According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Syriusly]

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc

What does JFK's assassination have to do with God? You are a weirdo!

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. s.

There is nothing 'plausible' about a "God" which we have no evidence of, creating plants one day- and the Sun the next day and birds a day after that- none of which fits any of the evidence we have.

Tell us how those plants survived that first day with no light- or heat- from the sun?

 

[alang1216]

What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?" Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.

That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.

You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about. There was an unimpeachable witness.

The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.

There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.

Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.

Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science. .

Feel free to show where any evolutionist teaches this.

Show us or admit you are just lying.

I thought walking fish was an accepted part of evolution? They are still around today so it is an advantage for fish in some habitats.

The theory of evolution suggests that life originated in the oceans and later moved onto land, and paleontologists have long been looking for transitional fossils between ocean-living and land-living animals. In 2006, a fossil Tiktaalik roseae was found which has many features of wrist, elbow, and neck that are beginning to look similar to those of tetrapods.[13] It belongs to a group of lobe-finned fish called Rhipidistia, which according to some theories, were the ancestors of all tetrapods.[citation needed]

 

[harmonica]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

There is absolutely no hard scientific evidence for evolution. It's not science. It's a fairy tale for grownups.

so a fully formed man just appeared like the Star Trek transporter?

 

[Syriusly]

That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.

You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about. There was an unimpeachable witness.

The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.

There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.

Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.

Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science. .

Feel free to show where any evolutionist teaches this.

Show us or admit you are just lying.

I thought walking fish was an accepted part of evolution? They are still around today so it is an advantage for fish in some habitats.

The theory of evolution suggests that life originated in the oceans and later moved onto land, and paleontologists have long been looking for transitional fossils between ocean-living and land-living animals. In 2006, a fossil Tiktaalik roseae was found which has many features of wrist, elbow, and neck that are beginning to look similar to those of tetrapods.[13] It belongs to a group of lobe-finned fish called Rhipidistia, which according to some theories, were the ancestors of all tetrapods.[citation needed]

None of them actually walk- they crawl.

A walking fish, or ambulatory fish, is a fish that is able to travel over land for extended periods of time. Some other modes of non-standard fish locomotion include "walking" along the sea floor, for example, in handfish or frogfish.

Theory suggests that some type of ambulatory fish had offspring that were able to do more- and which had offspring that had more- until eventually- there was a true amphibian.

 

[james bond]

What does JFK's assassination have to do with God? You are a weirdo!

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity. Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature. It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero). We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.

There's nothing plausible about creation theory. There's nothing "scientific" about it. It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.

Sure, there is. It is what was believed in science before the 1850s. Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists

 

[RWNJ]

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity. Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature. It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero). We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.

There's nothing plausible about creation theory. There's nothing "scientific" about it. It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.

Sure, there is. It is what was believed in science before the 1850s. Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists

Every creation requires a creator. Simple logic. The only argument atheists have for this is that the universe might not have been created...that it has always existed. This is a physical impossibility because of the law of entropy. If the universe has always existed then it would have been burning energy forever. See the problem?

 

[harmonica]

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity. Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature. It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero). We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.

There's nothing plausible about creation theory. There's nothing "scientific" about it. It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.

Sure, there is. It is what was believed in science before the 1850s. Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists

Every creation requires a creator. Simple logic. The only argument atheists have for this is that the universe might not have been created...that it has always existed. This is a physical impossibility because of the law of entropy. If the universe has always existed then it would have been burning energy forever. See the problem?

answer the question--so you believe a fully formed man just ''appeared''/was created??

 

[james bond]

and we have the human physical problems
disease
impacted teeth
autism
joined twins
deaf/blind
etc etc
the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw

Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox. Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases? Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?

The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin. Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death. A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God. The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.

yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
so everyone after that is punished?? that makes no sense at all
so what about impacted teeth? this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
mutations = evolution

AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!

It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world. Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin. It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.

God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?

Not God. It's part of original sin. He even destroyed the world with a global flood. The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE. Death is death. It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.

The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are: Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection. Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it. I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself. By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu. Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929) it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation. Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.

 

[james bond]

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

The Bible is listed with other religious books- along with Greek and Roman myths, and Zoroastrianism.

It is non-fiction in the Dewey system- just as Phrenology and occultism

That's plain ignorance.

Best-selling book of non-fiction

 

[Syriusly]

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

The Bible is listed with other religious books- along with Greek and Roman myths, and Zoroastrianism.

