god v aliens

[willow27]

do aliens exist, cause it occurred to me the other day that if they do then that totally rules out the theory of god because in the bible it says that there are no other planets in the universe or any other galaxy that have life on so if there is aliens then were all screwed cause theres no heaven either

[simont]

Hi still reading with interest... This forum can not possibly do this justice and it is important for each of us to go away and do our own independent and fair research, but here are a few things that have cropt up that I have worked through in the past:

Dinosaurs: Actually, the bible does mention dinosaurs, the problem is we don't realise it.  Dinosaur is a word that was not in existence until 1841, the king james version of the bible was written in 1611, and so when the 'terrible lizards' were mentioned in the bible they are given different names such as Behemoth and leviathan, even dragons (of course as dragons dominate so much of folk hisotry from around the world, scholars link dragons with dinosaurs of course) Isaiah mentions a "fiery flying serpent" described to be much like the known Pteranodon.  Dinosaurs are mentioned I think about 25 times.

The Ice age is mention in the bible. Time scales differ however due to creationists accepting the 'young earth' theory.

A good writer on creationist theory who has researched both sides in depth is a chap called Ken Ham.

www.AnswersinGenesis.org

He writes well also on Noah's ark, which is incidentally completely plausible.  DOn't take my word for it, I won't do it justice and won't be entering into debate..look it up on the link above.  It will make far more sense.

[simont]

Hi

I also wanted to put a different spin on your 'evolution' scenario.

If, as the evolutionists/darwinists believe that natural selection improves people and makes them more and more sophisticated....then can someone tell me why it is then that as we have moved further and further away from God's truth and his laws for our code of conducts, that we have become more and more sinful as a humanity.  crime, violence, abuse, suicide bombings (which incidentally are not caused by religion; religion doesn't start wars, men start wars, we all have a choice)  and the such like that we see in our world today, things that were not present say 100 or even 1000 years ago...why have we evolved to be so much more sophisticatedly evil? 

Here's a thought, maybe we started off perfect, walking with God in every way, and we have evolved to become further and further away from him?  maybe illness and desease have been caused by the watering down of our once perfect DNA, the copy copy copy of our DNA down hundreds of generation has left us a shadow of the original, just like if you photocopy something, then make a copy of the copy of the copy etc etc, the quality becomes worse and worse...maybe that's what happened to us? 

Perhaps I should have posted this as a question, I apologise WIllow27, this doesn't answer your question at all.  Sorry. 

I wonder what God thinks of all the answers posted here?

[MargeB]

Well, it's happening to you and me, simon, but not the women on this site. The Y chromosome, unique to males, is irreperably deliterious and the male of the species will die out in a few more years, leaving behind women (and I presume 'clones'). Cricket and football might look different then.

As for illness and disease, they actually improve the quality of DNA.

And finally, evolution is about adapting to a niche, not necessarily getting better. Mankind probably did get a wee bit worse, but the niche we occupy is a cooperative hunter-gatherer niche, which has no room for unchecked evil.

Did Noah have 2 of everything?

[simont]

Hi margeB,

actually, the bible account of the Flood is very different from the classic two of everything.  In some cases there were more than one pair of everything.  but yes everything, and the ark was not a cute little boat shape with a giraffe poking out the top, it was shaped more like our modern day oil tankers, in fact our modern day tankers are built to the same ratios the ark would have been built too...a good book on this is called "The true story do Noah's ark" by Tom Dooley.

you can find the account of Noah in the bible in Genesis chapter 6. 

My comments on 'evolution' were not written to be scientific.  I was using the understanding of the word to make a moral observation of how we seems to be struggling today after 'going it alone' instead of following God's plans for our lives and accepting his rules.  I'm not very good at arguing (tho I am  a scientist)  But the link I sent previously, is a good site with lots of answers for people who want to understand where creationist get their beliefs.  I found lots of answers to questions I had here at this site (above), they made perfect logical sense to me.  I have however read many articles stating the big fundamental problems with many of the evolutionery theories, particularly carban dating; most scientists will agree that evolution is just a theory, we can't possibly know for sure and there are grave problems with many of the theories, but for peopel with no beliefs, in the absence or anything better, a theory is better than nothing.  :-)

[MargeB]

Hi,

Thanks for that.

