation with enormous implications because it represents disobedience against God. Next, wrongdoing escalates radically as Cain kills his brother Abel. Soon the world is awash with evil, and God sends the flood to obliterate everything. But misconduct returns soon after the waters recede, and by the end of the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 the human community is fragmented.
The Bible contains other creation descriptions outside of Genesis 1-11, a point generally lost in today's creation vs. evolution debate. Psalm 104 waxes poetic in its descriptions of God's creative acts, and in doing so it parallels many parts of a much older, beautiful song from Egypt, "The Great Hymn to the Aten," written around the 14th century BCE. In Job 38-41 following the long argument between Job and his friends, God responds with picturesque images of creation. Several sections in Isaiah 40-55, stemming from an unknown prophet during the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE, reinterpret the creation account to show a new creation that God will produce to greet the Judeans as they return from exile to their homeland.
The Bible does not claim a unified, monolithic portrait of creation. Its descriptions vary from text to text, as do its literary styles. It expresses how the material and human world came into existence, but its real message is not those external details but its insights into the nature of divinity, humanity, and the world.
To answer the perennial question "Why?", the Bible tells a story and sings a song.
Creation–evolution controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
Down Beckenham | Kent
May 7th 1879
Private
Dear Sir
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.
Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041
RECONCILING Science and Religion
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
Despite his criticism of religion, Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."[42] In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Sagan_units
A problem fundamental to the theory of evolution is the vast gulf that separates humans from animals. Really, how vast is it? Consider some of the things that evolutionists themselves have said about it.
A prominent proponent of the evolution theory in the 19th century, Thomas H. Huxley, wrote: "No one is more strongly convinced than I am of the vastness of the gulf between . . . man and the brutes . . . , for he alone possesses the marvelous endowment of intelligible and rational speech [and] . . . stands raised upon it as on a mountain top, far above the level of his humble fellows."
Evolutionist Michael C. Corballis observes that "there is a striking discontinuity between humans and the other primates . . . 'Our brain is three times as large as we would expect for a primate of our build.'" And neurologist Richard M. Restak explains: "The [human] brain is the only organ in the known universe that seeks to understand itself."
Leakey acknowledges: "Consciousness presents scientists with a dilemma, which some believe to be unresolvable. The sense of self-awareness we each experience is so brilliant it illuminates everything we think and do." He also says: "Language does indeed create a gulf between Homo sapiens [humans] and the rest of the natural world."]]
In the Image of God or Beast?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/19980622/article_02.htm
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
{…}
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. FALSE
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
In 2003 neanderthal, cro-magnon was viewed as a separate species from homo sapiens, currently there is NO scientific reason to view them as separate species.
Since 2003 countless test using ancient DNA has proven there was NO evolution after "millions" of years.
In 2003, finding dinosaur flesh was considered falsifiable evidence that would disprove evolution. Since 2003, numerous examples of dinosaur flesh has been found and proved valid by numerous testing.
Evolution is the real myth.
Regardless, what Eclipse33 can't do is show that the 2002 anti-creationist policy is stale or outdated. It is not. No new information has emerged to call evolution into question or to give any material credence to religious creationist mythology.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-neanderthal-home-mammoth-bones-ukraine.html
"Up till recently, most researchers studying Neanderthals had assumed they were simple wanderers, hiding out in caves when the weather got bad. Now however, the discovery of the underpinnings of a house built by a group of Neanderthals, some 44,000 years ago, turns that thinking on its head. "
MOST of evolution has been turned on its head recently!!
EVOLUTION DECEPTION:
http://www.livescience.com/17441-neanderthal-brains-modern-humans.html
Title: Bulging Brain Structures Separate Us from Neanderthals (Amazing!)
Summary:
"All in all, it remains unclear exactly how these brain differences might have set us apart from Neanderthals, Bastir cautioned. We only know how these skulls molded themselves around these brains, and not the precise structures of the brains in question." (NO proof to support amazing story)
That author should have read this first:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-human-skull-evolutionary-headache.html
“This study has important implications for inferences on human evolution and suggests the need for a reinterpretation of the evolutionary scenarios of the skull in modern humans.”
