The Truth of Genesis

[Justadude]

Well you can't exactly debate it from a scientific point of view as far as the origin because it is not a matter science can handle.

I'm content to let scientists decide what they can or can't handle.

And as far as atheistic theories, oh yes, that is exactly what evolution is.

Please explain.

 

[reformed1689]

I'm content to let scientists decide what they can or can't handle.

Science cannot test origins, therefore it is not equipped to explain them. You can't go back to before the creation of the universe. You can't get back to that state. You can't recreate the universe. It is not testable by the standard of science. Therefore, science cannot handle it.

As far as evolution being atheistic theory, it tries to take God out of the equation. That is the whole purpose.

 

[Paul Christensen]

The structural design of the eye totally disproves evolution and makes a complete monkey out of it.

For the eye to be fully functional, it had to have been fully created at once, and not evolved. According to the concept of the survival of the fittest, if the eye were to be evolving and not functional until fully evolved, then while the evolving organism was virtually blind until that time, it could not have survived. It would not see where it was going and would have died through accident or falling into water and drowned. It would not be able to see to find food, so it would starve.

Of course, I am not expecting devout evolutionists to believe this, and will always find some twaddle to give some ineffective answer to it as they will with any anomaly in the theory such as the total absence of intermediary organisms to show the evolution of more simple organisms to those of different plant, animal, fish species, and human beings.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Science cannot test origins, therefore it is not equipped to explain them. You can't go back to before the creation of the universe. You can't get back to that state. You can't recreate the universe. It is not testable by the standard of science. Therefore, science cannot handle it.

As far as evolution being atheistic theory, it tries to take God out of the equation. That is the whole purpose.

Include the divine creation of the universe, and it all becomes very simple, but exclude it, and we are presented with a mish-mash of conflicting theories which cannot be proved by actual empirical evidence, but remains just a theory, and a dogmatic "religion" for many.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Error - Cookies Turned Off


This is one of the main reasons why these "debates" are so boring. The creationist says something, gets questioned on it, then does everything he can to not answer questions or explain himself.

If you guys would just debate openly and honestly, it'd be worth doing.

It is all quite simple really. God created the whole universe and this world by speaking it into being in six days.

It is man trying to come up with some other answer which ignores God that makes it so complicated and with so many unexplained holes in the theory of it.

 

[Justadude]

Science cannot test origins, therefore it is not equipped to explain them. You can't go back to before the creation of the universe. You can't get back to that state. You can't recreate the universe. It is not testable by the standard of science. Therefore, science cannot handle it.

I guess you think repeating yourself makes you more persuasive or something. FYI, it doesn't.

As far as evolution being atheistic theory, it tries to take God out of the equation. That is the whole purpose.

How does it do that?

 

[Justadude]

The structural design of the eye totally disproves evolution and makes a complete monkey out of it.

Are you a biologist, expert in eyes, geneticist, or other specialist in the field of eye evolution?

For the eye to be fully functional, it had to have been fully created at once, and not evolved. According to the concept of the survival of the fittest, if the eye were to be evolving and not functional until fully evolved, then while the evolving organism was virtually blind until that time, it could not have survived. It would not see where it was going and would have died through accident or falling into water and drowned. It would not be able to see to find food, so it would starve.

Flatworm eyes work just fine even though they don't have all the parts a human eye has. So your argument is wrong.

Of course, I am not expecting devout evolutionists to believe this, and will always find some twaddle to give some ineffective answer to it as they will with any anomaly in the theory such as the total absence of intermediary organisms to show the evolution of more simple organisms to those of different plant, animal, fish species, and human beings.

You creationists really need some new arguments.

 

[Justadude]

Like I keep saying, this "debate" has been done to death and has grown very old and stale, so I'll give the creationists here a tip. Here's a list of creationist arguments and the rebuttals from 14 years ago.

An Index to Creationist Claims

Before you think about posting a creationist argument here you should check through that index and see if it's on there. If it is, then it's old, has been rebutted, and you shouldn't post it.

 

[reformed1689]

I guess you think repeating yourself makes you more persuasive or something. FYI, it doesn't.