I think we probably mean different things by "theory". I don't use it to mean 'guess' as you seem to be assuming.

[badams]

MargeB- "Usual stuff, georgi. The creationists are secretly cowering in the face of overwhelming evidence."

You just can't help it can you!

Personally, I'm not cowering - I'm bored with hearing the same old stuff yet again being touted as "evidence"!

"ok, you christian guys and gals have an opportunity now to tell us how it all happened, from your point of view."

I was under the misguided notion that we were free to express our views just like everyone else right from the start, but obviously I was wrong, so thanks for the invite!

"Let's here it. The whole shebang." Lets be realistic - there are libraries full of books on the subject, so we're not going to cover it all here and do it any justice!

"who is Jesus" - this one I'll take up briefly! Jesus is the Son of God.  He became a man and lived among us to take the punishment due to us for our sins. (Which incidentally, is what makes the creation account relevant - if Adam had not sinned, sin would not have entered the world, and we would still have a sinless nature). He died on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day.  Our sins are forgiven simply by believing in him.  After his resurrection he spent some time with his disciples before returning to heaven, where he said he would go to prepare a place for those who believe in him.

While you may not agree with a single word of that MargeB, I still wonder what it is about it that makes you "hate fundamentalists"?

[badams]

MargeB - "Check out the skulls on this page. Now someone tell me we ain't from lesser apes.
" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#mo rphological_intermediates_ex3
"

Are you quoting this site as a reliable source?  It says:-

"Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees."

But to quote you, earlier in this discussion:-

"Similarly, with chimpanzees and our co-ancestor (chimps aren't our ancestor):"

So are you right (chimps are not our ancestor), or is talkorigins right? 

[MargeB]

Nice to read your posts as always badams.

The reason why I ask to hear 'it' from your point of view is because I haven't yet seen anyone offering an account of what happened if the evolutionary account of human origins is to be believed? What happened? Was the world created 6000 years ago in a flash of light and all of the living species with it? As far as I can see this, or something very like it is the only possibility touted by Clanad and Badams and mfewell.

"if adam had not sinned." There would be no sin? So there would be no death? So why make Adam and Eve? Clearly to reproduce. But why reproduce if there is no death?

I never in my life said 'I hate fundamentalists', I said 'I hate fundamentalism' which is quite a different thing.

Re: the chimpanzee.

Where they say 'the closest living relative' they are not saying that we descended from them. To say 'closest living relative' is perfectly compatible with having had a common ancestor. My cousin is my relative but I did not descend from him.

And as for: "Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees."

This is perfectly consistent with humans and chimps having had a common ancestor. We went on to develop certain unique features, chimps went on to develop theirs, and the common ancestor and also other organisms which existed between chimps and the ancestor or ourselves and the ancestor would clearly be intermediate in morphology between chimps and ourselves. The further you go back in history from ourselves to our common ancestor with chimps, the less the creature looks like modern humans, and the more it looks like modern common chimps.

(Note that they say intermediate in morphology, not intermediate in history).

[badams]

""if adam had not sinned." There would be no sin? So there would be no death?" Correct.

"So why make Adam and Eve? Clearly to reproduce." Correct again - that's what Genesis 1v28 says - "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."

"But why reproduce if there is no death?" To "fill the earth".  Mankind was intended to rule the earth - I suppose to some extent he does - but he's making some mess of it!

"I never in my life said 'I hate fundamentalists', I said 'I hate fundamentalism' which is quite a different thing."

You're right again - I misquoted you and I apologise.

[Clanad]

So, MargeB, if were going to discuss "our" view of how things happened to get us where are today, you'll have to bear with me alittle... after all, we are talking about 14.5 billion years.

First problem is one of definition, second is understanding terms.  Definition: Creation; the bringing into existence something from nothing... ex nihilo, but understanding this term is both extremely difficult and extremely important.  The nothing here is not understandable in our frame of reference. Which, by the way, is one of the best arguments against the universe (or Universe) bringing itself into existence.  More about that later. This nothing is sans even the hint of an atom, vacuum or quantum physics.