Evolution did NOT happen SCIENCE proves it.
From the article:
"Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed."
Wait!! What!! You mean... Isn't that what YEC said about evolutionist. Now suddenly an evolutionist is using that to try to discredit a creationist. Amazing.
Rogue Planets:
Cha 110913-773444 is the most hotly debated object in the universe, as it most likely IS a rogue planet (Hence the debate)
The creationist article that this evolutionist article is about, Clearly states at the end "it is only fair to make others aware that we do not have all the facts," Which is an honest view of the state of science. The evolutionist, makes a fool of himself by using data that is highly debated to "correct" the creationist.
That article is not worth reading!
Reader YOU decide:
This picture is of Native Americans showing them hunting a giant bear (unknown species) along with big horn sheep(unknown species) near by. The art work is a bit disproportional since the hunters are shown to be very small.
Third picture:
http://www.naturevalleymountain.com/category/arches/
Here is a picture of Native American hunting a large dinosaur, with Parasaurolophus near by. All are proportional.
Third picture.
http://www.naturevalleymountain.com/category/arches/
Here are Native American hunting the same "sheep". I guess they like to exaggerate the size of their sheep. Like a big fish that got away.
6th picture.
http://www.real-dream-catchers.com/Art_of_the_Seventh_Fire/rock_art_native_america.htm
What evidence support evolutionist claims that:
1. Natural selection has no effect on a population
2. A population is large
3. A populations mutations are negligible
4. A populations individuals are mating randomly.
Either show scientific evidence that these four questions can be demonstrated by science, or quietly stop harassing people.
1. You stated that the explanation for no change after millions of years is because natural selection had no impact on the species. This claim must be supported by science to be valid. Show a study that supports your claim.
2. Since you exclude natural selection, this leaves genetic drift. Genetic drift results in less variation over time. You claim that genetic drift has no impact on large populations. Now you must prove scientifically what a large population is to support your claim.
3. Mutations are the primary method of introducing variation. Since you excluded 1& 2. Now you must explain how mutations have been negligible for "millions" of years in a population.
4. Since 1,2&3 are ruled out by evolutionist. Then only random mating can keep a population in genetic equilibrium for "millions" of years. So now evolutionist must scientifically prove random mating.
These are four simple questions. They could only be viewed as "bizarre" to those that lack rational thought.
A major method used by cults is to convince someone that only they have the correct methods/way. Cults create a sharp, unsurpassable distinction between "us" and "them". In this case "smart" and "stupid".They tell you to not to listen to any message that is opposing theirs and try to discredit the opposition. Cults demand absolute, unquestioning devotion and loyalty. Cults have "Inside language" that only members fully understand. Cults have naive idealism.
ALWAYS remember that they are cults.
Truth requires your investigation.
Truth requires your honest questioning.
The Truth does not change.
Scientific knowledge changes, expands, improves - it is religion that does not change.
The evidence supports Evolution.
If you still doubt it and if you have not yet done so (your comments suggest it), read the following books. You cannot but be convinced.
Ebook in Kindle format. There is a free sample available on amazon kindle:
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Proof-Agnostics-Handbook-ebook/dp/B005HS56XQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323232713&sr=8-1
Donald Prothero's book (hard cover):
Evolution: "What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters".
1. Natural selection has no effect on a population
2. A population is large
3. A populations mutations are negligible
4. A populations individuals are mating randomly
I looked over your first chapter, I will now comment on it.
The God of the Bible said his word would NOT perish.
The God of the Bible said his word would be preach on the entire planet.
The God of the Bible said he is the ONE true God and proved it.
The God of the Bible said he is Loving, and Just
The God of the Bible offers salvation.
Proof: As you pointed out, the other gods are dead. They are mythology.
Christianity is in ALL but about two nations on the earth. Matthew 24:14
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
We have all had plenty of chances.
For one of the final nations, another major religion will fall. Evolution will be exposed for the lie it is. At which point there will only be those that accept and believe in God and those that do not.
