Originally posted by LDragonFire
Religions states that God, created all life.

If God created all life then why has 99.9% of all life that has ever existed now extinct? Are we to believe that God created species a Vast amount of them just to perish? This "design" seems to be very flawed.

How can you say a design is flawed when you have no idea what the design is supposed to be.

In Genesis, upon its completion creation was declared "Good." Only after the fall did nature fall under a curse. Thorns and thistles sprouted up, man began to degenerate (as by the recorded shortening lifespans), meat was now allowed to be eaten (some speculate vegetables lost their original nutritional value and meat was required to fill this deficit), the serpent was cursed to slither on the ground instead of having limbs (even modern evolution believes snakes [or their ancestors] once had limbs), species would go extinct as a result of the changing climates when they could not adapt fast enough, etc. etc. So, it was not created flawed- it became flawed.

Basically, it teaches the opposite of progressive evolution in that we believe nature is in a state of degeneration.

For those who believe in theistic evolution, this is where they fit in certain "diminutive species" like house cats from lions, alligators from dinosaurs, dogs from wolves, ancient human bones were stronger than modern man's more fragile bones, etc. I don't agree with much of their beliefs but some believe the original species were actually superior to what still exists today. Some even believe nothing actually went "extinct" but simply became diminutive. In other words, the alligator is a dinosaur, a certain modern bird is the dodo, etc. and just the original traits are gone.

As for me, I like to sit quietly with my hands folded in my lap until we know something for sure and will take the Bible at its word since it hasn't failed me yet as to the things that can be verified.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
In Genesis, upon its completion creation was declared "Good." Only after the fall did nature fall under a curse. Thorns and thistles sprouted up, man began to degenerate (as by the recorded shortening lifespans), meat was now allowed to be eaten (some speculate vegetables lost their original nutritional value and meat was required to fill this deficit), the serpent was cursed to slither on the ground instead of having limbs (even modern evolution believes snakes [or their ancestors] once had limbs), species would go extinct as a result of the changing climates when they could not adapt fast enough, etc. etc. So, it was not created flawed- it became flawed.

There is no proof humans lived for as long as stated in the bible. What can be proven is that humans live longer now, than in all recorded history.

Species have come and go, now were these species created thousands of years after the original creation? Species exist now that did not 100,000 years ago, or 1 million years ago, creationism can't explain this, but evolution can, species change, new species emerge where before there was no such creature.

Basically, it teaches the opposite of progressive evolution in that we believe nature is in a state of degeneration.

Nature moves in cycles, its easy to observe this, it must eat, it must mate, then it reproduces, if changes happen to it's environment then it must adapt or die. I see no evidence of degeneration in nature as a whole.

Creation is from God, then our whole world and the environments should be from God as well. I think this is false, and a flawed belief.



[edit on 14-1-2008 by LDragonFire]

Originally posted by LDragonFire
There is no proof humans lived for as long as stated in the bible. What can be proven is that humans live longer now, than in all recorded history.

Through technology and modern medicine, absolutely. In more developed countries people seem to be living longer as a whole. But we still have many who never make it past their 50's. It was the same in recorded antiquity. Some died young and some were up in their 90's. We have three loose "age limits" mentioned in the Bible: 120, 80, and 70. So, we really haven't differed that much. And that is only for advanced societies. People still have some insanely low lifespans in third world countries.

It has also been noted that the Jews of antiquity lived on average 30-40 years longer than their Gentile counterparts. I believe this is due to their foreknowledge of germs, sanitary procedures, quarantine laws, sterilization of metals, etc. given in their Torah.

Species have come and go, now were these species created thousands of years after the original creation? Species exist now that did not 100,000 years ago, or 1 million years ago, creationism can't explain this, but evolution can, species change, new species emerge where before there was no such creature.

Yes and no. But I've debated this to death in other threads and am now exhausted. It also gets into theology and theories but some have pointed out the few references to new and changing species in the Bible. The only thing I can say, and I've said it before, is that the Bible is not a scientific almanac. God seemed more concerned with revealing the plan of salvation than He did science.

I see no evidence of degeneration in nature as a whole.

I don't see it either, as in a day to day change that is observable. Basically it was something that happened over time until it came into full effect after the flood (according to the Bible). Some believe nature still is degenerating and also possibly progressing on some levels (also alluded to in the Bible). The second laws of thermodynamics, specifically the laws of entropy, state all things are diminishing.

We're only told God created the heavens, the earth, and life. We're never told How He did it with specifics. Was it all in one big swoop or does He have an ongoing hand in it? I believe it is a little of both but not in terms of macroevolution. And if I'm wrong and He did set it up that way, then that's great, too.

