Here is a interesting thought

[Michael Schubert]

That is the beautiful thing about that theory. Evolution can say what ever it wants to say, and it will still fit with in the confines of a literal biblical creation account.

No, the literal biblical creation account is not based on any primary research. The ancient writers made the creation account entirely up from the top of their heads. They did not witness God creating anything. There is nothing at all scientific about creationism.

Honestly, what do you know about evolution?

---

Actually it does not. The Genesis account only give a 'creation pov' from the perspective of the Eden Nothing outside the Garden is meantioned to any great detail. Again my theory say evolution could have taken any course as currently understand it, and that does not change what happened in the garden. For nothing in the evolution account of orgins can account for what happened in Eden.

Paleontologists and scientists dug up fossils dating back to millions of years, analyzed them and assembled them into family trees based on their similar biological traits. The youngest fossils were buried higher up in the earth, and the older fossils were buried deeper down in the earth.

So?
Maybe you should read (not skim) what I wrote in my creation/evolution thread again. There is no legitimate 'evolution' arguement that can not be assimliated by the creation account.

Vegetation was also created by humans during the Agricultural Revolution (not by God), which continues to this day.

Humans do not create they produce.

God Created Adam. Meaning He took essentially nothing and made Man.
From Adam God Produced Eve. Meaning He took apart of something that was existing and made something like the orginal. (This is what man does)

The "creation account" of Genesis states God created man out of dust, and Eve out of Adam's rib. You honestly believe that? It is biologically impossible to create a human woman out of a rib. It is also biologically impossible for a virgin woman to give birth to a child. You're probably saying "well, God is all knowing, so only God can do something like that". You can't prove God exists. Human beings (homo sapiens) evolved from Australopithecines, Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus; they were not created by God in the beginning the way they look today. It also says God created vegetation over the course of six days. Well, it also says humans tended to the vegetation right away, when in fact people didn't start "producing" vegetation until the Ag revolution, which continues to this day.

The theory of evolution is the antithesis of Genesis's creation account.

---

Again my theory say evolution could have taken any course as currently understand it, and that does not change what happened in the garden. For nothing in the evolution account of orgins can account for what happened in Eden.

So, where is your evidence that Genesis is not just a made-up fantasy story?

[Drich]

No, the literal biblical creation account is not based on any primary research. The ancient writers made the creation account entirely up from the top of their heads. They did not witness God creating anything.

So you do have 'proof' to back this statement as worded do you not? or is this what faith based belief looks like in your life?

There is nothing at all scientific about creationism.

How could you possiably know. One of Science's key principles is observation. Without it, it becomes a buch of egg head guessing or playing a game of "what if."

Honestly, what do you know about evolution?

I know/knew enough to shut down the last evolution thread that stated the the stegasaurous was evidence or proof that creation was not possiable. I think just about all the regulars rang in on that one.

---

Actually it does not. The Genesis account only give a 'creation pov' from the perspective of the Eden Nothing outside the Garden is meantioned to any great detail. Again my theory say evolution could have taken any course as currently understand it, and that does not change what happened in the garden. For nothing in the evolution account of orgins can account for what happened in Eden.

So?
Maybe you should read (not skim) what I wrote in my creation/evolution thread again. There is no legitimate 'evolution' arguement that can not be assimliated by the creation account.

Humans do not create they produce.

God Created Adam. Meaning He took essentially nothing and made Man.
From Adam God Produced Eve. Meaning He took apart of something that was existing and made something like the orginal. (This is what man does)

The "creation account" of Genesis states God created man out of dust, and Eve out of Adam's rib. You honestly believe that? It is biologically impossible to create a human woman out of a rib. It is also biologically impossible for a virgin woman to give birth to a child. You're probably saying "well, God is all knowing, so only God can do something like that". You can't prove God exists. Human beings (homo sapiens) evolved from Australopithecines, Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus; they were not created by God in the beginning the way they look today. It also says God created vegetation over the course of six days. Well, it also says humans tended to the vegetation right away, when in fact people didn't start "producing" vegetation until the Ag revolution, which continues to this day.

The theory of evolution is the antithesis of Genesis's creation account.

Red Herring. The subject being discussed is about man's ablity to create from nothing.

[Michael Schubert]

So you do have 'proof' to back this statement as worded do you not? or is this what faith based belief looks like in your life?

There is nothing at all scientific about creationism.

