Creationists Please Explain This: Synodontis multipunctatus- Mother is tricked into raising her childrens' murderers

[Cartesiantheater]

Synodontis multipunctatus. This clever little catfish...


Okay, so cichlid fish will lay eggs, then scoop them up in their mouth and incubate their young in their mouth. It is a good strategy that keeps their young safe. EXCEPT...


Synodontis multipunctatus, the clever little catfish, will suddenly swoop in when the cichlids are laying eggs and scooping them. Then the catfish will start eating the cichlids eggs. But you see, this is only a ruse. A distraction.

In the pandomonia, the cichlids will start trying to gulp up all their eggs as quickly as possible to save them from the catfish that are eating their eggs. However, Synodontis multipunctatus takes this opportunity to lay it's OWN eggs, which the cichlids then inadvertently gulp up.

The cichlids then incubate the CATFISH eggs.


But that's not all.


Synodontis multipunctatus eggs hatch must earlier than cichlid eggs, and so the young catfish will be more grown than the cichild young whilst incubating in the cichlid mouth.

The Synodontis multipunctatus young will then proceed to EAT the cichlid young WHILE INSIDE THE MOUTH of the mother cichlid.


Eventually, when it's time to release the young, the cichlid mother is in for a huge surprise when all her young have been eaten by the catfish that now occupy her mouth.



Fucking HORRIFYING.

But these Synodontis multipunctatus are EXACTLY designed for this behavior. If the cichids did not exist, and were not susceptible to this horrifying trick, the Synodontis multipunctatus catfish would go extinct.

If they were "designed," they were designed EXACTLY for this disgusting gruesome monstrosity of a behavior.


Explain this creationists.



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

http://westerncichlids.com.au/breeding-cuckoo-catfish/

[Goldmoon]

I still don't see how that takes credibility away from the Lord?

Cartesian Theater: Fucking HORRIFYING.

What a thing to say, that sounds rediculous.

It is you Cartesian, that sees it as greusome and monstrous behaviour.

In nature, not everything is soft and cuddly, nor fair, like most humans would like it to be for their own personal desires. Are you going to start complaining about how carnivores eat meat? I mean really... Its a wonder that the creator puts up with humans for so long, the majority are so out of touch with reality.

[James Random]

One day I hope they do manage to pull of jurassic park. Where they bring dinosaurs to life. On that day (or possibly the following tuesday. Give them time to settle in) I plan to place a creationist in a locked room with a velociraptor and say. 'Right then. If you're such a fuckin genius, you try domesticate that.'

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Goldmoon

I still don't see how that takes credibility away from the Lord?



What a thing to say, that sounds rediculous.

It is you Cartesian, that sees it as greusome and monstrous behaviour.

In nature, not everything is soft and cuddly, nor fair, like most humans would like it to be for their own personal desires. Are you going to start complaining about how carnivores eat meat? I mean really... Its a wonder that the creator puts up with humans for so long, the majority are so out of touch with reality.

So you believe that this behavior was going on before the Fall?

[Goldmoon]

Cartesiantheater: So you believe that this behavior was going on before the Fall?

Of course, the fall was only concerning humans, animals don't have the knowledge of good and evil. (Or the advanced brain that we've been engineered with.)

But not only that, there are trillions of other solar systems with life out there. Infinite in fact, there is life throughout the entire universe. Every lifeform does all kinds of interesting things. There are some out there that would seem quite strange to humans, especially in certain galaxies which are not spiral arm galaxies, having different physics than here, there are lifeforms which would be incomprehensible to humans at first glance.

In the greater scheme of things, the human race just happens to be the cattle that is ranched on this planet. We have a creator. We are an un-natural species.

I happen to respect my creator anyways, and even though we're un-natural, we've been kept alive. I knowingly work with Him.

[DontBeAfraid]

There are some out there that would seem quite strange to humans, especially in certain galaxies which are not spiral arm galaxies, having different physics than here

wow... I want to hit you... Your statement, it is beyond stupid.... Maybe this whole "everything is an opinion" rant that assx is on applies to all christians.... In your opinion what does the theory of relativity state goldmoon?

[Cyranothe2nd]

Wow, the retardation on this thread...

CT--I think it's hilarious that the creationists don't even understand the fundamentals of their argument or how your example totally defeated it.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Goldmoon

Of course, the fall was only concerning humans, animals don't have the knowledge of good and evil. (Or the advanced brain that we've been engineered with.)

Okay, I will give props for this. Most Christians I have met have had ridiculous answers about wildlife and their behavior. If you're admitting that God created such things, however, one is compelled to ask WHY he did. See end of post.

However, if mankind is made in the image of God, and most people find this behavior to be horrifying, then does that mean that God finds it to be horrifying?

But not only that, there are trillions of other solar systems with life out there. Infinite in fact, there is life throughout the entire universe. Every lifeform does all kinds of interesting things. There are some out there that would seem quite strange to humans, especially in certain galaxies which are not spiral arm galaxies, having different physics than here, there are lifeforms which would be incomprehensible to humans at first glance.

I highly doubt that. The Laws of nature are the laws of nature.

In the greater scheme of things, the human race just happens to be the cattle that is ranched on this planet. We have a creator. We are an un-natural species.

I happen to respect my creator anyways, and even though we're un-natural, we've been kept alive. I knowingly work with Him.

Good for you.

But a question: if YOU were God, why would you create a type of fish that tricks another fish into incubating its offspring in such a way that the mother's own children will become food for the parasite fish, indeed even within the mother's own mouth?

[Nu Kua]

Originally Posted by Cyranothe2nd

Wow, the retardation on this thread...

CT--I think it's hilarious that the creationists don't even understand the fundamentals of their argument or how your example totally defeated it.

I don't get how any of those facts would "discredit the Lord", for one thing. Creationists are the focal point here, not The Lord, per se.

Nor do I get how anybody could suggest CT's statement that this was "HORRIFYING" reflects an inability on the part of CT to 'grasp the truth' of the fact that everything in nature is not 'soft and cuddly"...
when CT's statement, indeed the whole post subject, reflects clearly that he has quite a grasp on that truth.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Cartesiantheater

Synodontis multipunctatus. This clever little catfish...