The reference is Genesis 1:1... you know it, I'm sure..."In the beginning God..." .  You need to understand that in all of the religious writings ever known, no statement like this reference of a Creator prexisting the creation or being outside the creation is ever made.  Not Buddhism, not Hinduism, not Isalm (which incorporates much of the Hebrew Old Testament) and not in other ancient writings.  "...created the heavens and the Earth..."  The Hebrew used is highly instructive.  Firstly, God is translated from Elohim, which is the plural of Elohaa.  So, from the very first verse of Scripture, we see an allusion to the plural nature of God.  It's somewhat equal to our saying "They is going to town..." bad English but implying the They is both singular and plural at the same time.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Ok, still with me here?

The word translated as created is  bara: bring forth something that is radically new; produce that which is new, extraordinary, and/or epochal; produce through supernatural activity.  So... the next really important word relating to our discussion is in verse 5 "....and there was evening and morning, the first day..." which brings me to the real crux of the understanding needed to bring judgement on Scriptural validity...

We're getting to the important parts here...hang on..

The word "day" is translated from the Hebrew yom (actually, yowm), which, like most Hebrew words can be translated in several different ways and still be accurate as to the intended meaning.  In this case yom , can mean sunrise to sunset; sunset to sunset; a space of time (defined by an associated term); an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days).  Your going to have to trust me here, but this same word is used in other places in the Old Testament, and, in context, clearly means unlimited or undefined periods of time.  One rule for understanding Scripture, Old or New Testament is referencing the use of words elsewhere in different books or chapters. So, we immediately have a disagreement between those of us that believe the evidence of the universe being near 14.5 billions of years old, and the Earth being near 4.5 billions of years old against young earth creationists who believe the Earth to be something less than 100,000 years old.  But that's another discussion.

Contd.

[Clanad]

So, the universe was spoken into existence by Elohim (which included the preincarnate Yeshua ha Massiach (Jesus the Messiah)...

Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3)
For by him [Jesus] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (Hebrews 1:2)

Hey, you're the one that wanted to know how "we" explain creation, etc., so endure...

I can easily show that the sequence of creation is scientifically correct and that the description  in Genesis supersedes, by thousands of years, the understanding of scientific investigation... (citation at your request).  Comparing the predictions of the biblical origin-of-life model with the most recent discoveries coming from origin-of-life research reveals remarkable agreement. Life originated early and quickly in Earth�s history under hostile conditions. Moreover, life as it first appeared, in its minimal form, possesses enormous complexity.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

So, we move through nearly 14 billion years of God supplying bio-deposits by way of early life forms to be available for our use at the appropriate time... But then, about 540 millions of years ago,  based on fossils found in southern China and in the Burgess Shale deposits of the Canadian Rockies, biologists know that nearly all the animal phyla (more than 70) known to exist throughout the earth�s history appeared essentially at once.  (Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism�s body plan, or architectural make-up.) 

This event, known as the Cambrian �Explosion�, occurred over an extremely narrow window of geological time (~5-10 million years based on western scientific literature and less than 3 million years based on Chinese scientific literature). Since then, arguably no new animal phyla have appeared. In fact, about 40 animal phyla have disappeared since that time. (With thanks to Dr. Fuz Rana, Ph.D.)


Along with the �sudden� appearance of animal phyla, the Cambrian period was the first time that animals with skeletons showed up in the earth�s history.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Then, fast forward... two related studies recently reported by an international team from Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University add to the growing weight of evidence supporting a recent origin of humanity that is in line with the biblical date. Numerous Y chromosome sequence studies have already demonstrated a recent origin of humanity. This technique assumes a common ancestor for all human males and that the DNA sequence differences in the Y chromosome result from mutations. Knowing the mutation rate allows an estimate of the time when humanity originated.  Enter the two new studies. The research teams identified new sequence variations in the Y chromosome. This finding allowed them to expand the region of the Y chromosome available for defining human origins. With a larger sample size and longer sequence along the Y chromosome available for analysis, the two teams measured humanity�s origin to occur around 50,000 years ago. Moreover, they noted what appears to be a rapid and substantial growth in the number of human sub-populations (based on Y chromosome �types�) and a significant population expansion around 28,000 years ago consistent with Genesis 10 and 11. (Source: Peidong Shen, et al, Russell Thomson, et al)

Contd.