I don't need to be persuasive. I know I am right.

 

[Justadude]

I don't need to be persuasive. I know I am right.

Okay then. Care to explain how evolution tries to take God out of the equation?

 

[reformed1689]

Okay then. Care to explain how evolution tries to take God out of the equation?

The whole premise of Evolution is this stuff just happened on its own.

 

[Justadude]

The whole premise of Evolution is this stuff just happened on its own.

That's the case with every field of science. Chemistry operates on the premise that atoms and molecules do what they do all on their own (with no gods manipulating them). So why is evolution any more atheistic than any other branch of science?

 

[reformed1689]

That's the case with every field of science. Chemistry operates on the premise that atoms and molecules do what they do all on their own (with no gods manipulating them). So why is evolution any more atheistic than any other branch of science?

Because the overwhelming belief until that point was always, whether pagan or Christian, that a god of some sort created. Evolution was created by STAUNCH atheists.

 

[Justadude]

Because the overwhelming belief until that point was always, whether pagan or Christian, that a god of some sort created.

So? At one point everyone believed gods were behind earthquakes. Does that mean plate tectonics is atheistic too? At one point everyone believed gods were responsible for storms and lightning. Does that mean meteorology is atheistic too?

Evolution was created by STAUNCH atheists.

Who?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Okay then. Care to explain how evolution tries to take God out of the equation?

In gen it says each creature was created after its own kind (specie).
Evolutions states each specie came from one organism

contradictory

 

[Justadude]

In gen it says each creature was created after its own kind (specie).
Evolutions states each specie came from one organism

contradictory

So every branch of science that contradicts any part of the Bible is automatically atheistic? Does that make medical science atheistic since the Bible has stories of people rising from the dead?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So every branch of science that contradicts any part of the Bible is automatically atheistic? Does that make medical science atheistic since the Bible has stories of people rising from the dead?

I never said that now did I

I just showed that if you believe in evolution you can’t believe in the genesis acount

 

[Justadude]

I never said that now did I

You should give it a think though. Applying the same reasoning you cited to conclude that evolution is atheistic means medical science must also be atheistic. But if the reasoning fails for medical science, it equally fails for evolution.

I just showed that if you believe in evolution you can’t believe in the genesis acount

That's not my concern since I'm not a Christian. However, lots of Christians disagree with you and have no problem with evolution and Genesis.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You should give it a think though. Applying the same reasoning you cited to conclude that evolution is atheistic means medical science must also be atheistic. But if the reasoning fails for medical science, it equally fails for evolution.

That would assume all science teaches or espouses an old earth or evolution

this is not true hence your argument is based on an assumption which is not true

That's not my concern since I'm not a Christian. However, lots of Christians disagree with you and have no problem with evolution and Genesis.

Well yeah they do have a problem with it. They are misinterpreting what god said.

this is like saying people are ok with 2 +2 = 5 and they are American so it is ok

Either way, that on them. I used to be a gap theorist then I sat down and started to study and realized I do not
Have to change the Bible to satisfy a group of scientists who think the earth is old. I can use science to prove it happened as the Bible said

 

[Justadude]

That would assume all science teaches or espouses an old earth or evolution

this is not true hence your argument is based on an assumption which is not true

You missed the point. You argued that evolution is atheistic because it contradicts part of the Bible. But if you apply that same reasoning to medical science, you would have to conclude that it too is atheistic.

Since you appear to agree that medical science isn't atheistic, then the logic behind your argument about evolution being atheistic must be wrong.

Well yeah they do have a problem with it. They are misinterpreting what god said.

And they think you are the one misinterpreting.

this is like saying people are ok with 2 +2 = 5 and they are American so it is ok

Wrong. There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations who all have their own interpretations of the Bible (and even different Bibles). There are not tens of thousands of interpretations of 2 + 2.

Either way, that on them. I used to be a gap theorist then I sat down and started to study and realized I do not
Have to change the Bible to satisfy a group of scientists who think the earth is old. I can use science to prove it happened as the Bible said

You can? Have you presented your proof to any scientists?