Okay, so cichlid fish will lay eggs, then scoop them up in their mouth and incubate their young in their mouth. It is a good strategy that keeps their young safe. EXCEPT...


Synodontis multipunctatus, the clever little catfish, will suddenly swoop in when the cichlids are laying eggs and scooping them. Then the catfish will start eating the cichlids eggs. But you see, this is only a ruse. A distraction.

In the pandomonia, the cichlids will start trying to gulp up all their eggs as quickly as possible to save them from the catfish that are eating their eggs. However, Synodontis multipunctatus takes this opportunity to lay it's OWN eggs, which the cichlids then inadvertently gulp up.

The cichlids then incubate the CATFISH eggs.


But that's not all.


Synodontis multipunctatus eggs hatch must earlier than cichlid eggs, and so the young catfish will be more grown than the cichild young whilst incubating in the cichlid mouth.

The Synodontis multipunctatus young will then proceed to EAT the cichlid young WHILE INSIDE THE MOUTH of the mother cichlid.


Eventually, when it's time to release the young, the cichlid mother is in for a huge surprise when all her young have been eaten by the catfish that now occupy her mouth.



Fucking HORRIFYING.

But these Synodontis multipunctatus are EXACTLY designed for this behavior. If the cichids did not exist, and were not susceptible to this horrifying trick, the Synodontis multipunctatus catfish would go extinct.

If they were "designed," they were designed EXACTLY for this disgusting gruesome monstrosity of a behavior.


Explain this creationists.



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

http://westerncichlids.com.au/breeding-cuckoo-catfish/

Nature needs to be maintain in a state of equilibrium. The predator is dependant on its prey. The prey dwindles in number then the predator takes a hit. The prey increases then the predators increase.

Should a single species over populate then the nitch they occupy suffers depletion and this affects other life forms in a cascade effect.

I see this example as pointing to intelligent design so as to maintain a system of checks and balances. If you study the prey closer you will find the contribution it plays to the overall maintenance of the ecosystem but if its population gets too high the damage it does. The predator in this case also has a part to play in its own contribution to the ecosystem but the two will have to be in some form of balance, by making the predator totally dependant on the prey for its own reproduction numbers this balance is established.

[Devon]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Should a single species over populate then the nitch they occupy suffers depletion and this affects other life forms in a cascade effect.

I see this example as pointing to intelligent design so as to maintain a system of checks and balances. If you study the prey closer you will find the contribution it plays to the overall maintenance of the ecosystem but if its population gets too high the damage it does. The predator in this case also has a part to play in its own contribution to the ecosystem but the two will have to be in some form of balance, by making the predator totally dependant on the prey for its own reproduction numbers this balance is established.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMG-LWyNcAs

I'm not sure what category this falls under.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Nature needs to be maintain in a state of equilibrium. The predator is dependant on its prey. The prey dwindles in number then the predator takes a hit. The prey increases then the predators increase.

Should a single species over populate then the nitch they occupy suffers depletion and this affects other life forms in a cascade effect.

I see this example as pointing to intelligent design so as to maintain a system of checks and balances. If you study the prey closer you will find the contribution it plays to the overall maintenance of the ecosystem but if its population gets too high the damage it does. The predator in this case also has a part to play in its own contribution to the ecosystem but the two will have to be in some form of balance, by making the predator totally dependant on the prey for its own reproduction numbers this balance is established.

This sort of thing is what you would expect from evolution. Creatures taking what they can to survive, and others developing imperfect resistance in such a way that both creatures survive despite the fact that both individually do behavior that could destroy the other.

Steal or be stolen from.



As for a omnipotent, all loving God, that is NOT what I would expect. I am totality okay with a God that has a morbidity streak. Or a God that allows nature to take its course. My problem is that neither of those two are YOUR God. Or are they?

If they are, the why the funk do you have such a hard time accepting that God as the overseer and creator of a world that is governed by natural laws- including the summation of those natural laws that result in evolution by natural selection.

Why? Why can you accept God allowing a parasite to trick a mother into feeding her children to it in the very bosom where she keeps them safe, but you cannot accept God allowing evolution by natural selection?

[Traveler]

The problem here is that you have no idea of what God is. You have stereo typed what you think Christianity is all about and then believed your own hype

God may display love and forgiveness but that is not all of him. He also made the fires of hell for those souls that he cannot use later. You are made in the reflection of him and the full gambit of emotions found in you are just a reflection of the emotions displayed by God.

It is an automatic reflex that has been developed in you to reject anything the Christians say because you already think you know what they believe. We do not reject science, never have! But we do reject some of the conclusions that science comes to.

To give an example, We do not reject the fossil record. We are just as interested in it as you are. But we find that the interpretation of that record is subject to the politics of evolution more than just recording what is there despite of how the dice fall. We actually want the truth, not a picture in support of the current belief system.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Traveler

[...]

To give an example, We do not reject the fossil record. We are just as interested in it as you are. But we find that the interpretation of that record is subject to the politics of evolution more than just recording what is there despite of how the dice fall. We actually want the truth, not a picture in support of the current belief system.

Really? The truth? Can you explain this then? (from the founder of Answers In Genesis):








What you need to understand is that scientists and students of science tend to be smart. Your bullshit will not fool us. So, unless you completely disagree with Answers In Genesis, you are a fucking liar about only being interested in "the truth." Not to mention, you have quite another reason to reject evolution:


It directly contradicts the Bible, if one reads the Genesis story literally. Don't give me your "truth" bullshit.


If you wanted the truth, you'd stop rejecting the mountains of evidence we have that points to it.

[...]not a picture in support of the current belief system.

The "picture" arose exactly from the observable evidence. The "interpretation" arose from the fossil record itself, which in turn correlates exactly with the picture that arose from genetic studies, geological studies, chemical studies, morphological studies all forming separately the exact same picture. Then all being used to make new predictions that are confirmed in other disciplines. "Overwhelming evidence from every conceivable dependent and independent angle" is the phrase that comes to mind.



One more comic, just for kicks.



One day you might stop deceiving yourself. The reality is you are only after the "truth" if it already matches what you believe. If "the truth" were that your religion is make-believe, you would automatically classify it as a lie and reject it. Because you don't want the truth, come hell or high water. You want what you already believe. There is no possibility in your mind that you are embarrassingly wrong. Nor will there ever be. Such is religion.