Such questions show the misunderstandings of the selfwilled creature as to the will and plan of "God".

These lesser phyical based creations are not meant to be perfected because they are a test.

The spiritual being knows this phyical stuff to be the illusion.

All this "suffering" is in the mind of mankind.

The suffering is an illusion.

It's the focus on the suffering over the spiritual evolution that is the lack of the passing of the test.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Religions states that God, created all life.

If God created all life then why has 99.9% of all life that has ever existed now extinct? Are we to believe that God created species a Vast amount of them just to perish? This "design" seems to be very flawed.

How can you say a design is flawed when you have no idea what the design is supposed to be.

I said it seemed to be flawed, seems to me that a creation type of scenario would be a more perfect model than what we observe in nature. It seems to me that evolution would be the more logical conclusion about how life came to exist on this planet.

I do find it interesting that you would question whether I knew what the :design" was to be. I am Far from knowing the answers, about creation/evolution and to the question as to if God really exists, much less what his "Design" was.

However its not like I'm proclaiming that God does exist and if you don't repent you will spend eternity in hell.

Funny how many can freely speak for God, but when one questions his teachings, they must be ignorant about his plans.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Religions states that God, created all life.

If God created all life then why has 99.9% of all life that has ever existed now extinct? Are we to believe that God created species a Vast amount of them just to perish? This "design" seems to be very flawed.

How can you say a design is flawed when you have no idea what the design is supposed to be.

Carl sagan said something along the lines of this...
"...The fossil records could be evidence for a Great Designer...perhaps some species were destroyed when the Designer became displeased with them....but this is a little upsetting...the fossil record implies a trial and error tactic by the Creator....not attributes to an all knowing one...shouldnt an omnipotent Creator set out the desired species from the start?the fossil record is evidence for someone who can't see the future."

I think that makes sense...but once again im only refering to memory.
I cant remember the quote word for word.

I also see alot of creation-teaching books simply saying something like..

Even Carl Sagan says "the fossil record could be evidence for a Great Designer"

thats all they say...OBVIOUSLY using his quote out of context.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I said it seemed to be flawed, seems to me that a creation type of scenario would be a more perfect model than what we observe in nature.

You weren't talking to me but do you mind if I expand on this? Everyone knows the creation account in the Bible deems everything "good" upon it's completion (not perfect, but good). We are then told nature became corrupt and thus entered death, diseases, parasites, genetic mutations via degeneration (now proven through modern science), etc.

Christians, including myself, will say this is exactly how it happened and there is some evidence to now back this up. As in, it has been proven by modern science that a superior recessive gene is almost always discarded in favor of the inferior dominate gene. Hooray for us! But not really. Skeptics can also say anyone can get something right once in a while (including the ignorant ancients) and that they were simply observing what was occurring in nature trying to give it religious meanings. Like thorns, diseases, and genetic degeneration being part of a curse.

What does all of this mean? Nothing really because we all we did was describe both sides of a coin. But my point is, if the Bible said nature is still perfect, then we'd have a problem. We can tell by looking around that it isn't. It might be exactly what it is supposed to be according to the curse but fleas, cancer, and thorns don't sound so exciting to us. In essence, a "flawed" creation really doesn't mean there is no intelligent designer (at least according to the Bible) as it is explicitly stated nature is supposed to be flawed in this age. So, "flaws" we really see in nature don't cancel out or negate a designer who is in complete control or not omnipotent if we are told this "flawed" existence is simply the order of this age.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I said it seemed to be flawed, seems to me that a creation type of scenario would be a more perfect model than what we observe in nature.

You weren't talking to me but do you mind if I expand on this? Everyone knows the creation account in the Bible deems everything "good" upon it's completion (not perfect, but good). We are then told nature became corrupt and thus entered death, diseases, parasites, genetic mutations via degeneration (now proven through modern science), etc.

Christians, including myself, will say this is exactly how it happened and there is some evidence to now back this up. As in, it has been proven by modern science that a superior recessive gene is almost always discarded in favor of the inferior dominate gene. Hooray for us! But not really. Skeptics can also say anyone can get something right once in a while (including the ignorant ancients) and that they were simply observing what was occurring in nature trying to give it religious meanings. Like thorns, diseases, and genetic degeneration being part of a curse.