It is non-fiction in the Dewey system- just as Phrenology and occultism

That's plain ignorance.

Best-selling book of non-fiction

That's the plain truth.

The Bible is 'non-fiction' in the same as are Roman and Greek Myths.

Dewey Decimal System – A Guide to Call Numbers – Information Sciences Virtual Library – U of I Library

 

[Syriusly]

I noticed the internet fairy tale believers didn't respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

 

[Syriusly]

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity. Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature. It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero). We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.

There's nothing plausible about creation theory. There's nothing "scientific" about it. It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.

Sure, there is. It is what was believed in science before the 1850s. Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists

Oh many scientists are Christians.

Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"

 

[Syriusly]

Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox. Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases? Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?

The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin. Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death. A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God. The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.

yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
so everyone after that is punished?? that makes no sense at all
so what about impacted teeth? this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
mutations = evolution

AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!

It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world. Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin. It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.

God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?

Not God. It's part of original sin. He even destroyed the world with a global flood. The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE. Death is death. It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.

The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are: Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection. Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it. I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself. By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu. Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929) it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation. Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.

I do love it when the Christians tell us that the world didn't exist 6,001 years ago.

Or the Sun

Or the stars.

Reminds me of other creation myths.....

 

[bripat9643]

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity. Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature. It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero). We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.

There's nothing plausible about creation theory. There's nothing "scientific" about it. It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.

Sure, there is. It is what was believed in science before the 1850s. Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists

That doesn't make creationism scientific. It just means we had no other theory until that time.

 

[bripat9643]

Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox. Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases? Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?

The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin. Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death. A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God. The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.

yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
so everyone after that is punished?? that makes no sense at all
so what about impacted teeth? this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
mutations = evolution

AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!

It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world. Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin. It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.

God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?

Not God. It's part of original sin. He even destroyed the world with a global flood. The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE. Death is death. It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.

The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are: Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection. Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it. I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself. By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu. Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929) it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation. Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.

I thought God was the all powerful creator. Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything? You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox. That's called a contradiction. If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth. That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen. He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.

The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real. Scientific knowledge is imperfect. If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science. As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly. That doesn't make science invalid. Science is a process, not an end point.

 

[bripat9643]

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity. Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature. It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero). We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.

There's nothing plausible about creation theory. There's nothing "scientific" about it. It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.

Sure, there is. It is what was believed in science before the 1850s. Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists

Oh many scientists are Christians.

Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"

Most scientists are atheists, especially biologists.

 

[harmonica]

god's ''most important'' creation is extremely flawed = humans

 

[RWNJ]

The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin. Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death. A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God. The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.

yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
so everyone after that is punished?? that makes no sense at all
so what about impacted teeth? this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
mutations = evolution

AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!

It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world. Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin. It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.

God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?

Not God. It's part of original sin. He even destroyed the world with a global flood. The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE. Death is death. It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.

The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are: Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection. Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it. I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself. By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu. Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929) it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation. Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.

I thought God was the all powerful creator. Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything? You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox. That's called a contradiction. If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth. That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen. He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.

The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real. Scientific knowledge is imperfect. If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science. As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly. That doesn't make science invalid. Science is a process, not an end point.

You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.

Creation is plausible and more scientific. OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity. Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature. It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero). We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.

There's nothing plausible about creation theory. There's nothing "scientific" about it. It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.

Sure, there is. It is what was believed in science before the 1850s. Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists

Oh many scientists are Christians.

Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"

Most scientists are atheists, especially biologists.

Probably most are now- but most early scientists were Christians who found no conflict between their faith in Jesus and their belief in scientific principles.

Even now, scientists who are Christians believe in the the concept of Jesus the redeemer, but don't believe the Old Testament is literal truth.

The concept of the Old Testament as literal truth is a rather recent, evangelical development.

 

[Syriusly]

yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
so everyone after that is punished?? that makes no sense at all
so what about impacted teeth? this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
mutations = evolution

AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!

It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world. Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin. It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.

God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?

Not God. It's part of original sin. He even destroyed the world with a global flood. The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE. Death is death. It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.

The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are: Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection. Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it. I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself. By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu. Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929) it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation. Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.

I thought God was the all powerful creator. Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything? You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox. That's called a contradiction. If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth. That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen. He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.

The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real. Scientific knowledge is imperfect. If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science. As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly. That doesn't make science invalid. Science is a process, not an end point.

You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.

So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.

And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.

And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.

And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.

What a great God!