[Traveler]

Well the cartoons show where you get your mindset from.

But it is correct in showing where the foundations are and what has to be destroyed from the Humanist point of view.

[Traveler]

The Theory of Special Creation.

The first thing that goes through anybodies mind when they read this tittle is, “Oh no, its those people that believe that the world was created in six days”. Well, if the Bible account is to be taken literally then it soon becomes quite obvious that the fires of the sun were only ignited on the fourth day, so how could there have existed three days prior to this event. Unless of course the days referred to someone else’s days or periods of time!

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the explanation that was given in the book of Genesis was a very simplified account meant for a person that did not poses the education that we take for granted to day. If a five year old asked an electronics engineer how a television worked do you think that the engineer would go into all the mathematical details of how a resonant circuit worked and how to tune the receiver so that it would resonate with the incoming carrier wave. Together with all the calculations needed to bias all the transistors in the amplification circuits? Of course not! The child would not understand what he was talking about. Likewise the explanation in the account of Genesis is a very simplified version of a very complex subject. However, even from this extremely simplified explanation of the creation account, a very thought provoking and indeed, rational picture can be put together that does correspond with the fossil record and new discoveries in other branches of the sciences.

As I am a product of the modern education system, I am well versed in Darwin’s theory of Evolution. You have to be in order to graduate from high school. But if you do any research on the subject you will eventually come across writings by the creationists that pull Darwin’s theory to pieces and rightly so, as it is full of holes and assumptions that are used to fill in all the blanks. At the very least the theory must match the fossil record! The conclusion that one inevitably comes to is that the question regarding the origin of the species should have been left as an open question, while awaiting the gathering of further data. But even in scientific circles there is the inevitable politics involving the desired direction of research based on funding, so the evolution agenda is pushed to the detriment of all others.

However, throughout this entire debunkel, I have yet to come across a single article that takes the first chapter of Genesis, so as to scrutinize it in such a way as to form a solid and coherent theory that will explain the origin of the species. Therefore I have decided to do it myself. I have used the Revised International Version of the Bible as this is the most widely used these days and it basically says exactly the same as the King James that I normally use. Only in a more modern form of English. It is my hope that those more qualified than myself in the fields of Physics, pantology and the like will stand back a second and consider what I have laid before them as a viable, though somewhat crude theory, and give the subject a second look from this new angle. If they would contribute their own fields of expertise to the subject in a honest and positive fashion, then it should develop to the point where the more critical points of it could be either proved or disproved on the basis of proper scientific principles, both in the laboratory and in the field. For everyone else, this is how the Bible says we came about, so feel free to check it out for yourselves!

The First Day.

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirt of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said “let there be light,”and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5, God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning- the first day.

Verse one indicates that there was a beginning. This beginning involved all the matter that makes up our universe. The entity that we identify as God claims responsibility for the creation of all the matter that exists in our universe. Now current scientific theory suggests that it all started with a big bang. This may or may not be the way that God did it, we cannot tell from the scripture alone. But the next verse does lean towards another method.

God obviously had plans for the earth right from early on as his attention in the form of his spirit was directed towards it. At this point in time the earth is described as a formless mass of mud that contained a predominant amount of water. The fact that it is described as formless is significant. Further on in the Old Testament the scriptures describe the sphere of the earth indicating a mass that was round. But here it was formless indicating that although there was a large enough mass of matter to form a planet there was no gravity to pull it into the shape of a sphere yet. In other words the constants and laws of the universe were still in the process of being designed and written. Hence I question if the big bang was the way it happened as that would mean that the universal constants would have to be set in motion from the moment of the beginning. While scripture indicates a slower more deliberate process.

The next two verses have to be looked at very carefully. Up to this point light did not exist. God claims to be the one that created and made light possible. In fact further on in scripture light seems to be Gods signature, indicating that its creation was considered a rather big deal. Ever since the invention of the first radio there has been debate regarding wether or not there is an either that acts as a conducting medium for radio waves or light waves, in fact to carry any form of electromagnetic radiation. The concept of an either falls in and out of vouge in scientific circles continuously. The indications from the creationist point of view is that it does exist and that it is tied up with gravity in some way, indicating that gravity pushes rather than pulls matter towards other matter. Just what the source of this first light was is not indicated but it was not from the sun. The sun was only set in place on the fourth day so as to replace this first form of light that had started to fade by then. Now it is interesting to note that astronomers have indicated that the outer reaches of the universe are blocked from view by what they term white noise. Could this be the last residue of this first original light.

The Genesis account then goes on to say that God made a clear separation between the light and the darkness. Now we tend to think of light as travelling in a straight line so that it permeates everywhere unless blocked by a solid object resulting in a shadow being cast. But here it is described as being separated by some hither to unknown mechanism. It is only in recent years that astronomers have become aware of dark matter. Your speculation is as good as mine but there are areas in this universe where light has no means of propagation. Hence we have dark areas, a clear separation between light and darkness. It is called night and day as those are terms that an uneducated man would understand. What else is God to call it anyway?

Now the last verse is also interesting. The time between the evening and the morning is understood by us to be the night time but in the Genesis account it is referred to as the first day. This should further indicate to us that the days referred to in the Genesis accounts are God’s days, not ours. From our perspective it would be better to just say that the first time period of unknown duration passed.

The Second Day.

6. And God said “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water”
7, So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
8, God called the expanse “sky” And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

The next few days are devoted to how God prepared the earth so that it could sustain life. In this second day an explanation is given on how our atmosphere was developed.

It should be noted here that at no time in the scriptures is the development of the earth considered unique or a one off event. Just take a look at the Lords Prayer, “Let thy Kingdom come, Let thy will be done, in earth, as it is in Heaven.”If God has a Kingdom, then he must have dominion over all the subjects that make up that kingdom. The implication is that this earth has been in rebellion against, or opposed to, Gods kingdom, ever since the fall of Adam. The Lords prayer is asking that this earth be brought back under the kingship, or will of God, like the rest of creation! So from a creationists point of view, the only thing unique about us is that we are currently in a state of rebellion against the creator, while the rest of creation is still in line with his will. A particularly unwise state to be in, considering the obvious power, that this entity we know of as God, must of necessity posses.