What does all of this mean? Nothing really because we all we did was describe both sides of a coin. But my point is, if the Bible said nature is still perfect, then we'd have a problem. We can tell by looking around that it isn't. It might be exactly what it is supposed to be according to the curse but fleas, cancer, and thorns don't sound so exciting to us. In essence, a "flawed" creation really doesn't mean there is no intelligent designer (at least according to the Bible) as it is explicitly stated nature is supposed to be flawed in this age. So, "flaws" we really see in nature don't cancel out or negate a designer who is in complete control or not omnipotent if we are told this "flawed" existence is simply the order of this age.

Ashley,if I may comment on you signature for one moment.

Aviation history did not START with a complex boeing 747.

It would have started with a very simple design from the wright brothers.

And that plane...does in fact look like it was formed in a junkyard by a tornado.

errrr........man is flawed, hence the flood, and sodom, etc, etc. If one looks at genetics, the gene has deteriorated not evolved. Pure genetics indicates a degeneration of the gene pool.

Also I dispute the issue that 99.9% of all life has been lost. Proof please, not theory, hard evidence...........there is none.

Originally posted by Austin9599945
Ashley,if I may comment on you signature for one moment.

Aviation history did not START with a complex boeing 747.

It would have started with a very simple design from the wright brothers.

And that plane...does in fact look like it was formed in a junkyard by a tornado.

I'm aware of the history of the aircraft but your comment also has an interesting underlying meaning. The Wright Brother's airplane did not eventually evolve itself into a Deluxe Airbus, Concorde, or DC-10. What did it take? Intelligent designers.

Originally posted by heliosprime
errrr........man is flawed, hence the flood, and sodom, etc, etc. If one looks at genetics, the gene has deteriorated not evolved. Pure genetics indicates a degeneration of the gene pool.

Also I dispute the issue that 99.9% of all life has been lost. Proof please, not theory, hard evidence...........there is none.

I, too, have a difficult time accepting the number as being 99.9% but there is much evidence of extinct species. However as I stated in an above comment, some who believe in theistic evolution (not necessarily myself) believe nothing went extinct but traits were simply lost after a serious of degenerative genetic mutations.

But something I read recently was interesting and ties into what you are saying. Some evolutionists claim it is impossible for a certain strand of genetic material to last for millions of years. Typically, a genetic strand dies after a few thousand so many are rethinking the length of time it actually took for genetic changes concerning traits to occur. For instance, some scientists claim the same DNA in a whale is similar to the DNA in a bat so the whale must be the ancestor to the bat. After studying the rates of genetic drift and degeneration, some evolutionists now claim this is impossible for such a change to occur after millions of years because that original DNA would have ceased to exist by that time. Interesting to say the least.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Austin9599945
Ashley,if I may comment on you signature for one moment.

Aviation history did not START with a complex boeing 747.

It would have started with a very simple design from the wright brothers.

And that plane...does in fact look like it was formed in a junkyard by a tornado.

I'm aware of the history of the aircraft but your comment also has an interesting underlying meaning. The Wright Brother's airplane did not eventually evolve itself into a Deluxe Airbus, Concorde, or DC-10. What did it take? Intelligent designers.

Agreed..also interesting.

both of our posts lack further information I think.
yours is assuming that humans came first(As the boeing 747 came first)
But dont feel bad,ive heard this before and understand it isnt your personal quote.
lol

but what you said was interesting....they were created.
true.

but..if all complex things require a creator...surely the complex deity you worship is much more complex then humans or boeings...therefore shouldnt He also have a creator?

if you then say God need not be created..then you are also basically saying that there are exceptions....if there is one exception..then there could be more as science progresses (I.e the advanced airplane need not be created either...this is obviously not possible,its an example...but its just saying that if you believe god can create without ever being created..then I believe organisms can evolve without that hand of god)

then is a very vague way of working around your argument I understand.

but..either way..neither of us going back and forth are gonna change the others beliefs.

Originally posted by AshleyD
For instance, some scientists claim the same DNA in a whale is similar to the DNA in a bat so the whale must be the ancestor to the bat. After studying the rates of genetic drift and degeneration, some evolutionists now claim this is impossible for such a change to occur after millions of years because that original DNA would have ceased to exist by that time. Interesting to say the least.

Based on pure genetics and some old time math, evolution is BS. The graph is gong down, not up. But the 99.9% number is just plan BS.......New species of almost everything are being "discovered" every year. So if one does not know the number of species, how can 99.9% be lost?

Originally posted by heliosprime
Based on pure genetics and some old time math, evolution is BS. The graph is gong down, not up. But the 99.9% number is just plan BS.......New species of almost everything are being "discovered" every year. So if one does not know the number of species, how can 99.9% be lost?

I think you and I see things the same way. Complexity and intelligence from randomness sounds like an impossibility to me.