As foretold by "shepherds"
The Bible is not and never will be a reference for Science (nor History) for simple reasons too long to list now. They are vague enough to allow for some twisting and misinterpretations however. And, that is where your expose' is in error concerning the order of so-called creation.
One thing people like to distort is statistics. They are tricky systems that, if not used right, with precise premises and parameters can be misleading and even lead to absurdities. Allow me to cite just two extremes.
Scientists tell us that 1 in 5 people in the world (20%) is Chinese. There are 5 people in my family so one of them must be Chinese. It's either my Mom or my Dad --- or my older brother Colin --- or my younger brother Ho-Cha-Chu --- but I really think it's Colin.
Secondly, Billions of people have believed and some still do, that a Jesus existed; shouldn't we all continue to do so as well?
But, Billions of people, including myself, have believed that a Santa Claus really exists; shouldn't we all continue to do so as well?
Just few observations for you:
The statistic is "1 in 5 people in the WORLD." It is unwise to use your family as the context of the WORLD.
Santa is a make believe character we tell our kids about, that NO rational adult believes actually exist. There is NO historical evidence that Santa ever existed.
No educated, rational person questions whether Jesus existed as there is too much evidence that he did. Some debate if Jesus was actually God, Question the resurrection or even some offer alternative explanations to the Biblical events.
Only a very unwise person would claim that Jesus did NOT exist, as they would have to ignore mountains of evidence.
BIBLE = ACCURATE HISTORY:
NO ONE has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible. It refers to real people and real events.
People. Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.
Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David... That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David” and “king of Israel.”
Events. Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that “Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,” - journal Biblical Archaeology Review.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200711/article_03.htm
nonbiblical (archeological references)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_archaeologists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-Biblical_sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible
Who cares? If you want to know about creation and evolution go and read history and science books - or do you get your information about car repair from The Wind In The Willows (Mr. Toad)?
Many of the scientist you refer to as "pseudo" are more educated and are from higher quality schools than the ones you seem to favor.
Evolutionist claim that natural selection was NOT operating on the population, to explain how there is no change after millions of years.
Post one link to any scientist that can prove that natural selection does NOT operate on a population, with empirical evidence.
But the point your avid opponent makes below is important - evolution is not a perfect explanation and it does indeed rely on supposition in many cases. Yes, I believe it myself, but it's such a vast area of science that it is still being understood in its intricacies to this day.
But then, I don't belong to an anti-thought protestant fundamentalist denomination so I don't really care what creationist nuts think :-)
Pax tecum,
David.
Since: "fact that the DNA discovered in soft tissue fossils of some species changes relatively little over long stretches of time"
High school science teaches that:
You must be able to test by experiment any evolutionist claim:
1) a population is large (i.e., there is no genetic drift)
2) a populations mutations are negligible
3) a populations individuals are mating randomly
4) natural selection is not operating on the population
These are incredible claims made by evolutionist NONE of which can be tested. All of which contradict our current knowledge
When I read the comments inserted by the religious, I really feel sorry for their children and anyone that they influence. I've been really busy, so I'm counting on you defend the thinking process. I still love you for no rational reason.
The Christian Bible is the book of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church. We wrote it and compiled it, and we did so in Councils. The text we have today is unchanged in almost 2,000 years.
Now here's the vital element: The Church Christ founded says that any person who attempts to interpret the Bible as the literal, fundamental word of God IS A HERETIC!
When Luther went about setting up his own cult he had no idea where it would end: American evangelical 19t century anti-intellectual fundamentalism. Ripping bits out, saying things the Bible itself refutes.
Please always keep in mind that deep south American fundamentalism is no representative of the 1.6 Billion Romans and Greeks who wrote the Bible and who laid the foundations of modern western philosophy, law, and science itself.
Ignore them - Christ's religion doesn't teach fundamentalism.
Here - go to Point F and shut them up: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp1.htm
[[JEHOVAH’S grandeur is evident in the animal kingdom. God takes good care of the animals, even as he makes provision for mankind. (Psalm 145:16) What a mistake it would be to find fault with their Creator and ours! Although the man Job was upright, he did declare “his own soul righteous rather than God.” So Job had lessons to learn!—Job 32:2; 33:8-12; 34:5.