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand! By the second day gravity must have been put in place and the earth, under its own gravitational pull, consolidated itself into a sphere. Obviously the physical laws governing the specific gravity of the elements would also be in effect by this stage, so all the heaver elements would sink to the bottom with the lighter elements and liquids being near the surface. Hence we have a planet who’s entire surface area is covered by water. Obviously there would need to be some source of heat to ensure that the water was in a liquid state. The only cause of heat that I can think of here was that when the earth pulled itself together the friction of the event and the compression of the heaver elements in the core provided the energy necessary. To this day we still have a molten core through which an electric current of some form passes, giving us our magnetic field. Something that not all planets have.

Now the Geneses account says that God used the water to create the atmosphere. But this first atmosphere was a bit different from the one we have today. The account indicates that the upper atmosphere enveloped the planet with a layer of water, with the lower regions being occupied with the normal gasses that made up the planets atmosphere at that time. This layer of water in the upper atmosphere would be the perfect shield against radiation that was probably quite prolific in the universe during the time of its early formation. This also answers two questions, where all the water came from to make possible a flood as large as the one described by Noah and his Ark. Also why it never rained up to that point in our history. Obviously something has happened to our atmosphere to prevent it from retaining moisture as it did prior to Noah’s flood. Perhaps a temperature difference of some kind. Now our deserts just keep on growing!

The Third Day

9. And God said,”Let the waters under the sky be gathered in one place, and let dry ground appear.”And it was so.
10. God called the dry ground “land”.And the gathered waters he called, “seas”.And God saw that it was good.
11. Then God said,”Let the land produce vegetation: seed bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seeds according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13. And there was evening and there was morning - the third day.

As would be expected the earth pulled itself into a perfect sphere under its own weight with the denser matter settling to the bottom. As there was a great deal of water molecules present in the conglomeration of matter that went into the composition of the earth, it stands to reason that the earth would naturally be a water planet with a solid crust that made up the sea floor or ocean bed. However God decided that he was going to make this planet habitable for life that would also exist in a gaseous atmosphere as well as liquid water.

In order to achieve this he would have to rake up the solid matter from the ocean floor to form a mound of solid ground above the water level. Hence we have dry land and a misshapen planet that is no longer a perfect sphere. I have often seen exposed strata on the sides of cliffs and mountains. I see layers of quartz and granite in this strata but they are at crazy angles and often looped back over themselves or formed patterns like that found in crumpled paper. Now these are igneous rocks. They are supposed to have formed and solidified as the earth cooled down so as to form the crust of the planet. Why are they not horizontal and consistent in their layers? What I see is consistent with huge chunks of earth being displaced and shoved around. I am forced to conclude that the formation of dried land on our planet has to be the result of an event that took place in our distant past, or as the book of genesis says, an act of Devine intervention. Take your pick, but a satisfactory explanation is required here.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that solid land on this plant is the result of some outside action. That means that the law of decay will be in effect concerning it, as is the case with everything as it ages. That means that the dry land must gradually sink back into the sea from whence it came, albeit over an incredibly long period of time. Now it is interesting to note that in chapter 10, verse 25 it says, “Two sons were born to Eber, One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided: His brother was named Joktan.”Could this refer to the time that the continental drift first started as this first original land mass or super continent, that science refers to as “Gondwanaland” started to break up and drift apart, as it gradually sinks back into the sea.

Now to this point God had a planet, The planet had an atmosphere that provided protection from harmful background radiation. He had dry land, Lots of water, heat still emanating from the interior of the planet and a form of light emanating from a hither to unknown source. It was time to start creating life, and what better place than the bottom of the food chain. Hence he started with the vegetation. The fact that this vegetation came with its own seeds enabled it to be self perpetuating. Here light was converted into energy that could be consumed by higher life forms in order to sustain the life of those higher life forms. It would appear that microbial life is lumped together with the vegetation as the two are interdependent on each other.

This also brings us back to the story of which came first, the chicken or the egg! The soil needs to be prepared with the needed nutrients for vegetation to grow and the soil needs the decomposing vegetation in order to develop the required humerus that forms the nutrients that are needed to support vegetation. Hence we have one of the first impasses that can only be explained by intervention of a third party.

It is interesting to note that after each phase of the creation process, God would stand back and examen what he had made to see that it all functioned the way he intended. Also how much is accomplished in each day, or time period, can be taken as an indication of the complexity of each stage.

[Traveler]

The Fourth Day
14. And God said,”Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night , and let them serve as signs to mark the seasons and days and years.
15. And let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16. God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night . He also made the stars
17. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth
18. To govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19. And there was evening and there was morning - the fourth day.

We now come to the point where the universe is starting to settle down into the state that we see it as to day. The initial burst of light that permeated throughout the universe at the start of creation is now starting to fade away and another source of light now has to be found to sustain life on this planet we call earth.

It is interesting to note that there was no set period of day and night on the earth up to this point, which indicates that the original source of light that was used up till this time was of a form that pervaded everywhere. We can also make the assumption that a source of heat was also needed as the surface of the planet would have started to cool down by this time. Obviously it was at this point in time that the earth started to experience what we now have come to understand as our regular day and night. Therefor we are forced to the conclusion that the six days of creation has to refer to some other form of time duration that we are not presently aware of as yet. Call it Gods days, which indicates that this simple explanation is being recited from his perspective, not ours.

It is also at this time that the rhythms or cycles of nature was set up. Not just between day and night but also between winter and summer. The sun is obviously the greater light and the moon is the lesser. We now know that the moon is older than the earth with its own distinct geology. It also keeps the earth stable in space so that the planet does not start to tumble but swings back and forth, no further than 23 and a half degrees, thus giving us our seasons. Once again, how the binary system of the earth and moon came to be, points to intelligent design and outside interference. After all the two bodies are not really related and the results of their relationship indicates prior planning.

The sun was probably in the process of forming for quite some time before this event, basically pulling in all the hydrogen atoms from the surrounding space with its gravitational field. It was only now of a high enough density to ignite in its nucleolar reactions. Likewise all the other stars in the universe were also going through the same process. Only now that you had a regular day and night due to the earths rotation, the other stars became visible during the dark periods of the nights. As the earth was rotating around the sun so every night a different part of the sky would be visible, which enables us to tell when the earth has completed a complete cycle around the sun or one solar year as viewed from our perspective.