But I'm going to preempt your 99.9% extinctions vs. new species from an evolutionists point of view. I get emails from them daily and know how they think. Envy me. They'll simply say these newly discovered species are nothing more than evolution popping up new species in our own time.

I agree though- things seem to be going down down down and not up up up. A lot of their scientific evidence seems very illogical to me and even other evolutionary scientists. I'm not buying it. I'm not going to burn those at the stake who do but I'm not buying it.

For years when I was still an evolutionist, I would read journals where finds such as missing links would later be proven false. Without fail there would be a mention of several scientists who had claimed (feverishly, of course) that this evidence was false all along. I kept thinking, how is this bunk even accepted then in the first place? Evolutionary science has a little secret I only found out about a matter of weeks ago. They too have a "canonization" process that is not very well known. When new evidence is weighed, it is accepted after a vote. If that evidence is later proven false (which it often is) all they have to say is, "Well, these scientists kept saying it was false all along!" That's not science. It's a guessing game decided by votes.

Originally posted by Austin9599945
then is a very vague way of working around your argument I understand.

Not at all, Hon. You're basically saying that if I claim complexity cannot just "be" by itself then God (who is more complex than anything evolution has popped up) cannot just "be" by itself. It's an excellent argument, actually.

This is going to sound like a "new age" answer but I assure you, I'm a fundamental Bible thumping holy rolling Christian. I do not believe God is on this "plane" or of this "dimension." I also do not think He is bound by our laws of physics, logic, and other systems that govern us and physical matter.

For instance, we know the second law of thermodynamics, more specifically the law of entropy, states that all things increasingly grow weaker and lose power. So does this mean God loses power and grows increasingly weaker? Of course not. If we believe He created physics to govern His creation of this dimension, then we can beleive a creator is not bound by His own creation in the physical dimension. I know that sounds so hocus pocus to you but I don't know how else to state it.

Likewise, our creation might require complexity and creation but not His. What governs us does not govern Him. It's a question that has been asked possibly since before recorded time. If God made us, who made God? The simplest answer is nothing. He is so above our level of intelligence and comprehension and not limited to this physical realm which is guided by ends and beginnings.

but..either way..neither of us going back and forth are gonna change the others beliefs.

Exactly. lol I don't expect you to convert to Christianity after reading the above explanation and vice versa but it is nice to sit and share our thoughts and ideas.

[edit on 1/19/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Austin9599945
then is a very vague way of working around your argument I understand.

Not at all, Hon. You're basically saying that if I claim complexity cannot just "be" by itself then God (who is more complex than anything evolution has popped up) cannot just "be" by itself. It's an excellent argument, actually.

This is going to sound like a "new age" answer but I assure you, I'm a fundamental Bible thumping holy rolling Christian. I do not believe God is on this "plane" or of this "dimension." I also do not think He is bound by our laws of physics, logic, and other systems that govern us and physical matter.

For instance, we know the second law of thermodynamics, more specifically the law of entropy, states that all things increasingly grow weaker and lose power. So does this mean God loses power and grows increasingly weaker? Of course not. If we believe He created physics to govern His creation of this dimension, then we can beleive a creator is not bound by His own creation in the physical dimension. I know that sounds so hocus pocus to you but I don't know how else to state it.

Likewise, our creation might require complexity and creation but not His. What governs us does not govern Him. It's a question that has been asked possibly since before recorded time. If God made us, who made God? The simplest answer is nothing. He is so above our level of intelligence and comprehension and not limited to this physical realm which is guided by ends and beginnings.

but..either way..neither of us going back and forth are gonna change the others beliefs.

Exactly. lol I don't expect you to convert to Christianity after reading the above explanation and vice versa but it is nice to sit and share our thoughts and ideas.

[edit on 1/19/2008 by AshleyD]

Thank you...honestly.

I have delt with christians that simply deem me as a bad person.
(namly my ex)

its just...im trying to figure out the world I live in...im trying to educate myself about other cultures,religions etc...and so no I dont have an established religion.

I wish she would be proud of me for that...instead I get a 16 year old,naive ex gf trying to tell me otherwise.
lol
im 17 btw...this correlates with what im about to say.
With all due respect..and I mean ALL due respect....but if i die tommrow...and god sends me to hell for trying to educate myself about the beautiful world he created...then he's not really the type of god I want to be worshiping anyways.

I know you would probably dissagree.

But I thank you once again for approaching my questions with a mature and understanding view point...something im not used to with some other keepers of the faith.again no offense to your theology.lol

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

How can you say a design is flawed when you have no idea what the design is supposed to be.

So True.