Places to Chat
Creation Vs. Evolution!
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
Creation Vs. Evolution!
Creation Vs. Evolution! This is the new spot, people! Now as I was saying, why can no one explain the point that there are no intermediate links, at least not that we can find. And even if they are fossilized...how come there are no living ones?
submitted by Phoenix, age 12, The U.S.A.
(September 6, 2008 - 7:15 am)
(September 6, 2008 - 7:15 am)
That is my point. If the Bible were older than every other religion and God created all people, how come all those people aren't mentioned in the Bible? I believe God created all people but...h'mm, let me explain. Creationists say the Bible is older than everything, and everything there is to know is in the Bible. If the Bible is the only true historical record: then why aren't the Native Americans in there? Why are only Mesopotamian (including Egypt) the only people mentioned? Did no other cultures exist? That is why I say don't believe everything an ancient text says. Instead step outside your comfort zone and learn. Really everyone should do this. Put aside what you believe for three seconds and learn about something new; whether it's a religion or evolution learning new things is good for you. Plus you'll be able to combine all those ideas that everyone has into your own unique view of the world and of God. Sounds cooler than just following in someone else's footsteps. (But don't forfeit your religion for this; I really don't want a bunch of angry parents beating down my door!)
(September 9, 2008 - 3:45 pm)
Don't worry! I won't. And no one ever said the Bible contained everything there is to know. Everything it says is true, however. *Sigh* This is not what I intended this conversation to be about. I guess I'll just wait until this thread gets so long that someone starts a new one, where theology won't come up. I'd rather keep this scientific. See you on some other thread. :)
(September 10, 2008 - 4:27 pm)
Hi, Wendy! Since you wanted some criticism, here it is, but on a friendler note. Okay, the Bible actually does refer to dinosaurs, in the book of Job. Here are the verses, so you can look them up yourself: Job, 40:15 - 19. Some people say the behemoth is an elephant, but look at the verse that says he moves his tail like a cedar tree. Has an elephant's tail ever reminded you of a cedar tree? It is reasonable to think that it might have been an apatosaurus, or another large dinosaur. Referring to your other topic, about how the Bible doesn't mention other nations, because the people who wrote the Bible were Hebrew and Roman, Egyptian and some other nations in the Middle East, and didn't know about some other parts of the world. That's why in the Bible when Jesus is talking to his disciples, he tells them to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. So, we kind of get the idea, that they didn't know what the ends of the earth were, as we do now. I don't believe that some books of the Bible went missing, because everything that God wants to be in the Bible is there.
Just interested, do you think you could give me some more information about the headless cockroach? That's about it. I hope you liked my criticism.
(September 7, 2008 - 4:17 pm)
"I don't believe that some books of the Bible went missing, because everything that God wants to be in the Bible is there."
See the Wikipedia article on New Testament Apocrypha, especially the Lost Works section. Most are debatable, but there's lots to look into, if you've never heard of them before. It sounds like you wouldn't change your mind if presented by facts though.
"Just interested, do you think you could give me some more information about the headless cockroach?" Google this article:
Fact or Fiction?: A Cockroach Can Live without Its Head
A nuclear war may not trouble them, but does decapitation?
By Charles Choi
(September 8, 2008 - 2:29 pm)
Who knows, some of them might be worth examining, but If they belonged in the Bible... I'm not going to be repetitive. I'm not trying to answer for Isha. I referred her, you know. And to TMFA, directly below. We're not talking about whether or not anyone is a Christian. At least I'm not. I wish we could stay on the topic here.
(September 8, 2008 - 7:37 pm)
Whoooooooops!!! I meant Vendy. I'm just not used to seeing her on this thread. Sorry!
(September 8, 2008 - 7:39 pm)
We're not, for good reason, but someone did say something along those lines on the other thread. That post was a response to Wendy's comment beginning with "OK, I know I said I was done with...'
(September 9, 2008 - 2:33 pm)
Wikipedia is not reliable.
(September 9, 2008 - 4:22 pm)
Wikipedia has been known as an untrue source, written by the unknowing masses. While I agree that many articles are written by novices and errors have run rampant, there are several specific reasons why I have chosen to use it as my primary source. It is simple to use, giving well-written explanations to scientific phenomena that other sources often complicate. It's easy to cite, as outside links are not allowed, and article titles with authors are just harder to find. Most of the articles are actually written by people with a degree of knowledge in the field, and each and every revision is checked multiple times to ensure credibility. It is also well cited. An article about some small town in Nebraska could easily be completely falsified, but these are large, controversial issues we're dealing with. If you go look at the Wikipedia article on Evolution, for example, you will notice:
A lock in the upper righthand corner. This shows that the article is locked, neither you nor I can freely edit it like most other articles, because it has been, in the past, widely vandalized. This ensures a greater degree of legitimacy.
A star, also in the upper righthand corner. This shows that the article has been chosen for display on the front page (Featured), because it is well written and researched.
At the bottom of the page there is a section called References. These are all the outside sources cited by the authors. they are there to prove a fact is true, but can be used for further reading. Over 200 references in this article show how well it has been researched and how much work has been done on the subject.
If you require further proof, I will find an article I read showing how reliable Wikipedia is compared to Encyclopedia Britannica.
Actually, here it is:
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
By Daniel Terdiman
Originally published in Nature:
Special Report Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
By Jim Giles
Finally, if there is a specific point on which you feel that my refrences are not suitable, just ask, and I will providea different source.
(September 9, 2008 - 8:01 pm)
Ha, I love that word! Decapitation!
(September 13, 2008 - 8:27 pm)
Yay! I loved reading this! I looked up the passage right away. Take note: This is the kind of evidence I'm looking for from creationists! See how there was a specific passage? That shows Isha did her research! I agree with you on how the Bible was written by man. That is why people yet to be discovered are not included. The Bible, however, really is missing some books (they've found a couple recently). If you doubt me check online--I think National Geographic or History Channel Web sites can help with this. Sorry I don't know anything more about the headless cockroach--but apparently cockroaches can live through an atomic blast!
(September 9, 2008 - 3:52 pm)
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Wendy! I believe that TMFA mentioned his belief in a God, but sadly, someone said something like "You can't be a true Christian and believe in evolution, too!"
Personally, evolution furthers my beliefs that there is a higher power, because the whole system is so amazing. I look at the Bible as poetry and advice more often then the literal history of the world, but again, that's just my views of one branch of the religion.
(September 7, 2008 - 7:11 pm)
YES! Someone else with my views! I'm actually proud to not be a "true" Christian. By not having organized religion I can look at all different points of view and take them in! The main thing that creationists are saying, evolution is too complicated to be true, only helps my faith! Think about it: something that shouldn't work does, and it works so flawlessly and beautifly that there is no way it was all chance. So evolution (if you think of it the way Vendy and I do) only makes God greater.
(September 9, 2008 - 3:58 pm)
Wendy,
About evolution vs. creation, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it. There are no animals somehow changing into a totally different animal. Besides, evolutionists don't have any real proof. I'ts all just wishful thinking.
(October 13, 2008 - 8:22 pm)
That was me. I apologize if it seemed like an attack on others' views.
(September 13, 2008 - 8:30 pm)