According to Biblical prophecy this rhythm will remain stable and in place until the last days when there will be a disruption that will cause the earth to rock to and fro like a drunkard. Until that time we can rely on a regular stability between the seasons.

The Fith Day

20. And God said,”Let the waters team with living creatures and let birds fly across the expanse of the sky.”
21. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teams .according to their kinds. And every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the waters in the sea, and let the birds increase on the earth.
23. And there was evening and there was morning - the fifth day.

Now this also follows a logical path. Vegetation had been seeded on the dry land which of course was spreading at a slow but steady rate. In turn it would be modifying the atmosphere in the form of oxygen production. All the dead leaves etc that fall to the ground would of course break down into humerus that would be used to prepare the soil to accept more vegetation.

The water however has no self cleaning mechanism. What erodes off the land into the sea will just sit there, slowly degenerating into sludge. Hence the need to create life in the sea, starting with the crustaceans etc, which are basically the bottom feeders or natures little cleaners if you will. It is also interesting to note that every creature would reproduce after its own kind. There was no cross breading between species and this trait remains with us to this day.

It is also indicated that only a small but viable sample of each creature was created and then they were left to breed on there own until the populations grew to the point where they spread out across the oceans. No doubt the predators were introduced later so as to control the numbers resulting in natures checks and balances. This also explains why life just seems to explode into the fossil record in its fully developed form.

On dry land there was a need to speed up the propagation or spread of the vegetation. As the vegetation had only spread out to a limited extent from its point of origin, it was only able to provided food for a limited amount of animal life, hence the creation of bird life first. Small consumers while far travellers. The bird eats the fruit then poops out the seed far from the fruit tree. Hence the process of spreading seeds was greatly speeded up and natural obstacles such as mountain ranges was overcome. The further the natural vegetation spreads, the greater the likely range of the bird life. A rather good example of a symbiotic relationship.

Again the earth would be left for a time, until it was ready fo the next step in its development.

The Sixth Day

24. And God said, “ Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind: Livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so
25. God made the wild animals according to there kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26. Then God said, “ Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air. Over the livestock. Over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
28. God blessed them and said to them. “ Be fruitful and increase in number: fill the earth and subdue it, Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29. Then God said,”I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30. And to all the beast of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning - The sixth day.

Now we come to the last day, where all that which we consider to be the higher life forms are created. With humans being the very last on the list. It is interesting to note that at this point in time all the creatures, including man, was supposed to be vegetarian in nature. Obviously the eating of meat only came later.

There is however one very interesting point to the story. It has to do with Gods method of operation in the creation process, as far as living creatures are concerned. In Chapter 2 verse 21 it says.

21. So God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep: and while he was sleeping, he took one of the mans ribs, and closed up the place with flesh.
22. Then the lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Now, in modern science we would know this as cloning. God already had a man that was functioning as he wanted. In effect he already had a human stencil, why create the female of the species right from scratch. All he did was to take the genetic code that was already established and tweak it so as to grow into the female version of the same species. Now if he did that here it is quite probable that he used the same method while developing all the other species.

Look at all the different antelope. They all have 4 hooves, a set of horns and a tail. But all are separate species that do not interbreed with each other. The relationship between them is also quite apparent, but they are at the same time genetically distinct and separate. In all probability, what happened was that God had already developed the basic stencil of the early antelope from scratch. He then tweaked, or modified it to form the next antelope and then modified that to form the next and so on and so forth. This would explain why each separate species of animal just appears in the fossil record in its fully developed form, with no gradual evolution from one form to the next to be found.

This would explain why it would appear that there must have been a common ancestor that each species evolved from. If this hypothesis is correct, then there was a common ancestor all right, but there was no evolution, there was a process of cloning with modifications as each species was modified to form the next. Hence the reason that we have failed to find the evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Its just not there because it never happened.

[New Wine]

What do you think about the Cambrian explosion of life?


www.discovery.org/a/1772
This article appears in the peer-reviewed* volume Darwinism, Design, and Public Education published with Michigan State University Press. In “The Cambrian Explosion,” Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien show that the pattern of fossil appearance in the Cambrian period contradicts the predictions or empirical expectations of neo-Darwinism and other materialistic theories of evolution. They argue that the fossil record displays several features—a hierarchical top-down pattern of appearance, the morphological isolation of disparate body plans, and a discontinuous increase in information content—that are strongly reminiscent of the pattern of evidence found in the history of human technology. Thus, they conclude that intelligent design provides a better, more causally adequate, explanation of the origin of the novel animal forms present in the Cambrian explosion.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_034_02.html
The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.

[Traveler]

For those that want to know what psalm 11;3 says

I put my trust in Jehovah; how can you say to me, Flee like a bird to the mountains;
Psa 11:2 for lo, the wicked bend their bow; they make ready their arrow on the string, so that they may secretly shoot at the upright in heart.
Psa 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Psa 11:4 Jehovah is in His holy temple; Jehovah's throne is in Heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids examine the children of men.
Psa 11:5 Jehovah tries the righteous; but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence,
Psa 11:6 On the wicked He shall rain snares, fire and brimstone; and a horrible tempest shall be the portion of their cup.
Psa 11:7 For the righteous Jehovah loves righteousness; His face looks on the upright.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Well the cartoons show where you get your mindset from.

But it is correct in showing where the foundations are and what has to be destroyed from the Humanist point of view.

The cartoons came from AIG. If you didn't catch that part.

Most creationists aren't after just the truth. There is more. At least the AIG guy was honest enough to admit it.

Originally Posted by Traveler

The Theory of Special Creation.

The first thing that goes through anybodies mind when they read this tittle is, “Oh no, its those people that believe that the world was created in six days”. Well, if the Bible account is to be taken literally then it soon becomes quite obvious that the fires of the sun were only ignited on the fourth day, so how could there have existed three days prior to this event. Unless of course the days referred to someone else’s days or periods of time!

I was considering giving you POS rep for this.

But sadly, you had to start with politics in science again. It is physical evidence that grants the theory of evolution its acceptance in the scientific community.

And, the theory has been CHANGED in MANY ways due to new findings, so it's not like they are just keeping some dogma.



Anyway, to my atheist, agnostic, and science minded friends, stop reading my post if you don't want to be disillusioned with me, lol. In what follows I am arguing FOR THE EXISTENCE of God, but in such a way that is compatible with science.