Examples drawn from animal creation showed Job that humans are in no position to question God’s ways. How clear that becomes when we consider Jehovah’s words to his servant Job!
They Need No Human Help
Job could not answer God’s questions about animal life. (Job 38:39-41)]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20060115a/article_01.htm
Biblical fundamentalism is a heresy and a lie, and the book you use is no doubt Luther's 400 year old "Edit", where he ripped out all the bits he happened not to like as they refuted his heresies.
Paul made it clear on ELEVEN occasions - scripture is not the Church. The Church is the Church. And scripture alone does not tell the Church what Truth is.
I read the scriptures as Christ himself intended - as inspiration and a moral guide, not a science text book.
Point F: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp1.htm
Either lay off the "Biblical" fundamentalism or get your own scriptures and leave ours alone.
They are from God and a gift for EVERYONE. The translation used is not important but the truth of the Word is.
FYI-"We wrote it, compiled it, we own it..."
Is getting quite close to blasphemy. I suggest giving credit where credit is due. The Bible was written by the Jews and all claimed to be inspired of God.
[[THE Holy Bible is a written revelation from the Sovereign Lord Jehovah to all people on this earth. This inspired book has global appeal, since it contains good news of a God-designed Messianic Kingdom that will establish peace and righteousness forever on a united Paradise earth. It shows that God lovingly provided a legal recovery from death for the world of fallen mankind by means of the ransom sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ.—John 3:16.
(2Timothy3:16-17)
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
(2Peter1:21)
For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.]]
In what ways is the Bible different from any other book?
How can the Bible help you cope with personal problems?
Why can you trust the prophecies recorded in the Bible?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_02.htm
(We do not know what God used when creating new animals - but the Bible is clear that God's "hand" was directly involved and it was not left to random chance.)
The word "evolution" is not in the Bible and was only first used in the 1800's. So whether it is "Creationists" or "Atheists" they both are sometimes guilty of projecting preconceived ideas onto the Bible's account in Genesis about the beginning of life on earth.
We should also note that "Evolution" (aka biological or organic evolution) does not attempt to explain the "Creation"/start of life. It simply attempts to explain the changes from life form to another.
The fact is that when we let the Bible speak for itself (not projecting views onto it) that it is amazingly accurate on this topic.
Do I PERSONALLY believe that after creating the first living organisms God used "evolution" (meaning a mindless process to create new species)?
NO-I think the Cambrian explosion is one logical reason to doubt that this "evolution" was mindless and pure chance.
Also, mindless evolution does not explain how the most advanced thing in known world - the human brain - QUICKLY (relatively speaking) "evolving" about from the so-called "ancestors" of mankind.
Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609a/article_01.htm
Mathematical probability offers striking proof that Genesis creation account must have come from source with knowledge of the events. The Genesis account lists 10 major stages in this order (NOTE:these events are from a human perspective on the SURFACE OF THE EARTH-Moses 1500BCE)
Genesis 1-
1-beginning to the Universe
2-primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water
3-light (penetrates to the earth's surface)
4-expanse or atmosphere
5-large areas of dry land
6-land plants
7-sun, moon, stars discernible in the expanse, seasons beginning
8-sea monsters and flying creatures
9-wild and tame beasts, mammals
10-man
Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.
Chances of randomly picking this order? The same as if you picked at random numbers 1-10, drawing them in consecutive order. Chances of doing this on your first try- 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
Scientist Jastrow:
“Now we see how astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
Since birds fly (they OBVIOUSLY travel "long distances" and are exposed to MANY new things - more so than ANY ape etc...) then their brains would "evolve" proportionally faster than these apes...
(yes?)
Or did you just pull that out of the air... ?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote:
“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be.
Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”
Denton continues:
"Even if only one hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized, this would still represent a system containing a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth." He then asks: "Could any sort of purely random process ever have assembled such systems?"
Obviously, the answer has to be no. The brain must have had a caring Designer and Maker.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/dg/index.htm?article=article_03.htm