How could you possiably know. One of Science's key principles is observation. Without it, it becomes a buch of egg head guessing or playing a game of "what if."

Honestly, what do you know about evolution?

I know/knew enough to shut down the last evolution thread that stated the the stegasaurous was evidence or proof that creation was not possiable. I think just about all the regulars rang in on that one.

Red Herring. The subject being discussed is about man's ablity to create from nothing.

Yes, science's key principle is observation, and there is no evidence to date of an organism that was created by an intelligent mind. All gods are accepted on faith. Creationism says a diety jumped out of nowhere and POOF it all appeared, which is unscientific and ludicrous. Science cannot prove anything about the supernatural, and creationism (like Scientology) is a global scam.

In regards to a human's ability to create from nothing, yes, humans cannot create anything from nothing. But it sounds like you are making that same fallacious argument the creationists make: You say "this looks like creation, therefore it had to have a creator." We look at something like a painting, and we know through evidence that it was created by an intelligent mind. We look at a tree or a plant, and we know through evidence that they are naturally occurring.

The stegosaurus is evidence that creation is not possible? That is very abstruse. There is no evidence that any dinosaur was created by an intelligent mind. All the dinosaurs evolved, just like Homo Sapiens did.

[Faith No More]

This thread is stretching the words "interesting" and "thought" into farce territory.

Just thought I'd quote this, because it's still as true as it ever was.

[Drich]

Yes, science's key principle is observation, and there is no evidence to date of an organism that was created by an intelligent mind.

If there were then how would we recognise it?

All gods are accepted on faith.

noope.

In regards to a human's ability to create from nothing, yes, humans cannot create anything from nothing. But it sounds like you are making that same fallacious argument the creationists make: You say "this looks like creation, therefore it had to have a creator."

show me where I made that claim.

We look at something like a painting, and we know through evidence that it was created by an intelligent mind. We look at a tree or a plant, and we know through evidence that they are naturally occurring.

because why??? someone smarter than you said that what he believes? If they are naturally occouring then why haven't we found any on any of the moons or planets we have studied?

The stegosaurus is evidence that creation is not possible? That is very abstruse. There is no evidence that any dinosaur was created by an intelligent mind. All the dinosaurs evolved, just like Homo Sapiens did.

Ah, no. I pointed out that science does not even know what a stegasaurus as with most dinosaurs look like nor how they appeared when they lived (as we see them repersented in books and on display all over the world.) let alone can accuratly tell us behaivorial habbits and the time frame in which they lived.

There are less than dozen "complete" found intact examples of all 'thunder lizards.' most complete examples are very small. All the big stuff were compliation orginally made as long ago as 250 years and made from several dozen dig sites. The latest stegasaurus if I remember correctly was only made from about 40 different dig sites from all over the world. The 1st one would found in the mid 1800 and that one was compiled from about 80 different dig sites, and every since then every single stegasaurus is modeled after that first one. I guess that is why there are only a hand full of examples.

If your interested in references to support what I've said here I list out my arguement fully here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-19254-pa...tegasaurus

start at page 18

[Michael Schubert]

Yes, science's key principle is observation, and there is no evidence to date of an organism that was created by an intelligent mind.

If there were then how would we recognise it?

That burden of proof is on you. No one has proved that to anyone so far. You are the one asserting that there is a God.

If there are no ways of proving that an intelligent mind made an organism at this time, then your argument at this time is invalid.

---

All gods are accepted on faith.

noope.

All gods are indeed accepted on faith. That is common knowledge that everyone knows. Faith is something you hold independent of evidence, and until you or anyone else can prove a supreme being exists, he/she/it/they must be accepted on faith.

---

We look at something like a painting, and we know through evidence that it was created by an intelligent mind. We look at a tree or a plant, and we know through evidence that they are naturally occurring.

because why??? someone smarter than you said that what he believes? If they are naturally occouring then why haven't we found any on any of the moons or planets we have studied?

Do you have any examples of a tree that was made by an intelligent mind? Do you have any examples of a painting that was naturally occurring? The earth and the moon are completely different planets, and we have no evidence to date based on the research anyone has done of plant life or intelligent life on it.

Palentologists have found many, many dinosaur bones, and we know what they looked liked because of their fossils' shapes. All you have to do is go to a museum to see this. We know what the stegosaurus, the triceratops, they tyrannosaurus rex, and many, many others looked like as well.