Even though I will argue that science is correct, you can take the rest of my post as a seriously. So don't just skip over it. I AM accepting God's existence as far as this post goes.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the explanation that was given in the book of Genesis was a very simplified account meant for a person that did not poses the education that we take for granted to day. If a five year old asked an electronics engineer how a television worked do you think that the engineer would go into all the mathematical details of how a resonant circuit worked and how to tune the receiver so that it would resonate with the incoming carrier wave. Together with all the calculations needed to bias all the transistors in the amplification circuits? Of course not! The child would not understand what he was talking about. Likewise the explanation in the account of Genesis is a very simplified version of a very complex subject.

Again! At this point I am still thinking of pos repping you. THIS is perfectly reasonable to ME. I have no problem with this, and I have made THIS VERY ARGUMENT here on the forums.

However, even from this extremely simplified explanation of the creation account, a very thought provoking and indeed, rational picture can be put together that does correspond with the fossil record and new discoveries in other branches of the sciences.

Still with you.

As I am a product of the modern education system, I am well versed in Darwin’s theory of Evolution. You have to be in order to graduate from high school. But if you do any research on the subject you will eventually come across writings by the creationists that pull Darwin’s theory to pieces and rightly so, as it is full of holes and assumptions that are used to fill in all the blanks.

And here is where you miss the mark. There are no serious holes in the theory. There are some loose ends, some debate about particulars, but overall, the theory matches the evidence.

At the very least the theory must match the fossil record!

Which it does to an astonishing degree.

The conclusion that one inevitably comes to is that the question regarding the origin of the species should have been left as an open question, while awaiting the gathering of further data. But even in scientific circles there is the inevitable politics involving the desired direction of research based on funding, so the evolution agenda is pushed to the detriment of all others.

Unfortunately, here you appear to be deliberately ignoring the data or pretending it doesn't exist. It is very VERY improbable that some form of evolution by natural selection does not occur. The cause? That could be God, who knows. But it is very certain that it does and has happened. Few things are more probable in science.

However, throughout this entire debunkel, I have yet to come across a single article that takes the first chapter of Genesis, so as to scrutinize it in such a way as to form a solid and coherent theory that will explain the origin of the species. Therefore I have decided to do it myself. I have used the Revised International Version of the Bible as this is the most widely used these days and it basically says exactly the same as the King James that I normally use. Only in a more modern form of English. It is my hope that those more qualified than myself in the fields of Physics, pantology and the like will stand back a second and consider what I have laid before them as a viable, though somewhat crude theory, and give the subject a second look from this new angle. If they would contribute their own fields of expertise to the subject in a honest and positive fashion, then it should develop to the point where the more critical points of it could be either proved or disproved on the basis of proper scientific principles, both in the laboratory and in the field.

http://energion.com/rpp/theistic_evo...hp#Objection_1

http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpres...-genesis-1-11/

You're not likely to find a physical science examination of Genesis, since physical science is only concerned with mechanical things. But you find plenty of scientists, evolutionists, etc, examining Genesis, many of whom are Christians who accept some form of Old Earth Creationism or Old Earth Theistic Evolution.

For everyone else, this is how the Bible says we came about, so feel free to check it out for yourselves!

Indeed, for the Christian, it comes down to how you interpret.

Verse one indicates that there was a beginning. This beginning involved all the matter that makes up our universe. The entity that we identify as God claims responsibility for the creation of all the matter that exists in our universe. Now current scientific theory suggests that it all started with a big bang. This may or may not be the way that God did it, we cannot tell from the scripture alone.

Yes. So far I'm okay with this.

But the next verse does lean towards another method.

Does it?

God obviously had plans for the earth right from early on as his attention in the form of his spirit was directed towards it. At this point in time the earth is described as a formless mass of mud that contained a predominant amount of water. The fact that it is described as formless is significant. Further on in the Old Testament the scriptures describe the sphere of the earth indicating a mass that was round. But here it was formless indicating that although there was a large enough mass of matter to form a planet there was no gravity to pull it into the shape of a sphere yet.

According to cosmological physics, there was a point when Earth, and indeed every planet, was a "shapeless" mass orbiting the sun. Eventually, through gravitation, clusters formed into near-spheres.

So even the "void and formless" description in Genesis is compatible with modern science.



God pulling the strings in some way, whether through rigging it all before the beginning or doing it in real time, from behind the scenes. That's all you have to believe to unify your religion and science.

In other words the constants and laws of the universe were still in the process of being designed and written. Hence I question if the big bang was the way it happened as that would mean that the universal constants would have to be set in motion from the moment of the beginning. While scripture indicates a slower more deliberate process.

Do not confuse the creation of Earth with the creation of the universe. As you said, the scripture was not intended to be a technical writing. It was written for "baby" humans.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

There are some Jews who read the first part as this:

"At the time when God was creating the Heavens and the Earth."

Rather than this:

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."


Or that seems to be an acceptable translation.


Because if you take the Americanized translation of the Bible and compare it to how some Hebrew reading Jews translate it, you get stories different enough that some consideration is needed.

Which frankly is a significant difference in light of the fact that the former is much more compatible with what modern Cosmology says about the origins of the universe and solar system.

The next two verses have to be looked at very carefully. Up to this point light did not exist. God claims to be the one that created and made light possible. In fact further on in scripture light seems to be Gods signature, indicating that its creation was considered a rather big deal.

Now, what about this:
Using your translation, what about if this:

When it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The heavens and the earth.


What are the heavens? Obviously within that word is included the universe itself! One does not talk about "the heavens" without referencing the stars! The stars are a part of "the heavens."

So,

1) If that is so, notice that heavens comes before earth in the sentence.

2) What if that statement is just a generic statement like this:

"In the beginning God created the UNIVERSE" where universe naturally implies the earth too, but earth is mentioned in this sentence because earth was to have a special plan in his creation.



If you take it like that, then you needn't assuming that the creation of light came after the creation of earth.

