Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Both Creationism and Darwinism have one major flaw: Their theories appear to be false, and their proponents admit it.
Here is how "Creation Science" proponents explain it:
Simply stated, the idea of "creation with appearance of age" means that when God created, those things which He created might superficially have looked as if they had a history. When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. When God created fruit trees, they were already bearing fruit. In each case, what He created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start. God's evaluation that the completed creation was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) necessitated that it be functionally complete, operating in harmony, with each part fulfilling the purpose for which it was created.
www.icr.org
If that is true then the question "Did Adam and Eve have navels" (which are caused by the detachment of the umbilical cord) is yes. They appeared to have come from biological parents. The problem is that by admitting that the world appears to be old, the creationists implicitly concede that the logical conclusion is that the world is old. Then they go on to posit an alternative explanation to this apparent age, that fits with their religious beliefs.
Here is how "Darwin Science" proponents explain it:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
The Darwinists on here seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the randomness that their theory requires. They seem to believe that "natural selection," is a force that gives impetus to the process of speciation. Dawkins concedes that the logical conclusion is that life on Earth is designed. Then he proceeds to posit an alternative explanation that fits with his religious beliefs.
Of course, everyone has the right to whatever religious beliefs they hold. But they do not have the right to use tax dollars to propagate their religions in public schools.
Here is how "Creation Science" proponents explain it:
Simply stated, the idea of "creation with appearance of age" means that when God created, those things which He created might superficially have looked as if they had a history. When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. When God created fruit trees, they were already bearing fruit. In each case, what He created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start. God's evaluation that the completed creation was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) necessitated that it be functionally complete, operating in harmony, with each part fulfilling the purpose for which it was created.
Did God Create with Appearance of Age?
Simply stated, the idea of "creation with appearance of age" means that when God created, those things which He created might superficially have looked as if they had a history. When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc...
If that is true then the question "Did Adam and Eve have navels" (which are caused by the detachment of the umbilical cord) is yes. They appeared to have come from biological parents. The problem is that by admitting that the world appears to be old, the creationists implicitly concede that the logical conclusion is that the world is old. Then they go on to posit an alternative explanation to this apparent age, that fits with their religious beliefs.
Here is how "Darwin Science" proponents explain it:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
The Darwinists on here seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the randomness that their theory requires. They seem to believe that "natural selection," is a force that gives impetus to the process of speciation. Dawkins concedes that the logical conclusion is that life on Earth is designed. Then he proceeds to posit an alternative explanation that fits with his religious beliefs.
Of course, everyone has the right to whatever religious beliefs they hold. But they do not have the right to use tax dollars to propagate their religions in public schools.