[Clanad]

Finale:

Recent scientific advances in the natural history of bipedalism provide a useful collection of observations that allow evaluation of both evolutionary and biblical scenarios for the origin of humanity. The sudden and early appearance of bipedalism in the fossil records allows insufficient time for bipedalism to emerge through natural process biological evolution. The fossil record also fails to reveal a pattern of gradual transformation from rudimentary bipedalism to a more sophisticated, efficient form. The absence of any significant evolutionary pressure to force these changes makes them even more remarkable.

A sudden and early appearance with two periods of stasis interspersed by rapid change defines bipedalism�s natural history. These characteristics perfectly match the pattern special creation would predict. If humans are made in the image of God through His direct creative activity, then what is the proper biblical perspective on hominids or bipedal primates? The biblical model employed here views bipedal primates as separate species that have gone extinct since their creation. (Source: Erik Delsen, et al, Encylopedia of Human evolution and Prehistory)
Genesis offers this explanation for the survival of large animals: God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases, the new species were different from the previous ones because God was changing Earth's geology, biodeposits, and biology, step by step, in preparation for His ultimate creation on Earth�the human race.

So... A quick trip through 14.5 billion years.

 

[simont]

I believe that the earth was created in 6 lunar days.  I have read an excellent book on the subject called "In six Days" edited by John F Ashton PhD.  It is an account as to why 50 scientists believe in creation.  It is a good read.

God rested on the 7th day not because he had to have a rest, but because he was setting the example for our own working week.  He equally could have created the world in one second if he had wanted to, but then again, we wouldn't have an example of a working ethic.  I'm not trying to wecond guess why God did things the way he did, I just try not to understand him within the constraints of human capabaility. He rested on the seveneth daya because WE need to rest.  Just another little food for thought.

[MargeB]

Thanks for the post Clanad.

"Recent scientific advances in the natural history of bipedalism provide a useful collection of observations that allow evaluation of both evolutionary and biblical scenarios for the origin of humanity. The sudden and early appearance of bipedalism in the fossil records allows insufficient time for bipedalism to emerge through natural process biological evolution. The fossil record also fails to reveal a pattern of gradual transformation from rudimentary bipedalism to a more sophisticated, efficient form. The absence of any significant evolutionary pressure to force these changes makes them even more remarkable."


How does the absence of any evidence of significant evolutionary pressure to force these changes show us that there is evidence of absence?

 

[karabulut]

May I say,in all the time I've subscribed to this site,I have never read a more interesting thread than this one..

Very informative...very,very interesting..

MargeB,as always you never fail to deliver..nice one..

Oz.

[Clanad]

As I started to post a reply I realized, after re-reading your question a couple of times, that I'm not really sure what it is you are asking MargeB... If your meaning is, does absence of evidence for any scientific inquiry equal absence for substantiaton of a position, then I would certainly agree.  If, on the other hand, you mean absence of evidence has no bearing on the argument, then I would have to say that is an argument from silence.  All we have or hope to have in the study we're discussing, is evidence.  I'll be happy to explain why there is a dearth of evidence to support evolution of bipedalism in Homo if you'd like...

[Clanad]

Simont, while I respect your heartfelt opinion, I honestly think that the most significant event of the last several hundred years, affecting not only the Christian community, but more emphatically, the scientific community, is the discovery that the universe had a beginning and we know about when.  All previous positions of scientific inquiry were stacked on the premise of an infinite universe.  They now know that was a false presumption, but we've known it for at least three or four thousand years...  Someone (I can't recall who, but certainly a scientist) said, "When we've climbed the last mountain, solved the last riddle (pertaining to origins) I  have no doubt we'll be met by a group of theologians"...

Time was when Creationists had a certain uneasiness about granting long periods of time... if there was enough time perhaps, just perhaps evolution, in some form or other, could be true.  Hence, in my opinion, the maintaining of "young earth" theories.  We now know that, at 14.5 billions of years old, the time required for evolution to have occurred in the universe (especially origin of life) far exceeds any statistical possibility.  It, literally, could never have happened in the way proposed by Darwin et al... So, I agree that God could have done it any way He chose, but 1 Corinthians 14:33 says "God is not the author of confusion"... hence, I believe He has accomplished all of Creation in an orderly fashion that is apparent, if we will but inquire of the evidence...