This is clearly very important, since all the cosmological evidence available to science suggest the order was this:

1- Universe
2- Light
3- Earth

In fact, if you want to take the word "light" to be a more figurative thing, you could read the start of Genesis like this:

Originally Posted by CT's Annotated Scientific Bible

In the beginning God created the Universe and (then eventually) the earth

And at one point the earth (and all planets) were void and formless, and the expanse of the deep (SPACE!) was covered in darkness, and the Spirit of God hovered over (the subatomic particles that would eventually make) water.

God, at one point, said, "Let there be light!" And there was light (first from heat, then from early protostars, etc)

From there, everything is figurative. God moves from cosmological creation to Earth creation, but the description found is poetic.

Ever since the invention of the first radio there has been debate regarding wether or not there is an either that acts as a conducting medium for radio waves or light waves, in fact to carry any form of electromagnetic radiation. The concept of an either falls in and out of vouge in scientific circles continuously. The indications from the creationist point of view is that it does exist and that it is tied up with gravity in some way, indicating that gravity pushes rather than pulls matter towards other matter.

There is no ether, or if there is, there is no way to detect it.

Just what the source of this first light was is not indicated but it was not from the sun. The sun was only set in place on the fourth day so as to replace this first form of light that had started to fade by then. Now it is interesting to note that astronomers have indicated that the outer reaches of the universe are blocked from view by what they term white noise. Could this be the last residue of this first original light.

YES! Yes it is, if one were to accept science and Christianity.

The Genesis account then goes on to say that God made a clear separation between the light and the darkness. Now we tend to think of light as travelling in a straight line so that it permeates everywhere unless blocked by a solid object resulting in a shadow being cast. But here it is described as being separated by some hither to unknown mechanism. It is only in recent years that astronomers have become aware of dark matter. Your speculation is as good as mine but there are areas in this universe where light has no means of propagation. Hence we have dark areas, a clear separation between light and darkness. It is called night and day as those are terms that an uneducated man would understand. What else is God to call it anyway?

Interesting speculation. But I believe it is important to mention that "light" as we call it is just a small section of the electromagnetic spectrum, but in reality there is nothing about "light" that makes it any different from any other electromagnetic waves except for the fact that we humans can see it.

Even among humans, some wavelengths will be considered "light" by one person (because they are visible) and ultraviolet by another.

In essence, microwaves and visible "light" are the same thing. Just different frequencies.




This is important to the discussion because "Let there be light" could simply reference electromagnetic radiation. What makes this even MORE interesting is this:


Modern science suggests that there was a point when the nuclear strong force, the nuclear weak force, and the electromagnetic force were ONE, and WERE SEPARATED.


Chew on that one. Could "Let there be light" be describing when God separated the electromagnetic force from the other forces, presumably making light as we know it possible?

Now the last verse is also interesting. The time between the evening and the morning is understood by us to be the night time but in the Genesis account it is referred to as the first day. This should further indicate to us that the days referred to in the Genesis accounts are God’s days, not ours. From our perspective it would be better to just say that the first time period of unknown duration passed.

As I posted earlier, there are some Hebrew speaking people who translate the word used in Genesis as "a time."

The next few days are devoted to how God prepared the earth so that it could sustain life. In this second day an explanation is given on how our atmosphere was developed.

It should be noted here that at no time in the scriptures is the development of the earth considered unique or a one off event. Just take a look at the Lords Prayer, “Let thy Kingdom come, Let thy will be done, in earth, as it is in Heaven.”If God has a Kingdom, then he must have dominion over all the subjects that make up that kingdom. The implication is that this earth has been in rebellion against, or opposed to, Gods kingdom, ever since the fall of Adam. The Lords prayer is asking that this earth be brought back under the kingship, or will of God, like the rest of creation! So from a creationists point of view, the only thing unique about us is that we are currently in a state of rebellion against the creator, while the rest of creation is still in line with his will. A particularly unwise state to be in, considering the obvious power, that this entity we know of as God, must of necessity posses.

Makes sense.

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand! By the second day gravity must have been put in place and the earth, under its own gravitational pull, consolidated itself into a sphere. Obviously the physical laws governing the specific gravity of the elements would also be in effect by this stage, so all the heaver elements would sink to the bottom with the lighter elements and liquids being near the surface. Hence we have a planet who’s entire surface area is covered by water. Obviously there would need to be some source of heat to ensure that the water was in a liquid state. The only cause of heat that I can think of here was that when the earth pulled itself together the friction of the event and the compression of the heaver elements in the core provided the energy necessary. To this day we still have a molten core through which an electric current of some form passes, giving us our magnetic field. Something that not all planets have.

This makes sense too, although I would assume that gravitation was there from NEAR the beginning.

*another interesting science thing to consider:

Scientists currently speculate (based on extrapolations of current theory and symmetry) that at one point gravitation was ALSO combined with the other forces, and was the first to separate. Other than the fact that this presumably happened long LONG before the earth was created, it does add an interesting side to your account.

Now the Geneses account says that God used the water to create the atmosphere. But this first atmosphere was a bit different from the one we have today. The account indicates that the upper atmosphere enveloped the planet with a layer of water, with the lower regions being occupied with the normal gasses that made up the planets atmosphere at that time. This layer of water in the upper atmosphere would be the perfect shield against radiation that was probably quite prolific in the universe during the time of its early formation. This also answers two questions, where all the water came from to make possible a flood as large as the one described by Noah and his Ark. Also why it never rained up to that point in our history. Obviously something has happened to our atmosphere to prevent it from retaining moisture as it did prior to Noah’s flood. Perhaps a temperature difference of some kind. Now our deserts just keep on growing!

This is the part where I must diverge from your model.

Why can't it just be that the elements that would eventually form water were orbiting the semi-formless mass, along with the elements that would eventually form the rock, and then as gravitation pulled the denser objects together first, some of the water eventually solidified and formed oceans (heated by friction), while some of it remained in orbit, eventually forming the atmosphere?

That or ice on the rocks eventually melted as the rocks were pulled together by gravitation.

As would be expected the earth pulled itself into a perfect sphere under its own weight with the denser matter settling to the bottom. As there was a great deal of water molecules present in the conglomeration of matter that went into the composition of the earth, it stands to reason that the earth would naturally be a water planet with a solid crust that made up the sea floor or ocean bed. However God decided that he was going to make this planet habitable for life that would also exist in a gaseous atmosphere as well as liquid water.

Yes, now I can return to the page. This makes sense.

