Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?

[Michael]

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.

That's true but not the whole story. You see, it is true that humans evolved from single cells but our souls are from another distant galaxy. Our souls were transported here in DC-8 like planes on order of Xenu the intergalactic warlord and put in a volcano where nuclear bombs were set off then our souls floated over to the proto humans and THAT'S how we became humans.



Also note, evolution is a process predicated on death of the weakest. What a horrible way to make an organism - painfully killing billions of generations. Sick if you think about it. Only a mad man would ever do such a thing.

 

[nova900]

The only empirical evidence science has for evolution is micro evolution which has somehow transformed into a theory that everyone accepts because they can see a virus transform.

Do you know how many human like skulls have been found that apparently fit the non existent fossil record? Did you know that the fossil record is based on the geological column and vice versa? Did you research the Cambrian explosion?

My knowledge of earthly evolution is rather limited I will admit,but from what I have studied the available evidence supports it.Otherwise the majority of the scientific community would reject it...which they do not.
I am more up to speed on the evolution of the entire cosmos itself.

The facts at this point in time do indeed support that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Exactly HOW evolution occurrs is the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP

 

[GeoffP]

Quite. I vote for: naturalistically.

 

[davewhite04]

My knowledge of earthly evolution is rather limited I will admit,but from what I have studied the available evidence supports it.Otherwise the majority of the scientific community would reject it...which they do not.
I am more up to speed on the evolution of the entire cosmos itself.

The facts at this point in time do indeed support that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Exactly HOW evolution occurrs is the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP

Did you know that not one star birth has been observed, yet hundreds of them dying has?

 

[superluminal]

Did you know that not one star birth has been observed, yet hundreds of them dying has?

Oh really? What constitutes a star birth?

 

[davewhite04]

Oh really? What constitutes a star birth?

What constitutes a human birth?

 

[superluminal]

What constitutes a human birth?

Delivery from a human womb. Now, why not answer my question and tell me why you think that stellar births have not been observed?

 

[davewhite04]

Because they haven't been observed.

 

[superluminal]

Because they haven't been observed.

Then you don't know what constitutes a stellar birth. They are observed all over the galaxy.

 

[davewhite04]

Then you don't know what constitutes a stellar birth. They are observed all over the galaxy.

Really, I'll not take your mathematical calculations as an answer(or clouds of dust).

 

[superluminal]

Really, I'll not take your mathematical calculations as an answer(or clouds of dust).

Fine.

Stellar birth occurrs over the period of time from the sputtering initiation of fusion reactions in the core to the first visible light (that may take hundreds of thousands of years to propagate from the core to the surface).

All stages in the process of stellar birth have been observed, from the deep infrared glow within stellar cocoons, to the first blaze of light driving away the surrounding gas and dust.

Ok?

 

[SnakeLord]

The only empirical evidence science has for evolution is micro evolution

Only when using the extremely shoddy theistic version of what the terms mean. I'd suggest you stop getting your science lessons from a christian apologetics website.

 

[spidergoat]

Did you know that not one star birth has been observed, yet hundreds of them dying has?

That has something to do with how we observe them. Dying stars going supernova make a huge outburst of light and other kinds of radiation.

 

[davewhite04]

Fine.

Stellar birth occurrs over the period of time from the sputtering initiation of fusion reactions in the core to the first visible light (that may take hundreds of thousands of years to propagate from the core to the surface).

All stages in the process of stellar birth have been observed, from the deep infrared glow within stellar cocoons, to the first blaze of light driving away the surrounding gas and dust.

Ok?

Hundreds of thousands of years, hmmm, and you believe it because someone tells you so. Fair enough.

Have scientists become prophets?

 

[davewhite04]

Only when using the extremely shoddy theistic version of what the terms mean. I'd suggest you stop getting your science lessons from a christian apologetics website.

I suggest you actually learn something if that is what you're here to do.

 

[davewhite04]

That has something to do with how we observe them. Dying stars going supernova make a huge outburst of light and other kinds of radiation.

Aye.

 

[superluminal]

Hundreds of thousands of years, hmmm, and you believe it because someone tells you so. Fair enough.

Have scientists become prophets?

Ok. So you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. That's fine. It takes very little effort to disparage the factual discoveries made by scientists, especially when you're a lazy theist.

Ask yourself how we might know that something takes thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Then, when you've completely dismissed the scientific results of the last several hundred years with a snide comment or two, ask yourself how you know any damn thing that you claim to know about - whatever it is you think you "believe".

 

[davewhite04]

Ok. So you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. That's fine. It takes very little effort to disparage the factual discoveries made by scientists, especially when you're a lazy theist.

Ask yourself how we might know that something takes thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Then, when you've completely dismissed the scientific results of the last several hundred years with a snide comment or two, ask yourself how you know any damn thing that you claim to know about - whatever it is you think you "believe".

The "It takes thousands of years" spouted by scientists is the equivalent of a theist saying "God did it".

You obviously have great respect for men who seemingly have great intellect, I do not.

In this day and age it is only logical to say that no one has seen a birth of a star, because they haven't, if you think otherwise then you are deluded.

 

[superluminal]

The "It takes thousands of years" spouted by scientists is the equivalent of a theist saying "God did it".

You obviously have great respect for men who seemingly have great intellect, I do not.

In this day and age it is only logical to say that no one has seen a birth of a star, because they haven't, if you think otherwise then you are deluded.

There's this thing called a "telescope" you see. It was invented awhile back.

Nevermind. You're clearly an ignorant nutjob with an agenda.

This is funny though:

You obviously have great respect for men who seemingly have great intellect, I do not.

So you're a self admitted man of ignorance and blindness. Good for you.

 

[superluminal]

I have a questin for you: Why do you believe in stars?