Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So if you adopt any literal reading Genesis 1 you do so at the cost of making it possible for day and night to occur without the sun... and that's just absurd.

I can't think of anything more absurd than Richard Dawkins expressing his belief that aliens could be the source of life on earth. Okay...so reject the God of the Bible, and credit all the work of His hands to aliens. Sounds like real science to me.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I can't think of anything more absurd than Richard Dawkins expressing his belief that aliens could be the source of life on earth. Okay...so reject the God of the Bible, and credit all the work of His hands to aliens. Sounds like real science to me.

Aliens is quite an odd word when it comes to science. Simple single cell organisms from outerspace might very well explain life on earth better than most other life from nothing theories. The usefulness of such a theory is that the conditions in outerspace are numerious and often very different than the conditions that were present on earth so it gives more possibilites for how life could have arose from nonlife.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Aliens is quite an odd word when it comes to science. Simple single cell organisms from outerspace might very well explain life on earth better than most other life from nothing theories. The usefulness of such a theory is that the conditions in outerspace are numerious and often very different than the conditions that were present on earth so it gives more possibilites for how life could have arose from nonlife.

So are Allens

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Aliens is quite an odd word when it comes to science. Simple single cell organisms from outerspace might very well explain life on earth better than most other life from nothing theories.

I remember signing on to my email about a year or so again and on AOL there was a "cover story" that scientist may perhaps have found a planet with the conditions for life. My curiosity got me so I clicked the link and there was this long story about so many thousands or hundreds of thousands of light years away (can't remember, but it was so far away that it would take over 150 years of straight space travel at the 186,000 miles per second to get there). Anyway as I continued reading through the article it defined life, not as intelligent life, but that the planet may possibly have the conditions for bacteria to exists, which the article claimed would be less complex that "shower mold". I was sitting there thinking "really? They're excited about that? That's the best they can do, maybe possibly shower millions and millions of miles away?

And yet with some would actually consider that life came on earth a viable alternative to creation by an all wise God? Really how does someone respond to that? Its like trying to talk rationally to someone who brain is fried on drugs. A person like that has willingly suppressed the truth and bought into self delusion. Professing themselves to be wise they have become fools. Such is the "scientific community" who reject all things relating to God. They are considered the "wise" of the day as the ancient Greek philosophers were the "wise" of their day, but history will reveal their foolishness to all, as will eternity, when all these things will be laid bare for all to see and understand.
The question of aliens and other origins speculation only has merit while we live this life, in death it will be obvious to all that in fact there is a God, and in fact we are accountable to Him. So what if some do not believe, does their unbelief change the truth of God?

Originally Posted by jfrog

The usefulness of such a theory is that the conditions in outerspace are numerious and often very different than the conditions that were present on earth so it gives more possibilites for how life could have arose from nonlife.

Its a useless theory.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I remember signing on to my email about a year or so again and on AOL there was a "cover story" that scientist may perhaps have found a planet with the conditions for life. My curiosity got me so I clicked the link and there was this long story about so many thousands or hundreds of thousands of light years away (can't remember, but it was so far away that it would take over 150 years of straight space travel at the 186,000 miles per second to get there). Anyway as I continued reading through the article it defined life, not as intelligent life, but that the planet may possibly have the conditions for bacteria to exists, which the article claimed would be less complex that "shower mold". I was sitting there thinking "really? They're excited about that? That's the best they can do, maybe possibly shower millions and millions of miles away?

And yet with some would actually consider that life came on earth a viable alternative to creation by an all wise God? Really how does someone respond to that? Its like trying to talk rationally to someone who brain is fried on drugs. A person like that has willingly suppressed the truth and bought into self delusion. Professing themselves to be wise they have become fools. Such is the "scientific community" who reject all things relating to God. They are considered the "wise" of the day as the ancient Greek philosophers were the "wise" of their day, but history will reveal their foolishness to all, as will eternity, when all these things will be laid bare for all to see and understand.
The question of aliens and other origins speculation only has merit while we live this life, in death it will be obvious to all that in fact there is a God, and in fact we are accountable to Him. So what if some do not believe, does their unbelief change the truth of God?


Its a useless theory.

Are astronomers also wrong when they claim the sun came into existence before the earth?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Are astronomers also wrong when they claim the sun came into existence before the earth?

Yes.