In order to achieve this he would have to rake up the solid matter from the ocean floor to form a mound of solid ground above the water level. Hence we have dry land and a misshapen planet that is no longer a perfect sphere. I have often seen exposed strata on the sides of cliffs and mountains. I see layers of quartz and granite in this strata but they are at crazy angles and often looped back over themselves or formed patterns like that found in crumpled paper. Now these are igneous rocks. They are supposed to have formed and solidified as the earth cooled down so as to form the crust of the planet. Why are they not horizontal and consistent in their layers? What I see is consistent with huge chunks of earth being displaced and shoved around. I am forced to conclude that the formation of dried land on our planet has to be the result of an event that took place in our distant past, or as the book of genesis says, an act of Devine intervention. Take your pick, but a satisfactory explanation is required here.

That could be. It could also be that the Divine intervention was God being smart enough to create a planet with the right kind of seismic activity.

But some divine intervention is fine.

Scientifically my problem is that with creationists, divine intervention is applied to each and every creature, which is ludicrous because then you end up with God creating a bunch of mistakes, then modifying them, then changing his mind, then modifying them, then changing his mind, then modifying them, etc (as per fossil record) millions of times.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that solid land on this plant is the result of some outside action. That means that the law of decay will be in effect concerning it, as is the case with everything as it ages. That means that the dry land must gradually sink back into the sea from whence it came, albeit over an incredibly long period of time. Now it is interesting to note that in chapter 10, verse 25 it says, “Two sons were born to Eber, One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided: His brother was named Joktan.”Could this refer to the time that the continental drift first started as this first original land mass or super continent, that science refers to as “Gondwanaland” started to break up and drift apart, as it gradually sinks back into the sea.

I doubt it, since the physical evidence suggests strongly that humans weren't around then.

Although, maybe God intervened again, perhaps with some sort of meteorite that caused some seismic activity? (after all, we are hit by them all the time)

Now to this point God had a planet, The planet had an atmosphere that provided protection from harmful background radiation. He had dry land, Lots of water, heat still emanating from the interior of the planet and a form of light emanating from a hither to unknown source. It was time to start creating life, and what better place than the bottom of the food chain. Hence he started with the vegetation. The fact that this vegetation came with its own seeds enabled it to be self perpetuating. Here light was converted into energy that could be consumed by higher life forms in order to sustain the life of those higher life forms. It would appear that microbial life is lumped together with the vegetation as the two are interdependent on each other.

I would expect that microorganisms would be first, yes. If you decided to accept that photosynthesizing microbes count as plants, you are good.

FYI, modern science suggests that the first photosynthesis took place a good 2 billion years ago, which of course is near the beginning of life.

This also brings us back to the story of which came first, the chicken or the egg! The soil needs to be prepared with the needed nutrients for vegetation to grow and the soil needs the decomposing vegetation in order to develop the required humerus that forms the nutrients that are needed to support vegetation. Hence we have one of the first impasses that can only be explained by intervention of a third party.

OR, God intervened WITH his creation of microorganisms, which possibly paved the way.

It is interesting to note that after each phase of the creation process, God would stand back and examen what he had made to see that it all functioned the way he intended. Also how much is accomplished in each day, or time period, can be taken as an indication of the complexity of each stage.

Okay, overall I like where you went with this.

I have some specific disagreements, as to be expected, but you not only put a lot of work into this, you came with a fairly open mind.


Good stuff Traveler.


Hopefully I can find the time to read the other posts. But one thing is certain:

If your religion is true, it MUST agree with the physical evidence. You can't go denying physical evidence because it appears to contradict your view. If your religion is right, then what "happened" must be the same from both world views - science and religious. It is also probable that both descriptions would superficially look quite different. But if your religion is true, the two must ultimately tell the same story, even if told in such a way that they only mesh on the major details. As you put it, you're not going to tell a child about Maxwell's equations when telling them how a light switch works.

[Traveler]

Thank you very much for at least taking the time to critic this in a scholarly fashion. At least in this manner the debate is constructive and some lasting value can be derived from it.

But there is one very important point that I believe everyone needs to be made aware of and take into consideration.

When looking at information that has been gathered and known to be factual. The perspective from which it is viewed plays a big part in how it is interpreted and its place found in the bigger picture.

Modern science assumes no God so everything has to be a result of random chance with everything remaining in motion without grinding to a piled up halt through to our day. A series of events that always managed to turn out kind of all right.

Creation assumes an intelligent power at work so the question is always what did God do why did the designer do it this way. What are the laws set in place, how do they work and how do we use them.

As you can see the angle from which the subject is viewed plays a big part in how the information is interpreted. Both sides have to accept that what is there is actually there but the why it is there is what changes.

[DontBeAfraid]

Modern science assumes no God

Incorrect. Science doesnt assume anything one way or the other. Thus far there has been no evidence found for something supernatural, and as science is the study of what is natural everything that can be studied scientifically will be classified as natural.

Creation assumes an intelligent power at work so the question is always what did God do why did the designer do it this way. What are the laws set in place, how do they work and how do we use them.

Actually, creationists look for "miracles" which are things that go AGAINST the laws that are in place. Science studies the laws and how we can use them. Dont confuse this.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Actually, creationists look for "miracles" which are things that go AGAINST the laws that are in place. Science studies the laws and how we can use them. Dont confuse this.

Not quite the right definition.

Creationists will not go out to look for miracles but we will acknowledge their existence.

The definition of a miracle is an event that takes place that defies the natural laws. In effect it has to be accomplished by an entity that is able to manipulate or momentarily rewrite the natural laws in order to achieve specific objectives that interrupts the natural course of events.

[lycanox]

Than you are not doing science.

Science may never acknowledge an event as supernatural, a miracle or an act of god.
Unless Concrete evidence shows up that confirms the existence of god or the supernatural world. Which sofar has never been found.
Untill than the event is simply classed as momentarily unexplained.

What you are are doing is picking event that cannot be explained by science yet. And use those to support your claim. Without displaying any evidence for gods existence.

[Goldmoon]

We won't be able to talk about this for long. Soon everyone will be on their own, and have to decide about God for themselves. May everyone be safe.

As for this fish attempt of Cartesian's, soon it won't even matter. When these dreadful days come, people won't have time to prove themselves right or wrong. They will be deciding everything for themselves.